Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Fear of Outsiders: Against Psychologism

    1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response. 2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

    3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living). So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) and a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary. (Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)

  • FEAR OF OUTSIDERS: AGAINST PSYCHOLOGISM 1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ bu

    FEAR OF OUTSIDERS: AGAINST PSYCHOLOGISM

    1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response.

    2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

    3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living).

    So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary. (Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-30 09:50:00 UTC

  • Definition of Class: Reproductive Value

    (profound) (complete decidability) (objective morality)  [S]ocial class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. There is a competition between the classes, as there is a competition between all living organisms – and there must be for evolution continue and the species to persist. The competition between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of whether an action is eugenic or dysgenic provides us with complete moral decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind. There are no moral dilemmas.  There are no morally undecidable questions. It’s just anti-monotheistic, anti-democratic, anti-dysgenic to say so.

    But then, I don’t get to say nice things. My job is true things. Or isn’t that the function of philosophy?

  • Definition of Class: Reproductive Value

    (profound) (complete decidability) (objective morality)  [S]ocial class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. There is a competition between the classes, as there is a competition between all living organisms – and there must be for evolution continue and the species to persist. The competition between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of whether an action is eugenic or dysgenic provides us with complete moral decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind. There are no moral dilemmas.  There are no morally undecidable questions. It’s just anti-monotheistic, anti-democratic, anti-dysgenic to say so.

    But then, I don’t get to say nice things. My job is true things. Or isn’t that the function of philosophy?

  • CLASS: REPRODUCTIVE VALUE Social class refers a rough division of humans into a

    CLASS: REPRODUCTIVE VALUE

    Social class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. The struggle between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of eugenia or dysgenia provides us with decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind.

    It’s just anti-monotheistic, anti-democratic, anti-dysgenic to say so.

    But then, I don’t get to say nice things. My job is true things.

    Or isn’t that the function of philosophy?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 02:54:00 UTC

  • What You Do With “Smart” Matters A Lot

    [Y]ou can invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very narrow concepts, or invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very broad concepts. There are THREE reasons why we produce many very smart people in narrow niches, and very few very smart people in broad concepts.

    1) First, the return on narrow specializations is cheaper and quicker, and the return on broad specializations is very expensive and takes much, much, longer – if any returns exist at all. It’s very difficult to produce a Toynbee or a Durant. 2) Second, our education and our economies are organized to produce craftsmen for the industrial era – specialists, made possible and necessary by the entry of proles into the labor force, made possible by the harnessing of hydrocarbons. 3) Third, our education system no longer produces aristocratic learning for aristocrats who must govern. Even our aristocratic universities (religious schools) teach the religion of the proles (equality, democracy, pseudoscience, and deception). Instead of teaching politics, ethics, morality, finance and law, so that we may rationally organize our production and rationally adjudicate our differences, with the least risk, loss, and friction in both production and adjudication. So I am daily saddened by the tragedy of the many very smart people I meet who fail to produce their potential, and the many proles who fail by attempting to exceed their capabilities and capacities – due to the false promises of their priesthood. The only choice one has is independent study: to read. By reading ‘know thyself’. By knowing thyself (relative to the abilities of others) to find a niche to profit from, and to gain wisdom to understand the broader arena of human affairs. It is very easy to choose between that which is good to read, and that which is not: read the works of aristocracy. They are scientific in that they were empirical. They are the only equals man has made. See “The Importance of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ”. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-purpose-of-being-well…/ BECAUSE YOUR PRIESTHOOD: YOU ACADEMICS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS AND TEACHERS FAILED YOU – and they failed you in pursuit of selfish money and power. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • What You Do With “Smart” Matters A Lot

    [Y]ou can invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very narrow concepts, or invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very broad concepts. There are THREE reasons why we produce many very smart people in narrow niches, and very few very smart people in broad concepts.

    1) First, the return on narrow specializations is cheaper and quicker, and the return on broad specializations is very expensive and takes much, much, longer – if any returns exist at all. It’s very difficult to produce a Toynbee or a Durant. 2) Second, our education and our economies are organized to produce craftsmen for the industrial era – specialists, made possible and necessary by the entry of proles into the labor force, made possible by the harnessing of hydrocarbons. 3) Third, our education system no longer produces aristocratic learning for aristocrats who must govern. Even our aristocratic universities (religious schools) teach the religion of the proles (equality, democracy, pseudoscience, and deception). Instead of teaching politics, ethics, morality, finance and law, so that we may rationally organize our production and rationally adjudicate our differences, with the least risk, loss, and friction in both production and adjudication. So I am daily saddened by the tragedy of the many very smart people I meet who fail to produce their potential, and the many proles who fail by attempting to exceed their capabilities and capacities – due to the false promises of their priesthood. The only choice one has is independent study: to read. By reading ‘know thyself’. By knowing thyself (relative to the abilities of others) to find a niche to profit from, and to gain wisdom to understand the broader arena of human affairs. It is very easy to choose between that which is good to read, and that which is not: read the works of aristocracy. They are scientific in that they were empirical. They are the only equals man has made. See “The Importance of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ”. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-purpose-of-being-well…/ BECAUSE YOUR PRIESTHOOD: YOU ACADEMICS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS AND TEACHERS FAILED YOU – and they failed you in pursuit of selfish money and power. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Q&A: Why Do People Hold Increasingly Radical Positions?

    [W]hy do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology? Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary. Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly. People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies. You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.

  • Q&A: Why Do People Hold Increasingly Radical Positions?

    [W]hy do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology? Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary. Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly. People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies. You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.

  • Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From?

    “Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog

    [R]eally great question.  And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions.  We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth. So, it comes from: (1) Indo-European Heroism;  (Uniqueness of the west) (2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”.  Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital. We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours. We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India. That’s your answer. As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.