Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • The Demographics of Gun Ownership

    A CORRELATIVE ANSWER, THEN THE CAUSAL ANSWER

    The Correlative Answer: Part 1: Social Structure
    Northern Europeans above the Hanjal Line (The North Sea Peoples who successfully out-bred) sometimes referred to as the Protestant Peoples) retain an ancient set of traditions requiring all men to obtain legitimacy and honor (equal status) through participation in the militia, and the purpose of the militia is to deny all men power over all other men. This is preserved most strongly in the anglos dutch and less so in the germans, who were anglicized.

    The Causal Answer: Part 2 Tradition
    There are a small number of underlying heroic traditions that carry the western Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarian (enfranchisement to all who fight) tradition – and that tradition is the cause of the rapid rate of western development compared to all other civilizations, both in the ancient, and modern eras. These are:
    1) Heroism (purchase of enfranchisement and status through sacrifice)
    2) All property is private (all property is earned)
    3) Every man is his own legislator over his domain.
    4) The common law and independent judiciary permit the resolution of differences between equals without appeal to authority.
    5) The rule of law, the common law (organic law, natural law) applies to all men equally. 
    6) Hierarchy is necessary for decision making in war, the resolution of conflicts, and for the suppression of free riding.

    The value in this structure is that the common law can evolve with the first judicial ruling, and therefore both transaction cost and risk are reduced, and the chance of free riding, parasitism, fraud and predation are eliminated before they can be institutionalized. The market for law suppresses parasitism as fast as innovations in parasitism are created. In turn, innovation in products, services and ideas can progress with the least resistance from predators. Costs: The consequence for the underclasses is that while they benefit from the rapid innovation, they are more aware of the difference between those who are less productive and those who are are more so.

    The Causal Answer: Part 3 : Incentives
    As population destiny increases, all effects increase by approximately 20% for every doubling of the population. 
    The incentives for people in rural areas where all men bear a high cost of policing the commons, is more restrictive than the incentives for people in urban areas where few bear the cost of policing the commons.

    In general, people in areas of dense population discount the cost of policing commons and norms because opportunity, transaction and policing costs are lower.

    The Causal Answer Part 4: Diversity.
    Diversity decreases trust, increases political divisiveness and decreases economic velocity. Urban areas can afford immigrating diversity. Rural areas cannot.

    It’s all rational really.

    WHAT IS HAPPENING
    The effort to expand ownership has been successful and once people have limited skill with, and ownership of guns, it tends to transfer like all traditions between families.

    The greater the effort to suppress gun ownership the greater the passion with which gun owners preserve the tradition.

    We have roughly tripled gun sales under this administration. Demographically the argument is over and the pro gun movement has won. (surprisingly)

    The supreme court has learned a tragic lesson from Roe v Wade: that the court should not solve social matters until they are first resolved by the states. That decision has nearly destroyed the court. “The Democratic Process Must Do Its Work” is the phrase we hear from the court.

    The general consensus is that we have a problem controlling mental illness, and urban poverty, and not a problem with firearms.

    So as far as I understand, the matter is settled for at least the next generation.

  • GENDER BIAS IN EVERYTHING Consensus through Affirmation (Rational – Female – Pro

    GENDER BIAS IN EVERYTHING

    Consensus through Affirmation (Rational – Female – Progressive)

    …………………………….-VS-…………………………….

    Consensus through Criticism (Scientific – Male – Conservative)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 01:56:00 UTC

  • SMALL VARIATIONS IN IQ MATTER —“A decrease in the average IQ of just under 5 p

    SMALL VARIATIONS IN IQ MATTER

    —“A decrease in the average IQ of just under 5 points doubles the number of retardates (IQ less than 70), and cuts in half the number of gifted (IQ over 130). Furthermore, Herrnstein and Murray found that when they moved the average IQ down statistically by just 3 points, from 100 to 97, all social problems were exacerbated: the number of women chronically dependent on welfare increased by 7%; illegitimacy increased by 8%; men interviewed in jail increased by 12%; and the number of permanent high school dropouts increased by nearly 15%.”—

    Dysgenia matters. Liberty requires ability.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-06 00:44:00 UTC

  • Race Is A Problem Of Distributions

    [I] hate discussion of race really, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.   Instead of truthfully addressing the issue, we lie and try to convince each other of the lie.  It doesn’t work. Religion works because you can’t see any evidence other than people’s behavior.  Criticisms of race don’t work because we can always see evidence of group behavior.

    Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly performed as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

    So, the whole debate over race is a dishonest postmodern byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, even if almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s.

    THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRATIC JUSTIFICATION OF EMPIRES
    Democratic empires like the USA and Europe are a catastrophe that makes hostility between of families with different abilities, needs and wants. Representative Democracy is an obscurant technology similar to overloading in rhetoric, pooling and laundering in money and finance, platonism in mathematics, and morality in politics.  Democracy obscures, and justifies, because it is only possible to employ in the consideration of particulars, and NOT in the consideration of sets of decisions. Especially when the particulars within each set of decisions provides incentives for corruption, contrivance, and deceit.  

    There isn’t necessarily any problem with direct democracy on normative matters, and economic democracy on investment matters.  There just isn’t.  The problem with direct democracy is no longer one of practicality, but one of the impossibility of common interest.  

    THE PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT:
    The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by marriage, manorialism and harsh winters if not plagues, and in the east through starvation and political killing of even the most marginal of malcontents. It was marginally solved by the hindus via the caste system, while muslims, and africans had no means of solving it at all. Thankfully, in modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits, rather than through starvation and extermination.  We can pay people NOT to commit the crime of parasitic reproduction, rather than punish them and the innocent for parasitic reproduction.

    The only significant political difference between races is merely one of distributions.  

    Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

    (NOTE: I suppose I should diagram this argument as a set of demand curves for desirability as mates, group insurance value, and IQ/Impulsivity.  I haven’t really spent much time demonstrating propertarianism using Austrian ‘triangles’ – or, more appropriately: multi-dimensional demand curves.  But the world needs such a thing. And needs it desperately.)   


  • Race Is A Problem Of Distributions

    [I] hate discussion of race really, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.   Instead of truthfully addressing the issue, we lie and try to convince each other of the lie.  It doesn’t work. Religion works because you can’t see any evidence other than people’s behavior.  Criticisms of race don’t work because we can always see evidence of group behavior.

    Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly performed as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

    So, the whole debate over race is a dishonest postmodern byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, even if almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s.

    THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRATIC JUSTIFICATION OF EMPIRES
    Democratic empires like the USA and Europe are a catastrophe that makes hostility between of families with different abilities, needs and wants. Representative Democracy is an obscurant technology similar to overloading in rhetoric, pooling and laundering in money and finance, platonism in mathematics, and morality in politics.  Democracy obscures, and justifies, because it is only possible to employ in the consideration of particulars, and NOT in the consideration of sets of decisions. Especially when the particulars within each set of decisions provides incentives for corruption, contrivance, and deceit.  

    There isn’t necessarily any problem with direct democracy on normative matters, and economic democracy on investment matters.  There just isn’t.  The problem with direct democracy is no longer one of practicality, but one of the impossibility of common interest.  

    THE PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT:
    The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by marriage, manorialism and harsh winters if not plagues, and in the east through starvation and political killing of even the most marginal of malcontents. It was marginally solved by the hindus via the caste system, while muslims, and africans had no means of solving it at all. Thankfully, in modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits, rather than through starvation and extermination.  We can pay people NOT to commit the crime of parasitic reproduction, rather than punish them and the innocent for parasitic reproduction.

    The only significant political difference between races is merely one of distributions.  

    Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

    (NOTE: I suppose I should diagram this argument as a set of demand curves for desirability as mates, group insurance value, and IQ/Impulsivity.  I haven’t really spent much time demonstrating propertarianism using Austrian ‘triangles’ – or, more appropriately: multi-dimensional demand curves.  But the world needs such a thing. And needs it desperately.)   


  • RACE IS A MATTER OF DISTRIBUTIONS I hate this discussion, but since my position

    RACE IS A MATTER OF DISTRIBUTIONS

    I hate this discussion, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.

    Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly demonstrated as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

    I hate this discussion because it’s a byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, and almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s. Democratic empires are a catastrophe that makes hostility out of families with different abilities, needs and wants.

    THE PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT:

    The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by manorialism and harsh winters, and in the east through starvation and easy killing. In modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits.

    The only significant difference between races is merely one of distributions.

    Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-02 04:09:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-female-chimps-may-have-pioneered-tool-use-hunting

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-29 09:46:00 UTC

  • MOVES ELLIE, SMALL MOVES” Vast human behavior complexity can be constructed by v

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen”SMALL MOVES ELLIE, SMALL MOVES”

    Vast human behavior complexity can be constructed by very small variations in androgenic production. Races, tribes, and civilizations, exist as a behavioral demonstrations of reproductive strategies, using various formal and informal institutions to manage cooperate between groups with different androgenic, and therefore behavioral differences.

    As I have written profusely, variations in Median IQ, Language vs Spatial IQ, impulsivity, aggression, and disgust can produce completely different societies. And conversely, not all peoples are capable of (or in need of) similar institutional models.

    From what I can gather, the normative means of breaking familial bonds and extending kinship trust to non-kin (what we call religion) is far more important than we had assumed. However, this does not eliminate the problems of immorality, impulsivity, aggression, general intelligence, and verbal intelligence, demonstrated in the curve of abilities regardless of the race, tribe, or culture.

    So the intensity of enforcement of norms and institutions is directly proportional to the degree of impulsivity, aggression, general intelligence, and verbal intelligence.

    I suspect that while improving human genome so that it is longer lived, is far harder than improving the human genome so that it produces greater neurogenesis, more white matter, less impulsivity and aggression.

    But the point remains that one must be impulsive, aggressive, intelligent enough to keep out the more impulsive, aggressive, and less intelligent.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-27 07:19:00 UTC

  • EVIL IS NOT STUPID (movies) The Butcher (2014) is a pretty good innovation on Se

    EVIL IS NOT STUPID

    (movies)

    The Butcher (2014) is a pretty good innovation on Seven. Pretty impressed. Hadn’t seen it. Just got it over here where the only way to see English movies is by downloading them.

    I had this discussion with Steven J. Woron back in the early 80’s, I think, when he was working on a script. And of course, I hadn’t grown up in comic-culture so I didn’t understand Steve’s mythos. I grew up in a world where evil was a real thing I had to deal with: stronger, smarter, faster and more powerful in every respect.

    And as I read it I kept saying to myself that “evil isn’t stupid and brutal”. Just the opposite. Any evil to be feared is cunning. And you can see that in the economic failure of scripts that don’t follow that, and the overwhelming success of scripts where evil humiliates us with its genius. The great villains are not stupid, they are brilliant.

    I always think it is a childish disservice, and completely counter to the western mythological tradition, to position villains as impulsive brutes with childlike self interest. I can’t really ever enjoy pop villains brought to screen for this reason. They are paper maché masks worn by bunny rabbits, at a victorian costume party.

    The western aristocratic tradition is quite simple: be wary of hubris, for there are gods. They are evil. And that are cunning.

    There is evil in the world and it is not defeated by deus ex machina. It is not defeated my supermen. It is defeated by the swallowing of terror by men of courage; the use of their wit; and the bearing of great costs, at great personal risk, to defeat it, for the common good.

    The devil is not obvious. There is more evil in as mundane a criminal as Nancy Pelosi than in all the demons of literature. There is more brutality in a Barak Obama’s creation of a power vacuum that can only be filled by world war. There is more immorality in a Google algorithm to suppress dissent than in the arguments of any violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 08:50:00 UTC

  • NO HE DIDN”T LIE. NOT HIS CHARACTER. BUT WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? This frustrates

    NO HE DIDN”T LIE. NOT HIS CHARACTER. BUT WHAT DOES THAT TELL US?

    This frustrates the heck out of me. I know these people. There is no way these people lied. They believed it, just as surely as you believe what you know very little about but are threatened by, and assume you understand. Based upon Iraqi propaganda meant to intimidate the Iranians, based upon fragmentary information, based upon limited on-the-ground intel, and self-interested informants, both historical evidence, rational motives, limited intel, and informants agreed. These are normal conservatives, with high sensitivity to threats, interpreting information within their own system of cognitive biases. They are moral men who were tragically mistaken, and worse, misunderstood the culture they were dealing with: lying, deception, fraud, boisterous nonsensical empty words of a competing tribal people. Caught with a catastrophic error they justified it to themselves and us. What we have since learned is that much of the world is not ready for democracy, and in fact, democracy as we know it, may be a temporary luxury unique to western people in periods of extraordinary prosperity that occur only once every millennium.

    Does Nancy Pelosi believe her daily lies? I suspect she does in her own twisted way. Does Barak Obama understand that in his effort to reverse US interference in the world, that he is creating the power vacuum that world wars and falls of civilisations are caused by? I think not. We are all fools, constantly the subject of the pretense of knowledge, the pretense of understanding, fitfully trying to justify our priors.

    Of course people had to lie if they made such a ridiculous mistake. But then, everyone who calls them a liar makes the same mistake: propositions made in ignorance in light of hindsight.

    Bush may have been many things, but dishonesty is not part of his character. He believes with full and certain faith that history will vindicate him. I suspect he errs. He errs in that there was any possible solution except punishment. Correction and modernization were beyond our abilities, because they were beyond Muslim capabilities.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 07:19:00 UTC