Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • de.aristocratia –“How can one be a free man all his life? “By feeling contempt

    de.aristocratia

    –“How can one be a free man all his life? “By feeling contempt for death.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-17 05:32:00 UTC

  • Beer question. Assuming that monogamy continues on its present course toward ext

    Beer question.

    Assuming that monogamy continues on its present course toward extinction.

    How many women can you maintain polyamorous relationships with?

    (Really)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-16 17:29:00 UTC

  • “Women are not damsels in distress that need to be rescued, they are oppressed v

    —“Women are not damsels in distress that need to be rescued, they are oppressed victims that need to be saved.”—

    Josh Strodtbeck.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 11:38:00 UTC

  • CANADIAN PRIVILEGE (reposted) (fun) AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT

    CANADIAN PRIVILEGE

    (reposted) (fun)

    AN ANSWER THAT YOU WON’T LIKE: PRIVILEGE NOT CHOICE

    Humans justify. Justification is necessary for adaptation, and we are very good at justification.

    Canada is the world’s most privileged country, so Canadians can justify unprecedented luxuries.

    Imagine, anywhere else in the world, a country of that size, with so few people, with that many natural resources, that did not have to defend that territory and resources from constant incursion by neighboring powers.

    Ukraine and Siberia are two modern examples. Ukraine has roughly the same population, is rich in resources, and has been the victim of perpetual struggle for self determination from Mongols, Poland, Austria, Russia, the USSR, and now Russia again. Siberia is currently being occupied by Chinese intent on doing exactly what Russia did to Ukraine: fill it with people then justify taking it by force.

    Canadians have the best of all worlds: a benevolent global empire on their border that cannot tolerate any instability in, or invasion of, Canada; oceans for all other borders; and therefore near immunity from the high cost of self defense, and the necessity of nationalism.

    Canada and Australia, like the UK are for all strategic intents and purposes, islands, that like the UK, rely upon island-people-ethics: no fear of outsiders. Little fear of conquest. Little conflict over territory. No conflict over sovereignty.

    Having never experienced the divisiveness of slavery, Canadians have never experienced the problem of internal race conflict. Slavery is the defining issue of american history and race and culture conflict remain unresolved and un-resolvable. The immateriality of french divisiveness versus american urban and rural divisiveness, causes less conflict in Canada but is equally as damaging, since it again causes multiculturalism that harms the center and west.

    The data says that Canada is more conservative than the states, and that the only thing that forces Canadian policy differences is the french voting block. The french immigrants to Quebec were, unlike the Anglo immigrants to the other provinces, from the lower classes. So those class, religion, culture, family structure, and language differences, of course skew the country a bit as well. Unlike Canada, USA’s demographic blocks are not isolated but intermingled as horizontal bands reflecting the cultures that immigrated at different latitudes of the east coast. (See the “Nine Nations Of North America”.)

    Now, Canadians tend to look at this strategic privilege as a product of their high mindedness, but nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural differences and Political policy in all countries reflect that which people are ABLE TO implement as policy, and ABLE adopt as cultural preference. People prefer luxuries that they CAN possess. They CAN possess them for strategic, not cultural or political reasons.

    But as soon as Canada reaches the level of cultural competition that is present in the states, North and South Italy, France, Germany, and the UK, west and east Ukraine, West and east Russia, Tibet, Mongolia and china, conflict over cultural competition will increase there as well, and the long run of Canadian privilege to treat multiculturalism as a ‘good’ rather than as a profitable luxury in small doses, will end as it is ending in the rest of the world.

    Islands have the highest trust cultures for a reason. They can afford to. They are able to. Because homogeneity allows for political and cultural homogeneity. And homogeneity reduces political, economic, cultural conflict, and turns class differences into virtues because tolerance for redistribution increases with homogeneity of kinship.

    Canada is importing to its ‘island’ the promise of low-trust, high conflict, authoritarian polities, and thereby ending its island luxury.

    (So that is why we americans tend to see cultural self-congratulation of Canadians as the prancing and preening of spoiled children whose safety and luxury Americans pay for.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 06:45:00 UTC

  • THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR IN OUR GENES Conservatives rely on Force (t

    THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR IN OUR GENES

    Conservatives rely on Force (tolerance/punishment)

    Libertarians rely on Trade (reward/deprivation

    Progressives rely upon Gossip (inclusion/ostracization)

    Conservatives are better at constructing normative capital, and;

    Libertarians are better at constructing economic capital, and;

    Progressives are just better at consumption and offspring.

    Conservatives – Long Term production cycles.

    Libertarian – Medium Term production cycles.

    Progressive – Short Term production cycles.

    The Saving of Conservatives

    The Investment Of Libertarians.

    The Consumption of Progressives.

    #libertarian #tcot

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 03:48:00 UTC

  • dysfunction is what happens when you combine high testosterone with extremely *l

    —-dysfunction is what happens when you combine high testosterone with extremely *low* average IQ. When you combine the former with high IQ, you get fighter pilots, S.E.A.L.s, and athletes WITHOUT long felony rapsheets.—-

    ouch sailer at it again

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 15:33:00 UTC

  • Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology


    [A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:

    • What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?

    • What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?

    • Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?

    • If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?

    • How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?

    • What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?

    • Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends

    • Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?

    • Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?

    Errors in these questions of the city state or class:

    • The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.

    Eudemonia (Aristotle)


  • Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology


    [A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:

    • What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?

    • What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?

    • Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?

    • If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?

    • How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?

    • What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?

    • Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends

    • Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?

    • Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?

    Errors in these questions of the city state or class:

    • The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.

    Eudemonia (Aristotle)


  • Argument, persuasion and advice, are far less powerful at changing people than l

    Argument, persuasion and advice, are far less powerful at changing people than loving them is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 07:42:00 UTC

  • Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female) A: “Well you know, it’s jus

    Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female)

    A: “Well you know, it’s just a ruse to get you to think, right?” (Me)

    The point is that marriage is destructive to men as it is currently constructed and enforced by the state – resulting in suicide and poverty for older males at increasing rates.

    So the reason I say something inflammatory is to draw attention to this fact, and demonstrate that the contract is unequal, and as such should be eliminated. In other words, I think we must end common property for all property worth fighting over.

    And I operate under the assumption, demonstrated by evidence, that marriages are temporary exchanges of powers of attorney, but never of property. That children belong to their mothers and never to their fathers, unless the court deems mothers dangerous to the child (in which case it’s rare the father is any better.(

    So if we are no longer to be married for life then we are not longer able to rationally possess common property – and upon failure or bankruptcy of the partnership (not corporation) that we call “the family”, all partners depart with their proportional contributions.

    In practice this means that title to any item must be provided, and no unstated title may remain unprovided for.

    Now, I should note that I can see a post-familial society but I must work on that a bit before I’m confident that it isn’t comparatively uncompetitive. Because as far as I can tell, high time parenting isn’t replaceable.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 15:36:00 UTC