Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is

    http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicansTHREE THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is there a bias toward support of left conclusions in research by those members; and third, are members with a bias drawn to the discipline of psychology?

    It’s a specialization. The military is a specialization.

    Psychology, if not for its complete abandonment of freudianism, and adoption of Operationism would have perished as a pseudoscience, as has social science, if it had not reformed. As it has reformed, it has moved more to the center. In practical terms Haidt appears to function as a classical liberal libertarian today (not a libertine libertarian), despite his left sentiments.

    But its merely a specialization. If we took military strategy and tactics, and put it into the university system, instead of in the war colleges, you would see that most were conservative. (in fact that’s a pretty good idea).

    Moral biases lead us to specializations where we can exercise our moral biases.

    As I became self aware, I realized that I write the particular brand of philosophy I do because my highest moral priority is conflict prevention. I am very, very good at conflict, but that is partly because I dislike it so much, that I want it to end.

    It so happens that in order to write something reasonably scientific about the subject of philosophy – particularly ethics and politics – that my cognitive bias is terribly useful. Because law is the philosophy of conflict resolution.

    So its logical that psychology will move to left of center, as the scientific evidence forces center bias, while the people drawn to the subject continue to demonstrate left bias.

    I am fairly sure that if we required operational speech in all disciplines we would see the same motion as we have in psychology: toward a reformation and drive back to the classical liberal center.

    But I doubt that we would change the preference for those with progressive (female reproductive strategy) bias to the field.

    My preference would be to teach War, Politics, Law, Economics, Finance, and Propertarian philosophy as a curriculum in all universities so that the Cathedral possessed internal competition. And it would restore male female balance to the Academy’s numbers of graduates.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 04:23:00 UTC

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • CLASS SPECTRUM: *IMPULSIVITY, FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE, AND LOW TIME PREFERENCE* Pr

    CLASS SPECTRUM: *IMPULSIVITY, FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE, AND LOW TIME PREFERENCE*

    Preference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s not causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference, represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsivity scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking.

    Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms. It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man. And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 12:26:00 UTC

  • THE FEMALE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY = THE POSTMODERN STRATEGY 1) Attract Attention

    THE FEMALE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY = THE POSTMODERN STRATEGY

    1) Attract Attention (promise sex, affection, subsidy/rent or attention)

    2) Rally.

    3) Shame.

    4) Gossip (load and frame)

    5) Overload (persistence)

    6) Change to outright lying. (shift)

    It works. It works if you don’t use violence and truth to suppress it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 11:16:00 UTC

  • If men must work to suppress their impulsive desires, why must women not work to

    If men must work to suppress their impulsive desires, why must women not work to oppress their impulsive desires? Are we not equal in rights and responsibilities?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 10:59:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES Well, you know, my uncompromised evolutionary strategy,

    EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES

    Well, you know, my uncompromised evolutionary strategy, is to develop, lead, and execute a plan by which me and mine can conquer, oppress, enslave, kill, breed with, consume the resources, land of, and opportunities of, whomever we desire – regardless of the consequences to the inferior victims.

    And that this strategy is – as long as we produce a greater suppression of dysgenic free riding and rent seeking – the most logical and moral ambition possible for man: to improve mankind so that mankind reaches its highest potential.

    So, that’s the starting point for any negotiation. The first question of politics is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff. (Although I am not interested in the hearing lamentation of your women – that’s cruelty and there is no honor in cruelty.)

    If you argue that mutually beneficial cooperation is always an advantage the you’re either making a fool, mistaken, a fraud, or you’re outright lying.

    So now that you know my – our – starting position, then you must provide incentives sufficient to do otherwise. And it is hard to do so.

    The only compromise position I know of is to cooperate with inferior, less-moral, others while suppressing their rates of reproduction, so that we cause them no harm, but they cause man no harm by dysgenic reproduction.

    (wow.. did I really just write that? Truth is what it is.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 10:58:00 UTC

  • ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (in progress) I am developing, by accident, a theory of

    ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

    (in progress)

    I am developing, by accident, a theory of the cause and content of consciousness. (And I don’t like it.)

    I have emphasized the treatment of calculation and incentives in human behavior;

    And my proposition is that all behavior is intuitionistic;

    And that our intuitionistic calculation is merely an attempt to accumulate property-en-toto.

    And that reason assists us largely in negotiation – negotiation largely expressed as justification; and that we can negotiate and justify because we can both sympathize with intention, and empathize with experiential reaction, or anticipated changes in state, then …. (More here )

    And that as a consequence of negotiating we evolved planning, and the entire Propertarian system that I have attempted to capture in both philosophical and scientific terms.

    In no small part because my intuition, given my genetic interests, is to defeat the use of deception in negotiation, leaving room only for truth telling.

    (More here)

    Because at the top of the spectrum I see that regression toward the mean is inescapable without eugenic suppression.

    Perhaps we explore to leave bad genes behind us, and there are no more continents to conquer.

    As such we cannot leave bad genes behind and must return to the suppression of their expansion in one end, or their destruction on the other.

    In the market, we can cooperate and eugenic ally suppress the inferior genes. Under redistribution we replicate inferior genes (families, classes and tribes).

    The female has a harder time selecting than the male who must merely choose allies. Worse, her impulses are to select for maladaptive behavior:,impulsivity and aggressiveness. This is a pre-sentient form of reproduction. Of the major impulses that affect human cooperation aggression and intelligence, and verbal intelligence in particular are advantageous, while impulsivity is not. Impulsivity reduces preference for consideration: what we call time preference.

    If left unchecked rapid rates of breeding among aggressive and impulsive people’s will defeat lower rates of reproduction among less impulsive, less aggressive people’s. And intelligence and small numbers against aggression and impulsivity in large numbers can succeed through separatism as the west has demonstrated in keeping the east at bay until the socialist era brought about by the cosmopolitans seeking safe haven, retention of separatism, and to retain their parasitism.

    And so separatism, property, market, paternalism and marriage are the means by which we insure eugenic reproduction rather than the dysgenic reproduction of females.

    So indo European man evolved the most rapid means of suppressing female dysgenic and produced eugenic and by doing so dragged all if human exist and out of ignorance and poverty.

    The Chinese method is more direct: systemic slaughter of malcontents under the ideology of order. Our western solution is still superior because we separate moral order from social and economic order.

    This is why our velocity of innovation is higher than other civilizations.

    All we do is negotiate and justify. Our moral intuitions reflect our genetic strategies. We seek to negotiate on their behalf while perusing their interests.

    Our emotions are merely rewards for successful negotiation on behalf of our genetic interests.

    Nothing more.

    As such the questions we face are calculable – all social propositions if reduced to Propertarian statements are in fact decidable.

    Social science is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 07:26:00 UTC

  • WHY THE NORDICS ARE ALTRUISTIC: KIN SELECTION. THE REASON IS THAT FINLAND, like

    WHY THE NORDICS ARE ALTRUISTIC: KIN SELECTION.

    THE REASON IS THAT FINLAND, like the nordics, is small F(5M people), homogenous, lutheran, population that is one of the least diverse, most outbred, and most docile, in the world, and like the English, Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes live on a virtual ISLAND. The dutch and the english occupy both sides of the english channel and are surrounded by kin. Germany is the only other european culture to preserve the island behavior at scale, with competing neighbors. THis is because germany had both north sea trade, and continental trade through the alps TO the north sea peoples. All other cultures that have achieved universalism have been island peoples or virtual island peoples who can make use of extending kin selection behavior (truth telling and altrusim) witohout funding competitors. Humans do not fund competitors. They compete with, wall off, fight or kill them. And if they don’t they will be exterminated. (and they all have been wherever they did not).

    Finland, norway, sweden, denmark, scotland and irland barely make a good sized american city each. If you broke the USA in to 5M person regions, with the ability to exclude people they dont want (parasites) then the vast majority of those areas would rapidly demonstrate thebehavior of 5M homogenous protestant peoples.

    YOU CANNOT CHANGE THIS: Kin selection is a genetic bias that all humans demonstrate. THe difficulty for all populations is that they must crush corruption, and small populations are better at crushing corruption. The smaller the population the easier it is to crush corruption.

    Parasitism (forced redistribution across non-kin) is universally intolerable, and corruption increases and factionalism increases if you try to do it.

    PERIOD. END OF STORY. YOU HAVE SMALL HOMOGENOUS PROTESTANT POLITIES PRACTICING THE ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY OR YOU DO NOT HAVE LIBERTY

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-29 09:41:00 UTC

  • We know progressives can’t imagine the minds of conservatives. We know conservat

    We know progressives can’t imagine the minds of conservatives. We know conservatives can imagine the minds of progressives. What conservatives don’t stop to consider is that while they can understand progressives, they can’t imagine that progressives can’t reciprocate. The idea that someone else could not be just wrong, but morally blind – and possibly morally blind because dysgenia is an exceptional reproductive strategy for females. most of plant and animal kingdom practices it. It’s males in our species who are eugenic, not females.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 16:21:00 UTC