Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • COMPLEMENTARITY —“Complementarity — The view that “men and women complement on

    COMPLEMENTARITY

    —“Complementarity — The view that “men and women complement one another as separate parts that together make up a composite whole.” Also called complementarism. Related to the empirical view that men and women have different psychologies and are thus suited to different, complementary roles in society. Both men and women are seen as responsible for contributing “civilizing influence” to society as a whole, beginning with the atomic unit of society, the family. Among Reactionaries, most strains of feminism are seen as exacerbating male-female conflict and mortgaging long-term social vigor for the fleeting rewards of frivolity, hypergamy, and juvenilism. By the same token, misogyny, adultery, domestic abuse, fatherly irresponsibility, and the incessant whining of “men’s rights activists” are frowned upon as encouraging the same conflicts. Reactionaries acknowledge that securing the future depends on raising children in a stable and nurturing environment with a father and mother, and that the selfish desires of parents are secondary to this central goal. Without children, a culture simply self-terminates. Idolizing childlessness is a form of cultural suicide.”—by Michael Anissimov

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 04:14:00 UTC

  • TAKEN A WHILE. BUT SCIENCE HAS DONE THE WORK

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Difference-Female-Brains/dp/046500556X/IT’S TAKEN A WHILE. BUT SCIENCE HAS DONE THE WORK.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 11:59:00 UTC

  • SMART PEOPLE DISCOUNT THE COST AND FREQUENCY OF DECEPTION (worth repeating) (rep

    SMART PEOPLE DISCOUNT THE COST AND FREQUENCY OF DECEPTION

    (worth repeating) (reposted for archiving)

    —“One of the problems those of us at the lofty reaches fall prey to is ‘smart people disease’. (Projection Bias) Because we are both better able to identify deception and error, and because we associate with people better able to identify deception and error, and because we and those we associate with encounter less deception and error, we discount the near universal presence of deception even if we do not discount the near universal presence of error. The biggest threat to rational discourse is not error, or fallacy, it is deception, obscurantism, and postmodernism. Against which, Victorian ethics are a handicap.”—

    This is politics.

    Draw intellectual blood.

    Defeat your opponent completely.

    In public, with fanfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 18:00:00 UTC

  • CAUSE OF HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM: “SHARED INTENTIONALITY” (book recommendation) –“

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GG0C9WK/THE CAUSE OF HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM: “SHARED INTENTIONALITY”

    (book recommendation)

    –“Human thought, in Tomasello’s conception, is different from that of all other organisms because humans alone have the capacity to think about the thoughts of others, and do so collectively. Tomasello’s greatest strength is his insistence on relying on data to support his hypotheses, particularly the fascinating studies he summarizes comparing pre‐ linguistic children to our great ape relatives. (Publishers Weekly 2013-12-02)”–

    –“What is it that differentiates humans from other animals? It’s the question that keeps evolutionary anthropologists like Michael Tomasello up nights. But after 20-plus years wrestling with the thorny subject, he puts forward his ‘shared intentionality hypothesis,’ designed to account for how early humans learned to coordinate their actions and communicate their thoughts with collaborators. (New Scientist 2014-01-04)”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 03:25:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://ph.news.yahoo.com/harsh-conditions-men-dont-want-pretty-face-230237617.html;)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 15:13:00 UTC

  • ITS ALL GENES – THE WORLD IS A MUCH FAIRER PLACE THAN IT SEEMS. –” 1) First, it

    ITS ALL GENES – THE WORLD IS A MUCH FAIRER PLACE THAN IT SEEMS.

    –“

    1) First, it means the world is a much fairer place than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the main source of economic success.

    2) Second, it suggests that the large investment made by the upper classes in the care and raising of their children is of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility: the wealthy Manhattan attorneys who hire coaches for their toddlers to ensure placement in elite kindergartens cannot prevent the eventual regression of their descendants to the mean.

    3) Third, government interventions to increase social mobility are unlikely to have much impact unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups.

    4) Fourth, emphasis on racial, ethnic, and religious differences allows persistent social stratification through the barriers they create to this intermarriage. In order for a society to increase social mobility over the long run, it must achieve the cultural homogeneity that maximizes intermarriage rates between social groups.

    “–

    Justification. Dunning Kreuger. Envy. Reproductive Strategy. All guarantee that despite the fact his is true, it is in the lower majority’s interests to deny it. Unless we pay them well to have but one child, and punish them severely for having more. Personally I think that’s a pretty good deal. I’d have just one child if someone would pay me 10-20K a year for it, and would take it away if I had more.

    I don’t advocate redistribution for the purpose of equality. I advocate it for the purpose of suppressing breeding, and paying people to assist in the construction of property rights and the commons that facilitates the voluntary organization of production.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 12:57:00 UTC

  • WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE. –“If genetics domin

    WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE.

    –“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”–

    (INVOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION IS GENOCIDE)

    –“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part

    by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 12:46:00 UTC

  • IS COST A MISSING VARIABLE FROM CRITICAL PREFERENCE? Has anyone done any work on

    IS COST A MISSING VARIABLE FROM CRITICAL PREFERENCE?

    Has anyone done any work on the costs of critical preferences to see if there is an empirical correlation between the costs to pursue a particular choice of one preference over another? I would really like to know, empirically, why we seem to be fairly good at attacking theories. Or whether this is a bias that I can’t seem to see around.

    I suspect that the available field of choices to eliminate at any given time is quite small. And I wonder if we can include or eliminate costs from the logic since we ignore it presently, and all fields other than science do not eliminate it.

    I suspect that there is a causal property of discovery that we do not incorporate in CR/CP. I do not think it has anything to do with induction. But I think there is something that we are missing. I would like to eliminate costs as a variable, since it is the most obvious, because it is included in all other fields of inquiry. It would seem logical that iterating on lowest costs of discovery would produce increasingly parsimonious new theories, while higher cost discoveries would increase the content that must be subject to falsification. This is true in almost every field. I suspect that it is also true in science. And I suspect that while the possibility that we cannot choose between theories is logically true, that empirically it is only true about A vs B, but not true about the sequence of tests starting with A vs starting with B.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 06:41:00 UTC

  • Extending Kahneman: "System 0" Is Property.

    (interesting)(important piece)

    [O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Kahneman’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration (System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev.

    COMMENTS
    William L. Benge likes this.

    Curt Doolittle
    I wrote, I think, about six months ago, that property was the missing necessary means of commensurable data representation required for functional AI to simulate the behavior of man. I knew this back when David Trowbridge and I were thinking about Runcible.
    April 17 at 9:38am · Like

    William L. Benge Utterly fascinating interview of Kahneman by Charlie Rose.
    April 17 at 5:28pm · Like · Remove Preview

    William L. Benge
    This really is an amazing post, Curt. Grateful for your work.
    April 17 at 5:34pm · Like

    Curt Doolittle
    Thank you william. That means a lot to me.
    April 17 at 6:20pm · Like

  • Extending Kahneman: “System 0” Is Property.

    (interesting)(important piece)

    [O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Kahneman’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration (System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev.

    COMMENTS
    William L. Benge likes this.

    Curt Doolittle
    I wrote, I think, about six months ago, that property was the missing necessary means of commensurable data representation required for functional AI to simulate the behavior of man. I knew this back when David Trowbridge and I were thinking about Runcible.
    April 17 at 9:38am · Like

    William L. Benge Utterly fascinating interview of Kahneman by Charlie Rose.
    April 17 at 5:28pm · Like · Remove Preview

    William L. Benge
    This really is an amazing post, Curt. Grateful for your work.
    April 17 at 5:34pm · Like

    Curt Doolittle
    Thank you william. That means a lot to me.
    April 17 at 6:20pm · Like