Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • 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

  • Gender Relations: Gender Strategy: Offspring vs Tribe

    [W]omen are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future. While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe. I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage. [M]arriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction. Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.

  • Gender Relations: Gender Strategy: Offspring vs Tribe

    [W]omen are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future. While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe. I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage. [M]arriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction. Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.

  • References For My Fellow Aspie-Tarian Libertarians

    [A]s far as I know I’m the only one arguing that the autistic spectrum should be described as the “solipsistic-autistic spectrum”, but I might argue that I’m just using loaded language to demonstrate and allow us to criticize the failure of the female side of the spectrum as well as the male. That is because women are are as comfortable using solipsistic arguments as we are using autistic. However, I’m pretty sure that the basic thesis is correct. That is, that most of these brain states are produce by in-utero chemistry. Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ______. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:248–54. ______. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” In “The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience,” special issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1156:68–80. Lucas, P., and A. Sheeran. 2006. “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham.” Journal of Bentham Studies 8:1–20.

  • References For My Fellow Aspie-Tarian Libertarians

    [A]s far as I know I’m the only one arguing that the autistic spectrum should be described as the “solipsistic-autistic spectrum”, but I might argue that I’m just using loaded language to demonstrate and allow us to criticize the failure of the female side of the spectrum as well as the male. That is because women are are as comfortable using solipsistic arguments as we are using autistic. However, I’m pretty sure that the basic thesis is correct. That is, that most of these brain states are produce by in-utero chemistry. Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ______. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:248–54. ______. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” In “The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience,” special issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1156:68–80. Lucas, P., and A. Sheeran. 2006. “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham.” Journal of Bentham Studies 8:1–20.

  • CLASS. ITS GENETIC. GET OVER IT

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Son-Also-Rises-Princeton/dp/0691162549SOCIAL CLASS. ITS GENETIC. GET OVER IT.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 15:00:00 UTC

  • READ The original work has been around a while. But this article is a good bit o

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/04/21/how-does-iq-relate-to-personality/MUST READ

    The original work has been around a while. But this article is a good bit of promotion of a very important idea: that IQ can be considered a personality trait because it so significantly effects many personality traits.

    (Thanks Skye)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 14:12:00 UTC

  • HAIDT ON MORALITY –“Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, nor

    HAIDT ON MORALITY

    –“Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.”–

    Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind.

    We can say that in propertarian terms. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-22 15:33:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL BIAS AS BRAIN DAMAGE? Libertarianism and progressivism as brain damage

    POLITICAL BIAS AS BRAIN DAMAGE?

    Libertarianism and progressivism as brain damage and underdevelopment?

    If you make a male out of a female by in-utero brain damage, and the growth of compensatory brain structures, that deprive the male of experiential empathy and exaggerate physicality. Then why is not libertarian moral bias just additional brain damage that also limits moral empathy? Why is not progressive bias a failure to masculinize the brain structure? And is conservatism then the only normal? Thats what science would suggest.

    Progressives have been trying to use findings of cognitive science to demonize conservatives. But it turns out that it’s Progressives who demonstrate brain damage (or more likely, inadequate brain development). Libertarians as well, although I find that with libertarians I an explain it as the product of behavioral abilities. And I suspect that I can explain progressive ‘brain damage’ as the product of their abilities. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-17 07:58:00 UTC