Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • yes. very common. unfortunately we can learn to psychologically and emotionally

    yes. very common. unfortunately we can learn to psychologically and emotionally suppress the stress but that does not mean that physiologically we are able to control it. (voluntary and involuntary nervous systems are separate)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-07 20:53:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358519302794539009

    Reply addressees: @DeanAbbott

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358490954244780042

  • The nerds will eventually figure anything out that creates competition for nerd

    The nerds will eventually figure anything out that creates competition for nerd status among fellow nerds.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-07 15:02:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358430870634381318

    Reply addressees: @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358428460134195207

  • UNIVERSITIES JUST SORT

    UNIVERSITIES JUST SORT
    https://propertarianinstitute.com/2021/02/06/universities-dont-teach-they-sorty-by-work-capacity-conscientiousness-and-iq/

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-06 18:38:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358122890835681281

  • The Negative Value of Non STEM+EL Degrees

    Because 1) humanities grads must learn on the job, the skills that are taught in STEM fields- and eventually do 2) must ‘unlearn’ what they were taught was false – and eventually do 3) and the net difference is that non-STEM education cost was a LOSS, and STEM students earned it. There is never, ever a comparison between a conversation with a physicist, engineer, or economist that is vapid as someone in the humanities. It is however, more pleasant going through life in secular theology of the humanities, just as more blissful in supernatural theology. Very few people (relatively) get stem degrees. The disturbing reality is that despite the vast number of people put thru higher education the number of top talent, the marginal difference in theory, and innovations hasn’t increased since 63. Lower return on ed vs reproduction. So what’s ‘wrong’? The measure of any discipline is (a) reproducibility of research (b) survivability of claims and skills in time (c) demonstrated evidence of resulting productivity (d) improvement or decline in competency per person (e) non- substitutability by apprenticeship. So? How many disciplines dont fail? Better yet, what if Universities and professors had to warranty students for occupational fitness upon award of degree or return the educational funds to students? What would happen is that we would drop back to 10-12% of population. All of this is common knowledge in economics. All we have done is dumb down high school degrees, eliminate cheap vocational(manual) and junior(clerical-medical) training, in exchange for impoverishing parents in old age, delaying homeownership, and gutting reproduction. Gutting reproduction while causing declining productivity generates demand for immigration to pay for medical and retirement costs of people who were deprived of children and consequential consumption, causing a continuous reduction in the competitiveness of the economy. And that’s BEFORE we talk about the fact that colleges are teaching a secular religion of false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe: marxism-postmodernism-pc/woke – that is marching through the institutions of cultural production and maintenance. Why? to feed higher ed. And if you were skilled in physics, economics, cognitive science, and not yourself indoctrinated into the social construction of false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe you would know this. But your keep perpetuating these lies like a priesthood justifying faith.

  • The Negative Value of Non STEM+EL Degrees

    Because 1) humanities grads must learn on the job, the skills that are taught in STEM fields- and eventually do 2) must ‘unlearn’ what they were taught was false – and eventually do 3) and the net difference is that non-STEM education cost was a LOSS, and STEM students earned it. There is never, ever a comparison between a conversation with a physicist, engineer, or economist that is vapid as someone in the humanities. It is however, more pleasant going through life in secular theology of the humanities, just as more blissful in supernatural theology. Very few people (relatively) get stem degrees. The disturbing reality is that despite the vast number of people put thru higher education the number of top talent, the marginal difference in theory, and innovations hasn’t increased since 63. Lower return on ed vs reproduction. So what’s ‘wrong’? The measure of any discipline is (a) reproducibility of research (b) survivability of claims and skills in time (c) demonstrated evidence of resulting productivity (d) improvement or decline in competency per person (e) non- substitutability by apprenticeship. So? How many disciplines dont fail? Better yet, what if Universities and professors had to warranty students for occupational fitness upon award of degree or return the educational funds to students? What would happen is that we would drop back to 10-12% of population. All of this is common knowledge in economics. All we have done is dumb down high school degrees, eliminate cheap vocational(manual) and junior(clerical-medical) training, in exchange for impoverishing parents in old age, delaying homeownership, and gutting reproduction. Gutting reproduction while causing declining productivity generates demand for immigration to pay for medical and retirement costs of people who were deprived of children and consequential consumption, causing a continuous reduction in the competitiveness of the economy. And that’s BEFORE we talk about the fact that colleges are teaching a secular religion of false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe: marxism-postmodernism-pc/woke – that is marching through the institutions of cultural production and maintenance. Why? to feed higher ed. And if you were skilled in physics, economics, cognitive science, and not yourself indoctrinated into the social construction of false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe you would know this. But your keep perpetuating these lies like a priesthood justifying faith.

  • Universities Don’t Teach. They Sort by Work Capacity, Conscientiousness, and IQ.

    UNIVERSITIES DON’T TEACH. THEY SORT BY WORK CAPACITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND IQ. You pay 150k in debt, four years of earning, four years of life, one or two fewer children, delayed homeownership, on what’s nothing more than a class, personality, and IQ test. That’s all it is. There is no evidence you learn anything in university unless it’s math, comp-sci, or engineering, that can’t be taught part-time in two years or less. The rest is ‘recreation’ or ‘indoctrination’. Now, you will find that CEO’s tend to the 130 IQ range for deterministic reasons (I have an undergrad in art history and founded a dozen companies). And the demand for CEO talent varies dramatically by sector. Some are political (GM), some technical, some engineering, some finance. The difference is that they have 130 plus IQ’s, and have high conscientiousness, and can work harder than most people can imagine it’s possible to work, have extraordinary endurance, high pain tolerance – especially psychological. It’s equivalent to being a professional athlete. So your argument is well-intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fortune X ceo have nothing at all to do with education. Just as almost everything in life has to do with one’s social and economic market value: determined by fitness, manners, conscientiousness, & IQ. If you study for example Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, and Stanford JD courses it’s postmodern drivel. It’s intellectually embarrassing. If you study at a state school or just read the literature, and apprentice (in the past) you’d do better. Universities don’t teach. They Sort. That’s all they do.

  • Universities Don’t Teach. They Sort by Work Capacity, Conscientiousness, and IQ.

    UNIVERSITIES DON’T TEACH. THEY SORT BY WORK CAPACITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND IQ. You pay 150k in debt, four years of earning, four years of life, one or two fewer children, delayed homeownership, on what’s nothing more than a class, personality, and IQ test. That’s all it is. There is no evidence you learn anything in university unless it’s math, comp-sci, or engineering, that can’t be taught part-time in two years or less. The rest is ‘recreation’ or ‘indoctrination’. Now, you will find that CEO’s tend to the 130 IQ range for deterministic reasons (I have an undergrad in art history and founded a dozen companies). And the demand for CEO talent varies dramatically by sector. Some are political (GM), some technical, some engineering, some finance. The difference is that they have 130 plus IQ’s, and have high conscientiousness, and can work harder than most people can imagine it’s possible to work, have extraordinary endurance, high pain tolerance – especially psychological. It’s equivalent to being a professional athlete. So your argument is well-intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fortune X ceo have nothing at all to do with education. Just as almost everything in life has to do with one’s social and economic market value: determined by fitness, manners, conscientiousness, & IQ. If you study for example Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, and Stanford JD courses it’s postmodern drivel. It’s intellectually embarrassing. If you study at a state school or just read the literature, and apprentice (in the past) you’d do better. Universities don’t teach. They Sort. That’s all they do.

  • My opinion of Uni is that it’s for remedial education and learning social skills

    My opinion of Uni is that it’s for remedial education and learning social skills with approximate peers (sex, drugs, irresponsibility, socializing) rather than the dysgenic blender of the catastrophic failure that’s our primary school system. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1358099232482295815

  • UNIVERSITIES DON’T TEACH. THEY SORT BY WORK CAPACITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND IQ.

    UNIVERSITIES DON’T TEACH. THEY SORT BY WORK CAPACITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND IQ.

    You pay 150k in debt, four years of earning, four years of life, one or two fewer children, delayed homeownership, on what’s nothing more than a class, personality, and IQ test. That’s all it is. There is no evidence you learn anything in university unless it’s math, comp-sci, or engineering, that can’t be taught part-time in two years or less. The rest is ‘recreation’ or ‘indoctrination’.

    Now, you will find that ceo’s tend to the 130 iq range for deterministic reasons (I have an undergrad in art history and founded a dozen companies). And demand for ceo talent varies dramatically by sector. Some are political (GM), some technical, some engineering, some finance.

    The difference is that they have 130 plus IQ’s, and have high conscientiousness, and can work harder than most people can imagine it’s possible to work, have extraordinary endurance, high pain tolerance – especially psychological. It’s equivalent to being a professional athlete.

    So your argument is well-intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fortune X ceo have nothing at all to do with education. Just as almost everything in life has to do with one’s social and economic market value: determined by fitness, manners, conscientiousness, & IQ.

    If you study for example Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, and Stanford JD courses it’s postmodern drivel. It’s intellectually embarrassing. If you study at a state school or just read the literature, and apprentice (in the past) you’d do better.

    Universities don’t teach. They Sort. That’s all they do.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-06 16:49:08 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105685329373852063

  • So your argument is well intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fort

    So your argument is well intentioned but false: one’s chances of becoming a fortune X ceo have nothing at all to do with education. Just as almost everything in life has to do with one’s social and economic market value: determined by fitness, manners, conscientiousness, & IQ.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-06 16:40:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358093257696239617

    Reply addressees: @SarahGrynpas @AlanLevinovitz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358092510078275587

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SarahGrynpas @AlanLevinovitz The difference is that they have 130 plus IQ’s, and have high conscientiousness, and can work harder than most people can imagine it’s possible to work, have extraordinary endurance, high pain tolerance – especially psychological. It’s equivalent to being a professional athlete.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1358092510078275587