Curt Doolittle

Form: Aphorism

  • Criticism and Critique: Control Without Contribution

    [A]re Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us? interesting… Damn. Yes. That’s the answer: Control. Power. Without contribution. Control without contribution. From James Santagata [I] wish C&C were only used as justifications for those who cannot invent. But it’s actually used as a weapon, as a compliance technique to force a “validation seeking / approval seeking” frame onto those who do create…By accepting this frame, the creator actually gives up his power to those who cannot create. So what is the most societally beneficial manner to critique? How about this one: “Critique by creating.” – Michelangelo From Karl Brooks [I]n a scenario where the critic intends destruction of the invention, AND the critic has gained superior standing, so he is able to not only condemn but even to vandalize with impunity: What are the inventor’s options besides attempts at negotiating from weakness against an implacable foe?

      I suggest the first option. Option 0: he can take a fraud to court for fraud. This reduces transaction costs for prosecution, and increases transaction costs of misrepresentation.

    • Propertarianism Leads Us To Contractual Government

      [W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.

    • Propertarianism Leads Us To Contractual Government

      [W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.

    • Why Blame Competitors Rather Than Blaming Yourself For Failing To Compete?

      [T]he reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked. We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else. Our high trust has a down side. And we just experienced a century of it.

    • Why Blame Competitors Rather Than Blaming Yourself For Failing To Compete?

      [T]he reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked. We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else. Our high trust has a down side. And we just experienced a century of it.

    • Sure. Math may be the key to the universe. But don’t let that fool you. Micro ec

      Sure. Math may be the key to the universe. But don’t let that fool you. Micro economics are the key to man. Hydrogen doesn’t try to outsmart anyone. We do.

      Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 16:45:00 UTC

    • WHY BLAME THE OTHER GUY, INSTEAD OF BLAMING YOURSELF? The reason you are conquer

      WHY BLAME THE OTHER GUY, INSTEAD OF BLAMING YOURSELF?

      The reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked.

      We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else.

      Our high trust has a down side.

      We just experienced a century of it.

      Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 16:33:00 UTC

    • Deeds, not words

      Deeds, not words.

      Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 15:21:00 UTC

    • Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It's A CRAFT.

      [T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.

    • Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It’s A CRAFT.

      [T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.