Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Why Are Gay People Asking For The Right To Marry? If It Is Legal Stuff They Are Asking For, Can’t They Go To Some Separate Setup For Partners?

    1) Corporeal Assets. Because “marriage” under the corporeal state is in fact a CORPORATION, with two shareholders, and all property not specifically set aside in a prenuptial agreement is contributed to, and an asset of, the CORPORATION upon creation of the marriage corporation.  A marriage corporation is a significant benefit to those who enter into them. Economically, a marriage corporation is much more advantageous than an living as an individual (sole proprietorship). Not the least of which is because of the increased credit that is available, and the decreased statistical risk that married couples exhibit.

    2) Parity Membership. (status equality) Because homosexuality is instinctively ostracized in most cultures, and people don’t like being ostracized.  First as a ‘defect’ and secondly as a ‘immoral corruption’.  It appears that homosexuality is an in-utero genetically caused ‘defect’, that ‘defect’ has no negative consequences OTHER than those that derive from our instinctual biases. Secondly, as an in-utero defect, it is not a CHOICE and therefore not a matter of ‘immoral corruptoin’ or a danger to those who are ‘normal’.  As such we have enough knowledge to counter our instinctual biases, and enough knowledge to abandon our cultural biases.

    As such, no longer deserving stigma, homosexuals, as any healthy social human, desire ‘acceptance’ (to receive positive status signals) in the society.

    3) Binding commitment.  Homosexuals demonstrate high levels of promiscuity – and unlike heterosexuals, whose promiscuity creates the problem of children without economic support – there is little harm to it.  As such the function of a marriage corporation creates a greater economic incentive in support of preventing promiscuity and preserving both the economic and emotional investments we make.

    4) Pledge of commitment: The promise of a marriage will tend to give each of us access to superior mates (yes it does).  Without this pledge of commitment homosexuals do not have the way demonstrate their commitment to quality partners.  Trust is a difficult thing to come by.

    5) Conformity to norms. In an effort to obtain the right of marriage the homosexual community has ‘reigned in’ its more extravagant public behavior, which has reduced the level of objection prevoiusly held by moderates.  Further, unlike women’s rights activists and racial activists, homosexuals are not asking for redistribution benefits, OR for other special rights – other than the questionable ‘hate crimes’ that is already in force.

    RESISTANCE BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
    6) Religions are the last resistance to homosexual marriage.  This is partly for doctrinal reasons, and partly because the gay community aligned with the feminist, and left political wings, and in doing so, added to what religious groups consider an attack on the nuclear family, on traditional male and female roles, to the status signals available to those who fulfill traditional male and female roles – and from their perspective, an attack on civilization itself. This voting block is both activist and uniform, and provides a resistance to both the expansionary state and to culture.  For this reason the real opposition for homosexuals is in fact, organized religion, because organized religion is the source of the nuclear family’s traditional moral legitimacy.


    I hope that is a sufficient answer for you. Although I did have to rush the end a bit.   – Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-gay-people-asking-for-the-right-to-marry-If-it-is-legal-stuff-they-are-asking-for-cant-they-go-to-some-separate-setup-for-partners

  • Is Atheism A Threat To Humanity Due To Its Lower Birth Rates? Religion Often Requires Couples To Have Children, But As Religion Loses Its Grip On The People, They Tend To Have Fewer Children Than Required To Maintain The Population.

    THE ANSWER IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OTHER POSTERS SUGGEST.

    I’ll try to do it justice.

    The answer is yes, that it’s correlative. Empirically, yes in the aggregate atheists have fewer children.  And yes, its partly causal.

    1) Reproduction is losing it’s economic utility as a guarantee of old age security.

    2) Consumer capitalism raises the cost of creating ‘middle class and working class children’ and so birth rates decline along with industrialization.

    3) Atheism is highly correlative with education, and education correlative with income, and income correlative with decreased reproduction. (Children are a net negative on career development because they are time consuming. Or conversely, careerism in two income household deprives both individuals of the time necessary for child rearing. )

    4) Prettier women have more children, married women have more children, women who stay at home have more children.  Less attractive women have fewer children. Unmarried women have fewer children. Women who work have fewer children.  This is all just data.  We have put women into the work force and decreased their rate of breeding RELATIVE to the rates of breeding in other civilizations. (This was most evident in russian and japan, both of whom are facing serious long term economic problems because of it.  You cannot easily have both the employment of women AND paid retirement and health care. At least, that’s what it looks like.)

    5) With the advent of redistribution, loss of male property rights, and child support and financial support, Women are “marrying the state”, or “marrying the state via child support”. Both of these do statistically decrease reproduction, as they also render the males economically not viable for other women. (That’s the data. Sorry if it’s unpleasant.)

    6) The lower classes are dramatically shifting out of monogamy into serial monogamy.  Humans are naturally serially monogamous in tribal life. Monogamy is economically competitive, but not natural to man – we evolved to manage relationships that last on the order of four years – long enough for a child to walk with a migrating tribe.  The moral prescription for monogamy, and therefor for higher reproduction rates associated with monogamy, was caused by (a) the agrarian mode of production and the family farming unit (b) the politically dangerous problem of single men unable to have access to sex – the source of most revolutions. Monogamy was imposed by religious leadership for these reasons – although we are still trying I think to link all that history together. It looks like it’s a natural evolution, not just the copying of an idea worldwide.

    CONCLUSION
    1) The strain on the rest of the planet’s biomass by our enormous population is pretty severe. It’s possible we’re more than twice the population that the planet can handle.  We do not need more people.  There are no pollution problems. There are few resource problems. There is a population problem.
    2) We have created an economic and political system of intergenerational redistribution that requires constant growth and constant new generations. 
    3) Consumer capitalism seems to put a cap on uncontrolled population expansion.

    So it isn’t clear that we need to increase population. In fact, just the opposite. And we could do so, but our current system of redistribution is a system of dependencies that we can’t likely get out of without a political crisis.

    So the glass is half full (declining population) and half empty (we are dependent upon population growth that the earth cannot sustain, and which causes political infighting.).

    In these cases Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-a-threat-to-humanity-due-to-its-lower-birth-rates-Religion-often-requires-couples-to-have-children-but-as-religion-loses-its-grip-on-the-people-they-tend-to-have-fewer-children-than-required-to-maintain-the-population

  • Is Atheism A Threat To Humanity Due To Its Lower Birth Rates? Religion Often Requires Couples To Have Children, But As Religion Loses Its Grip On The People, They Tend To Have Fewer Children Than Required To Maintain The Population.

    THE ANSWER IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OTHER POSTERS SUGGEST.

    I’ll try to do it justice.

    The answer is yes, that it’s correlative. Empirically, yes in the aggregate atheists have fewer children.  And yes, its partly causal.

    1) Reproduction is losing it’s economic utility as a guarantee of old age security.

    2) Consumer capitalism raises the cost of creating ‘middle class and working class children’ and so birth rates decline along with industrialization.

    3) Atheism is highly correlative with education, and education correlative with income, and income correlative with decreased reproduction. (Children are a net negative on career development because they are time consuming. Or conversely, careerism in two income household deprives both individuals of the time necessary for child rearing. )

    4) Prettier women have more children, married women have more children, women who stay at home have more children.  Less attractive women have fewer children. Unmarried women have fewer children. Women who work have fewer children.  This is all just data.  We have put women into the work force and decreased their rate of breeding RELATIVE to the rates of breeding in other civilizations. (This was most evident in russian and japan, both of whom are facing serious long term economic problems because of it.  You cannot easily have both the employment of women AND paid retirement and health care. At least, that’s what it looks like.)

    5) With the advent of redistribution, loss of male property rights, and child support and financial support, Women are “marrying the state”, or “marrying the state via child support”. Both of these do statistically decrease reproduction, as they also render the males economically not viable for other women. (That’s the data. Sorry if it’s unpleasant.)

    6) The lower classes are dramatically shifting out of monogamy into serial monogamy.  Humans are naturally serially monogamous in tribal life. Monogamy is economically competitive, but not natural to man – we evolved to manage relationships that last on the order of four years – long enough for a child to walk with a migrating tribe.  The moral prescription for monogamy, and therefor for higher reproduction rates associated with monogamy, was caused by (a) the agrarian mode of production and the family farming unit (b) the politically dangerous problem of single men unable to have access to sex – the source of most revolutions. Monogamy was imposed by religious leadership for these reasons – although we are still trying I think to link all that history together. It looks like it’s a natural evolution, not just the copying of an idea worldwide.

    CONCLUSION
    1) The strain on the rest of the planet’s biomass by our enormous population is pretty severe. It’s possible we’re more than twice the population that the planet can handle.  We do not need more people.  There are no pollution problems. There are few resource problems. There is a population problem.
    2) We have created an economic and political system of intergenerational redistribution that requires constant growth and constant new generations. 
    3) Consumer capitalism seems to put a cap on uncontrolled population expansion.

    So it isn’t clear that we need to increase population. In fact, just the opposite. And we could do so, but our current system of redistribution is a system of dependencies that we can’t likely get out of without a political crisis.

    So the glass is half full (declining population) and half empty (we are dependent upon population growth that the earth cannot sustain, and which causes political infighting.).

    In these cases Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-a-threat-to-humanity-due-to-its-lower-birth-rates-Religion-often-requires-couples-to-have-children-but-as-religion-loses-its-grip-on-the-people-they-tend-to-have-fewer-children-than-required-to-maintain-the-population

  • ANY MONOPOLY DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS REQUIRED FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DIS

    ANY MONOPOLY DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS REQUIRED FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES:

    “Fundamentally speaking, it is illogical to suggest that a “polyopoly” of property rights and definitions is possible since a homogenous “monopoly” definition of property right is necessary in order to logically resolve disputes over rights, obligations and conflicts. Without property rights, disputes are logically impossible to resolve.

    If there is a monopoly of property rights at any point, that monopolistic definition, in practice, is the premise for all law within that group of people. Therefore even without the institutions of administrative government, any monopoly of property rights is in fact ‘government’. Everything else is just procedure.”

    This is not to say that allocating all property rights exclusively to private property is the only possible solution for a group. We’ve just learned that economic incentives to act, and to produce, and therefore to increase choice and decrease prices, can only exist where individuals have property rights. Without those rights one cannot have incentives. Or rather, without property rights, one’s incentives are balanced between numerous incentives – most of which are not productive, but consumptive.

    Anarchic production and exchange require only private property rights. But if a group with homogenous interests, wants to invest in the development of commons’, most generally called ‘infrastructure’ and in particular, commons that occupy physical (unique) space, then anarchic production under a monopoly definition of property rights alone isn’t sufficient. The reason being, that commons are victim to: (a) free riding (b) competition (c) privatization, and (d) violations of the rights of others. We don’t usually consider competition a problem, but it’s a problem for investors in a commons. And governments ( one or more people) that can outlaw free riding (taxes), competition (indirect privatization), direct privatization (theft), and protect the rights of others from abuses of their property rights through the process of creating commons, turns out to be necessary, since the cost of these appropriations of common investments is higher than the willingness of people to take the risk to develop the commons. Furthermore they also consider free free riding, competition, and privatization to be immoral.

    THis is not to say that private organizations can’t create commons (they can). The difference is that most commons that are other than symbolic such as monuments, are open to such free riding (consumption without compensation) and appropriation (the ancient practice of stealing of stones to build a house from public works for example) that the combination of moral objection and material theft is higher than the desire and willingness to contribute to a commons.

    Furthermore, some commons, like defense, are of such high risk and cost, that near universal free riding (pacifism), or perhaps more clearly, sufficient free riding, is endemic, and therefore it’s very difficult to create both defense, and private property rights. Historically, property rights are determined by those who contribute to defense. Or more commonly, property rights are exclusively possessed by those who contribute to defense

    So that is why we create governments.

    The problem is not that we’ve created governments to resolve conflicts and to create commons. The problem is that the only governments that we’ve been able to create have consisted of monopolies issuing laws rather than a monopoly of property rights under which we issue contracts the terms of which are binding on all members of the group.

    The problems with the organization we call government are (a) lawmaking instead of contract making (b) Monopoly Rule – whether majority, minority, or dictatorship instead of contract negotiating between factions (c) bureaucracy that is insulated from competition and therefore follows its natural incentives to expropriate from shareholders (citizens).

    (Snippet from yesterday’s posting on Quora)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-30 23:30:00 UTC

  • Can Anarchy Be Feasibly Set Up?

    THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION

    I’ll try to do give the the best answer that is available to us today.

    1) If we define anarchy as the absence of RULES (MORALS AND NORMS), then no – without morals and norms humans cannot cooperate.
    2) If we define anarchy as the absence of LAWS and JUDGES then no. Without contracts and the common law support of contracts, then no, not in any meaningful sense.
    3) If we define anarchy as the absence of GOVERNMENT (meaning group of people who coordinate investments in commons then possibly anarchy can exist, but under very constrained and simple conditions. Realistically it would be very hard for these people to compete economically with people from other groups.
    4) If we define anarchy as the absence of LAW MAKERS then almost certainly. The common law alone is sufficient for law making.
    5) If we define anarchy as the absence of an abstract corporation we call the ‘STATE’, then absolutely certainly. In fact, when people complain about government they generally are complaining about the behavior of individuals in a monopoly (government) who are insulated from competition, and whose members also for a bureaucracy that is insulated from competition, and who, as members of a bureaucracy, pursue their own interests. 

    Human societies employ at least these five sets of institutions and by and large, the first three are necessary, and the second two are not.  The question is whether in practice a group could compete effectively without the abstract state and the ability to issue commands (we call them laws, but that’s just a way of trying to give commands the legitimacy of natural laws to what are just political ‘commands’.) 

    So, a homogenous body of people who are not very different in character, belief, genetics, status, and wealth can quite easily create anarchy by writing a constitution with just one a half a dozen rules in it, and then hopefully finding judges that will rule according to those rules and no others.

    A government lf laws then, is quite possible.  A government of men isn’t necessary.  And it’s what our founding fathers were trying to prevent.

    Didn’t work well though. Civil war and all that….

    REGARDING “IN A PARTICULAR WORLD”

    Among a population of people with common heritage, mythology, manners, ethics and morals, who are arguably closely related, it is entirely feasible to draft a constitutions and to supply all services by private institutions.  The problem is whether that LACK of a constitutional government creates an opportunity for a private organization to functionally serve the same purpose, and in that same capacity, eventually develop the monopolistic self serviig bureaucracy that evolves the ability to write laws (issue commands) 

    The general argument in favor of minimal government is that some form of government (weak monarchy for example that ‘owns’ the institutions of dispute resolution) is necessary simply to provide competition against other private organizations that would attempt to function as governments.   I do not believe it is possible to counter this argument in any way – it’s quite sound in both theory and practice. ( Although I’m not going to sidetrack into that kind of depth at the moment. )

    IN A BROADER WORLD
    The anarchic research program commonly referred to as “Anarcho Capitalism” has developed a set of solutions to the problem of institutions, using competing private insurance companies rather than public monopolies.  However, this ‘private government’ still does not solve the problem of heterogenous polities (people with different, competing, and irreconcilable differences.).  Some of us are working on that problem.  We tend to call it some variation of ‘contractual’ government.  Meaning that groups make contracts between competing classes rather than allow one class to dominate another class by majority rule. 

    There is no functional reason why this solution would not work even for large heterogenous polities.

    So there are at least two circumstances under which Anarchy is possible, if we define anarchy as the absence of a monopolistic bureaucracy, but not if we define anarchy as the absence of institutions, rules or law. 

    Fundamentally speaking, it is illogical to suggest that a “polyopoly” of property rights and definitions is possible since a homogenous definition of property right is necessary in order to logically resolve disputes over rights, obligations and conflicts.  If there is a monopoly of property rights at any point, that monopolistic definition, in practice, is the premise for all law within that group of people.  Therefore even without the institutions of administrative government, any monopoly of property rights is in fact ‘government’.  Everything else is just procedure.

    That logic may be hard to follow.  But it is what it is.  🙂

    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Can-anarchy-be-feasibly-set-up

  • PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they ar

    PRIVATIZE IRS INSPECTORS AND REQUIRE (a) they have a law degree, and (b) they are CPA’s, and (c) that they are bonded and insured – just like lawyers and doctors.

    This will mean that only very good people will conduct audits and investigations, and that their careers will depend on their neutrality.

    It also means that they will make quite a bit of money, won’t waste their time, will protect their ‘meal ticket’, and will be in short supply, so we don’t have to see them very often.

    Of course, just doing away with the entire institution would be better… 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-15 09:06:00 UTC

  • Should The Personal Socio-political Views Of Individuals Working At A Company Dissuade Potential Job Applicants If They Disagree With Those Beliefs?

    REALITY:
    People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

    When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

    As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

    For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

    There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

    This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

    While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

    I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

  • Should The Personal Socio-political Views Of Individuals Working At A Company Dissuade Potential Job Applicants If They Disagree With Those Beliefs?

    REALITY:
    People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

    When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

    As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

    For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

    There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

    This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

    While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

    I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

  • What Advantages Or Disadvantages Do Social Media Contribute To The Educational Development Or Problems Among Our Youth Today?

    I don’t think the concept of ‘problem’ makes a great deal of sense in this context – or at least I’m not sure what you are referring to.  Our world changes.  Agrarianism, organized religion, government, literacy, industrialization, and even electric light, have had a dramatic impact on people’s lives.  We are always in a state of change.  I don’t see this as a ‘problem’ unless it creates some outcome or other that is demonstrably a material ‘bad’ that we can measure. And I have a problem seeing social media as anything other than a free market for information that is not impeded by organized mysticism or organized statism.

    I think that the way we educate children in schools could easily be described as prisons, where we subject them to artificially exaggerated social stresses because they interact with too few adults and do so in abnormal circumstances. We artificially induce extended childhoods, and delay the onset of mature adulthood.  This not only causes absurd stresses but creates alienation from the nuclear family that would normally provide the adaptive environment that creates the calm, confident and healthy mind. So, we create  alienation as a systemic condition in society.  (Childhood as we understand it is a recent invention. And probably a bad one.)

    I think that social media provides a form of competition against this destructive environment, that reduces alienation.  And that the internet in general, provides so much information, that it is possible for children to find membership in groups regardless of locale. 

    So I think the argument is that school is the problem of alienation and we see social media providing a solution to alienation, and that some of us would prefer that such alienation did not need to be mollified by social media, and instead a healthy individual was developed inside of the nuclear family.  But the problem here is not social media. It is education and the incentive for two parent incomes that make possible our intergenerational redistribution.

    So, the net is, that social media, and the interenet in general, are net goods.  The problem is everything else.

    https://www.quora.com/What-advantages-or-disadvantages-do-social-media-contribute-to-the-educational-development-or-problems-among-our-youth-today

  • IS SOCIOLOGY LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE? (I love answering quest

    IS SOCIOLOGY LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE?

    (I love answering questions like this.)

    Others have described the phenomenon imprecisely. I will have to try do better until someone does better than I:

    1) Sociology relies on surveys which are almost always false, because of natural properties innate in human psychology and cognitive processes. Sociology relies upon experiments, the conditions of which have greater affect on the answers provided than the natural environment in which teh behavior would be demonstrated. So in effect, ANY TEST that you issue will bias towards collectivist results, even if people will ACT upon individual incentives in the actual circumstance. This is pretty obvious really.

    2) Economics instead, relies upon demonstrated actions independent of tests. This is why economics has become the primary social science: we measure demonstrated actions rather than what people state they would do.

    3) Behavioral psychology tries to reduce the problem of sociological testing by proving the indvalidity of social surveys and tests. The only valuable survey information appears to be voting records, which if detailed enough, like economic data, demonstrate what people actually do rather than what they say they will do in any given circumstance.

    4) Sociology seems to attract people who are disproportionately subject to various collectivist biases, and the related cognitive biases. (Google ‘Common economic errors’, ‘Common Cognitive Biases’, “Common Social Cognitive Biases’.) We must remember, that the farther down the IQ scale you are, the more you must rely on the opinions, thoughts, and interpretations of otherse for your information. Every 15 points of IQ is about one standard deviation. That means people cannot really talk to each other easily across 15 points of difference and cannot even grasp each other’s world views or contexts, or implied causal relations at 30 points. THe predominance of science is improving this by repeated exposure

    5) The output of these surveys and experiments produces biased and therefore false information and conclusions, but the people who conduct them have both a subconscious bias, a preferential interest, and a career interest, and a political interest in believing and promoting the false outputs. There is a market for this false information available in public intellectuals, politicians and organizers. This false information is used for political purposes, under the pretense of academic neutrality, and empirically supported truth – none of which are true either.

    The public cannot understand this, the teachers use it because teachers are from the bottom 15% of graduating classes in intelligence, self select for the nurture bias, which is the source of left wing moral specialization, and must try to form homogeneity of interests among pupils with diverse backgrounds, and require justification for their actions. This is conversely why they cannot teach history or art history any longer, because this would require value judgements that distributed status signals to different members of a group that they seek to treat as homogenous family in order to control the room.

    Statistically speaking, in any university department sociologists will have the lowest IQ distribution of any of the major disciplines, economists, mathematicians and medical doctors the highest distribution. (Michigan study).

    For these reasons, the discipline of sociology is in fact, an unscientific tool of propaganda created, maintained, and used by the lowest IQ distribution in academia as a means of attepting to justify the failed communist, socialist, and now postmodernist ideology that seeks to compete against the natural sorting of people opportuntiy, income and political power behind those groups, families, and individuals with demonstrated meritocratic superiority in the market for goods, services, and military defense.

    Harsh words.

    True words.

    The conservatives are correct.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-12 05:27:00 UTC