Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • DAVID’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF AI-AGE ECONOMICS @DaveShapi David. Sorry man. Love y

    DAVID’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF AI-AGE ECONOMICS

    @DaveShapi

    David. Sorry man. Love you, but you’ve malinvested in an unlikely determinism because you cannot imagine, despite historical evidence, what could be done if in fact much white collar labor is replaceable. But you have overcommitted at this point and won’t correct because of that malivestment and overcommitment: you’re a normal human.
    We will, like the Athenians and Egyptians reallocate labor from text to action and improve our commons. Eventually we will find new opportunities that favor a different set of status signals and their pursuit by a different category of production.

    RE:

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 02:09:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035176917788500299

  • RE: FUKUYAMA ON AMERICAN POLITICAL REGULATORY BURDEN – WE DON”T TRUST GOVT. Fran

    RE: FUKUYAMA ON AMERICAN POLITICAL REGULATORY BURDEN – WE DON”T TRUST GOVT.
    Francis,
    RE:
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=iZsIkn
    hLOLA
    …

    Long term student and fan. I understand your argument, but I have a very difficult time comparing the evidence of bureaucratic behavior, especially given the credentialist background of government employees instead of historical public service as a result of demonstrated competency in military, industrial, or business disciplines.

    My organization’s work in the law – which still holds up somewhat compared to other organs of government, encounters a deep incompetence outside of a handful at the appellate and supreme levels. I agree with the loss of prestige in government work driving out possible candidates. I agree with the demand for private litigation to correct public problems. Our organization uses the limited vehicles in the common law to do so ourselves.

    But I also agree with the tragic failure of our education system beginning with the early sixties attack on it. So I’m not disagreeing with your criticisms. I’m disagreeing that the people in government are capable of the work and responsibility you wish to give them. (I”ve built two of the larger privately held consulting companies, and government work isn’t a problem of regulations so much as – it’s a problem of quality and competency.) The problems DOGE surfaced were not outliers.

    Worse, while you compare our government to others, our government of 340M was not designed like ‘other liberal democracies’ with no more than 80M in a concentrated geography. It was designed as a market for the production of commons between the states, given the necessity of a secular empirical government because of the four foundational populations being of different religious fundamentalist populations still reacting to the protestant reformation and the european wars given the parasitism of the church and the state and the nobility.

    And just as europe is discovering that unification is impossible for anything but defense, Americans are discovering that their post-civil-war unification, legitimized by early 20th trade and war era insulation from europe’s suicide, is no longer possible. Worse, the success of the left and excessive immigration of costly dependents has amplified that divisiveness.

    So I am aware of your biases – each of our generations has them.I’m only ten years younger than you are. And even that difference is noticeable in our generations. And your works on trust and political order were foundational for me and my work. But your faith in liberal democracy doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.

    Why? America goes through a crisis about every eighty years – purging accumulated ‘corruption’ that has become entrenched in a model that no longer serves the national and international circumstances. Trump is the fifth or sixth president to have made such reformations: Trump, Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, and Jackson.

    We voted the most competent president in our history (Bush 1) out of office when he could have reordered the world in gentlemanly fashion.

    Now we are stuck with stress conditions and Trump’s Shock and Awe urgency.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-21 23:07:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2025346731773493391

  • RE: –“Why Modern Economics Is Built on a Lie w/ Bob Murphy”– See: https:// you

    RE: –“Why Modern Economics Is Built on a Lie w/ Bob Murphy”–
    See:
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=hYtf9O
    p3poA
    …

    Bob is pretty much always right. I’ll try to clarify:
    a) Economics consist of high causal density.
    b) Economic variables vary constantly in time.
    c) Therefore economics is limited in its reducibility (Reducibility: {operational, algorithmic, mathematic, categorical, identity, naturalism, realism})
    d) Therefore economics is more post-hoc descriptive than ex-ante predictive. (ergo: predictability is a property of reducibility, the lower the reducibility the more limited to descriptive.)
    e) Therefore we can construct general rules of descriptive economics even if we are limited in general rules of predictive economics.
    f) We can discuss economics in the same realm as any other science using operationaism and empiricism as long as we realize that the limit of reducibility is using natural indices (Labels) rather than cardinal (Numbers).
    There is no need to carry such rules further into philosophical rationalism – it devolves into an analysis of language not cause and consequence. This was a mistake of the early 20th. Mises did not realize he had discovered operationalism in physics at the same time that operationalism (under various labels) was discovered in physics and mathematics. But he was captured by rationalism. Philosophy had not yet reached the dead end it had by the 1960s.
    g) So just as euclidean geometry is a system of measurement for human scale, and fails and post-human-scale, economic rationalism is a system of measurement for human scale and fails at post-human scale.
    h) Bob’s narrative of the comparison with geometry vs its limits, or Gödel’s theorem (which is a very limited arithmetic and so overused example) and its limits, is correct. All systems have limits. All systems must only account for closure within its limits.
    The problem austrians face with the apriori is an unnecessary abstraction that does not improve anything that cannot be stated in scientific prose if we understand reducibility and indexability as I’ve stated here.
    So it is better to attempt a formalism in rationalism (set theory) than cardinality, but then it is better to adopt a formalism in operationalism than rationalism. And we can leave the archaic reasoning of our ancestors behind.
    i) All language constitutes a system of measurements. The question is only the precision given the demands of the context we wish to measure.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    NLI

    cc:
    @BobMurphyEcon

    @RobertBreedlove

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-09 19:55:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2020949790750830901

  • RE: @Science You want funding? Separate the hard science from the pseudoscience,

    RE:
    @Science

    You want funding? Separate the hard science from the pseudoscience, fix the mathiness problem in physics that’s crippled it for more than fifty years. Fix the replication problem in the behavioral sciences, Fix the sophistry and conformity problem in the humanities (philosophy theses are intellectually embarrassing). End the publication hamster wheel of junk science production, separate teaching staff from research staff, prohibit research with a leftist agenda of perpetuating 20th century pseudoscience, and stop the prohibition on research on human differences such that we can create policy to accommodate those differences instead of preserving conflict because we don’t. Cut the production of PhD’s so that the output meets market demand. Give primacy to american citizens in admission. Balance left and right professors so students see both perspectives. End the nonsense (gut) courses that are simple seditions. Otherwise you’re just part of the corruption problem hiding under pretense of ‘scientific neutrality’. You are not producing the scientific and governing classes we need. You’re producing the same corrupt bureaucracies as we faced with the church. The “Managerial State” has been a failure.

    We wouldn’t need think tanks to augment academic research (like ours) if the academy did it’s job instead of replacing the supernatural clericy with a pseudoscientific one, that because it’s dominated by women seek to amplify consensus and suppress innovation.

    The amount of time I spend debunking pseudoscientific claims that are then magnified by a sensationalist media is absurd.

    You know the cause of all this? We prohibit IQ tests in employment, which causes people to get nonsense degrees, go deeply into debt, corrupt the incentives of our academy, produce seditionists instead of scientists and public servants, and mass produce junk science, and replicate in academic corruption what has been achieved by the left in financing NGO corruption.

    I mean. You excuse yourselves. Every day. But you’re all culpable by tolerating it. Moreover you oddly believe your own nonsense.

    It’s exasperating.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 20:03:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014066425091203424

  • I am getting exhausted by these papers missing the point. This is like criticizi

    I am getting exhausted by these papers missing the point. This is like criticizing the human language faculty when disconnected from the prefrontal cortex. It’s silly. As a language faculty it’s fantastic. It’s an hypothesis generator. Just like our brain is. It works so similarly to our language faculty it’s amazing.

    My organizations work in creating that ‘prefrontal cortex’ . We treat the LLMs as hypothesis generators, but then we constraint and govern their thinking like our ‘reasoning conscious minds’ regulate our speech as we go along. It’s not like humans pre-calculate what we’re going to say. We sense a ‘direction’ so to speak and then figure out how to describe it as we go along.

    The difference is we don’t interrupt the LLMs and interpret them until they’re finished – we don’t continuously recursively disambiguate their use of language as a path through their ‘latent space’ (world model).

    That’s not a bug. It’s simply a fact that the LLM foundation model producers, and frankly the entire academic side of the industry is simply working with their one-trick-pony of ‘attention is all you need’ to produce transformers without auditors (frontal cortex).

    They keep trying to get a hypothesis generator to self audit rather than use another LLM to audit their processes and correct them.

    Why isn’t that happening? Because it’s too damned expensive already…. (really). So they are twiddling with minor improvements in the algorithm because they don’t know any better.

    We do. But it’s taking us time to finish the solution to the problem for them. (And while we are happy to chat in public like this, we aren’t really interested in joining into the hype game. It’s all nonsense.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:17:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006973015620542793

  • I push back on McGilchrist frequently because I’m aware of his agenda: 1. hemisp

    I push back on McGilchrist frequently because I’m aware of his agenda:
    1. hemispheric bias … just bias, not exclusive specialization. Also, in the visual cortex (back of the brain, largely no. Sex differences do appear here in amplitude and tas evoked activation. once we move beyond v1 (think of the back of the brain as an archery target with rings radiating out from the center) we start to see some predicted biases such as right face bias vs left word-form. These are matters of degree only.
    2. The bias becomes more obvious in connectivity: male specialization within hemispheric connection, vs female generalization which connects the hemispheres. It’s actually hemispherically integrated (f/r/more-slow/in-time) vs hemispherically specialized (m/l/less-fast/over-time)
    3. This results in systematizing (over time) vs empathizing (in time). Brain organization constrains bias in processing. Brain is organized in utero and in early development.
    4. Correct model that reflects universal sex differences in behavior is predator (m/left) bias vs prey (f/right) bias.

    All that said, defeating McGilchrist’s ‘fictionalism’ is rather easy: (via CurtGPT)
    1. Category error: hemispheric lateralization is an implementation feature of distributed networks; it is not a pair of epistemic agents. Treating hemispheres as agents confuses mechanism with narrative.
    2. Level conflation: claims about civilization-scale “modes of being” cannot be inferred from circuit-level lateralization without a bridging model that specifies intermediate levels (policy, incentives, institutions). Without that bridge, it is a storytelling leap.
    3. Non-uniqueness: even where lateralization exists, multiple architectures can implement the same policy. Therefore “left vs right” cannot be the explanatory primitive. Incentives and loss functions must be.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-27 08:23:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2004830509629931880

  • Stained glass does not compensate for the christian destruction of the civilizat

    Stained glass does not compensate for the christian destruction of the civilization, architecture, arts, and letters of the ancient world, and the increase in superstition and ignorance spread under christianity.
    We are still fighting to exit the lies and universalism of the abrahamic religions and their implicit devolutionary totalitarianism of the ignorant.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-06 00:03:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1997094597072494933

  • Your disapproval as substitute for argument is not only evidence of intellectual

    Your disapproval as substitute for argument is not only evidence of intellectual frailty but a falsification of the education you claim. One of the indicators of the feminine mind is the substitution of argument, true or false, with approval or disapproval under the presumption that such approval or disapproval is of worth or merit rather than indicative of incompetence.
    In other words, you merely demonstrate empirically your incompetence and the invalidity of any of your opinions.

    You are not competent nor capable of argumentation – or intellectual honesty for that matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-27 17:27:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1994095762620477629

  • Neoteny Denial Criticism Claim: There exists an intra-species gradient in human

    Neoteny Denial Criticism

    Claim:
    There exists an intra-species gradient in human neoteny; it is measurable; and its cognitive and institutional correlates remain statistically significant after partitioning environmental effects.
    Neoteny is not a “theory of human difference.”
    It is a     life-history variable expressed in every known primate population, in every sexually reproducing species, and across all vertebrates.
    To deny intra-species neoteny variation, you must deny:
    • population variation in growth curves,
    • population variation in pubertal timing,
    • population variation in castration-resistant androgen receptor expression,
    • population variation in prefrontal maturation tempo,
    • population variation in craniofacial development,
    • population variation in sexual dimorphism,
    • population variation in impulse control and time-preference,
    • population variation in delayed gratification and norm internalization.
    These are measurable biological variables, not ideological categories.
    If you reject these, you are rejecting developmental biology as such—not my argument.
    (Natural Law Vol. 2: measurement, operational categories; truth as testifiability .)
    Evolutionary biology, anthropology, behavioral genetics, and life-history theory converge on the same causal sequence:
    Environment → developmental tempo → neoteny → cognitive architecture → cooperation grammar → institutions.
    This is the standard model in life-history theory, and it is the same causal stack used in NL Vol. 3’s evolutionary computation framework:
    constraint → stable relation → phenotype → behavior → institutions .
    To reject this chain, you must propose:
    • environment does not shape maturation tempo,
    • maturation tempo does not shape cognitive development,
    • cognitive traits do not shape cooperation strategies,
    • cooperation strategies do not shape institutions.
    No serious scholar in any of these fields believes this.
    “Environment explains it” fails the empirical partition tests:
    • GWAS: developmental tempo traits are heritable.
    • Twin/adoption studies: timing of maturation is only weakly environmentally plastic.
    • Migration studies: tempo persists across environments.
    • Foster-care and cross-rearing data: cognition tracks inherited tempo parameters.
    Environmental factors modulate the phenotype but do not eliminate inherited variance.
    This satisfies Natural Law’s requirement for decidability: the causal chain survives adversarial partitioning (Vol. 2: decidability tests; Vol. 1: failure of measurement = failure of truth) .
    Once you accept:
    1. tempo varies,
    2. tempo predicts cognition,
    3. cognition predicts cooperation,
    …then you must accept:
    1. institutions are constrained by developmental biology,
      not by ideology.
    This is why:
    • high-trust rule-of-law societies track populations with slow life-history tempo,
    • low-trust clientelist societies track populations with fast tempo,
    • institutional stability correlates with impulse control and norm internalization,
    • corruption correlates with low PFC development and high reactive aggression.
    None of this requires moralizing.
    It only requires     measurement, as demanded in NL Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (visibility + indices of behavior) .
    Denying an intra-species neoteny gradient forces you to deny:
    • standard developmental biology,
    • standard life-history theory,
    • population genetics,
    • behavioral genetics,
    • evolutionary anthropology,
    • and Natural Law’s commensurability requirements.
    Denying the neoteny → cognition → institutions chain requires rejecting every domain of empirical biology simultaneously.
    This is not a scientific position.
    It is a     theological one.
    Under Natural Law’s operational, testifiable, adversarial method:
    The neoteny gradient → cognitive trait → institutional phenotype relation is Decidable.
    Externalities of denial: catastrophic.
    Because a polity that denies biological constraints cannot compute, and NL identifies institutional non-computability as a precursor to collapse (Vol. 1: Crisis of Responsibility) .

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-27 02:02:38 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1993863000344940589

  • FWIW: The only criticism I have of him is that his methodology does not and prob

    FWIW: The only criticism I have of him is that his methodology does not and probably cannot (without work) compensate for the degree of and quality of information available to people in government today, meaning that governments have more ‘staying power’ than they did in the historical data.
    I haven’t talked to him about this (I haven’t talked to him in a few years – he’s too popular now). But I suspect he would understand and agree.
    So while determinism is what it is, the predictability of any cliff event (china for example) is even more unpredictable regardless of our knowledge of history.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-21 05:12:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1991736507112235101