Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • UM. NOPE. Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity,

    UM. NOPE.

    Moral psychology is relationship regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality.

    Tage S. Rai, Alan Page Fiske

    Published in Psychological review 2011

    Genuine moral disagreement exists and is widespread. To understand such disagreement, we must examine the basic kinds of social relationships people construct across cultures and the distinct moral obligations and prohibitions these relationships entail. We extend relational models theory (Fiske, 1991) to identify 4 fundamental and distinct moral motives. Unity is the motive to care for and support the integrity of in-groups by avoiding or eliminating threats of contamination and providing aid and protection based on need or empathic compassion. Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect subordinates. Equality is the motive for balanced, in-kind reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, and equal opportunity. Proportionality is the motive for rewards and punishments to be proportionate to merit, benefits to be calibrated to contributions, and judgments to be based on a utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits. The 4 moral motives are universal, but cultures, ideologies, and individuals differ in where they activate these motives and how they implement them. Unlike existing theories (Haidt, 2007; Hauser, 2006; Turiel, 1983), relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal treatment, and “impure” acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed. This approach facilitates clearer understanding of moral perspectives we disagree with and provides a template for how to influence moral motives and practices in the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-02 09:24:00 UTC

  • #Westworld You just HAD to get ‘woke’ with the anti male, anti-european superwom

    #Westworld You just HAD to get ‘woke’ with the anti male, anti-european superwomen nonsense. What is wrong with hollywood? Haven’t the crash and burn of all the franchises that try ‘woke’ gotten thru to you? I mean star wars, star trek, altered carbon, terminator, the next dune..

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 02:23:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254596940072919040

  • More Advocacy of Orthodoxy as A State Religion

    MORE ADVOCACY OF ORTHODOXY AS A STATE RELIGION (and correcting me) by James Dmitro Makienko [I] made a long detailed post on the christian denial of the laws evident in god’s hand. Here: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/253632416034919 James corrects me – as did others, that none of these criticisms apply to orthodoxy only to evangelicals and catholics. I might argue that the church of england might apply as well. (Where I was married) I agree on orthodoxy as the optimum political christian religion. I only argue that the evangelicals are closest to jesus’ teachings as a folk religion, and I only make that argument in order to advance some form of nationalist christianity that tolerates the entire spectrum of human cognition: feeling, intuition, reason, observation. The only thing I criticize in the slavic sphere (a) intermarium inability to produce commercial and military scale, and (b) russian inability to produce trust at scale, rule of law at scale, and use of rule of law to suppress corruption at scale. Conversely, the number of things I criticize in the west middle east and far east are endless. I tend to use christianity to refer to evangelical, protestant, and catholic divisions, and I call out orthodoxy in particular. I will try to correct this habit as “western christianity” instead of ‘christianity’ but I think it will be a hard habit to break. thank you for the ‘correction’. 😉 James correctly answers below. == From James Dmitro Makienko == To clarify on what you said about Christianity “denying”, NONE of that applies to Orthodox Church. Of this set of God’s laws, what does Christianity DENY?

    1. physical laws of nature. – You won’t see any of this “young earth creation” crap in Orthodox churches, they are generally accepting of science now and don’t try to override it.

    2. the political law of homogeneity – Virtually every Orthodox church is nation-centered – hence you have Greek, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian, Georgian, Armenian, Coptic Ethiopian, Coptic Egyptian, Romanian, North Macedonian etc – this is why it has such difficulty in multicultural countries like Canada and America to create its own indigenous Orthodox church. We have Armenian and Ethiopian that go to out church, but we are Ukrainian, do our liturgy in Ukrainian, and not destroying our identity because there are people who are not Ukrainian.

    3. the evolutionary law of transcendence – we venerate numerous saints who have transcended through their works, and a lot of them did it through military victories and statesmanship.

    4. the … law of self domestication – there are many ways such as numerous feasts/fasting throughout the year, which toughens you in case hard times hit, rituals you do, which presents a framework for all classes to work together and not go after each other

    5. the … law of competition. – Do you mean economic competition (no Orthodox will have an issue with that, most will be negative towards socialism) or competition on the marketplace of ideas (Orthodox church likes to test things against time, so thats why a lot of things may take a few generations to implement – it is slow, yet it exists and we recognize its importance)

    Now if you apply it to the modern evangelical Christianity you will see that:

    1. Laws of nature – lawsuits against teaching of evolution, “bible parks” that promote young earth creationism – they literally allocate millions of dollars that they fleece from their hapless flocks to promote their anti-scientific falsehoods.

    2. Homogeneity – all the multi-culti crap you hear from liberal media is in evangelical (especially mainline) churches “we’re all the same, in jesus name, god loves you regardless of your skin, lets sing kumbaya for jesus” etc. Canada’s United Church is the absolute worst in trying to cuck to the progressives

    3. Evolutionary law of transcendence – they do the opposite, they love to revel in underclasses, and promote the message of equality regardless of cost or merit.

    4. Self domestication? Not much on this front either, because why domesticate when jesus loves you the way you are

    5. Competition? This is where evangelicals are actually outdo themselves, as they like to latch onto different new worldly ideas and modify them for their needs. It sometimes may come at the cost of discarding doctrine – but who cares about doctrine when to be “saved” in evangelical christianity you just need to say a Shahada(declaration of faith) that “i accept jesus christ as my lord and savior” – just like in Islam (that Mo is the prophet).

    The speculation about an industrial age in the first or second century AD which Christianity allegedly averted makes about as much sense as if ancient Egypt didn’t collapse we’d all be living in the giant space-travelling pyramids heading for nearest stars. We wuz space vikangs and shiet (makes me think of that lost vikings game of the early 90s!) It is impossible to combine all of Christianity into one-size-fits-all model. As for the reasons of the collapse of the Roman Empire it’ll just take me too much time to research and argument. In brief, i think you give Christianity too much credit for the collapse of the Roman Empire, as most of the 4th century was spend by Christians coming up with a Nicene creed and confronting Arianism(Jesus created & not divine, non-trinitarian), then confronting Nestorianism(Mary mother of Jesus, dyophysitism of Christ etc).

  • More Advocacy of Orthodoxy as A State Religion

    MORE ADVOCACY OF ORTHODOXY AS A STATE RELIGION (and correcting me) by James Dmitro Makienko [I] made a long detailed post on the christian denial of the laws evident in god’s hand. Here: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/253632416034919 James corrects me – as did others, that none of these criticisms apply to orthodoxy only to evangelicals and catholics. I might argue that the church of england might apply as well. (Where I was married) I agree on orthodoxy as the optimum political christian religion. I only argue that the evangelicals are closest to jesus’ teachings as a folk religion, and I only make that argument in order to advance some form of nationalist christianity that tolerates the entire spectrum of human cognition: feeling, intuition, reason, observation. The only thing I criticize in the slavic sphere (a) intermarium inability to produce commercial and military scale, and (b) russian inability to produce trust at scale, rule of law at scale, and use of rule of law to suppress corruption at scale. Conversely, the number of things I criticize in the west middle east and far east are endless. I tend to use christianity to refer to evangelical, protestant, and catholic divisions, and I call out orthodoxy in particular. I will try to correct this habit as “western christianity” instead of ‘christianity’ but I think it will be a hard habit to break. thank you for the ‘correction’. 😉 James correctly answers below. == From James Dmitro Makienko == To clarify on what you said about Christianity “denying”, NONE of that applies to Orthodox Church. Of this set of God’s laws, what does Christianity DENY?

    1. physical laws of nature. – You won’t see any of this “young earth creation” crap in Orthodox churches, they are generally accepting of science now and don’t try to override it.

    2. the political law of homogeneity – Virtually every Orthodox church is nation-centered – hence you have Greek, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian, Georgian, Armenian, Coptic Ethiopian, Coptic Egyptian, Romanian, North Macedonian etc – this is why it has such difficulty in multicultural countries like Canada and America to create its own indigenous Orthodox church. We have Armenian and Ethiopian that go to out church, but we are Ukrainian, do our liturgy in Ukrainian, and not destroying our identity because there are people who are not Ukrainian.

    3. the evolutionary law of transcendence – we venerate numerous saints who have transcended through their works, and a lot of them did it through military victories and statesmanship.

    4. the … law of self domestication – there are many ways such as numerous feasts/fasting throughout the year, which toughens you in case hard times hit, rituals you do, which presents a framework for all classes to work together and not go after each other

    5. the … law of competition. – Do you mean economic competition (no Orthodox will have an issue with that, most will be negative towards socialism) or competition on the marketplace of ideas (Orthodox church likes to test things against time, so thats why a lot of things may take a few generations to implement – it is slow, yet it exists and we recognize its importance)

    Now if you apply it to the modern evangelical Christianity you will see that:

    1. Laws of nature – lawsuits against teaching of evolution, “bible parks” that promote young earth creationism – they literally allocate millions of dollars that they fleece from their hapless flocks to promote their anti-scientific falsehoods.

    2. Homogeneity – all the multi-culti crap you hear from liberal media is in evangelical (especially mainline) churches “we’re all the same, in jesus name, god loves you regardless of your skin, lets sing kumbaya for jesus” etc. Canada’s United Church is the absolute worst in trying to cuck to the progressives

    3. Evolutionary law of transcendence – they do the opposite, they love to revel in underclasses, and promote the message of equality regardless of cost or merit.

    4. Self domestication? Not much on this front either, because why domesticate when jesus loves you the way you are

    5. Competition? This is where evangelicals are actually outdo themselves, as they like to latch onto different new worldly ideas and modify them for their needs. It sometimes may come at the cost of discarding doctrine – but who cares about doctrine when to be “saved” in evangelical christianity you just need to say a Shahada(declaration of faith) that “i accept jesus christ as my lord and savior” – just like in Islam (that Mo is the prophet).

    The speculation about an industrial age in the first or second century AD which Christianity allegedly averted makes about as much sense as if ancient Egypt didn’t collapse we’d all be living in the giant space-travelling pyramids heading for nearest stars. We wuz space vikangs and shiet (makes me think of that lost vikings game of the early 90s!) It is impossible to combine all of Christianity into one-size-fits-all model. As for the reasons of the collapse of the Roman Empire it’ll just take me too much time to research and argument. In brief, i think you give Christianity too much credit for the collapse of the Roman Empire, as most of the 4th century was spend by Christians coming up with a Nicene creed and confronting Arianism(Jesus created & not divine, non-trinitarian), then confronting Nestorianism(Mary mother of Jesus, dyophysitism of Christ etc).

  • Harsh Words on Conspiracy

      Let me tell you how the world works. People who need organizations are not those with power. People who need ‘societies’ are not those with power. People who heed religions are not those with power. People who need ideologies or philosophies are not those with power. People with power have LOTS OF PEOPLE around them giving them power and asking them for power. And everyone giving, getting and distributing power, is working in his or her self interest. And the business, financial, government sector is just trying to make make money by keeping people consuming, while academic sector is sucking their dicks, and the military is seeking opportunity to scare people into giving them money. Here is what people in power do: They maintain the power economy that keeps them in power. When they meet outside their power economy, they talk on three levels at once. – Trivial niceties to signal fitness for cooperation – Sharing information about opportunities and risks using subtleties, in order to obtain information that they can use or gain favor on future opportunities by giving what can be used by another. – identifying opportunities for minor – cost neutral – changes by each that together would increase the gains of each. Average people can’t imagine how simple the world is nor how tediously, boringly, EMPIRICAL the people who run the world are, nor how much the grownups DUMB SH-T DOWN so the morons keep working and buying. You live in a world of trivial posturing because you and everyone around you has no power or meaning. People with power have the opposite condition. They are soaking in power meaning and opportunity and can only afford the mental time to invest in the best opportunities for their limited attention. The don’t have to signal or posture like people who have no power or meaning. Do you know why? because resources to maintain power economies are always scarce. Because power economies are always in competition keeping the price of power high. The world is full of grownups with power They have power becuase people gave it to them. They maintain power becuase people keep giving it to them. People in power are funnels for concentrating power in places where int can have impact – just like the military concentrates forces to win a battle, or just lke a hundred people pass the bucket to concentrate their efforts in a division of labor. And those grownups are tediously boring. Because by and large they’re engaged in accounting. And using accounting as a nervous system. And occasionally investing in opportunities that take a long time to bring to fruition. And you can tell yourselves all sorts of paranoid lies to convince yourself that you understand the world. But that is all you’re doing. Conversely,there are people in activism, media, academy, politics, religion, and the state, and those that seek privileges from the state to VIOLATE reciprocity for one excuse or another. That is the left. The left has no power so it conspires to obtain power. That’s what LEFTIST MEANS: conspire to obtain power by non meritocratic irreciprocal means. What’s wrong with the world: 1. The only thing wrong with the world at any given time is the organization of incentives in relation to human capital – knowledge, norms, culture, and demographics. 2. Money is how we incentivize people. 3. Law is how we engineer the organization of incentives. 4. War (violence) is how we engineer the opportunity to use law to organize incentives. Everything else is some sort of kindergarten game. And you conspiracy kiddies don’t get anywhere near the ridicule you deserve. (((They))) are following instincts and programming, which we know because women use exactly the same technique via the state as (((They))) use in usury. Instincts are not conspiracies. That doesn’t mean there aren’t conspirators. It means that our idiocy at spreading capitalism democracy and rule of law is just as idiotic as their spreading globalism and socialism, pseudoscience, boating into hazard, and parasitic financialism. The animal follows its instincts until trained otherwise by his betters. In general, every person with any power in this world is following obvious rational incentives. All the bad “conspiracy stuff” happens at the bottom and middle where people don’t have power but want to use some stupid cheat in order to get it. Most of us feel the need to join organizations of all kinds, whether in our minds, in social, in charity, in business, or in political, in order to obtain some sense of agency control and therefore meaning in our lives – but that is all it is. The search for meaning because POWER DISTANCE IS TOO GREAT FOR US TO HAVE REAL MEANING. And that is what I”m out to change. Power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil. Reducing Power distance it puts the civil society back to work in its self defense. Scale is always bad.

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM Notes on Eric Weinstein interview: 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM Notes on Eric Weinstein interview: 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.

  • Anarcho capitalism is a failure for reasons I’ve covered at near book length bec

    Anarcho capitalism is a failure for reasons I’ve covered at near book length because it’s a fraud by mises, rothbard and less so hoppe. It’s impossible. Rule of law w/ monarchy, is the european equivalent and the german princedoms or european states, are the optimum market order.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 21:31:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253074014374957057

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253067468165259266

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview: 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that E

    Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism.

    2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate?

    3) Eric’s Attempt at description

    Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model

    Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter.

    GR = Pride of place to gravity.

    SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons

    Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again.

    Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort.

    4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria).

    Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned.

    Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience.

    5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t.

    I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome.

    Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions.

    So, I understand administrative skepticism.

    Conversation ends.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 19:05:00 UTC

  • PSYCHOLOGIZING (FRAUD), PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE), AND LAW (TRUTH) —“Regading

    PSYCHOLOGIZING (FRAUD), PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE), AND LAW (TRUTH)

    —“Regading criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why?

    P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality.

    Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics.

    Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions.

    Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t.

    The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration.

    There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    0. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.

    1. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.

    2. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.

    3. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.

    4. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.

    5. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY.

    The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology

    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,

    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,

    3. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated.

    —Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 15:28:00 UTC