Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Stefan Molyneux vs Vaush Video (omfg. Molyneux has far too much tolerance for di

    Stefan Molyneux vs Vaush Video

    (omfg. Molyneux has far too much tolerance for dishonesty)

    1) Wealth is the result of increasing productivity in time. Increasing productivity in time is achieved by reducing labor in time, first by a division of labor, second by organization using incentives, third by continuous technological and logical invention, at the cost of driving people to adapt (learn), sorting people by how well they adapt (learn), sorting them how well they discover opportunities for adaptation(invent), and distributing rewards by how often they adapt, how well they adapt, how well they discover opportunities. Evidence is that invention, organization of production, limiting the labor involved in production, such that labor has continuously decreasing value, to the point where we can’t find use of it, and that the only thing that they have of any value is generation of demand that instructs those who are productive what to produce. And the data, everywhere, in every organization, is that power law applies: very few people provide marginal difference in productivity, and a tiny percentage of people provide nearly all of it. Everyone else is rotatable (disposable). This is the fundamental problem of our age: we have made vast population increases possible but it depends on fewer and fewer people, and the numbers of those decreasing are better.

    2) The only time we know our inventiveness, adaptation, organization, labor, and resources were not wasted, is when a customer pays for it. In other words, value is created at the time of sale, not at the time of production. Everything else is speculative. So, equality would mean that none of us received any income until the customers had consumed the entirety of whatever was produced so that we knew how much there was to go around.

    3) We tend to overrate everything other than the consequences of continuous production of crucible steel, and the harnessing of hydrocarbons, and the multitude of consequences as the tool improvements made possible by hydrocarbons worked through and expanded every chain and network of invention, organization, production, distribution and trade as the primary source of our wealth increase. The fact that this happened in the one society that was organized by contractualism (not socialism, not despotism, not theology) that had a genetic elite, a majority genetic middle class, a mobile labor pool, a navy, and thus a demand for (navy/trade) for the transformation of resources into productive goods (capital, coal, competent labor).

    4) People working? People work. Sure. That has no bearing on it whatsoever. People who work for big highly profitable companies at high wages are riding on rents created by others. That’s why we seek those jobs. Greater income, Less responsibility, better working conditions. and largely the privilege of working with a better class of people.

    5) I can’t comprehend the morality argument Stephan is making. There is a TRUST argument not a moral one. People act morally to increase trust so that they can take advantage of continuously expanding opportunities, that require longer more complex production cycles in increasingly larger networks of smaller organizations, repeating the division of labor first between people, then between people with organizations, then between organizations, then between networks of organizations, and finally at global scale until the ‘i pencil’ problem is unfathomably complex – so complex that in a catastrophe production may not be possible (ie: Russian loss of welding technology in the 90’s).

    6) The industrial revolution followed the agrarian revolution, followed the age of sail revolution, following the muslim blockade, following the conquest of Constantinople and the fall of Byzantium to the turks.

    7) The only reason I can (and others) see why Greece did not have the industrial revolution, was alexander’s crossing of the Bosporus, and subjecting Greece to trade rents instead of the host of middle eastern peoples..

    8) Almost all labor saving devices HAVE been created in market economies. Hence european plows, well fed commoners, but poor aristocracy in Europe, and wealthy aristocracy and merchants in the middle east, and poor hungry commoners. Trade route capture always benefitted the middle east, fertile crescent food production irrigated acre, and the ease of taxing and controlling river valleys with dense farming vs vast european plains.

    9) Saudi Arabia has the resource curse. How would you sell oil without a free market economy? The entire middle east would be africa if it wasn’t for it.

    10) the British empire (including the colonies), and at last the germans, took resources, brought them home, transformed them into production goods and resold them to the world. They brought rule of law, science, technology, and dragged the world kicking and screaming out of the dark ages.

    Unwind european market economies and unwind the world back to superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, early death, and the victimhood of an uncaring nature.

    Ok. Made it to 58:00. Can’t tolerate it any longer. Stephen makes his usual mistake of interjecting philosophical/moral secular/theologic reasoning into a purely empirical and operational argument, but this guy V-whatever is intellectually dishonest. Not worth your time Stephen.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 22:56:00 UTC

  • Criticizing and Reforming “logos”

    [I] disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen. As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason‘. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it. Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature. For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy. Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons. So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good. See what I did there? 😉 10John Ma

  • Criticizing and Reforming “logos”

    [I] disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen. As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason‘. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it. Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature. For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy. Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons. So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good. See what I did there? 😉 10John Ma

  • The democratic candidates are evidence of the character and ability of those tha

    The democratic candidates are evidence of the character and ability of those that seek to elect them. Infantile, overconfident, historically,strategically, militarily, economically ignorant evolution-deniers. The left denies evolutionary pressure. The right only denies its cause.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 17:47:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232723828431826945

  • Truth isn’t manipulation. It’s either information or it’s discipline.

    —“Concerted, organized effort to shame western people into a pattern where were easily manipulated.” Like EXACTLY like what YOU do? You do realize that you perpetrate literally EVERY part of this against women. Of course you do, you’ve just found a way to capitalize on it.”— Crazy Woman

    Truth isn’t manipulation. it’s prevention of manipulation. 😉 If we force truth then we can engage in trade. If you don’t want to trade and you want to preserve manipulation then why shouldn’t we conquer and enserf you? We certainly can. Easily. You are using GSRRM in your post (you’re probably mentally ill or mentally underdeveloped). Around 40% of women are mentally ill. We are just getting our arms around why that is. We aren’t sure yet. If you were an intellectually honest, mentally stable, and engaged in reciprocity (seeking exchanges), then you would simply say ‘Yes this is true, but what can we do about it?” You didn’t do that. Because you are a bad person.

  • Truth isn’t manipulation. It’s either information or it’s discipline.

    —“Concerted, organized effort to shame western people into a pattern where were easily manipulated.” Like EXACTLY like what YOU do? You do realize that you perpetrate literally EVERY part of this against women. Of course you do, you’ve just found a way to capitalize on it.”— Crazy Woman

    Truth isn’t manipulation. it’s prevention of manipulation. 😉 If we force truth then we can engage in trade. If you don’t want to trade and you want to preserve manipulation then why shouldn’t we conquer and enserf you? We certainly can. Easily. You are using GSRRM in your post (you’re probably mentally ill or mentally underdeveloped). Around 40% of women are mentally ill. We are just getting our arms around why that is. We aren’t sure yet. If you were an intellectually honest, mentally stable, and engaged in reciprocity (seeking exchanges), then you would simply say ‘Yes this is true, but what can we do about it?” You didn’t do that. Because you are a bad person.

  • “The Case Against Reality” No. The Case for Woo Woo Pseudoscience.

    “The Case Against Reality” The case for woo woo pseudoscience. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation. We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline. I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated. I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving. He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving). A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production) An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation. The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see. “Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”. OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch. https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro

  • “The Case Against Reality” No. The Case for Woo Woo Pseudoscience.

    “The Case Against Reality” The case for woo woo pseudoscience. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation. We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline. I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated. I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving. He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving). A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production) An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation. The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see. “Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”. OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch. https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro

  • More from Joy on My “There Is Nothing Wrong with Africans” Positions

    [J]oy is an african american libertarian, who seems to be frustrated by my argument that there is nothing wrong with africa that six generations of one child policy wouldn’t fix. This isn’t a controversial statement – it’s true for any underdeveloped or developing people. This is our second or third go around. And I think her intellectual bias must be american. Because I tell this to africans all day every day as a way of saying “There is nothing wrong with you or your people except class sizes.” Yet when an american woman hears it she keeps trying to find some irrational racism that isn’t there. I’ve said the same thing for over ten years: the difference in races is neoteny and class size when combined with human ethnocentrism produces political conflict when living in proximity, that generates demand for different commons, different norms, redistribution and authoritarianism at the cost of the high trust civli society.

    —Hi Curt, I know my opinion doesn’t mean anything to you…. You said you didn’t think there was anything wrong with black people but you do. You think white people evolved some ability to “create” truth that the rest of “farm animals” do not have. What does this mean? And please provide proof of it. This is Joy, from Quora.”—

    Ah, well, you’re confused. I said there is a difference in the size of the classes of different ethnic and racial groups. The size of the bottom burdens the top, who cannot lift the people using ‘Pareto Distributions of Assets’ (meaning market economies). I said white people have almost eliminated their bottom classes. And we have had a long time without bottom classes to eliminate bad behavior in our people in the rest of the classes. As for truth, I say because of our history, only white people could develop scientific truth, and high trust societies because of it. But I said that any people on earth that will limit the reproduction of the bottom will eventually be able to have the same high trust society as european people. There is no difference between humans and the other animals we have domesticated. We are just animals like our farm animals.

    —“I know what you said, but historically speaking even though white people have been responsible for most scientific discoveries, you cannot claim the ability to create truth is exclusive to them. Northern and Subsaharan Africans developed technologies smaller and slower than that of white people but still scientific regardless- as did Arabs and Asians although I suspect you consider them white. And as for the “high-trust” societies claim, do you mean democracy? Cos it’s a terrible idea that sounded great when it started but only went downhill. Many races have had civilizations and gods governing their philosophies- the Western world might be the most successful but that doesn’t mean the ability to detect those ideals was exclusive to them. However, I think we are operating on completely different levels of knowledge. You have worked on these philosophies for a good chunk of your life and I’m just getting started. As much as I approach everything in good faith, I don’t take kindly to my race being referred to as “farm animals” (you used this exclusively differentiating from white people) and undesirable but I can’t help but keep going down this rabbit hole.”—-

    I didn’t make that claim. I made the claim that (a) europeans invented scientific truth (promissory, performative, realism, naturalism, operationalism) because we were a purely military social order (militia), and that is military epistemology. And we invented sovereignty (every man is sovereign and none is above him ever). With truth and sovereignty you can only have our laws of sovereignty, tort, reciprocity and jury. Our sciences evolved from the application of our the logic of our laws to our understanding of the universe. So the only means of organizing our people was markets (competition). So we evolved genetically culturally institutionally and scientifically much, much, much faster than all other people combined – both in the prehistoric, in the ancient, and in the modern world. And when we are invaded we are as overwhelmed and fail like all other peoples fail. Because the bottom becomes too big for the top. I didn’t refer to your race (or any race) as farm animals. I said “We are just animals like our farm animals.” and we are self domesticated like we domesticated our farm animals. You might imply I stated others were farm animals when I stated all of us are indifferent from farm animals – domesticated. I you want to take that approach of misstating my words, I’ll say that every race, including whites, has ‘farm animals’ because we are all farm animals – but that some races have far more farm animals than they can raise out of ignorance, superstition, criminality, corruption, and poverty. That’s comical version of saying the same thing: we self domesticated. Which is what I say to all people in africa: there is nothing wrong with africa that six generations of one-child policy will not solve. This is africa’s only problem. It is not to say africans are inferior. it is to say that there are too many at the bottom for whom education in any technology is impossible. This is just statistics. it’s not possible for the bottom to join the advanced world that requires independent learning. and that’s what IQ does. above 105 you start to be able to learn how to repair machines by reading instructions on your own. This is the minimum ability for modern economic survival in a global economy. The problem for africa and for many countries outside of africa is that there are many, many, people that are below that number. This is why china modernized faster than say india, the middle east, and africa. Conversely, it is simply false to say that whites are not the most evolved genetic race, because we are the newest genetic race. We are just ten thousand years old. The primary difference in our race is a minor difference in agency (self control) because of substantial increase in neoteny (slowing the rate of maturity), that we evolved at the cost of emotional instability. Whites are less emotionally stable and more agreeable and introverted. Africans are less agreeable but more extroverted. These differences are small but there are differences. In general, inability to develop neoteny is the problem for the african races: the territory is extremely hostile because of the presence of disease – so rapid maturity was necessary for survival. This rapid maturity has consequences in behavioral development versus more neotenous races, which is well documented in the literature, and visible in all african populations. So between the geography, the distance from major trade routes, the vast size of the lower classes, and faster rates of maturity (and deeper maturity), and the lack of far eastern or western manorialism (eugenic farming) africa’s population distribution is less favorable to advanced development. That says nothing about individual africans and everything about the size of the classes in african countries. The only difference between the smartest africans (usually Ghana and Nigeria) and europeans jews and asians, is minor differences in our verbal and spatial abilities, and the rate at which we can continue learning into older age. However, it is not our best people that determine our fate. It is the number at the bottom that prevents the best people from improving the condition of the rest. Now don’t say you can’t understand that and therefore confirm everyone’s bias. ok? My job is to tell the truth that no one else will so that we solve the problem rather than develop cyclones of lies that just make us all angry.

  • More from Joy on My “There Is Nothing Wrong with Africans” Positions

    [J]oy is an african american libertarian, who seems to be frustrated by my argument that there is nothing wrong with africa that six generations of one child policy wouldn’t fix. This isn’t a controversial statement – it’s true for any underdeveloped or developing people. This is our second or third go around. And I think her intellectual bias must be american. Because I tell this to africans all day every day as a way of saying “There is nothing wrong with you or your people except class sizes.” Yet when an american woman hears it she keeps trying to find some irrational racism that isn’t there. I’ve said the same thing for over ten years: the difference in races is neoteny and class size when combined with human ethnocentrism produces political conflict when living in proximity, that generates demand for different commons, different norms, redistribution and authoritarianism at the cost of the high trust civli society.

    —Hi Curt, I know my opinion doesn’t mean anything to you…. You said you didn’t think there was anything wrong with black people but you do. You think white people evolved some ability to “create” truth that the rest of “farm animals” do not have. What does this mean? And please provide proof of it. This is Joy, from Quora.”—

    Ah, well, you’re confused. I said there is a difference in the size of the classes of different ethnic and racial groups. The size of the bottom burdens the top, who cannot lift the people using ‘Pareto Distributions of Assets’ (meaning market economies). I said white people have almost eliminated their bottom classes. And we have had a long time without bottom classes to eliminate bad behavior in our people in the rest of the classes. As for truth, I say because of our history, only white people could develop scientific truth, and high trust societies because of it. But I said that any people on earth that will limit the reproduction of the bottom will eventually be able to have the same high trust society as european people. There is no difference between humans and the other animals we have domesticated. We are just animals like our farm animals.

    —“I know what you said, but historically speaking even though white people have been responsible for most scientific discoveries, you cannot claim the ability to create truth is exclusive to them. Northern and Subsaharan Africans developed technologies smaller and slower than that of white people but still scientific regardless- as did Arabs and Asians although I suspect you consider them white. And as for the “high-trust” societies claim, do you mean democracy? Cos it’s a terrible idea that sounded great when it started but only went downhill. Many races have had civilizations and gods governing their philosophies- the Western world might be the most successful but that doesn’t mean the ability to detect those ideals was exclusive to them. However, I think we are operating on completely different levels of knowledge. You have worked on these philosophies for a good chunk of your life and I’m just getting started. As much as I approach everything in good faith, I don’t take kindly to my race being referred to as “farm animals” (you used this exclusively differentiating from white people) and undesirable but I can’t help but keep going down this rabbit hole.”—-

    I didn’t make that claim. I made the claim that (a) europeans invented scientific truth (promissory, performative, realism, naturalism, operationalism) because we were a purely military social order (militia), and that is military epistemology. And we invented sovereignty (every man is sovereign and none is above him ever). With truth and sovereignty you can only have our laws of sovereignty, tort, reciprocity and jury. Our sciences evolved from the application of our the logic of our laws to our understanding of the universe. So the only means of organizing our people was markets (competition). So we evolved genetically culturally institutionally and scientifically much, much, much faster than all other people combined – both in the prehistoric, in the ancient, and in the modern world. And when we are invaded we are as overwhelmed and fail like all other peoples fail. Because the bottom becomes too big for the top. I didn’t refer to your race (or any race) as farm animals. I said “We are just animals like our farm animals.” and we are self domesticated like we domesticated our farm animals. You might imply I stated others were farm animals when I stated all of us are indifferent from farm animals – domesticated. I you want to take that approach of misstating my words, I’ll say that every race, including whites, has ‘farm animals’ because we are all farm animals – but that some races have far more farm animals than they can raise out of ignorance, superstition, criminality, corruption, and poverty. That’s comical version of saying the same thing: we self domesticated. Which is what I say to all people in africa: there is nothing wrong with africa that six generations of one-child policy will not solve. This is africa’s only problem. It is not to say africans are inferior. it is to say that there are too many at the bottom for whom education in any technology is impossible. This is just statistics. it’s not possible for the bottom to join the advanced world that requires independent learning. and that’s what IQ does. above 105 you start to be able to learn how to repair machines by reading instructions on your own. This is the minimum ability for modern economic survival in a global economy. The problem for africa and for many countries outside of africa is that there are many, many, people that are below that number. This is why china modernized faster than say india, the middle east, and africa. Conversely, it is simply false to say that whites are not the most evolved genetic race, because we are the newest genetic race. We are just ten thousand years old. The primary difference in our race is a minor difference in agency (self control) because of substantial increase in neoteny (slowing the rate of maturity), that we evolved at the cost of emotional instability. Whites are less emotionally stable and more agreeable and introverted. Africans are less agreeable but more extroverted. These differences are small but there are differences. In general, inability to develop neoteny is the problem for the african races: the territory is extremely hostile because of the presence of disease – so rapid maturity was necessary for survival. This rapid maturity has consequences in behavioral development versus more neotenous races, which is well documented in the literature, and visible in all african populations. So between the geography, the distance from major trade routes, the vast size of the lower classes, and faster rates of maturity (and deeper maturity), and the lack of far eastern or western manorialism (eugenic farming) africa’s population distribution is less favorable to advanced development. That says nothing about individual africans and everything about the size of the classes in african countries. The only difference between the smartest africans (usually Ghana and Nigeria) and europeans jews and asians, is minor differences in our verbal and spatial abilities, and the rate at which we can continue learning into older age. However, it is not our best people that determine our fate. It is the number at the bottom that prevents the best people from improving the condition of the rest. Now don’t say you can’t understand that and therefore confirm everyone’s bias. ok? My job is to tell the truth that no one else will so that we solve the problem rather than develop cyclones of lies that just make us all angry.