Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Pilpul Is as Easily Identifiable as Its Negative: Critique

    —“I am somewhat curious as to why you blocked me from your timeline. …… You do come across as an intellectual, being an educated philosopher, I am just very surprised that an intellectual would have such a disdain for a fluid free flow of dialogue even if it does come from a position that might make some of your followers feel moderately uncomfortable. The greatest ideas of the intellectual heros throughout history were allowed to flourish due to at least somewhat of a tolerance towards dissenting views and novel ideas.”— Banned Pilpul Practitioner. It’s because (a) sarcasm, (b) pilpul. Specialize in truth, within truth in grammars, with grammars of the art of lying. Now you were raised in the culture that (a) invented poly moralism, (b) never succeeded at developing agrarian ethics, and (c) practiced pillpul to employ those polymoral ethics. But your method of argument (pilpul) is just as recognizable to me (and my followers) as is christian or muslim argument. So it’s simply that as a practitioner and teacher of truthful speech, I practiced what I teach, and that is, the punishment and suppression of ‘lying’, by the use of pilpul. It’s not complicated. You may not even be aware that you’re lying you just equate that form of lying with ‘reasonableness’. But I know (and we know) better: it’s an attempt to advertise ingroup morality while practicing ougroup immorality. I don’t support ‘free speech’ at all. I only support free ‘truthful speech’. And I expose and ostracize the rest.

  • “WHY ISN”T MARXISM TAUGHT OUTSIDE OF PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE”— Um. BECAUSE I

    —“WHY ISN”T MARXISM TAUGHT OUTSIDE OF PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE”—

    Um. BECAUSE ITS FALSE (Actually it’s pseudoscientific nonsense). In fact, it’s the subject of ridicule in economics precisely because it is false (pseudoscientific nonsense).

    It’s false on the premises:

    1) Value is subjective and marginal, and determined at the point of sale. period.

    2) Value is created by the use of incentives to produce a voluntary organization of innovation, estimation, speculation, calculation, production, distribution, and trade. You can forcibly reorganize physical materials (labor) but you cannot forcibly reorganize talent(humans), or the capital of humans, in competition with other humans. THEREFORE the value is not in labor but in organization.

    Labor is, as history has demonstrated, relatively worthless, and contributes very little to the entire process. Instead, laborers (the lower classes) are the principle beneficiaries of the vast discount in costs of consumer goods, services, and information. While for the middle and upper classes the only difference is consumption that produces signaling which assists them in the ‘dance of trust’ required for the collective risk necessary to fund speculative investment, production distribution and trade. Labor has no multiplier.

    3) The lower classes were not oppressed, but domesticated through the use of organized violence, manorialism, and religion to cull sufficient numbers from the population that only those not a drag on the rest of humanity remained.

    Those groups that successfully culled their underclasses through prosecution (killing), manorialism (starvation), urbanization (plague), and warfare (hunting of other humans), today have the highest standards of living.

    The economic reality is that each person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive. Ergo, the wealth of nations is determined by the degree one can shrink it’s underclass.

    The entire marxist canon is nonsense.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-22 10:14:00 UTC

  • —“Why Isn”t Marxism Taught Outside of Philosophy and Literature”—

    Um. BECAUSE ITS FALSE (Actually it’s pseudoscientific nonsense). In fact, it’s the subject of ridicule in economics precisely because it is false (pseudoscientific nonsense). It’s false on the premises: 1) Value is subjective and marginal, and determined at the point of sale. period. 2) Value is created by the use of incentives to produce a voluntary organization of innovation, estimation, speculation, calculation, production, distribution, and trade. You can forcibly reorganize physical materials (labor) but you cannot forcibly reorganize talent(humans), or the capital of humans, in competition with other humans. THEREFORE the value is not in labor but in organization. Labor is, as history has demonstrated, relatively worthless, and contributes very little to the entire process. Instead, laborers (the lower classes) are the principle beneficiaries of the vast discount in costs of consumer goods, services, and information. While for the middle and upper classes the only difference is consumption that produces signaling which assists them in the ‘dance of trust’ required for the collective risk necessary to fund speculative investment, production distribution and trade. Labor has no multiplier. 3) The lower classes were not oppressed, but domesticated through the use of organized violence, manorialism, and religion to cull sufficient numbers from the population that only those not a drag on the rest of humanity remained. Those groups that successfully culled their underclasses through prosecution (killing), manorialism (starvation), urbanization (plague), and warfare (hunting of other humans), today have the highest standards of living. The economic reality is that each person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive. Ergo, the wealth of nations is determined by the degree one can shrink it’s underclass. The entire marxist canon is nonsense.
    May 22, 2018 10:14am

  • —“Why Isn”t Marxism Taught Outside of Philosophy and Literature”—

    Um. BECAUSE ITS FALSE (Actually it’s pseudoscientific nonsense). In fact, it’s the subject of ridicule in economics precisely because it is false (pseudoscientific nonsense). It’s false on the premises: 1) Value is subjective and marginal, and determined at the point of sale. period. 2) Value is created by the use of incentives to produce a voluntary organization of innovation, estimation, speculation, calculation, production, distribution, and trade. You can forcibly reorganize physical materials (labor) but you cannot forcibly reorganize talent(humans), or the capital of humans, in competition with other humans. THEREFORE the value is not in labor but in organization. Labor is, as history has demonstrated, relatively worthless, and contributes very little to the entire process. Instead, laborers (the lower classes) are the principle beneficiaries of the vast discount in costs of consumer goods, services, and information. While for the middle and upper classes the only difference is consumption that produces signaling which assists them in the ‘dance of trust’ required for the collective risk necessary to fund speculative investment, production distribution and trade. Labor has no multiplier. 3) The lower classes were not oppressed, but domesticated through the use of organized violence, manorialism, and religion to cull sufficient numbers from the population that only those not a drag on the rest of humanity remained. Those groups that successfully culled their underclasses through prosecution (killing), manorialism (starvation), urbanization (plague), and warfare (hunting of other humans), today have the highest standards of living. The economic reality is that each person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive. Ergo, the wealth of nations is determined by the degree one can shrink it’s underclass. The entire marxist canon is nonsense.
    May 22, 2018 10:14am

  • The Grammar of Pseudoscience

    (Sorry for interjecting on your post but it’s such a great example of psychologism versus incentives, it’s hard to let the opportunity pass.) INTERSECTIONALITY: The study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination. Or in economics (real social science, not pseudoscience) we call it the study of formal and informal institutions, and the competition between heterogeneous interests, in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies. IDENTITY POLITICS: A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics. Or in economics (real social science, not pseudoscience) we call it ‘kin selection’ and ‘rational self interest’ because the cost of in-group cooperation(opportunity) is lower and the return on in-group signaling higher. The long term consequences result either in small populations and nationalism or large populations and castes. This is because our biological differences are extraordinarily differentiating in all markets for cooperation. THE GRAMMAR OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD If suggestion, loading and framing are present in a discourse then it’s not science, it’s pseudoscience. All human behavior is reducible to the same laws as that of the physical universe: defeat of entropy. Emotions are just our reward or punishment for success or failure in fulfillment of those laws. All speech is either descriptive (in economic terms) or coercive (in psychological terms). And therefore truthful or fraudulent. There are only three methods of organizing human beings (coercion). 1) Force, 2) Compensation, 3) Ostracization (guilt, shaming, rallying). Truth is the only reciprocal compensation among those choices. Everything else is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud, or predation. Cheers -Curt.

  • The Grammar of Pseudoscience

    (Sorry for interjecting on your post but it’s such a great example of psychologism versus incentives, it’s hard to let the opportunity pass.) INTERSECTIONALITY: The study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination or discrimination. Or in economics (real social science, not pseudoscience) we call it the study of formal and informal institutions, and the competition between heterogeneous interests, in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies. IDENTITY POLITICS: A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics. Or in economics (real social science, not pseudoscience) we call it ‘kin selection’ and ‘rational self interest’ because the cost of in-group cooperation(opportunity) is lower and the return on in-group signaling higher. The long term consequences result either in small populations and nationalism or large populations and castes. This is because our biological differences are extraordinarily differentiating in all markets for cooperation. THE GRAMMAR OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD If suggestion, loading and framing are present in a discourse then it’s not science, it’s pseudoscience. All human behavior is reducible to the same laws as that of the physical universe: defeat of entropy. Emotions are just our reward or punishment for success or failure in fulfillment of those laws. All speech is either descriptive (in economic terms) or coercive (in psychological terms). And therefore truthful or fraudulent. There are only three methods of organizing human beings (coercion). 1) Force, 2) Compensation, 3) Ostracization (guilt, shaming, rallying). Truth is the only reciprocal compensation among those choices. Everything else is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud, or predation. Cheers -Curt.

  • This individual is mentally and emotionally unstable, a chronic liar, and the ve

    This individual is mentally and emotionally unstable, a chronic liar, and the very definition of a risk factor. We cannot risk these people in our midst because they have the potential to damage the entire movement. I work in public for a reason. If you can’t – there is a reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 18:02:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997900377537368066

    Reply addressees: @DSA_dienstmann

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997899582938996736

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DSA_dienstmann Um. For an individual. For an individual very worthy of doxxing. For an individual who has repeatedly threatened me. For an individual who actively approached me with desire to commit violence. This individual is a sociopath by every measure. Demonstrating frequent random rages.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/997899582938996736

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DSA_dienstmann Um. For an individual. For an individual very worthy of doxxing. For an individual who has repeatedly threatened me. For an individual who actively approached me with desire to commit violence. This individual is a sociopath by every measure. Demonstrating frequent random rages.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/997899582938996736

  • THE EDUCATION OF SLOAN HENRY Um … Let me help you sweetie, and your little dog

    THE EDUCATION OF SLOAN HENRY

    Um … Let me help you sweetie, and your little dog (“Bernard”) too…

    (**a reference to the wizard of oz… lol)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156364687907264

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156362084622264

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156361965212264

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156355447672264

    1) “Bernard” proposed a complete argument that suggested what people would do. I demonstrated it is contrary to evidence, incentive and logic. His proposition was that groups would tolerate fractionalization of the law, when the evidence is that the opposite is true: all groups converge on reciprocity and actively exterminate, prosecute, and suppress all of those that don’t (the example being conquest, secession attempts, piracy, black markets). There is no evidence elsewhere other than law (example being licensing piracy as private funding of warfare.)

    2) “Bernard” presented a series of opposition movements against reciprocity (communist, socialist, anarchist), as evidence of its failure – despite none of those ideas surviving in the market for polities. But he did not state the opposite, which is the vast literature and record of the use of reciprocity in all civilizations across all time periods, in all bodies of law, and the use of law to continuously converge on reciprocity as the scale of cooperation increases. (The origin of the term liberty is in the right of a locality to preserve local laws in some cases, despite rule by a state or empire seeking to homogenize trade, because trade requires reciprocity to exist, and the more trade the more taxes/income from imposing reciprocity.)

    3) “Bernard” proposed a series of arguments that relied upon individual agreement with the results of the test of reciprocity – rather than reciprocity was both decidable (consistent across the logical, empirical, and incentives), and necessary for any group that an cooperate. In other words he attempted to suggest that the meaning of ‘moral’ was that which one agreed with rather than the Nash equilibrium of what a group needs for survival, and the only incentive the strong have for letting the undesirable exist. The fact that his ‘logic’ is illogical doesn’t seem to occur to him – that an individuals actions alone are amoral, and it’s only when we resolve conflicts that actions can be judged immoral, amoral, or moral. And it’s only for the resolution of disputes in groups for the purpose of preserving cooperation that morality is even a question.

    4) I presented “Bernard” with a series of questions that would allow one to falsify reciprocity as a test of morality (ethics, criminality, tolerance for existence), and he avoided them at every opportunity. In other words, I presented the criteria for falsification and he circumvented it repeatedly.

    5) “Bernard” (much like you) responded with (Jewish Pillpul, Rousseuian/Kantian, Marxist, Feminist, Postmodern) critique, which includes the techniques of straw manning (as he did in 1 above), cherry picking (as he did in 3 above, correspondence (as he did in 3) above, avoidance of the central argument (as he did in 4) above, and the use of disapproval, shaming, psychologizing, ad hom, gossip, rallying). He did not manage or need to rely on ‘heaping undue praise’, which is the other common technique, or appeal to pseudoscience or mysticism). But otherwise, “Bernard” used textbook Pilpul (critique) to avoid answering the central question: are all conflicts decidable under tests of reciprocity and are all oppositions to reciprocity attempts at theft (free-riding, parasitism, predation)? I mean its not an opinion. It’s simply physics. Did you expend time energy and resources in the investment in the production of a good, service, institution, or information (Property), and did another consume, damage, or impede it (Theft).

    As far as I know, neither the rationality of choice or the morality of reciprocity is possible to falsify. All choices are rational given full accounting of the inputs (costs), and all questions of conflict are decidable given a full accounting of the inputs (investments).

    I mean. There are no known arguments against this reasoning that I know of. Every defense is merely a restatement of rationality and reciprocity(productivity) or it’s avoidance(parasitism).

    You know, it’s not like he engaged in intellectually honest or even rational discourse. He just used the technique invented by women to rally against dominant males, which was formalized in jewish law: Pilpul, and formalized into jewish, christian, and islamic religions: lie, and pay the cost of membership by preserving the lie. Then the empirical enlightenment came about which overthrew the jewish counter-revolution against truth, and we saw Rousseau/Kant, then Marx,Boas,Freud,Adorno+company, Mises/Rothbard/Rand, Lenin/ Trotsky/Strauss, and finally Derrida/Rorty, all work from pseudo-rationalism, through pseudoscience, through pseudolegalism, through outright denialism and the industrialization of lying.

    Truth is unkind to those with low Genetic Market Value: the resulting sexual, reproductive, social, economic, political, and military market values. Truth is unkind to lies. Truth is unkind in general. It is however extraordinarily powerful for those who have at least the minimum Genetic Market Value. And that is why those of us with at least the minimum Genetic Market Value use Truth and the power it gives us to suppress, prosecute, and exterminate those who seek survival by theft rather than reciprocity.

    We have to. Evolution demands it of us. And the universe is nothing but an opportunity for those of us with High Genetic Market Value to convert into Eden.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 12:43:00 UTC

  • ANTI ECONOMICS TRENDS (Re: I think it’s nonsense. Economics is a very immature,

    ANTI ECONOMICS TRENDS

    (Re: https://theihs.org/seminars-conferences/policy-research-seminars/new-tech/)

    I think it’s nonsense.

    Economics is a very immature, that by accident of history has had an opportunity to replace property, law, reciprocity, and markets as the western means of government – because of the world wars, and the destruction of the traditional european order of small state monarchies with houses as markets for the commons, all under traditional common law of torts (reciprocity).

    All immature sciences have been problematic due to human rush to judgement and over enthusiastic use of new insights to gain advantages over others. Marxism, scientific socialism, keynesian monetarism, feminism, postmodernism are all attempts to use the violence of government to extract from others by force as a means of circumventing traditional exchanges between the classes – producing predictable results.

    Economics is repairable just as all sciences are repairable. Economics is rife with cherry-picking the way that social science is rife with attribution bias. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases )

    The Human desire that economic science advance their interests in politics is prohibitable.

    But the MATERIAL differences between the genders, classes, and sub-races is not ‘fixable’, other than by small-state nationalism, because all the alternatives -searching for equality- eventually result in castes(hinduism/brazil) or imperial tribalism(islam). And they must. Because no polity can survive competition for leadership without dependence upon its upper classes.

    So the problem was not economics, but the REPLACEMENT of rule of law, markets for exchanges of commons between the classes, with monopoly government using pseudoscientific methods of measurement to impose a war of transfers upon the classes – each of which rebels against it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 11:21:00 UTC

  • Some Bunnies Waste My Time.

    –“I’m tickled to death that the guy with the BA is attempting to talk down about intellect to the person with the Doctorate.”— Sloan Henry Um. Let me help you sweetie. 1) People like me don’t ask permission for a degree. We go out into the world and ACHIEVE independent of permission. Most of us drop out of university because it’s just a waste of time if you can DO the competitive, rather than get a degree so that you beg someone to LET you do the trivial. Especially in my generation (Gates,Jobs,Ellison). Those of us with superior ability DEMONSTRATE ability. We don’t ask for certification without demonstration of ability. We DO. That’s why Ive been on the Inc 500 a couple of times and you haven’t. Thats why I built multiple successful companies and you didn’t. That’s why I can generate an innovation in human thought – and you use marxist/feminist/post-modern ‘critique’. 2) Every PhD program I’ve looked into has told me the same thing “There is no value in a PhD for you. A PhD won’t help you. Just write and publish. Besides, there is no way to put a dissertation committee together across that many fields here.” (Note: I had enough money to pay for it, and just treat the PhD period as my “Hermitage”. The truth is I’m extremely disruptive intellectually in any such environment and I always have been.) 3) What is your doctorate in? I mean, anyone can ‘do time’ in the American educational system and get a doctorate outside of the STEM fields. It’s not like Germany or even Oxford for that matter. You just pay for a degree in the states, you don’t have to earn it. So you are equating paying for a piece of paper and a failure to accomplish anything with a person who built multiple companies by the time I was your age. From nothing. Without having a cent of my own. 4) You can’t construct an argument without resorting to Post-Modern / Feminist critique to save your soul. That’s evidence. If you could evidence skill that’d be one thing. But you can’t. Just Critique. So I mean, evidence of ability is evidence. So far you haven’t got any other than serial sexual, social, economic, and intellectual dysfunctionality. I mean. Really. I try not to stomp on the bunnies unless they waste my time. But some bunnies waste my time. And it does take some time and effort to stomp on the bunnies now and then, but like all contributions to the moral commons it’s an act of altruistic punishment: expensive but required of all of us in order to preserve the incentive for truthful, reciprocal, cooperation. May 19, 2018 10:21am

    —“tl;dr”— Sloan Henry I understand. It’s an IQ thing: you just lack it. Hence the fascination with fantasy moral literature, use of straw manning, ridicule, trolling, gossiping, (Critique), and collecting a ‘tribe’ of dysfunctionals (low sexual, social, economic, and political market value). All of whom are desperately seeking fellow dysfunctionals (undesirables), with whom to form a cult of illusionary narrative in which to find some status signaling. The “Undesirable” will always have a problem of a conflict of self image and inability to compete sexually, socially, economically, politically, and militarily, in reality. So this is why you need the use of Critique and the FIctionalisms, whereas those of us with high market value and high ability to compete choose truth, testimony, warranty, and science: precisely because correspondence with reality is utilitarian. The precision of my work is terrifying to the inadequate mind, and that’s why it’s a high investment program – just like the law which it mirrors. The problem is that, like the opposites (Heidegger, Hegel) the minimum terminology necessary to even begin to use it is just too much of an investment and too frustrating for the less able.
    May 19, 2018 9:56am