Form: Critique

  • Ugh. (a) social pseudoscience. (b) economists are aught that people report false

    Ugh. (a) social pseudoscience. (b) economists are aught that people report falsely, that almost all surveys and models fail replication, that they contrive their results, that sample sizes are too small, and that the samples rely on student volunteers most likely to virtue signal. This survey isn’t public, doesn’t state it’s N, and is constructed.
    Ergo: we use the opposite model of demonstrated preference in voting or economy. OR what I do, use social media to create a kink of the hill game, and provoke a moral outrage and record the logic by which individuals attempt to conduct deception or coercion in favor of their biases. Linguistic analysis is the most successful method to day of determining intelligence and personality, moral biases, and in my case … how people lie to themselves and others.

    Reply addressees: @SFrinlan @ConceptualJames


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 22:45:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635774108775350272

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635733709705076736

  • “THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE” I can source all claims. Though it’s

    “THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE”
    I can source all claims. Though it’s an extraordinary amount of work. I keep a reading and reference list for that purpose. But I have no reason to do work when there is no evidence that your disapproval is backed by sources and claims. Ergo: if you want to object, you’re welcome to do so with sources and claims, and since you did the work, I can morally respond reciprocally with work myself. Otherwise you’re trying to ‘steal’ my time by false accusation. And because you’re human, and don’t know what you’re doing is coercive and intellectually dishonest, you’ll just make nonsense arguments unless you’re sufficiently informed to hold the discussion. ie: Don’t disapprove of what you can’t argue gainst. Disapproval isn’t argument. If you can’t argue against the matter with substance then you should also understand why you shouldn’t have an opinion on the matter. And you certainly should’t urinate on other’s firehydrants uninvited if you shouldn’t even have an opinion on the matter.

    In matters of truth or falsehood:
    Argument: systematizing (adult, human).
    -vs-
    Approval/Disapproval: empathizing (child, animal)

    It’s not complicated.
    (And no you don’t get a participation trophy either.)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:17:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635661336792162306

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657174851502083

  • “THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE” I can source all claims. Though it’s

    “THE CRIME OF DISAPPROVAL OUT OF IGNORANCE”
    I can source all claims. Though it’s an extraordinary amount of work. I keep a reading and reference list for that purpose. But I have no reason to do work when there is no evidence that your disapproval is backed by sources and claims. Ergo: if you want to object, you’re welcome to do so with sources and claims, and since you did the work, I can morally respond reciprocally with work myself. Otherwise you’re trying to ‘steal’ my time by false accusation. And because you’re human, and don’t know what you’re doing is coercive and intellectually dishonest, you’ll just make nonsense arguments unless you’re sufficiently informed to hold the discussion. ie: Don’t disapprove of what you can’t argue gainst. Disapproval isn’t argument. If you can’t argue against the matter with substance then you should also understand why you shouldn’t have an opinion on the matter. And you certainly should’t urinate on other’s firehydrants uninvited if you shouldn’t even have an opinion on the matter.

    In matters of truth or falsehood:
    Argument: systematizing (adult, human).
    -vs-
    Approval/Disapproval: empathizing (child, animal)

    It’s not complicated.
    (And no you don’t get a participation trophy either.)

    Reply addressees: @peaches_rhi @anniegread @Gridlad2 @FrailSkeleton


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:17:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635661336666308609

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657174851502083

  • MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES” –“you don’t respond with evi

    MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES”

    –“you don’t respond with evidence”–

    Let me correct you: I only respond with explanation and evidence to arguments.
    (a) Reciprocity = morality (and ethics, manners)
    (b) I responded to each disapproval reciprocally. See?
    (c) to falsify a proposition, one must propose a counter argument, demonstrating one has the knowledge to disagree – not accuse without demonstrating the knowledge to disagree. Emotional appeals and accusations are not counter-arguments. They’re admissions of ignorance.
    (d) These accusations are based on disapproval (emotion) not reason and argument. There is no counter to argue against. One need not seek to prove one’s point without a counter-point to demonstrate it’s possible to educate.
    (e) Responding in kind, explaining that it’s not an argument, only animal instinct, and test for how long it takes for the accuser to make a case (argument) that *isn’t* disapproval but contradiction.
    (f) Even your complaint is disapproval, not contradiction to the argument stated (which I an easily defend). I never needed to defend the argument.
    (g) Find a ‘challenge’ and respond. (First one I’ve seen was just moments ago, when someone gave examples of idividuals prewar rather than the set off women postwar. It’s not logical, but it’s at least a ‘challenge’.
    (h) What’s demonstrated by this process is what I want to demonstrate.
    (i) And I (we) do manage to ‘filter’ through and discover a few sentient humans along the way.
    (j) So, I’m not (we are not) trying to convince ‘bots’ (children) to mature into rational competent adults sufficient for particpation in participatory governance. We are demonstrating that only a tiny fraction are capable of participatory government, and only then after the education that their ancestors recieved as members of the upper middle and upper classes, who daily suffered the emotionalism, magical thinking, and amorality, immorality, and deceit of the common people.
    (k) In participatory government, you get the government you deserve, because it wil, it must, eventually reflect you – individually and collectively. And at present. As always. It does. I’m just doing basic research and development and working on reformation of the law, constitution, policy, and education to compensate for it – and make adulthood a litte more common for us all.

    Quite a few lessons in debate in there.
    Cheers

    cc: @expectnotmuch and @FrailSkeleton


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:00:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657281369956352

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN?

    –“Almost no one on the right has a positive message for women.”– @FrailSkeleton

    Hmmm. Well, is that true?
    We’re running an experiment.
    One of the most dangerous in history.
    – We have learned that women in their evolutionary roles are priceless. We have learned that women in the economy is a false return on rate of reproduction.
    – We have learned that the inclusion of women into economy and polity, at the cost of reproduction, ends in genetic decline. And our IQ is heading to second-world threshold within the next few years.
    – We have learned that women do not net contribute to the labor pool as much as displace men out of the labor pool (labor participation rates) in those fields that are least damaging to our bodies.
    – We have learned that the totality of the contribution of women to the economy is absorbed by taxation. And because of it we require two income households.
    – We have learned that even by participating in the economy the only net taxpayers are white men over 35, yet 70% of government services are consumed by women. But men are not taken care of by the state as are women and suicide in vast numbers in late middle age.
    – We have learned women in a polity are, as expected, biased to empathizing at interpersonal scale, and naturally incompetent to, and resistant to, systematizing at political scale.
    – We have learned that it destroyed the intersexual cooperation between the sexes, the family as the fist institution of reproductive, social, economic, and political organization.
    – We have learned that nearly everything we were warned about women in politics was true.
    – We have learned that suicide is increasing in both sexes at different ages, that everyone is de-socialized, that society means children, that the production of families is the only thing that makes us relatively equal with equal incentives.
    – We have learned that the consequences are horrific.

    So when you say the right has nothing positive to say about women. What I think you mean is, we have nothing positive to say about women acting as if they are men, and failing at it. And we have plenty of positive things to say about women when they act as women, and succeed at it. So we’d prefer they didn’t fail at being men AND fail at being women too. And instead succeeded at being women. So we can succeed at being men. And together we can succeed as families. And as families produce the next generation as good or better than the last.

    (That’s the quotable bit there at the end.)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184

  • MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES” –“you don’t respond with evi

    MOTIVE: “SOCIAL SCIENCE BY KING OF THE HILL GAMES”

    –“you don’t respond with evidence”–

    Let me correct you: I only respond with explanation and evidence to arguments.
    (a) Reciprocity = morality (and ethics, manners)
    (b) I responded to each disapproval reciprocally. See?
    (c) to falsify a proposition, one must propose a counter argument, demonstrating one has the knowledge to disagree – not accuse without demonstrating the knowledge to disagree. Emotional appeals and accusations are not counter-arguments. They’re admissions of ignorance.
    (d) These accusations are based on disapproval (emotion) not reason and argument. There is no counter to argue against. One need not seek to prove one’s point without a counter-point to demonstrate it’s possible to educate.
    (e) Responding in kind, explaining that it’s not an argument, only animal instinct, and test for how long it takes for the accuser to make a case (argument) that *isn’t* disapproval but contradiction.
    (f) Even your complaint is disapproval, not contradiction to the argument stated (which I an easily defend). I never needed to defend the argument.
    (g) Find a ‘challenge’ and respond. (First one I’ve seen was just moments ago, when someone gave examples of idividuals prewar rather than the set off women postwar. It’s not logical, but it’s at least a ‘challenge’.
    (h) What’s demonstrated by this process is what I want to demonstrate.
    (i) And I (we) do manage to ‘filter’ through and discover a few sentient humans along the way.
    (j) So, I’m not (we are not) trying to convince ‘bots’ (children) to mature into rational competent adults sufficient for particpation in participatory governance. We are demonstrating that only a tiny fraction are capable of participatory government, and only then after the education that their ancestors recieved as members of the upper middle and upper classes, who daily suffered the emotionalism, magical thinking, and amorality, immorality, and deceit of the common people.
    (k) In participatory government, you get the government you deserve, because it wil, it must, eventually reflect you – individually and collectively. And at present. As always. It does. I’m just doing basic research and development and working on reformation of the law, constitution, policy, and education to compensate for it – and make adulthood a litte more common for us all.

    Quite a few lessons in debate in there.
    Cheers

    cc: @expectnotmuch and @FrailSkeleton

    Reply addressees: @FrailSkeleton


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 15:00:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635657280963133440

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN?

    –“Almost no one on the right has a positive message for women.”– @FrailSkeleton

    Hmmm. Well, is that true?
    We’re running an experiment.
    One of the most dangerous in history.
    – We have learned that women in their evolutionary roles are priceless. We have learned that women in the economy is a false return on rate of reproduction.
    – We have learned that the inclusion of women into economy and polity, at the cost of reproduction, ends in genetic decline. And our IQ is heading to second-world threshold within the next few years.
    – We have learned that women do not net contribute to the labor pool as much as displace men out of the labor pool (labor participation rates) in those fields that are least damaging to our bodies.
    – We have learned that the totality of the contribution of women to the economy is absorbed by taxation. And because of it we require two income households.
    – We have learned that even by participating in the economy the only net taxpayers are white men over 35, yet 70% of government services are consumed by women. But men are not taken care of by the state as are women and suicide in vast numbers in late middle age.
    – We have learned women in a polity are, as expected, biased to empathizing at interpersonal scale, and naturally incompetent to, and resistant to, systematizing at political scale.
    – We have learned that it destroyed the intersexual cooperation between the sexes, the family as the fist institution of reproductive, social, economic, and political organization.
    – We have learned that nearly everything we were warned about women in politics was true.
    – We have learned that suicide is increasing in both sexes at different ages, that everyone is de-socialized, that society means children, that the production of families is the only thing that makes us relatively equal with equal incentives.
    – We have learned that the consequences are horrific.

    So when you say the right has nothing positive to say about women. What I think you mean is, we have nothing positive to say about women acting as if they are men, and failing at it. And we have plenty of positive things to say about women when they act as women, and succeed at it. So we’d prefer they didn’t fail at being men AND fail at being women too. And instead succeeded at being women. So we can succeed at being men. And together we can succeed as families. And as families produce the next generation as good or better than the last.

    (That’s the quotable bit there at the end.)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1634290828213469184

  • Ok. There is no savage assessment to make. There is no constructive criticism to

    Ok. There is no savage assessment to make. There is no constructive criticism to offer. Now, that said, I was trained in art criticism (drilled actually), that one must demonstrate care, consideration, and effort, by finding SOMETHING to criticize or suggest, else we cannot know the value of one’s opinion, or that one read it, or is even honestly speaking. All I can really offer is that I can determine you’re correct because I grasp what you mean despite the brevity, vocabulary, and examples you use. And that you might want to learn to convert each of your paragraphs to ‘proof’ language. And in doing so demonstrate you have not only gleand the meaning, but also mastered the methodology. But does that matter? So why would I do that? So I won’t. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 16:01:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635310156039835649

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635301149141241856

  • Ok. There is no savage assessment to make. There is no constructive criticism to

    Ok. There is no savage assessment to make. There is no constructive criticism to offer. Now, that said, I was trained in art criticism (drilled actually), that one must demonstrate care, consideration, and effort, by finding SOMETHING to criticize or suggest, else we cannot know the value of one’s opinion, or that one read it, or is even honestly speaking. All I can really offer is that I can determine you’re correct because I grasp what you mean despite the brevity, vocabulary, and examples you use. And that you might want to learn to convert each of your paragraphs to ‘proof’ language. And in doing so demonstrate you have not only gleand the meaning, but also mastered the methodology. But does that matter? So why would I do that? So I won’t. 😉

    Reply addressees: @kontherad1


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 16:01:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635310155934965767

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635301149141241856

  • There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share y

    There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share your priorities and sentiments. I realize it is driven by your intuition more so than reason, and that’s not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean it’s substantive (true).
    Yes, every property of the universe can be, incrementally, reduced back to the quantum field, and the law of entropy vs negative entropy. I know. I can do it.
    So yes, causality is reducible as I said.
    This is method of construction from irreducible first principles is how we falsify the spectrum of deception by loading, framing, obscuring, fictions, fictionalisms, lying, denying, evading, projecting, undermining, and canceling.
    No, what you are trying to do, is empathize with another person’s struggles so that we can help them or resist them depending upon whether their actions lead to good or ill.
    That is a different question. It’s an INDIVIDUAL question.
    Of course we can try to accomodate one another, as individuals.
    But if we want to understand everyone’s behavior regardless of the individual, yes it’s reducible to acquisition(personal) and resonsibility (social).
    That doesn’t change causality.
    And the causality I gave is true – precisely because it’s the first principle: the most reducible cause of the subsequent consequences.

    (And what this method is called, is contructivist logic. It’s the means of falsifying any truth claim. It’s derived from intutionistic mathematics, and subsequently the evolution of mathematics into computation, consisting of sequences of operations.)

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @MichaelPlotke @ConceptualJames


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 00:21:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635073453752549376

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635069741114200068

  • There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share y

    There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share your priorities and sentiments. I realize it is driven by your intuition more so than reason, and that’s not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean it’s substantive (true).
    Yes, every property of the universe can be, incrementally, reduced back to the quantum field, and the law of entropy vs negative entropy. I know. I can do it.
    So yes, causality is reducible as I said.
    This is method of construction from irreducible first principles is how we falsify the spectrum of deception by loading, framing, obscuring, fictions, fictionalisms, lying, denying, evading, projecting, undermining, and canceling.
    No, what you are trying to do, is empathize with another person’s struggles so that we can help them or resist them depending upon whether their actions lead to good or ill.
    That is a different question. It’s an INDIVIDUAL question.
    Of course we can try to accomodate one another, as individuals.
    But if we want to understand everyone’s behavior regardless of the individual, yes it’s reducible to acquisition(personal) and resonsibility (social).
    That doesn’t change causality.
    And the causality I gave is true – precisely because it’s the first principle: the most reducible cause of the subsequent consequences.

    (And what this method is called, is contructivist logic. It’s the means of falsifying any truth claim. It’s derived from intutionistic mathematics, and subsequently the evolution of mathematics into computation, consisting of sequences of operations.)

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 00:21:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635073453949681665

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635069741114200068

  • Dugin walks into the candy shop of science, philosophy, theology, and history an

    Dugin walks into the candy shop of science, philosophy, theology, and history and pulls out the flavor that most suits his taste at the momement. I’m not criticizing him. I’m just saying I understand why he has to.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 22:16:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635042016722821120

    Reply addressees: @RoseMinoan @lochu03 @UBERSOY1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635041463313764352