Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • RED, PURPLE, AND BLUE AMERICA: IS THERE A DIVIDE? The most honest answer is not

    RED, PURPLE, AND BLUE AMERICA: IS THERE A DIVIDE?

    The most honest answer is not to create a false frame of ‘we’ and instead break it by voting patterns (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations.

    Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains.

    Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status. a

    In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies. Which should be obvious.

    White men vote red and always have voted as such.

    White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such.

    White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious)

    Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family.

    Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the southern alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red) – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead.

    People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations. It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.) The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration. The Germans still use theirs. The Italians theirs. The French theirs. Et al.

    No one assimilates morally or normatively at all. We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is America’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why? Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical, not commercial bias. And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies.

    Why? For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delayed reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern Europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’. The Catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families. The Africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers).

    Correlation is not causation. Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies.

    As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes.

    Net is, all our political debate is a Victorian parlor game. Nothing more. We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes.

    If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower. And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes.

    Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences.

    Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada). The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British. That is because they were not a problem. Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting.

    It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it.

    The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition.

    Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities. It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests.

    Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear.

    The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one.

    Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one.

    They’re both networks of falsehoods.

    Comfortable lies.

    The truth is quite simple. We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence.

    Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors. The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods.

    Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism.

    As painful as it may be.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-25 09:19:00 UTC

  • Nassim, Wanted to suggest a framing, possibly helping you construct your “skin i

    Nassim,

    Wanted to suggest a framing, possibly helping you construct your “skin in the game” property of ethical actions.

    I work in an amoral language (economics), and for the purpose of constructing law (which I consider the west’s empirical social science). This in your work you appear to retain moral loading of terminology, and that explains the difference in use of terms.

    Where you use ‘skin in the game’ I use ‘warranty’ because this is a legal term with a long history. And would include investment, escrow, warranty, and inescapable legal requirement.

    **”Ethical (and moral) action is one that imposes no involuntary costs upon that which others have acted to inventory without themselves imposing involuntary costs.”**

    However, we have the problem of asymmetry of information, which you are trying to both defend against, and find a measure for. (Which will be one of the great intellectual innovations in human history if you can find an actionable measure of it.)

    Properties Of Ethical and Moral Action

    DOOLITTLE…………TALEB

    Productive……………NO???

    Fully Informed………YES

    Warrantied…………..YES

    Voluntary…………….YES

    Transfer………………YES

    Free of externality..YES (Fragility)

    The only one that I am unsure of is ‘productive’ since there is a pretty significant question at present whether financialization (trading) is in fact productive or whether it’s parasitic. I’m not sure myself.

    Cheers,

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    —BACKGROUND ARGUMENT—

    COOPERATION

    The Evolution of Cooperation:

    1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources.

    2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.”

    3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation)

    4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors.

    5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.)

    6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.)

    7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups.

    8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.

    9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct.

    10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.

    11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}.

    12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production.

    13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part *complexity* then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts).

    14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority.

    15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.

    THE REASONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION

    INGROUP COOPERATION

    1) The disproportionately high return on cooperation.

    2) The differences in abilities at different ages.

    3) The difference in reproductive role and strategy between the genders.

    4) The differences in abilities among men.

    5) The local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.

    6) The local structure of the reproduction: family and inheritance rights.

    7) The distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.

    8) The degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.

    9) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).

    10) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.

    11) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.

    OUTGROUP COOPERATION

    12) The geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production. (note that this is last.)

    MORALITY

    OBVERSE: Those prohibitions on action that are necessary for preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. REVERSE: Those requirements that we impose no costs upon the property-en-toto of others.

    The Criteria for Morality: That all transfers:

    (a) are productive

    (b) fully informed,

    (c) warrantied,

    (d) voluntary

    (e) exchanges

    (f) free of imposition against the property-en-toto of others by externality.

    IMMORALITY

    OBVERSE: Immorality then includes:

    Murder, Violence, Theft, fraud, fraud by omission, unproductive exchange, externalization of costs, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy (statism), competition in norms, competition in laws, competition through conversion, competition through immigration, competition through invasion, competition through colonization, competition through conquest, competition through genocide.

    REVERSE: IMMORALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE:

    Competition in the seizure of opportunities (first use), since (a) this is the purpose of constructing commons: constructing a division of knowledge and labor, concentrating opportunities, the reduction of opportunity cost, and transaction costs producing opportunities which may be seized.

    PROPERTY

    OBVERSE: That which I have born costs to obtain without imposing costs upon that which others have acted to obtain, which they in turn, have obtained without imposing costs upon that which others have acted to obtain…(repeat)

    REVERSE: That which I have born costs to obtain that I will retaliate against the imposition of costs upon.

    PROPERTY-EN-TOTO

    ***”Those properties in which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to inventory capital of every conceivable use.”***

    Types of property based upon observations of what people consider to be their property:

    I. SELF-PROPERTY

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    a) Physical Body

    b) Actions and Time

    c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)

    II. PERSONAL PROPERTY

    a) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. KINSHIP PROPERTY

    a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    b) Children (genetics)

    c) Familial Relations (security)

    d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

    IV. COOPERATIVE PROPERTY

    a) Organizational ties (work)

    b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    V. SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY

    a) Shares: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)

    b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons)

    c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    VI. INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY:

    a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that constitute ur social portfolio and which make our social order (cooperation) possible.

    VII. FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY

    a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-23 05:57:00 UTC

  • CORE: The Commons: constructing discounts.

    THE COMMONS: USE OF THE ORGANIZATION TO CONSTRUCT DISCOUNTS ON TIME, MATERIAL, TRANSACTION AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS. AND… MORE.
    BASELINE: Laws Of Organization

    1) Man acquires because he must. He organizes to acquire because the returns on cooperation disproportionately outweigh those of individual productivity. The utility of an organization (a business, a market, a society, a polity) is in the construction of commons from which we construct the abstract categories of knowledge, division of labor, market, norm, infrastructure, institutions, and territory – which in turn drastically reduce material, transaction and opportunity costs.

    This voluntary organization of production assists in the voluntary organization of reproduction – which is the purpose of our existence(or we would not be here, and will not be here). ie: the intergenerational production of reproduction is competitively improved by the production of goods and services via the division of labor, which in turn is improved by the production of commons.

    THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN ORGANIZATION: OPPORTUNITIES

    2) We all benefit from seizing OPPORTUNITIES created by the production of commons, since that is the purpose of producing commons: reducing material, transaction, and opportunity costs.

    We tolerate competition because it consists of seizing opportunities produced by the construction of the commons – in other words, commons create incentives to produce in the form of discounted opportunities that can be seized. We do not tolerate violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, theft by externality, free riding, and conspiracy, because rather than seizing opportunity produced by the commons, one imposes costs upon that which others have acted to construct: property. That is what separates property from opportunity. It may be true that opportunities belong to the shareholders that have constructed the commons through their efforts and sacrifices, but property belongs to those who seize opportunity and thereby *compress time*.

    This concept of compressing time is fundamental. The division of labor which reduces time, interest that allows us to shift production times, increases in opportunities and decreases in transaction costs that reduce time costs, are the source of our ‘wealth’. It is this compression of time with which man outwits the pace of the universe and allows him to capture energy for his own use. We are not necessarily wealthier than cave men, we have just made everything in the universe infinitely cheaper through cooperation.

    One of the inventions that Rothbard (immorally) inserted into western thought was the substitution of property for productivity. In western thought,
    property is the result of productivity, and we prohibit one another from imposing costs upon the results of our production. (He did this because of his background in jewish law and culture – hence his positions on usury, blackmail, lifeboats, etc. ) But western man in a high trust society with all members in the militia, led by a chosen chieftain, prohibits imposition of costs on one’s production, and uses property as evidence of production in dispute resolution. Hence the western ethic vs the ethic of the bazaar and ghetto: western man does nothing to cause retaliation. Ghetto, Bazaar, Steppe, and Desert man happily causes retaliation because he needs not other men to defend fixed assets necessary for production, and can run to his tribe’s quarter or pastoralist tent.

    Most of convoluted rothbardian logic is an attempt to justify ghetto/bazaar/steppe/desert ethics of diasporic jews, rather than seek to understand the success of western aristocratic/martial/agrarian/landed/market ethics. This is normal. All enlightenment ‘tribes’ (nations) attempted to generalize their specific group evolutionary strategy as a universal good – but none of them succeeded (other than partly smith, hume, and hayek) in discovering the general rules of human cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, economics), and then identifying the variations that each group had implemented as an evolutionary strategy.

    3) EXTERNALITIES: Costs or Opportunities

    —“Externalities are the norm in society rather than the exception.”—

    Positive externalities contribute to individuals and the commons, negative imposed costs upon individuals and commons.

    3) THE QUESTION OF ASYMMETRY

    —“In the presence of positive externalities, goods get underproduced from s social perspective.”—

    Most people do not recognize that this is deceptive language. Stated scientifically it is: “Despite the voluntary organization of production constructed by communal construction of lower costs of production (distribution and trade), transaction costs, and opportunity costs, some goods and services cannot be produced by the voluntary organization of production since the incentives to organize to produce them cannot be constructed. In other words, individuals have no reason to act to produce a good or service that others WANT.
    However we are stuck with two issues.

    First: WANTING and DEMONSTRATING are very different things. Stated wants are irrelevant. For example, we know that people prefer to spend money on entertainment over health care. So do they in fact ‘want’ health care? They will not exchange other things for it, so apparently they want it less than what they currently spend it on.

    Second: while a person who commits no crime and imposes no costs upon others is not harming the construction of the voluntary organization of production’s discount on production, transaction cost, and opportunity cost, that individual is not PRODUCING sufficiently to fulfill his wants by voluntary exchange. In other words, he is unable to satisfy others, and desires satisfaction despite this. Now, the balance of society (commons producers) is better off if this person is outcast like a bum from a shopping mall, as a parasite. But we insure others in case we are reduced by accident tot he same circumstance – hence why those men nearer the bottom are more concerned about insurance, and women are almost always so given their genetic necessity of sensitivity and nurture. So the question is, at what point are we insuring, and at what point are we subsidizing parasitism and dysgenia, parasitism and eventual erosion of the commons we work together to construct?

    This is the central question that separates progressive r-selection from conservative k-selection: we are in competition and we cooperate, but we are in competition for the future of mankind: between r-selected consumption and dysgenia of quantity, and k-selected saving and eugenia of quality. As libertarians we are statistical outliers – mere riders on the r/k selection journey. Intellectual hermaphrodites, negotiating transactions between the two reproductive strategies.

    But assuming that we want to produce goods and services for those unable produce for others sufficiently to earn them, we can ask them to trade. My suggestion has been that we trade (a) one-child limit, (b) maintenance of the commons (c) a stipend based upon % of revenues independent of whether they work or not, (d) elimination of minimum wage so that they can collect both stipend (e) elimination of immigration by other than highly skilled labor for permanent citizenship. In other words, we can conduct an exchange with them: do no harm to us through crime and reproduction and you will be insured against the vicissitudes of life. Break this deal and you will lose all and if necessary be sterilized and put in a labor prison in the desert for the rest of your life.

    4) TAXES
    Assuming taxes are limited to commissions on the increased productivity of the commons (sales tax), and dispensations of taxes are not put to destructive ends (violations of property), it is in no way immoral for the shareholders of the organization (citizens) to both pay commissions (taxes) for their exchanges, and to receive dividends (commons). If we possess a court of universal standing there is no reason that you could not take the gov’t to court over an unjust fee.

    (I tend to feel that in general, most taxes in america are not irrational, it is that they are put to uses we disagree with for the benefit of the advancement of the state, bureaucracy, deep state, and special interests. We also encounter the problem that the more disenfranchised individuals feel from the community the less willing to pay taxes they are. and libertarians are all too often demonstrating this behavior rather than any terribly thoughtful reason.)

    5) SUMMARY
    I think I’ve tried to answer the bulk of your questions. The net is that we compromise in a market. No one gets his ideal, not conservative, libertarian or progressive. We are, at each point in the spectrum, specialists in the intertemporal division of reproductive labor, and each biased by the necessity of our function to perceive and judge the world according to our evolutionary strategy. It is somewhat comforting to me to know that Conservatives have broader senses and so they are more accurate, and that females and progressives the least, and libertarians a bridge. This hleps understand individual intransigence. But it tells us that epistemologically, the only way to ‘know’ anything is indeed ‘good’ for man is when all through groups are conducting voluntary exchanges without the imposition of costs upon one another. If this is true, then man works as a vast successful machine computing a future out of existential reality by millions of different interactions and every moment, and it’s a beautiful and magical thing.

    6) COMMONS: DEMOCRATIC ASSENT VS LEGAL DISSENT
    I tend to deal with all of these subjects as simple legal problems.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine
    POST-NOTES:
    (The reason is that we must balance stresses with rewards, and entertainment and food balance those, while boredom and delayed satisfaction increase them. Hence humans spend on current satisfaction at the expense of future risk.)
    (I tend to say that the past century, has consisted of a war by shitty families against good families – individualism eliminates the empirical evidence that some families are better than others and should reproduce more than others, and their opposite, less.)

  • CORE: The Commons: constructing discounts.

    THE COMMONS: USE OF THE ORGANIZATION TO CONSTRUCT DISCOUNTS ON TIME, MATERIAL, TRANSACTION AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS. AND… MORE.
    BASELINE: Laws Of Organization

    1) Man acquires because he must. He organizes to acquire because the returns on cooperation disproportionately outweigh those of individual productivity. The utility of an organization (a business, a market, a society, a polity) is in the construction of commons from which we construct the abstract categories of knowledge, division of labor, market, norm, infrastructure, institutions, and territory – which in turn drastically reduce material, transaction and opportunity costs.

    This voluntary organization of production assists in the voluntary organization of reproduction – which is the purpose of our existence(or we would not be here, and will not be here). ie: the intergenerational production of reproduction is competitively improved by the production of goods and services via the division of labor, which in turn is improved by the production of commons.

    THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN ORGANIZATION: OPPORTUNITIES

    2) We all benefit from seizing OPPORTUNITIES created by the production of commons, since that is the purpose of producing commons: reducing material, transaction, and opportunity costs.

    We tolerate competition because it consists of seizing opportunities produced by the construction of the commons – in other words, commons create incentives to produce in the form of discounted opportunities that can be seized. We do not tolerate violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, theft by externality, free riding, and conspiracy, because rather than seizing opportunity produced by the commons, one imposes costs upon that which others have acted to construct: property. That is what separates property from opportunity. It may be true that opportunities belong to the shareholders that have constructed the commons through their efforts and sacrifices, but property belongs to those who seize opportunity and thereby *compress time*.

    This concept of compressing time is fundamental. The division of labor which reduces time, interest that allows us to shift production times, increases in opportunities and decreases in transaction costs that reduce time costs, are the source of our ‘wealth’. It is this compression of time with which man outwits the pace of the universe and allows him to capture energy for his own use. We are not necessarily wealthier than cave men, we have just made everything in the universe infinitely cheaper through cooperation.

    One of the inventions that Rothbard (immorally) inserted into western thought was the substitution of property for productivity. In western thought,
    property is the result of productivity, and we prohibit one another from imposing costs upon the results of our production. (He did this because of his background in jewish law and culture – hence his positions on usury, blackmail, lifeboats, etc. ) But western man in a high trust society with all members in the militia, led by a chosen chieftain, prohibits imposition of costs on one’s production, and uses property as evidence of production in dispute resolution. Hence the western ethic vs the ethic of the bazaar and ghetto: western man does nothing to cause retaliation. Ghetto, Bazaar, Steppe, and Desert man happily causes retaliation because he needs not other men to defend fixed assets necessary for production, and can run to his tribe’s quarter or pastoralist tent.

    Most of convoluted rothbardian logic is an attempt to justify ghetto/bazaar/steppe/desert ethics of diasporic jews, rather than seek to understand the success of western aristocratic/martial/agrarian/landed/market ethics. This is normal. All enlightenment ‘tribes’ (nations) attempted to generalize their specific group evolutionary strategy as a universal good – but none of them succeeded (other than partly smith, hume, and hayek) in discovering the general rules of human cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, economics), and then identifying the variations that each group had implemented as an evolutionary strategy.

    3) EXTERNALITIES: Costs or Opportunities

    —“Externalities are the norm in society rather than the exception.”—

    Positive externalities contribute to individuals and the commons, negative imposed costs upon individuals and commons.

    3) THE QUESTION OF ASYMMETRY

    —“In the presence of positive externalities, goods get underproduced from s social perspective.”—

    Most people do not recognize that this is deceptive language. Stated scientifically it is: “Despite the voluntary organization of production constructed by communal construction of lower costs of production (distribution and trade), transaction costs, and opportunity costs, some goods and services cannot be produced by the voluntary organization of production since the incentives to organize to produce them cannot be constructed. In other words, individuals have no reason to act to produce a good or service that others WANT.
    However we are stuck with two issues.

    First: WANTING and DEMONSTRATING are very different things. Stated wants are irrelevant. For example, we know that people prefer to spend money on entertainment over health care. So do they in fact ‘want’ health care? They will not exchange other things for it, so apparently they want it less than what they currently spend it on.

    Second: while a person who commits no crime and imposes no costs upon others is not harming the construction of the voluntary organization of production’s discount on production, transaction cost, and opportunity cost, that individual is not PRODUCING sufficiently to fulfill his wants by voluntary exchange. In other words, he is unable to satisfy others, and desires satisfaction despite this. Now, the balance of society (commons producers) is better off if this person is outcast like a bum from a shopping mall, as a parasite. But we insure others in case we are reduced by accident tot he same circumstance – hence why those men nearer the bottom are more concerned about insurance, and women are almost always so given their genetic necessity of sensitivity and nurture. So the question is, at what point are we insuring, and at what point are we subsidizing parasitism and dysgenia, parasitism and eventual erosion of the commons we work together to construct?

    This is the central question that separates progressive r-selection from conservative k-selection: we are in competition and we cooperate, but we are in competition for the future of mankind: between r-selected consumption and dysgenia of quantity, and k-selected saving and eugenia of quality. As libertarians we are statistical outliers – mere riders on the r/k selection journey. Intellectual hermaphrodites, negotiating transactions between the two reproductive strategies.

    But assuming that we want to produce goods and services for those unable produce for others sufficiently to earn them, we can ask them to trade. My suggestion has been that we trade (a) one-child limit, (b) maintenance of the commons (c) a stipend based upon % of revenues independent of whether they work or not, (d) elimination of minimum wage so that they can collect both stipend (e) elimination of immigration by other than highly skilled labor for permanent citizenship. In other words, we can conduct an exchange with them: do no harm to us through crime and reproduction and you will be insured against the vicissitudes of life. Break this deal and you will lose all and if necessary be sterilized and put in a labor prison in the desert for the rest of your life.

    4) TAXES
    Assuming taxes are limited to commissions on the increased productivity of the commons (sales tax), and dispensations of taxes are not put to destructive ends (violations of property), it is in no way immoral for the shareholders of the organization (citizens) to both pay commissions (taxes) for their exchanges, and to receive dividends (commons). If we possess a court of universal standing there is no reason that you could not take the gov’t to court over an unjust fee.

    (I tend to feel that in general, most taxes in america are not irrational, it is that they are put to uses we disagree with for the benefit of the advancement of the state, bureaucracy, deep state, and special interests. We also encounter the problem that the more disenfranchised individuals feel from the community the less willing to pay taxes they are. and libertarians are all too often demonstrating this behavior rather than any terribly thoughtful reason.)

    5) SUMMARY
    I think I’ve tried to answer the bulk of your questions. The net is that we compromise in a market. No one gets his ideal, not conservative, libertarian or progressive. We are, at each point in the spectrum, specialists in the intertemporal division of reproductive labor, and each biased by the necessity of our function to perceive and judge the world according to our evolutionary strategy. It is somewhat comforting to me to know that Conservatives have broader senses and so they are more accurate, and that females and progressives the least, and libertarians a bridge. This hleps understand individual intransigence. But it tells us that epistemologically, the only way to ‘know’ anything is indeed ‘good’ for man is when all through groups are conducting voluntary exchanges without the imposition of costs upon one another. If this is true, then man works as a vast successful machine computing a future out of existential reality by millions of different interactions and every moment, and it’s a beautiful and magical thing.

    6) COMMONS: DEMOCRATIC ASSENT VS LEGAL DISSENT
    I tend to deal with all of these subjects as simple legal problems.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine
    POST-NOTES:
    (The reason is that we must balance stresses with rewards, and entertainment and food balance those, while boredom and delayed satisfaction increase them. Hence humans spend on current satisfaction at the expense of future risk.)
    (I tend to say that the past century, has consisted of a war by shitty families against good families – individualism eliminates the empirical evidence that some families are better than others and should reproduce more than others, and their opposite, less.)

  • THE COMMONS: USE OF THE ORGANIZATION TO CONSTRUCT DISCOUNTS ON TIME, MATERIAL, T

    THE COMMONS: USE OF THE ORGANIZATION TO CONSTRUCT DISCOUNTS ON TIME, MATERIAL, TRANSACTION AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS. AND… MORE.

    BASELINE: Laws Of Organization

    1) Man acquires because he must. He organizes to acquire because the returns on cooperation disproportionately outweigh those of individual productivity. The utility of an organization (a business, a market, a society, a polity) is in the construction of commons from which we construct the abstract categories of knowledge, division of labor, market, norm, infrastructure, institutions, and territory – which in turn drastically reduce material, transaction and opportunity costs.

    This voluntary organization of production assists in the voluntary organization of reproduction – which is the purpose of our existence(or we would not be here, and will not be here). ie: the intergenerational production of reproduction is competitively improved by the production of goods and services via the division of labor, which in turn is improved by the production of commons.

    THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN ORGANIZATION: OPPORTUNITIES

    2) We all benefit from seizing OPPORTUNITIES created by the production of commons, since that is the purpose of producing commons: reducing material, transaction, and opportunity costs.

    We tolerate competition because it consists of seizing opportunities produced by the construction of the commons – in other words, commons create incentives to produce in the form of discounted opportunities that can be seized. We do not tolerate violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, theft by externality, free riding, and conspiracy, because rather than seizing opportunity produced by the commons, one imposes costs upon that which others have acted to construct: property. That is what separates property from opportunity. It may be true that opportunities belong to the shareholders that have constructed the commons through their efforts and sacrifices, but property belongs to those who seize opportunity and thereby *compress time*. This concept of compressing time is fundamental. The division of labor which reduces time, interest that allows us to shift production times, increases in opportunities and decreases in transaction costs that reduce time costs, are the source of our ‘wealth’. It is this compression of time with which man outwits the pace of the universe and allows him to capture energy for his own use. We are not necessarily wealthier than cave men, we have just made everything in the universe infinitely cheaper through cooperation.

    One of the inventions that Rothbard (immorally) inserted into western thought was the substitution of property for productivity. In western thought, property is the result of productivity, and we prohibit one another from imposing costs upon the results of our production. (He did this because of his background in jewish law and culture – hence his positions on usury, blackmail, lifeboats, etc. ) But western man in a high trust society with all members in the militia, led by a chosen chieftain, prohibits imposition of costs on one’s production, and uses property as evidence of production in dispute resolution. Hence the western ethic vs the ethic of the bazaar and ghetto: western man does nothing to cause retaliation. Ghetto, Bazaar, Steppe, and Desert man happily causes retaliation because he needs not other men to defend fixed assets necessary for production, and can run to his tribe’s quarter or pastoralist tent.

    Most of convoluted rothbardian logic is an attempt to justify ghetto/bazaar/steppe/desert ethics of diasporic jews, rather than seek to understand the success of western aristocratic/martial/agrarian/landed/market ethics. This is normal. All enlightenment ‘tribes’ (nations) attempted to generalize their specific group evolutionary strategy as a universal good – but none of them succeeded (other than partly smith, hume, and hayek) in discovering the general rules of human cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, economics), and then identifying the variations that each group had implemented as an evolutionary strategy.

    EXTERNALITIES: Costs or Opportunities

    2) —“Externalities are the norm in society rather than the exception.”—

    Positive externalities contribute to individuals and the commons, negative imposed costs upon individuals and commons.

    3) THE QUESTION OF ASYMMETRY

    —“In the presence of positive externalities, goods get underproduced from s social perspective.”—

    Most people do not recognize that this is deceptive language. Stated scientifically it is: “Despite the voluntary organization of production constructed by communal construction of lower costs of production (distribution and trade), transaction costs, and opportunity costs, some goods and services cannot be produced by the voluntary organization of production since the incentives to organize to produce them cannot be constructed. In other words, individuals have no reason to act to produce a good or service that others WANT.

    However we are stuck with two issues.

    First: WANTING and DEMONSTRATING are very different things. Stated wants are irrelevant. For example, we know that people prefer to spend money on entertainment over health care. So do they in fact ‘want’ health care? They will not exchange other things for it, so apparently they want it less than what they currently spend it on.

    Second: while a person who commits no crime and imposes no costs upon others is not harming the construction of the voluntary organization of production’s discount on production, transaction cost, and opportunity cost, that individual is not PRODUCING sufficiently to fulfill his wants by voluntary exchange. In other words, he is unable to satisfy others, and desires satisfaction despite this. Now, the balance of society (commons producers) is better off if this person is outcast like a bum from a shopping mall, as a parasite. But we insure others in case we are reduced by accident tot he same circumstance – hence why those men nearer the bottom are more concerned about insurance, and women are almost always so given their genetic necessity of sensitivity and nurture. So the question is, at what point are we insuring, and at what point are we subsidizing parasitism and dysgenia, parasitism and eventual erosion of the commons we work together to construct?

    This is the central question that separates progressive r-selection from conservative k-selection: we are in competition and we cooperate, but we are in competition for the future of mankind: between r-selected consumption and dysgenia of quantity, and k-selected saving and eugenia of quality. As libertarians we are statistical outliers – mere riders on the r/k selection journey. Intellectual hermaphrodites, negotiating transactions between the two reproductive strategies.

    But assuming that we want to produce goods and services for those unable produce for others sufficiently to earn them, we can ask them to trade. My suggestion has been that we trade (a) one-child limit, (b) maintenance of the commons (c) a stipend based upon % of revenues independent of whether they work or not, (d) elimination of minimum wage so that they can collect both stipend (e) elimination of immigration by other than highly skilled labor for permanent citizenship. In other words, we can conduct an exchange with them: do no harm to us through crime and reproduction and you will be insured against the vicissitudes of life. Break this deal and you will lose all and if necessary be sterilized and put in a labor prison in the desert for the rest of your life.

    4) TAXES

    Assuming taxes are limited to commissions on the increased productivity of the commons (sales tax), and dispensations of taxes are not put to destructive ends (violations of property), it is in no way immoral for the shareholders of the organization (citizens) to both pay commissions (taxes) for their exchanges, and to receive dividends (commons). If we possess a court of universal standing there is no reason that you could not take the gov’t to court over an unjust fee.

    (I tend to feel that in general, most taxes in america are not irrational, it is that they are put to uses we disagree with for the benefit of the advancement of the state, bureaucracy, deep state, and special interests. We also encounter the problem that the more disenfranchised individuals feel from the community the less willing to pay taxes they are. and libertarians are all too often demonstrating this behavior rather than any terribly thoughtful reason.)

    5) SUMMARY

    I think I’ve tried to answer the bulk of your questions. The net is that we compromise in a market. No one gets his ideal, not conservative, libertarian or progressive. We are, at each point in the spectrum, specialists in the intertemporal division of reproductive labor, and each biased by the necessity of our function to perceive and judge the world according to our evolutionary strategy. It is somewhat comforting to me to know that Conservatives have broader senses and so they are more accurate, and that females and progressives the least, and libertarians a bridge. This hleps understand individual intransigence. But it tells us that epistemologically, the only way to ‘know’ anything is indeed ‘good’ for man is when all through groups are conducting voluntary exchanges without the imposition of costs upon one another. If this is true, then man works as a vast successful machine computing a future out of existential reality by millions of different interactions and every moment, and it’s a beautiful and magical thing.

    6) COMMONS: DEMOCRATIC ASSENT VS LEGAL DISSENT

    I tend to deal with all of these subjects as simple legal problems. (a) we had the correct structure in English law, which is a house for each class that participates in the market. And that each house functions as a market for exchanges between the classes by means of contract. (b) upon enfranchisement of the laboring class and then women, we failed to grant them their own houses and in doing so broke the success of western man: a government as a market for exchanges between classes, and ‘legislation’ (which is not ‘law’, but treated as contract in court), a means of enforcing the contract negotiated upon all members of the corporation (polity). (c) a majority of women then voted systematically along with a minority of males to deconstruct the western k-selection, meritocratic, eugenic, propertarian order, and within a century destroyed western civilization by destroying the central organization of production and reproduction: the family. (d) that democratic assent requires monopoly allocation of resources, and that instead, contracts should be voluntarily construct-able given that no house can compose a legal argument against it – where ‘legal’ refers to an unjust exchange (which to those outside of legal industry may sound fuzzy, but the courts are exceptionally good at adjudicating these common law subjects even if they tend to place too much evidence on ‘proper procedure’ that makes it easy for them, rather than intent, incentive, and consequence.) (e) my proposals generally involve additional houses for the classes, selection of membership by lot, monetary-voting (distributed budgets), assent of all voluntary agreements, and dissent by adjudication prior or post issue.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    POST-NOTES:

    (The reason is that we must balance stresses with rewards, and entertainment and food balance those, while boredom and delayed satisfaction increase them. Hence humans spend on current satisfaction at the expense of future risk.)

    (I tend to say that the past century, has consisted of a war by shitty families against good families – individualism eliminates the empirical evidence that some families are better than others and should reproduce more than others, and their opposite, less.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-20 05:11:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM ON RACE, CULTURE, RELIGION, GENDER, POLITICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL,

    PROPERTARIANISM ON RACE, CULTURE, RELIGION, GENDER, POLITICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL, ‘ISMS’

    (important piece)

    We vary in our reproductive, productive, and defensive value to one another: our reproductive, productive, and defensive fitness. One’s reproductive, productive, and defensive desirability (fitness) determines one’s status: reproductive desirability, productive desirability, and value as a source of behavior we can imitation and learn from.

    Status determines the opportunities one can select from exploiting, whether they be reproductive or productive. Others seek to imitate those with status, and adopt their thoughts and behaviors. Others seek to associate with those with status in order to obtain access to the same opportunities. This produces collective attraction to opportunities – our ‘flocking’ behavior evident in our politics and economics – which demonstrates our cooperation by shared interests (or conspiracy of interests). And this flocking is observable in human societies at every level: economic, reproductive, social, religious, political, and military.

    While human reproductive, productive, and defensive desirability exists across a spectrum – a distribution from least to most – we tend to group people into ‘classes’ of similar interests, of which the very highest and very lowest are outliers and irrelevant; leaving us with upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, upper lower, middle lower, and lower classes we call social and reproductive classes, but which result, because of desirability for reproduction and production, into economic classes as well – except with greater variation given our modern industrial, medical, and information economies.

    **While incorrectly stated as a difference in cost of reproduction (since male deaths from production(hunting) and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth) – the genders differ not in cost but in the *control* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**

    The female, socialist, dysgenic (r-selection) and lower class control strategy is to use shaming in order to deprive others of opportunity of cooperation with them. The male, aristocratic, eugenic and upper class control strategy is to use force to prevent parasitism and to preserve cooperation(k-selection), while spreading his genes to the best females possible. The male, libertarian and eugenic, middle class control strategy (exchange selection/productivity selection), is to organize production by voluntary cooperation and produce rewards for everyone while spreading his genes to the best females possible. Yet in history it appears that 70% of females manage to reproduce but only 30% of males. Meaning we only achieved compromise through the institution of marriage, and thereby pacifying males, and enabling females to reproduce in greater numbers.

    The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with mates so that all brothers maintain incentives. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.

    We divide the work of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy into a temporal spectrum of short term consumption, medium term production, and long term accumulation. Our perceptions are not equal. Our evaluations of our perceptions are not equal. Our knowledge is incomplete. It is only through cooperation: voluntary exchange – that we know what is truly beneficial, insufficiently beneficial, or detrimental. Just as we can only act in large numbers through the market for voluntary exchange of goods and services, and the resulting information and incentives provided by prices.

    We persuade people into cooperation, and violate existing cooperation by only three methods: 1) force or protection from force, 2) remuneration (voluntary exchange), 3) gossip, shaming and rallying (ostracization from opportunity). Only the second – voluntary exchange – is non-coercive. And only non-coercive persuasion by voluntary exchange is in fact cooperation rather than threat of deprivation or harm.

    So our options reflect our genders and abilities. And we have evolved class and gender adaptations such that our moral compasses, our moral intuitions, and our moral preferences and beliefs reflect these biases. The female socialist, male libertarian, and male aristocratic reflect these political biases.

    But groups have only three strategies to choose from, and only positive and negative uses of each strategy:

    – Predation and parasitism, VS Law of non-predation

    – Cheating and Scheming, VS Productive Cooperation

    – Rallying and shaming for discounts, VS Rallying and Lauding Producers.

    Different groups demonstrate different evolutionary strategies

    – Genders employ different evolutionary strategies.

    – Classes employ different evolutionary strategies.

    – Cultures employ different evolutionary strategies.

    – Races employ different evolutionary strategies.

    Groups of every scale employ different evolutionary strategies.

    But in the final analysis, inferior groups adopt immoral, dysgenic, and parasitic equalitarian strategies including predation, parasitism, cheating and scheming, rallying and shaming; and superior groups adopt moral, eugenic, and productive meritocratic strategies.

    We see this worldwide with the aristocratic protestant ethic on one end of the spectrum, the Russians and Chinese in the middle, and the gypsies and Islamists on the other end of the spectrum. In other words: higher trust more eugenic more productive people against lower trust, less productive people.

    The ancient and medieval west weaponized the civic commons.

    The neo-puritans weaponized pseudoscience and media.

    Islam has weaponized reproduction and religion

    China weaponized the state/military/bureaucracy

    Russia has weaponized state/military/media

    The gypsies have weaponized small scale crime.

    If we make a long list of peoples throughout history. and it is most often led by a combination of local advantage in production that enables military and political expansion, which either can increase or decrease parasitism – increase or decrease morality. It is just as rational for westerners to advocate meritocracy as it is for Chinese to advocate authority, and Islamists mysticism.

    But rationality does not tell us anything about morality. Morality is objective. Some groups are more objectively moral than others. Some strategies more moral than others. In the long term the aristocracy desires to transform man into gods. In the short term the least of us struggle to survive.

    But since neither can have his utopia, the only possible means of achieving both survival and transformation of man, is cooperation by voluntary exchange, and to reward those in the lower classes for not creating perpetuating their damage to mankind.

    There is only one “ism” in my understanding of the world: and that is that some groups are inferior and some superior, but it is an act of discounting or premium to ask the weak to suffer for the strong, or the aristocracy limit achievement because of the weak. There are no free rides.

    The only moral cooperation we can engage in is voluntary exchange.

    And it benefits every group to pursue the improvement of the distribution of talents in their groups, even if it means diminution of their absolute numbers. Moreover, it is in the interests of the moral and productive to constrain, punish, and if necessary, kill, those who do not improve the morality of themselves and their kin.

    Man must pacify the universe to persist in it. To do that he must first pacify himself. And the history of man, if anything, is the history of pacification – not of violence, but of predation, parasitism, and free riding.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:24:00 UTC

  • AGAINST SENTIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AND FOR TRUTHFUL ARGUMENTS (important)(this is pro

    AGAINST SENTIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AND FOR TRUTHFUL ARGUMENTS

    (important)(this is profound if you can manage it) (anti-rationalism, anti-sentimentalism, anti-loading and framing: these are tools of transfer not truth.)

    1) USE THE SAME PROCESS FOR INVESTIGATION, COMMUNICATION AND TRUTH? OR DIFFERENT PROCESSES FOR INVESTIGATION, COMMUNICATION AND TRUTH?

    This is the problem and it arose in philosophy because in mathematics the method of construction (a series of operations) is the same as the method of testing (proof). This problem was amplified by the fact that moral arguments like contractual arguments are justificationary (one has permission to say such things). Which differs from the means of truth telling: what survives attempts to falsify it (criticism, or evolutionism). So we wish to learn one technique (or one general rule) and apply it everywhere, rather than three general rules 1) creativity by free association, 2) legal and moral justification, 3) critical truth.

    Now, it is possible to teach these three techniques for the three processes, but it is also possible to use each technique outside of its domain, and by doing so create deceptions. It is deceptoins that concern me.

    FWIW: This is the second insight you and josh have provided me with: that I must address this issue directly rather than simply emphasize the errors of the past and the use of justificationism by continentals and cosmopolitans to engage in deception.

    2) WHAT FORMAT IF WE SPEAK TRUTHFULLY: Meaning: parable, myth, biography, history, Truth: science (testimony).

    When people ask me how to enter a new subject I always suggest the pedagogical method: that is to teach in layers of an onion. It is the same criticism that I have of education, that we try to teach science and bypass parable, myth, biography and history leading up to it. And we do that out of false efficiency. If instead, children were taught with many years in the same classroom, then they would year each layer and absorb it as they are ready to. This is why I have been stuck on how to construct my work. I think it must be constructed in those layers.

    What I object to is claiming that obscurant methods are THE means when they are clearly merely pedagogical means. If you want to address a population you will have the young. the immature, the mature, the skilled and the wise. Some will need meaning, others understanding, and others truth.

    So I agree with [you] in part, that meaning is necessary and that meaning must provide an intergenerational means of transmission as do myth and parable. I just disagree that your concept of ‘audience’ is necessary and sufficient. It may be necessary but it is not sufficient, it is arguably immature, (as are all of us at some point), and it is unable to be codified into law and mandated by a minority by doing so; and it fails to address the problem of deceit by using the same language as the deceivers have used in the ancient and modern period.

    My accusations of immaturity are correct. It is this that you must come to terms with. We each grasp the world by more and less sophisticated means. We each negotiate for position in the world by more and less sophisticated means.

    The next part will provide more insight:

    3) AGAINST SENTIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AND FOR TRUTHFUL ARGUMENTS. Constructing Truthful Arguments.

    Science consists in a series of processes by which we launder our imaginary constructions of error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, and deception, leaving only existential truth candidates behind.

    This is because for all moral(non-parasitic, productive, cooperative) purposes, truth is more useful in interacting with the world than is error, bias, wishful thinking and deception.

    There are limits to perception and action, this is true, but there appear to be few limits to the use of instrumentation to reduce the imperceptible to that which we can perceive. But we appear to be very good at this process. We can only perceive the range of light(radiation) that we can act upon. But we can reduce other bands of light to our spectrum and create a new experience within our perception. And by reducing that which we cannot perceive to that which we can perceive (just as statistics allows us to compare different scales), we create decidability between those things that were previously undecidable and those things now decidable with that reduction to analogy to perception.

    And it is true that *free association* – the act of creativity, of imagining, of innovation, is not only necessary but beneficial. And it is true that sharing the results of free association – the act of creativity – can produce similar experiences in others, and by doing so bring them new ambitions and understanding. But at the same time it is true that we can bring them both moral understanding(benefit by truth and production) and immoral understanding(harm by falsehood and predation).

    So while we may convey ‘meaning’ and ‘understanding’ by creative association, if we cannot then provide warranty via proof that such meaning is morally constructed or construct-able, then we may harm without knowing we harm, harm out of wishful thinking (most of the time), and harm out of deceit (politics). Just as say, a mathematician may not know that by calling functions numbers, he has created harm to the conceptual commons. Just as an well intentioned but ignorant advocate of political orders may not know that the labor theory of value is false, and that humans will not act as anticipated under communism and socialism. Just as well intentioned christians may not grasp that universal love is suicidal beyond kin. Just as muslims may not realize that the demand to show men respect without earning it, is a poor substitute for christian love because it disallows forceful correction of errant ideas. Just as a buddhist may not understand that his version of mindfulness is to detach from reality and society because he feels powerless to participate in it. Just as a scientist may not understand that nothing he does has anything to do with the physical world, and instead it is a process of eliminating his mind’s predilection for bias and error. Just as a woman may not understand that her compassion is applicable to the family and local neighborhood, but inapplicable to politics, and suicidal if applied there.

    I talk to my god every day, but I cannot claim that there is any more truth in it than imagining a character from history who is all knowing and I cannot lie to, in order to prohibit myself from self deception, or that I know what I do when I talk to him, or that it is good that I do – any more than I claim to know or even can know, how I move my arm, and whether it is good that I like chocolate. I know due to science, why I can move my arm, and I think I know (evolutionarily) why we cannot introspectively observe it.

    But one has three possibilities available: to add imaginary content to justify the narrative of what I do. To use instrumentation and science to determine what I, in fact, do, how I do it, and why i prefer it. To state I have no idea of what or why, and I must wait for more evidence.

    4) ELIMINATING WEAKNESS ALONG WITH ERROR AND DECEPTION

    Of the three possibilities, the only one fraught with error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deceit: the search for discounted experience and justification of it.

    This is why the weak discipline the mind to abandon reality (buddhism) and the strong discipline the mind to embrace reality (stoicism), the powerful seek virtue, the weak seek escape. The rest seek mere utility.

    Transcendence, Monuments, Commons, Wealth, Beauty, Virtue, Truth, Stoicism, Science, History, Immortality. We gain no discounts in these pursuits – they are paid for with premiums: effort. And that is the struggle of heroes – men who pay: to transform the darkness of ignorance in to knowledge so that the universe is transformed under our control . All other pursuits are an attempt to obtain chemical rewards achievable only through material transformation, from imaginary activities. Intellectual peyote. Mental drugs. Entertainment.

    Now, we use discounts to steal from one another, and it is is quite true that we use discounts to entertain one another; and we use discounts to teach one another; and that we gain a discount on transformation of the world by cooperating in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor. But it is also true that one can use discounts to entertain others and teach others to engage in suicide, or to use them to engage in transcendence.

    And just as man’s history has been one of the pacification of the universe and himself, through the incremental suppression of violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, and free riding, by the use of truth, law and violence, we can continue to incrementally expand the incremental suppression of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception – particularly in matters of the commons and under mass media (for profit media), using truth, law, and violence. And in doing so transform – transcend – our limitations and train one another just as we did with literacy, just as we did with science, just as we did with reason, just as we did with law.

    I do understand that many are too weak and undisciplined to both rely on creative free association, and then test that free association for truthfulness and morality. I also understand that literacy and basic arithmetic require a great deal of training, and that truth speaking and discipline require an equivalent effort in training. Truth is not natural to man. Utility is.

    So I write not to preserve the current set of deceits and discounts but to eliminate them entirely. This does not mean eliminating free association and wishful thinking. It means one cannot claim the benefits of claims produced by free association and wishful thinking unless one demonstrates that they are warrantied to be as free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deception (theft) as much as is possible by the speaker.

    It means meaning is helpful in imagination and in communication, but truth is a warranty that we have done no harm. Not that truth is the only means of transferring meaning, nor that truth is the only means of free association. Only that we do no harm by doing so, and that the evidence is that much harm has been done not by doing so.

    Fixed point mathematics and fixed point morality have been replaced by the calculus of relative position and velocity, and the economics of equilibrium and productivity.

    Everyone wishes to preserve his investments no matter how poorly he has invested, since he wishes not to declare his investment a loss, and to place effort into a new investment. But this is what he must do to transcend the limitations of the past.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-20 19:07:00 UTC

  • On Measured IQ vs Demonstrated Intelligence

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/…/do-you-really-und…

    [B]ruce,

    Demonstrated intelligence is a subject I work quite hard on so I think I might try to change your mind a bit, by at the very least giving you a different framework and language for approaching it.

    DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    I think I understand the difference between DEMONSTRATED intelligence, and the aggregate and commensurable MEASURE of our various intelligences, as well as anyone else. The reason being that it’s not very difficult to understand: the aggregation of the verbal(experiential)-spatial(temporal) measures is so predictive of life achievement that all other measures are all but insignificant.

    So for the purposes that we use these measures (the cost of training the individual increasingly abstractly-perceptible skills) they are possibly as good a measure as we we are ever to get, and likely more precise than is relevant. It may in fact be better to reduce IQ to standard deviation from the magic ‘cliff’ of 106, where we begin to be able to articulate ideas and repair machines, since at every six to seven points, individuals display perceptible differences in ability and greater resolution in that measure is just noise. At every fifteen they display substantial differences in abilities allowing them access to different occupations, and at every 30 points of difference individuals begin to have difficulty communicating with on another in similar terms.

    PERSONALITY AND MORALITY

    We also understand a great deal about variations in personality and moral instinct.

    The research into the evolutionary origins of our moral intuitions (versus our learned norms) has progressed rapidly thanks to the conversion of the discipline of philosophy from a subjective pseudoscience measured against an ideal norm (freud), to an operationalist (observable) science measured against the requirements of evolutionary biology.

    For the same reason our understanding of personality is shifting greatly. And while the five factor analysis is highly predictive given it’s (pseudoscientific authoritarian feminist freudian) origins, the term ‘neurotic’ should probably be homogenized with the sciences as ‘impulsivity’, the Autistic-Solipsistic spectrum, verbal IQ and Spatial IQ and Gender should be added to those measures. And the remaining four should be reframed as reproductive strategies.

    The current error in personality analysis is the attempt to separate out empathy as a separate form of intelligence, rather than describe the influence that the feminine/solipsistic<–empathic–>autistic/masculine spectrum imposes upon verbal and spatial intelligence.

    If done, then morality and personality, gender and reproductive strategy would be rendered commensurable. (The unfortunate long term impact of Cantorian, Marxist, Misesian, Boazian and Freudian pseudoscience remains with us and prevents us from unifying what appear to be different fields of inquiry, but that are identical if we reduce them to first principles: genetic expression of our evolutionary biology – a record of our evolution of the intuitions of cooperation which perform in an uncomfortable equilibrium with our self interest: reproductive strategy.

    There is a reason the socialists suppressed darwin as heavily as the fundamentalists.) As an aside, we also know what properties make an individual desirable and undesirable as a mate (symmetry, skin, height, etc). And if we were to roughly measure those every seven years we would find that reproductive desirability, personality, cognitive abilities, morality, reproductive strategy would remain in parallel except at the margins. But this borders on ‘too much information’ since few of us want to face such facts.

    REGARDING HIGH DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT HIGH IQ SCORE

    1) —“a person may be of high intelligence and not have a high IQ score”—

    Hmmm…, a person may DEMONSTRATE more intelligent thinking and action than someone with a higher IQ. This is true. But it does not tell us why he demonstrates it. Even though the reason WHY is quite simple: Demonstrated intelligence is largely a factor of general knowledge of the subject and its application with limited error. While IQ is determined only by the rate of pattern recognition. Now it so happens that people who recognize patterns more rapidly tend to make fewer errors, and to accumulate new information with less error.

    But say, if one has a high incidence of impulsivity (Neuroticism) this will not be the case. His energies (and time) will be spent in justifications of his impulses, not in acquisitions of useful information). So, for example, Dr Higgs (of the higgs-boson particle) has argued that he would not obtain a professorship today because he works slowly and is unproductive. This does not prohibit him from genius. It merely means that he is disciplined and methodical. (I am of the same temperament, I would never find a dissertation committee that would tolerate my rate of production which like Spinoza will have taken many many years on a very risky hypothesis.)

    In fact, most Nobel Prize winners are not actually of exceptional intelligence (merely in the 140’s) – which seems to indicate that the value of IQ declines in utility at some point (all measurements are questionable above 140 really). If for no other reason than it is difficult to find people to work with and communicate with, but most likely because somewhere above that range, the improvement is caused by a corresponding limitation.

    Demonstrated intelligence consists of the following criteria:
    i) IQ (rate of pattern recognition)
    ii) Short term memory (necessary for mathematicians and chess players)
    iii) General knowledge (reading a lot on a lot of subjects generally makes you smarter)
    iv) Method of inquiry consisting of inputs ( allegory, parable, history, measurement) and methods ( free association, mysticism, reason, rationalism(justification), science(criticism).
    v) Wants: Impossible Wants, Impossible Beliefs, Metaphysical Errors, and Erroneous Assumptions
    vi) Lack of impulsivity: Discipline, and Time (great ideas are achieved by focused work over very long periods – often approaching a decade or more)

    The greater evolutionary problem appears to be that exceptional intelligence is genetically caused by possessing fewer negative alleles rather than any special allele. Just as evolution is a process of surviving. Just as epistemology is a process of eliminating error from free associations leaving only truth candidates.

    Most of the time, and we can go through almost every thinker in history, great or small, the reason for failure is not intelligence or short term memory, or even impulsivity, but impulsivity, wants, and method. It is rarely intelligence. The failure of intelligence is one in which we observe that the individual does not identify patterns extant in the knowledge available. We do not fault Aristote for his failed innovations. We fault marx for continuing to take money from Engels once he had discovered that the marginalists and proved him wrong, and that all his work and fame was fallacy. He stopped writing. Did nothing. Continued taking his income from Engels until he died. A simple ‘capitalist’ motivation kept him from admitting his errors.

    SUMMARY

    So I think that we understand demonstrated intelligence enough to say that one can demonstrate intelligence in any sphere in which one can master the subject matter, apply scientific reasoning (criticism), insulate one’s study and practice from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit (including self deception), and spend sufficient time on the subject that others cannot.

    Some of us cannot even master ourselves. Some of us can barely master simple duties. Some of us can do it only through imitation of others. Some of us can do it only with experiential subjects. Some of us can do it with abstract subjects. Some of us can do it with purely theoretical subjects. And some of us can do MANY OF THESE AT ONCE. In fact, Polymathy and theoretical polymathy are probably the best test of demonstrated intelligence because polymathy demonstrates both rate of acquisition AND limited error in acquisition, and theoretical polymathy demonstrates that the individual can add a original insight (Hayek says he had two) to human knowledge.

    SOME NITS : ‘SCIENTIFIC THINKING’

    2) –“…on the nature of scientific thinking as it should be..” —

    This paragraph is reducible to the statement: demonstrable intelligence requires the construction of a model that corresponds to the extant reality, and survives attempts to falsify it.

    What you don’t mention, and which will conflict with your own mode of inquiry, is that such scientific thinking requires that the model be sufficiently complete that one need not appeal to introspection for the evaluation of results. This is where I generally see you get into trouble with your own work. Any model that requires introspection rather than correspondence by definition lacks sufficient information and means of decidability such that one can claim one’s observation or testimony to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    Now, if by some chance your intuition corresponds to reality (and in many cases yours does) then this correspondence can be used to provide comfort to your priors, but may cause you error in bias in matters wherein you rely upon introspection rather than correspondence independent of introspection (decidability).

    (But I am struck with the question of why you feel the need to retain your expertise in introspection? Why do you seek to justify it? When we know that this introspection merely results in confirmation bias?)

    Man: need to persist. need to acquire, need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of acquisition. need to reproduce. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of reproduction. need to defend kin. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of defending kin. need to produce cooperate to produce common assets since cooperation on commons is disproportionately rewarding compared to individual production. To act one must engage in perception, intuition, awareness, searching, reasoning, remembering, deciding, acting. But all that complexity is reducible to we must act to acquire, and cooperation that is non-parasitic (imposes no costs on others) is disproportionately productive.

    NIT: THE MEANING OF ‘UNDERSTANDING’ (Avoiding crutches)

    3) –“understanding is not quantitative but qualitative” —

    This statement demonstrates confusion between means of measurement rather than epistemological differences.

    Understanding : general rules or general principles (of arbitrary precision) one uses for categorization, properties, methods and relations for some subsequent action – even if that subsequent action is merely consequent understanding.

    Qualitative relations: the ability to stack relative to one another even if we cannot articulate the reason for stacking, and even if stacking is merely a preference.

    And

    Quantitative Measurements: the ability to define relations against a constant. These two forms of measurement serve two purposes. That is all.

    So when you say ‘understanding’ you mean that any rule of general utility must be constructed with arbitrary precision equal to the context of application. (That’s a mouthful, I know. So we need examples.)

    For example, I understand how to bake, but I bake a cake and bread differently by using recipes. Baking is a level of precision useful only for communication with others, while a recipe is necessary for the baking of a cake or bread. But, yet, it is not necessary that I understand the chemical transitions that occur during the process of preparation and baking and cooling in order for me to bake a cake.

    So while in casual conversation we may use these terms loosely: baking, baking a cake, and the chemical transformations that occur through the combination of substances and the application of heat; each of these is a level of precision, just like predicting the trajectory of a ball you throw by commons intuition, firing a projectile using newtonian physics, or explaining the evolution of the universe using quantum mechanics – if we wish to reason from them, we must use that level of precision that we need for such reasoning – else we are just making excuses and calling them reasons: justification.

    So ‘understanding’ requires general rules that help us evaluate explore and hypothesize within some useful context (arbitrary precision), not recipes that allow us to construct individual instances, nor too general to allow us to decide between actions in that context.

    I understand the basics of carpentry but I am not capable of deducing the construction of a modern home from that. Most economists specialize in some field of inquiry but since the rules of economic specialties are interesting for their counter-intuitiveness, economists cannot generalize – which is why large groups of economists are non-predictive: at any given point only a few people possess the specialized knowledge to understand a current model. Meaning that the Dunning Kruger Effect is always with us – maybe more so for smart people.

    CLOSING

    I follow you. Don’t comment often. I like the Christian loading. Not crazy about method of doing it. I tend to just get to the central proposition of Christianity: extension of kinship love to non-kin as a means of increasing trust, increasing the velocity of cooperation, economic velocity, rate of innovation, and prosperity. We will never have a restoration without another dark age.  So we must take from christianity the truth, and launder the error, bias, wishful thinking and (rather plentiful) deception from it.

    Love, Truth, and Commons, are Enough.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • On Measured IQ vs Demonstrated Intelligence

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/…/do-you-really-und…

    [B]ruce,

    Demonstrated intelligence is a subject I work quite hard on so I think I might try to change your mind a bit, by at the very least giving you a different framework and language for approaching it.

    DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    I think I understand the difference between DEMONSTRATED intelligence, and the aggregate and commensurable MEASURE of our various intelligences, as well as anyone else. The reason being that it’s not very difficult to understand: the aggregation of the verbal(experiential)-spatial(temporal) measures is so predictive of life achievement that all other measures are all but insignificant.

    So for the purposes that we use these measures (the cost of training the individual increasingly abstractly-perceptible skills) they are possibly as good a measure as we we are ever to get, and likely more precise than is relevant. It may in fact be better to reduce IQ to standard deviation from the magic ‘cliff’ of 106, where we begin to be able to articulate ideas and repair machines, since at every six to seven points, individuals display perceptible differences in ability and greater resolution in that measure is just noise. At every fifteen they display substantial differences in abilities allowing them access to different occupations, and at every 30 points of difference individuals begin to have difficulty communicating with on another in similar terms.

    PERSONALITY AND MORALITY

    We also understand a great deal about variations in personality and moral instinct.

    The research into the evolutionary origins of our moral intuitions (versus our learned norms) has progressed rapidly thanks to the conversion of the discipline of philosophy from a subjective pseudoscience measured against an ideal norm (freud), to an operationalist (observable) science measured against the requirements of evolutionary biology.

    For the same reason our understanding of personality is shifting greatly. And while the five factor analysis is highly predictive given it’s (pseudoscientific authoritarian feminist freudian) origins, the term ‘neurotic’ should probably be homogenized with the sciences as ‘impulsivity’, the Autistic-Solipsistic spectrum, verbal IQ and Spatial IQ and Gender should be added to those measures. And the remaining four should be reframed as reproductive strategies.

    The current error in personality analysis is the attempt to separate out empathy as a separate form of intelligence, rather than describe the influence that the feminine/solipsistic<–empathic–>autistic/masculine spectrum imposes upon verbal and spatial intelligence.

    If done, then morality and personality, gender and reproductive strategy would be rendered commensurable. (The unfortunate long term impact of Cantorian, Marxist, Misesian, Boazian and Freudian pseudoscience remains with us and prevents us from unifying what appear to be different fields of inquiry, but that are identical if we reduce them to first principles: genetic expression of our evolutionary biology – a record of our evolution of the intuitions of cooperation which perform in an uncomfortable equilibrium with our self interest: reproductive strategy.

    There is a reason the socialists suppressed darwin as heavily as the fundamentalists.) As an aside, we also know what properties make an individual desirable and undesirable as a mate (symmetry, skin, height, etc). And if we were to roughly measure those every seven years we would find that reproductive desirability, personality, cognitive abilities, morality, reproductive strategy would remain in parallel except at the margins. But this borders on ‘too much information’ since few of us want to face such facts.

    REGARDING HIGH DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT HIGH IQ SCORE

    1) —“a person may be of high intelligence and not have a high IQ score”—

    Hmmm…, a person may DEMONSTRATE more intelligent thinking and action than someone with a higher IQ. This is true. But it does not tell us why he demonstrates it. Even though the reason WHY is quite simple: Demonstrated intelligence is largely a factor of general knowledge of the subject and its application with limited error. While IQ is determined only by the rate of pattern recognition. Now it so happens that people who recognize patterns more rapidly tend to make fewer errors, and to accumulate new information with less error.

    But say, if one has a high incidence of impulsivity (Neuroticism) this will not be the case. His energies (and time) will be spent in justifications of his impulses, not in acquisitions of useful information). So, for example, Dr Higgs (of the higgs-boson particle) has argued that he would not obtain a professorship today because he works slowly and is unproductive. This does not prohibit him from genius. It merely means that he is disciplined and methodical. (I am of the same temperament, I would never find a dissertation committee that would tolerate my rate of production which like Spinoza will have taken many many years on a very risky hypothesis.)

    In fact, most Nobel Prize winners are not actually of exceptional intelligence (merely in the 140’s) – which seems to indicate that the value of IQ declines in utility at some point (all measurements are questionable above 140 really). If for no other reason than it is difficult to find people to work with and communicate with, but most likely because somewhere above that range, the improvement is caused by a corresponding limitation.

    Demonstrated intelligence consists of the following criteria:
    i) IQ (rate of pattern recognition)
    ii) Short term memory (necessary for mathematicians and chess players)
    iii) General knowledge (reading a lot on a lot of subjects generally makes you smarter)
    iv) Method of inquiry consisting of inputs ( allegory, parable, history, measurement) and methods ( free association, mysticism, reason, rationalism(justification), science(criticism).
    v) Wants: Impossible Wants, Impossible Beliefs, Metaphysical Errors, and Erroneous Assumptions
    vi) Lack of impulsivity: Discipline, and Time (great ideas are achieved by focused work over very long periods – often approaching a decade or more)

    The greater evolutionary problem appears to be that exceptional intelligence is genetically caused by possessing fewer negative alleles rather than any special allele. Just as evolution is a process of surviving. Just as epistemology is a process of eliminating error from free associations leaving only truth candidates.

    Most of the time, and we can go through almost every thinker in history, great or small, the reason for failure is not intelligence or short term memory, or even impulsivity, but impulsivity, wants, and method. It is rarely intelligence. The failure of intelligence is one in which we observe that the individual does not identify patterns extant in the knowledge available. We do not fault Aristote for his failed innovations. We fault marx for continuing to take money from Engels once he had discovered that the marginalists and proved him wrong, and that all his work and fame was fallacy. He stopped writing. Did nothing. Continued taking his income from Engels until he died. A simple ‘capitalist’ motivation kept him from admitting his errors.

    SUMMARY

    So I think that we understand demonstrated intelligence enough to say that one can demonstrate intelligence in any sphere in which one can master the subject matter, apply scientific reasoning (criticism), insulate one’s study and practice from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit (including self deception), and spend sufficient time on the subject that others cannot.

    Some of us cannot even master ourselves. Some of us can barely master simple duties. Some of us can do it only through imitation of others. Some of us can do it only with experiential subjects. Some of us can do it with abstract subjects. Some of us can do it with purely theoretical subjects. And some of us can do MANY OF THESE AT ONCE. In fact, Polymathy and theoretical polymathy are probably the best test of demonstrated intelligence because polymathy demonstrates both rate of acquisition AND limited error in acquisition, and theoretical polymathy demonstrates that the individual can add a original insight (Hayek says he had two) to human knowledge.

    SOME NITS : ‘SCIENTIFIC THINKING’

    2) –“…on the nature of scientific thinking as it should be..” —

    This paragraph is reducible to the statement: demonstrable intelligence requires the construction of a model that corresponds to the extant reality, and survives attempts to falsify it.

    What you don’t mention, and which will conflict with your own mode of inquiry, is that such scientific thinking requires that the model be sufficiently complete that one need not appeal to introspection for the evaluation of results. This is where I generally see you get into trouble with your own work. Any model that requires introspection rather than correspondence by definition lacks sufficient information and means of decidability such that one can claim one’s observation or testimony to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    Now, if by some chance your intuition corresponds to reality (and in many cases yours does) then this correspondence can be used to provide comfort to your priors, but may cause you error in bias in matters wherein you rely upon introspection rather than correspondence independent of introspection (decidability).

    (But I am struck with the question of why you feel the need to retain your expertise in introspection? Why do you seek to justify it? When we know that this introspection merely results in confirmation bias?)

    Man: need to persist. need to acquire, need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of acquisition. need to reproduce. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of reproduction. need to defend kin. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of defending kin. need to produce cooperate to produce common assets since cooperation on commons is disproportionately rewarding compared to individual production. To act one must engage in perception, intuition, awareness, searching, reasoning, remembering, deciding, acting. But all that complexity is reducible to we must act to acquire, and cooperation that is non-parasitic (imposes no costs on others) is disproportionately productive.

    NIT: THE MEANING OF ‘UNDERSTANDING’ (Avoiding crutches)

    3) –“understanding is not quantitative but qualitative” —

    This statement demonstrates confusion between means of measurement rather than epistemological differences.

    Understanding : general rules or general principles (of arbitrary precision) one uses for categorization, properties, methods and relations for some subsequent action – even if that subsequent action is merely consequent understanding.

    Qualitative relations: the ability to stack relative to one another even if we cannot articulate the reason for stacking, and even if stacking is merely a preference.

    And

    Quantitative Measurements: the ability to define relations against a constant. These two forms of measurement serve two purposes. That is all.

    So when you say ‘understanding’ you mean that any rule of general utility must be constructed with arbitrary precision equal to the context of application. (That’s a mouthful, I know. So we need examples.)

    For example, I understand how to bake, but I bake a cake and bread differently by using recipes. Baking is a level of precision useful only for communication with others, while a recipe is necessary for the baking of a cake or bread. But, yet, it is not necessary that I understand the chemical transitions that occur during the process of preparation and baking and cooling in order for me to bake a cake.

    So while in casual conversation we may use these terms loosely: baking, baking a cake, and the chemical transformations that occur through the combination of substances and the application of heat; each of these is a level of precision, just like predicting the trajectory of a ball you throw by commons intuition, firing a projectile using newtonian physics, or explaining the evolution of the universe using quantum mechanics – if we wish to reason from them, we must use that level of precision that we need for such reasoning – else we are just making excuses and calling them reasons: justification.

    So ‘understanding’ requires general rules that help us evaluate explore and hypothesize within some useful context (arbitrary precision), not recipes that allow us to construct individual instances, nor too general to allow us to decide between actions in that context.

    I understand the basics of carpentry but I am not capable of deducing the construction of a modern home from that. Most economists specialize in some field of inquiry but since the rules of economic specialties are interesting for their counter-intuitiveness, economists cannot generalize – which is why large groups of economists are non-predictive: at any given point only a few people possess the specialized knowledge to understand a current model. Meaning that the Dunning Kruger Effect is always with us – maybe more so for smart people.

    CLOSING

    I follow you. Don’t comment often. I like the Christian loading. Not crazy about method of doing it. I tend to just get to the central proposition of Christianity: extension of kinship love to non-kin as a means of increasing trust, increasing the velocity of cooperation, economic velocity, rate of innovation, and prosperity. We will never have a restoration without another dark age.  So we must take from christianity the truth, and launder the error, bias, wishful thinking and (rather plentiful) deception from it.

    Love, Truth, and Commons, are Enough.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • IQ VERSUS DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE (intelligence and iq debate) (important idea

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/08/do-you-really-understand-intelligence.htmlMEASURED IQ VERSUS DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    (intelligence and iq debate) (important ideas)

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/08/do-you-really-understand-intelligence.html

    Bruce,

    Demonstrated intelligence is a subject I work quite hard on so I think I might try to change your mind a bit, by at the very least giving you a different framework and language for approaching it.

    DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    I think I understand the difference between DEMONSTRATED intelligence, and the aggregate and commensurable MEASURE of our various intelligences, as well as anyone else. The reason being that it’s not very difficult to understand: the aggregation of the verbal(experiential)-spatial(temporal) measures is so predictive of life achievement that all other measures are all but insignificant.

    So for the purposes that we use these measures (the cost of training the individual increasingly abstractly-perceptible skills) they are possibly as good a measure as we we are ever to get, and likely more precise than is relevant. It may in fact be better to reduce IQ to standard deviation from the magic ‘cliff’ of 106, where we begin to be able to articulate ideas and repair machines, since at every six to seven points, individuals display perceptible differences in ability and greater resolution in that measure is just noise. At every fifteen they display substantial differences in abilities allowing them access to different occupations, and at every 30 points of difference individuals begin to have difficulty communicating with on another in similar terms.

    PERSONALITY AND MORALITY

    We also understand a great deal about variations in personality and moral instinct.

    The research into the evolutionary origins of our moral intuitions (versus our learned norms) has progressed rapidly thanks to the conversion of the discipline of philosophy from a subjective pseudoscience measured against an ideal norm (freud), to an operationalist (observable) science measured against the requirements of evolutionary biology.

    For the same reason our understanding of personality is shifting greatly. And while the five factor analysis is highly predictive given it’s (pseudoscientific authoritarian feminist freudian) origins, the term ‘neurotic’ should probably be homogenized with the sciences as ‘impulsivity’, the Autistic-Solipsistic spectrum, verbal IQ and Spatial IQ and Gender should be added to those measures. And the remaining four should be reframed as reproductive strategies.

    The current error in personality analysis is the attempt to separate out empathy as a separate form of intelligence, rather than describe the influence that the feminine/solipsistic<–empathic–>autistic/masculine spectrum imposes upon verbal and spatial intelligence.

    If done, then morality and personality, gender and reproductive strategy would be rendered commensurable. (The unfortunate long term impact of Cantorian, Marxist, Misesian, Boazian and Freudian pseudoscience remains with us and prevents us from unifying what appear to be different fields of inquiry, but that are identical if we reduce them to first principles: genetic expression of our evolutionary biology – a record of our evolution of the intuitions of cooperation which perform in an uncomfortable equilibrium with our self interest: reproductive strategy.

    There is a reason the socialists suppressed darwin as heavily as the fundamentalists.) As an aside, we also know what properties make an individual desirable and undesirable as a mate (symmetry, skin, height, etc). And if we were to roughly measure those every seven years we would find that reproductive desirability, personality, cognitive abilities, morality, reproductive strategy would remain in parallel except at the margins. But this borders on ‘too much information’ since few of us want to face such facts.

    REGARDING HIGH DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT HIGH IQ SCORE

    1) —“a person may be of high intelligence and not have a high IQ score”—

    Hmmm…, a person may DEMONSTRATE more intelligent thinking and action than someone with a higher IQ. This is true. But it does not tell us why he demonstrates it. Even though the reason WHY is quite simple: Demonstrated intelligence is largely a factor of general knowledge of the subject and its application with limited error. While IQ is determined only by the rate of pattern recognition. Now it so happens that people who recognize patterns more rapidly tend to make fewer errors, and to accumulate new information with less friction and less error.

    But say, if one has a high incidence of impulsivity (Neuroticism) this will not be the case. His energies (and time) will be spent in justifications of his impulses, not in acquisitions of useful information). So, for example, Dr Higgs (of the higgs-boson particle) has argued that he would not obtain a professorship today because he works slowly and is unproductive. This does not prohibit him from genius. It merely means that he is disciplined and methodical. (I am of the same temperament, I would never find a dissertation committee that would tolerate my rate of production which like Spinoza will have taken many many years on a very risky hypothesis.)

    In fact, most Nobel Prize winners are not actually of exceptional intelligence (merely in the 140’s) – which seems to indicate that the value of IQ declines in utility at some point (all measurements are questionable above 140 really). If for no other reason than it is difficult to find people to work with and communicate with, but most likely because somewhere above that range, the improvement is caused by a corresponding limitation.

    Demonstrated intelligence consists of the following criteria:

    i) IQ (rate of pattern recognition)

    ii) Short term memory (necessary for mathematicians and chess players)

    iii) General knowledge (reading a lot on a lot of subjects generally makes you smarter)

    iv) Method of inquiry consisting of inputs ( allegory, parable, history, measurement) and methods ( free association, mysticism, reason, rationalism(justification), science(criticism).

    v) Wants: Impossible Wants, Impossible Beliefs, Metaphysical Errors, and Erroneous Assumptions

    vi) Lack of impulsivity: Discipline, and Time (great ideas are achieved by focused work over very long periods – often approaching a decade or more)

    The greater evolutionary problem appears to be that exceptional intelligence is genetically caused by possessing fewer negative alleles rather than any special allele. Just as evolution is a process of surviving. Just as epistemology is a process of eliminating error from free associations leaving only truth candidates.

    Most of the time, and we can go through almost every thinker in history, great or small, the reason for failure is not intelligence or short term memory, or even impulsivity, but impulsivity, wants, and method. It is rarely intelligence. The failure of intelligence is one in which we observe that the individual does not identify patterns extant in the knowledge available. We do not fault Aristote for his failed innovations. We fault marx for continuing to take money from Engels once he had discovered that the marginalists and proved him wrong, and that all his work and fame was fallacy. He stopped writing. Did nothing. Continued taking his income from Engels until he died. A simple ‘capitalist’ motivation kept him from admitting his errors.

    SUMMARY

    So I think that we understand demonstrated intelligence enough to say that one can demonstrate intelligence in any sphere in which one can master the subject matter, apply scientific reasoning (criticism), insulate one’s study and practice from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit (including self deception), and spend sufficient time on the subject that others cannot.

    Some of us cannot even master ourselves. Some of us can barely master simple duties. Some of us can do it only through imitation of others. Some of us can do it only with experiential subjects. Some of us can do it with abstract subjects. Some of us can do it with purely theoretical subjects. And some of us can do MANY OF THESE AT ONCE. In fact, Polymathy and theoretical polymathy are probably the best test of demonstrated intelligence because polymathy demonstrates both rate of acquisition AND limited error in acquisition, and theoretical polymathy demonstrates that the individual can add a original insight (Hayek says he had two) to human knowledge.

    SOME NITS : ‘SCIENTIFIC THINKING’

    2) –“…on the nature of scientific thinking as it should be..” —

    This paragraph is reducible to the statement: demonstrable intelligence requires the construction of a model that corresponds to the extant reality, and survives attempts to falsify it.

    What you don’t mention, and which will conflict with your own mode of inquiry, is that such scientific thinking requires that the model be sufficiently complete that one need not appeal to introspection for the evaluation of results. This is where I generally see you get into trouble with your own work. Any model that requires introspection rather than correspondence by definition lacks sufficient information and means of decidability such that one can claim one’s observation or testimony to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    Now, if by some chance your intuition corresponds to reality (and in many cases yours does) then this correspondence can be used to provide comfort to your priors, but may cause you error in bias in matters wherein you rely upon introspection rather than correspondence independent of introspection (decidability).

    (But I am struck with the question of why you feel the need to retain your expertise in introspection? Why do you seek to justify it? When we know that this introspection merely results in confirmation bias?)

    Man: need to persist. need to acquire, need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of acquisition. need to reproduce. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of reproduction. need to defend kin. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of defending kin. need to produce cooperate to produce common assets since cooperation on commons is disproportionately rewarding compared to individual production. To act one must engage in perception, intuition, awareness, searching, reasoning, remembering, deciding, acting. But all that complexity is reducible to we must act to acquire, and cooperation that is non-parasitic (imposes no costs on others) is disproportionately productive.

    NIT: THE MEANING OF ‘UNDERSTANDING’ (Avoiding crutches)

    3) –“understanding is not quantitative but qualitative” —

    This statement demonstrates confusion between means of measurement rather than epistemological differences. Understanding = general rules or general principles (of arbitrary precision) one uses for categorization, properties, methods and relations for some subsequent action. Qualitative relations: the ability to stack relative to one another even if we cannot articulate the reason for stacking, and even if stacking is merely a preference. And Quantitative Measurements: the ability to define relations against a constant. These two forms of measurement serve two purposes. That is all.

    So when you say ‘understanding’ you mean that any rule of general utility must equally be constructed of arbitrary precision. For example, I understand how to bake, but I bake a cake and bread differently by using recipes. Baking is a level of precision useful only for communication with others, while a recipe is necessary for the baking of a cake or bread. While it is not necessary that I understand the chemical transitions that occur during the process of preparation and baking and cooling in order for me to bake a cake. So while in casual conversation we may use these terms loosely: baking, baking a cake, and the chemical transformations that occur through the combination of substances and the application of heat, each of these is a level of precision, just like throwing a ball by commons sense, firing a projectile using newtonian physics, or explaining the evolution of the universe using quantum mechanics – if we wish to reason from them, we must use that level of precision that we need for such reasoning – else we are just making excuses and calling them reasons: justification.

    So ‘understanding’ requires general rules that help us evaluate explore and hypothesize, not recipes that allow us to construct. I understand the basics of carpentry but I am not capable of deducing the construction of a modern home from that. Most economists specialize in some field of inquiry but since the rules of economic specialties are interesting for their counter-intuitiveness, economists cannot generalize – which is why economists are non-predictive: at any given point only a few people possess the specialized knowledge to understand a current model. Meaning that the Dunning Kruger Effect is always with us – maybe more so for smart people.

    CLOSING

    Follow you. Don’t comment often. Like the Christian loading. Not crazy about method of doing it. I tend to just get to the central proposition of Christianity: extension of kinship love to non-kin as a means of increasing trust, increasing the velocity of cooperation, economic velocity, rate of innovation, and prosperity. We will never have a restoration.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 05:33:00 UTC