Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA? What’s wrong wit

    WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA?

    What’s wrong with behavioral science: the tendency to seek a single frame of reference (equality) denying the fact that while human variation in ability and expressed competence is genetic and developmental regardless of sex, human variation in valuation, bias, and particularly when regard to social and moral conflict originates in the opposites (the opposite of equality) created by sex differences in cognition, with feminine short term exclusive empathizing avoiding responsibility to obtain status versus masculine long term general systematizing to seek responsibility to obtain status.

    Most conflict in social media, and the reason for its continued investment, is due to the expression of attention seeking (validation), virtue signaling(moral bias or ‘team’ membership) status-seeking (material), and altruistic punishment (defense of status, and moral bias).

    Most signals of altruistic punishment (negativity) in social media are due to such media being the first time we can easily admix groups into moral conflict where normally we would separate in space, time, and socialization by bias and interest, and express less altruistic punishment over our differences in our moral valuation that’s determined by our cognitive sexual dimorphism.

    One of the principles I teach is that describing emotional reactions or intentions appeals to moral bias (excuse making), where economic explanation of all human behavior results in a value neutral assessment of costs – which is what causes all emotional reactions, since all emotions are always and everywhere reducible to change in the state of demonstrated interests (resources of some kind that the individual or group depend upon).

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 17:29:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654901236632633346

  • WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA? I view understan

    WHAT’S WRONG W/ STUDIES OF BEHAVIOR COMBINED WITH SOCIAL MEDIA?

    I view understand most studies in the soft (pseudo) sciences as perpetuating ‘what’s wrong’ with behavioral science: the tendency to seek a single frame of reference (equality) denying the fact that while human variation in ability and expressed competence is genetic and developmental regardless of sex, human variation in valuation, bias, and particularly when regard to social and moral conflict originates in the opposites (the opposite of equality) created by sex differences in cognition, with feminine short term exclusive empathizing avoiding responsibility to obtain status versus masculine long term general systematizing to seek responsibility to obtain status.

    Most conflict in social media, and the reason for its continued investment, is due to the expression of attention seeking (validation), virtue signaling(moral bias or ‘team’ membership) status-seeking (material), and altruistic punishment (defense of status, and moral bias).

    Most signals of altruistic punishment (negativity) in social media are due to such media being the first time we can easily admix groups into moral conflict where normally we would separate in space, time, and socialization by bias and interest, and express less altruistic punishment over our differences in our moral valuation that’s determined by our cognitive sexual dimorphism.

    One of the principles I teach is that describing emotional reactions or intentions appeals to moral bias (excuse making), where economic explanation of all human behavior results in a value neutral assessment of costs – which is what causes all emotional reactions, since all emotions are always and everywhere reducible to change in the state of demonstrated interests (resources of some kind that the individual or group depend upon).

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 17:29:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654900252841844738

  • RE: ~”IQ ISN”T A PHYSICAL MEASURE”~ (short explanation of what causes IQ differe

    RE: ~”IQ ISN”T A PHYSICAL MEASURE”~
    (short explanation of what causes IQ differences)

    That’s in correct. Neural conductivity follows the same mathematical law as wires and undersea cables, where the law was first discovered. So neural response time is precisely what we are measuring.

    The rest is determined by the organization of connectivity as neural stem cells migrate into position, and various of thirty or so molecules bait the tips of each cell into different regions of the brain, until they recieve enough impulse to form local inter-neuronal connectivity and begin ‘computing’ so to speak. Then finally the overall size of the brain (size matters), grey vs white matter density, and the environment that consists of the biochemistry of your brain that feeds the neurons, and the many developmental ‘errors’ that creep in due to accumulated genetic load (defects), and one evolutoinary difference Neoteny.

    The uncomfortable truth that the scientific community suppresses out of self interest in survival is that human differences are due largely to on direction of evolution: neotenic selection, which trades aggression (impulse) for agency (consideration) necessary for social cooperation in increasingly scarce climates. Ergo the reason for performance differences between the four primary races is substantial, manifesting as difference in sizes of the classes, where social and economic class reflect the ability to posses the traits and intelligence to manage self regulation and therefore responsibility, because that is what humans have selected for: responsibility via neoteny.

    Hence we observe IQ and neotenic differences by the four speciation events (Races): 1SD African to South Eurasion, 1SD South Eurasian To European and East Asian. And NW Europeans (north sea) have already lost 1SD from around 115 in early modernity to 100-102 today due to asymmetric reproduction. East asians are losing – particularly the Chinese, and Ashkenazim are losing too. Reason? Urbanization. Cities are IQ sinks because of the cost of children for high investment parents, and the cost of education, and women delaying reproduction for education and employement, versus the irrelevance of the cost of children for low investment parents.

    So we attempt to judge the QUALITY of the organization of your brain with IQ tests by examining multiple capabilities – specifically among the feminine verbal empathizing vs masculine spatial systematizing division, because all skills roughly increase and decrease in parallel along whatever that sex ratio consist of, thus determining your neural performance, plasticity, and adaptability in time.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-04 13:02:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654109218675335170

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654003532847013888

  • HOW YOUR BRAIN OPERATES (EVOLVED) (brief overview to give you the general idea a

    HOW YOUR BRAIN OPERATES (EVOLVED)
    (brief overview to give you the general idea and yes it’s just like a 3d video game)

    WHY? Because ‘LLM’ AI doesn’t ‘understand’ anything in the sense you and I do, because it lacks embodiment (System of Measurement), World Modeling, Episode molding, Goal Pursuit (wayfinding), causal relations (Possibility), social relations (ownership, ethics, morality), valuation (‘values’), and consciousness (self regulation of goals, searching, wayfinding, possibility testing, moral testing) recursive criticism,(consideration), and decision making.

    What LLMS are doing is trying to infer all the above through analysis of language – which SHOULD be possible.

    NERVOUS SYSTEM (ANATOMY)
    Homeostasis
    … “Wants”
    Embodiment
    … Body Center Direction
    … … Motion, Speed, Turning Direction
    … Head direction -> eye direction
    … Limb direction and organization
    Moving
    ‘Remembering’
    Wayfinding
    (Loop)

    EVOLVES TO NAVIGATION
    Sensation
    Disambiguation
    … Organization, Categorization, Prioritization
    Indexing (episode)
    … Location, Exits, Spaces, Places, Objects, Borders
    Sequencing (time cycle)
    (Loop)

    EVOLVES TO PHYSICAL OPPORTUNITIES
    Auto Association
    Competing Predictions (Permutations)
    Competing Valuation
    Competing Escalation to Reaction (high) or Attention (lower) or only available to attention (lowest)
    (Loop)

    EVOVLES TO PREY OPPORTUNITIES (OR MATING)
    Auto Association
    Competing Predictions (Permutations)
    Competing Valuation
    … Prey Cycle
    … Mating Cycle
    Competing Escalation to Reaction (high) or Attention (lower) or only available to attention (lowest)
    (Loop)

    EVOLVES TO SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES
    Imitation (body), Empathy(emotions), Sympath(mind)
    Auto Association
    Competing Predictions (Permutations)
    Competing Valuation
    Competing Escalation to Reaction (high) or Attention (lower) or only available to attention (lowest)
    (loop)

    EVOLVES TO CONSCIOUSNESS
    Attention
    … activation
    … indecision
    … recursion
    … stacking (wayfinding)
    … loop until choice or abandonment
    Choice
    Release of Action
    (loop)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-04 01:12:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653930451961106433

  • HOW YOUR BRAIN OPERATES (EVOLVED) (brief overview to give you the general idea a

    HOW YOUR BRAIN OPERATES (EVOLVED)
    (brief overview to give you the general idea and yes it’s just like a 3d video game)

    WHY? Because ‘LLM’ AI doesn’t ‘understand’ anything in the sense you and I do, because it lacks embodiment (System of Measurement), World Modeling, Episode molding, Goal Pursuit (wayfinding), causal relations (Possibility), social relations (ownership, ethics, morality), valuation (‘values’), and consciousness (self regulation of goals, searching, wayfinding, possibility testing, moral testing) recursive criticism,(consideration), and decision making.

    What LLMS are doing is trying to infer all the above through analysis of language – which SHOULD be possible.

    NERVOUS SYSTEM (ANATOMY)
    Homeostasis
    … “Wants”
    Embodiment
    … Body Center Direction
    … … Motion, Speed, Turning Direction
    … Head direction -> eye direction
    … Limb direction and organization
    Moving
    ‘Remembering’
    Wayfinding
    (Loop)

    EVOLVES TO NAVIGATION
    Sensation
    Disambiguation
    … Organization, Categorization, Prioritization
    Indexing (episode)
    … Location, Exits, Spaces, Places, Objects, Borders
    Sequencing (time cycle)
    (Loop)

    EVOLVES TO PHYSICAL OPPORTUNITIES
    Auto Association
    Competing Predictions (Permutations)
    Competing Valuation
    Competing Escalation to Reaction (high) or Attention (lower) or only available to attention (lowest)
    (Loop)

    EVOVLES TO PREY OPPORTUNITIES (OR MATING)
    Auto Association
    Competing Predictions (Permutations)
    Competing Valuation
    … Prey Cycle
    … Mating Cycle
    Competing Escalation to Reaction (high) or Attention (lower) or only available to attention (lowest)
    (Loop)

    EVOLVES TO SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES
    Imitation (body), Empathy(emotions), Sympath(mind)
    Auto Association
    Competing Predictions (Permutations)
    Competing Valuation
    Competing Escalation to Reaction (high) or Attention (lower) or only available to attention (lowest)
    (loop)

    EVOLVES TO CONSCIOUSNESS
    Attention
    … activation
    … indecision
    … recursion
    … stacking (wayfinding)
    … loop until choice or abandonment
    Choice
    Release of Action
    (loop)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-04 01:12:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653930452128878592

  • “Q: WHAT MESSAGE ARE YOU STAYING ON?” The message I’m ‘Staying On’ is that weste

    “Q: WHAT MESSAGE ARE YOU STAYING ON?”
    The message I’m ‘Staying On’ is that western government, especially the english invention of the modern rule of law state, creates a market between the classes of different responsibilities for the voluntary exchange and production of commons otherwise not producible by private means – either because of conflict, competing ideas, or cost.

    As such, when adding a new ‘class’ to the ‘market’ (voting pool) the solution is to add a new ‘house’ for that class. Forcing the need for consent between houses. This is called “concurrency” in legislation, just as we use house, senate, and electoral college to determine concurrency in elections. As such we live in a concurrent democracy not a majority democracy for good reasons. This prevents a race to the bottom under mass democracy. – which is what we have seen, especially since the introduction of women. Why? women seek irresponsibility the way men seek responsibility.

    This is not to claim that this is the only solution. It’s to explain that the only means of decidability on investments in the commons by political means is some organized market that is most resistant to responsibilities for the capital that results from social, economic, and political orders.

    Instead, it provides a basic framework for solving the problem of divergent interests between sexes, classes, ethnicities, and yes, races.

    Because the alternative, universally is either a race to the bottom resulting in authoritarianism or the production of authoritarianism regardless.

    Reply addressees: @DrMikeHochburns @pearlythingz

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-01 17:35:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653090836429651989

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653087652923740160

  • “Q: WHAT MESSAGE ARE YOU STAYING ON?” The message I’m ‘Staying On’ is that weste

    “Q: WHAT MESSAGE ARE YOU STAYING ON?”
    The message I’m ‘Staying On’ is that western government, especially the english invention of the modern rule of law state, creates a market between the classes of different responsibilities for the voluntary exchange and production of commons otherwise not producible by private means – either because of conflict, competing ideas, or cost.

    As such, when adding a new ‘class’ to the ‘market’ (voting pool) the solution is to add a new ‘house’ for that class. Forcing the need for consent between houses. This is called “concurrency” in legislation, just as we use house, senate, and electoral college to determine concurrency in elections. As such we live in a concurrent democracy not a majority democracy for good reasons. This prevents a race to the bottom under mass democracy. – which is what we have seen, especially since the introduction of women. Why? women seek irresponsibility the way men seek responsibility.

    This is not to claim that this is the only solution. It’s to explain that the only means of decidability on investments in the commons by political means is some organized market that is most resistant to responsibilities for the capital that results from social, economic, and political orders.

    Instead, it provides a basic framework for solving the problem of divergent interests between sexes, classes, ethnicities, and yes, races.

    Because the alternative, universally is either a race to the bottom resulting in authoritarianism or the production of authoritarianism regardless.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-01 17:35:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653090836576452615

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653087652923740160

  • A PHYSICIST LAMENTS CRACKPOT AMATEURS ( and an epistemologist explains. 😉 ) A S

    A PHYSICIST LAMENTS CRACKPOT AMATEURS
    ( and an epistemologist explains. 😉 )

    A Slightly Different Take:
    I work in epistemology, particularly human error, bias, and deceit, applied to economics and law. I recieve crackpot emails every day. And yes they are, as expected, absurd, chilish, and overconfident. But I learn from them, if only because it teaches me how the common folk see a problem, so that I can improve my means of communication of ideas. (And if you think physics is controversial, try juridical decidability given variation in human moral bias.)

    That said I understand where this ‘crackpot’ incentive is coming from and there is something to be learnd from the incentive if not from the crackpot ideas:
    (a) In economics we learn the limits of mathematics, and we falsify mathematical claims by operational construction precisely because explanation by intuitionism is possible. Math is descriptive not causal and at the extreme is and must be statistcal (correlative) not causa. Not all phenomena are mathematically reducible. Only operationally (computationally). So by using mathematical theory instead of operational theory bottom up whose observatios are later tested by math, we exclude ideas just as in the opposite top down direction statistics is constrained or even useless without subsequent causal explanation. Best living example is the prohibiton on the concept of the ether vs the continuous flux of the quantum background and treating it as analogous to a liquid.
    (b) Cantor Bohr Einstein and Feynman all rely on pictures and analogies not causal operations – this is platonism or idealism, and not causal. And is the primary candidate for the reason for the stagnation in physics
    (c) There is no evidence that we can’t produce a classical (intuitionistic) model of the universe only that we are not producing a series of theories that are causal (operational) from which additional ideation is possible.

    So the public is correct in that physics has stagnated since the seventies, that the Michio, Sean, Brian, et al pop physicists are essentially speaking woo woo, and that the ‘mathiness’ of string theory has been a heat sink on research, and that physics is just as afraid of prior mistakes and envious of the progress of past mathiness made possible by prior generations of operational explanations as anthropologists are timid and overcompensating because of the genetic discovery of pre homo sapien hybridization.

    In other words: one of the other lessons we learn in economics is that the man on the street is often a better predictor than the professional economist even if the professional economist is a better explainer of past phenomena.

    The same is true here: the public is suggesting in their most ignorant and often dysfunctional way, that it sure appears that the physics community is engaged in a distracting side-trip trying to imitate Einstein-Bohr’s pragmatic verbal and pictoral half-truths without producing the generation of operational causality that makes such oversimplified pictoral and verbal (non causal) representations possible.

    What those of us who study human error in the sciences are most worried about, is that science often progresses with tombstones and that we won’t correct the Einstein-Bohr error because physicists appear to be afraid of proposing operational models that would provide candidate research where present candidate research appears to be exhausted at the scales of energy and means of observation at our disposal.

    Wisdom of crowds isn’t always *entirely* wrong. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    link to original video
    https://t.co/npAEQuvir4

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-01 10:25:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652982662955499520

  • A PHYSICIST LAMENTS CRACKPOT AMATEURS ( and an epistemologist explains. 😉 ) A S

    A PHYSICIST LAMENTS CRACKPOT AMATEURS
    ( and an epistemologist explains. 😉 )

    A Slightly Different Take:
    I work in epistemology, particularly human error, bias, and deceit, applied to economics and law. I recieve crackpot emails every day. And yes they are, as expected, absurd, chilish, and overconfident. But I learn from them, if only because it teaches me how the common folk see a problem, so that I can improve my means of communication of ideas. (And if you think physics is controversial, try juridical decidability given variation in human moral bias.)

    That said I understand where this ‘crackpot’ incentive is coming from and there is something to be learnd from the incentive if not from the crackpot ideas:
    (a) In economics we learn the limits of mathematics, and we falsify mathematical claims by operational construction precisely because explanation by intuitionism is possible. Math is descriptive not causal and at the extreme is and must be statistcal (correlative) not causa. Not all phenomena are mathematically reducible. Only operationally (computationally). So by using mathematical theory instead of operational theory bottom up whose observatios are later tested by math, we exclude ideas just as in the opposite top down direction statistics is constrained or even useless without subsequent causal explanation. Best living example is the prohibiton on the concept of the ether vs the continuous flux of the quantum background and treating it as analogous to a liquid.
    (b) Cantor Bohr Einstein and Feynman all rely on pictures and analogies not causal operations – this is platonism or idealism, and not causal. And is the primary candidate for the reason for the stagnation in physics
    (c) There is no evidence that we can’t produce a classical (intuitionistic) model of the universe only that we are not producing a series of theories that are causal (operational) from which additional ideation is possible.

    So the public is correct in that physics has stagnated since the seventies, that the Michio, Sean, Brian, et al pop physicists are essentially speaking woo woo, and that the ‘mathiness’ of string theory has been a heat sink on research, and that physics is just as afraid of prior mistakes and envious of the progress of past mathiness made possible by prior generations of operational explanations as anthropologists are timid and overcompensating because of the genetic discovery of pre homo sapien hybridization.

    In other words: one of the other lessons we learn in economics is that the man on the street is often a better predictor than the professional economist even if the professional economist is a better explainer of past phenomena.

    The same is true here: the public is suggesting in their most ignorant and often dysfunctional way, that it sure appears that the physics community is engaged in a distracting side-trip trying to imitate Einstein-Bohr’s pragmatic verbal and pictoral half-truths without producing the generation of operational causality that makes such oversimplified pictoral and verbal (non causal) representations possible.

    What those of us who study human error in the sciences are most worried about, is that science often progresses with tombstones and that we won’t correct the Einstein-Bohr error because physicists appear to be afraid of proposing operational models that would provide candidate research where present candidate research appears to be exhausted at the scales of energy and means of observation at our disposal.

    Wisdom of crowds isn’t always *entirely* wrong. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    link to original video
    https://t.co/npAEQuvir4

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-01 10:25:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652982663244914691

  • CAUSALITY OF JEWISH VS WESTERN THOUGHT Jewish vs Western thought manifests in th

    CAUSALITY OF JEWISH VS WESTERN THOUGHT
    Jewish vs Western thought manifests in the sciences as pragmatism vs truth. And Pragatism in ethics as selfishness vs contribution to commons.
    The pragmatism begins with the jewish seeking agreement regardless of truth (via positiva justification ignoring political consequences at scale) and westerners seeking truth in order to determine agreement (via negativa falsification b/c of political consequences of scale)
    This is why Cantor Bohr Einstein and Feynman relied on pictures not operations, verbalisms rather than operations, and pragmatism rather than truth – and killed progress in physics.
    And it’s why Marx, Boaz, Freud, destroyed behavioral science, the frankfurt school destroyed high culture, the postmodernists destroyed truth, Lysenko, Gould, destroyed evolution, and why Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin destroyed law. From this perspective, like the abrahamic religions, it’s the most destructive force in civilizational history.
    It’s also why jewish and western ethics are incompatible opposite.
    And it’s unfortunate that easy pragmatism is more attractive than difficult truth.
    Especially for women.
    So, oddly enough, it’s correct that the prewar criticism that jewish and western science differs was true.
    And it’s most visible in jewish behavioral sciences.
    And I discovered it in jewish vs western economics and law.
    So (a) Pragmatism (b) evasion of responsibility for the commons (c) mythicism (magical thinking) (d) conflating good/true bad/false, (e) face before truth (f) asymmetric returns as heroic (f) resulting in the female strategy. And that is the mirror image of western ethics that’s been brought to us by christianity, marxism, woke with women and immigrants resisting western truth before face, and maximization of responsibility for private and common(duty).

    (Note: The number of insights I gain by studying philosophers and detecting their lies, excuses, and errors is endless….)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-01 09:04:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652962154872545281