Form: Mini Essay

  • (lame critics) FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING RE: Silicon

    (lame critics)
    FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
    FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
    RE: Silicon Valley Bank

    Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.

    Let me clue you in.
    Banks are in a market.
    The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
    The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
    The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
    They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
    The compound debt system does not work.
    Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
    The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
    So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
    But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
    Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
    Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
    FIxing it’s possible.
    And it’s eventually necessary.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164230127620

  • A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN? –“Almost no one on the right has a positive messa

    A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN?

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

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

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

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

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @FrailSkeleton


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:31:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634290827915669505

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634107030699999232

  • A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN? –“Almost no one on the right has a positive messa

    A POSITIVE MESSAGE FOR WOMEN?

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

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

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

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

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:31:11 UTC

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

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634107030699999232

  • Bo, (all); FWIW: Social media is the cheapest means of conducting otherwise impo

    Bo, (all);

    FWIW: Social media is the cheapest means of conducting otherwise impossible tests of how humans signal, negotiate, undermine, deny, deceive, and defraud that’s ever been possible.

    Most of my work on ‘truth’ consists of ‘sciencing’ the logic and grammar of denying, suggestion, deception, lying and fraud, and anti-social, anti-political behavior. And the sex differences in doing so are perhaps one of the greatest contributions to behavioral science in recent years.

    So, it’s no wonder no one has done a significant body of work on ‘human lying’ before I stumbled into it.

    But that says something else about social media:
    Without the threat of a slap or fist in the face – or worse, humans demonstrate behavior they would otherwise report. And humans get away with canceling the otherwise could not.

    Thus solving the problem of social science: surveys are useless. And controlled testing is almost useless. But as we have learned from Economics: demonstrated behavior tells the truth. And social media is the psychological and social science equivalent of the telescope or microscope. And the science(logic) of lying is the behavioral equivalent of the discovery of the calculus.

    Humans are fascinating. At least some insight into behavioral science has been possible because of it.

    -Curt Doolittle
    – The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @EPoe187


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 17:41:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634248240731176960

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634230751041400832

  • Bo, (all); FWIW: Social media is the cheapest means of conducting otherwise impo

    Bo, (all);

    FWIW: Social media is the cheapest means of conducting otherwise impossible tests of how humans signal, negotiate, undermine, deny, deceive, and defraud that’s ever been possible.

    Most of my work on ‘truth’ consists of ‘sciencing’ the logic and grammar of denying, suggestion, deception, lying and fraud, and anti-social, anti-political behavior. And the sex differences in doing so are perhaps one of the greatest contributions to behavioral science in recent years.

    So, it’s no wonder no one has done a significant body of work on ‘human lying’ before I stumbled into it.

    But that says something else about social media:
    Without the threat of a slap or fist in the face – or worse, humans demonstrate behavior they would otherwise report. And humans get away with canceling the otherwise could not.

    Thus solving the problem of social science: surveys are useless. And controlled testing is almost useless. But as we have learned from Economics: demonstrated behavior tells the truth. And social media is the psychological and social science equivalent of the telescope or microscope. And the science(logic) of lying is the behavioral equivalent of the discovery of the calculus.

    Humans are fascinating. At least some insight into behavioral science has been possible because of it.

    -Curt Doolittle
    – The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 17:41:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634248240898908167

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634230751041400832

  • SIMPLE REASON FOR CONSISTENCY OF HERITABILITY Simple reason: from *all* papers o

    SIMPLE REASON FOR CONSISTENCY OF HERITABILITY
    Simple reason: from *all* papers over time: Heritability is somewhere between 50 to 80% for the vast majority of complex polygenetic expressions.

    Of that 50-80%, the permutations possible over the past six or more generations are too high to explain, but it’s likely closer to 80% if we could. And the other 20% is due to idiosyncratic natal and post-natal development, amplified by later experience.

    It has to be. Why? Genetics are not mechanical and deterministic but organic and probabilistic. Humans are GROWN. And while that process is easily explainable, it’s a far more complex (incomprehensible) hierarchy of state changes at local and regional cellular levels than we ever imagined. Add oddities like local ‘baiting’ of neural organization to connect neural pathways, and we have the fascinating range of human behavior.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @datepsych


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 17:07:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634239576960057360

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634235814405107712

  • SIMPLE REASON FOR CONSISTENCY OF HERITABILITY Simple reason: from *all* papers o

    SIMPLE REASON FOR CONSISTENCY OF HERITABILITY
    Simple reason: from *all* papers over time: Heritability is somewhere between 50 to 80% for the vast majority of complex polygenetic expressions.

    Of that 50-80%, the permutations possible over the past six or more generations are too high to explain, but it’s likely closer to 80% if we could. And the other 20% is due to idiosyncratic natal and post-natal development, amplified by later experience.

    It has to be. Why? Genetics are not mechanical and deterministic but organic and probabilistic. Humans are GROWN. And while that process is easily explainable, it’s a far more complex (incomprehensible) hierarchy of state changes at local and regional cellular levels than we ever imagined. Add oddities like local ‘baiting’ of neural organization to connect neural pathways, and we have the fascinating range of human behavior.

    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 17:07:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634239577081692173

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634235814405107712

  • ZEIHAN ON THE CARTELS MEXICO BORDER AND GANGS (watch it) (but read this) 😉 Yeah

    ZEIHAN ON THE CARTELS MEXICO BORDER AND GANGS
    (watch it) (but read this) 😉
    Yeah, I know I’m a long term Zeihan (@PeterZeihan) fan, but that’s partly because I understand how and to whom he’s messaging. And I know his (few) soft (blind) spots. So when he says murder rates are due to “it’s gangs and cartels not covid.” That’s (sorta) true. But it’s gangs, cartels, antifa, blm, soros-funded district attorneys, the democratic party of urban self destruction, their evangelical army of the media, and the cult of the academic left. And when he says don’t build a wall, he’s not saying, ‘don’t build a wall, with half a mile of cleared land this side of the border, that’s heavily mined with non-metal anti-personnel mines. And don’t issue an open letter of marque to all citizens offering a 10K bounty for every dead drug mule you drag in the back of your pickup truck with his ‘delivery’. And don’t return to hanging repeat offenders and single crime gang members.” So, you know, it’s not like what we want to accomplish is impossible. It’s that we prefer the murder crime and social destruction instead of solving the problem.

    Yes, and well, I’m not so sure I’m using hyperbole here. 😉

    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle

    #cartels #border #drugs #gangs #crimeu


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 15:09:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634209978796892162

  • ZEIHAN ON THE CARTELS MEXICO BORDER AND GANGS (watch it) (but read this) 😉 Yeah

    ZEIHAN ON THE CARTELS MEXICO BORDER AND GANGS
    (watch it) (but read this) 😉
    Yeah, I know I’m a long term Zeihan (@PeterZeihan) fan, but that’s partly because I understand how and to whom he’s messaging. And I know his (few) soft (blind) spots. So when he says murder rates are due to “it’s gangs and cartels not covid.” That’s (sorta) true. But it’s gangs, cartels, antifa, blm, soros-funded district attorneys, the democratic party of urban self destruction, their evangelical army of the media, and the cult of the academic left. And when he says don’t build a wall, he’s not saying, ‘don’t build a wall, with half a mile of cleared land this side of the border, that’s heavily mined with non-metal anti-personnel mines. And don’t issue an open letter of marque to all citizens offering a 10K bounty for every dead drug mule you drag in the back of your pickup truck with his ‘delivery’. And don’t return to hanging repeat offenders and single crime gang members.” So, you know, it’s not like what we want to accomplish is impossible. It’s that we prefer the murder crime and social destruction instead of solving the problem.

    Yes, and well, I’m not so sure I’m using hyperbole here. 😉

    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle

    #cartels #border #drugs #gangs #crimeu


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 15:09:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634209978998222853

  • ZEIHAN ON THE CARTELS MEXICO BORDER AND GANGS (watch it) (but read this) 😉 Yeah

    ZEIHAN ON THE CARTELS MEXICO BORDER AND GANGS
    (watch it) (but read this) 😉
    Yeah, I know I’m a long term Zeihan (@PeterZeihan) fan, but that’s partly because I understand how and to whom he’s messaging. And I know his (few) soft (blind) spots. So when he says murder rates are due to “it’s gangs and cartels not covid.” That’s (sorta) true. But it’s gangs, cartels, antifa, blm, soros-funded district attorneys, the democratic party of urban self destruction, their evangelical army of the media, and the cult of the academic left. And when he says don’t build a wall, he’s not saying, ‘don’t build a wall, with half a mile of cleared land this side of the border, that’s heavily mined with non-metal anti-personnel mines. And don’t issue an open letter of marque to all citizens offering a 10K bounty for every dead drug mule you drag in the back of your pickup truck with his ‘delivery’. And don’t return to hanging repeat offenders and single crime gang members.” So, you know, it’s not like what we want to accomplish is impossible. It’s that we prefer the murder crime and social destruction instead of solving the problem.

    Yes, and well, I’m not so sure I’m using hyperbole here. 😉

    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 15:09:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634209723460222976