Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • BUFFET JOINS MUST ON AI JOB RISK Buffet is aggressively confident that AI will d

    BUFFET JOINS MUST ON AI JOB RISK
    Buffet is aggressively confident that AI will devastate employment. AFAIK, this is the same argument Musk has made. If this prediction is true (and at least over the next twenty years it will be) then labor shortage will disappear, immigrants will have been a tragic mistake and burden, and unless you’re in the upper 30% of STEM roles, you’re going to be looking for service work – because your job is going to be destroyed, office buildings will be emptied, home prices will collapse, and incomes will be even more asymmetric than today.

    Meanwhile, we’re worried about nonsense like the birth of Skynet. And our government and our economy is organized for a century that has already passed.

    Now, do I know how to organize that economy? Well of course. Because the Japanese are already doing it. But japan is a densely populated, high IQ, homogenous, polity, with a high tech economy, and a culture of incremental excellence that defeats the germans only by Asian lower risk tolerance, and ‘kinder gentler’ aesthetics.

    We are going to need to radically reform the debt sector, the treasury, taxation, industrialization, transportation, housing, and education, because ***we are going to enter a world where money has no way to work into the economy through occupational compensation. And that ‘breaks everything’.**

    Money is a store of time. What happens when very few of us are producing a store of time, and most stores of time are produced by machines, who can only be governed by the ‘smart fraction’, who will increasingly resent that the majority of the population is dependent upon them, and enviously counter-signals them, like white women and minorities, counter signal White, Jewish, and Asian men.

    How do we create a Pareto hierarchy and nash distribution in a world where most people are effectively useless for other than providing the few with the ability to work to produce what the rest consume?

    I can’t play that out in my head as other than nobilitie and serfs. Though, if the evidence is correct, the percent of the population that would prefer serfdom over market responsibility is … the majority.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 18:24:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630634948347478035

  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD EXPLAINED SUCCINCTLY No, given the epistemic necessity of

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD EXPLAINED SUCCINCTLY
    No, given the epistemic necessity of observation, auto association, ideation, hypothesis, theory, surviving theory, where statements can be undecidable, possibly true, or decidably false, science consists of the discipline of producing testifiable testimony (empiricism) within a domain, using physical and logical instrumentation, and their use in data collection (statistical approximation), use of the epistemic sequence, until by verisimilitude (market survival from intellectual competition) we discover the first principles (irreducible laws) of recombination at that stage of constant relations (disciplines), at which point we can produce a formal operational computational (causal) logic of falsification in that domain (specialization).

    Survival from falsification requires passing tests of 1) realism, 2) naturalism, 3) identity consistency (unambiguity), 4) internal (logical) consistency, 5) operational (possible) consistency 6) external (observable) consistency, 7) rational choice given knowledge in time, 8) reciprocal rational choice, 9) stated limits and full accounting within those limits (full accounting), 10) and coherence with the first principles of the lower order of constant relations and the upper order of constant relations 11) within the limits of warrantability, liability, and resetitutability.

    Now to understand the first principles that are constant at all scales requires understanding ternary logic of the universe, and evolutionary computation of every set of recombinations in the hierarchy of evolutionary complexity that we call the disciplines.

    There are roughly twenty laws of ternary logic of evolutionary computation in that hierarchy, covering all the sciences, both logical(formal), physical, behavioral, and evolutionary, that most people can memorize with a bit of effort.

    It takes about as much effort to learn this scientific method as any other advanced stem degree, and about as much time, for the simple reason that we must overcome our natural cognitive biases more so than as in mathematics we must learn new ones, and it requires knowledge of multiple disciplines.

    It is, in general, unwise to assume I ever assert anything I can’t demonstrate by construction from first principles of the laws of the universe. If I can’t I don’t claim it.

    Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate the meaning of the word ‘science’, and the scientific method.

    Hopefully, you’ve learned something.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 17:36:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630623088743268369

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630615554326249498

  • IQ is the most accurate measure in the behavioral sciences, followed by the big5

    IQ is the most accurate measure in the behavioral sciences, followed by the big5/6 trait/facets, with stereotypes the most accurate measure in the social sciences.

    There are volumes and volumes and volumes on this subject and none of the professionals disagree. And certainly the people who author the testes don’t disagree. The disagreement is from people outside the field or people tangential to it (Psychology today) that have other motives.

    Just search amazon. And pick one of the academic sources. I don’t want to recommend ONE. But there are at least a dozen books that carry it. You will find the best information in research publications instead of books, and that’s just ‘google scholar is your friend’.
    I keep a reading list but that’s a bit nerdy for general consumption.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 17:18:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630618446605041707

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630616646397181954

  • IS IT EGO OR ANIMAL INSTINCT? Ego, arrogance, or confidence in pursuit of femini

    IS IT EGO OR ANIMAL INSTINCT?
    Ego, arrogance, or confidence in pursuit of feminine equalitarianism or masculine particularism is the same behavior. The feminine mind is confident it’s right and the masculine that it’s right. However, the sex difference in that moral intuition is merely the female desire to avoid the responsibility that would cause conflict is simply infantilization, while the male tolerance for conflict to take responsibility is adulthood.
    Sorry. All sex differences in behavior are reducible to this one question. (really)
    Question your intuition. It’s just hunter-gatherer animal instinct that’s talking. Not morality, not reason, not intelligence, not knowledge, not wisdom.
    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 14:49:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630580928635449346

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630509323121229824

  • IS IT EGO OR ANIMAL INSTINCT? Ego, arrogance, or confidence in pursuit of femini

    IS IT EGO OR ANIMAL INSTINCT?
    Ego, arrogance, or confidence in pursuit of feminine equalitarianism or masculine particularism is the same behavior. The feminine mind is confident it’s right and the masculine that it’s right. However, the sex difference in that moral intuition is merely the female desire to avoid the responsibility that would cause conflict is simply infantilization, while the male tolerance for conflict to take responsibility is adulthood.
    Sorry. All sex differences in behavior are reducible to this one question. (really)
    Question your intuition. It’s just hunter-gatherer animal instinct that’s talking. Not morality, not reason, not intelligence, not knowledge, not wisdom.
    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 14:48:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630580729057878018

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630509323121229824

  • THE ALTERNATIVE TO INTEGRATION IS DECAY I spent five years with, was engaged to,

    THE ALTERNATIVE TO INTEGRATION IS DECAY
    I spent five years with, was engaged to, and nearly married a woman of color with her children of color. (Illness broke me and the relationship. She was awesome.) It bothered me that if I walked into a restaurant in my rather (very) affluent city we were treated differently than I had been with my Scandinavian wife. I don’t really want anyone to feel like that. But then, stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science. To change a stereotype we have to change enough of the behavior of the group that a new stereotype develops. And that requires full integration. Remember we used to treat Irish worst of all. (And partly for good reason at the time.)
    (BTW: did you notice seattle just added caste discrimination to the anti-discrimination laws, because of the huge indian population that’s moved in to be employed by Microsoft et al?)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 07:41:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630473234838593536

  • WHY EXPLANATION, EDUCATION, AND PERSUASION FAIL Well, I don’t know where @Steve_

    WHY EXPLANATION, EDUCATION, AND PERSUASION FAIL
    Well, I don’t know where @Steve_Sailer stands on the issue, but the IQ problem is worse than we’d thought, because decline in logical ability increases rapidly and non-linearly, and human linguistic facility tends to mask how severe it is. There is almost no capacity to educate and explain anything of substance that is disagreeable to the audience and requires mutual sacrifice for the public good by the time we hit the low 90s and certainly the mid 80s.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 07:32:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630471048591208449

  • CURT: Q:”WHAT DOES THE MEDIA GAIN AND WHY ARE THEY ENCOURAGING DIVISION?” Well,

    CURT: Q:”WHAT DOES THE MEDIA GAIN AND WHY ARE THEY ENCOURAGING DIVISION?”

    Well, this is a great opportunity to explain. 😉

    A well known phenomenon: as the scarcity of attention increases, the utility of provoking moral outrage increases, because humans demonstrate altruistic punishment, which is the one behavior that will cause us high enough activation that we will pay otherwise irrational costs to punish those that morally offend us.

    So given that sex differences in perception, cognition, valuation, and activation are the origin of all human differences, and given that these sex differences are short-term, in-time, empathizing vs long-term, over time, systematizing, these sex differences are eternally in competition.

    Few of us are purely male or female in sexual biases, but we tend to be stereotypes (there is a 20-30% gradual overlap), the feminine (admixture) favors the caretaking and equality bias to an extreme while the masculine (admixture) favors reciprocity, proportionality, loyalty, hierarchy, and purity equally, that means there is ALWAYS a subject matter on EVERY issue that can be framed in a way that violates the moral intuition of both sides causing moral outrage, and willingness to engage in altruistic (costly) punishment (aggression, conflict, warfare) against the opposite side of the spectrum.

    In other words, (a) they do it for money (b) reporting used to require we practice testimony (c) in the sixties the activist generation took over journalism and the academy and converted from testimony to activism. (d) this combination. of converting to activism, increase in competition, decline in revenues, and panic for eyeballs, has combined to serve the marxist-neoMarxist-pomo-anti-family feminist-woke sequence of ‘religions’ and gradually undermine civil society, and fulfill the left’s ambitions of ‘marching through and destroying the western institutions of cultural production’, just as they stated they world.

    Conservatives on the other hand, especially in the USA, are largely anti-intellectual, and treat religion and constitution and the military as sacred institutions (it’s called european Trifuctionalism. Google it. It’s 5000 years old. It’s habit. It’s not going away very easily.). So because conservatism continues this ancient cultural tradition of maximizing individual responsibility and agency (at high personal cost) in order to create high-trust families that can produce high-trust commons (that other civilizations can’t) conservatives have ‘nothing to sell’ and only put up a resistance movement to the left who is selling reduction of those demands for individual responsibility.

    So that’s why there is a conflict, and that’s why it’s unresolvable, and that’s why those of us who study these things are certain we end in civil war unless we can find a way to ‘stop the hate’ and find a solution.

    I hope that helps.
    Cheers
    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 06:45:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630459192388493314

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630455188980121601

  • In mathematics, just as division by zero is a problem, infinity is a problem. We

    In mathematics, just as division by zero is a problem, infinity is a problem. We have a symbol for infinity, but not one for division by zero (which is effectively the same thing.) So infinity either means “error”, “I dunno”, or “undefined limit”.
    Part of the problem if not the cause of the problem is the foundation of mathematics in set theory(idealism) rather than operational computation (realism).
    The dam**ed consequences of that screw-up caused the loss of analytic philosophy that crashed in the 20th century.
    I blame Babbage for not writing papers and generalizing the theory instead of trying to make bigger computers.
    The result was cantor-einstein-bohr’s re-mystification of mathematics, and today’s physics lost in mathiness.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 02:32:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630395474162114561

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630393847342571525

  • (Lament: The Current Sex Conflict ) 1) I love women (maybe more than I should lo

    (Lament: The Current Sex Conflict )
    1) I love women (maybe more than I should lol) I certainly managed to accumulate more ex’s than I should. I mean. I’m average.

    2) I was raised with the put women-on-a-pedestal principle. I like that principle just fine, thanks.

    3) As a bit of an aspie, women have extraordinary value in explaining people and their behavior when I’m confused (ignorant). 😉

    4) I have had female friends for years, and valued them. But then I’m ‘allergic’ to women friends who might have an interest (I find it creepy because I perceive it as manipulation even if it’s genuine interest). But in truth I’m kind of oblivious. 😉

    5) Unless the woman was an employee, I probably wouldn’t spend time with her without my wife. If she is an employee then I have no problem at all, as long as it’s in public. (My assistants, that’s a different thing. It’s unavoidable. Executive Assistants are ‘work wives’ and I use them to manage me, and who has access to me. But married assistants with children I’ve found are pretty safe.)

    THE SAD BIT
    So my problem here is that I like women, being married to women, working with women, and having women friends, and being friends with wives of my friends. And this whole war-of-the sexes for destructive ideological purposes is just, well SAD. 🙁

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 00:22:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630362842305110017