Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Explaining the Confusion of The Conservative Mind

    EXPLAINING THE CONFUSION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MIND

    1. Conservative males mistake their intertemporal predictive modeling as a need for woo-woo. If you need woo-woo it means that which you are contemplating is beyond your present knowledge. It’s the instinct to patrol the borders of your territory to gain the info to model it.
    2. The problem you face is that the territory isn’t physically accessible, and the model requires knowledge of the population, economics, politics, and abstract information.
    3. So the Left’s Feminine mind can’t do intertemporal prediction and they just manufacture falsehoods. But the Right Mascluine mind manufactures demand for falsehoods too.
    4. The difference is that the left’s short term falsehood is continuously actionable using gossip and information distortion but yours requires you act on information but that the available information that is being distorted by the left – and you lack a means of defeating that.
    5. I try to provide you with P-law which is will allow you to model the world by seeing through or past the distortion, allowing to to correct the distortion, and allowing you together to organize because you see past that distortion.
    6. Because you are all searching for woo woo to organize against and it’s all failing. Becaues you’re just as bad as the left at searching for falsehoods. For the simple reason that developing a model of the world at this scale is very difficult. And P-Logic solves that problem.
    7. Unfortunately while P-law exists, you want feels not realz just like the left wants feelz not realz. So you double down on your various woo woos that you can feel, instead of learning the ‘science’ that would provide you with a model of the world free of woo woo: P-law.

  • The Marxist Solution Will Always Fail but As an Alternative…

      The Marxists insist on repeating an impossible solution dependent on employee participation in the firm under the presumption of employee interest and competency. Which even in the one unicorn firm they use as an example, we find the theory fails. In part this is because any and all distortions of the economy by interference of the state in firms causes externalities that negate the benfits they seek to obtain. By capturing the financial sector (because the state is both the issuer and the insurer) the state, the firm, and the people have identical interests. The present discord is because the state, the financial sector, the firms, and the people – especially the left – have conflicting interests. For example, immigration would directly reduce redistributions, and the financial sector would lose all political influence, restoring political influence to the competition between the people and the firms (industry). So instead of tying employees to the profitability of non-durable firm we can tie citizens to the profitability of the durable polity – w/same consequences for the financial sector. The firm isn’t profitable or stable enough, and employees never competent enough, and incentives not political enough to achieve redistribution via firm rather than as shareholders in the state. But capturing the parasitic financial sector for redistribution is trivially easy. So I disagree slightly with the 1599 proposition and instead suggest that the problem was the failure of the British state to capture the banking industry given its role as insurer of last resort. There was no reason after fiat script to maintain the figure 8 financial sector. Marxists are obsessed by and distracted by a world economy that no longer exists, positing a community that doesn’t and cant exist, and incentives and knowledge that doesn’t and can’t exist under a geostrategic order that ended twenty if not thirty years ago, and was squandered. The only ‘firm’ of consequence is the polity, and without the empirical operation of that polity, and the least possible friction of its economy, the incentive of the workers is to reduce adaptability of firms vs decreasing the rent-seeking of both peers and state. In this sense, citizens have a positive incentive if treating the state as a firm, but a negative incentive if treating firms as the state. We cannot ever limit the demand for human adaptability. We can only pay the cost of it. There are no regularities any longer.

  • The Marxist Solution Will Always Fail but As an Alternative…

      The Marxists insist on repeating an impossible solution dependent on employee participation in the firm under the presumption of employee interest and competency. Which even in the one unicorn firm they use as an example, we find the theory fails. In part this is because any and all distortions of the economy by interference of the state in firms causes externalities that negate the benfits they seek to obtain. By capturing the financial sector (because the state is both the issuer and the insurer) the state, the firm, and the people have identical interests. The present discord is because the state, the financial sector, the firms, and the people – especially the left – have conflicting interests. For example, immigration would directly reduce redistributions, and the financial sector would lose all political influence, restoring political influence to the competition between the people and the firms (industry). So instead of tying employees to the profitability of non-durable firm we can tie citizens to the profitability of the durable polity – w/same consequences for the financial sector. The firm isn’t profitable or stable enough, and employees never competent enough, and incentives not political enough to achieve redistribution via firm rather than as shareholders in the state. But capturing the parasitic financial sector for redistribution is trivially easy. So I disagree slightly with the 1599 proposition and instead suggest that the problem was the failure of the British state to capture the banking industry given its role as insurer of last resort. There was no reason after fiat script to maintain the figure 8 financial sector. Marxists are obsessed by and distracted by a world economy that no longer exists, positing a community that doesn’t and cant exist, and incentives and knowledge that doesn’t and can’t exist under a geostrategic order that ended twenty if not thirty years ago, and was squandered. The only ‘firm’ of consequence is the polity, and without the empirical operation of that polity, and the least possible friction of its economy, the incentive of the workers is to reduce adaptability of firms vs decreasing the rent-seeking of both peers and state. In this sense, citizens have a positive incentive if treating the state as a firm, but a negative incentive if treating firms as the state. We cannot ever limit the demand for human adaptability. We can only pay the cost of it. There are no regularities any longer.

  • Is Truth the Result of “Feelz”? (no).

    IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF “FEELZ”? (NO). The neurology says it’s because of the absence of feels. Given the absence of intuition all that remains is consistency correspondence and possibility. Females need intuition for children. Some of us maintain the feminine. Some of us are free of it. Rule(M) > Govern(MF) > Obey(F) Well, that’s an implication that there is not one most parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, and actionable paradigm for producing decidability. But there is. I’m trying to eliminate the left’s method of lying. The problem is, that eliminates everyone’s method of lying. The fact that it’s cognitively masculine is merely a fact. The fact that alternatives appear to be cognitively feminine is merely a fact. Those are the two directions of cognitive bias the brain can and does evolve. So if we want to say we need narratives that assist the range of human beings across the cognitive spectrum in coordinating their actions then that is fine. As long as they aren’t false. And as long as they don’t persist the Abrahamic method of deception. Which is ‘the problem’. So just as we need heroic ethics(empathy), rule ethics (reason), and outcome ethics(knowledge), we need Mythology(empathy), Philosophy(reason), and Science(Evidence), because we are children, adults, and aged. And all three must be coherent and scale up and down gracefully w/ us. Yes but reality is a costly data and algorithm set, given the distribution of age, and ability. We must provide wisdom lit for the young to old, and dim to wise. So the problem I see is that while I might state the first causes, they are too precise a tool for imprecise minds. Twitter and FB are sketchpads that assist in understanding how to simplify complex ideas so that they are within reach of the better of the common folk. But vocabularies reflect associative paradigms whether physical-actionable-observable, verbal-analogistic-sophistic, or intuitionistic-emotional-occult. There are only so many logics available to the human mind since we are always dependent upon those three human faculties. So it is always possible to disambiguate any claim whether physical, verbal, or intuitionistic because we can only associate those three categories. and falsification is dependent on that sequence : auto-association(memory) > intuition(model) > organization(language) > action It is this possibility of disambiguation which allows commensurability between the three sensory paradigms., Its this commensurability and disambiguation and deflation that the mystic and the sophist hates, because it eliminates loading framing and suggestion (manipulation). On the other hand we cannot take the simple mind of man, and his unorganized instincts and make him a fully human agent without a pedagogical sequence. Of narrative, to general rule, to specific prescription. So this is why we need a spectrum. But we cannot agree on that spectrum without a victor to which the other two factions must find survival by latching onto a competitor’s victory. My hypothesis is that truth is optimum competitive advantage, and philosophy and religion follow.

  • Is Truth the Result of “Feelz”? (no).

    IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF “FEELZ”? (NO). The neurology says it’s because of the absence of feels. Given the absence of intuition all that remains is consistency correspondence and possibility. Females need intuition for children. Some of us maintain the feminine. Some of us are free of it. Rule(M) > Govern(MF) > Obey(F) Well, that’s an implication that there is not one most parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, and actionable paradigm for producing decidability. But there is. I’m trying to eliminate the left’s method of lying. The problem is, that eliminates everyone’s method of lying. The fact that it’s cognitively masculine is merely a fact. The fact that alternatives appear to be cognitively feminine is merely a fact. Those are the two directions of cognitive bias the brain can and does evolve. So if we want to say we need narratives that assist the range of human beings across the cognitive spectrum in coordinating their actions then that is fine. As long as they aren’t false. And as long as they don’t persist the Abrahamic method of deception. Which is ‘the problem’. So just as we need heroic ethics(empathy), rule ethics (reason), and outcome ethics(knowledge), we need Mythology(empathy), Philosophy(reason), and Science(Evidence), because we are children, adults, and aged. And all three must be coherent and scale up and down gracefully w/ us. Yes but reality is a costly data and algorithm set, given the distribution of age, and ability. We must provide wisdom lit for the young to old, and dim to wise. So the problem I see is that while I might state the first causes, they are too precise a tool for imprecise minds. Twitter and FB are sketchpads that assist in understanding how to simplify complex ideas so that they are within reach of the better of the common folk. But vocabularies reflect associative paradigms whether physical-actionable-observable, verbal-analogistic-sophistic, or intuitionistic-emotional-occult. There are only so many logics available to the human mind since we are always dependent upon those three human faculties. So it is always possible to disambiguate any claim whether physical, verbal, or intuitionistic because we can only associate those three categories. and falsification is dependent on that sequence : auto-association(memory) > intuition(model) > organization(language) > action It is this possibility of disambiguation which allows commensurability between the three sensory paradigms., Its this commensurability and disambiguation and deflation that the mystic and the sophist hates, because it eliminates loading framing and suggestion (manipulation). On the other hand we cannot take the simple mind of man, and his unorganized instincts and make him a fully human agent without a pedagogical sequence. Of narrative, to general rule, to specific prescription. So this is why we need a spectrum. But we cannot agree on that spectrum without a victor to which the other two factions must find survival by latching onto a competitor’s victory. My hypothesis is that truth is optimum competitive advantage, and philosophy and religion follow.

  • OUR COVID FAIURE IS A SYMPTOM OF OUR POLITICAL DEVOLUTION I avoid the topic but

    OUR COVID FAIURE IS A SYMPTOM OF OUR POLITICAL DEVOLUTION

    I avoid the topic but I’ll just point out that (a) overwhelming the health care system is due to failure to conduct war games by WHO, CDC, and Health (b) export of strategic industries (c) demilitarization of the population so can’t be mobilized in crisis (d) financialization.

    None of this was necessary for 0.15625%. If we were still under rule by historical Anglo Saxon military elites we would still have a fully militarized polity and be able to act as one. But the left’s purpose was to foment discord and undermine and destroy that social, political, and economic order.

    I’m not making any medical claim here. This is just a criticism of how we are unaware just how far our institutions have declined, and how important an ‘army of everyone’ was to the success of the west.

    (Explained in more detail in this Video)
    youtube.com/watch?v=Y2RTW0iCxUs

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-21 19:53:33 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105770989199571644

  • EXPLAINING THE CONFUSION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MIND Conservative males mistake the

    EXPLAINING THE CONFUSION OF THE CONSERVATIVE MIND

    1. Conservative males mistake their intertemporal predictive modeling as a need for woo-woo. If you need woo-woo it means that which you are contemplating is beyond your present knowledge. It’s the instinct to patrol the borders of your territory to gain the info to model it.

    2. The problem you face is that the territory isn’t physically accessible, and the model requires knowledge of the population, economics, politics, and abstract information.

    3. So the Left’s Feminine mind can’t do intertemporal prediction and they just manufacture falsehoods. But the Right Mascluine mind manufactures demand for falsehoods too.

    4. The difference is that the left’s short term falsehood is continuously actionable using gossip and information distortion but yours requires you act on information but that the available information that is being distorted by the left – and you lack a means of defeating that.

    5. I try to provide you with P-law which is will allow you to model the world by seeing through or past the distortion, allowing to to correct the distortion, and allowing you together to organize because you see past that distortion.

    6. Because you are all searching for woo woo to organize against and it’s all failing. Becaues you’re just as bad as the left at searching for falsehoods. For the simple reason that developing a model of the world at this scale is very difficult. And P-Logic solves that problem.

    7. Unfortunately while P-law exists, you want feels not realz just like the left wants feelz not realz. So you double down on your various woo woos that you can feel, instead of learning the ‘science’ that would provide you with a model of the world free of woo woo: P-law.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-21 18:17:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105770612857874079

  • IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF FEELZ? (NO). (Part 2) But vocabularies reflect associativ

    IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF FEELZ? (NO). (Part 2)

    But vocabularies reflect associative paradigms whether physical-actionable-observable, verbal-analogistic-sophistic, or intuitionistic-emotional-occult. There are only so many logics available to the human mind since we are always dependent upon those three human faculties.

    So it is always possible to disambiguate any claim whether physical, verbal, or intuitionistic because we can only associate those three categories. and falsification is dependent on that sequence : auto-association(memory) > intuition(model) > organization(language) > action

    It is this possibility of disambiguation which allows commensurability between the three sensory paradigms., Its this commensurability and disambiguation and deflation that the mystic and the sophist hates, because it eliminates loading framing and suggestion (manipulation).

    On the other hand we cannot take the simple mind of man, and his unorganized instincts and make him a fully human agent without a pedagogical sequence. Of narrative, to general rule, to specific prescription.

    So this is why we need a spectrum. But we cannot agree on that spectrum without a victor to which the other two factions must find survival by latching onto a competitor’s victory. My hypothesis is that truth is optimum competitive advantage, and philosophy and religion follow.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-21 18:14:48 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105770600910988114

  • IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF “FEELZ”? (NO). (Part 1) The neurology says it’s because o

    IS TRUTH THE RESULT OF “FEELZ”? (NO). (Part 1)

    The neurology says it’s because of the absence of feels. Given the absence of intuition all that remains is consistency correspondence and possibility. Females need intuition for children. Some of us maintain the feminine. Some of us are free of it. Rule(M) > Govern(MF) > Obey(F)

    Well, that’s an implication that there is not one most parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, and actionable paradigm for producing decidability. But there is. I’m trying to eliminate the left’s method of lying. The problem is, that eliminates everyone’s method of lying.

    The fact that it’s cognitively masculine is merely a fact. The fact that alternatives appear to be cognitively feminine is merely a fact. Those are the two directions of cognitive bias the brain can and does evolve.

    So if we want to say we need narratives that assist the range of human beings across the cognitive spectrum in coordinating their actions then that is fine. As long as they aren’t false. And as long as they don’t persist the Abrahamic method of deception. Which is ‘the problem’.

    So just as we need heroic ethics(empathy), rule ethics (reason), and outcome ethics(knowledge), we need Mythology(empathy), Philosophy(reason), and Science(Evidence), because we are children, adults, and aged. And all three must be coherent and scale up and down gracefully w/ us.

    Yes but reality is a costly data and algorithm set, given the distribution of age, and ability. We must provide wisdom lit for the young to old, and dim to wise. So the problem I see is that while I might state the first causes, they are too precise a tool for imprecise minds.

    Twitter and FB are sketchpads that assist in understanding how to simplify complex ideas so that they are within reach of the better of the common folk.

    ( … more … )

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-21 18:14:01 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105770597810412831

  • Christian Pretense and Stolen Valor

    In the past, not today, there was enough endemic violence, and enough continuous warfare, and enough necessity of self-defense, familial defense, and local defense, that the Christian exhaustion of suppression of dominance expression mediated the presence of and incentive for violence. Yet today, what we see among Christians is not a conviction but convenience: escapism, cowardice, victimization, and eradication by a superior ancient religion (islam) and a superior modern religion (woke). It was not Christianity that made warrior saints. It was the search for booty under the permission of the church to violate the church’s ban on dominance expression. Until relatively recently war was pursued for booty because the returns on farming were barely sustainable. So whenever you say ‘warrior saints’ you’re appealing to the lie of ‘stolen valor’. You’re pretending you’re the same as those men. You aren’t. You’re just escapist little cowards like women creating a gossip circle to ameliorate your anxiety, powerlessness, and defeat. Because that’s what Abrahamic religions consist of: social construction of falsehoods that attempt to ameliorate the stress of being subject to gods logical, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws, which have determined, by your failure, that you’re unfit for God’s universe. Jesus taught us how to survive god’s laws – gods laws that only the Europeans and Persians had discovered, and used to conquer and rule the inferior peoples – including the Semites that had not. So Jesus told those who were ‘left behind by god’ how to tolerate gods leaving them behind – exhausting love for one another. Thus serving god by not doing harm against his laws. The jews (paulians, Christians) instead turned jesus’ teaching into another semitic system of lies. The abrahamic method of deceit is advanced a method of lying as european science is an advanced a method of speaking the truth: by aherence to the logical, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws of the universe. Becuase why would god need to lie or teach men to lie? Why would god teach you to avoid his laws? Laws he had built the universe from by his own will?