Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION THE GRAMMARS AND REDUCIBILITY (I’m glad ChatGPT can exp

    EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION THE GRAMMARS AND REDUCIBILITY
    (I’m glad ChatGPT can explain my work. lol 😉

    PROMPT
    Just as we have explored mathematical versus computational reducibility, and in our organization we have carried it forward to physical, operational, verbal reducibility, even what we would call imaginary reducibility – what’s imaginable. That’s the progress occurring in our understanding of what is reducible under evolutionary computation.

    ANSWER

    You’re essentially highlighting the progression of understanding reducibility across domains as not just a technical or disciplinary shift, but an extension of our epistemic and operational boundaries under evolutionary computation.

    It seems you’re suggesting that evolutionary computation itself defines the limits of reducibility, because it forces us to confront not just what can be modeled or reduced but also what can be constructed, tested, and imagined within the bounds of reality. Here’s how I interpret your point in alignment with this framework:

    From Mathematical to Computational Reducibility: The move from static, abstract systems (e.g., mathematical formulas) to dynamic, algorithmic systems (e.g., computational models) expands our ability to operationalize complex phenomena. Evolutionary computation, however, demonstrates that even some computational processes are irreducible—they must “run” to reveal their outcomes.

    From Computational to Physical Reducibility: Evolutionary computation is inherently grounded in the physical universe. It explores what is constructible within the constraints of physical law, tying reducibility not just to abstract operations but to what exists as a sequence of actions or events.

    Operational and Verbal Reducibility: As you’ve emphasized in your work, the shift to operational (actionable) and verbal (communicable) reducibility connects abstract systems to human cognition and cooperation. Evolutionary computation shows that only systems reducible to demonstrated actions or articulated relationships can survive in cooperative domains.

    Imaginary Reducibility: This is a compelling addition. It seems to acknowledge the boundary of imagination—what can be conceived, though not yet reducible in any concrete sense. Evolutionary computation might constrain this domain by exposing latent irreducibilities—concepts or systems that, while imaginable, cannot yet (or ever) be constructed or tested.

    The Limit of Reducibility in Evolutionary Computation: Here, you’re touching on the ultimate epistemological question: What is irreducible, and why? Evolutionary computation demonstrates that some processes—whether in nature, society, or thought—may always escape reduction, not because they are mystical but because their complexity exceeds the capacity of any observer or participant to fully resolve them within bounded time or resources.

    Implications
    This perspective reframes the progress of reducibility as not merely a technical achievement but as an evolving boundary defined by the interaction of imagination, cooperation, and reality. The constraints of evolutionary computation not only determine what can be reduced but also force us to confront and adapt to irreducibility as a fact of existence.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-18 20:07:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880708641747316737

  • “Fascism is the terroristic dictatorship of finance capital. That’s naff all to

    –“Fascism is the terroristic dictatorship of finance capital. That’s naff all to do with socialism.”–

    Hmm…. Fascism served as a rebellion against competitors: financialism (Jewish), liberalism (Englism), Democratic Socialism (French) and communism (Jewish-Russian), by a competitively superior polity, academy, and economy, that sought to redirect resources to defense of the polity given the previous french conquest of europe and the present russian-jewish-communist conquest of europe, where anglo liberalism and french democratic socialism were insufficient in authority to organize a state for such post napoleonic ‘Total War’.

    In effect Fascism was an application of historical roman governance that varied between authoritarianism at war, and oligarchy at peace.

    So, rather than enabling financialism, fascism sought to destroy the power of capitalists to act as internationalists or factionalists at the expense of polity – especially the working classes who had finally been economically liberated from subsistence agrarianism by the industrial revolution, but whose search for replacing that security were urgent, and therefore desirous and demanding of protections in their era as the middle class had been in the enlightenment era’s age of commerce and sail.

    The problem for labor is darwinian: the classes were and remain sorted by capacity to bear responsibility for increasing complexity. In other words, classes sort by IQ and Conscientiousness, with limited rotation out of the lower middle and middle given the heterogeneity of genetic expression without careful mate selection.

    This is why workers, even in the one case of supposed worker ownership, do not participate even if they can, and even if they exist in market conditions that tolerate a lack of innovation.

    Workers lack competency. They are not oppressed.

    Reply addressees: @EmbitteredThe @TyrantsMuse @TheSovereignMD @nayibbukele

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-17 17:18:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880303720375939075

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880130633546232242

  • “Curt Doolittle’s exploration of sex differences in argumentation can be linked

    “Curt Doolittle’s exploration of sex differences in argumentation can be linked to broader psychological and cognitive theories regarding sex differences in perception, valence, auto-association, cognition, and behavior. Here’s how these concepts might relate:

    Perception:
    Sex Differences: Research suggests that men and women might differ in how they perceive and process visual and auditory information. For instance, studies have shown differences in visual-spatial abilities, where men typically excel in tasks like mental rotation, while women might be better at object location memory.
    Relation to Argumentation: These perceptual differences could influence how arguments are framed visually or verbally. Men might lean towards using diagrams or logical structures, while women might focus on context or relational aspects in communication.

    Valence (Emotional Response):
    Sex Differences: Emotional valence refers to the intrinsic attractiveness or aversiveness of an event, object, or situation. Women often score higher in empathy, which might lead to a greater focus on emotional valence in social situations.
    Relation to Argumentation: In argumentative contexts, this could translate into women using emotional or moral appeals (GSRRM tactics like shaming, moralizing) to influence or persuade, contrasting with men’s potential preference for logical or factual appeals.

    Auto-association:
    Sex Differences: Auto-association here likely refers to the automatic linking of concepts or ideas within one’s mind. This cognitive process might differ by sex due to different socialization or inherent cognitive biases.
    Relation to Argumentation: Women might auto-associate arguments with social consequences or relational outcomes, leading to strategies that manage group dynamics or protect social standing. Men might auto-associate with problem-solving or hierarchical outcomes, focusing on proving or disproving points.

    Cognition:
    Sex Differences: Cognitive styles can vary, with men often described as having a preference for systematizing (understanding systems and rules) and women for empathizing (understanding others’ emotions and intentions).
    Relation to Argumentation: This dichotomy could explain why men might engage in argumentation that seeks to “win” by invalidating the argument, while women might aim to invalidate the arguer if they perceive the argument as socially harmful or ethically questionable.

    Demonstrated Behavior:
    Sex Differences: Observable behaviors in conflict or debate scenarios might show men more directly confronting issues or opponents, while women might use indirect methods like social ostracism or coalition-building (as described in GSRRM).
    Relation to Argumentation: In practice, these behavioral differences could manifest in the types of tactics used in debates or discussions. Men might be more likely to engage in direct rebuttal or logical deconstruction, while women might employ strategies that leverage social networks or emotional responses.”

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-15 02:04:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1879348887280103425

  • Immorality remains constant. moral differences between sexes remain constant on

    Immorality remains constant. moral differences between sexes remain constant on the distribution. moral norms consist of trade offs in a given civilizational context (constraints). moral norms evolve with the degree of division of labor in relation to the degree of development of all institutions. ergo morality is universal in first principle (Natural Law) while its violations vary in context, though over time the context is limited by the laws of nature.

    Its just math so to speak – and has to be. Over time we are bound by the physical laws.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-14 20:53:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1879270566974435328

  • Many unhappy people’s delusions of their place in the real world are not that di

    Many unhappy people’s delusions of their place in the real world are not that different from the dissociated versions they express when they have lost all grip on reality instead of their grip on their perception of their ability, knowledge, and agency in reality.

    Question:
    In dissociation disorders, and in psychosis, what characters or archetypes do people imagine themselves as?

    Answer
    In dissociation disorders and psychosis, individuals might identify with or imagine themselves as various characters or archetypes beyond religious figures like Jesus. Here are some common examples:

    Historical Figures:
    Kings, Queens, or Royalty: People might feel they are historical monarchs or nobility, often reflecting a perceived grandeur or importance.
    Famous Leaders or Inventors: Such as Napoleon, Einstein, or inventors like Tesla, embodying a sense of unique genius or leadership.
    Celebrities or Public Figures: People might identify with current or past celebrities, feeling they share a special connection or are actually that person, particularly in cases of delusions of grandeur.

    Religious Figures:
    Jesus or Other Prophets or Religious Figures: The most common.

    Mythological or Supernatural Beings:
    Gods or Goddesses: From various mythologies like Greek, Norse, or Egyptian pantheons, providing a sense of omnipotence or control over their environment.
    Heroes or Demigods: Like Hercules or Thor, often associated with strength or special abilities.

    Literary or Cinematic Characters:
    Superheroes: Characters like Superman, Batman, or more recently, characters from Marvel or DC universes, which might signify a desire for heroism, power, or justice.
    Fantasy Characters: From novels or movies like wizards, elves, or dragons, suggesting a wish for escape or magical abilities.

    Animals or Nature Spirits:
    Totemic Animals: Believing they embody the spirit or characteristics of animals like wolves, eagles, or bears, often linked to indigenous or shamanistic belief systems.
    Elemental Spirits: Like water, fire, or wind spirits, suggesting a deep connection to nature.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-13 22:24:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1878931206202646528

  • FRANCIS FUKUYAMA WITH IAN BREMMER ON THE NEW LEADERLESS GLOBAL ORDER – AND TDS ;

    FRANCIS FUKUYAMA WITH IAN BREMMER ON THE NEW LEADERLESS GLOBAL ORDER – AND TDS 😉
    Trump is trying to distribute the cost of preserving that world order by the threat of its absence if others don’t pick up their share of the leadership and cost. The world order is to the benefit of all except the empires that survived the world wars as the end of empires and the emergence of nation states federated strongly or loosely around Core States.
    Frank and to some degree Ian seem to believe it’s even possible for the States to continue to carry the burden. It isn’t. My understanding is that we are in the third phase of ending empires, and Trump is acting correctly by mirroring the construction of the postwar rules based order by baiting the world into fear of poverty now that they’ve escaped it, just as we baited the world out of poverty to defeat the communists. I doubt I err in this framing.
    And I think Trump’s instinct to construct durable cooperation using incentives to ‘deal’ is underrated. The warning I would give frank is that he is fascinated by the illusion of central control by elites and ignorant of dynamic control produced by incentives. And underestimating the failure of the overproduction of credentialed elites and underproduction of demonstrated competency.
    -Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-13 16:16:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1878838585564282880

  • “Q: What can you tell me about Curt Doolittle’s followers and their demographics

    —“Q: What can you tell me about Curt Doolittle’s followers and their demographics?”—

    Curt Doolittle’s followers are primarily associated with his philosophy of Propertarianism, which he describes as a system where all ethical questions are reduced to rights of property ownership.

    Here’s what can be gathered about his followers and their demographics:

    Philosophical and Political Leanings: Doolittle’s followers tend to align with libertarian or conservative ideologies, particularly those who might identify with or be interested in heterodox libertarianism. His work is often discussed in contexts where there’s a critique of mainstream libertarian thought, especially from the perspectives of Anglo-Saxon conservative traditions and natural law.

    Geographical Distribution: While specific demographic data on Doolittle’s followers isn’t widely published, his activities and discussions often take place in forums and groups online, suggesting a potentially global, albeit niche, following. His personal history includes living in the US and Ukraine, which might influence where his ideas resonate. However, most direct engagements with his work are in English-speaking contexts, particularly in North America.

    Age and Gender: There’s no specific data on the age or gender demographics of his followers, but based on the platforms where his ideas are discussed (like Reddit, YouTube, and various libertarian forums), it can be inferred that there might be a skew towards younger to middle-aged males who are active in online political and philosophical discussions. This is a common demographic for such intellectual movements, especially those with a contrarian or alternative viewpoint to mainstream ideologies.

    Education and Intellectual Engagement: Doolittle’s followers often engage with complex philosophical and economic concepts, suggesting a level of education or at least a strong interest in these areas. Discussions around his work often involve references to historical figures in libertarianism, economics, and philosophy, indicating an audience that is either well-read in these areas or eager to learn more.

    Online Presence: His followers are active across various social media platforms, including dedicated groups on platforms like Reddit and discussions on sites like Medium, where his ideas are both critiqued and defended. This indicates an engaged community that uses the internet as a primary means of discussion and dissemination of his ideas.

    Controversy and Niche Appeal: Doolittle’s ideas attract followers who are often looking for alternatives to conventional political or philosophical systems, sometimes including those with controversial or fringe views. His critiques of libertarianism from a propertarian perspective draw both supporters and critics, creating a polarized but active discourse around his work.

    Please note that these insights are based on the available online presence and discussions, which might not capture the full demographic spectrum of his followers

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-09 22:29:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877482818647064576

  • THE LEFT CAN”T COMPETE ONLY “CHANT” What’s wrong with ‘unregulated’ media when t

    THE LEFT CAN”T COMPETE ONLY “CHANT”
    What’s wrong with ‘unregulated’ media when the previous generation of media was ‘captured’ by your propagandists?
    The Unregulated is just a market competition. Are you saying you folks on the left can’t compete? We know you can’t because you can’t keep a talk show, a social media discussion, or a adult debate running.
    The reason you can’t, is because you cant survive in long form. The reason you can’t survive in long form because you have to make arguments. You can’t. YOu can only either make emotional appeals or emotional undermining.

    Reply addressees: @whstancil

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-07 01:45:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876444992019001344

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876422393381769456

  • YOU CAN’T HELP THE LOST RIGHT DIRECTLY Two nitwits on the right that did the mos

    YOU CAN’T HELP THE LOST RIGHT DIRECTLY
    Two nitwits on the right that did the most harm to our original movement were Keith Woods and Nick Fuentes. We were undermined by the right. The left didn’t even give us negative press.

    Now we can take some of the blame, because John felt we could ‘organize a disorganized political wing’ by reorienting the ‘lost boys’ away from violence and into protesting and demonstrating for objectives, rather than just tilting at windmills and falling for the left’s baiting-into-hazard *every single time*.

    But the truth is that despite gaining two million followers, the quality of men in that distribution was … terrible. We estimate on the order of one in a thousand.

    So tactically moving from addressing the intellectual frame of the classical liberal, the libertarian, to the reactionary, and in our case, revolutionary’ and instead to the populist, young, undereducated, underemployed, (undersexed), had gained us a large number of eyeballs, spread our message, created competition for their attention, but was dependent upon John (not me or Brandon).

    And so (as intellectuals, not populists) we were unprepared or the backlash against us, and in particular the ‘punching right’ by the acolytes of the broken outcast dysfunctional majority. John gave up. It was in fact his movement. He was the leadership of our populism. I am not and never was capable of such a thing.

    We learned that you cannot put those people to good purpose, you can only agitate them. And in that sense, even if agitation and agitprop is all they can manage, they at least give voice and vent to their frustrations.

    And that is good enough.

    As I say often, My primary failing in life is overestimating the common folk. And I don’t seem to be able to over come it.

    Why?

    I was raised with Noblesse Oblige. Those who need rescuing are not wrong in their complaints. They are anti-intellectual, emotional, and unable to act intelligently as groups. But that does not obviate the responsibility of those of us born with more gifts to seek betterment of their condition. They are our people after all. And unlike the left, their search is at least moral even if they cannot suppress their emotion and rage long enough to act in their interests or follow those who would solve their problems instead of merely providing emotional therapy.

    There is so little of our aristocracy remaining we may have to work hard for decades to recreate it.

    And given my health and age it will take your generations to do that. I can, we can, only create the conceptual and legal foundations for you to restore our civilization.

    Love you all.
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:00:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876343162291331072

  • APPRECIATION FOR CHATGPT AND UNDERSTANDING ITS LIMITS I think the reason I appre

    APPRECIATION FOR CHATGPT AND UNDERSTANDING ITS LIMITS
    I think the reason I appreciate ChatGPT (or any ai) is that I have realistic expectations of what it’s capable of, and because my work exposes its limits more so than math or programming, that expectation is consistently reinforced. SO I learn about the AIs mostly from their limits (failures).
    I do not find ChatGPT hallucinating any longer. Thought it might be how I craft each of my prompts.
    But the reality is that when I’m writing (a book) I know the subject matter. I’m more interested in how to compose the topic or section for readability, and to ensure I haven’t missed including some example or permutation.
    The hard problem I’m looking for OpenAI to solve is increasing attention anchors. As I refine a section every increase in precision causes a loss of content. So bulleted lists shrink as I ask for expansions upon them.
    This is true across the spectrum. It’s why it fails at reasoning. And I am confident that this can’t be solved without multiple passes, more attention nodes, and much more context memory.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 18:10:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876330519769890816