Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BE

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS.

    Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’)

    Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.”

    This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance.

    Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency.

    However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency.

    In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 12:26:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW ON MARRIAGE – FOR THE INTERESTED Marriage is a private contract yes,

    NATURAL LAW ON MARRIAGE – FOR THE INTERESTED

    Marriage is a private contract yes, but it is insured by the community, because of the consequences of broken families placing a burden via moral hazard on the community. So, a marriage contract consists (under natural law) as partnership (not corporation) constructed by the mutual exchange of powers of attorney limited only by those limitations stated, but insured by the polity, and therefore the law (judiciary), against interference that would cause harm unrestitutable harm to family members. As such interference in a marriage exposes one to liability for (very large) damages. And distribution of fault is determined court if not determined by the parties. There is no community property. The children are not property but the insurer of the children, and the polity from the children like any other domesticated animal. The law can have no position on divorce, other than empirical, which is that immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce. Mature children may decide which to live with if parents accept their responsibility as insurer. Upon maturity (puberty) that decision belongs to the children. But no liability exists in either direction. That means no alimony, no child support. Because marriages are transitory, and while a woman may sell her sex, affection, and caretaking the man must sell his productivity.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 22:00:00 UTC

  • WRITING CHARACTERS: SORRY BUT YES, FEMALES AND MALES SPEAK (VERY) DIFFERENTLY. A

    WRITING CHARACTERS: SORRY BUT YES, FEMALES AND MALES SPEAK (VERY) DIFFERENTLY.

    And we speak differently whether or not members of the opposite sex are the the room or hearing distance. Both are more reserved in the presence of the opposite sex.

    So when writing characters, don’t force the audience out of suspension of disbelief.

    Laurelle asked: —“Why does Cane find it necessary, in a 2009 publication, to include an essay (within the chapter on J.D. Salinger) titled, “How to create female characters that readers remember?” I mean, really.’—

    Because men are as notoriously bad at creating female characters, as women are at creating men. Dialog that is counter to type (falling out of character) is one of the most common failings of authors, with misgendered speech the most common means of creating cardboard characters. Sensitivity tends to vary between male and female cognition with empathizing minds (dominantly female) tolerating it (not breaking suspension of disbelief), and systematizing minds (dominantly male) not tolerating it (breaking suspension of disbelief). In fact, it’s rather humorous that you even mention this because you’re demonstrating it. The most common demonstrably female cognitive bias is NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) meaning failure to grasp a distribution.

    Now all of us vary in our distribution of systematizing(autistic extreme) male bias and empathizing (psychotic extreme) female bias and we find masculinely biased females and femininely biased males. But that doesn’t change the fact that while some of us are insensitive (empathic) to patterns of behavior and some of us are extremely sensitive to behavioral patterns (systematizing), that the audience’s (marketplace’s) tolerance (willingness to keep investing time in the author’s work) is unaffected by one’s ability to construct a believable character that meets the target market’s demand for suspension of disbelief.

    Same is for age, same is for occupation, same is for socio-economic class. Same is for time period.

    BTW: Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences, for obvious reasons: they’re continually tested empirically every day. Analytic males have the most accurate judgement of groups (patterns of action), and slightly sensitive females have the most accurate judgement of individuals (patterns of empathy(feeling)). This measure averages out at somewhere between .2 and .5. So it isn’t an extreme advantage or disadvantage. But it does matter. ie: If you write a romance novel it doesn’t matter as much as if you write a spy thriller.

    Hope this is useful for other writers.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 15:52:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON TODAY”S ART WORLD 1) spaces are now general purpose rathe

    ECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON TODAY”S ART WORLD

    1) spaces are now general purpose rather than designed for function. This makes them less amenable to artistic treatment because they have to be ‘resold’.

    2) Postwar materials (steel, glass, and panel products) are not amenable to organic arts, and it’s organic arts that constitute the majority of the western thematic tradition – particularly the human form.

    3) Architectural software is .. great for engineering and tradesmen but tends to produce ‘sh-tty’ attempts at imitating Lloyd Wright – to mid century, as if the Craftsman never happened. But at least soviet concrete brutalism is done. Fk. Great for government buildings. Sh-t for the artwork they decorated it with.

    4) Hollywood is a black hole for the arts, because it’s possible to make money at it on and off, while keeping ‘other jobs’ going.

    5) Camera first, large printers second and Digital third has eliminated much of the handicraft that went into the production of durable arts.

    6) Decoration will fit anywhere but “Art” (meaning, craftsmanship, materials) has been successfully undermined by the marxist-pomo-feminist tradition, and intentional deprivation of citizens from education in the heroic tradition – replaced with the victim tradition has made high art impossible or unmarketable.

    7) The economics of producing inventory vs the percent of sales is such that, say, if you want to produce 200k of income for a gallery and 60K of income for yourself, you have to do the math on how much time and materials you can put into each work. So at an average of 10k per piece, that means 20ps must sell, that means no less than five galleries, that means 40 pcs in inventory at all times. And that’s only so many days or weeks per piece. Most people produce a production line, and use it to finance their artwork. (I know art jewelry, print and panting the best.) Scale up to sculpture then to play, then to film, and down to print and farther down to photo and farther down to posters and kitch but the general math is the same -just like every other biz. There is a reason single digits of artists make a living, and instead work to fund their art hobby that generates lunch money.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 14:44:00 UTC

  • ONLY THE WEST COULD INVENT SCIENCE The value of religion and myth is conflation

    ONLY THE WEST COULD INVENT SCIENCE

    The value of religion and myth is conflation and monopoly.

    The value of law and history is deflation and markets.

    The human mind seeks homogeneity – the simplest possible system of comparison – so the western model is the hardest model for human beings to accommodate: a market of ideas using different grammars, where the mediation is simply via-negativa via natural law of reciprocity.

    DISAMBIGUATION, SERIALIZATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, RECIPROCITY, TESTIMONY, AND MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, – INCLUDING THE JURY.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/138036307594531Updated Oct 21, 2019, 11:58 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 11:58:00 UTC

  • The Superpower is gone with the restoration of normalcy in the post-communist er

    The Superpower is gone with the restoration of normalcy in the post-communist era – world powers are returning, and in doing so the world returns to normal. Every civlization has a core state. Core states are wealthiest and most powerful, and they constrain the actions of their civlizational members. India is a civilization, and china is a civilization, neither are countries, they are centrally managed civilizations, which is an advantage for a poor numerous people and a disadvantage for a wealthy people. I hope we are successful in preventing a world islamic power that we must fight like the world communist powers. We are still in the west fighting our own internal enemies in the financial, academy, state system. It is a mistake to think of the world as countries any longer

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 09:09:00 UTC

  • “most philosophers are terrible writers”— Yep. Well, there are a number of goo

    —“most philosophers are terrible writers”—

    Yep.

    Well, there are a number of good reasons, the first of which is the attempt to construct a new paradigm using existing language – some of which, like aristotle’s is clarifying, some of which like Heidegger is obscurant, and some of which like derrida is intentionally for the purpose of furthering deception.

    So between paradigmatic problems, novelty problems, and truth, analogy, poetic (nietzsche), fictionalization (Shopenhauer), and deceit (derrida, freud, adorno), and the academic failure to create a science out of formal logic (it’s all tautology so it doesn’t matter), then there is a lot of room for bad writing. lol 😉

    I think writing well is very hard. I’ve been writing profusely most of my life and I don’t think I was really worth reading until I was in my thirties (although my subject matter was part of the problem). My subject matter is still a problem… lol

    But writing characters, scenes and dialog using the various points of view, in various order, with various plots, with various characters … I mean, I think it’s really hard to write fiction well. I can’t bear reading much of it. I’ve nearly lost my ability to read fiction. (which apparently is more common than I thought)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 20:35:00 UTC

  • Masculine and Feminine Anti-Social Behavior

    Now, for men, you know, we get stressed trying to preserve an edifice, but we’ll eventually adapt to one if it means membership in a Team – because we have quite a bit of agency. Men tend to physically demonstrate anti social behavior. But ‘Crazy Chicks’ have a much harder time: they demonstrate anti-social behavior interpersonally and socially and they have lower agency – greater impulse – on average in the first place. Men are also more likely to live in physical and abstract reality where women more likely to live in (spend cognitive prediction in) emotional, interpersonal and social reality – all of us spend time in different distributions of sensory, physical, emotional, social, and abstract thought, which only reinforces the same emphasis over time. This means that while men and women have similar difficulties suppressing anti-social behavior, that (a) men’s are less tolerable but harder to mask (b) women’s are less visible and easier to mask. And the principle problem with ‘crazy chicks’ is that they can preserve the mask until they can’t, and when they can’t they hyper-react interpersonally and socially and never stop, whereas men hyper-react physically but eventually stop. All identified categories of human action are of necessity hyperbolic – maximizing our ability to disambiguate causality, and search and identify causes of instances – and all individual instances consist of multiple competing influences each of which we categorize hyperbolically out of necessity. This is the scientific method applied to high causal density. The opposite technique – again favored by women who engage largely in empathy(experiential, specific, and inter-personal) rather than largely systematizing(material, general, and political) – is to conflate and not disambiguate and instead empathize for the purpose of education or compromise. Where men disambiguate and aggregate, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining or defending LIMITS. so women are much more bottom up in their social intuition (opportunities) and men much more top down (limits). So crazy chicks are far higher a population problem than ‘crazy men’ at present principally because they are not regulated as are crazy men, and they are not regulated as are crazy men because the range of their damage is interpersonal and rather than material and political. As such we must spend time either regulating crazy chick behavior as we have crazy men behavior, or we must reverse the influence of crazy chicks in politics. I know we can accept defeat and remove crazy chicks from politics. But I’m exploring how we can regulate and retrain crazy chicks like we do crazy men. Although it appears nearly impossible, there is some evidence that the use of psychedelics and training may help. Mental illness cannot be cured – and even rarely improved. But aberrant behavior might be curable. Trauma certainly is, and much of that behavior appears to be caused by trauma – even though many of those traumas are cumulative grains of sands rather than distinct catastrophic events.

  • Masculine and Feminine Anti-Social Behavior

    Now, for men, you know, we get stressed trying to preserve an edifice, but we’ll eventually adapt to one if it means membership in a Team – because we have quite a bit of agency. Men tend to physically demonstrate anti social behavior. But ‘Crazy Chicks’ have a much harder time: they demonstrate anti-social behavior interpersonally and socially and they have lower agency – greater impulse – on average in the first place. Men are also more likely to live in physical and abstract reality where women more likely to live in (spend cognitive prediction in) emotional, interpersonal and social reality – all of us spend time in different distributions of sensory, physical, emotional, social, and abstract thought, which only reinforces the same emphasis over time. This means that while men and women have similar difficulties suppressing anti-social behavior, that (a) men’s are less tolerable but harder to mask (b) women’s are less visible and easier to mask. And the principle problem with ‘crazy chicks’ is that they can preserve the mask until they can’t, and when they can’t they hyper-react interpersonally and socially and never stop, whereas men hyper-react physically but eventually stop. All identified categories of human action are of necessity hyperbolic – maximizing our ability to disambiguate causality, and search and identify causes of instances – and all individual instances consist of multiple competing influences each of which we categorize hyperbolically out of necessity. This is the scientific method applied to high causal density. The opposite technique – again favored by women who engage largely in empathy(experiential, specific, and inter-personal) rather than largely systematizing(material, general, and political) – is to conflate and not disambiguate and instead empathize for the purpose of education or compromise. Where men disambiguate and aggregate, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining or defending LIMITS. so women are much more bottom up in their social intuition (opportunities) and men much more top down (limits). So crazy chicks are far higher a population problem than ‘crazy men’ at present principally because they are not regulated as are crazy men, and they are not regulated as are crazy men because the range of their damage is interpersonal and rather than material and political. As such we must spend time either regulating crazy chick behavior as we have crazy men behavior, or we must reverse the influence of crazy chicks in politics. I know we can accept defeat and remove crazy chicks from politics. But I’m exploring how we can regulate and retrain crazy chicks like we do crazy men. Although it appears nearly impossible, there is some evidence that the use of psychedelics and training may help. Mental illness cannot be cured – and even rarely improved. But aberrant behavior might be curable. Trauma certainly is, and much of that behavior appears to be caused by trauma – even though many of those traumas are cumulative grains of sands rather than distinct catastrophic events.

  • “ROBOT JUDGES” (from elsewhere) I have worked on automating legal argument since

    “ROBOT JUDGES”

    (from elsewhere)

    I have worked on automating legal argument since we wrote ipx drivers by hand, and was certainly one of the first people to do it for every federal court. I currently work on the strict construction of law from the test of reciprocity, and the tests of whether one is given truthful testimony. Most cases are settled before trial because they are decidable, and those that make it to trial not easily decided without subjective testing of incentives, and the vast majority of legal cases are decided by whether we subjectively test the believability of the individuals at hand – (and some by oversaturating the reason of the jury). If AI justice is at all possible we are very, very, very far from it. And even so, I don’t think we would permit it. We might permit a machine to produce information FOR a jury. But if we get to the point where we abandon the jury of our peers, it’s time to hoist the jolly roger so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 21:53:00 UTC