Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE STATE OF RELIGION IN AMERICA (2014) The Christian share of the population is

    THE STATE OF RELIGION IN AMERICA (2014)

    The Christian share of the population is declining and the religiously unaffiliated share is growing in all four major geographic regions of the country. Religious “nones” now constitute 19% of the adult population in the South (up from 13% in 2007), 22% of the population in the Midwest (up from 16%), 25% of the population in the Northeast (up from 16%) and 28% of the population in the West (up from 21%). In the West, the religiously unaffiliated are more numerous than Catholics (23%), evangelicals (22%) and every other religious group.

    Whites continue to be more likely than both blacks and Hispanics to identify as religiously unaffiliated; 24% of whites say they have no religion, compared with 20% of Hispanics and 18% of blacks. But the religiously unaffiliated have grown (and Christians have declined) as a share of the population within all three of these racial and ethnic groups.

    The percentage of college graduates who identify with Christianity has declined by nine percentage points since 2007 (from 73% to 64%). The Christian share of the population has declined by a similar amount among those with less than a college education (from 81% to 73%). Religious “nones” now constitute 24% of all college graduates (up from 17%) and 22% of those with less than a college degree (up from 16%).

    More than a quarter of men (27%) now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, up from 20% in 2007. Fewer women are religious “nones,” but the religiously unaffiliated are growing among women at about the same rate as among men. Nearly one-in-five women (19%) now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, up from 13% in 2007.

    Although it is low relative to other religious groups, the retention rate of the unaffiliated has increased. In the current survey, 53% of those raised as religiously unaffiliated still identify as “nones” in adulthood, up seven points since 2007. And among Millennials, “nones” actually have one of the highest retention rates of all the religious categories that are large enough to analyze in the survey.

    As the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated continue to grow, they also describe themselves in increasingly secular terms. In 2007, 25% of the “nones” called themselves atheists or agnostics; 39% identified their religion as “nothing in particular” and also said that religion is “not too” or “not at all” important in their lives; and 36% identified their religion as “nothing in particular” while nevertheless saying that religion is either “very important” or “somewhat important” in their lives. The new survey finds that the atheist and agnostic share of the “nones” has grown to 31%. Those identifying as “nothing in particular” and describing religion as unimportant in their lives continue to account for 39% of all “nones.” But the share identifying as “nothing in particular” while also affirming that religion is either “very” or “somewhat” important to them has fallen to 30% of all “nones.”

    While the mainline Protestant share of the population is significantly smaller today than it was in 2007, the evangelical Protestant share of the population has remained comparatively stable (ticking downward slightly from 26.3% to 25.4% of the population). As a result, evangelicals now constitute a clear majority (55%) of all U.S. Protestants. In 2007, roughly half of Protestants (51%) identified with evangelical churches.

    Since 2007, the share of evangelical Protestants who identify with Baptist denominations has shrunk from 41% to 36%. Meanwhile, the share of evangelicals identifying with nondenominational churches has grown from 13% to 19%.

    The United Methodist Church (UMC) continues to be the largest denomination within the mainline Protestant tradition. Currently, 25% of mainline Protestants identify with the UMC, down slightly from 28% in 2007.

    More than six-in-ten people in the historically black Protestant tradition identify with Baptist denominations, including 22% who identify with the National Baptist Convention, the largest denomination within the historically black Protestant tradition.

    The share of the public identifying with religions other than Christianity has grown from 4.7% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2014. Gains were most pronounced among Muslims (who accounted for 0.4% of respondents in the 2007 Religious Landscape Study and 0.9% in 2014) and Hindus (0.4% in 2007 vs. 0.7% in 2014).12

    Roughly one-in-seven participants in the new survey (15%) were born outside the U.S., and two-thirds of those immigrants are Christians, including 39% who are Catholic. More than one-in-ten immigrants identify with a non-Christian faith, such as Islam or Hinduism.

    Hindus and Jews continue to be the most highly educated religious traditions. Fully 77% of Hindus are college graduates, as are 59% of Jews (compared with 27% of all U.S. adults). These groups also have above-average household incomes. Fully 44% of Jews and 36% of Hindus say their annual family income exceeds $100,000, compared with 19% of the public overall.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-15 17:33:00 UTC

  • What Are the Legit Crits of Prop? (One More Time!!!)

    WHAT ARE THE LEGIT CRITS OF PROP? (One More Time!!!) 2019-02-14

    —“Curt: honest question: What are the faults/weaknesses to propertarianism? I am a supporter but no human system is perfect and would like to know that you have thought out how to beat your own plan and what are the counters to slow or stop those from happening. Keep up the good work. Thanks if you respond.”—

    Um. I publish legit criticisms all the time. There are a few. They are all reducible to:

    1. Its big, complex, deep, and hard to learn. It is. The more I undrestand it myself, the more I understand that this scale of thing has only happened three other times in history. But people want something simple-stupid like libertarianism or progressivism. It’s not an ideology. it’s the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to all human thought, embodiment in the law, and means of restoring our civilization.

    2. People want a political ideology, religion, or secular religion (philosophy) and prop is simply science and law, with ADVICE on religion and secular religion.

    3. Jewish, christian, islamic religion do not come off very well, and I have not found a way to accommodate christian mysticism.

    4. Everyone wants a monopoly (religion, authoritarianism, fascism, anarchism) when we must use each of these components in every society – we cannot have a monopoly on any of them. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred way of organizing society – i use all of them.

    5. I suggest a few methods of governing across various peoples and various conditions with the law being the only constant. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred order. I use what is required.

    6. I am an unabashed elitist working in favor of my people, but other than knowing what is good for my people, I do not consider their understanding of the world very valuable. Only the set of demands they have, not their way of satisfying them. ( I do not claim to be a good, a moral, or decent person or anything of the sort, I only claim I am correct. God knows I’ve made the same mistakes everyone else has. )

    As far as I know there are no extant criticisms of the work itself and it will be extremely unlikely such things will arise other than in nuances. This is revolutionary and once you understand it your life will be changed forever. THE COMMON LEGIT CRITS … are listed in Section 3 Here: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982914672264

  • I don’t know what a metaphysics is if I have constructed one. I know I have defl

    I don’t know what a metaphysics is if I have constructed one. I know I have deflated and disambiguated LANGUAGE.

    1. I have enumerated the known grammars used by human beings and the history of their development in each era and why.

    2. I have articulated the dimensions of those grammars and how they all function.

    3. I have articulated the constitution of grammars although this is merely a refinement of chomsky.

    4. I have deflated disambiguated, operationalized, and serialized terms from across the fields, reducing all fields to a common vocabulary absent pretense of knowledge (largely idealism).

    And a lot more.

    Physical science, cognitive science, and if grammars are separate from cognitive science then the grammars, and as far as I know the rest is just ‘lies’.

    As far as I know philosophy is dead, just as theology is dead.

    There is only one testifiable method we have today (and have always had) and that is the law, and science is just an application of the law (due diligence and warranty of the truthfulness of one’s statements.)

    So as far as I know metaphysics as defined in every source I know of (which includes the SEP section 5, stating it does not exist) does not exist as other than an attempt to do as I stated above: fictionalism and lies.

    In other words, as far as I know P constitutes a logic of constant relations using actions which are all subjectively testable and marginally indifferent as a system of measurement.

    And language consists entirely of measurement. the question is only the precision of those measurements.

    Science has demonstrated parsimony.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 10:15:00 UTC

  • MORE “METAPHYSICS IS JUST FICTION” I am not sure a discipline called philosophy

    MORE “METAPHYSICS IS JUST FICTION”

    I am not sure a discipline called philosophy exists any longer, just as I am not sure a discipline of theology exists any longer, other than as fictionalisms.

    Both theology and philosophy are simply statements of limited ability due to ignorance. While useful in their time, I can think of no reason to use them today other than to engage in deception, and I have found no argument put before me that is not an attempt to engage in deception.

    —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods. You’ve, in the words of Dan Dennett, “take your philosophical baggage onboard” without realizing. As far back as Plato even, it has been understood by some that empirical methodology is limited in scope in terms of what kind of knowledge it can produce.

    Cognitive science could get as advanced as you like, perhaps even building minds which we can observe via phenomenological verification, but that wouldn’t change anything, because all scientific findings would be couched within the methodology. ….. As I said note, if you’re more empirically minded, temperament-wise, then none of that will probably interest you, as your concerns are pragmatic, and the differences that those who have a more abstract or balanced temperament are things you either don’t notice, or disdain.”—-

    —“… the method….”—

    The only methodology in science is testimony. That is the lesson of the 20th century. The rest consists of particular attempts to demonstrate that one performed due diligence prior to testimony.

    We run ideas thru a sequence of markets(competitions), and they survive or they dont. We are very close now to coherence (consistency) across all disciplines (which is what my work consists of: the completion of the scientific method – due diligence necessary for testimony – and we are left with why, if coherence is possible (operational prose) and fictions are possible (models that assist us in free associations[ideation]) then there is no such thing as metaphysics, only fictions that assist us in either entertainment or ideation that might somehow fit into coherence.

    There is no reason why (which is the correct argument for you to put forward) why networks of meaning (not truth) should not be constructed (fictions) for the purpose of either simplifying, problem solving, or expanding opportunities for investigation. That is very different from claiming such fictions ‘exist’ or are somehow other than fictions for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self and other deception.

    —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods”—

    Actually I don’t. I simply test whether something is testifiable or not (knowledge exists sufficient to make a truth claim) and whether there is malincentive (the equivalent of ‘criminal’ ). And if one makes a truth claim that cannot be made, in support of an incentive to engage in falsehood, I just apply the law: protect others from fraud.

    —“…. pragmatic…”–

    Again. This is not an argument. The assertion stands that there exist only two or three disciplines: physical science, cognitive science, and language (grammars), and that every instance of a thing called metaphysics that I can find consists of fictionalisms for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self or other deception.

    None.

    Worse, it is under this pretense that metaphysics is other than fiction, that occult, theology, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing, the fictionalisms and deceits are justified.

    If you can generate an example that survives the above criteria of falsification it would be helpful, since as far as I know – none exist – or can.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 09:36:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52146446_10156984161447264_529436613

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52146446_10156984161447264_529436613

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52146446_10156984161447264_5294366130914197504_o_10156984161442264.jpg THOSE WHO GOVERN

    The Theologitariat claim you are should be governed by a moral religion.

    The Politariat claim you should be governed by their judgement.

    The Commentariat market that you should be governed by philosophy.

    The Economitariat that you should be governed by consumption.

    In practice you are governed by the Law, and all else is an attempt to subvert it.

    In absolutes you are governed by men who fight and their tolerance of the current condition.

    We are the men who Choose.

    So Choose.Brandon Hayes*forbearance ;)Feb 13, 2019, 11:37 AMCurt DoolittleI need something of this nature on forbearance.

    Do you have anything?Feb 13, 2019, 11:37 AMCurt DoolittleI need a definition and an example, and esp, an example in series if possible.Feb 13, 2019, 11:40 AMBrandon HayesLuke Weinhagen is the forbearance guru.

    I make the distinction between tolerance and forbearance where ever I see it because I see it as a crucial point.

    I don’t tolerate bad behavior; I forbear for some of it in my presence. Not because I have to but because I appreciate nuance and timing in my tactics.

    “In absolutes you are governed by men who fight and their tolerance of the current condition.” < We don’t have to tolerate; Propertarianism gives license to persecute those cheating. For now we allow it as to create a more ideal transition [but it is not a must].Feb 13, 2019, 11:40 AMCurt DoolittleLuke Weinhagen ????? please?Feb 13, 2019, 11:41 AMCurt Doolittleah, so, convenience (cheating) > tolerance(discounting) > conviction(forbearance)Feb 13, 2019, 11:43 AMBrandon HayesI have some tags for you; one moment. :)Feb 13, 2019, 11:44 AMJWarren PrescottIn my heart, I just want to be left alone.Feb 13, 2019, 11:46 AMCurt Doolittlewe are never left alone. We must compete. Nature gave us luxuries. but none of us survive defeat by the red queen.Feb 13, 2019, 11:47 AMJWarren PrescottCurt Doolittle – and therein lies the dilemma… One of wanting to not be ruled by anyone and the other by wanting to be part of somethingFeb 13, 2019, 11:51 AMBill JohnsonFrom the Hymnal. Let’s all turn to page 27.Feb 13, 2019, 12:01 PMLuke WeinhagenCatching up…Feb 13, 2019, 1:03 PMLuke Weinhagentolerance – the capacity to endure continued subjection to something (my adds: externalizes costs, ignores limits, passive state, imposed externally, waives agency)

    forbearance – patient self-control; restraint; the action of refraining from exercising a legal right, a response or enforcing the payment of a debt/cost. (my adds: carries costs, imposes limits, active state, self imposed, applies agency)

    Above –

    “tolerance of the current condition” is a great example of the ambiguity tolerance allows. Who is responsible for the current condition? Who imposed a cost and who is carrying that cost?

    Alternative –

    “In absolutes you are governed by men who fight and their forbearance of your shortcomings.”

    Explicit in who is costing and who is covering costs.Feb 13, 2019, 1:31 PMLuke WeinhagenThe alternative also reminds the men who fight of their responsibility for what is and to reiterate their responsibility in asserting limits upon that forbearance.Feb 13, 2019, 1:44 PMTHOSE WHO GOVERN

    The Theologitariat claim you are should be governed by a moral religion.

    The Politariat claim you should be governed by their judgement.

    The Commentariat market that you should be governed by philosophy.

    The Economitariat that you should be governed by consumption.

    In practice you are governed by the Law, and all else is an attempt to subvert it.

    In absolutes you are governed by men who fight and their tolerance of the current condition.

    We are the men who Choose.

    So Choose.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 11:34:00 UTC

  • WE DON’T NEED YOU IF YOU’RE COSTLY – AND HONESTLY, THERE AREN’T ANY OTHER BUMPER

    WE DON’T NEED YOU IF YOU’RE COSTLY – AND HONESTLY, THERE AREN’T ANY OTHER BUMPER CARS TO RIDE AT THE MOMENT.

    —“You guys are going to have to learn how to be more resilient people if you want to grow your educational program. You can’t handle every dissenter this way and it reflect well. Anyways, it’s fine if you’re set in your ways for now. I’ll just take a break and see if I can answer any questions in the future.”— Josh Jeppson

    We don’t need numbers, we need quality. Once we have sufficient quality, then numbers are useful. But educating a dead weight of large numbers for whom the content is simply too difficult is a waste of time.

    We will very likely end up leading some population of people for the simple reason that (a) we will have a solution (b) we will have the smart folk, (c) our solution appeals across the middle of the laboring, working, middle, and professional classes, against the parasitic top and bottom.

    In other words one of our central discussions is why don’t we just leave mouth-breathers behind entirely, and like the frankfurt school and the marxists focus on the talent, which generate all the positive propaganda (information and persuasion).

    Men who will fight will fight for self interest alone, and all we need to do is provide the many (not the fringe) with reason for providing pressure out of simple self interst, using the least disruption to the social, economic, and political order, with the most natural means of reorganization.

    I mean, you guys are the third rail of guaranteed failure, not an opportunity for success. It’s not like you’re all gonna sit home if an opportunity presents itself. But you haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of generating an opportunity.

    I’ll take everyone who wants to fight. and learn how to fight, whether argumentatively socially or militarily. But I”m not interesting in fighting internally.

    We need men, not boys.

    Get on the train, or off it, and join another, or make your own.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 17:27:00 UTC

  • VISIONS OF THE FUTURE I don’t have anything against other groups because I under

    VISIONS OF THE FUTURE

    I don’t have anything against other groups because I understand men speak by and act by different grammars and that those grammars reflect their genes, class, and region – so they have little choice. But reciprocity rules.

    There is no value in trying to get despotic absolutists, the religious absolutists, the legal absolutists, the classical liberals, the libertarians, and the anarcho capitalists to unite behind a single message or goal other than survival as a group.

    The reality is that we need authority, religion, law, government, entrepreneurs, investors, and artists. And these demands are supplied by each of the right’s groups. With shared sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, and markets for voluntary organization in all walks of life – and prohibition on all actions against our people.

    My simple point is that law is and forever will be the means of organizing a population into whatever polity possible, and the left will always be better able to use the semitic techniques of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, fictionalisms, to lie, cheat, and steal from our people, and subject them once again to defeat.

    As far as I know this argument is unassailable other than to make the claim that the right and libertarians are better liars, whose message sells better than the false promises of the left, when what separates us largely from the left is that we speak the truth whether in scientific, legal, rationalist, or allegorical form, and that our message does not sell, but must be enforced, for the good of those who would hyper-consume the institutions that make our quality of life possible.

    There is only one way of imposing order at any scale – and that is law: the market for punishment. What order you build upon that law, must today consist of force, finance, commons production, insurance, administration, and education. You cannot avoid producing all of those functions and survive competition in the world. It cannot be done.

    And these are the roles of the various wings of the right and near right.

    And if you understand my policy recommendations you will understand also that I’ve solved most of the means of preying upon our people

    You must only decide:

    (a) How you want to obtain power,

    (b) What degree of separation to choose (conquest, secession, big sort.

    (c) How you want to operate whatever government or governments result.

    (d) What policies to enact if obtaining power and operating government, while still defending against enemies foreign and domestic.

    (e) Whether you want to even attempt to impose dictatorship, or a state version of christianity. Because both will fail.

    My preference is to defederalize, to redistribute centralized federal weath to many regions, eliminate discretionary rule in the federal government – leaving only watchman duties: military, treasury, insurer of last resort, judiciary limited to conflicts between the states.

    My preference is to impose voluntary disassociation and let the ‘market’ do its job. (this will drive (((enemy))) and occupier into urban centers.(ghettos).

    My preference is to issue warnings to all other states that if their people come here for our rule, then we will come there to rule their people out of self defense.

    My preference is forcible repatriation and revocation of passports of the enemies in exchange for not engaging in war upon them mostly south america.

    My preference is to make european religions of all forms the law of the land, and to prohibit all others, and to restore the churches to control of education, under threat of decomposition if they violate any of the laws.

    My preference is to immediately export the revolution and restoration to the rest of our peoples – in cooperation with those outside of western europe -all of whom will help us.

    But the truth is – we will ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE gravitate to a government of rule of law if we want to survive competition on the world stage with our own people. Because we can outcompete others only by this means.

    Everything else is not ‘my problem’ so to speak: it is yours. Because I don’t need to involve myself in anything other than bringing about change, and providing the means of transition, and a means of operating such a government if we win.

    If you want to fight over control of it that’s your game. But you will, I promise, end up with what I propose simply because of the numbers, power, and knowledge of the different factions.

    You can have wishes and fantasies. But the only reality that can exist is revolt is necessary and very soon. That it will be somewhere between uncomfortable and horrific. That we will choose PRAGMATICALLY whatever means of ‘divorce’ is most easily available (mine is easiest), and what rules to impose on people in order to complete the victory, while not being conquered by external forces.

    Anything else you believe is nonsense. If you are too frightened to fight for these conditions then just shut up, cower, and stay out of the way of those who are not. There are men among us. And we are many. And we are enough.

    Anyone i find deluding our people to any other set of options is an ally of our enemy, and I will, and we will, do everything possible to punish you and silence you for your actions.

    Curt Doolittle.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 11:51:00 UTC

  • ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we ha

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE)

    What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1

    ====

    by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata)

    Incredibly deep paper:

    – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings

    – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks

    – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science

    Abstract (Gated)

    The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 06:41:00 UTC

  • “… not everyone thinks you’re scary. Some just think you’re naive.”— Well yo

    —“… not everyone thinks you’re scary. Some just think you’re naive.”—

    Well you know, it’s kind of hard to look at my life history, my achievements and failures, my work, and my evidence of general knowledge of so many fields – and call me naive.

    But if that is how people who are less informed and experienced defend their fears – it’s not that I don’t understand. I just understand that they are useless to the cause of change, and are involuntary allies of the enemy. Not out of intent. But out of ignorance insecurity, and cowardice.

    Which is how I see you.

    If you had an argument then you would make it. I know the arguments.

    Which is how I identify all fools and liars. Non-argument.

    😉

    BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE OR BE SILENT.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 19:21:00 UTC

  • YES THEY ARE AFRAID OF ME – HERE IS WHY — I haven’t seen coordinated attacks a

    YES THEY ARE AFRAID OF ME – HERE IS WHY

    — I haven’t seen coordinated attacks as large as the ones on videos you appear in. They are very afraid of you.”—Dylann Tatee

    I KNOW THEY ARE AFRAID OF ME – AND THEY SHOULD BE. 😉

    But, not because the right, libertarians and our allies among the ‘undecideds’ will not win, but because if your self worth is malinvested in the potential of religion, moralizing, libertarianism, or fascism, then you must reinvest in the understanding that it is fascist monarchy, libertarian economy, moral law, and sacred religion that we need – NOT A MONOPOLY OF ONE OVER THE OTHER.

    THE CHILD seeks monopoly because it is all he understands. The SAGE seeks monopoly of mission by a MARKET entire spectrum of means.

    WE ARE ALL NEEDED AT EVERY LEVEL IF WE ARE TO WIN.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 18:34:00 UTC