Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • IQ AND WHY SMART PEOPLE AREN’T OFTEN RICH (from elsewhere)(archive) (or “wealth

    IQ AND WHY SMART PEOPLE AREN’T OFTEN RICH

    (from elsewhere)(archive) (or “wealth is a middle class occupation”)

    I think Molyneux did a pretty good job.

    Here is what I said in response to Taleb:

    —(a) g measures what we attempt to measure (b) chance of success corresponds to a distribution of traits, (c) plus the utility of those traits, in service of the population under the bell curve within 1 SD.—

    Which is the only answer that matters, and is something we have known for decades – it’s covered in the Millionaire Mind books and related research.

    But to an economists it’s fairly obvious. Smart folk don’t amass money that often because we already HAVE an asset. Smart people don’t need anything else to compete. They don’t need anything else to signal with. (I mean, ask andy how easy it is to intimidate, humiliate, or shut down the average person (idiot)) In fact, if you are very intelligent the skill we must learn is now NOT to make people feel stupid, humiliated, or shut down.

    So a little more color on the subject:

    People most likely to gain wealth are in the middle and upper middle classes. People least likely to gain wealth are in the lower classes. Our ‘aristocracy’ today tends to consist of relatively invisible academic financial and political families, rather than wealth for this reason. We live in a middle class VISIBLE world but with an INVISIBLE aristocracy.

    Why? Because you need to (a) be interested in (and not bored by) something (b) there are some number of people interested in, and (c) most people that you can serve are in the middle 2/3 of the curve. So knowing those OPERATIONAL RULES we would expect shortage at the bottom, a steep climb to 2/3, and shortage at the top. Which is what Taleb’s chart shows us. I mean, smart people have MANY, MANY Possible ways of being ‘successful’ (subjectively).

    For example: I can tell fairly easily that Andy Curzon and Noam Chomsky, or that category of people who can read anything and speak nine or ten languages – all have higher IQ’s than I do. And I can enumerate what each can do that is superior.

    My particular thing is that I don’t make mistakes, at the cost of limited lateral associations. I remember pretty much everything at the cost of short term memory. And I have trouble with more than one project at a time. But I will absolutely figure out any problem period, … given time to figure it out on my terms. These are not positive academic traits (rate of learning unrelated things, making one an exceptional manager, executive in every field), they are very positive lifetime traits (getting comparative advantage ‘right’ in high risk propositions.)

    So, for example, as Higgs (Higgs boson) said “I would never get hired by a university today because I work slowly”. And we are creating a large number of ‘sufficiently successful’ college graduates that find safety in jobs that are extra market (which is why you used to go to college – to find income outside of market forces – particularly government, law, medicine, and teaching).

    ***So Taleb’s observation is statistically truth and operationally false.***

    Which is pretty much what I try to teach people: any claim that cannot be stated in operational language, is an act of fraud.

    So for example, no matter what I did,assuming we both invested in it, Andy would defeat me at chess (permutations of states), and Chomsky can give a long running detailed explanation of phenomenon without hesitation in search of words or phrasing (depth (or durability of short term memory) of ‘narrator, observer, searcher’ abilities – which is something that fascinates me).

    Because while I can undrestand it and imagine doing it I can’t do it – at least for any length of time – long enough time to complete with people like Andy, Chomsky, and say Stephen Fry is someone who comes to mind because of his lateral thinking ability.

    But here is the thing. Smart people (and I know very many of them) EXIT THE MARKET and live ‘normie lives’ because everything they can possibly want is obtainable under ‘normie’ conditions, an they can devote their spare time to their interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-31 10:20:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE? (The Definitive Answer. Core.) —

    QUESTION: IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE?

    (The Definitive Answer. Core.)

    —“Curt, sorry to bother you because I know you are extremely busy, but need your insight.”—

    CD: Thank you for respecting my time, but it’s my job, and I like my job (mostly). It’s no use being a Law Giver if you don’t answer questions of law. 😉

    —“I am having a discussion about reciprocity with a person coming from a philosophy background. It started with his assertion that all morality is subjective.”—

    CD: This is a grammatical problem – a failure of deflation and disambiguation.

    – Personal morality is subjective and representative of personal utility, under which one considers actions reciprocal(power) and proportional(weakness) or not. It is not in fact moral, only useful.

    – Normative morality is subjectively respectable or avoidable, but rarely breakable without some cost to you. It is not in fact moral, only the result of market competition for reciprocity(power) and proportionality(weakness).

    – Juridical Morality is objective: it is merely reciprocal. This is an empirical AND logical AND rational statement, since it is the universal basis for all law, with northern european being the least ‘tainted’.

    So while a POSITIVE morality (what you want) may vary, NEGATIVE morality (what people do not want) does not vary.

    And while we may have different subjective opinions over negative morality, it is quite simple to demonstrate otherwise that all law operates by reciprocity in matters of dispute. And all legislation aims at producing proportionality with in the limits of tolerable reciprocity given the economic order possible for the people in their state of development and geography.

    In other words, it is not a opinion that morality (reciprocity) is a negative and objective universal, but that positive morality (proportionality) varies by circumstance.

    The problem is that we use the word MORALITY without deflating it into POSITIVE (proportionality) and NEGATIVE (reciprocity). Because variations in positive is merely utilitarian for the individual but invariance in the negative is utilitarian for all.)

    —“Of course, I took the opportunity to bring reciprocity into the discussion, even to the point where reciprocity as a measurable standard could be used to remove the subjectiveness. My meaning is that all acts are amoral, and we can measure empirically if an act is good (moral) or bad (immoral) based solely on if it violates reciprocity. “—

    CD: You are quite correct. I offer the previous few paragraphs as means of explaining his conflation of positive and negative morality. So like positive and negative freedom, there cannot be any forceful positive freedoms, only negative without breaking the negative. As such There is no positive morality that can be demanded, only negative morality demanded, without breaking negative morality. … It might surprise you that it took 2500 years for someone to write those paragraphs but unfortunately, every other time it vanished. Maybe this time it will vanish through suppression as well.

    —“I do not want to bring property-in-toto into the discussion yet, as I am attempting to keep in simple and in lay terms, even using simple examples to demonstrate. “—

    CD: You don’t bring property in toto into a discussion since that is too loaded. It is better to ask if everything can be reduced to attempt at acquisition of something whether information experience, opportunity or resource and ask them if they can find an exception – they can’t. Then you just explain everything in terms of who is trying to acquire or defend what, and then show how reciprocity is the only rational choice – particularly for the strong.

    —“I am writing as much (actually more) for others who will read it than trying to convince this “moral relativist”, so I don’t want to overcomplicate it. “—

    (CD: Good. That is the tactic you should always use. You are more likely to sway the audience than the opponent, because the audience is less invested in the signaling.)

    —“Okay, now for the question. “—-

    CD: So you’re going to ask something harder than to deflate morality and to determine if it is objective or subjective? lol.

    —“I was reading back though your posts, even back to 2016, looking if there was any insights if there are any conditions under which Conquest/Colonization did not violate reciprocity? I doubt I will be able to convince him, as he will not let go of his “subjectivity”, but I believe I need to answer his point that even property obtained via reciprocity is subjective, because one can reject the validity of ownership (by lack of moral justifications) because it can “only be owned through social contract” and that social contract is “based on theft and colonization.”—

    —“He also claims that there cannot be one standard, even one of reciprocity, because even it is subjective. He claims that the “operational variables required for it to be true cannot exist outside subjectivity”. But, is that not why we make it operational and deflate terms, to remove such subjectivity? Am I missing something?”—

    There is one negative standard (reciprocity) by which all laws especially international laws are judged. That’s both logical and empirical. The evidence is what it is.

    It may be useful within groups to develop personal and normative morality, and to legislate proportionality for various utilitarian reasons.

    However, morality remains, like freedom, like law, both logically and empirically a via-negativa; a via-negativa of reciprocity; and no positive morality can exist without violating the via negativa other than restitution for costs imposed.

    I suppose I should diagram this so that it’s a bit more obvious to people. But they readily (all of us do) conflate personal moral intuition, with normative moral habituation, with objective morality: reciprocity.

    And there is no other meaning possible, and all other attempts to make it possible are thefts, frauds, and sophisms.

    There is one objective moral law: reciprocity, and an infinite number of utilitarian means of contributing to a commons from which all might benefit. To say those contributions to the commons in order to satisfy a sense of proportionality as well as reciprocity, are moral is simply false. They are purchasing amoral options against immorality. And most of those options are returning nothing other than psychic rewards (self worth, virtue signaling) because of one’s failure to meaningfully contribute, because of one’s lack of agency.

    SO worse, those that lack such agency use this virtue signaling to coerce redistribution (theft) from some to others not for sake of proportionality or reciprocity, but to compensate for their lack of agency in achieving proportionality under the terms of reciprocity.

    That is all.

    If you can find any other philosopher that does a better job of providing this explanatory power in this precise a langauge then I would love to know who that is.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 12:20:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTAND: RELIGION IS THE HARDEST PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Because it is educ

    UNDERSTAND: RELIGION IS THE HARDEST PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

    Because it is education and training of the intuition by suggestion using narrative, ritual, oath, and debt.

    And because the intuition is the lowest common denominator of decidability in a population, demanding the least reason, calculation, and calculation.

    We are not ignorant as we have been throughout history. What we call ‘spirituality’ is the evolutionary artifact of the reduction of cognitive, social, physical, and therefore emotional burden by submission to and membership in the pack(male bias) or herd (female bias), and the resulting feeling of peace, safety, and mindfulness that results from that submission (surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd.

    The more agency, opportunity, experience, peace, safety, and mindfulness one has the lower the demand for the feeling of ‘spirituality’. The less agency, opportunity, experience, pace, safety and mindfulness on has, the greater the demand for the mindfulness that results from submission(surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd.

    We cannot demand those lacking interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military market value survive without the training in mindfulness that makes possible individual, interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military cooperation with others and the benefits that come from it.

    That would be IRRECIPROCAL.

    However, we can at the same time limit the external agency of those who lack the agency and market value to use the political process to influence others where such an influence is against the natural law.

    By the demand for truthful speech in the commons in matters commercial, … we eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By eliminating the need for churches to obtain donations, we likewise eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By demanding the churches warranty their due diligence in the production of education in the personal, interpersonal, social, commercial, financial, economic, political, and military.

    This will have the effect of driving groups that are hostile to the natural law and to european civilization out of every aspect of life, and make ‘religions’ liable for the actions of their ‘products’: citizens.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 11:25:00 UTC

  • THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”–

    THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS

    —“…Russell and Frege …”–

    Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable.

    Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names.

    The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name.

    This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 07:47:00 UTC

  • THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just

    THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC”

    We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks.

    In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive).

    But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’.

    The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant.

    —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.

    – Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 07:34:00 UTC

  • John Mark, Bill Joslin, JOHN IS LIKE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. DAMN. This is a pretty fa

    John Mark, Bill Joslin,

    JOHN IS LIKE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. DAMN.

    This is a pretty fair example of my mailbox. John is reaching normies like crazy. Real men. But what I want to talk about is this sentence:

    —“As I had not seen any evidence or opportunity to attack our challenges from this scope – the challenges we face as a civilization MUST be addressed at this level, I have been living more in the silent desperation as most of us likely do, as I do not have direct access to my tribe.”—

    John, is there a way to play into that message? Into that demand? That … feeling?

    —- CONTENTS OF EMAIL —-

    —“Four days ago I was made aware of this project, and Curt Dolittle, due to John Mark’s “Mark My Words” YouTube Channel. Needless to day I went from skepticism, to guarded interest… to being a bit obsessed. I have spent the last three days in what spare time I have looking into Propertarianism, as defined by this project. As a trained philosopher who continues to educate himself while working in high tech (Spinoza had to grind lenses 😉 , I have read or am familiar with most of the books on the reading list. I have been contemplating for the last few years, a new political party with a platform based on Natural Law… I see you have gone down a similar path, and have provided what appears to be a full working theory of the type I could really dig into. I am still not completely there yet, as this is a very comprehensive system of thought. I might compare your project to Leibniz universal scientific language in scope. And am curious on an aside if you think of Leibniz as contributing to the mysticism of the 20th century or a potential way out. I must say I am very impressed, I have not yet been able to poke any major holes in what I have dug into. My initial questions are getting my head around how to operationalize specific implementations of the theory in the real world, which is an important part of this theory. If anything the more I delve in I look potentially at a tribe I have felt disconnected from as academics nor the work place have not been supportive of my political, civic and metaphysical inclinations, this is especially true in the San Francisco Bay Area. If anything my views are shunned in the current political environment to the point where our free speech is infringed upon often. Thus I have focused on living my philosophy in my small tribe, family, and bringing up my three sons with the best information and guidance possible. As I had not seen any evidence or opportunity to attack our challenges from this scope – the challenges we face as a civilization MUST be addressed at this level, I have been living more in the silent desperation as most of us likely do, as I do not have direct access to my tribe. So my second set of questions would be how do I get involved, and how can I contribute? My specialties of interest are Western Philosophy, Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, CogSci and AI. As well as a deep understanding in comparative religion, evolutionary psychology and history. I also have studied and practiced martial arts for decades both history and application, including hand to hand, weapons and the art of war (Sun Tzu yes but meaning von Clausewitz, just war and total war theories). Thus you can understand why your project really resonates with me.

    I do not have anything of note to share in recent writing as I have not done real philosophy for years in regards to output, but I do have the gifts of clear analysis, synthesis, writing and public speaking.Sincerely,”—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-27 19:31:00 UTC

  • I prefer ORDER. (intolerance). I would rather live in a prussian order with limi

    I prefer ORDER. (intolerance).

    I would rather live in a prussian order with limited means of signaling (greater equality of responsibility for the commons.)

    I have come to understand that monarchies are better at the production of aesthetic commons, the generals better judges of war; the middle class at commercial commons; and the lower class at insurance commons.

    I would prefer we only let people engage in the production of commons they are good at. And that they have ‘skin in the game’ for any commons that they produce.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-26 18:35:00 UTC

  • THE SELF-REGULATION OF THE ARTS –Art is a way of making an idea real (open to e

    THE SELF-REGULATION OF THE ARTS

    –Art is a way of making an idea real (open to experience). Art is the demonstrated property of an artist. Art is governed by established rules and principles and demonstrates an observance of limits on what is permitted or appropriate.”—Spencer Young

    This is .. really good structure. Rarely good structure. Pls let me suggest a tweak to your thought process a bit, and to riff off this opportunity to educate others:

    –“…governed by…”—

    This phrase is an analogy, not a description. Is art ‘governed?’. No. The process of regulation is much more elegant than that.

    – There exist economic costs of the production of different art forms.

    – There exist civilizations capable of paying the costs of different art forms (or not).

    – There exist technologies within each craft as well as the craft of aesthetics.

    – There exists symbolic content and aesthetic composition that ‘brands’ periods (states of development).

    – There exists mastery of the craft, the aesthetics, and the informational(symbolic) content.

    – There exists a tradition in all of the above (market).

    – There exists imitation that causes that tradition(market).

    – There are canons (reference works) that reinforce imitation and tradition (standards of weights and measures);

    – There is a market for imitation, canons, and the art itself.

    This is one of those deceptively hard questions of art theory.

    As far as I know, art is an ancient, even eternal, self-regulating market that ‘demonstrates demand for art works within both current and traditional limits of craftsmanship, aesthetics, meaning, context of display, and morals/ethics/manners (appropriateness).”

    There is plenty of ‘market manipulation’ in the arts, and it has been so forever. Just like every other market. However, professionals are rarely fooled. And tradition of the heroic value of arts continues unabated.

    (thanks for letting me riff with this)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-26 18:31:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD’S GHETTO ETHICS VS WESTERN SOVEREIGN ETHICS Rothbardian (jewish) tradit

    ROTHBARD’S GHETTO ETHICS VS WESTERN SOVEREIGN ETHICS

    Rothbardian (jewish) traditional ethics require only voluntary exchange. Under Jewish ethics, usury, baiting into moral hazard, verbal fraud, blackmail, bribery, rent seeking, corruption are ethical because they are voluntary. Volition is the only test. The ethics of “What can i get away with?” The low trust ethics of the middle east.

    Under western (germanic) traditional ethics all of these are unethical, because they violate reciprocity – which aside from volition, requires warrantied due diligence that a transfer is also productive, fully informed, and free of negative externality. The ethics of “i have gotten away with nothing.” The high trust ethics of northern europeans.

    So when you dont understand something ask for clarification. Dont shame me for not writing in crayon. And do one better, and assume you’re abysmally ignorant before you assume I err.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 22:27:00 UTC

  • WHY WE FAILED So you see, the reasons the west could not defeat the rise of pseu

    WHY WE FAILED

    So you see, the reasons the west could not defeat the rise of pseudoscience (marxism) and sophism (postmodernism) and denialism (feminism) is because of:

    (1) we spoke in religious, philosophical, and moral middle class language, and;

    (2) because our group strategy and reason for success is eugenic,;

    (3) our organizing principle is actually our law (martial and judicial class) and tripartism, not our philosophy(middle class) universal or religion (administrative class) universal;

    (4) we lacked understanding of our organizing principle and its difference from other civilizations; had no practice in using it against administrative and middle class moralisms, sophims, supernaturalisms, and pseudosciences, and;

    (5) universal enfranchisement in a single house majoritarian democracy is logically and empirically counter to the tradition of our law (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty), our group strategy (sovereignty, tripartism, commons and eugenic evolution).

    In retrospect it isn’t complicated but in the process it was chaos.

    But now we know. Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 13:07:00 UTC