The problem is (a) delayed entry into the workforce by unnecessary education, excessive educational debt, and immigrant labor filling entry level jobs, (b) immigration of cheap labor favoring upper middle and upper classes at the expense of the working and under classes (c) common property, no fault divorce, alimony and child support guaranteeing elder male poverty and alienation, (d) the replacement of the ‘easy jobs’ with females at the expense of replacement rates of reproduction, and the displacement of males who are less able to self-modify to suit heavily female environments into only the dangerous, physically degenerative, and dirty jobs – or out of the workplace altogether. Business satisfy demand, but government creates demand by immigration, taxation, and family policy. Fools talk about what is good directly (oughts), and adults talk about incentives that produce goods (is’s). Unfortunately due to Dunning Kruger education effects popularized by the island 120 median, the fools do not know they are such.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Ageism in The Workplace (insufficient Demand)
The problem is (a) delayed entry into the workforce by unnecessary education, excessive educational debt, and immigrant labor filling entry level jobs, (b) immigration of cheap labor favoring upper middle and upper classes at the expense of the working and under classes (c) common property, no fault divorce, alimony and child support guaranteeing elder male poverty and alienation, (d) the replacement of the ‘easy jobs’ with females at the expense of replacement rates of reproduction, and the displacement of males who are less able to self-modify to suit heavily female environments into only the dangerous, physically degenerative, and dirty jobs – or out of the workplace altogether. Business satisfy demand, but government creates demand by immigration, taxation, and family policy. Fools talk about what is good directly (oughts), and adults talk about incentives that produce goods (is’s). Unfortunately due to Dunning Kruger education effects popularized by the island 120 median, the fools do not know they are such.
-
More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.
-
More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.
-
Religiosity and Computational Discounting
(the economics of spirituality) I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so. So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities. And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training. So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation. To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.
-
Religiosity and Computational Discounting
(the economics of spirituality) I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so. So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities. And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training. So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation. To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. RELIGIOSITY AND COMPUTATIONAL DISCOUNTING (th
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
RELIGIOSITY AND COMPUTATIONAL DISCOUNTING
(the economics of spirituality)
I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so.
So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities.
And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training.
So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation.
To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 18:11:06 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE (INSUFFICIENT DEMAND)
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE (INSUFFICIENT DEMAND)
The problem is (a) delayed entry into the workforce by unnecessary education, excessive educational debt, and immigrant labor filling entry level jobs, (b) immigration of cheap labor favoring upper middle and upper classes at the expense of the working and under classes (c) common property, no fault divorce, alimony and child support guaranteeing elder male poverty and alienation, (d) the replacement of the ‘easy jobs’ with females at the expense of replacement rates of reproduction, and the displacement of males who are less able to self-modify to suit heavily female environments into only the dangerous, physically degenerative, and dirty jobs – or out of the workplace altogether. Business satisfy demand, but government creates demand by immigration, taxation, and family policy. Fools talk about what is good directly (oughts), and adults talk about incentives that produce goods (is’s). Unfortunately due to Dunning Kruger education effects popularized by the island 120 median, the fools do not know they are such.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 14:40:21 UTC
-
RELIGIOSITY AND COMPUTATIONAL DISCOUNTING (the economics of spirituality) I thin
RELIGIOSITY AND COMPUTATIONAL DISCOUNTING
(the economics of spirituality)
I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so.
So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities.
And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training.
So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation.
To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 14:11:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. HOW DO WE EVOLVE (GENETICALLY) AND WHY? (grou
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
HOW DO WE EVOLVE (GENETICALLY) AND WHY?
(groups and genetics)
1 – We can evolve (a) through normal mutation (b) through selection by intergenerational expression (c) class (quality) sortition, rates of reproduction, and rotation, (d) through selection by group strategy and reorganization resulting in asymmetric rates, , (e) through technological innovation. Although âd” is misunderstood.
2 – Of these five methods of evolution it appears c,d,e are faster and more influential than a,b. And that in general we are selecting between low dimorphism and increased rates of maturity (male) in hotter climates, higher populations, and greater disease gradients, versus higher dimorphism and decrease rates of maturity (female) in cooler climates, lower populations, and weaker disease gradients.
3 – The primary axis of difference between the races and sub races, if not tribes, consists in (a) the distribution of dimorphism (balance of male and female traits between the genders), (b) degree of neoteny (balance of rates of maturity or delayed maturity), and (c) success at culling the underclasses (defectives).
4 – We do not face this reality yet in the postwar era due to (((suppression))) of scientific truths, but some races and sub races are more evolved than others and we can test this because rates of maturity (neoteny), degrees of dimorphism (cognitive structure, and endocrine responses), and IQ distribution (degree of suppression of the underclasses). In this sense races and sub races are vastly unequal.
5 – But this only means that in large part some groups express different excellences in their middle, upper middle and upper classes, and that some groups have been more successful at culling the lower classes due to climate and available means of production.
6 – In other words, we can continue to speciate by our various group excellences if and only if homogenous nation states that practice economic eugenics (reproductive limitations).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 13:54:30 UTC