Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35922789_10156440940077264_13315658

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35922789_10156440940077264_13315658

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35922789_10156440940077264_1331565811675955200_o_10156440940067264.jpg MOTIVATED REASONING

    Young men are often weak, and will seek self medication in narratives.

    Aristocracy = Agency = Action (Dominance)

    -vs-

    Priesthood = Justification = Inaction (Submission)

    –Cognitive strategy–

    The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3]

    –Mechanisms–

    Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability, in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations.[4] More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational[5] or affective processes[6] to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning “was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation”.[3] This section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal.

    –Goal-oriented motivated reasoning–

    One review of the research develops the following theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[7] The model is summarized as follows:

    Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. Historically, motivated reasoning theory identifies that directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, information, knowledge) that are consistent with desired conclusions. This theory endorses previous research on accessing information, but adds a procedural component in specifying that the motivation to achieve directional goals will also influence which rules (procedural structures such as inferential rules) and which beliefs are accessed to guide the search for information. In this model the beliefs and rule structures are instrumental in directing which information will be obtained to support the desired conclusion.

    In comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2000) introduce an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds.

    This model has three components:

    On-line processing in which when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect;

    Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[8]

    A “heuristic mechanism” for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on “How do I feel?” about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information.

    This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber’s The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[9] Interestingly, David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[10] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.Paul FranklinKurt, and all of you (us – me) forgive my panic and erratic thought, which seems unthought of by anyone else probably only for being asleep, but this is… important?

    There is a dangerous inversion of black and white, in a popular old wives’ tale repeated by men, that if you take the ‘red pill’ things get worse for being real, as a result of your being honest, sincere? The truth -aggravatingly universal in this example – our (common) reality is both beautiful and fulfilling, not by virtue of any perversion, inversion, lens, distortion, divorce or separation, but straightforwardly.

    Things are there for the taking when you wake up. And I think reality has been switched, substituted, and become a property of the subjective interpretation of the thing instead of the exact same thing.

    The ‘sacrifice’ we are expected to make (heros), enjoining hardship, suffering, deprivation, and gaining brotherhood, appears only flattering to (male?) egos while selling them (us) a false ‘Zion’ (of austerity)?

    Heroes will be egged on by this popular culture to turn their bullets against themselves – though perhaps, in these circumstances you can’t miss?

    The main trick is to come as close to telling the whole ‘truth’ as we can, and omitting the least; or turning something’s completely upside down while pointing out how every detail is in its place, then turning the lights out… .

    Btw. Only the fates of others look black to me now. And did I tell you, it’s been a great pleasure (and that goes for the rest of you)! For which and much else I must thank Mea Culba! May I wish you (and all of us) the best!

    btw If I seem unfriendly it’s partly because Blue=cuddly disarmed fraternity … but you can take things too far.

    Cheers!Jun 20, 2018 7:19pmPaul FranklinI was surprised to see this, I’d only thought about posting it!Jun 20, 2018 10:05pmMOTIVATED REASONING

    Young men are often weak, and will seek self medication in narratives.

    Aristocracy = Agency = Action (Dominance)

    -vs-

    Priesthood = Justification = Inaction (Submission)

    –Cognitive strategy–

    The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3]

    –Mechanisms–

    Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability, in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations.[4] More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational[5] or affective processes[6] to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning “was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation”.[3] This section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal.

    –Goal-oriented motivated reasoning–

    One review of the research develops the following theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[7] The model is summarized as follows:

    Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. Historically, motivated reasoning theory identifies that directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, information, knowledge) that are consistent with desired conclusions. This theory endorses previous research on accessing information, but adds a procedural component in specifying that the motivation to achieve directional goals will also influence which rules (procedural structures such as inferential rules) and which beliefs are accessed to guide the search for information. In this model the beliefs and rule structures are instrumental in directing which information will be obtained to support the desired conclusion.

    In comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2000) introduce an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds.

    This model has three components:

    On-line processing in which when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect;

    Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[8]

    A “heuristic mechanism” for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on “How do I feel?” about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information.

    This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber’s The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[9] Interestingly, David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[10] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 18:43:00 UTC

  • WE CAN AFFORD TO SEPARATE, SPECIALIZE, AND SPECIATE Just as one of our favorite

    WE CAN AFFORD TO SEPARATE, SPECIALIZE, AND SPECIATE

    Just as one of our favorite pundits explains that as we become more wealthy, and institutionally and economically equal, we tend rather dramatically to increase our gender bias expressions – also, in all cases, as we become wealthier, we seek to explore our differences and reinforce them rather than pay the cost of adaptation to a norm.

    Most conservative liberal conflict is over this difference in conservatives paying costs to conform vs liberals consuming to experiment or explore. With liberals objecting to paying for costs they don’t want to pay directly, and conservatives objective to absorbing costs of liberal consumption and experimentation.

    Now, there are two choices: conservatives oppress liberals, or liberals oppress conservatives, or we separate, specialize and speciate.

    In other words, somewhere around 3500 years ago we slowed speciation. In the 20th century the left has attempted to reverse it. And they are succeeding – with horridly dysgenic results.

    But with very little effort we can now AFFORD to return to speciation.

    Fortunately, this is great for conservatives who are naturally eugenic, and great for liberals in the short term who are naturally dysgenic. But in the end it means we will, in the aggregate, return to white and east asian excellence and everything between us will once again decline – until they pose a threat to us out of necessity and envy.

    Time to return to speciation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 16:51:00 UTC

  • No, EQ Is Not a Thing, But….

    WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular) The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing. Class Behaviors are a Thing. As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait. AND WHEREAS Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors. THEREFORE So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior. AND THEREFORE So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists. IN OTHER WORDS Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms. Curt.

  • No, EQ Is Not a Thing, But….

    WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular) The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing. Class Behaviors are a Thing. As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait. AND WHEREAS Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors. THEREFORE So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior. AND THEREFORE So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists. IN OTHER WORDS Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms. Curt.

  • CAN WE THINK WITHOUT LANGUAGE? Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to t

    CAN WE THINK WITHOUT LANGUAGE?

    Thought and Language.

    It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately.

    Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives.

    Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination).

    In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time.

    We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 16:10:00 UTC

  • THE NECESSITY OF CONFLICT IN MONOTHEISM (MONOPOLY) Eli Harman June 20, 2016 · (r

    THE NECESSITY OF CONFLICT IN MONOTHEISM (MONOPOLY)

    Eli Harman

    June 20, 2016 · (repost)

    I take a dim view of monotheism because it necessitates conflict which isn’t actually necessary.

    Some conflict will always occur, because there are genuine conflicts of interest. But mere differences, whether in interests, culture, language, race, rituals, traditions, customs, doctrine, dogma, values, preferences, opinions, etc… need not result in conflict.

    People can coexist and cooperate through exchange, although sometimes necessarily from a distance.

    However, in monotheism, there is one god, one truth, one law, and they are universal. They are for everyone. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong, and not just wrong but evil, morally tainted.

    A more reasonable approach would be to accept that the truth is “out there.” We can test ourselves and our beliefs against it. But none of us has access to the whole. And any of us may be mistaken. Moreover, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, different bundles of trade offs or strategies that people may employ to achieve their values, or live in accordance with their preferences.

    These may be incompatible. But that doesn’t mean they *must* necessarily clash.

    The monotheistic mentality is exemplified by the Jews. The Talmud is 6200 pages of Byzantine nonsense written by hundreds of different rabbis. But it’s all revealed truth. It derives straight from the one true god, who is infallible, and therefore it’s not supposed to contain a single contradiction. Of course, it does. It must. So that’s why the Jews have evolved pilpul, casuistry, (basically, postmodern deconstruction) in order to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable.

    They’re such good lawyers because they’ve been lawyering for thousands of years; so long in fact, that they’ve forgotten there is a truth “out there” to compare themselves to (if they ever knew to begin with.)

    That’s what religious jews do all day, every day, they dispute. Of course, sophistry is infinite in its variety, but because of monotheism, there must be one “correct” bullshit interpretation. They have to determine whose sophistry prevails. Their status heirarchies are based on cleverness in disputation, which is aimed, not at discovering truth, but at causing rivals and adversaries to relent from their wicked and unholy errors, and to accept the one true sophistry as their own.

    Because status confers reproductive advantages they are now literally bred for totalitarian bullshitting and moralizing. And these tendencies are notably evident, also, in secular jews who have abandoned the religious tradition entirely.

    Christianity is not as bad, but its cuckery was assured by its universalism. Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church has become anti-western when the bulk of its flock, its constituency, is in the third world? The only thing surprising about it to me is that it’s taken this long.

    Nor is it any surprise that the Church spawned protestant spinoffs. Of course people are going to differ in opinion, interpretation, or emphasis. And the bigger your tent gets (in this case, by conquest) the more of those differences there will be to serve as internal fault lines. Eventually, they will become irreconcilable. But since only one can be correct, conflict must result. The only options are to suppress the heretics, to succumb to heresy, or split. There was a great deal of heretic suppressing at first but when the heretics became too numerous and too powerful to be easily suppressed, the splits were accepted (if not exactly endorsed.) But now we’re almost back to polytheism. Because in effect, the various, mutually tolerant, christian sects are worshipping subtly or even radically different gods, though they call them by the same name.

    Islam is just a parasitic, dysgenic mess that’s only good for belching forth conquering hordes of desperate, expendable, young men, to take over better cultures and begin consuming them in turn. It’s like a metastasizing religious cancer. It is more riven by internal division and conflict than any of them, due to the practice of inbreeding, which results in clanishness and tribalism. But you can see the distinct imprint of their monotheism in the ceaseless sectarian violence they take with them wherever they go.

    The “dar-al Islam” is not marked by peace even in submission, for everyone must submit in exactly the same way. But naturally, they differ as to what, precisely, that means.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 12:33:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY TRUTH (Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary L

    UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY TRUTH

    (Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons)

    || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*.

    Deflationary Theories of Truth

    —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”—

    In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”.

    Performative Theory of Truth

    —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”—

    Testimonial Truth

    (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle)

    “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”

    With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”.

    So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”.

    It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony:

    So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”;

    …. in testimony that means:

    “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.”

    And what’s not obvious is this:

    It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words.

    And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why?

    And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’.

    TESTIMONIALISM

    Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words.

    Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 12:25:00 UTC

  • Every movement starts as fringe, and edgy, attracting novelty junkies, dysfuncti

    Every movement starts as fringe, and edgy, attracting novelty junkies, dysfunctionals, rebels, and malcontents. And if it has any meat to it, increasingly upgrades from edge cases to some position in the hierarchy of argumentative structures that we call ideologies, philosophies, and institutional models. What we should expect to see, as we move up this hierarchy, is the exit of early entrants, and expansion of late entrants increasingly closer to the mainstream. The edge does the research but stays the edge. Utility is obtained, and as a consequence power is either obtained or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 19:49:00 UTC

  • NO, EQ IS NOT A THING, BUT…. WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Trait

    NO, EQ IS NOT A THING, BUT….

    WHEREAS

    Intelligence is a Thing

    Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular)

    The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing.

    Class Behaviors are a Thing.

    As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait.

    AND WHEREAS

    Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors.

    THEREFORE

    So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior.

    AND THEREFORE

    So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists.

    IN OTHER WORDS

    Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms.

    Curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 10:37:00 UTC

  • The Benefit of The Cognitive Load of “enough” Family

    by Collin Turney I worked door-to-door selling educational books for families that helped from learning ABC’s to SAT college prep. I met a total of aprx 3000 families, and here is my analysis: 1 kid – highly stressed parents and child as a by product of the psychological stress that comes with the “all the eggs in one basket” mentality. This means strict grade requirements, strict curfews and other things that are small but total up to a large amount of stress on the child because he feels like it is his duty to never fail at anything. 2 kids: assuming tbe kids are close in age, aprx 8 years or less, creates a “versus” mentality in the family. One child is always against the other. This often will pit parents against each other as well as the kids are always trying to earn the favor of whichever parent likes them more. The younger child has a high propensity to be a polar opposite of their older sibling as they are so often compared to their older sibling and feel as if they are living in someone’s shadow and will become different out of spite to build their own identity. 3 kids: Nearing the breaking point. Not many negatives other than the youngest often can get away with murder and the middle one feels he has no identity as he is neither the oldest nor youngest. 4+ children: the parents at this stage are fully occupied with raising the kids and stop giving a crap about their own personal problems and just do what needs to be done to keep everyone fed. Also, they will just let kids be kids and not worry so much about if they are wrestling in the house or coloring on the walls or other petty things because the parents reach a point where they realize if they care to much about each individual thing the kids are doing they would go insane in less than a week. Also, at 4 or more kids the dynamic in the kids is such that the older kids often assume a part in raising the younger ones and everyone is held to the same standard rather than the “vs” mentality of the 2 kids family and the “baby, directionless middle child, and oldest most mature child” mentality of the 3 kids family. The chillest family I met had 8 kids under the age of 10 and the kids were in the middle of what seemed to be the toddler version of MMA in their front yard and the parents gave no hecks.