Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Do You Agree With The Assertion That Some Races Have Higher IQ Than Other Races Naturally?

    I want to add what I believe the science currently tells us about differences in group intelligence.

    1. Differences in demographic distribution. Rather than state that the races possess terribly meaningful differences, the data suggests pretty strongly that certain groups have expanded their middle and upper classes under agrarianism, and some have expanded their lower and subclasses under pastoralism.
    2. Success at Neoteny/Pedomorphism in other words, ‘self domestication’ of certain groups was more effective largely because of geography. This is why intensity and rate sexual development is the inverse of intelligence in all groups. And this is measurable by testosterone in each race and subrace. Africans a lot, steppe/desert people a bit less, caucasians quite a bit less, and east asians a lot less. Why? Early maturity is absolutely necessary in Africa if for no other reason than the disease gradient. Late maturity or reduced depth of maturity (see body odor differences between races and ages), is beneficial in the rigours of above 45th agrarianism, and the genetic underclass cannot survive the seasonal cycles.
    3. Balance of Dimorphism. Male and female brains differ in structure and chemistry. Verbal and spatial specializations (biases really) follow these differences. Some groups demonstrate both bias to the female reproductive strategy and verbal superiority, some balance, and some demonstrate the bias to male reproductive strategy and spatial superiority.

    As far as I know all substantive differences in Homo Sapiens Sapiens are explicable by minor variations in endocrine expression both in utero and in early development.

    And that our racial differences are largely due to (a) the generation we left africa or remained there, and (b) the degree of neoteny and balance we achieved during self-domestication, and (c) the number and diversity of competitors we faced in our geography.

    And so far the data agrees.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-assertion-that-some-races-have-higher-IQ-than-other-races-naturally

  • Will The Meeting Between Putin And Trump Actually Accomplish Anything?

    (The correct answer for the many well intentioned f—-ls)

    Trump always and everywhere negotiates. Great negotiators are not afraid of opponents, they are thrilled by the competition. Trump is a ruthless negotiator who has made an industry out of baiting opponents, entrapping them, and then controlling them. He creates opportunity for greedy people to act greedy, traps them and the exploits them for their greediness. This is why the bankruptcies are merely a tactic he uses to entrap greedy people, and corrupt bureaucrats. Where the ignorant person sees failure, the sophisticated person sees strategy.

    Trump is a competitor in the Nietzschean mold. He sees a meeting with Putin as an opportunity to learn how to win just as he sees a meeting with Kim as an opportunity to learn how to win. The worst that happens is that nothing happens. The best that happens is that he finds (as did Regan) an opportunity. He does not care about ‘face’ or your approval. He only cares about opportunities to win.

    Putin is terribly rational and very simple: russians never want to repeat the 1990’s and they respect strength. He saved them from chaos and has given them self respect back. All his stunts that cause us to react are just image building. We are just a tool for him to show his people he is strong. Just as we are just a tool for Kim to demand cash when he is bankrupt. Putin is actually very weak because he is under the control of his dependence upon the export of petroleum. The difference is that Kim can starve his people and retain power, and Putin can’t. Stalin would have starved them. Putin isn’t that strong.

    Trump’s point of view, and it is not false, is that Americans are weak negotiators trying to win friends and make their jobs easy at the expense of the middle american work force. His opinion (and he’s right) is that china is rising to replace us by stealing our technology and undermining our markets. It does not take skill to negotiate an agreement that is favorable to your opponents.

    How do I know this. I do exactly the same thing. Why? Because Kings, Generals, and Entrepreneurs, unlike corporate heads, bureaucrats, and politicians have a constituency of one. Themselves. Some people go public to make a windfall. some of us stay private so that we remain our masters. Trump stays private to remain his own master. The only place a man can still be king is in commerce.

    Very few people in contemporary life actually participate in the market economy at personal financial risk. Kings, Generals, Investors, and Entrepreneurs of every scale, do it every day.

    Trump acts like a king, general, and entrepreneur because he has always been an entrepreneur, and he was trained in a military school.

    He’s not looking for your approval. He’s just always testing himself to see if he can out compete. Because that is the only test that the Nietzschean man cares about: the test of the markets.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-the-meeting-between-Putin-and-Trump-actually-accomplish-anything

  • WHY DO MEDIA OUTLETS AVOID WHITES? If you look at the ethnicity, gender, and aca

    WHY DO MEDIA OUTLETS AVOID WHITES?

    If you look at the ethnicity, gender, and academic degrees of media members at all levels (you can do this without much difficulty by picking any outlet and doing a trivial bit of research), you will find obvious, ethnic, gender, and degree similarities that are unavoidable.

    The attack on western civilization (nuclear family, empiricism, meritocracy, rule of law, markets in everything) has been going on for over a century. But between the postwar immigration of underclasses, and the 1965 immigration act designed specifically to undermine western civilization’s demonstrated falsification of the marxist program, and the 1965 and later invasion of the universities (sometimes at gunpoint) by the postmodernists and their pseudosciences, we have produced a vast number of ‘education, journalism, psychology, sociology, and literature’ degrees that are very little different from the majority of the clergy.

    This pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and philosophical denial of empiricism, truth, and reason, serves as a secular relgiion that replaced the church and pulpit with postmodern nonsense, instead of theological nonsense.

    We replaced the Military Industrial Complex and the Church with the Bureaucratic Complex and The Academy-Media Complex as the church.

    It’s pretty obvious that the academy which was originally created by the church (particularly Harvard and Yale in america) simply stepped in to replace the church’s supernatural theology, with the marxist-postmodernist secular theology, with the only difference being pseudoscience and pseudorealism this time versus supernaturalism.

    Data is data is data. Genders, Classes, and Groups pursue whatever group competitive strategy that they inherited from their parents and all that changes from generation to generation over the centuries is the vocabulary and excuses we make for pursuing those strategies.

    Western civ evolved not first but fastest because the nuclear family, empiricism, rule of law of reciprocity, and the resulting markets in all aspects of life, both forced continuous innovation, prohibited rents (other than the church, which made most capital in europe stagnant), allowed downward migration of middle class reproduction and produced the greatest eugenic evolution outside of the ashekanzi and chinese (who did so by bureaucratic market rather than commercial means).

    The evolutionary strategies of human females was to use disapproval, shaming, ridicule, and gossip to constrain alphas by organizing betas to resist them. This process continues today but in industrial form.

    There is nothing more sophisticated going on, than we did with our simian ancestors. It’s all hooting, hollering, gossip and shaming to control alphas. We just have industrialized the process from storyteller, to pulpit, to the written word, to the printed word, to the electronically transmitted word.

    But the apes still fling feces, while the aristocracy (paternal) creates technology, competition, markets, and law – dragging the same primitive instincts out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, child mortality, early death, disease, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe that is by all accounts hostile to life.

    It’s really trivially simple – like all of science.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 13:44:00 UTC

  • American Policy Toward Russia

    (a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.) (b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth “We just can’t allow our don basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was unfortunate necessary for the preservation of the international balance of powers.” (c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively: “This can’t happen again. So: 1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade. 2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars. 3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state. But there is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume. The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars’ of other countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).

  • American Policy Toward Russia

    (a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.) (b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth “We just can’t allow our don basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was unfortunate necessary for the preservation of the international balance of powers.” (c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively: “This can’t happen again. So: 1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade. 2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars. 3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state. But there is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume. The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars’ of other countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).

  • AMERICAN POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA (a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not

    AMERICAN POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA

    (a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a weak russia into nato at any cost thereby uniting german technology and russian resources. That is one of the greatest policy errores in history ( which the USA seems to stumble into regularly.)

    (b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth “We just can’t allow our don basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was unfortunate necessary for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”

    (c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:

    “This can’t happen again. So:

    1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.

    2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.

    3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.

    But there is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.

    The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars’ of other countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 12:08:00 UTC

  • Are “digital States” Real? Do They Enjoy Any Sovereignty Like Real Countries? Where Does The European Union Gdpr Come In?

    (Thanks for asking.)

    It is very hard for people raised in the current era of cultural, political, legal, and economic pseudoscience, to grasp the very simple reality that all forms of property from your body and mind, to your children and mates, to your home and assets, to your political rights, to your country’s territory, and all the patterns of behavior that you count on and benefit from every day, exist because of violence, and violence alone.

    Violence and violence alone determines control of yourself, your relations, and anything and everything else. All our organizations and institutions are but proxies for that violence. And only those capable of applying violence to preserve the order are ever in control of that order. And it takes very few people willing to use violence to end that order and replace it with another.

    So, a State exists as a State for two very simple reasons: some group of people possesses sufficient violence to prevent other people from having it. And other states prefer those people control that State rather than an alternative group of people.

    That’s it. In other words, States preserve other States – usually out of self interest: the preservation of the balance of powers in the region. During the agrarian era of the past, and during the current era where oil regions are so enabling of primitive peoples, we see Iraq->Kuwait and Iran->Syria, and Russia->Crimea (Black Sea deposits) ,and China->South China Sea.

    The same goes for digital anything: digital states, digital title registries, digital currency. They exist only so long as the states in which the servers exist, the people who manage them, the means of transforming the digital to the material, the people who use them, allow them to exist.

    I’ve written about this for years, but my understanding of history tells me that the digital currency experiment is merely performing private funding of research and development for the next era of state credit when the current postwar order deterministically fails.

    There is no escape from violence, or paying the cost of violence, in the form of the organization of violence, we call the State.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-digital-states-real-Do-they-enjoy-any-sovereignty-like-real-countries-Where-does-the-European-Union-GDPR-come-in

  • Curt Doolittle’s answer: There are some questions that you should not ask becaus

    Curt Doolittle’s answer: There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant. Persians divided from common…

  • —“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers

  • —“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers