Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • —“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

  • –“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

    –“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • –“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

    –“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • RUSSIA AND AMERICA (a) the USA (state dept) was profoundly stupid not to bring a

    RUSSIA AND AMERICA

    (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 an unfortunate necessity 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.

    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 european 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): 2018-03-19 11:37:00 UTC

  • Russia And America

    (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 an unfortunate necessity 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. 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 european 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).

  • Russia And America

    (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 an unfortunate necessity 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. 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 european 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).

  • Constitutional Revolution

    Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience. If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites. And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law. But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity. The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot. But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.

  • Constitutional Revolution

    Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience. If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites. And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law. But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity. The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot. But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.

  • CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law ar

    CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION

    Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience.

    If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites.

    And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law.

    But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity.

    The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot.

    But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 09:33:00 UTC

  • No You Cannot Trust Your Thoughts.

    —“Q: If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”— Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts? I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful. Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment. Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas. Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak. Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in everyday life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary). Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity. People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence. So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means. So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds. That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.