Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • PETERSON’S MISSION VS DOOLITTLE’S MISSION In the end Petersen working on self he

    PETERSON’S MISSION VS DOOLITTLE’S MISSION

    In the end Petersen working on self help – or self correction (direct) at one end of the spectrum and I’m working on systemic help – or systemic correction (indirect) at the other end of the spectrum. He’s teaching and I’m governing. Via positiva, via negativa.

    I made this similar argument about Mises vs Hayek, and I could easily make the argument about Spencer vs Nietzsche.

    I could make the same argument between Marx and Keynes.

    Hayek spent his whole life coming to the same conclusion I have, by almost exactly the same sequence.

    individual training is extremely expensive but collective (systemic) training is cheap and most effective. And the single most effective means of training is the continuous evolution of the single law of reciprocity that we call the law.

    People will self justify anything and everything at all times.

    People cannot self-justify their way out of law. Legislation, and morality yes, but law no. They must act in accordance with it.

    The brain gives us reward for the number of free associations generated by any given set of relations. It literally feels good for the neural economy to prune and grow – identifying more possibilities…. more IMAGINATION, and therefore more opportunity. And it is opportunity-generation that is the value of memory.

    This is one of the reasons we able to empathize, extend trust, suspend disbelief, and accept new information from storytelling uncritically via suggestion the by the same process we imitate others through observation and imitation. (if you can connect those processes it will help you understand.)

    But we are suggestible by observation and by storytelling just as we are suggestible by acting in the environment – hence metaphysical value judgements that we intuit but do not know we know.

    Observation and storytelling are much cheaper than action. Literature/experience and philosophy/argument are cheaper than science/engineering, because emotions, thought, and action describe a sequence of costs.

    As it must be for any creature that decides action using memory.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-07 06:59:00 UTC

  • Peterson’s Mission Vs Doolittle’s Mission

    In the end Petersen working on self help – or self correction (direct) at one end of the spectrum and I’m working on systemic help – or systemic correction (indirect) at the other end of the spectrum. He’s teaching and I’m governing. Via positiva, via negativa. I made this similar argument about Mises vs Hayek, and I could easily make the argument about Spencer vs Nietzsche. I could make the same argument between Marx and Keynes. Hayek spent his whole life coming to the same conclusion I have, by almost exactly the same sequence. individual training is extremely expensive but collective (systemic) training is cheap and most effective. And the single most effective means of training is the continuous evolution of the single law of reciprocity that we call the law. People will self justify anything and everything at all times. People cannot self-justify their way out of law. Legislation, and morality yes, but law no. They must act in accordance with it. The brain gives us reward for the number of free associations generated by any given set of relations. It literally feels good for the neural economy to prune and grow – identifying more possibilities…. more IMAGINATION, and therefore more opportunity. And it is opportunity-generation that is the value of memory. This is one of the reasons we able to empathize, extend trust, suspend disbelief, and accept new information from storytelling uncritically via suggestion the by the same process we imitate others through observation and imitation. (if you can connect those processes it will help you understand.) But we are suggestible by observation and by storytelling just as we are suggestible by acting in the environment – hence metaphysical value judgements that we intuit but do not know we know. Observation and storytelling are much cheaper than action. Literature/experience and philosophy/argument are cheaper than science/engineering, because emotions, thought, and action describe a sequence of costs. As it must be for any creature that decides action using memory.

  • Peterson’s Mission Vs Doolittle’s Mission

    In the end Petersen working on self help – or self correction (direct) at one end of the spectrum and I’m working on systemic help – or systemic correction (indirect) at the other end of the spectrum. He’s teaching and I’m governing. Via positiva, via negativa. I made this similar argument about Mises vs Hayek, and I could easily make the argument about Spencer vs Nietzsche. I could make the same argument between Marx and Keynes. Hayek spent his whole life coming to the same conclusion I have, by almost exactly the same sequence. individual training is extremely expensive but collective (systemic) training is cheap and most effective. And the single most effective means of training is the continuous evolution of the single law of reciprocity that we call the law. People will self justify anything and everything at all times. People cannot self-justify their way out of law. Legislation, and morality yes, but law no. They must act in accordance with it. The brain gives us reward for the number of free associations generated by any given set of relations. It literally feels good for the neural economy to prune and grow – identifying more possibilities…. more IMAGINATION, and therefore more opportunity. And it is opportunity-generation that is the value of memory. This is one of the reasons we able to empathize, extend trust, suspend disbelief, and accept new information from storytelling uncritically via suggestion the by the same process we imitate others through observation and imitation. (if you can connect those processes it will help you understand.) But we are suggestible by observation and by storytelling just as we are suggestible by acting in the environment – hence metaphysical value judgements that we intuit but do not know we know. Observation and storytelling are much cheaper than action. Literature/experience and philosophy/argument are cheaper than science/engineering, because emotions, thought, and action describe a sequence of costs. As it must be for any creature that decides action using memory.

  • TEACHING AND THE ROLE OF NARRATIVE My understanding is that what I term ‘mindful

    TEACHING AND THE ROLE OF NARRATIVE

    My understanding is that what I term ‘mindfulness’ (mental and emotional agency) can be obtained by making use of animal sentiments thru age seven, and that we can teach logic, and grammar of language, logic and grammar of measurement (math), logic and grammar of physics (science), and logic and grammar of ethics:, propertarianism, and testimonialism.

    And if we do that then we will achieve in both personal mindfulness, social mindfulness, and politics, what we have achieved in mathematics and the physical sciences. There is no difference between the different grammars except the range of operations (permutations) available at different scales.

    Reading and Math are terribly unnatural. Cooperation is NOT. That people cannot imagine a developmental evolution that they cannot find commensurable with their own experience is simply a limitation of the individuals making that assessment. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot teach calculative means of solving problems of cooperation, rather than literary means.

    This reduces the use of narrative to a series of ‘word problems’ we can empathize with.

    if you can grok this then you’ll see how profound an innovation in the logics and grammars of continuous disambiguation and calculation that we call thought are propertarianism, testimonialism, and operationalism.

    The same evolutionary leaps of mathematics and reason in the ancient world, and science and empiricism in the modern world, can be achieved in cooperation and operationalism in the present.

    The problem is that each of us has problem saying something other than ‘well it worked for me because’ rather than ‘I was able to get here despite the way I was taught’.

    People are ‘hooked’ on the mythic and fictional narrative for the same reason they were hooked on and could not envision a world under the arbitrary discretion of a fictional god.

    They were wrong in the late medieval world, and they are wrong in the present world.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-06 11:05:00 UTC

  • Teaching And The Role Of Narrative

    My understanding is that what I term ‘mindfulness’ (mental and emotional agency) can be obtained by making use of animal sentiments thru age seven, and that we can teach logic, and grammar of language, logic and grammar of measurement (math), logic and grammar of physics (science), and logic and grammar of ethics:, propertarianism, and testimonialism. And if we do that then we will achieve in both personal mindfulness, social mindfulness, and politics, what we have achieved in mathematics and the physical sciences. There is no difference between the different grammars except the range of operations (permutations) available at different scales. Reading and Math are terribly unnatural. Cooperation is NOT. That people cannot imagine a developmental evolution that they cannot find commensurable with their own experience is simply a limitation of the individuals making that assessment. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot teach calculative means of solving problems of cooperation, rather than literary means. This reduces the use of narrative to a series of ‘word problems’ we can empathize with. if you can grok this then you’ll see how profound an innovation in the logics and grammars of continuous disambiguation and calculation that we call thought are propertarianism, testimonialism, and operationalism. The same evolutionary leaps of mathematics and reason in the ancient world, and science and empiricism in the modern world, can be achieved in cooperation and operationalism in the present. The problem is that each of us has problem saying something other than ‘well it worked for me because’ rather than ‘I was able to get here despite the way I was taught’. People are ‘hooked’ on the mythic and fictional narrative for the same reason they were hooked on and could not envision a world under the arbitrary discretion of a fictional god. They were wrong in the late medieval world, and they are wrong in the present world. Cheers.

  • Teaching And The Role Of Narrative

    My understanding is that what I term ‘mindfulness’ (mental and emotional agency) can be obtained by making use of animal sentiments thru age seven, and that we can teach logic, and grammar of language, logic and grammar of measurement (math), logic and grammar of physics (science), and logic and grammar of ethics:, propertarianism, and testimonialism. And if we do that then we will achieve in both personal mindfulness, social mindfulness, and politics, what we have achieved in mathematics and the physical sciences. There is no difference between the different grammars except the range of operations (permutations) available at different scales. Reading and Math are terribly unnatural. Cooperation is NOT. That people cannot imagine a developmental evolution that they cannot find commensurable with their own experience is simply a limitation of the individuals making that assessment. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot teach calculative means of solving problems of cooperation, rather than literary means. This reduces the use of narrative to a series of ‘word problems’ we can empathize with. if you can grok this then you’ll see how profound an innovation in the logics and grammars of continuous disambiguation and calculation that we call thought are propertarianism, testimonialism, and operationalism. The same evolutionary leaps of mathematics and reason in the ancient world, and science and empiricism in the modern world, can be achieved in cooperation and operationalism in the present. The problem is that each of us has problem saying something other than ‘well it worked for me because’ rather than ‘I was able to get here despite the way I was taught’. People are ‘hooked’ on the mythic and fictional narrative for the same reason they were hooked on and could not envision a world under the arbitrary discretion of a fictional god. They were wrong in the late medieval world, and they are wrong in the present world. Cheers.

  • In Theory, How Do Innovative New Companies Get Created In A Textbook Socialist Economy?

    You know, I have been working on debunking the pseudoscience in economics – whether under the pretenses of socialist, social democratic, classical liberal, or libertarian dogmas for a couple of decades now. And I have a very hard time grasping how anyone can be literate enough in the subject to ask such a question, and still suggest that socialism is possible ever under any conditions whatsoever.

    I know why people intuit that such a thing is possible (it isn’t), at least it isn’t for more than a few decades, any more than uninsured (unregulated) markets are possible (they aren’t).

    The better the demographics the higher trust the polity the more effective are markets (rule of law) and the worse the demographics, the lower trust the polity, the more effective is command and control (rule by discretion).

    Socialist economies do not innovate because of incentives. In socialist economies people can enact change through access to command (rule by command), and they cannot innovate privately without fear of capture(theft) of the proceeds of their RISK. So, (and this is true through all of history) people maximize their effort in obtaining rents (parasitism).

    It’s better to think of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Frankfurt School, and Postmodern schools as a kind of pseudoscientific fiction that competes with science fiction and fantasy and the novel to inspire us such that we learn about ourselves by what we wish could be but cannot be.

    https://www.quora.com/In-theory-how-do-innovative-new-companies-get-created-in-a-textbook-socialist-economy

  • Do Rising Us Stock Markets Translate Into A Higher Quality Of Life For More Americans?

    The stock market does not represent the economy. If the stock market DOES represent the economy, then monetary policy is too loose and the stock market will act as the indicator that a correction of that monetary policy is in place – by correcting. So it’s better to treat the stock market as a canary in a coal mine that senses extremes.

    Think of the economy as an enormous school of fish, or flock of birds, that has incentives both to stay near one another, to follow others who have found opportunities, and to ‘defect’ (branch off) if they find counter-opportunities.

    Bad monetary policy that is used to inflate employment, by artificial stimulation of demand,

    The primary value of the stock market is providing an alternative store of value given that the government is constantly destroying the value of money through inflation.

    The secondary value of the stock market is that because the financial sector must desperately seek returns in order to prevent the governments’ destruction of value, the money is reinvested in increasingly risky possibilities stimulating innovation and risk taking.

    The third value is that some of these infinitely risky possibilities are what we call ‘startups’ that produce technological innovations that has been the chief contribution of american society to the world economy. And the possibility of going public and ‘winning the economic lottery’ by doing so, provides the lottery effect, that although few people win, many people ‘play’, and this generates economic opportunity.

    Now, I can also list all the bad things. But I’ll leave that for another post.

    How does this affect the average american? Quality of Life? Well, that’s a very … troublesome term. It’s like happiness. We can’t measure it, because it’s dependent upon the individual, not the polity. We can however measure standard of living, which means the resources available to the individuals prior to their mixture of good and bad decisions.

    And the evidence speaks for itself.

    yes.

    There is a reason that americans have the stock market and produce technology. There is a reason that london holds the bond market, and produces financing. There is a reason that germany masters capital production. There is a reason that russia masters military production.

    Those reasons are the differences in risk tolerance and the sensitivity to failure of each of the polities.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-rising-US-stock-markets-translate-into-a-higher-quality-of-life-for-more-Americans

  • Why Are North Africans And Middle-easterners Not Considered White In America?

    Because ‘white’ is a proxy for “Northern European Christian, for people no longer confined to europe, and no longer particularly christian, but increasingly aristotelian.”

    Even among europeans, we separate mediterraneans (southern europeans of greco-anatolian ancestors, from northern europeans (germanics and nordics). Italy really should divide into greek southern and german northern -except southern italy would then descend into the same poverty as has greece.

    And we separate slavs from germanics and nordics. Technically speaking ‘whites’ (europeans) evolved in poland-ukraine-russia, and evolved into modern ‘whites’ (europeans) on the north and baltic seas. It was only after the roman genocide against the Celts (Gaels) that the north germanic tribes were able to press south into Celtic (central european) lands and attack the empire.

    To some degree the Catholic(poor), protestant (Hajnal line), orthodox (outside hajnal line) map to genetic clades (mediterraneans and partial mediterraneans), germanics-nordics, and slavs.

    The subraces of west eurasia appear to have developed around the black sea. There were at least three major branches of proto-whites. (a) european, (b) balkan, (c) anatolian, (d)iranian and (e) those who evaporated upon entry into india. Some number of these people formed an early civilization on the narrows between what was ethiopia and today’s yemen. This appears to be where todays arabs and jews originated, and the migrated northward.

    The area of lebanon today evolved into a trading center that dominated the mediterranean until the greco-roman era, when rome (unfortunately) conquered that civilization. Some number of these people formed the ancient mesopotamian cities giving rise to the semitic language.

    In the era of nation states and empires we tend to think of territories, but in the early development of civlization, humans evolved near water. All of the dominant peoples developed near bodies of water.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-North-Africans-and-Middle-Easterners-not-considered-white-in-America

  • In Theory, How Do Innovative New Companies Get Created In A Textbook Socialist Economy?

    You know, I have been working on debunking the pseudoscience in economics – whether under the pretenses of socialist, social democratic, classical liberal, or libertarian dogmas for a couple of decades now. And I have a very hard time grasping how anyone can be literate enough in the subject to ask such a question, and still suggest that socialism is possible ever under any conditions whatsoever.

    I know why people intuit that such a thing is possible (it isn’t), at least it isn’t for more than a few decades, any more than uninsured (unregulated) markets are possible (they aren’t).

    The better the demographics the higher trust the polity the more effective are markets (rule of law) and the worse the demographics, the lower trust the polity, the more effective is command and control (rule by discretion).

    Socialist economies do not innovate because of incentives. In socialist economies people can enact change through access to command (rule by command), and they cannot innovate privately without fear of capture(theft) of the proceeds of their RISK. So, (and this is true through all of history) people maximize their effort in obtaining rents (parasitism).

    It’s better to think of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Frankfurt School, and Postmodern schools as a kind of pseudoscientific fiction that competes with science fiction and fantasy and the novel to inspire us such that we learn about ourselves by what we wish could be but cannot be.

    https://www.quora.com/In-theory-how-do-innovative-new-companies-get-created-in-a-textbook-socialist-economy