Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • 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

  • THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION ENDS WITH DISAMBIGUATION (due diligence) — “we nee

    THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION ENDS WITH DISAMBIGUATION (due diligence)

    — “we need both fiction and science” — Joel Davis

    Well that’s the argument I make right?

    That we TEACH (transfer relations) and IMITATE by fictions, but that we JUDGE and DEDUCE from SCIENCE. Via positiva ‘fictions’ and via negativa ‘truth’.

    The problem then becomes limiting the fictions to fictions rather than fictionalism. In other words, stories (literature, myth, parable) and not pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism (which is the most … seductive because it requires the least knowledge), and pseudo-history.

    In other words, the grammar of continuous disambiguation (universal grammar) of any neural network (category generating hierarchy) requires that we create analogies to transfer relations (communicate) then disambiguate them as defense against fraud (and error).

    Language requires continuous disambiguation. But it does not end with communication -it ends with deflation, and disambiguation of that which has been communicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-02 07:09:00 UTC

  • The Process Of Communication Ends With Disambiguation

    THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION ENDS WITH DISAMBIGUATION (due diligence) — “we need both fiction and science” — John Dow Well that’s the argument I make right? That we TEACH (transfer relations) and IMITATE by fictions, but that we JUDGE and DEDUCE from SCIENCE. Via positiva ‘fictions’ and via negativa ‘truth’. The problem then becomes limiting the fictions to fictions rather than fictionalism. In other words, stories (literature, myth, parable) and not pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism (which is the most … seductive because it requires the least knowledge), and pseudo-history. In other words, the grammar of continuous disambiguation (universal grammar) of any neural network (category generating hierarchy) requires that we create analogies to transfer relations (communicate) then disambiguate them as defense against fraud (and error). Language requires continuous disambiguation. But it does not end with communication -it ends with deflation, and disambiguation of that which has been communicated.

  • The Process Of Communication Ends With Disambiguation

    THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION ENDS WITH DISAMBIGUATION (due diligence) — “we need both fiction and science” — John Dow Well that’s the argument I make right? That we TEACH (transfer relations) and IMITATE by fictions, but that we JUDGE and DEDUCE from SCIENCE. Via positiva ‘fictions’ and via negativa ‘truth’. The problem then becomes limiting the fictions to fictions rather than fictionalism. In other words, stories (literature, myth, parable) and not pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism (which is the most … seductive because it requires the least knowledge), and pseudo-history. In other words, the grammar of continuous disambiguation (universal grammar) of any neural network (category generating hierarchy) requires that we create analogies to transfer relations (communicate) then disambiguate them as defense against fraud (and error). Language requires continuous disambiguation. But it does not end with communication -it ends with deflation, and disambiguation of that which has been communicated.

  • PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE – A PHILOSOPHY GRADUALLY OVERCOMING 150 YEARS OF O

    PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE – A PHILOSOPHY GRADUALLY OVERCOMING 150 YEARS OF OUTRIGHT NONSENSE.

    HERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE.

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism.

    2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits.

    3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality.

    4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology.

    5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology.

    6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics.

    In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation.

    I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation.

    Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite.

    The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities.

    But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms.

    The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.

    And only inferior people would choose an alternative.

    Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

    And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 13:09:00 UTC

  • Psychology Is A Pseudoscience – A Philosophy Gradually Overcoming 150 Years Of Outright Nonsense. Here Is The Alter

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism. 2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits. 3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality. 4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology. 5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology. 6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics. In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation. I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation. Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite. The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities. But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms. The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means. And only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity. And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

  • Psychology Is A Pseudoscience – A Philosophy Gradually Overcoming 150 Years Of Outright Nonsense. Here Is The Alter

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism. 2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits. 3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality. 4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology. 5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology. 6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics. In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation. I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation. Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite. The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities. But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms. The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means. And only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity. And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

  • PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, POLITICS, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY ARE TRIVIALLY SIMPL

    PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, POLITICS, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY ARE TRIVIALLY SIMPLE.

    But it takes a great deal of Agency (evolutionary advancement) to accept (Tolerate and avoid fictionalisms) that simplicity.

    Honestly.

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism.

    2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits.

    3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality.

    4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology.

    5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology.

    6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics.

    In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation.

    I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation.

    Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite.

    The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities.

    But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms.

    The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.

    And only inferior people would choose an alternative.

    Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

    And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 10:53:00 UTC

  • Psychology, Sociology, Politics, Group Evolutionary Strategy Are Trivially Simple.

    But it takes a great deal of Agency (evolutionary advancement) to accept (Tolerate and avoid fictionalisms) that simplicity. Honestly. 1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism. 2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits. 3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality. 4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology. 5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology. 6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics. In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation. I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation. Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite. The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities. But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms. The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means. And only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity. And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.