Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • What Percent Of The Population Of The World Have An Iq Below 100 And Vice Versa?

    THESE ANSWERS ARE NOT QUITE RIGHT. LET’S SEE IF WE CAN IMPROVE THEM:

    We use IQ for two different measures, WITHIN a population, and ACROSS populations.

    The best measure that I know of is to use what we today call 105, which represents approximately the IQ where an individual can repair a machine, or learn by reading instructions, rather than instruction and repetition. (IQ roughly measures the rate of learning, or rather the information requires in order for one to identify constant relations (patterns) of increasing numbers(density) of constant relations(causes)).

    General knowledge will allow you to make more use of your IQ, but it will not improve your neural ability to identify existing and potential constant relations (patterns), with ever decreasing quantity and quality of information.

    If we took the east asian population that is the worlds most homogenous ethnic group that is the world’s most pedomorphically advanced genetic group, that has done the most to kill off its underclasses, (Han/Korean/Japanese) then they would have a distribution of 100.

    If we take any other group we would have a distribution of 100. But when we compare groups to one another some groups decline and others rise. Right? So relative to the UK, Hong Kong has approximately half a standard deviation in IQ (106–108) advantage (at least in non-verbal) IQ. From conversations I’ve had with Lynn, it certainly appears that in anglodom we have lost at least that many IQ points in the past 150 years through asymmetric reproduction in anglo civilization, and as much as 12 points.

    Now, we can then recalculate 100 by the median of the new larger group, OR, we can recalculate each group to a prior demonstrated performance of a 100 individual.

    So we can describe a rolling distribution or we can describe distributions in relation to a fixed capacity.

    So it’s not really true that the world IQ average is 100. As far as I know, the world average IQ relative to the anchor of 100(UK/ENG), is in the 90’s and is getting lower every day due to asymmetric reproduction (dysgenia).

    Sorry but this subject is abused for the purposes of propaganda all the time. IQ matters. Eery point of median IQ lost in population has a tremendous cost, because langauge, norms, and institutions must exist for the median.

    As a rule of thumb. Every person under 95 is six times as costly as the productivity of every person over 105. Ergo the most benefit that any people can provide is actually not education or employment but reduction of the reproduction of the underclasses. And by underclasses the hard number is under 105.

    Uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable for a reason. They deprive us of presumed discounts.

    https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-population-of-the-world-have-an-IQ-below-100-and-vice-versa

  • Who Is Your Favorite Economist, And Why? My Top 5 Are Thomas Piketty, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, And Richard Thaller.

    —-”Who is your favorite economist and why?”—-

    You know, I have spent the better part of 25 years trying to understand what is wrong with Economics, and I think I have done so.

    And from that understanding, I would say certainly the most IMPORTANT economist was Hayek, principally because he understood the central problem of economics is providing information necessary for indirect cooperation, AND because he understood that all economics is a byproduct of the natural law of torts (property). Which is why later in life, he (as I have), devoted himself to improving understanding of the law (natural law of tort) as the institution by which we solve cooperation(contract) and information(truth) problems, since what we call economics is just the consequence of the law and a very simple technology we call money, that like numbers is so elegant precisely because they are so simple.

    Other than Hayek, I respect Friedman for his efforts at attempting to produce collective commons through market means (vouchers etc). The economists I respect today are very few and far between, because there are NONE that I know of that measure changes in ALL capital rather than cherry picking, and in particular cherry picking consumption.

    I’m probably a fairly good scholar of Mises, in understanding his terrible failure. But that he failed just as bridgman and brouwer did and to some degree hayek, because he didn’t understand that he had discovered operationalism in economics, not a ‘science’ – thereby making a fool of himself as an idealogue. I tend to find everything of value in Simmel, although I use most of Mises’ definitions in my work because as an operationalist his are most accurate.

    I read pretty much everything that comes out in economics. I follow Tyler Cowen because I have similar interests in social science, and I follow Scott Sumner because he sees things I don’t.

    I am curious how long it will take the mainstream to understand that you get what you measure and they’re measuring the wrong thing, and if they measured the right thing it would end the left forever.

    It’s not science if you’re cherry picking. And the entire discipline is built on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-is-your-favorite-economist-and-why-My-top-5-are-Thomas-Piketty-Ludwig-von-Mises-Friedrich-Hayek-John-Maynard-Keynes-and-Richard-Thaller

  • What Percent Of The Population Of The World Have An Iq Below 100 And Vice Versa?

    THESE ANSWERS ARE NOT QUITE RIGHT. LET’S SEE IF WE CAN IMPROVE THEM:

    We use IQ for two different measures, WITHIN a population, and ACROSS populations.

    The best measure that I know of is to use what we today call 105, which represents approximately the IQ where an individual can repair a machine, or learn by reading instructions, rather than instruction and repetition. (IQ roughly measures the rate of learning, or rather the information requires in order for one to identify constant relations (patterns) of increasing numbers(density) of constant relations(causes)).

    General knowledge will allow you to make more use of your IQ, but it will not improve your neural ability to identify existing and potential constant relations (patterns), with ever decreasing quantity and quality of information.

    If we took the east asian population that is the worlds most homogenous ethnic group that is the world’s most pedomorphically advanced genetic group, that has done the most to kill off its underclasses, (Han/Korean/Japanese) then they would have a distribution of 100.

    If we take any other group we would have a distribution of 100. But when we compare groups to one another some groups decline and others rise. Right? So relative to the UK, Hong Kong has approximately half a standard deviation in IQ (106–108) advantage (at least in non-verbal) IQ. From conversations I’ve had with Lynn, it certainly appears that in anglodom we have lost at least that many IQ points in the past 150 years through asymmetric reproduction in anglo civilization, and as much as 12 points.

    Now, we can then recalculate 100 by the median of the new larger group, OR, we can recalculate each group to a prior demonstrated performance of a 100 individual.

    So we can describe a rolling distribution or we can describe distributions in relation to a fixed capacity.

    So it’s not really true that the world IQ average is 100. As far as I know, the world average IQ relative to the anchor of 100(UK/ENG), is in the 90’s and is getting lower every day due to asymmetric reproduction (dysgenia).

    Sorry but this subject is abused for the purposes of propaganda all the time. IQ matters. Eery point of median IQ lost in population has a tremendous cost, because langauge, norms, and institutions must exist for the median.

    As a rule of thumb. Every person under 95 is six times as costly as the productivity of every person over 105. Ergo the most benefit that any people can provide is actually not education or employment but reduction of the reproduction of the underclasses. And by underclasses the hard number is under 105.

    Uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable for a reason. They deprive us of presumed discounts.

    https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-population-of-the-world-have-an-IQ-below-100-and-vice-versa

  • Who Is Your Favorite Economist, And Why? My Top 5 Are Thomas Piketty, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, And Richard Thaller.

    —-”Who is your favorite economist and why?”—-

    You know, I have spent the better part of 25 years trying to understand what is wrong with Economics, and I think I have done so.

    And from that understanding, I would say certainly the most IMPORTANT economist was Hayek, principally because he understood the central problem of economics is providing information necessary for indirect cooperation, AND because he understood that all economics is a byproduct of the natural law of torts (property). Which is why later in life, he (as I have), devoted himself to improving understanding of the law (natural law of tort) as the institution by which we solve cooperation(contract) and information(truth) problems, since what we call economics is just the consequence of the law and a very simple technology we call money, that like numbers is so elegant precisely because they are so simple.

    Other than Hayek, I respect Friedman for his efforts at attempting to produce collective commons through market means (vouchers etc). The economists I respect today are very few and far between, because there are NONE that I know of that measure changes in ALL capital rather than cherry picking, and in particular cherry picking consumption.

    I’m probably a fairly good scholar of Mises, in understanding his terrible failure. But that he failed just as bridgman and brouwer did and to some degree hayek, because he didn’t understand that he had discovered operationalism in economics, not a ‘science’ – thereby making a fool of himself as an idealogue. I tend to find everything of value in Simmel, although I use most of Mises’ definitions in my work because as an operationalist his are most accurate.

    I read pretty much everything that comes out in economics. I follow Tyler Cowen because I have similar interests in social science, and I follow Scott Sumner because he sees things I don’t.

    I am curious how long it will take the mainstream to understand that you get what you measure and they’re measuring the wrong thing, and if they measured the right thing it would end the left forever.

    It’s not science if you’re cherry picking. And the entire discipline is built on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-is-your-favorite-economist-and-why-My-top-5-are-Thomas-Piketty-Ludwig-von-Mises-Friedrich-Hayek-John-Maynard-Keynes-and-Richard-Thaller

  • Gods

    Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life form indistinguishable from a god, will appear as a god. As far as I know we are among the first possible life forms in this particular universe. And neither god nor magic exists except as appearance. And if we ever encounter magic or god it will mean we will soon be enslaved or dead. We ‘calculate’ anthropomorphically because our brains contain means of anthropomorphic representation necessary for our action in the universe at human scale. Gods provide us with units of measurement that provide decidability across differences in value on one hand, as does a strong father in a household, a headman in a tribe, a king in a territory, and a judge in a polity. Decidability provides us with mindfulness, since we are not able to form secure relations with the numbers of people who share our territorial space as super predators. Role playing with a fictional father, headman, king, judge two whom one cannot lie, provides us wth mindfulness. appealing to that fictional father, headman, king, judge that has unlimited abilities provides mindfulness in suffering and despair. Humans are very simple creatures. Nothing is very hard to understand. It is just tremendous work to sift through the layer cake of lies we build to provide us with false mindfulness in our ignorance, instead of truth mindfulness in our knowledge. )

  • Gods

    Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life form indistinguishable from a god, will appear as a god. As far as I know we are among the first possible life forms in this particular universe. And neither god nor magic exists except as appearance. And if we ever encounter magic or god it will mean we will soon be enslaved or dead. We ‘calculate’ anthropomorphically because our brains contain means of anthropomorphic representation necessary for our action in the universe at human scale. Gods provide us with units of measurement that provide decidability across differences in value on one hand, as does a strong father in a household, a headman in a tribe, a king in a territory, and a judge in a polity. Decidability provides us with mindfulness, since we are not able to form secure relations with the numbers of people who share our territorial space as super predators. Role playing with a fictional father, headman, king, judge two whom one cannot lie, provides us wth mindfulness. appealing to that fictional father, headman, king, judge that has unlimited abilities provides mindfulness in suffering and despair. Humans are very simple creatures. Nothing is very hard to understand. It is just tremendous work to sift through the layer cake of lies we build to provide us with false mindfulness in our ignorance, instead of truth mindfulness in our knowledge. )

  • GODS Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life

    GODS

    Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life form indistinguishable from a god, will appear as a god. As far as I know we are among the first possible life forms in this particular universe. And neither god nor magic exists except as appearance. And if we ever encounter magic or god it will mean we will soon be enslaved or dead.

    We ‘calculate’ anthropomorphically because our brains contain means of anthropomorphic representation necessary for our action in the universe at human scale.

    Gods provide us with units of measurement that provide decidability across differences in value on one hand, as does a strong father in a household, a headman in a tribe, a king in a territory, and a judge in a polity.

    Decidability provides us with mindfulness, since we are not able to form secure relations with the numbers of people who share our territorial space as super predators. Role playing with a fictional father, headman, king, judge two whom one cannot lie, provides us wth mindfulness. appealing to that fictional father, headman, king, judge that has unlimited abilities provides mindfulness in suffering and despair.

    Humans are very simple creatures. Nothing is very hard to understand. It is just tremendous work to sift through the layer cake of lies we build to provide us with false mindfulness in our ignorance, instead of truth mindfulness in our knowledge. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 23:21:00 UTC

  • Why Do Americans Love To Sue Each Other?

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—-

    TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL

    1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked).

    So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin.

    Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous).

    So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation.

    (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting.

    In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed.

    2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-love-to-sue-each-other

  • Why Do Americans Love To Sue Each Other?

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—-

    TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL

    1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked).

    So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin.

    Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous).

    So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation.

    (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting.

    In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed.

    2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-love-to-sue-each-other

  • There Is Nothing To A Debate Over National Socialism

    There is nothing really to debate other than nationalism vs universalism. Kin vs corporation. And the degree to which our options are limited by that choice. Unless you agree on that premise, then the rest is pointless. Communism was a universal religion and fascism a nationalist one, and that’s … really all there is to be said. The difference is that communism spread by the underclasses and the talking classes, and fascism spread as defense against them by more developed countries. For those reasons, communism has a vast pseudo-intellectual pseudoscientific and speudorational base behind it and fascism a romantic one. In practical terms my work is absolutely positively in accord with fascism, but as rigorous as marxism. It’s just fascism for every subrace and tribe, ours or not. The …. disease of abrahamism has infected nearly everyone in the west, so its hard for people of ‘weakness’ so to speak, to act as do the japanese any longer. Which is how it’s necessary to act: the polity bears costs of the intertemporal preservation of the polity. If your people are not enough of a religion then why are you a f—king fascist in the first place????? The truth is anyone intellectually capable would not make the national socialist argument because it is by definition so inarticulately stated, without institutional prescriptions, without any economic or legal ‘rules’. It is a sentimental and aesthetic religion by which authority is given to a figurehead to create benefits in times of stress, conflict, competition, and war. I mean the reason no one argues for natsoc other than by analogy is there is no such thought that is not merely romanticism. Autarkic economy for defense of the kin group by handing power to a General in times of threat, and justifying it with propaganda…. is just …. tediously boring. It’s what anyone and everyone does, and always has done. Its just the only … example anyone can draw from other than kicking the muslims out of spain, and resisting the muslims in vienna, and resisting the muslims in general. We have been so relatively successful that we haven’t had to have too many such movements as the natsoc. I want to add to the capitalism vs communism debate by saying it’s a (((Fake))) argument, when the debate is and always will be rule of law that results in markets and arbitrary rule that results in central control. I think the only argument to have is one of rule of law, and the method by which we take the proceeds of our production of a rule-of-law order, and decide who does what with them. As far as I can tell kings are far, far, better than anyone else at doing it at their level and civic orders and private orders better at doing it at their levels. Thats absolutely positively impossible to argue with. Now, we can say that in order to scale the production of commons as the cost of producing commons that produce returns increases, that we must produce a market for the production of commons just as we produce a market for private goods, services, and information. But the idea that this market should produce monopolies as we do under majoritarian democracy, r ather than produce whatever contracts can be negotiated, by direct economic contribution (even if mandatory), is rather nonsensical – since that is the source of our conflicts. In other words, I see these discussions as … a bit …. like victorian parlor games. Political models are so imprecise as to be fictional accounts. Either one can describe the means by which commons decided upon and are produced, or one can’t. And if one can’t then he’s just telling fairy stories.