Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • What Do You Think About The Future Of “industrial And Network Economics” Master Program?

    I have a very simple approach to education and I recommend it to everyone.

    Study any STEM (physical science, technology, engineering, economics, and mathematics) that you can manage. It doesn’t matter if you major or minor in it. Take whatever math you must to get through it.

    Engineering is almost never a bad degree. Tech is rewarding at present. Economics will always be rewarding. (Not that in the USA economics is a technical discipline, but in europe and eastern europe it just means ‘business’, and is nonsense.) Physical science and mathematics are only valuable if you want those careers, OR it’s easy for you. THese degrees ‘certify you’ as ‘smart’.

    Take accounting 1 and 2. Take the dumbest finance course you can find. And only one. Take micro and macro economics. Take a business law course. One course is all you will need. Try to take an economic history of the world – it should be two classes. If you can manage two semesters of classical philosophy, or the philosophy of science then you’re done.

    It’s horrible but what I’m recommending is literally remedial education since as far as I know all but engineering can be taught in high school and should be since our emphasis on science and mathematics is overblown compared to our emphasis on economics, accounting, law, and finance – which people will endure every day. And those people that want geeky professions (the hard sciences, mathmatics, economics and statistics) will go for them anyway.

    Take the minimum classes you need to graduate with that experience

    For everything else just read anything but fiction. lol.

    WHY? It is very difficult to see the future right now because we are at an inflection point that happens only during periods of great (and often catastrophic change). There will be vast alterations of the workforce on scales we have not seen since the shift from agrarianism from 1890 to 1930. So any particular career is something I have a hard time judging.

    Right now? Learn javascript and make six figures rapidly without any college. Live in a communal house with five friends, and save more than half of what you make for the first five to ten years. Do not get married until after that. Then you are set for life, and can stop worrying about careers and what not because your house will be paid for, and your total cost of living is below the poverty level if you want it to be, and everything you make, no matter how much, can be used for wahtever purpose you want.

    NEVER BUY VIRTUE SIGNALS.

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-the-future-of-industrial-and-network-economics-master-program

  • At What Level Of Lightness Of Skin Can A Person Be Called A White Person?

    —-”At what level of lightness of skin can a person be called a white person?”—

    “White“ is a politically correct term in common use because Aryan (referring to the Yamna culture’s revolution in bronze, horse, and wheel in northern Ukraine and southern russia, and developing in Poland) is politically incorrect. They are, and northern europeans largely are, a genetic subrace, from whom western civilization’s rather unique values ( individual heroism, individualism sovereignty, contractualism, evolved prior to and during the bronze age collapse, and continues to influence western civilization today (despite marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist attempts to end it, and therefore make the west ‘like everyone else’: free of markets and meritocracy.)

    So it’s only partly about skin color. It’s a subrace, and that subrace’s civilization. Either you are a member of these gene groups or your not ‘white’ (Caucasian, indo european, northern european (urals to spain), and you and your ancestors have not been through the same environmental pressures producing the same distributions of traits.

    SIX SUB RACES – DIAGRAM OF WEST EURASIAN GENETIC CONTINUUMS

    An albino Arab, African, Indian, or Han has white skin because of a defect in his genes. A caucasian, Anatolian, Levantine, Mesopotamian has black hair, slightly darker coloring, and usually less aquiline features. (notice how jews are a mixture of Mesopotamian, levantine, north semitic, and have increasingly been successful at incorporating european genes. Semites, both north and south have

    An ethnic indo european has white skin, more aquiline features, and evolved under different evolutionary pressures from the others. We don’t really know why but white skin appears to have developed about 20K years ago, for what was likely both a reproductive desirability, the result of highly asymmetric reproduction by some peoples, and possibly (we don’t know) because it was advantageous in the low sun conditions along the edge of the glaciers during the ice age. However, whatever the reason it was an extremely desirable trait and spread quickly.

    Continuing through our little tribal catalog An ethnic southern european is an anatolian from the southern branch of indo europe ans and has either black hair more anatolian features, and or swarthier skin. An ethnic south eastern european is a blend of the early people from the metal culture of the east black sea, and the peoples closer to russia. A northern european has very white, bordering on translucent skin, and we categorize as ‘white’ the same way we categorize africans as ‘black’. Of the white northern europeans (the other indo europeans from the northern branch are all extinct), we have atlantics who are a mixture of the first europeans and later europeans. The scandinavians who came slightly later. The celts who built the largest european civilization to date, and bisected the northern and southern ‘I’ peoples, for whom the souther are not extinct. The Germans proper who intermingled with atlantics and celts and scandinavians, producing high, middle, and low german peoples. We have dark haired slavs, and light haired slavs, and they are the whitest people to date, because they are the oldest and least outbred people, with the least genetic diversity to ‘correct’.

    The fact is we use ‘White’ because the word ‘Aryan’ was prohibited after the world wars and the Yamna or Yama, and Kurgan are names of artifacts not names of self description. Although the more we learn from genetics and archaeology the more correct the term ‘Aryan’ and the concept of the Aryan culture, and ‘sub race’ is scientifically correct. although we shoujld probably label them north, south and east, because all three diverged and only northerners survived – the others integrated and went extinct.

    It will just take another fifty years before we can say that without fear of shouting down by social justice warriors (marxist-socialist-postmodernists). 😉

    https://www.quora.com/At-what-level-of-lightness-of-skin-can-a-person-be-called-a-white-person

  • Do Animals Experience Racism?

    YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS
    But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations.

    All animals demonstrate both (a) kin selection bias (genetic persistence), (c) fitness bias (quality). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out.

    Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it).

    Humans demonstrate every possible bias IMAGINABLE. With males less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductive cost.

    The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic) discretion of fitness. And yes, your race, subrace, tribal, and most of all genetic and social class, determine your reproductive value. (Attractiveness).

    The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrinal and developmental.)

    There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility.

    The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums.

    Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity.

    Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.)

    So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes.

    However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less successful peoples – which is evident not only in the distribution of morphological features, but in the distribution of behavioral and especially intellectual features.

    We can develop more feminine or more masculine traits regardless of gender. And the different groups demonstrate greater or less pedomorphism, and gender bias in morphology and behavior. The subtler parts of cognitive differences and behavioral differences are subtle enough to identify but we lack the data and means of measurement to be more certain of them. Although most are identifiable in infants and toddlers regardless of where they are raised. Genes matter

    DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists.

    The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin and class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind.

    The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty.

    Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy.

    Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary.

    Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures.

    Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-animals-experience-racism

  • Do Animals Experience Racism?

    YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS
    But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations.

    All animals demonstrate both (a) kin selection bias (genetic persistence), (c) fitness bias (quality). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out.

    Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it).

    Humans demonstrate every possible bias IMAGINABLE. With males less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductive cost.

    The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic) discretion of fitness. And yes, your race, subrace, tribal, and most of all genetic and social class, determine your reproductive value. (Attractiveness).

    The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrinal and developmental.)

    There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility.

    The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums.

    Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity.

    Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.)

    So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes.

    However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less successful peoples – which is evident not only in the distribution of morphological features, but in the distribution of behavioral and especially intellectual features.

    We can develop more feminine or more masculine traits regardless of gender. And the different groups demonstrate greater or less pedomorphism, and gender bias in morphology and behavior. The subtler parts of cognitive differences and behavioral differences are subtle enough to identify but we lack the data and means of measurement to be more certain of them. Although most are identifiable in infants and toddlers regardless of where they are raised. Genes matter

    DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists.

    The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin and class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind.

    The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty.

    Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy.

    Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary.

    Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures.

    Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-animals-experience-racism

  • You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15

    You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15% range. Predators in packs dramatically increase their hit rate. Wolves are hard to measure today but they’re in the 15-20% range. Surprisingly domestic cats are freaking death machines, and are so successful that they don’t even eat a third of their kills.

    Surprisingly, but obvious if you give it some thought, afaik the hit rate for the wild dogs of africa is around 85%. They are freaking amazing hunters in packs. The problem is that they can’t defend it, and lose something like half of their kills to bigger predators.

    Now, the thing that always strikes me about cats and dogs and wolves, is that we are all ‘friends’ so to speak.

    I’m trying to find any reasonable data on human hunting success rates in history, but the problem is that we expanded so fast into increasingly foreign territories that it sure looks like (from the extinction rates) it was, like cats, and packs of dogs and wolves, a pretty high success rate.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 19:00:00 UTC

  • You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15

    You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15% range. Predators in packs dramatically increase their hit rate. Wolves are hard to measure today but they’re in the 15-20% range. Surprisingly domestic cats are freaking death machines, and are so successful that they don’t even eat a third of their kills. Surprisingly, but obvious if you give it some thought, afaik the hit rate for the wild dogs of africa is around 85%. They are freaking amazing hunters in packs. The problem is that they can’t defend it, and lose something like half of their kills to bigger predators. Now, the thing that always strikes me about cats and dogs and wolves, is that we are all ‘friends’ so to speak. I’m trying to find any reasonable data on human hunting success rates in history, but the problem is that we expanded so fast into increasingly foreign territories that it sure looks like (from the extinction rates) it was, like cats, and packs of dogs and wolves, a pretty high success rate.

  • You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15

    You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15% range. Predators in packs dramatically increase their hit rate. Wolves are hard to measure today but they’re in the 15-20% range. Surprisingly domestic cats are freaking death machines, and are so successful that they don’t even eat a third of their kills. Surprisingly, but obvious if you give it some thought, afaik the hit rate for the wild dogs of africa is around 85%. They are freaking amazing hunters in packs. The problem is that they can’t defend it, and lose something like half of their kills to bigger predators. Now, the thing that always strikes me about cats and dogs and wolves, is that we are all ‘friends’ so to speak. I’m trying to find any reasonable data on human hunting success rates in history, but the problem is that we expanded so fast into increasingly foreign territories that it sure looks like (from the extinction rates) it was, like cats, and packs of dogs and wolves, a pretty high success rate.

  • Interpersonal racism is just stupid, because one cannot judge an individual by t

    Interpersonal racism is just stupid, because one cannot judge an individual by the properties of a class.

    Policial racism is simply empirical since by and large people vote by race, and increasingly do so, just as they demonstrate kin selection under pressure, and live, work, mate, and marry within very few degrees of kinship.

    Race realism is just not falling subject to postmodern pseudoscientific denialism that there are vast differences in the SIZE OF THE CLASSES and the degrees of neotonic development of the races, subraces, tribes, and clans.

    And that the principle problem is that some groups (west europeans and east asians have been more successful at reducing the sizes of their underclasses and increasing neotonic development of their races and subraces, tribes and clans.

    The principle difference between groups is largely regional differences in demand for neotonic selection, and the pressures of various forms of agrarianism or manorialism that suppressed reproductive rates of the underclasses under harsh winter conditions.

    Groups still act as groups and we always will.

    Look at india, north-africa-arabia-levant-mesopotamia, and brazil if not all of south america. Genes matter, principally because the lower classes are far more of a drag than upper and middle classes can mobilize. Every person at the bottom is six times as bad as every person at the top is valuable.

    STOP BEING RACIST AGAINST WHITES. PEOPLE ACT BY KIN SELECTION – period.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 10:49:00 UTC

  • Interpersonal racism is just stupid, because one cannot judge an individual by t

    Interpersonal racism is just stupid, because one cannot judge an individual by the properties of a class. Policial racism is simply empirical since by and large people vote by race, and increasingly do so, just as they demonstrate kin selection under pressure, and live, work, mate, and marry within very few degrees of kinship. Race realism is just not falling subject to postmodern pseudoscientific denialism that there are vast differences in the SIZE OF THE CLASSES and the degrees of neotonic development of the races, subraces, tribes, and clans. And that the principle problem is that some groups (west europeans and east asians have been more successful at reducing the sizes of their underclasses and increasing neotonic development of their races and subraces, tribes and clans. The principle difference between groups is largely regional differences in demand for neotonic selection, and the pressures of various forms of agrarianism or manorialism that suppressed reproductive rates of the underclasses under harsh winter conditions. Groups still act as groups and we always will. Look at india, north-africa-arabia-levant-mesopotamia, and brazil if not all of south america. Genes matter, principally because the lower classes are far more of a drag than upper and middle classes can mobilize. Every person at the bottom is six times as bad as every person at the top is valuable. STOP BEING RACIST AGAINST WHITES. PEOPLE ACT BY KIN SELECTION – period.

  • Interpersonal racism is just stupid, because one cannot judge an individual by t

    Interpersonal racism is just stupid, because one cannot judge an individual by the properties of a class. Policial racism is simply empirical since by and large people vote by race, and increasingly do so, just as they demonstrate kin selection under pressure, and live, work, mate, and marry within very few degrees of kinship. Race realism is just not falling subject to postmodern pseudoscientific denialism that there are vast differences in the SIZE OF THE CLASSES and the degrees of neotonic development of the races, subraces, tribes, and clans. And that the principle problem is that some groups (west europeans and east asians have been more successful at reducing the sizes of their underclasses and increasing neotonic development of their races and subraces, tribes and clans. The principle difference between groups is largely regional differences in demand for neotonic selection, and the pressures of various forms of agrarianism or manorialism that suppressed reproductive rates of the underclasses under harsh winter conditions. Groups still act as groups and we always will. Look at india, north-africa-arabia-levant-mesopotamia, and brazil if not all of south america. Genes matter, principally because the lower classes are far more of a drag than upper and middle classes can mobilize. Every person at the bottom is six times as bad as every person at the top is valuable. STOP BEING RACIST AGAINST WHITES. PEOPLE ACT BY KIN SELECTION – period.