Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • LET’S GET A LITTLE MORE ‘WOKE’ TODAY: RAISING MEN Ok. so let’s get a little ‘wok

    LET’S GET A LITTLE MORE ‘WOKE’ TODAY: RAISING MEN

    Ok. so let’s get a little ‘woke’ today, shall we?

    There are always, at all times, an excess of about 1/3 of men in each of the sizable social classes.

    There are three frames of reference available to men: the physical, the mental, and the emotional. Think of them as an equilateral triangle with emotional on the lower left, physical on the lower right, and intellectual as the vertical between them. Each of us feels some intensity between these three points. Effectively this is the left female brain (conflation) and the right male brain (deflation), with intelligence heavily influencing either left or right bias.

    There are around five dimensions of the prey drive, and five chemical (biological) reward systems underneath them. These five systems roughly correspond to the five factors of personality, and each of those five factors divides into a spectrum that appears an artifact of the masculine-feminine line above, and when combined with the triangle above, these factors determine our ‘personalities’.

    By personality, we mean the weight that is attached to each of the personality traits, the bias between the male and female brain, and the mitigating effect of intelligence.

    For obvious reasons we pursue information by the cheapest available route – where we obtain the greatest reward at the lowest cost. While I could at this point also cover the rather small set of dimensions that describe our emotional ranges, this simple analysis sufficiently explains the full suite of human differences in perception.

    Now, if you’ve been following me long enough, you know that I interpret this huge spectrum of ‘sensitivities’ as an evolutionary advantage that after reproductive differences was our first and most significant division of labor. and that through cooperation we collectively adapt to whatever sensitivity is of the most advantage at the time. And that trade, money, prices, contracts, and the law of reciprocity have allowed us to infinitely expand this sensory information system.

    Furthermore, while the female/synthetic brain seeks group cohesion with low tolerance for disruption of the status quo, the male analytic brain seeks individual advantage despite disruption of the status quo. And while most of us possess a mixture of these traits, some of us evolved into the extremes.

    So we see females forming a single cross-pack network, and males forming a hierarchy of teams or hunting packs.

    Now the reason humans evolved is that we have constantly extended childhood giving us room for intellectual and nervous system maturity (learning).

    Men mature more slowly than women – much more slowly. The more compartmentalized the brain (male) the more slowly it takes to grow into coherence. The faster we mature the faster we reach coherence. At the point of coherence we cease intuitionistic adaptability.

    So for many men we are seeking a framework in life far longer than women seek any framework. Moreover we have a much reduced sensory system to do so with.

    So while a teenage girl is effectively ‘crazy’ as her body adapts to the brain necessary for relentless caretaking of children – hypersensitivity, a teenage boy’s brain is turning off sensations that require him to continue to learn ‘about the world outside of him’.

    For women, without children to care for, teamwork in caring for children, they danger is solipsism (and we see this everywhere in america). F

    For men, this is a terrible problem outside of tribal life of hunter gatherers, or outside of military life of soldiers – because we have no longer any method other than sports teams to ‘divide the mental labor’ of the pack.

    In a pack or team there is high value in specialization, and high value in hierarchy, and high value in numbers. And men are not incognizant of their ‘real’ value to one another. We just do not take advantage of it. Loyalty is too valuable.

    So we are literally causing damage to men and women by grouping them into school systems with others sharing the same insanities, rather than distributing them across society so that they learn what cannot be taught except by experience: socialization. Sports teams, and soldieries work for men, and the work force works for women. But what does not work is a 14 year old that has throughout all of history joined lower adulthood, put into what is the equivalent of a prison system that arguably teaches nothing that cannot be taught in one hour a day. (I started working holidays at seven – really, had a paper route and worked after school and holidays at 12. And had a part time job at 15 because it was legal to bag groceries. I tell people I had a ten year jump on them in business. And it was true. )

    Now, the problem is that like any random generator, this system breaks down, producing a fairly large number of disposable assets (people) along the margins. Yet we no longer have a means for disposing of them. (Dysgenia).

    About a third of women are undesirable, but not necessarily disposable. About a third of men are desirable and indispensable. About two thirds of men are undesirable and disposable. That is what the genetic record tells us. Marriage is the tool by which we redistributed reproduction to the disposable and undesirable. This has been pacifying, but dysgenic. Even if marriage was, in reality, a necessity of property and therefore a class signal that many desired to imitate.

    The markets for survival and reproduction should, at any given time limit undesirable outliers. Unfortunately, we live in an era where undesirable outliers can both survive, may even reproduce, and now they can associate and collect.

    Men and women reach different forms of anti-social behavior. The difference is that gossip – the weapon of women, is less immediately dangerous (and far easier to ignore) than than violence – the weapon of men.

    We are under serving our men, and over-serving our women.

    But the truth is – we evolved to do just that.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 17:43:00 UTC

  • Let’s Get A Little More ‘Woke’ Today: Raising Men

    Ok. so let’s get a little ‘woke’ today, shall we? There are always, at all times, an excess of about 1/3 of men in each of the sizable social classes. There are three frames of reference available to men: the physical, the mental, and the emotional. Think of them as an equilateral triangle with emotional on the lower left, physical on the lower right, and intellectual as the vertical between them. Each of us feels some intensity between these three points. Effectively this is the left female brain (conflation) and the right male brain (deflation), with intelligence heavily influencing either left or right bias. There are around five dimensions of the prey drive, and five chemical (biological) reward systems underneath them. These five systems roughly correspond to the five factors of personality, and each of those five factors divides into a spectrum that appears an artifact of the masculine-feminine line above, and when combined with the triangle above, these factors determine our ‘personalities’. By personality, we mean the weight that is attached to each of the personality traits, the bias between the male and female brain, and the mitigating effect of intelligence. For obvious reasons we pursue information by the cheapest available route – where we obtain the greatest reward at the lowest cost. While I could at this point also cover the rather small set of dimensions that describe our emotional ranges, this simple analysis sufficiently explains the full suite of human differences in perception. Now, if you’ve been following me long enough, you know that I interpret this huge spectrum of ‘sensitivities’ as an evolutionary advantage that after reproductive differences was our first and most significant division of labor. and that through cooperation we collectively adapt to whatever sensitivity is of the most advantage at the time. And that trade, money, prices, contracts, and the law of reciprocity have allowed us to infinitely expand this sensory information system. Furthermore, while the female/synthetic brain seeks group cohesion with low tolerance for disruption of the status quo, the male analytic brain seeks individual advantage despite disruption of the status quo. And while most of us possess a mixture of these traits, some of us evolved into the extremes. So we see females forming a single cross-pack network, and males forming a hierarchy of teams or hunting packs. Now the reason humans evolved is that we have constantly extended childhood giving us room for intellectual and nervous system maturity (learning). Men mature more slowly than women – much more slowly. The more compartmentalized the brain (male) the more slowly it takes to grow into coherence. The faster we mature the faster we reach coherence. At the point of coherence we cease intuitionistic adaptability. So for many men we are seeking a framework in life far longer than women seek any framework. Moreover we have a much reduced sensory system to do so with. So while a teenage girl is effectively ‘crazy’ as her body adapts to the brain necessary for relentless caretaking of children – hypersensitivity, a teenage boy’s brain is turning off sensations that require him to continue to learn ‘about the world outside of him’. For women, without children to care for, teamwork in caring for children, they danger is solipsism (and we see this everywhere in america). F For men, this is a terrible problem outside of tribal life of hunter gatherers, or outside of military life of soldiers – because we have no longer any method other than sports teams to ‘divide the mental labor’ of the pack. In a pack or team there is high value in specialization, and high value in hierarchy, and high value in numbers. And men are not incognizant of their ‘real’ value to one another. We just do not take advantage of it. Loyalty is too valuable. So we are literally causing damage to men and women by grouping them into school systems with others sharing the same insanities, rather than distributing them across society so that they learn what cannot be taught except by experience: socialization. Sports teams, and soldieries work for men, and the work force works for women. But what does not work is a 14 year old that has throughout all of history joined lower adulthood, put into what is the equivalent of a prison system that arguably teaches nothing that cannot be taught in one hour a day. (I started working holidays at seven – really, had a paper route and worked after school and holidays at 12. And had a part time job at 15 because it was legal to bag groceries. I tell people I had a ten year jump on them in business. And it was true. ) Now, the problem is that like any random generator, this system breaks down, producing a fairly large number of disposable assets (people) along the margins. Yet we no longer have a means for disposing of them. (Dysgenia). About a third of women are undesirable, but not necessarily disposable. About a third of men are desirable and indispensable. About two thirds of men are undesirable and disposable. That is what the genetic record tells us. Marriage is the tool by which we redistributed reproduction to the disposable and undesirable. This has been pacifying, but dysgenic. Even if marriage was, in reality, a necessity of property and therefore a class signal that many desired to imitate. The markets for survival and reproduction should, at any given time limit undesirable outliers. Unfortunately, we live in an era where undesirable outliers can both survive, may even reproduce, and now they can associate and collect. Men and women reach different forms of anti-social behavior. The difference is that gossip – the weapon of women, is less immediately dangerous (and far easier to ignore) than than violence – the weapon of men. We are under serving our men, and over-serving our women. But the truth is – we evolved to do just that.

  • Let’s Get A Little More ‘Woke’ Today: Raising Men

    Ok. so let’s get a little ‘woke’ today, shall we? There are always, at all times, an excess of about 1/3 of men in each of the sizable social classes. There are three frames of reference available to men: the physical, the mental, and the emotional. Think of them as an equilateral triangle with emotional on the lower left, physical on the lower right, and intellectual as the vertical between them. Each of us feels some intensity between these three points. Effectively this is the left female brain (conflation) and the right male brain (deflation), with intelligence heavily influencing either left or right bias. There are around five dimensions of the prey drive, and five chemical (biological) reward systems underneath them. These five systems roughly correspond to the five factors of personality, and each of those five factors divides into a spectrum that appears an artifact of the masculine-feminine line above, and when combined with the triangle above, these factors determine our ‘personalities’. By personality, we mean the weight that is attached to each of the personality traits, the bias between the male and female brain, and the mitigating effect of intelligence. For obvious reasons we pursue information by the cheapest available route – where we obtain the greatest reward at the lowest cost. While I could at this point also cover the rather small set of dimensions that describe our emotional ranges, this simple analysis sufficiently explains the full suite of human differences in perception. Now, if you’ve been following me long enough, you know that I interpret this huge spectrum of ‘sensitivities’ as an evolutionary advantage that after reproductive differences was our first and most significant division of labor. and that through cooperation we collectively adapt to whatever sensitivity is of the most advantage at the time. And that trade, money, prices, contracts, and the law of reciprocity have allowed us to infinitely expand this sensory information system. Furthermore, while the female/synthetic brain seeks group cohesion with low tolerance for disruption of the status quo, the male analytic brain seeks individual advantage despite disruption of the status quo. And while most of us possess a mixture of these traits, some of us evolved into the extremes. So we see females forming a single cross-pack network, and males forming a hierarchy of teams or hunting packs. Now the reason humans evolved is that we have constantly extended childhood giving us room for intellectual and nervous system maturity (learning). Men mature more slowly than women – much more slowly. The more compartmentalized the brain (male) the more slowly it takes to grow into coherence. The faster we mature the faster we reach coherence. At the point of coherence we cease intuitionistic adaptability. So for many men we are seeking a framework in life far longer than women seek any framework. Moreover we have a much reduced sensory system to do so with. So while a teenage girl is effectively ‘crazy’ as her body adapts to the brain necessary for relentless caretaking of children – hypersensitivity, a teenage boy’s brain is turning off sensations that require him to continue to learn ‘about the world outside of him’. For women, without children to care for, teamwork in caring for children, they danger is solipsism (and we see this everywhere in america). F For men, this is a terrible problem outside of tribal life of hunter gatherers, or outside of military life of soldiers – because we have no longer any method other than sports teams to ‘divide the mental labor’ of the pack. In a pack or team there is high value in specialization, and high value in hierarchy, and high value in numbers. And men are not incognizant of their ‘real’ value to one another. We just do not take advantage of it. Loyalty is too valuable. So we are literally causing damage to men and women by grouping them into school systems with others sharing the same insanities, rather than distributing them across society so that they learn what cannot be taught except by experience: socialization. Sports teams, and soldieries work for men, and the work force works for women. But what does not work is a 14 year old that has throughout all of history joined lower adulthood, put into what is the equivalent of a prison system that arguably teaches nothing that cannot be taught in one hour a day. (I started working holidays at seven – really, had a paper route and worked after school and holidays at 12. And had a part time job at 15 because it was legal to bag groceries. I tell people I had a ten year jump on them in business. And it was true. ) Now, the problem is that like any random generator, this system breaks down, producing a fairly large number of disposable assets (people) along the margins. Yet we no longer have a means for disposing of them. (Dysgenia). About a third of women are undesirable, but not necessarily disposable. About a third of men are desirable and indispensable. About two thirds of men are undesirable and disposable. That is what the genetic record tells us. Marriage is the tool by which we redistributed reproduction to the disposable and undesirable. This has been pacifying, but dysgenic. Even if marriage was, in reality, a necessity of property and therefore a class signal that many desired to imitate. The markets for survival and reproduction should, at any given time limit undesirable outliers. Unfortunately, we live in an era where undesirable outliers can both survive, may even reproduce, and now they can associate and collect. Men and women reach different forms of anti-social behavior. The difference is that gossip – the weapon of women, is less immediately dangerous (and far easier to ignore) than than violence – the weapon of men. We are under serving our men, and over-serving our women. But the truth is – we evolved to do just that.

  • Q&a: “Should War Be Conducted Morally?”

    Q&A: “SHOULD WAR BE CONDUCTED MORALLY?” Simon asks two questions, and offers his analysis. I offer mine, with a very different answer. Cooperation is only valuable if it advances ones line, kin, and people. —“1) Should warfare be conducted morally or is that an oxymoron? In my opinion, the answer is yes, it should – and no, it is not an oxymoron. Because morality exists only in reciprocity, and warfare is in fact the ultimate instrument of reciprocity. 2) Should we follow internationally agreed upon regulations of warfare? Yes, until we don’t, which is at a point when signaling adherence to convention in order to maintain a reputation for maximizing future cooperative exchange is more costly, or too great of a discount granted, than the infamy incurred from shoving the charter up the enemy’s rear entry while appropriating his wealth using any imaginable means. A well calibrated algorithm of foreign policy will not abuse that course of action, but it will make prudent use of it, and without mercy.”— Simon ———- Simon, Violence is a resource that can be put to good (reciprocity) or ill (irreciprocity). From the entire spectrum of creation of reciprocity, restoration of reciprocity, or exhaustion of reciprocity, or conquest, or extermination. Reciprocity purchases future cooperation which is, in general, the means of advancing your line, kin, and people. However there are many conditions under which the purchase of cooperation is against the interests of your line, kin, and people. a) When cooperation is impossible due to extreme differences in ability, intention, or interest. b) Or when when the effects of long term cooperation are detrimental. c) Or when the returns on conquest or extermination are higher than the returns on cooperation. Now, the central issue is that once beyond the value of agrarian slavery, returns on conquest and extermination are ALWAYS higher than the returns on cooperation, it is just that given marginal differences its often unaffordable to do so. And that is our current situation. If conquest and extermination are not possible, then cooperation is preferable. If cooperation is not possible, or too costly, then resistance and boycott, and threat are preferable. But war, conquest, extermination are always more profitable than cooperation. As long as one does not build institutions that require continuous profiting from conquest and extermination. Or as long as one retains enough free capital from one’s expansion to organize a productive rather than predatory economy once efforts are completed. Because eventually one does run out of prey. However, if one succeeds in predation, at sufficient scale, then the people have no need or interest in the predatory order of economy and polity. As such there are two forces at work: either the underclass (abrahamic) warfare or the upper class (aristocratic) warfare that seeks genetic peerages. We have seen what happens in the underclass models and seen what happens in the aristocratic models. And the underclass model is merely devolutionary, while the aristocratic model is evolutionary – in fact, that is precisely what defines feminine, underclass, communal, equalitarian, and masculine upperclass, kinship, egalitarian. Christianity has been a cancer. The Romans were (as are we today) too greedy for consumption, and were the victims of dilution, and conquest by islam. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that

    Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade.

    The idea that changes at different rates at different velocities consist of nothing other than experience, is nonsense, because all change in velocity produces uniform changes in everything at every level of reality.

    If we send a mechanical device, or a decaying radioactive element to space and back they do in fact change at different (miniscule) rates. So it’s not psychological phenomenon.

    I hate pseudoscientific nonsense.

    AFAIK its just as likely that the rate of change is exaggerated by the expansion and contraction of space time, but that the rate of change is a constant (time), as it is that time is fully dependent upon the rate of change of the universe, and that it ceases if expansion ceases.

    I mean, I would love it if someone would correct me if I err, but you know, I haven’t found anything in any discipline that is terribly complicated.

    In fact, most of the problems of complexity were manufactured by the development of symbols. If we had done mathematics like they did in the time of newton then every idiot in the world would understand it.

    To say time passes, is simply a statement of memory. To say that all changes in state occur in sequence and that such a sequence occurs independent of perception, regardless of whether space-time is expanding or contracting.

    I perceive a sequence of changes in state. We can increase our velocity and slow or decrease our velocity and speed changes, but we cannot reverse it, nor can we speed or slow it to extremes.

    Now, there is a vast difference between observing phenomenon and travelling phenomenon. Light is just a view into history. And that light-history may be created at different rates. that’s all.

    I am not sure why this leads philosophers and scientists to disagree – or to fail to articulate such differences.

    I suspect that it is the open question of whether time (change) exists (and universe exists) beyond the expansion of our universe. (or if we are even correct about our vision of a universe.)

    Public Physics has become all too much like magic.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-16 11:44:00 UTC

  • Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that

    Gravity and Expansion determine the rate of change of that trade. The idea that changes at different rates at different velocities consist of nothing other than experience, is nonsense, because all change in velocity produces uniform changes in everything at every level of reality. If we send a mechanical device, or a decaying radioactive element to space and back they do in fact change at different (miniscule) rates. So it’s not psychological phenomenon. I hate pseudoscientific nonsense. AFAIK its just as likely that the rate of change is exaggerated by the expansion and contraction of space time, but that the rate of change is a constant (time), as it is that time is fully dependent upon the rate of change of the universe, and that it ceases if expansion ceases. I mean, I would love it if someone would correct me if I err, but you know, I haven’t found anything in any discipline that is terribly complicated. In fact, most of the problems of complexity were manufactured by the development of symbols. If we had done mathematics like they did in the time of newton then every idiot in the world would understand it. To say time passes, is simply a statement of memory. To say that all changes in state occur in sequence and that such a sequence occurs independent of perception, regardless of whether space-time is expanding or contracting. I perceive a sequence of changes in state. We can increase our velocity and slow or decrease our velocity and speed changes, but we cannot reverse it, nor can we speed or slow it to extremes. Now, there is a vast difference between observing phenomenon and travelling phenomenon. Light is just a view into history. And that light-history may be created at different rates. that’s all. I am not sure why this leads philosophers and scientists to disagree – or to fail to articulate such differences. I suspect that it is the open question of whether time (change) exists (and universe exists) beyond the expansion of our universe. (or if we are even correct about our vision of a universe.) Public Physics has become all too much like magic.

  • “Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slowe

    “Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slower we experience relative change. The shower we move through space, the faster we experience relative change. We are always in motion. The higher the gravity (density) the slower the relative change. The lower the gravity the faster the relative change. As far as I know the universe (space) that we exist within is expanding. Expanding at something approaching the speed of light. The speed of light appears to be the maximum rate of expansion at our current pressure, but the rate of expansion appears to have been higher at earlier pressure. Would the rate of change been different at higher pressure and higher velocity – as far as I know it was the same. So the rate of change at any point in the universe is determined by the rate of expansion minus the local density of space time that creates the opposite of expansion: gravity. So the fact that we experience entropy (change) faster or slower does not mean that time (change) ever stops, only that maximum and minimum rates of time change are existentially possible. Nor does it mean that it’s reversible. So when a physicist proposes that time is an illusion that’s nonsense. Memory allows us to differentiate between a sequence of states. And the rate of change that we call time varies depending upon relative velocity. And yes you can slow time down at higher velocity, although it is extremely expensive to do so (and dangerous). And yes you can speed time up at higher density. But it is expensive to do so (and dangerous). So the conflation of space and time into space time is a half truth. The truth is we have no idea what happens to the rate of change (speed of time) at the margins. It is possible that time has no meaning outside of expansion or contraction. But it is more likely that rates of time (change) are consistent and that expansion(faster) and contraction (slower) merely alter that rate of change. Similarly it is very difficult to believe that our universe is the only universe and that other universes don’t behave by the same laws. But for scientific purposes at the scale of our ability to act, it is certainly better science to assume we are alone than to envision standing on the backs of turtles ‘all the way down”.

  • “Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slowe

    “Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slower we experience relative change. The shower we move through space, the faster we experience relative change. We are always in motion. The higher the gravity (density) the slower the relative change. The lower the gravity the faster the relative change. As far as I know the universe (space) that we exist within is expanding. Expanding at something approaching the speed of light. The speed of light appears to be the maximum rate of expansion at our current pressure, but the rate of expansion appears to have been higher at earlier pressure. Would the rate of change been different at higher pressure and higher velocity – as far as I know it was the same. So the rate of change at any point in the universe is determined by the rate of expansion minus the local density of space time that creates the opposite of expansion: gravity. So the fact that we experience entropy (change) faster or slower does not mean that time (change) ever stops, only that maximum and minimum rates of time change are existentially possible. Nor does it mean that it’s reversible. So when a physicist proposes that time is an illusion that’s nonsense. Memory allows us to differentiate between a sequence of states. And the rate of change that we call time varies depending upon relative velocity. And yes you can slow time down at higher velocity, although it is extremely expensive to do so (and dangerous). And yes you can speed time up at higher density. But it is expensive to do so (and dangerous). So the conflation of space and time into space time is a half truth. The truth is we have no idea what happens to the rate of change (speed of time) at the margins. It is possible that time has no meaning outside of expansion or contraction. But it is more likely that rates of time (change) are consistent and that expansion(faster) and contraction (slower) merely alter that rate of change. Similarly it is very difficult to believe that our universe is the only universe and that other universes don’t behave by the same laws. But for scientific purposes at the scale of our ability to act, it is certainly better science to assume we are alone than to envision standing on the backs of turtles ‘all the way down”.

  • “Time” is the new pseudoscience. The faster we move through that space the slowe

    “Time” is the new pseudoscience.

    The faster we move through that space the slower we experience relative change. The shower we move through space, the faster we experience relative change. We are always in motion. The higher the gravity (density) the slower the relative change. The lower the gravity the faster the relative change. As far as I know the universe (space) that we exist within is expanding. Expanding at something approaching the speed of light. The speed of light appears to be the maximum rate of expansion at our current pressure, but the rate of expansion appears to have been higher at earlier pressure. Would the rate of change been different at higher pressure and higher velocity – as far as I know it was the same. So the rate of change at any point in the universe is determined by the rate of expansion minus the local density of space time that creates the opposite of expansion: gravity. So the fact that we experience entropy (change) faster or slower does not mean that time (change) ever stops, only that maximum and minimum rates of time change are existentially possible. Nor does it mean that it’s reversible. So when a physicist proposes that time is an illusion that’s nonsense. Memory allows us to differentiate between a sequence of states. And the rate of change that we call time varies depending upon relative velocity. And yes you can slow time down at higher velocity, although it is extremely expensive to do so (and dangerous). And yes you can speed time up at higher density. But it is expensive to do so (and dangerous). So the conflation of space and time into space time is a half truth. The truth is we have no idea what happens to the rate of change (speed of time) at the margins. It is possible that time has no meaning outside of expansion or contraction. But it is more likely that rates of time (change) are consistent and that expansion(faster) and contraction (slower) merely alter that rate of change. Similarly it is very difficult to believe that our universe is the only universe and that other universes don’t behave by the same laws. But for scientific purposes at the scale of our ability to act, it is certainly better science to assume we are alone than to envision standing on the backs of turtles ‘all the way down”.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-16 10:12:00 UTC

  • Self Improvement? That’s Not A Multiplier

    Understanding the world, decreases one’s frustration with the world. In my case I went from thinking people were largely evil to feeling sorry for most human beings who merely do the best that they can, and finally to a constant feeling of the miracle of human existence. And so I try to help people, rather than be so angry with them. i don’t think of or use terms like self improvement since I see life as one unending opportunity to gain understanding and enact change in the world. But conversely, that just as discovering that the world is not the center of the universe, and discovering our evolution is an interesting accident, the more you know, the less opportunity for wishful thinking, the perception of safety, and the hope for an end to human conflict withstand reason. The evidence is that simple people who live within their means are happier than smarter people who are forever unsatisfied with the state of man. As a member of the 1% with all the wealth and assets that entails – trying to defend that position from competitors, my own government, and ex-wives and their lawyers – I was far less happy than I am as a writer who has minimized his dependencies, and if possible would live nearly monastically. The only thing that universally makes people happy is functional family and friends, a domicile that is paid for, and sufficient income to be free of unwanted stresses, so that we can pursue wanted stresses: stress within our means. So, what I have learned is (a) accumulate family, friends, experiences and savings – particularly where they are free from legal attachment overseas; (b) avoid all debt; (c) own nothing that is not (i) beautiful, (ii) functional, (iii) inheritable. (d) dressing well, staying fit, and using good grooming increase your income by 20% – almost as much as an education. And if you cannot entertain yourselves with books, the internet, friends, then read better books and articles, save more money, take better care of yourself, and get better friends. The worst mistakes you can make are a bad spouse, too much house, expensive cars, and debt – all of which are just substitutes for taking care of yourself, experiences you must earn through friends and family, and accumulating friends, associates, and family. “Self help” means ‘doing something alone’. When the primary problem for americans (if not moderns in general) is that they are either de-facto alone, or de facto trying to do things alone. And compromise with people who are more talented than you are in one discipline or other is the only means of working in groups, and groups serve as multipliers not additives. If you’re doing it alone, you’re doing it wrong. If you’re buying stuff then you’re doing it wrong. If your friends and family are holding you back, find new friends and build a better family.