Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • “Why did France begin its fertility transition decades before the rest of the co

    –“Why did France begin its fertility transition decades before the rest of the continent?”–François Valentin

    The answer is relatively obvious and isn’t really much of an enigma.
    a) French society, particularly after the French Revolution, embraced more individualistic and secular values compared to other parts of Europe. This cultural shift contributed to a greater acceptance of birth control and smaller family sizes.
    b) The ideas of Thomas Malthus, who argued that unchecked population growth would outpace food production, were widely discussed in France. This influenced early adoption of family planning practices.
    c) France urbanized earlier than many other European countries, which contributed to the decline in birth rates.
    d) France had relatively high literacy rates and educational standards for women, which influenced family planning decisions.
    e) The weakening of the church’s influence on daily life, including its stance on birth control.
    f) Perhaps most importantly Relative decline: the catholics had outbred the protestants, and french agricultural productivity (geography) and population were the source of her relative wealth. So the french had a faster rate of adjustment than protestant or poorer regions of europe. Compare with the Irish and the consequences of the potato famine.

    Reply addressees: @Valen10Francois

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 18:01:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748042883196723200

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747610484705046750

  • The Current Challenge of Women In A Movement Whenever women comment intelligentl

    The Current Challenge of Women In A Movement
    Whenever women comment intelligently on something I write I try to provide positive reinforcement, because we need good women in any movement.

    Unfortunately, I’ve grown timid in doing so, because of the two extremes. It’s rare that a woman interprets us as peers sharing the journey, but too often assumes I’m demonstrating male-female interest instead of just decent human behavior regardless of sex.

    A couple of weeks ago I complimented a woman for her fierceness and wit via a message. And she responded with not engaging in PM’s with men out of respect for her husband. Well, half of me appreciated her position, but the other half was saddened that we have come to this state of things.

    It didn’t used to be the case. We were all confident in our relationships or lack of them, and we could be friendly and prosocial without the presumption of ‘more’ by either party.

    So I interpret this change as a decline in maturity, and a rise in insecurity, and a dramatic rise in intersexual responsibility – and It makes me sad.

    I love women and I find women’s point of view when from at least a responsible conservative frame, to be both pleasant and informative. I try to keep my female friends precisely because they provide insights I lack because of the differences in our temperaments biases and minds.

    So again, it makes me sad that we have grown so apart.

    We might need some ‘registry’ that of those who promise not to pursue members of the opposite sex so that we may once again simply engage in prosocial discourse for the benefit of ourselves, and all.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 17:48:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748039596615573504

  • “[Reciprocity] wasn’t coined by @curtdoolittle, it’s just seems to be what he bu

    –“[Reciprocity] wasn’t coined by @curtdoolittle, it’s just seems to be what he builds his moral and intellectual framework [upon].”– @Genophilee

    RECIPROCITY
    I see myself as trying to restore the pre-war particularist ethic from the postwar ‘globalist’ ethic. And since I started on this mission in 2014 I’ve been suprised and pleased to see its use work through the conservative spectrum. But with the current Ngram data, while five years old now, it doesn’t appear to move the needle yet. 😉

    Definition
    RECIPROCITY
    Reh-sih-prah’-sih-tee
    (Synonym for “Morality” in general and “Ethics” in philosophy, and Non-Tortuous in Law)
    The requirement that all human interaction be limited to.
    1 – Productive
    2 – Fully Informed
    3 – Non Hazardous (baiting into hazard)
    4 – Voluntary Transfer
    5 – …. Of Demonstrated Interests
    6 – And Warrantied and Warrantable
    7- And Within the Limits of Restitutable Liability
    8 – And Free of Imposition of Costs
    9 – …. By Externality
    10 – …. On the Demonstrated Interests of Others.

    This is the only criteria that satisfies the first principles of decidability:

    (from our Constitutional Reforms, Article I.IV The Natural Law)
    –“As conscious beings possessed of different degrees of agency, we consciously grasp, unconsciously presume, or biologically intuit, these choices upon which all others depend:

    The first question is: “Why not commit suicide?” This question is that of Personal philosophy.

    The second question is: “Why engage in cooperation rather than free-riding, parasitism, and predation?” This question is that of Ethics.

    The third question – and one that a group must answer – is: “Why engage in cooperation with others, rather than free-riding, parasitism, and predation?” This question is that of Politics.

    The Fourth Question a group must answer is: “How shall we organize our people with myths, arguments, and rules to survive and prosper in competition from nature and man?” That the question of Group Evolutionary Strategy,

    The Fifth Question a group must answer is “What are the limits of tolerance for life, for ethics, for politics, and for group evolutionary strategy, before we resort to suicide, separation, free riding, parasitism, predation, and the condition of victimhood?” That is the Question of Limits.

    The answer to all five questions is that persistence of the opportunities of existence, of the returns on cooperation, and of the returns on the production of commons, are preferable to suicide, separation, free-riding, parasitism, predation, and the condition of victimhood.

    Conversely, resistance, violence, feud, insurrection, revolution, civil war, warfare, and genocide are preferable to submission to undermining of cooperation, hindering of cooperation, parasitism, and predation.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 18:43:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746966305461133312

  • PERSONALITY MODES? 😉 Some of us if not all of us have different modes of behavi

    PERSONALITY MODES? 😉
    Some of us if not all of us have different modes of behavior. I have business-money mode, intellectual mode, CEO mode, socializing mode, friendship mode, home mode, and war mode. In frendship mode I’m pretty gregarious, kind and supportive. In CEO mode I’m serious but paternal. In intellectual, rigorously judicial. In money mode I’m … well … ruthlessly predatory is probably the most honest, least charitable testimony I can give. In war mode well, that’s for legal or related matters and I don’t like that persona very much even if it’s useful.

    Talking to Brad today for a moment while he’s at the office (they’re having internet issues, so they’re stalled) and having a hard time controlling my humor at the difference between his friendship mode and his workplace’s clinical mode.

    I wonder if there are any studies on what cultures produce different modes vs which cultures don’t. There is something interesting to be learned there. And I have a hard time imagining that someone somewhere hasn’t done this research. And if not, it that would be interesting. Because I suspect I know the answer, and I suspect I know the consequences. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 17:18:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746944912942067712

  • PERSONALITY MODES? 😉 Some of us if not all of us have different modes of behavi

    PERSONALITY MODES? 😉
    Some of us if not all of us have different modes of behavior. I have business-money mode, intellectual mode, CEO mode, home mode, and friendship mode. In frendship mode I’m pretty gregarious, kind and supportive. In CEO mode I’m serious but paternal. In intellectual, rigorously judicial. In money mode I’m … well … ruthlessly predatory is probably the most honest, least charitable testimony I can give.

    Talking to Brad today for a moment while he’s at the office (they’re having internet issues, so they’re stalled) and having a hard time controlling my humor at the difference between his friendship mode and his workplace’s clinical mode.

    I wonder if there are any studies on what cultures produce different modes vs which cultures don’t. There is something interesting to be learned there. And I have a hard time imagining that someone somewhere hasn’t done this research. And if not, it that would be interesting. Because I suspect I know the answer, and I suspect I know the consequences. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 17:18:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746943154169716736

  • THE VALUE OF THE MARKET FOR “WRONG” While we humans favor discovering what works

    THE VALUE OF THE MARKET FOR “WRONG”
    While we humans favor discovering what works, and so we try to emphasize innovative discoveries, the path to discover those innovations is a record of failures.

    In my work operationalizing the sciences, I’ve found that most of my insights come from a consistent source:
    1) The tendency of all thinkers across the spectrum to opine and discuss matters beyond their field of competency and into the broader field of incompetency.
    2) The observation of the market competition between between these mistakes, biases, errors and falsehoods.
    3) The ease at discovering the ‘coincidences of wrongs’ suggesting what cognitive errors the individuals are making.
    4) The correction of the cognitive errors, and how that changes how one can interpret the sources upon which they have based these errors.

    This strategy requires largely that one have a fairly accurate epistemology and a fairly accurate understanding of the simplicity of the Ternary Logic of the universe. But more importantly, that one develops an intuition for the consistency of the spectrum of biases, mistakes, errors, and frankly, self and other deceits, that humans are want to engage in. My work has quite by accident resulted in a deep study of human ignorance error bias and deceit.

    So there is value in the market for ‘wrongs’. Not only in assisting in discovering ‘rights’, but in discovering the behavior of mankind in the production of wrongs and rights further advising us on the production of more rights than wrongs. 😉

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 16:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746934226065203200

  • THE VALUE OF THE MARKET FOR “WRONG” While we humans favor discovering what works

    THE VALUE OF THE MARKET FOR “WRONG”
    While we humans favor discovering what works, and so we try to emphasize innovative discoveries, the path to discover those innovations is a record of failures.

    In my work operationalizing the sciences, I’ve found that most of my insights come from a consistent source:
    1) The tendency of all thinkers across the spectrum to opinine and discuss matters beyond their field of competency and into the broader field of incompetency.
    2) The observation of the market competition between between these mistakes, biases, errors and falsehoods.
    3) The ease at discovering the ‘coincidences of wrongs’ suggesting what cognitive errors the individuals are making.
    4) The correction of the cognitive errors, and how that changes how one can interpret the sources upon which they have made these errors.

    This strategy requires largely that one have a fairly accurate epistemology and a fairly accurate undersetanding of the simplicity of the Ternary Logic of the universe. But more importantly, that one develops an intuition for the consistency of the spectrum of biases, mistsakes, errors, and frankly, self and other deceits, that humans are want to engage in. My work has quite by accident resulted in a deep study of human ignorance error bias and deceit.

    So there is value in the market for ‘wrongs’. Not only in assisting in discovering ‘rights’, but in discovering the behavior of mankind in the production of wrongs and rights further advising us on the production of more rights than wrongs. 😉

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 16:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746932278247256064

  • IS THE WEST NOW THE WORLD’S ENEMY? (Sort of. But that’s throwing the baby out wi

    IS THE WEST NOW THE WORLD’S ENEMY?
    (Sort of. But that’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater)

    –“Is Dugin correct that the US/West has become the “common enemy” of mankind in its desire to dilute and integrate the cultures and races of the world into one homogenizing “American liberal way of life”– @dr_duchesne

    Yes the west has become the enemy, though I would argue, and I think successfully, that the west is merely incompetent at resisting the combination of the introduction of women into polity, economy, academy, and bureaucracy, in combination with the postwar migration of the jewish thought leadership to the west and with their march through the institutions of cultural production, using the transformation of the failed class marxism to the sequence of cultural marxist, race marxist, sex marxist (anti-male feminism), truth marxist (postmodernism), educational marxist, ‘woke’ sequence.

    There isn’t a problem with western civ so much as a vulnerability in western civ because of our success at developing a high trust society and it’s foolish optimism behond nationalism to christian universalism.w

    Instead, e have a relatively simple problem of obtaining the political power sufficient to outlaw female antisocial behavior in all its forms including the marxist sequence, as thoroughly as we have the masculine. And perhaps, in addition to restore male responsibility to regulate the feminine we may need to ‘unregulate’ the male behavior sufficiently to restore civilization.

    Until you grasp that the Female > Feminine > Jewish> Abrahamic > Marxist-to-woke sequence is just the feminine strategy of undermining dominant males through social construction of false promises that bait the tendency of the feminine to embrace magical thinking, whenever that magical thinking will reduce responsibility for settling conflict, instead of submitting to whatever conflict exists as long as it doesn’t demand responsibiilty for the commons of them.

    This may seem disconnected to you but it’s as concree as phsyics, chemistry or biology.

    Our ancestors, in particular the victorians, tried to rehabilitate the reputation of women, that both the church, women in the family, the men regulating the family, and the society contained the “gossiping shrilling and breaking of the kings peace with their selfishness and pettiness.” But pandora always has her way if given the opportuntiy, just as will Pan and Loki without regulation.

    We have a women problem, and a problem of the men who pander to them or gain influence and affluence by pandering to them.

    Is this a conclusion I am pleased with?Just the opposite. I love women and court the feminine. But that is a personal vlaue not a political one. Politically, women are the destroyaers of worlds. THis is why there are no female polities and never have been. Matrilineal maybe if the men have been decimated by war. But alwas Paternal.

    It’s evolutionarily impossible otherwise. The feminine intuition is incapable of systematizing at scale and self regulation necessary for bearing the burden of the risk of policing the comons against themselves, children, and men of low character.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 02:46:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746725611328909312

  • (Physics) TIME Well, time is fundamental because time must be fundamental, but o

    (Physics)
    TIME
    Well, time is fundamental because time must be fundamental, but only fundamental at some zero point: a given rate.
    The rate of time my vary from that zero point down to minimal time under some extraordinary conditions, or up to maximum time at equally but opposite extraordinary conditions.
    We just can’t as yet produce the instrumentation to test it. It would be interesting to consider the possibiilty of producing a set of atomic clocks and placing them in everyting from one of the universe’s great voids, to one of the universe’s great stellar densities (black or if they exist white holes), and from slow to near light speed, and then to retrieve and compare them. Not that it’ll ever be possible but the thought experiment helps us imagine theories. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-14 15:17:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746552046164029440

  • THE TWO LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR SUPERNATURAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION – UNTIL THERE IS

    THE TWO LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR SUPERNATURAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION – UNTIL THERE IS A SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
    –“The non-existence of “God” is so completely obvious that, absent state coercion or peer pressure, few truly intelligent individuals could ever believe, or profess to believe, in it”– Coach VTCG

    Coach,
    While that’s likely true, let me add two utilitarian exceptions that mean the provisions of christian religion must be provided by market demand, by some means:

    Reason 1
    Human personalities form a distribution of the feminine empathic to the masculine systematizing, and from the feminine neurotic to the masculine stable, at the extremes from the self regulatory to the masculine schizophrenic and the feminie psychotic.

    The truth is, that there are quite a few people, more than you might imagine, and in particular men and women with feminine neurological composition, that cannot provide self regulation and therefore require external regulation by social reinforcement, or, as in the case of christian religion, both social reinforcement AND rituals and beliefs that are proxies for social reinforcement. And without them their neuroticism (prey response really) is unbearable, and is increasingly expressed in self harming to socially harming ways (antisocial behavior).

    So, religion is the CHEAPEST method of teaching moral foundations that ALSO captures these people in a net.

    The answer? To use more expensive education to teach people through cognitive behavioral therapy the self regulation, and to provide social groups with that same training to provide cognitive, emotional, and psychological stability. (Stoicism-Epicureanism is the only non-false set of teachings, rituals, and social system that provide mindfulness.)

    The masculine systematizing mind cannot imagine the chaos and burden of the female mind, and the far greater chaos and burden of the neurotic to psychotic mind is not only unimaginable, but if imagined it would likewise be unbearable.

    Reason 2
    There is overwhelming evidence that chrsitian ‘training’ – meaning the resulting christian personality – is extremely advantageous for the less able and the poor, because it produces and extraordinary pro-sociality that makes possible the high trust society. The criticism that people NOT trained as such, even though most of us depart the faith we retain the psychological benefits of it, are better prosocial people than those who are not trained in it and disregard it. This evidence is overwhelming.

    So while we can teach an alternative to what is, in the end, cognitive behavioral therapy against the normal distsribution of natural human genetic instinct, impulse, intuition and reason, we should not presume that christianity serves no function until them.

    I’m raised in both catholic and protestant traditions, though mostly catholic. And my position remains that the church of england has it right. “It doesn’t matter what you believe after childhood if by childhood you have learnd the behaviors the church seeks to instill in you as a child.”

    Because in the end, you will behave by christian intuition, ethics, and morals. And if so, the church has done its only necessary job.” The rest is taking care of the … less fortunate in mental blessings.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @smugalongsmugly

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-14 14:50:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746545422967902208

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746539519745147031