Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Can Vancouver, Bc Become A New Silicon Valley?

    It’s unlikely. (Spoken as someone who has purchased a Canadian tech company)
    1. Canadian work ethic and 100 hour weeks at startups are incompatible.
    2. Employment regulations place too high a burden on small businesses.
    3. Shareholder requirements in Canada are too burdensome for high risk opportunities.
    4. Consumer banking in Canada is exceptional but commercial banking is like dealing with the government – depressing, incompetent, and ignorant.
    5. The VC community (if you want to call it that) is not competent in tech – better in mining and resources.
    6. The university system has no peer to California or NY/Boston
    7. Canada lacks sufficient population to produce sufficient engineers, capable of taking sufficient risks. At present it takes 500M people in a market to produce competitive intellectual work products at the level of global powers.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-Vancouver-BC-become-a-new-Silicon-Valley

  • Is It Ok To Be Socialistic Or Anti-capitalistic Sometimes?

    All societies consist of mixed economies. We have abandoned the experiment with socialism world wide (the central organization of the economy) and instead have settled on the federal production of commons, the mixed production of core industries, and the private production of goods, services, and information. So there exist no socialist and no capitalist economies – only mixed economies. And we debate how much production of commons, how much investment in core industries, and how much liberty in the private sector economy, and how much taking from private production to give out as redistribution for unproductive periods due to age, unemployment, and care-taking.

    The first problem that we face is human nature. Everyone will take all the free rides he can get. Secondly, we face a great lie: that is that the wealthier we become, the lower the demand for people who cannot learn on their own (people who cannot handle college level independent learning) and that all people can achieve middle income status if even if they cannot produce middle income market value.

    So it is not OK to be ignorant and have an opinion about such things if you lack the knowledge to hold such an opinion. The fact of the matter is that economics is not very different from hydraulics. Where small changes can produce very large changes elsewhere – and visa versa. And where any ‘gap’ or will fill in with water at the first opportunity, just like all people will seek to make theirs whatever they can at every opportunity.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-OK-to-be-socialistic-or-anti-capitalistic-sometimes

  • Has Anyone Described A Simple Iq Capability Table?

    Plenty of people have. This one is readable:

    I.Q. ranges and real-life functioning.

    As a general rule, IQ affects rate and therefore cost of learning, but also affects everything else like longevity, health, accidents, and income.

    And I find it most helpful to speak in those terms. For about every ten points in IQ we dramatically change the ability of people to learn.

    BELOW AVERAGE

    • 60’s are mildly retarded. May still function with supervision. usually socially inept
    • 70’s are borderline retarded. They have problems with basic literacy and instructions, and require supervision.
    • 80’s are problematic. Because the ‘evil 80s’ are where most violence comes from, and the average intelligence of most backward communities is in the 80’s. This is because people in this range are unable to compete but still able to plot and execute simple crimes.

    AVERAGE

    • 90 is the minimum for following written instructions, and operating machines. This is the minimum employability for routine work.
    • 100 to learn from written materials and 105 capable of repairing machines. (Arguably 106 to articulate your own ideas). 106 appears to be the minimum median IQ for the formation of a high trust polity.

    ABOVE AVERAGE

    • 110 to manage one’s learning from instructors (college format). The closer we get in median IQ to 110 the more likely we are to have a golden age.
    • 120 to investigate and learn on one’s own (graduate format) and 125 capable of designing machines. It is probably impossible to achieve a median IQ in this range.
    • 130 capable of synthesizing ideas and communicating them (low level phd in soft subjects). The good to great authors are in this range.

    INTELLIGENT

    • 140+ capable of discovering and inventing new ideas using highly structured reasoning. (PhD in hard subjects)

    RULES OF THUMB

    • One standard deviation is 15 points. We can usually communicate within one standard deviation of one another. By two standard deviations we cannot generally communicate successfully.
    • If we look at loose averages, our social and economic classes roughly reflect this distribution.
    • In my experience, and according to most professionals, 140 is the limit of IQ tests, and over that we must test specific abilities. Some would say that 130 is the limit of meaningful testing. Above those levels we start to see dispersion of traits so that while we might demonstrate exceptional ability in some area or other, we tend not to possess the full suite of abilities in balanced form.

    HEDGING A BIT

    But let me qualify it a bit and say that while the theory of multiple intelligences is nonsense, intelligence is just one property of personality that affects demonstrated behavior.

    The combinations of low impulsivity, high conscientiousness, and high intelligence need to go together. One can be less intelligent, but highly disciplined, conscientious, and work very hard, and someone can be highly intelligent, impulsive, and devoid of conscientiousness.

    A lot of things must ‘go right’ for high intelligence to produce positive outcomes in life. (the good stuff kicks in at 115 and above). A lot of things can ‘go wrong’ and we end up with dim(90’s), dangerous (80’s), and untrainable (70’s and below).

    For example, I read Neal Ferguson and I realize he has a better memory than I do and is more organized. I read Hayek and identify myself almost perfectly in every way – even speech pattern. I read Chomsky and it’s obvious he’s more intelligent than I am. But of those people the most ‘whole’ or ‘balanced’ person is definitely Ferguson.

    There are people I can tell are quite a bit faster than I am especially at mathematical operations, or maintaining sets of states in short term memory. And others who have higher reading comprehension than I do – and greater patience with it. But what I see most often is that people with increasingly high ‘scores’ tend to possess side effects. Not all of them (Norman Schwartzkopf).

    So this is why being smart isn’t enough. And this is why the ‘great families’ control reproduction and marriage so carefully, and only hand down assets to those that demonstrate performance. It’s hard work to make things ‘go right’ for generations.

    Thankfully we tend to marry and reproduce within genetic classes if not within social and economic classes, and this tends to limit the damage done by the lower classes to the gene pool. That was until redistribution which took rates of reproduction from the working, middle, and upper classes and replaced it with reproduction and immigration from the lower classes.

    It matters more for a society to have the smallest possible number of people at the bottom than it does to increase the number of people at the top. Context in everything affects everything else.

    And in real life, it matters more that you have few “bads”, than that you have tremendously outlying “goods”.

    FWIW: the evidence is clear that average people are almost always far happier than smart people. Mostly, we’re frustrated. The world doesn’t exist for us. We’re tools for the majority. And the world exists for them.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-described-a-simple-IQ-capability-table

  • Is It Ok To Be Socialistic Or Anti-capitalistic Sometimes?

    All societies consist of mixed economies. We have abandoned the experiment with socialism world wide (the central organization of the economy) and instead have settled on the federal production of commons, the mixed production of core industries, and the private production of goods, services, and information. So there exist no socialist and no capitalist economies – only mixed economies. And we debate how much production of commons, how much investment in core industries, and how much liberty in the private sector economy, and how much taking from private production to give out as redistribution for unproductive periods due to age, unemployment, and care-taking.

    The first problem that we face is human nature. Everyone will take all the free rides he can get. Secondly, we face a great lie: that is that the wealthier we become, the lower the demand for people who cannot learn on their own (people who cannot handle college level independent learning) and that all people can achieve middle income status if even if they cannot produce middle income market value.

    So it is not OK to be ignorant and have an opinion about such things if you lack the knowledge to hold such an opinion. The fact of the matter is that economics is not very different from hydraulics. Where small changes can produce very large changes elsewhere – and visa versa. And where any ‘gap’ or will fill in with water at the first opportunity, just like all people will seek to make theirs whatever they can at every opportunity.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-OK-to-be-socialistic-or-anti-capitalistic-sometimes

  • WE’RE THE INQUISITION They don’t understand. We’re the inquisition. Our purpose,

    WE’RE THE INQUISITION

    They don’t understand. We’re the inquisition. Our purpose, our function, is to issue verdicts. Once issued, moral men have moral license to commit acts of force, violence, and heady murder.

    Many branches of Literary philosophy bring you inspiration. They suggest candidate goods. We practice law. Natural Law. We decide only what is bad. We do not choose what is good. Anything not bad is a candidate good.

    And by our judgements we can license restitution, retaliation, punishment, and death.

    Truth is enough. With sovereignty, truth, and violence we built the west, and with sovereignty, truth and violence we can restore the west.

    The most frightening consequence of natural law, is if an individual takes action for which he is not capable of paying restitution from his assets, then his life, property, (and that of his kin) is the only form of restitution possible.

    The identifying characteristic of the 20th century is the use of political action, the consequences for which individuals cannot pay restitution – except with their lives.

    We are going to take a lot of life and property with our judgements.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-09 11:27:00 UTC

  • So, you know who blocks me that I know about? – Kinsella for humiliating him – a

    So, you know who blocks me that I know about?

    – Kinsella for humiliating him – and yes, I did it on purpose. Sorry.

    – The Critical Rationalist group. They can’t tolerate my argument that popper failed, and that testimonialism completes the Popperian Project. (i find this ironic beyond belief – and I consider it a cult now.)

    – A host of Rothbardian Libertines. (which as a cult I understand)

    – A few of the neo-nazis. (which as a cult, i understand )

    – Two of the ultra left wing (cult) economics sites.

    I mean, I totally understand unfriending me – for no other reason that the amount of content I produce, or because it will freak out your normie friends. But blocking me is just acknowledgement of your failure to defend your positions.

    I mean. My strategy is to play king of the hill: “come and get me”. I don’t troll people. I attack falsehoods,. If you can’t take the hill then just admit it. Because blocking me is just cowardice.

    Until recently I’d blocked very few people. The only reason I block people is because they troll or are too stupid, to solipsistically emotional, or too far along the schizotypal spectrum. which means argument and discourse are not possible. ) You should always attract opponents so that you can learn from them. I mean, I get frustrated with people all the time but it’s good criticism that makes you better at what you do, and forces you to abandon your erroneous priors.

    People I admire most are honest liberals (Karl Smith @ Forbes ) and honest conservatives ( Pat Buchanan ). You can run an empire with honest liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. The problem is it’s too easy to speak and maintain falsehoods in politics and it’s almost impossible to do that in the physical sciences. So why don’t we practice in the social sciences (which are arguably more important) what we practice in the physical sciences?

    The answer is that truthful debate would force people into making exchanges and they’d prefer all or nothing wins and losses.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-09 09:44:00 UTC

  • THE LANGUAGES AND CLASSES OF ECONOMICS (h/t Jacob Liam Youngman ) In the intelle

    THE LANGUAGES AND CLASSES OF ECONOMICS

    (h/t Jacob Liam Youngman )

    In the intellectual division of labor there are those of use who use the discipline of economics as extension of natural law, those for utilitarian purposes, and those for exploitative purposes.

    So you will find a host of people like Thiel, Me, and Emil Suric, for whom economics is one of the sciences we rely upon in the pursuit of the evolutionary good – in the absence of dishonesty and conflict. Which is a very low (long) time preference, put to very moral (cooperative) ends. And you will find people like krugman and delong who rely upon economics for high (short) time preference, put to immoral (dysgenic) ends, using it as a means of conflict, and embracing the dishonesty that is possible by the use of quantitative aggregates and cherry picking of measurements.

    Within these groups: the Natural Law (Social Science) group that thinks in the long term, the pragmatist group that seeks to use economics within Rule of Law (non-discretionary rule based action) in the medium term, and the short term “we’ll fix it later” Discretionary Rule group – arguments are relatively consistent.

    The only difficulty for the common person is that without a ‘label’ that identifies the short dysgenic, medium pragmatic and meritocratic, and the long term meritocratic and eugenic, it’s hard to know which team an economist is playing for.

    But again, within each team, it is very, very, obvious what team each of us is playing for.

    But since economics has displaced morality as the method of decidability in politics; and because economics has evolved largely as a pseudoscience due to the short-term incentives of the discretionary rulership; and because we live under majority (monopoly) rule, its not possible for us to conduct trades between the short medium and long term ‘classes’.

    Realistically the left short female dysgenic underclass and the pseudoscientific priesthoood that rules on their behalf by parasitic transfer of wealth; the aspirational, pragmatic, male meritocratic commercial, financial, and entrepreneurial sector that tries to create wealth, and the conservative, defensive, masculine meritocratic judicial martial and familial sector that tries to preserve wealth that has been accumulated.

    So we have a martial and entrepreneurial middle and working class that remain the only moral people remaining. And we have the state, academy, media complex that conspires against the martial and entrepreneurial.

    So People like “US” all sound the same. What we lacked was the language to argue honestly, rationally, and empirically against the dysgenic parasitic financialization of rule that uses pseudoscience and propaganda and the state to circumvent natural law and rule of law.

    My hope is that as our circle expands from a few dozen to a few hundred that we will produce and distribute that language and through its frequent use, empower the martial, entrepreneurial, working and middle classes to overthrow their dysgenic oppressors.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-09 09:16:00 UTC

  • Has The World Been Plunged Into A Dark Immoral Age?

    1. History is best understood in retrospect not during its making. We are definitely in an era of superstition for the past century – since the rise of all fundamentalisms in reaction to the enlightenment, and then darwin, culminating in current postmodernism. And our new ‘secular religion’ is more intolerant and demanding of falsehoods than any religion ever dreamed of being.
    2. Violence is only a measure of one form of theft. In every era theft shifts as wealth increases. It shifted from murder to theft, then theft to fraud, and fraud to information-fraud. It is arguable that far more theft occurs today than at any time in history, it just occurs through money and credit manipulation and because we are wealthier we just don’t ‘feel’ it. But if you look at what percent of our incomes are ‘taken’ today it’s horrifying compared to the 1–3% taxation that was common throughout history
    3. We seem to have had a number of dark ages over the past 15,000 years, the most obvious one’s being the black sea deluge era, the 1800–1200 bronze age collapse. the Justinian Plague/Muslim Expansion we call the medieval Dark Ages, and now it appears the one that began with the european civil war (the world wars) and truncated the second scientific and cultural revolution occurring in Germany at the time.
    4. All dark ages are identifiably caused by migration periods that disrupt patterns of trade, or plagues or climate changes, that disrupt production. We are currently undergoing one of the greatest demographic shifts in world history. And this is occurring during a period of rebalancing of powers. If successful then we will return to regional powers peacefully. if not we will – as is usual in history – likely encounter some set of wars.
    5. For these reasons it’s arguable that we have been entering a dark age, and that the 20th century is merely a unique period where the accumulated technological and social developments of western civlization from 1200–1900 have been distributed around the world, but the consequences of which have resulted in dramatic demographic changes and political changes that have traditionally produced wars.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-the-world-been-plunged-into-a-dark-immoral-age

  • Has The World Been Plunged Into A Dark Immoral Age?

    1. History is best understood in retrospect not during its making. We are definitely in an era of superstition for the past century – since the rise of all fundamentalisms in reaction to the enlightenment, and then darwin, culminating in current postmodernism. And our new ‘secular religion’ is more intolerant and demanding of falsehoods than any religion ever dreamed of being.
    2. Violence is only a measure of one form of theft. In every era theft shifts as wealth increases. It shifted from murder to theft, then theft to fraud, and fraud to information-fraud. It is arguable that far more theft occurs today than at any time in history, it just occurs through money and credit manipulation and because we are wealthier we just don’t ‘feel’ it. But if you look at what percent of our incomes are ‘taken’ today it’s horrifying compared to the 1–3% taxation that was common throughout history
    3. We seem to have had a number of dark ages over the past 15,000 years, the most obvious one’s being the black sea deluge era, the 1800–1200 bronze age collapse. the Justinian Plague/Muslim Expansion we call the medieval Dark Ages, and now it appears the one that began with the european civil war (the world wars) and truncated the second scientific and cultural revolution occurring in Germany at the time.
    4. All dark ages are identifiably caused by migration periods that disrupt patterns of trade, or plagues or climate changes, that disrupt production. We are currently undergoing one of the greatest demographic shifts in world history. And this is occurring during a period of rebalancing of powers. If successful then we will return to regional powers peacefully. if not we will – as is usual in history – likely encounter some set of wars.
    5. For these reasons it’s arguable that we have been entering a dark age, and that the 20th century is merely a unique period where the accumulated technological and social developments of western civlization from 1200–1900 have been distributed around the world, but the consequences of which have resulted in dramatic demographic changes and political changes that have traditionally produced wars.

    https://www.quora.com/Has-the-world-been-plunged-into-a-dark-immoral-age

  • VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I

    https://www.quora.com/Computational-Linguistics-What-distinguishes-subjective-held-in-the-mind-from-objective-testable/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=aee1b67cSUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY

    I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can.

    **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience.

    Subjectively experienced:

    – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable)

    – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable)

    – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable)

    – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable)

    – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable)

    – no, that’s not believable. (reportable).

    **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical.

    Objectively experienced:

    – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions)

    – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions)

    – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions)

    – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions)

    – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions)

    – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions).

    **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable:

    – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number.

    – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions.

    – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary).

    **SCIENCE AND THE WEST**

    The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be.

    The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good.

    This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

    But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it.

    What we intuit is often not a good thing.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 19:50:00 UTC