Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I WILL DEFINITELY OFFEND YOU AT SOME POINT (important) Eventually, I am going to

    I WILL DEFINITELY OFFEND YOU AT SOME POINT

    (important)

    Eventually, I am going to say something that contradicts a belief that you hold dear. I am sorry. But you’re not special. I do it to myself all the time. The difference is I just accept that I erred or was ignorant.

    If you cannot accept such a thing, the question is why? Most likely because you cannot abandon the utopian rule (anchor) by which you make many of your judgments (provide decidability).

    In my experience, most of the time, this means that you are unwilling to TRADE for the conditions you want, and therefore unwilling to PAY for the conditions you want. Either because your utopia (criteria for decidability) is unachievable by trade. Or you are unwilling to pay the costs of achieving it, or both.

    Conservatives are NOT reducible to free riders – just the opposite they save everything. Libertarians are almost always reducible to free riding in commons if not also moral and ethical free-riding even if not material free riding. And progressives are ALWAYS reducible to moral, ethical, AND material free riding.

    This is because of our long (tribal conservative), medium (self libertarian) and short (offspring progressive) oriented reproductive strategies.

    Now, this is why I use the terms “true” and “necessary” rather than “good” or “right”. Because the possible order is that in which we make use of all information from all time preferences, which reflect the needs of the group evolutionary strategy, by trade in the form of status, information, cooperation, production, reproduction, and production of commons.

    Very few of us are capable of scientific and testimonial truth in the construction of the social order.

    And the only way to get one bias or the other is either by force (conservative) or overpopulation (progressive), with the stable state being provided not by force or population but by markets: reproduction, production, production of commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (MORE: Watch my video on the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, memory, labor, and advocacy.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 04:55:00 UTC

  • Computer programming varies in difficulty just as math varies in difficulty. So

    Computer programming varies in difficulty just as math varies in difficulty. So just as we have people who do basic accounting with IQ’s in the 90’s, and people who work with differential or algebraic geometry who are in the 140’s, we have people who program at 100iq and those that program in the 140s.

    As far as I know the average computer programmer has +.5 to +1 SD. (107-115) And the average computer science graduate has +1.5 SD ( 120’s ).

    Although we must realize that these numbers are from iffy data they do match what we would predict given the (wide) distribution of programming tasks, and the rough baseline that “problem solving intelligence begins at 106.”

    Programming well is like any craft: if you make 1m chopstics I don’t know how good you will be at carpentry. If you make five programs of every design pattern in the three families of programming languages (imperative, functional, declarative), you are going to be a pretty good programmer.

    The more important property of the best programmers (which I am not) is the same as the most important property in mathematics: short term memory. I have a rather weak short term memory but I remember almost everything I see, read, hear and think – if I’m paying attention that is. So I tend to be good at solving ‘the big problems’ but it seems that I take forever to program them because I get distracted by tangent possibilities when I am working. So I would argue low neuroticism ( a mind that stays in context ) or one that has practiced any of the mental disciplines (mindfulness) is as important as intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 01:07:00 UTC

  • During the Age of Transformation (Karen Armstrong, Marijia Gimbutas) the militar

    During the Age of Transformation (Karen Armstrong, Marijia Gimbutas) the military strategy the group used to resist or conquer out-groups determined, and set in mental stone: in myth, tradition, law, literature, norm and value, the consequential metaphysics (assumptions and values) of each civilization. And they survive to this day. In no small part because we have exercised the eugenic or dysgenic values in each of those eras, and to no small degree bred for adaptation to those strategies.

    Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese Armies in the river plains

    European warrior aristocracy and its militias.

    Steppe tribal raiders.

    Diasporic traders and wandering herdsmen, gypsies, and pirates.

    What we are apparently afraid to face, is that the long term de-civilizing consequences that have led to India and the muslim world, and africa, and now to south america can also be brought here to the upper lattitudes because of our use of fossil fuel heating and air conditioning. Demographic distributions matter more than excellences. No genius can reorganize a society of these imbalances without a return to either working class command economies, or it’s predecessor slavery. It’s simple math. They are too relatively unproductive to generate a concentration of wealth necessary for a voluntary organization of production (capitalism) to create marginal (decidable and influential) differences in reward necessary to form the various networks of hierarchies that as a collective can survive competition.

    Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. Man and Woman were domesticated, like every other feral animal, through a continuous process of eugenics that suppressed the lower class reproduction and redistributed reproduction upward, while at the same time increasing the scope of parasitic prohibitions that we call laws, and incrementally forcing everyone into productive activities in order to survive. We sent to war, hung, or starved the rest.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-28 09:49:00 UTC

  • THE UNCOMFORTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH WE MUST ADAPT TO IN THIS CENTURY Nationalism,

    THE UNCOMFORTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH WE MUST ADAPT TO IN THIS CENTURY

    Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual.

    I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law.

    I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs.

    But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence.

    We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people.

    And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-27 05:22:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATISM AND THE CENTRAL OBJECTS OF LAW, POLICY, AND COMMONS. Conservatism i

    CONSERVATISM AND THE CENTRAL OBJECTS OF LAW, POLICY, AND COMMONS.

    Conservatism is not an individualist but a Familial strategy. In other words, the strategy is building good, self-insuring families.

    So conservatism eugenically suppresses weak and bad family members from the gene pool, allowing those who demonstrate willingness to transcend their familial (genetic) weaknesses through demonstrations of heroism.

    So if your family is too weak you provide you with wealth it’s a measure of your genes. And you are a representative of those genes. Through actions and choices you may transcend your family limits. Through actions and choices one can descend from a family’s achievements.

    There are four functions that play for and against your statement.

    First, the lottery effect is real and necessary (you can’t win if you don’t play) but not all people can win the lottery. This creates incentives for many at very low cost.

    Second capitalism pays us for the number of people who are willing to contribute to the production of goods and services. It’s purely a numbers game. Making cooking-matches and making symphonies is inversely rewarding; lots of people use cooking-matches.

    Third – it is extremely difficult to hold wealth over more than three generations unless you are in fact genetically superior. And that is what we see.

    Fourth – those families that demonstrate superiority over many generations are in fact demonstrating that they are a natural aristocracy – by any measure: and there are very few of them.

    THEREFORE

    The central object of law is the individual, since the individual acts.

    The central object of policy is the family.

    The central object of commons is the competitiveness of the polity.

    Insurance of various forms is a luxury we can afford or not depending upon the success of the central objects of law, policy, and polity.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine,

    (And my spiritual homes: London UK, Boston and Seattle USA) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-27 02:22:00 UTC

  • TALEB AND DOOLITTLE DEMAND SKIN-IN-THE-GAME AND WARRANTY Nassim Taleb and I are

    TALEB AND DOOLITTLE DEMAND SKIN-IN-THE-GAME AND WARRANTY

    Nassim Taleb and I are working on the same problem, which we identified by similar means: designing models. He was inspired when he designed financial risk models, and I was inspired when I designed artificial intelligences for games in anticipation of the kind of warfare we are seeing emerge today.

    I work bottom up (operationally), and Taleb works top-down (statistically). But this is the same problem from two ends of the spectrum. (He publishes books on the mass market to make money, I build software and companies for a limited number of partners and customers.) I want to find the mechanism and he wants to quantify the effect. But we are looking for the same thing. What is it?

    Computers are useful in increasing our perceptions. The game of Life is an interesting software experiment in that if you vary the rate (time) you see different patterns emerge. If you vary the scale you see different patterns emerge. But in the end, these patterns, while they appear relatively random at slow (operationally observable) rates, turn out to be highly deterministic at faster ( consequentially observable) rates.

    And this single experimental game tells us a lot about the human mind’s limits of perception. We see what we can, and the longer we observe the more consequential the patterns are that emerge, and the more deterministic is any system we observe.

    We have all heard how few behaviors ants have but what kind of complexity emerges from it. During a vacation in southern Oregon one year I observed ducks for a few days as a way of distracting myself from business stress. Ducks are not smart like crows. They have just a few behaviors (intuitions is perhaps a better word). And their apparent complexities emerge from just those few behaviors. But if you watch them long enough you see machines that do about four or five things. And that’s all.

    So, there is some limit to our perception underneath man’s behavior that is ascertainable: the metrics of human thought.

    And I would suggestion without reservation that this research program is at least – if more – profoundly important than the research program into the physical structure of the universe.

    This mathematics is achievable, but we don’t yet know how to go about it. And I am pretty certain that it’s a data collection problem: until we have vastly more data about our selves we probably cannot determine it. (emphasis on probably).

    We may solve it by analogy with artificial intelligence. Or we may not. I suspect that we will. We will develop a unit of cognition wherein x information is required for every IQ point in order to create a bridge between one substantive network of relations and another.

    But Taleb and I issue the same warning – although I think I have an institutional solution that can be implemented as formal policy and he has an informative narrative but no solution – as yet. Although his paper last year that shows just how extraordinarily large our information must be once we start getting into outliers.

    We both use some version of ‘skin in the game’ as a guardianship against wishful thinking and cognitive bias. I use the legal term warranty and he uses the financial street name ‘skin in the game’ But the idea is the same.

    In Taleb’s case, I think he is more concerned with stupidity and hubris as we have seen in the statistical (non-operational) financialization of our economy. Whereas I am more concerned with deception, as we have seen in the conversion of the social sciences to statistical pseudosciences in every field: psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and (as I have extended the scope of political theory) to group evolutionary strategy.

    But whether top down or bottom up, statistical or pseudoscientific, skin in the game or warranty, hubris or deceit, the problem remains the same:

    It is too easy for people in modernity to rely on pseudoscience in order to execute deceptions that cause us to consume every form of capital, from the genetic, to the normative, to the ethical and moral, to the informational (knowledge itself), to the institutional, to built capital, to portable capital, to money, to accounts, to the territorial, and destroying civilization, and in particular the uniqueness of western civilization in the process.

    So to assert our ( Taleb and I) argument more directly: given that these people have put no skin in the game, and provided no warranty, but that we can impose upon them the warranty against their will for their malfeasance, what form of restitution shall we extract from them?

    Territorial, physical, institutional, traditional, informational, normative, and genetic?

    How do we demand restitution for what they have done?

    How would you balance the accounts plus provide such incentive under rule of law that this would never happen again?

    As for the Great Wars – all debts are paid.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-26 04:06:00 UTC

  • LIKE ALL THINGS, THE COST OF TEACHING LIES INCLUDES THE UNSEEN AS WELL AS THE SE

    LIKE ALL THINGS, THE COST OF TEACHING LIES INCLUDES THE UNSEEN AS WELL AS THE SEEN.

    I wonder what would happen to boy’s performance in school if we stopped forcing them to memorize, and telling them lies, and instead forced them to repeatedly solve model-problems, and taught them the truth?

    Sure, girls mature faster than we do, are more interested in pleasing others, are more verbally inclined, and more comfortable sitting still. Sure, boys mature more slowly, are less interested in pleasing as they are discovering limits, are more spatio-physically inclined and it appears that they are brain damaged by sitting still so much.

    In other words, *boys are more expensive to teach*.

    But, when we account for outcomes, what is the cost of teaching obeyance, lies, memorization, and sitting still, compared to the cost of teaching how to form hunting parties, the truth of the word, learning by doing, and engaging in action.

    We all know the answer intuitively – that we have made our western aristocracy into scribes and water-carriers for a deceitful priesthood conducting a genetic, cultural, and territorial war under the ruse of ‘care’ – when it’s just dysgenics warfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-26 03:25:00 UTC

  • INTELLECTUALS ARE WRONG MORE THAN THE COMMON MAN FOR A REASON When we combine an

    INTELLECTUALS ARE WRONG MORE THAN THE COMMON MAN FOR A REASON

    When we combine anchoring, with intellectual investment, with the status benefits, and with the high cost of changing frames, it’s not rational to expect intellectuals to act otherwise.

    What we find is this: intellectuals who specialize in very narrow domains and are current with the data tend to be very good. Whenever intellectuals try to work on generalizations it at least appears that we do better asking people on the street.

    this is why economists supposedly disagree: most economic knowledge of any discreet topic is almost always counter-intuitive. So if you ask a thousand economists a question you will get terrible results, but if you as the top 12 in any niche you will get awesome results.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-25 13:25:00 UTC

  • Imperial: human-scale measurements are superior. ——————————-

    Imperial: human-scale measurements are superior.

    ————————————————————————

    – one hundred degrees (intolerable), to zero degrees (intolerable)

    – an inch: the width of your thumb (if you work for a living)

    – a foot: the length of your foot

    – a yard: the length of your arm and about the length of your step.

    – one-hundred yards: actionable distance in which you can operate using sprints at full speed. and the maximum range of a spear or javelin throw (hunting and fighting distance)

    – a mile: one thousand paces (two steps), and about as far as humans can run ‘fast’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-24 15:02:00 UTC

  • The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percenta

    The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete.

    The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate.

    The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.

    The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction.

    The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character.

    The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline.

    But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling).

    Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years.

    When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class.

    It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well.

    And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects.

    We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy.

    And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us.

    Democracy is a very bad idea.

    It’s unnatural.

    It’s dysgenic.

    And it is incompatible with our civilization.

    It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically.

    Aristocracy made us.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-24 06:36:00 UTC