Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • My experience is that most purchasing departments exist to cause vendors to fail

    My experience is that most purchasing departments exist to cause vendors to fail, engage in political positioning, and/or rent seeking. A good purchasing department functions like a lawyer who is too busy: they make sure you don’t hurt yourself. But a young lawyer trying to prove himself, or a purchasing agent trying to prove himself is something very different. They create problems by trying to create value. I was too naive about big business in my early life. The optimum behavior is to find out what makes the agent successful and give him what he wants even if it is bad for his business. I find this immoral. I want to give organizations what they need regardless of whether they understand it or not. This is most visible in the construction industry where the architects and primary contractors do not possess the knowledge to construct the building, only the suppliers do. But purchasing engages in all sorts of schemes to get reduced prices then trap vendors into bankruptcy by enforcing bids made without sufficient information. And while construction may be the most corrupt field in this regard outside of state dependent contractors, and then state employees – and their corruption the reason for the existence of most code and regulation – the same thing happens at CocaCola, Nabisco, Comcast, Dell, ATT, Intel, Microsoft (less so – they have management problems instead) and dozens more I could name (and not TMobile in my experience). Running a moral business takes more effort but it almost always ends up in your favor in the long term.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 03:43:00 UTC

  • BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM All non-tautological stat

    BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM

    All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.

    We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.

    If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.

    Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.

    This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion.

    So it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation.

    The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.

    Thanks for following me on the journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 13:14:00 UTC

  • REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB. There are two reasons to conduct ar

    REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB.

    There are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters.

    First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs.

    Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments.

    What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship.

    So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs.

    I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon.

    I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system.

    But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 11:29:00 UTC

  • Does The Market Produce Truth Telling?

    [D]oes The Market Produce Truth Telling? Every polity possesses a market order – it must. Very few polities produce truth telling – truth telling is extremely expensive. Its expensive because its an investment in a commons (norm). And that investment is easily open to privatization (cheating). Ergo, groups demonstrate the minimum truth possible necessary to survive rather than the highest trust necessary to complete. Cheating is demonstration of a shorter(higher) time preference, and truth telling and longer(lower) time preference. With meritocratic ability (skill talent knowledge) determining the value of common investment(truth telling/production) versus private consumption (cheating/parasitism). Ergo the less genetic pacification (culling of the underclass), and the less pacification of parasitism (rule of law and property), the lower the trust and the greater the parasitism, and the greater the demand for the state. This is compatible with the Nozickian origins of social order (they will emerge out of cooperative necessity). But not with locke,hobbes,rousseu,hume who seem not to have (I could be wrong) identified the equilibrium between pure self interest and cheating and the extraordinary returns on morality and cooperation. Meaning Axelrod is right that the prisonner’s dilemma is the state of nature we must answer. So of all the prior era writers’ imaginings of the state of nature, appear to have been either wrong or insufficient.

  • Does The Market Produce Truth Telling?

    [D]oes The Market Produce Truth Telling? Every polity possesses a market order – it must. Very few polities produce truth telling – truth telling is extremely expensive. Its expensive because its an investment in a commons (norm). And that investment is easily open to privatization (cheating). Ergo, groups demonstrate the minimum truth possible necessary to survive rather than the highest trust necessary to complete. Cheating is demonstration of a shorter(higher) time preference, and truth telling and longer(lower) time preference. With meritocratic ability (skill talent knowledge) determining the value of common investment(truth telling/production) versus private consumption (cheating/parasitism). Ergo the less genetic pacification (culling of the underclass), and the less pacification of parasitism (rule of law and property), the lower the trust and the greater the parasitism, and the greater the demand for the state. This is compatible with the Nozickian origins of social order (they will emerge out of cooperative necessity). But not with locke,hobbes,rousseu,hume who seem not to have (I could be wrong) identified the equilibrium between pure self interest and cheating and the extraordinary returns on morality and cooperation. Meaning Axelrod is right that the prisonner’s dilemma is the state of nature we must answer. So of all the prior era writers’ imaginings of the state of nature, appear to have been either wrong or insufficient.

  • Justice vs Morality vs Law : Confusion Because of Ideal Types Rather Than Spectra

    JUSTICE VS MORALITY VS LAW? IT STUMPED SOCRATES, BUT SHOULDN’T – THE ERROR OF IDEAL TYPES OVER SPECTRA [T]he terms Justice, Morality and Law refer to spectrums, not states, and that is why the subject is confusing to people when it should not be. Natural Law (logically necessary), customary law (evolved), legislation (commands), and regulations (insurance) —vs— Objective morality (logically necessary), customary morality (evolved), normative reality (practiced), moral theory (advocated) —vs— Objective Justice (logically extant), Evolved Justice (unintended), procedural Justice (intended), subjective justice (imagined) Humans evolved instincts for managing the extreme value of cooperation. Moral instincts prevent free riding and therefore preserve the incentives to maintain cooperation. Justice instincts do the opposite: they tell us if our cooperation has been accounted for. Cooperate requires sacrifice (payment) and rewards (returns). Law is the means by which we resolve differences between positive moral action, and individual perceptions of justice. That justice is simply an accounting system provided for by evolution so that we preserve the incentives to maintain the extraordinary benefits of cooperation is somehow… well, depressing. So morality is the positive and negative instinct. Justice is the sense of whether morality has been preserved in the face of violation and law is the logical means by which we resolve disputes. The reason that it’s confusing is that while necessary morality, justice and law are logically decidable, as information becomes less visible and less ‘correct’ opinion’s differ. Some cultures solve this through authority. Westerners solve it through jury. But to solve it by jury requires a largely moral people. which is why some cultures have juries and other cultures have three judges to make bribery more difficult.

  • Justice vs Morality vs Law : Confusion Because of Ideal Types Rather Than Spectra

    JUSTICE VS MORALITY VS LAW? IT STUMPED SOCRATES, BUT SHOULDN’T – THE ERROR OF IDEAL TYPES OVER SPECTRA [T]he terms Justice, Morality and Law refer to spectrums, not states, and that is why the subject is confusing to people when it should not be. Natural Law (logically necessary), customary law (evolved), legislation (commands), and regulations (insurance) —vs— Objective morality (logically necessary), customary morality (evolved), normative reality (practiced), moral theory (advocated) —vs— Objective Justice (logically extant), Evolved Justice (unintended), procedural Justice (intended), subjective justice (imagined) Humans evolved instincts for managing the extreme value of cooperation. Moral instincts prevent free riding and therefore preserve the incentives to maintain cooperation. Justice instincts do the opposite: they tell us if our cooperation has been accounted for. Cooperate requires sacrifice (payment) and rewards (returns). Law is the means by which we resolve differences between positive moral action, and individual perceptions of justice. That justice is simply an accounting system provided for by evolution so that we preserve the incentives to maintain the extraordinary benefits of cooperation is somehow… well, depressing. So morality is the positive and negative instinct. Justice is the sense of whether morality has been preserved in the face of violation and law is the logical means by which we resolve disputes. The reason that it’s confusing is that while necessary morality, justice and law are logically decidable, as information becomes less visible and less ‘correct’ opinion’s differ. Some cultures solve this through authority. Westerners solve it through jury. But to solve it by jury requires a largely moral people. which is why some cultures have juries and other cultures have three judges to make bribery more difficult.

  • Three Tribes of Men with Hair. 😉

    [I]n the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner. The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    [pullquote]…on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.[/pullquote]

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women. But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress. One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms. What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction. Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression. So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium. Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? smile emoticon Curt

  • Three Tribes of Men with Hair. 😉

    [I]n the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner. The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    [pullquote]…on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.[/pullquote]

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women. But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress. One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms. What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction. Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression. So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium. Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? smile emoticon Curt

  • THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem

    THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR

    In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner.

    The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women.

    But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress.

    One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms.

    What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction.

    Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.

    So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium.

    Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? 🙂

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:34:00 UTC