Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE 21st CENTURY? FOOD FOR THOUGHT: I usually position this

    ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE 21st CENTURY?

    FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    I usually position this question within intellectual history as the sequence:

    (a) anthropomorphism / narrative oral tradition / hunter gathering / Shamans vs Warriors / Tribalism

    (b) theism / writing / agrarianism / Temple and Church Bureaucracy vs Warriors / Tribal Unificationism

    (c) moralism (rationalism) and modernism / printing / capitalism / State/Temple-Merchant-State shared power / State Formation.

    (d) postmodern propaganda, pseudoscience and innumeracy / mass media, democratic secular socialist humanism / industrialism / State-Academy-Media against Warrior and Merchant Class and absent Temple class / (new world order formation???)

    (e) scientific / digital zero-distribution-cost / (worldwide search yet unfound???) / information era / (power structure still emerging but swinging toward authoritarian capitalism) / (new order formation – looks like return to higher tribalism? Nationalism?)

    I agree that ‘religion’ is with us to stay, but religion requires shared belief in a falsehood, for purposes of cooperating and organizing – usually as a resistance movement against human discretion and hubris.

    We know that religious experience (spirituality) is caused by the pack-response (submission to the pack). We know that religions and cults must be costly for members, to survive their initial members.

    We know that religions are advantageous for members in establishing limits of rule, moral norms, and metaphysical value judgements.

    For example, the TED movement is considered by many to be a postmodern church, and each lecture no different from a Sermon from the Pulpit, where technology and will provide the promise of salvation.

    We know that postmodernism is a religious revolt against the meritocratic unpleasantness of science. We know that evangelical christianity is a revolt against the secular state. (and it works).

    But where does this lead us? I have been working on this problem for a while now and I am struggling with it.

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-10 06:52:00 UTC

  • INTERNET MALE-NESS Most males on the internet are seeking dominance-expression t

    INTERNET MALE-NESS

    Most males on the internet are seeking dominance-expression through argument. The internet is a safe place to fail. And they learn through increasing tests of their abilities. Some learn the first year over and over again. Others progress every year. But it is merely combat practice – training, in an effort to both vent the stress if powerlessness and rejection, as well as the stress of being surrounded by ignorance and error, as well as an attempt to transcend the boy and become the man. So while I would prefer that such gladiators prefer to improve, than prefer to justify their failure to improve, or merely seek attention by discounted means, I also see the rattling of cages, positioning and threats, and the trowing of feces as mere, learning by doing. And I would rather see men learn than not. My advice is to help those years behind you. And together as a group we all advance.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-09 06:10:00 UTC

  • WHY I AM NOT GOOD AT ARITHMETIC, MULTIPLICATION, DIVISION AND CHESS I have a lot

    WHY I AM NOT GOOD AT ARITHMETIC, MULTIPLICATION, DIVISION AND CHESS

    I have a lot of friends who are good at chess, and I do think chess is a pretty good determinant of intelligence, and perhaps a better determinant of academic and career success.

    I was in a chess club through seventh or eighth grade, and really never got that good until the first machines came out because they played perfectly – too perfectly.

    But as an illustration, There are three reasons I am not very good at it:

    (a) Puzzles vs Problems ethic: I have a problem with puzzles as wasted effort, when I should be working on problems. Just as I have a problem going from books to problems, rather than from problems to books. So in effect I see playing games that require more than casual attention (cards), as an immoral waste of my time. (Which a certain girlfriend in college beat into me through insults as well.) So I cant make myself spend times on such things without feeling like I’m letting the time run out on my lifespan.

    (b) Working (short term) memory – one of the reasons I became interested in IQ is the understanding of both the myopia of my autistic thinking and what I began to understand was a problem for me in arithmetic calculation despite my abilities in mathematical reasoning. I work on certain categories of problems partly because I seemed to have a fairly weak working memory compared to other students. I have trouble adding and multiplying, or working with a lot of states: like origami requires. I have no problem reasoning. I can detect truth content pre-cognitively, and I can define spectra – lines of causality. I cannot however juggle many independent and as I see it – unrelated – states of things.

    (c) Limited lateral thinking. (which I suppose I could overcome with practice) but not only do I have trouble with humor – which depends upon it, with cunning in a game of chess (i tend to play aggressively with every move and am too concerned with optimum moves and can be baited by them), but I tend not to find ‘shortcuts’ so much as ‘truths’.

    Basically ‘if its in motion in time’ I intuit it. If it exists in states I don’t. Everything consists of flights of arrows.

    This tells me a lot really, because again, I see the world as a division of cognitive labor, with all these variations in smart people producing different ‘sensors’ that detect different ‘bits’ of reality, and our voluntary cooperation and trade as the information system by which we different sensors share that information.

    Man is a gloriously fascinating creature.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-09 06:00:00 UTC

  • Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism

      [I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks

  • Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism

      [I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks

  • The Fallacy Of Higher Female Cost of Reproduction

    (worth repeating) (interesting contrarian argument) —**While incorrectly stated as a difference in *COST* of reproduction – since male deaths from production and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth, and male lifespans are shorter from accumulated injury and cellular damage – the genders differ not in cost but in the *CONTROL* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males from access, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**—

    —The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with female mates so that all brothers maintain incentives to preserve the group. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.— Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Fallacy Of Higher Female Cost of Reproduction

    (worth repeating) (interesting contrarian argument) —**While incorrectly stated as a difference in *COST* of reproduction – since male deaths from production and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth, and male lifespans are shorter from accumulated injury and cellular damage – the genders differ not in cost but in the *CONTROL* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males from access, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**—

    —The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with female mates so that all brothers maintain incentives to preserve the group. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.— Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Economic Methodologies As Expressions of Class Philosophy and Reproductive Strategy

    (good piece)(useful)(for austrians) [J]ust as in physical science, information is the model by which we fallible humans least inaccurately carry on a discourse and achieve understanding. Accuracy matters not just because convenience and tradition introduce errors, but because these errors are externalized to the rest of the population. Perhaps more importantly, as economists, we are more accountable for the externalities produced by our use of ‘terms of convenience’ than are thinkers in other fields. For example, the Cantorian fallacy of multiple infinities rather than ‘the rate at which we pair off positional numbers’ has led to intellectual externalities in popular culture if not philosophy and physics departments as well. Just as very few of those entities that mathematicians refer to exist as numbers, but instead exist only as functions. Just as economists refer to the movement of the curve rather than the behavior of individuals resulting in a change in an aggregate measure. These are habituations but they are unscientific terms in that they fail the test of existence unless stated operationally. And that is the problem with much discourse in economics. DEFINITIONS 1) Natural : evolutionarily extant deterministic patterns absent the intentional or accidental intervention of man, and/or outlier events such as shocks. –“the natural rate of interest refers to the amount that would balance supply and demand for money (or maybe investment) in the evenly rotating economy.”– 2) Austrian: the program whose members search for improvements in institutions of cooperation within the voluntary organization of production, distribution and trade through improvements in information, improving the ability of actors to plan. Purpose: improve symmetry of information. (Long term – Conservatism – K-selection – Capital – Aristocracy – Force/Law – Virtue Ethics ) 3) Chicago(Freshwater): the program whose members search for rules by which to extend non-discretionary rule of law by incorporating economic policy, such that interference via disinformation in the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade is procedural and non-discretionary, preserving the ability of actors to plan. Purpose: repair asymmetries of information. (Medium term – Liberalism – “Production-Selection” – Productivity – Bourgeoise – Exchange/Trade – Rule Ethics) 4) Keynesian(Saltwater): the program which seeks the maximum discretionary limits of disinformation insertable into in institutions of cooperation within the voluntary organization of production, to accelerate consumption without dis-incentivizing consumption and production. Purpose: produce misinformation as an incentive to produce and consume. (Short Term – Progressivism – r-selection – Consumption – Working Classes – Gossip-Rally-Shame/Boycott – Outcome Ethics) 5) Socialist: the program which seeks to circumvent the volatility and meritocracy of the voluntary organization of cooperation by providing information and institutions necessary for the involuntary organization of production, distribution and trade. Purpose: Eliminate individual need for information and decision. (Authoritarian – dysgenic selection – Proletarian Class – Revolt – non-ethical). This spectrum from NATURAL to SOCIALIST, constructed by changes in discretionary information, provides limits, and therefore greater tests of necessary truth content than any analysis of the meaning individual terms. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Economic Methodologies As Expressions of Class Philosophy and Reproductive Strategy

    (good piece)(useful)(for austrians) [J]ust as in physical science, information is the model by which we fallible humans least inaccurately carry on a discourse and achieve understanding. Accuracy matters not just because convenience and tradition introduce errors, but because these errors are externalized to the rest of the population. Perhaps more importantly, as economists, we are more accountable for the externalities produced by our use of ‘terms of convenience’ than are thinkers in other fields. For example, the Cantorian fallacy of multiple infinities rather than ‘the rate at which we pair off positional numbers’ has led to intellectual externalities in popular culture if not philosophy and physics departments as well. Just as very few of those entities that mathematicians refer to exist as numbers, but instead exist only as functions. Just as economists refer to the movement of the curve rather than the behavior of individuals resulting in a change in an aggregate measure. These are habituations but they are unscientific terms in that they fail the test of existence unless stated operationally. And that is the problem with much discourse in economics. DEFINITIONS 1) Natural : evolutionarily extant deterministic patterns absent the intentional or accidental intervention of man, and/or outlier events such as shocks. –“the natural rate of interest refers to the amount that would balance supply and demand for money (or maybe investment) in the evenly rotating economy.”– 2) Austrian: the program whose members search for improvements in institutions of cooperation within the voluntary organization of production, distribution and trade through improvements in information, improving the ability of actors to plan. Purpose: improve symmetry of information. (Long term – Conservatism – K-selection – Capital – Aristocracy – Force/Law – Virtue Ethics ) 3) Chicago(Freshwater): the program whose members search for rules by which to extend non-discretionary rule of law by incorporating economic policy, such that interference via disinformation in the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade is procedural and non-discretionary, preserving the ability of actors to plan. Purpose: repair asymmetries of information. (Medium term – Liberalism – “Production-Selection” – Productivity – Bourgeoise – Exchange/Trade – Rule Ethics) 4) Keynesian(Saltwater): the program which seeks the maximum discretionary limits of disinformation insertable into in institutions of cooperation within the voluntary organization of production, to accelerate consumption without dis-incentivizing consumption and production. Purpose: produce misinformation as an incentive to produce and consume. (Short Term – Progressivism – r-selection – Consumption – Working Classes – Gossip-Rally-Shame/Boycott – Outcome Ethics) 5) Socialist: the program which seeks to circumvent the volatility and meritocracy of the voluntary organization of cooperation by providing information and institutions necessary for the involuntary organization of production, distribution and trade. Purpose: Eliminate individual need for information and decision. (Authoritarian – dysgenic selection – Proletarian Class – Revolt – non-ethical). This spectrum from NATURAL to SOCIALIST, constructed by changes in discretionary information, provides limits, and therefore greater tests of necessary truth content than any analysis of the meaning individual terms. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • WHY IQ MATTERS SO MUCH? GOOD REASONS. 1) Pareto effect requires 20% of the popul

    WHY IQ MATTERS SO MUCH? GOOD REASONS.

    1) Pareto effect requires 20% of the population control production through control of private property. The more talented that 20% the higher performance the economy.

    2) Norms MUST reflect the average of the polity, and reflect the Pareto distribution of property.

    3) About 106 is the minimum IQ necessary for expression of ideas and abstract concepts. This is the minimum IQ necessary for work with concepts rather than manual operations. It takes an IQ of 106 to ‘repair’ a machine, or articulate your ideas.

    4) Lower IQ people demonstrate less moral behavior, and higher IQ people demonstrate more moral behavior.

    5) Dunning Krueger effect increases as IQ decreases, increasing discord. In truth it is always present except that the effect is general and disruptive in lower classes, and niche and understood in the upper.

    6) Those people with IQ below 106, will find it increasingly difficult to find work requiring other than unskilled manual labor or unskilled service labor. If one cannot make use of abstractions to calculate something or other then one will be unemployable, since anything that does not require abstractions is rapidly open to automation.

    This six factors MUST lead to social and economic discord.

    AND WHY IS THIS PROBLEM EXTANT?

    We have ceased our western program of eugenics both in the aggressive culling of criminals from the gene pool through constant hanging, in the suppression of the reproduction of the lower classes through manorialism, in the use of unskilled labor in frequent war, and in the restriction of immigration to ghettos.

    Worse, we have transferred rates of reproduction from the middle and upper class to the lower classes through redistribution.

    The eugenicists were correct – but involuntary surgery is difficult for us to accept. The softer method of practicing eugenics is paying the unemployable not to reproduce; limiting immigration to extremely skilled labor; expanding employment into our later years so that minor service jobs are filled by the aged (keeping them healthier), and expanding it downward to youth, so that minor labor jobs are filled by the young. The evidence is that we should decrease time spent in education and increase labor participation both in the young and old. More time in production and activity and less time sitting and listening to propaganda. We destroyed most of the western intellectual advantage in one century, and we can return in the same amount of time.

    NO FREE RIDES.

    The west and east differ from the rest, in aggressive programs of eugenics. The west differs from the east in the consequences of heroism: individualism, truth telling, high trust, elimination of corruption, and the economic velocity that accompanies it.

    THE UNDERCLASSES ARE MAN’S PROBLEM

    They always have been. They always will be. Until there is no longer an underclass. We did not oppress the underclasses, we defended mankind, civilization and the earth itself from them.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 07:56:00 UTC