Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Operational Revolution

    (important piece)

    [O]ne can describe events subjectively (how we feel about them); 
    one can describe them objectively (how we observe others), and;
    one can describe them operationally (by the actions taken).

    One of the most useful methods of overloading, framing, and loading is to describe a process subjectively. Hence why physical scientists write operationally, why mathematics requires the test of intuitionism, and why psychology requires the test of Operationism; and why in economics (cooperation), we write in human actions.

    The chief innovation of the left was to legitimize the pseudoscience of psychology for the purpose of loading, framing, and overloading. Postmodernism and propaganda are the ultimate achievement of the technology of ‘lying’.

    – If we see myth as an attempt to convey truths. We can see monotheism as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – if we see reason as an attempt to convey truths. We can see philosophy as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see empiricism as an attempt to convey truths, we can see rational philosophy as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see the darwinian scientific revolution as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the psueudoscientific revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing, and overloading.

    – If we see the logical revolution (analytic philosophY) as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the postmodern revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see the (Failed) operational revolution:
    – intuitionism in mathematics 
    – operationalism in physics
    – strict construction in law.
    – operationism in psychology.
    – praxeology in economics.
    – e-prime in language
    – performative truth in philosophy
    we can also see the the development of the academy since its seizure by the left, public intellectuals prior to the conservative 1980 movement, the media prior to the fox news and drudgereport movement, as a means of preventing the completion of the operational revolution.

    We are defending truth but liars compete with us. They compete with us because we tolerate their competition. Lying and parasitism and immorality in all its forms are just thefts from the commons.

    PROPERTARIANISM
    I can fix all of this even if I cannot alone, distribute the technology for defeating liars. The only means of defeat is the common law, the informational commons, universal standing, and the mandate for warranty of all public speech.

    They will simply invent a new method of lying. However, we will have the tools to constrain them for centuries I suspect.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • DEMOGRAPHICS OF GUN OWNERSHIP: A CORRELATIVE ANSWER, THEN THE CAUSAL ANSWER The

    DEMOGRAPHICS OF GUN OWNERSHIP: A CORRELATIVE ANSWER, THEN THE CAUSAL ANSWER

    The Correlative Answer: Part 1: Social Structure

    Northern Europeans above the Hanjal Line (The North Sea Peoples who successfully out-bred) sometimes referred to as the Protestant Peoples) retain an ancient set of traditions requiring all men to obtain legitimacy and honor (equal status) through participation in the militia, and the purpose of the militia is to deny all men power over all other men. This is preserved most strongly in the anglos dutch and less so in the germans, who were anglicized.

    The Causal Answer: Part 2 Tradition

    There are a small number of underlying heroic traditions that carry the western Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarian (enfranchisement to all who fight) tradition – and that tradition is the cause of the rapid rate of western development compared to all other civilizations, both in the ancient, and modern eras. These are:

    1) Heroism (purchase of enfranchisement and status through sacrifice)

    2) All property is private (all property is earned)

    3) Every man is his own legislator over his domain.

    4) The common law and independent judiciary permit the resolution of differences between equals without appeal to authority.

    5) The rule of law, the common law (organic law, natural law) applies to all men equally.

    6) Hierarchy is necessary for decision making in war, the resolution of conflicts, and for the suppression of free riding.

    The value in this structure is that the common law can evolve with the first judicial ruling, and therefore both transaction cost and risk are reduced, and the chance of free riding, parasitism, fraud and predation are eliminated before they can be institutionalized. The market for law suppresses parasitism as fast as innovations in parasitism are created. In turn, innovation in products, services and ideas can progress with the least resistance from predators. Costs: The consequence for the underclasses is that while they benefit from the rapid innovation, they are more aware of the difference between those who are less productive and those who are are more so.

    The Causal Answer: Part 3 : Incentives

    As population destiny increases, all effects increase by approximately 20% for every doubling of the population.

    The incentives for people in rural areas where all men bear a high cost of policing the commons, is more restrictive than the incentives for people in urban areas where few bear the cost of policing the commons.

    In general, people in areas of dense population discount the cost of policing commons and norms because opportunity, transaction and policing costs are lower.

    The Causal Answer Part 4: Diversity.

    Diversity decreases trust, increases political divisiveness and decreases economic velocity. Urban areas can afford immigrating diversity. Rural areas cannot.

    It’s all rational really.

    WHAT IS HAPPENING

    The effort to expand ownership has been successful and once people have limited skill with, and ownership of guns, it tends to transfer like all traditions between families.

    The greater the effort to suppress gun ownership the greater the passion with which gun owners preserve the tradition.

    We have roughly tripled gun sales under this administration. Demographically the argument is over and the pro gun movement has won. (surprisingly)

    The supreme court has learned a tragic lesson from Roe v Wade: that the court should not solve social matters until they are first resolved by the states. That decision has nearly destroyed the court. “The Democratic Process Must Do Its Work” is the phrase we hear from the court.

    The general consensus is that we have a problem controlling mental illness, and urban poverty, and not a problem with firearms.

    So as far as I understand, the matter is settled for at least the next generation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 11:23:00 UTC

  • THE OPERATIONAL REVOLUTION (important piece) One can describe events subjectivel

    THE OPERATIONAL REVOLUTION

    (important piece)

    One can describe events subjectively (how we feel about them). One can describe them objectively (how we observe others), and one can describe them operationally (by the actions taken).

    One of the methods of overloading, framing, and loading is to describe a process subjectively. Hence why physical scientists write operationally, why mathematics requires the test of intuitionism, and why psychology requires the test of Operationism; and why in economics (cooperation), we write in human actions.

    The chief innovation of the left was to legitimize the pseudoscience of psychology for the purpose of loading, framing, and overloading. Postmodernism and propaganda are the ultimate achievement of the technology of ‘lying’.

    – If we see myth as an attempt to convey truths. We can see monotheism as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – if we see reason as an attempt to convey truths. We can see philosophy as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see empiricism as an attempt to convey truths, we can see rational philosophy as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see the darwinian scientific revolution as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the psueudoscientific revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing, and overloading.

    – If we see the logical revolution (analytic philosophY) as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the postmodern revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see the (Failed) operational revolution:

    – intuitionism in mathematics

    – operationalism in physics

    – strict construction in law.

    – operationism in psychology.

    – praxeology in economics.

    – e-prime in language

    – performative truth in philosophy

    we can also see the the development of the academy since its seizure by the left, public intellectuals prior to the conservative 1980 movement, the media prior to the fox news and drudgereport movement, as a means of preventing the completion of the operational revolution.

    We are defending truth but liars compete with us. They compete with us because we tolerate their competition. Lying and parasitism and immorality in all its forms are just thefts from the commons.

    PROPERTARIANISM

    I can fix all of this even if I cannot alone, distribute the technology for defeating liars. The only means of defeat is the common law, the informational commons, universal standing, and the mandate for warranty of all public speech.

    They will simply invent a new method of lying. However, we will have the tools to constrain them for centuries I suspect.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 04:40:00 UTC

  • NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPO

    NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPORTING IS HIGHLY BIASED.

    —“[We fail to comprehend what Nate is telling us:] the same tools and models that allowed him to do good forecasting can be used for forensic purposes. And forensically, they’re telling him there was systematic bias by the polling firms.”—

    What he is really saying is that polling firms are GETTING BETTER at manufacturing opinion and INSERTING MORE BIAS in their results.

    What he is going to tell us next, is who biases their polls.

    —“The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: “It’s becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labour’s result,” the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats’ result by roughly 20 seats).

    But the problem went beyond the UK. “The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”

    “[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 04:35:00 UTC

  • PRIVACY Privacy is a legal, normative, and moral construct: we are bound to pay

    https://mobile.twitter.com/narmno/status/595057396638187520ON PRIVACY

    Privacy is a legal, normative, and moral construct: we are bound to pay the cost of morals, norms, and legal codification of them when we enter in to the commons. What occurs in our homes is only relevant if it causes externalities. And what is in our minds is ungovernable. This is a vast subject which I won’t go into further, but privacy exists iff and only if we preserve the objectively moral and the normative and legal observation of if. What has changed is only that with vast increases in our exposure to information about one another, two outcomes are produced: (a) a reduction in the LOCAL influence of any of our actions, and (b) a realization that we are all open to the same errors, make the same errors, and mature out of those errors with experience; and (c) the lowering of the impact of negatives on our reputations if our errors are unselfish and merely ignorant in nature. All three of these factors REDUCE the impact of foolish human actions on the moral, normative, and legal commons. As such privacy is less valuable and useful than it WAS in the past – at least in matters of COGNITION and OPINION, if not crime.

    ON LEANING – IN

    Still thinking about this.

    There is no material value to women’s entry into the work force. The value is in that women are not PROHIBITED from entering the work force, and are therefore less dependent on marriage for sustenance, satisfaction, and reproduction. However, women abused their entry into the franchise by parasitically obtaining through the state, the income of marriage without providing the care-taking, sex, and compromise of marriage. So for men, adding women to the franchise merely expanded the state, made them slaves of the state, decreased the value of taking ownership for and paying the cost of the commons (society), caused rapid expansion of dysgenia, insured their poverty and loneliness in old age, and led a large number to suicide. Women destroyed the compromise. Without women’s votes the left would never obtained power in any country, and used it to destroy western civilization. I see similar effects in Japan. But I have the disadvantage of limited on the ground experience, and must work entirely from data.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 03:25:00 UTC

  • MORE ON MY POSITION ON RACE (from elsewhere) Just maybe let me add this: there i

    MORE ON MY POSITION ON RACE

    (from elsewhere)

    Just maybe let me add this: there is no material difference between men. There is a material difference in how groups of men behave because there are material differences in the distributions between groups of men. I feel that evolution via mutation is less impactful than changes in who breeds at what rate. This means that man is very plastic in adaptation, always able to move forward into the cerebral or backward into the physical as necessary. The central problem of any society is the PERCENTAGE of individuals above 125/130 where ideas are created, and how much property is in their hands, and the nearest 20% of people that they influence. This is how institutions and organizations are formed. It is imperative that any group of people achieve the Pareto relationship between order and ability if one wants to exit tyranny. I do not believe there are material differences between people of similar abilities. I believe that there are material differences in the distribution of abilities. If you let your lower classes over-reproduce, you cannot accumulate wealth in the hands of meritocracy. I do not think this is particularly difficult or complex to understand. We are all families at different stages of maturity. I think that we should treat our families, extended families, distant relations, and other races as families who are at different levels of maturity, but that there is no meaningful difference otherwise. This is my position. Racism is stupid. Democracy makes it worse. All families can help other families however.I choose to help all families who wish to improve their lot without doing it at the expense of Others.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 09:05:00 UTC

  • THE CHOICE: TRIBE OR CORPORATION There exists one species of man remaining that

    THE CHOICE: TRIBE OR CORPORATION

    There exists one species of man remaining that we know of (we have killed and eaten the rest), and of the single species that remains, there are at least major races of man: white, black, and mongoloid, with multiple blending points in areas of contact – the most obvious being the middle eastern high aggression peoples. Any other statement is an unscientific and intentional denial of demonstrated human behavior.

    Races are not artificial constructs no matter how hopeful you might wish them to be (admittedly under the various false consensus biases endemic to the solipsistic female intuition), any more than gender is a false construct, any more than reproductive desirability is a false construct, any more than any reproductive strategy is a false construct, any more than aggression is a false construct.

    People demonstrate in politics (voting) in business(commerce), in friendship, and in mating, in humor, in body language, and in tastes – that they overwhelmingly practice in-group cooperation and affiliation (kinship/kin-selection).

    The market (thankfully) eliminates a great deal of the advantage of kin-selection for consumers even if NOT for workers, and more intensely, not in politics. More so than any other walk of life, in politics, everywhere on earth, humans absolutely favor kin-selection.

    Denialism and pseudoscience change nothing except to increase the severity of conflict by propagating pseudoscience. The only reason race is an issue is democracy, imperialism, and colonialism.

    The south americans and the hindus have successfully integrated races at the cost of creating caste systems. So by and large we get to choose between high trust redistributive tribal-nationalism, and low trust high corruption low-redistribution caste-corporatism.

    You can get away with anything for a while. But not forever.

    We are just gene machines, and all our rationalization is merely an attempt to improve our reproductive strategies.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 06:56:00 UTC

  • Is Philosophy Empty?

    [I] can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living.  (Despite the obscurant framing of the question.)

    1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification. 

    2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring our criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.

    3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.

    4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed: 
    (a) the logic of identity 
    (b) the logic of naming (including counting)
    (c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)
    (d) the logic of causality (physics)
    (e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);

    we failed to complete:
    (f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operatio­nism/intuitionism/action­/e-prime)
    (g) the logic of cooperation (morality)
    (h) the logic of completeness (full accounting)
    (i) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).

    As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things. 

    – Cheers

  • Is Philosophy Empty?

    [I] can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living.  (Despite the obscurant framing of the question.)

    1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification. 

    2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring our criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.

    3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.

    4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed: 
    (a) the logic of identity 
    (b) the logic of naming (including counting)
    (c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)
    (d) the logic of causality (physics)
    (e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);

    we failed to complete:
    (f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operatio­nism/intuitionism/action­/e-prime)
    (g) the logic of cooperation (morality)
    (h) the logic of completeness (full accounting)
    (i) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).

    As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things. 

    – Cheers

  • IS PHILOSOPHY EMPTY? (from elsewhere) I can answer this question I think, as wel

    IS PHILOSOPHY EMPTY?

    (from elsewhere)

    I can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living.

    1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification.

    2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.

    3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.

    4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed:

    (a) the logic of identity

    (b) the logic of naming (including counting)

    (c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)

    (d) the logic of causality (physics)

    (e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);

    we failed to complete:

    (f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operatio­nism/intuitionism/action­/e-prime)

    (g) the logic of cooperation (morality)

    (h) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).

    As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things. 🙂

    – Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-06 12:58:00 UTC