Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Mirror View of Feminism: The Destruction of the Compromise

    [A]nd women have successfully voted to destroy western property rights in every election after the first generation of women voters. Today almost all elections are decided by women, and principally by unmarried women and single mothers (see Pew).

    Without women voters we would never have moved to the left, destroyed the constitution, destroyed the family (the compromise), and had rampant immigration.

    Until we developed paternalism, women used sex to manage extended families. Men developed property, and paternalism, and instead of a few men reproducing, many did. All advancement in human history is the product of property rights – and women have destroyed them. And destroyed the west.

    So the future looks very much like the conquest of the west, and the return to greco-islamic paternalism. Why? Because women used democracy to violate the compromise that made western civilization possible.

    For men, it is much more desirable to live in a paternal world. It is easy for us to dominate women. We don’t make civilization for ourselves, but for the admiration of our women, wives and daughters.

    The only choice women have ever had was the one western men gave them. And they destroyed it with their folly and greed.

    Women gossip. Women destroy each other through hen-pecking in groups. Women destroy advanced society. It’s not complicated. It’s in their nature.

    Through most of history, women (gossips) were considered the root of all evil. It appears that even in advanced society, history repeats itself.

    We made a mistake deifying women in the victorian era.

    We were right all along.

  • FEMINISTS: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR The first problem for any society is to

    FEMINISTS: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

    The first problem for any society is to find positive incentives for men.

    Feminism seeks to position men as oppressors – instead of our traditional roles as a compromise. But it is a compromise for both genders.

    For most of us, Islamic paternal domination, and daily tribal warfare, or African enslavement of women is a more desirable way to live than the tedium of labor, office, tax, law and family.

    In the family, women compromise and men compromise. But, If not, then men will no longer compromise either. They will first abandon society. Then family. Then pursue self interest.

    5%,unhappy women just complain. 5% unhappy men without access to sex and marriage cause revolutions every time.

    And or tribes are not equal in aggression. The relative docility of Asian males should not obscure the relative aggressiveness of steppe and desert males.

    So we compromise or be subjugated. None of us gets our ideal.

    Any soldier will in confidence confess that robbing, raping and pillaging is far preferable to sedentary life.

    The Romans made a business of it. The Muslims are currently making entertainment out of it.

    Men build the world for the benefit of and approval of women.

    We can just as easily destroy it if that incentive ends.

    Women are along for the ride.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 04:25:00 UTC

  • Feminists: Be Careful What You Wish For

    [T]he first problem for any society is to find positive incentives for men.

    Feminism seeks to position men as oppressors – instead of our traditional roles as a compromise. But it is a compromise for both genders.

    For most of us, Islamic paternal domination, and daily tribal warfare, or African enslavement of women is a more desirable way to live than the tedium of labor, office, tax, law and family.

    In the family, women compromise and men compromise. But, If not, then men will no longer compromise either. They will first abandon society. Then family. Then pursue self interest.
    5%,unhappy women just complain. 5% unhappy men without access to sex and marriage cause revolutions every time.

    And or tribes are not equal in aggression. The relative docility of Asian males should not obscure the relative aggressiveness of steppe and desert males.

    So we compromise or be subjugated. None of us gets our ideal.

    Any soldier will in confidence confess that robbing, raping and pillaging is far preferable to sedentary life.

    The Romans made a business of it. The Muslims are currently making entertainment out of it.

    Men build the world for the benefit of and approval of women.

    We can just as easily destroy it if that incentive ends.

    Women are along for the ride.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • Feminists: Be Careful What You Wish For

    [T]he first problem for any society is to find positive incentives for men.

    Feminism seeks to position men as oppressors – instead of our traditional roles as a compromise. But it is a compromise for both genders.

    For most of us, Islamic paternal domination, and daily tribal warfare, or African enslavement of women is a more desirable way to live than the tedium of labor, office, tax, law and family.

    In the family, women compromise and men compromise. But, If not, then men will no longer compromise either. They will first abandon society. Then family. Then pursue self interest.
    5%,unhappy women just complain. 5% unhappy men without access to sex and marriage cause revolutions every time.

    And or tribes are not equal in aggression. The relative docility of Asian males should not obscure the relative aggressiveness of steppe and desert males.

    So we compromise or be subjugated. None of us gets our ideal.

    Any soldier will in confidence confess that robbing, raping and pillaging is far preferable to sedentary life.

    The Romans made a business of it. The Muslims are currently making entertainment out of it.

    Men build the world for the benefit of and approval of women.

    We can just as easily destroy it if that incentive ends.

    Women are along for the ride.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • The principle good that must be achieved in the world, is the dissolution of the

    The principle good that must be achieved in the world, is the dissolution of the american empire, the dissolution of the EU, and the return to western inter-dependence.

    Once the current system of rents is eliminated, opportunity will be available everywhere, and seizing it necessary – particularly in the states. But also in Europe which lives parasitically upon american military hegemony.

    The question is whether we achieve this as our dying breath, or whether we save our people from the dustbin of history.

    The anglos were wrong – about everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-22 15:28:00 UTC

  • STATING THE OBVIOUS: WHO TO HIRE FOR MIDDLE MANAGEMENT I advocate project-based

    STATING THE OBVIOUS: WHO TO HIRE FOR MIDDLE MANAGEMENT

    I advocate project-based business organizations (dynamic teams), not department based organizations (bureaucracies). Project organizations produce a market for good behavior internally. Bureaucracies produce a market for bad behavior.

    A departmental manager (a monitor) is always inferior to a project manager(who has concrete objectives in a finite time period.).

    Unfortunately project organization requires constant learning and adaptation, and there are vast portions of the population who must learn by doing – and some very slowly.

    Internal project managers with emphasis on customer service, hire women who have played sports in school.

    External project managers with emphasis on customer service, hire women who have experience in sales, and who are attractive, and know how to employ it.

    External project managers with emphasis on risk mitigation, hire men who have even just a little sports experience, and some sales experience.

    Women without a feminist chip on their shoulders generally improve the work place.

    Gay men without a chip on their shoulders, generally improve the work place as much or more so than women.

    The more I work on propertarianism the more I see humans as a distribution of sense-perception systems that transmit information by voluntary exchanges. And the more useful I see various perceptions, as long as the customer satisfaction, profitability, and individual responsibility take precedence over personal interest.

    Even from someone who was not serious about team sports (wrestling is pretty individualistic), it is obvious that if you do not play some sport or other, you are very likely an incomplete person.

    The military is a man’s best team sport. Football is a decent substitute. You get hurt if people don’t hold up their end. Scoring goals in soccer is not a substitute for being tackled. And in business, and in life, we are all hurt when others don’t hold up their end.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 03:31:00 UTC

  • Does The United States Subtly Prevent Canada From Becoming More Powerful?

    Contrary to Canadian religious practice of self-congratulation, Canada is not powerful. It is merely wealthy.  And it is wealthy because it benefits from the following accidents:
    1) a border with an empire nearly unequalled in human history. Oceans on all other borders.
    2) enormous natural resources it does not need to defend, build a culture of defense, or spend upon defense, because of that empire.
    3) Genocide of the indigenous population leaving a vast territory that can be sold off to immigrants.
    4) a heritage in the common law, and anglo civilization, allowing for high trust and vast credit expansion.
    5) The ability to act as the ‘princess’ in all business dealings, since as a virtual island protected by an empire, selling off its resources to third parties, Canadians can obtain privilege from virtue of never having to use a stick in the world, and always using a carrot. 
    6) Had the states not paid 20M for Alaska, and with Russia on its flank, Canada might have a very different view of world affairs.
    7) Without the left-wing vote supplied by the Quebecois, (who are a lower class catholic population) the anglos (a middle class protestant population) the end result of the vote would be that Canada votes as conservatively as does the american midwest.
    It is what it is.  Canada is the MOST PRIVILEGED country on earth.  Not because of choice, but because of circumstance.  Choosing benevolence from circumstance isn’t demonstration of virtue. It’s demonstration of accident.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-United-States-subtly-prevent-Canada-from-becoming-more-powerful

  • Does The United States Subtly Prevent Canada From Becoming More Powerful?

    Contrary to Canadian religious practice of self-congratulation, Canada is not powerful. It is merely wealthy.  And it is wealthy because it benefits from the following accidents:
    1) a border with an empire nearly unequalled in human history. Oceans on all other borders.
    2) enormous natural resources it does not need to defend, build a culture of defense, or spend upon defense, because of that empire.
    3) Genocide of the indigenous population leaving a vast territory that can be sold off to immigrants.
    4) a heritage in the common law, and anglo civilization, allowing for high trust and vast credit expansion.
    5) The ability to act as the ‘princess’ in all business dealings, since as a virtual island protected by an empire, selling off its resources to third parties, Canadians can obtain privilege from virtue of never having to use a stick in the world, and always using a carrot. 
    6) Had the states not paid 20M for Alaska, and with Russia on its flank, Canada might have a very different view of world affairs.
    7) Without the left-wing vote supplied by the Quebecois, (who are a lower class catholic population) the anglos (a middle class protestant population) the end result of the vote would be that Canada votes as conservatively as does the american midwest.
    It is what it is.  Canada is the MOST PRIVILEGED country on earth.  Not because of choice, but because of circumstance.  Choosing benevolence from circumstance isn’t demonstration of virtue. It’s demonstration of accident.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-United-States-subtly-prevent-Canada-from-becoming-more-powerful

  • TRUTHFULNESS ALGORITHM AND PROPERTARIANISM Well, you know, for the purpose that

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03519v1.pdfGOOGLE’S TRUTHFULNESS ALGORITHM AND PROPERTARIANISM

    Well, you know, for the purpose that they intend to use this theory, I’m not sure it’s all that bad. For all intents and purposes they are creating if-then statements consisting of a word pair and a conclusion (a triplet so to speak). But they are relying upon ‘authorities’ for the construction of triplets.

    (I did work in AI exactly like this back in 1984-86 in assembly language, and spent many months on it, so it’s not exactly a novel idea — I understand that issues. Also in 2005, in one of my many failed attempts to reform Microsoft’s strategy, we created a similar algorithm for identifying terms, and reforming microsoft.com to provide information that was [surprise] helpful, and targeted to the user — at the time my company managed substantial parts of Microsoft’s internal taxonomy of terms, so it was something we understood quite clearly. )

    For Google’s purposes, you can capture a database of sites filled with rumors and grab their triplets, then look for sites that use similar triplets. Conversely, you can hit authorities and index their triplets. That means a good web site is one that has fewer (or no) bad triplets.

    Now here is where propertarianism comes in:

    Very few statements are ‘true’ in any material sense. Some things are more truthful than others, but very little is true in the logical sense. And worse, the example they use is an interesting one: the nationality of Barack Obama. Which as far as I know is not exactly settled science (as someone who received an early copy of the obviously modified pdf – most likely because the birth certificate issued in Hawaii was tampered with in order to obscure that he was listed as a muslim on it. So they give this as an example of something that is true.

    Now other things are matters of value, that each political bias (reproductive strategy) treats as true. To say Kennedy was a president, and to say he was a very bad president, are two different things.

    But by and large, the political correctness crowd has succeeded in creating enough of a body of verbiage, and succeeded in controlling authorities (now they control wikipedia), that the NPOV has become synonymous with the politically correct POV.

    So while it might be nice to stop rumours, I think that preference determines the values attributed to an arrangement of statements. And as such, it is better to detect bias in one direction or another than it is to detect ‘truth’.

    First, because truth is very questionable. Second, because truth assertions are open to corruption (notice the number of asian authors in the paper isn’t surprising to me). Third because bias is both knowable and independent of truth claims. Fourth, because we desire to find biases that suit our arrangement of values.

    Now, in addition, I think it is equally important to determine the structure of the argument – which is slightly more difficult but statistically ascertainable. (for a hierarchy of argument, See www.propertarianism.com for http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/)

    So if you told me (a) how few rumor triplets a site had (b) the bias (proletarian, libertarian or aristocratic), and (c) the form of the argument, then I would think those three values would help us score sites, and that we could select our biases.

    This is a very different search experience from a monopoly (totalitarian) one.

    But then, if google chose NOT to do that, I would see a market opportunity (as some of us already do) in presenting a web index that filtered out biases we disapprove of.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-11 15:41:00 UTC

  • CREATIVITY : ITS AUTISM – AND IT ISNT A DISEASE ITS AN ADAPTATION New research p

    CREATIVITY : ITS AUTISM – AND IT ISNT A DISEASE ITS AN ADAPTATION

    New research provides the first physiological evidence that real-world creativity may be associated with a reduced ability to filter “irrelevant” sensory information.

    The literary great Marcel Proust wore ear-stoppers because he was unable to filter out irrelevant noise — and lined his bedroom with cork to attenuate sound.

    Now new Northwestern University research suggests why the inability to shut out competing sensory information while focusing on the creative project at hand might have been so acute for geniuses such as Proust, Franz Kafka, Charles Darwin, Anton Chekhov and many others.

    The Northwestern research provides the first physiological evidence that real-world creativity may be associated with a reduced ability to filter “irrelevant” sensory information.

    The research suggests that some people are more affected by the daily bombardment of sensory information — or have “leakier” sensory filters.

    “Leaky” sensory gating, the propensity to filter out “irrelevant” sensory information, happens early, and involuntarily, in brain processing and may help people integrate ideas that are outside of the focus of attention, leading to creativity in the real world, said Darya Zabelina, lead author of the study, calling the finding “impressive.”

    The researchers investigated specific neural markers of a very early form of attention, namely sensory gating, indexed by P50 ERP, the neurophysiological response that occurs 50 ms (milliseconds) after stimulus onset, and how it relates to two measures of creativity: divergent thinking and real-world creative achievement.

    In the study, approximately 100 participants reported their achievements in creative domains via Creative Achievement Questionnaire, as well as performed a test of divergent thinking, generally considered to be a laboratory test of creative cognition. On this test participants were asked to provide as many answers as they could to several unlikely scenarios, within a limited amount of time. The number and the novelty of participants’ responses comprised the divergent thinking score. As a result, the researchers had two different measures of creativity: a number of peoples’ real-world creative achievements and a laboratory measure of divergent thinking.

    Divergent thinking tests are timed laboratory measures of creative cognition, in which participants produce numerous responses within a limited time. In the study, divergent thinking correlated with academic test scores and selective sensory gating — an increased ability to filter compared to lower divergent thinkers.

    In direct contrast, real-world creative achievement was associated with leaky sensory processing — or a reduced ability to screen or inhibit stimuli from conscious awareness. This shows that these creativity measures are sensitive to different forms of sensory gating. Divergent thinking does contribute to creativity, but appears to be separate from the process of creative thinking that is associated with the leaky sensory filter.

    The study suggests that creative people with “leaky” sensory gating may have a propensity to deploy attention over a wider focus or a larger range of stimuli.

    “If funneled in the right direction, these sensitivities can make life more rich and meaningful, giving experiences more subtlety,” said Zabelina, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Northwestern.

    But the downsides to such sensory distraction have been well noted by some of the world’s most creative thinkers.

    One of the most influential novelists of the 20th century, Kafka once said, “I need solitude for my writing; not ‘like a hermit’ — that wouldn’t be enough — but like a dead man.” Darwin, Chekhov and Johan Goethe also strongly lamented the distracting nature of noise.

    The study cannot yet determine whether reduced sensory gating is a stable trait, or if creative achievers can modulate their sensory processing depending on task demands.

    Story Source:

    The above story is based on materials provided by Northwestern University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

    Journal Reference:

    Darya L. Zabelina, Daniel O’Leary, Narun Pornpattananangkul, Robin Nusslock, Mark Beeman. Creativity and sensory gating indexed by the P50: Selective versus leaky sensory gating in divergent thinkers and creative achievers.Neuropsychologia, 2015; 69: 77 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.034

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-08 00:56:00 UTC