Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • What Are The Most Difficult Cultural Understandings The French (from France) Have To Face When Living In North America?

    Protestants practice the Absolute Nuclear Family and the High Trust Society. In the Protestant (northern european) social model, high trust is extended to non-family members.  In the catholic countries, they practice the extended family model, and high trust is retained for use only by family members, and not extended to ‘everyone you meet’. 

    This explains the size of statism, and the authoritarianism in France, versus the libertarianism and rate of entrepreneurship in Anglo countries. The lower the trust in your polity, the more demand there is for authority to organize society, organize production and prevent conflicts.  The more trust in your society, the less need demand (or need) there is for the authoritarian organization of society and production.  This explains the difference between anglo high trust absolute nuclear, and french lower-trust extended families.

    Furthermore, as the original question positions, the high trust polity means that it is easier to take advantage of that trust and abuse it.  So anglos demonstrate higher Altruistic Punishment of offenders, whereas the French do not.

    To French, Anglos appear to be ‘stupid’ and ‘dishonestly friendly’.  And treat family members badly  To anglos, the French appear to be ill mannered, if not outright rude,  coddle laziness in the family; and the government appears to be predatory and corrupt. (In Quebec, it is possibly true.)

    SOME INTERESTING DATA
    1) In negotiations, who are the least hostile people in the world? Americans, Anglo-Canadians, and Germans.  Who are the most hostile people in the world: the French. (The study counts the use of certain categories of words). 

    2) In Canada, the Anglo immigrants came largely from the lower middle and middle classes. The French citizens of Quebec came disproportionately from the lower classes. This difference in classes provides greater insight into the different cultures than background alone.

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-difficult-cultural-understandings-the-French-from-France-have-to-face-when-living-in-North-America

  • Can A Common Man With Average Intelligence Make A Significant Change In Society?

    An important and interesting question,  So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues. 

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time.  But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals.  The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common. 

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society.  If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity. 

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does.  On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-a-common-man-with-average-intelligence-make-a-significant-change-in-society

  • How Do Scientists And Inventors Benefit From Subjectivity And Intuition?

    NOT BENEFIT, BUT DEPEND

    Scientific investigation is not logical but intuitive, because it is conducted by free association.  Because formal logic has attracted unmerited attention in the 20th century, the importance of the scientist in the ‘decidability’ (which is the correct term, believe it or not) between possible avenues of exploration has been lost.  There is no such possible logical means of deciding how to investigate – other than perhaps the relationship between cost and content falsified.  But even this proposition is impossible to decide logically, since the domain of possible solutions is limited only by the general knowledge of the scientist and his or her capacity for free association (identification of possible patterns – which we tend to reduce to IQ.)

    In other words, it’s is not that they benefit from it, it is that they DEPEND UPON IT.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-and-inventors-benefit-from-subjectivity-and-intuition

  • What Are The Most Difficult Cultural Understandings The French (from France) Have To Face When Living In North America?

    Protestants practice the Absolute Nuclear Family and the High Trust Society. In the Protestant (northern european) social model, high trust is extended to non-family members.  In the catholic countries, they practice the extended family model, and high trust is retained for use only by family members, and not extended to ‘everyone you meet’. 

    This explains the size of statism, and the authoritarianism in France, versus the libertarianism and rate of entrepreneurship in Anglo countries. The lower the trust in your polity, the more demand there is for authority to organize society, organize production and prevent conflicts.  The more trust in your society, the less need demand (or need) there is for the authoritarian organization of society and production.  This explains the difference between anglo high trust absolute nuclear, and french lower-trust extended families.

    Furthermore, as the original question positions, the high trust polity means that it is easier to take advantage of that trust and abuse it.  So anglos demonstrate higher Altruistic Punishment of offenders, whereas the French do not.

    To French, Anglos appear to be ‘stupid’ and ‘dishonestly friendly’.  And treat family members badly  To anglos, the French appear to be ill mannered, if not outright rude,  coddle laziness in the family; and the government appears to be predatory and corrupt. (In Quebec, it is possibly true.)

    SOME INTERESTING DATA
    1) In negotiations, who are the least hostile people in the world? Americans, Anglo-Canadians, and Germans.  Who are the most hostile people in the world: the French. (The study counts the use of certain categories of words). 

    2) In Canada, the Anglo immigrants came largely from the lower middle and middle classes. The French citizens of Quebec came disproportionately from the lower classes. This difference in classes provides greater insight into the different cultures than background alone.

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-difficult-cultural-understandings-the-French-from-France-have-to-face-when-living-in-North-America

  • Can A Common Man With Average Intelligence Make A Significant Change In Society?

    An important and interesting question,  So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues. 

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time.  But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals.  The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common. 

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society.  If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity. 

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does.  On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-a-common-man-with-average-intelligence-make-a-significant-change-in-society

  • How Do Scientists And Inventors Benefit From Subjectivity And Intuition?

    NOT BENEFIT, BUT DEPEND

    Scientific investigation is not logical but intuitive, because it is conducted by free association.  Because formal logic has attracted unmerited attention in the 20th century, the importance of the scientist in the ‘decidability’ (which is the correct term, believe it or not) between possible avenues of exploration has been lost.  There is no such possible logical means of deciding how to investigate – other than perhaps the relationship between cost and content falsified.  But even this proposition is impossible to decide logically, since the domain of possible solutions is limited only by the general knowledge of the scientist and his or her capacity for free association (identification of possible patterns – which we tend to reduce to IQ.)

    In other words, it’s is not that they benefit from it, it is that they DEPEND UPON IT.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-and-inventors-benefit-from-subjectivity-and-intuition

  • AN ADVANCEMENT ON E-PRIME, I THINK? CHANGING IT FROM PREFERENCE FOR MEANING TO N

    AN ADVANCEMENT ON E-PRIME, I THINK? CHANGING IT FROM PREFERENCE FOR MEANING TO NECESSITY FOR TESTIMONY?

    I’ve been reading more on General Semantics and their meme E-Prime, and it’s pretty interesting how they advocate GS/E’ for the purpose of clarity and meaning.

    Now, I advocate E’ and Operationalism because one cannot testify to the truth of a statement if one cannot state it in operational language. Because you can’t possibly state that you know what you’re talking about.

    So, I think my argument in favor of E’ as a moral and ethical constraint, (and in the case of negative externalities, a criminal constraint) is stronger than the argument for ‘clarity and meaning’.

    ON A MY CONTINUED FRUSTRATION WITH A PRIORISM AS A VERBALISM

    I’ve still got to address the strange a priorist argument that there is something particularly interesting about decreasing precision (making general statements). Yes we can drop properties of many similar instances in order to construct sets of commons properties, and give them names. But this is an inverse of the problem of making general observations and investigating which properties we observe are necessary and which are not.

    Some descriptions, if made more precisely have no meaning: “wind” and “wave” are pretty good examples. At human scale they are meaningful statements. below human scale they are not. All statements of precision have maximum and minimum points of demarcation.

    I mean, i guess if you start with instrumentalism, you implicitly start with human scale and the problem of precision and arbitrary precision as necessary properties of any description (theory).

    I just guess this is one of those things that’s so obvious to me that I can’t imagine a literary alternative because I did not learn philosophy by literary (allegorical) means.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-04 04:49:00 UTC

  • WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF A NATIONALIST RUSSIA – NATIONALISM IS A GOOD THING WE NEED

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/how-nationalism-came-to-dominate-russia-s-political-mainstream/504495.htmlNO WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF A NATIONALIST RUSSIA – NATIONALISM IS A GOOD THING WE NEED MORE OF

    We westerners are not terrified of a Nationalistic Russia. The Western right LOVES a nationalist Russia. We WANT a strong Russia. What the west doesn’t want, and the world doesn’t want, is a breakdown of the postwar consensus on fixed borders. And none of the eastern europeans want to be subjected to more Russian deceit, corruption, violence and murder. Russia is a corrupt country, with a corrupt government, and russians demonstrate low trust, and low regard for the commons. Europeans, even western europeans, desire a high trust western society, with high regard for the commons. Russians depend on resource wealth to compenate for their low trust and corrupt society. Eastern europeans cannot depend upon resource wealth – they must generate economies that participate with the rest of the world.

    All this moralizing and propaganda from Russia is just populist nonsense. We assumed Russia would mature into a modern democracy by slowly building an economy that integrated with the rest of the world.

    A nationalist Russia that is militarily strong is good for the west since it keeps Russia’s eastern conflict zone, and southern spheres of influence, with their 90 IQ societies, from being a problem for the rest of the world. The west needs a strong Russia. What the west doesn’t need is for Russia to spread the corruption, dishonesty, and low-trust of Russian society to countries that must participate in the world economy to obtain a western standard of living.

    It’s not complicated.

    ——

    LETTER TO RUSSIA FROM KIEV

    Dear Russia,

    We love you ok. You’re white. So we actually consider you part of the tribe. And yes, we westerners are kind of destroying Western civilization with abandon. And you’re right to reject that. And while we really don’t want to be in conflict with you, we do ask you to please keep your dysfunctional family, and dysfunctional political problems in your own house. We have problems but your problems are worse. Corruption, deception, pseudoscience, alcoholism, violence and mass murder are things russians are really good at. And we really don’t need you to export them to us. I mean, you killed enough of us already, haven’t you?

    And you kind of screwed up right? You could have let the USA continue withdrawing from Europe, softly guaranteed Europe’s safety militarily, and protect shipping on the high seas, and continued to spend the next 20 years integrating Russian resource dependence into the western economies. You could have imported western technology and law, behavior, and exported ‘resources, manliness, nationalism, and unity’ to the west. You could have accomplished the unification of the circumpolar peoples.

    But you screwed up. Yet again.

    Why is it that Russians, at every opportunity, make the wrong decision? It’s just amazing. It’s exasperating. Every time you can play the long run you screw it up.

    Please get your act together, and lead.

    Russia: why are you constantly the white people who fail?

    Thanks.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-04 02:12:00 UTC

  • GETING CLOSER : UNIVERSALISM AND HIGH TRUST Integration into a high trust polity

    GETING CLOSER : UNIVERSALISM AND HIGH TRUST

    Integration into a high trust polity, without damage (without parasitism or conquest), requires high trust, which in turn requires, truth telling, the nuclear family with prohibition on cousin marriage, legal enforcement of not only criminal but both ethical and moral prohibitions, codified as property rights, universal standing and loser-pays, use of the common language, eliminating of separatist dress, and celebration of the same holidays, and contributory production.

    Cultural heterogeneity in the sense, that we aggregate into neighborhoods and rely on different rituals and signals within our tribes, is only possible if we adopt all theses high trust constraints.

    The problem is that while we do that and people from every society can volunteer to do that, many people prefer to host in a high trust society as parasites. And for many groups, it is a necessary reproductive advantage. And advantage without which they would be absorbed into the polity at the loss of their identity.

    So in this sense, you can retain your signaling identity but not your reproductive and competitive strategies.

    I think that is enough to separate those who wish to integrate from those who wish to conduct parasitism.

    WE GET AROUND OUR CURSE OF ALTRUISM WITH TRUTH, CALCULABILITY, AND UNIVERSAL ENFORCEMENT BY UNIVERSAL STANDING.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-03 03:12:00 UTC

  • AN INTERESTING PATH TO A NEW SECULAR ‘RELIGION’ (insight) I want to take you thr

    AN INTERESTING PATH TO A NEW SECULAR ‘RELIGION’

    (insight)

    I want to take you through an interesting line of thought, starting with creativity, and ending with something profound.

    Unfortunately for all of us, creativity is terribly time consuming. You cant sit down and say “I’m going to be creative now”, and cram through it like you can with calculations, or organizing or planning which rely on reason and concentration. Creativity requires free association, trial and error.

    We don’t think of creativity it as research and development, but it is. We merely artificially separate aesthetic, philosophic, scientific, technological and procedural forms of creativity by the concreteness of the information we have two work with. While we can see actions in procedures, technological and many scientific objects, philosophic and aesthetic are almost entirely imaginary. We have to ‘observe’ them introspectively. And worse, we cannot ‘see’ into our intuitions to analyze and observe our creativity at work, but we can examine what it is that we do and hypothesize about it – something which Daniel Kahneman has than thankfully given us a language to describe.

    Now, I have made a habit of creative thinking, by keeping my mind in that kind of space nearly full time. Although as an autistic it’s a lot easier to stay in that mode than people more in the middle of the curve: neurotypicals. But it is a luxury to afford the ability to conduct research and development (“Creativity”) full time. And while scientists avoid the acknowledgement of their work as a luxury good, artists and philosophers never do, and technologists and proceduralists never have to: they get paid for what they do.

    Myself, I don’t see any difference, and never have, between creative approaches to humor, the arts, literature, philosophy, the sciences, technology and processes. I have done work in all but humor which I am tone deaf to, and science: something which requires too often getting your hands dirty- which I have an objection to. But I had to work very hard for many years to obtain the freedom to specialize in creativity. Most creatives endure economic hardship to practice creativity: it is only for a few that creativity is other than a luxury good.

    But creativity is an expertise that at least most of us can improve upon. It is not unlike meditation in that it focuses your mind, but unlike meditation it attempts to solve a problem through what I consider guided dreaming. Free association with direction.

    I think part of the hard work of becoming a non-procedural writer is in learning how to conduct guided dreaming, while at the same time, quickly jotting down a narrative of the dream. You don’t start out that way of course. You start out by planning your work, and gradually develop increasingly meditative states of mind, while at the same time writing down your observations of the internal visualizations.

    –the three degrees of meditation–

    So in this respect, I view this form of meditative creativity as the highest achievement of the disciplined mind, stoicism as action-oriented the middle ground, and buddhism as the lowest level of achievement in which we seek to do nothing whatsoever.

    I am not fond of buddhism but I think that especially for women it may be more important to quiet the impulsive chaos of the female mind that it is for them to focus on action or creativity. I think for most people but more often males, it is perhaps better to focus on actions, since we are not troubled by the chaos of the female mind. For a few of us, who are most often if not entirely male, theoretical creativity is the only use our minds are really fit for.

    For these reasons I think any new ‘religion’ or form of spiritualism, will not need to come from the buddhist, stoic, or creative schools of thought, but from all of them. We could easily cleanse buddhism of it’s mysticism, and represent all three as three different skills, dependent upon our individual human needs.

    If this form of discipline was mirrored with ancestor rituals, and a return to the pagan celebration of nature, then I think that is the highest form of religion possible that we currently could construct for mankind.

    –Rider and Elephant–

    Until recently, I didn’t understand what form of skill that I had taught myself. It wasn’t until I tried to resolve the differences between buddhism and stoicism that it became clear to me that it isn’t so much that either is right, but that they each try to apply the same technique to the problem of mental discipline: gaining control of our “system 1”: the search engine we call ‘intuition’, and putting that miraculous machine to use: helping the rider of our consciousness control the elephant of our intuition.

    –Adding Nature and Ancestors—

    Really, mythology in the Greek and Roman models, absent family hierarchy, is all any people needs. We could celebrate, read and study the great people throughout history in each of the four disciplines of organization: Morality(words), Justice(force), Commerce(trade), and Craft(art, science, tech, manufacture, and construction). All of us would be better off with a libertarian theology (patron saints), than authoritarian (monotheistic god). Authoritarianism is a means of generating hostility and conflict. I think most of us would rather celebrate (remember and learn from thinking about) Alexander, Aurelius, Jefferson, Michelangelo, and those like them, than any mythical god. And we would be better of for it.

    Nature is already set to restore to celebration, but we must restore our civic responsibility for the commons, and incorporate the problem of excessive reproduction in that sentiments.

    –Should vs Can–

    There are very few opportunities to establish a new civic cult, and formal institutions and the rapid change of formal institutions is the most secure means other than organic expansion. Given the right opportunity and incentives we can. And I think I know what that opportunity is, what incentives we use, and what institutions we rely upon. But I’m going to talk about that some time in the future.

    For now, I’d like to get across the very interesting idea that Creativity, Stoicism, and Buddhism can be combined into a secular cult that can provide an answer to post-mystical civic religion.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-02 06:39:00 UTC