Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • Incentives for Durability of Marriage

    —“Why is marriage still viable for the top in this hyperconsumptive society but not for the bottom? Is it because the top have a predisposition to provide higher investment parenting than the bottom?”–Richard Hall

    Because in the upper third, there is so much economic advantage, so much status advantage, and so many more means of ameliorating differences, that the relationship can survive as a partnership. Conversely, hyperconsumption is a means of sedating the inferior status response, that drove demand for religion. Women are more sensitive to status, and have a relentless nesting urge, which is why they are more susceptible to it. Men, on the other hand, compete for status by DOING and are only concerned with obtaining a position in the hierarchy that they can afford to maintain and not lose.

  • Incentives for Durability of Marriage

    —“Why is marriage still viable for the top in this hyperconsumptive society but not for the bottom? Is it because the top have a predisposition to provide higher investment parenting than the bottom?”–Richard Hall

    Because in the upper third, there is so much economic advantage, so much status advantage, and so many more means of ameliorating differences, that the relationship can survive as a partnership. Conversely, hyperconsumption is a means of sedating the inferior status response, that drove demand for religion. Women are more sensitive to status, and have a relentless nesting urge, which is why they are more susceptible to it. Men, on the other hand, compete for status by DOING and are only concerned with obtaining a position in the hierarchy that they can afford to maintain and not lose.

  • The lost virtue of “I don’t know”—Steve Pender

    —The lost virtue of “I don’t know”—Steve Pender

  • The lost virtue of “I don’t know”—Steve Pender

    —The lost virtue of “I don’t know”—Steve Pender

  • Economics of Inter-Group and Intra-Group Morality

    Nov 20, 2019, 10:56 AM by Micah Pezdirtz (flawless, brilliant)

    —“Morality describes good in-group behavior. The in-group defines the limit of moral utility. Outside of the in-group, “moral” actions cease congruence with moral actions within it (betraying outsiders does not carry the same cost as betraying your kin). Westerners have a proclivity to universalize the in-group in part due to the particular pro-social behavior selected for by ice age survival conditions. Easterners have evolved differently, where in-group members demand morality towards each other and demand immorality towards outsiders. Reciprocity completes the moral system. A Hegelian synthesis, if you will, of the universalist hypothesis and dualist antithesis. A problem we face switching over to Reciprocity comes from the counter selection factors from both groups: to the universalist, reciprocal behavior violates the silver rule (do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you); to the polymoralist, reciprocal behavior accepts costs to the in-group instead of transference to out-groups. Monomoralists bear costs rightfully owed by out-groups and polymoralists impose costs rightfully due by in-group. So how does this relate to scale? Scale does not only present an explosively high quantity of group members, in and out, but an explosively high quantity of groups. Calculation costs of identifying groups individuals belong to as well as identifying a spectrum of group allegiance to hostility becomes completely heuristically impossible for any practical effectiveness. which may explain why Polymoralism has gained an upper hand (focus on in-group identity, plunder all others) but it destabilizes itself over time as all other out-groups eventually unify against them.” –

    (via Brandon Cheshire )

  • Economics of Inter-Group and Intra-Group Morality

    Nov 20, 2019, 10:56 AM by Micah Pezdirtz (flawless, brilliant)

    —“Morality describes good in-group behavior. The in-group defines the limit of moral utility. Outside of the in-group, “moral” actions cease congruence with moral actions within it (betraying outsiders does not carry the same cost as betraying your kin). Westerners have a proclivity to universalize the in-group in part due to the particular pro-social behavior selected for by ice age survival conditions. Easterners have evolved differently, where in-group members demand morality towards each other and demand immorality towards outsiders. Reciprocity completes the moral system. A Hegelian synthesis, if you will, of the universalist hypothesis and dualist antithesis. A problem we face switching over to Reciprocity comes from the counter selection factors from both groups: to the universalist, reciprocal behavior violates the silver rule (do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you); to the polymoralist, reciprocal behavior accepts costs to the in-group instead of transference to out-groups. Monomoralists bear costs rightfully owed by out-groups and polymoralists impose costs rightfully due by in-group. So how does this relate to scale? Scale does not only present an explosively high quantity of group members, in and out, but an explosively high quantity of groups. Calculation costs of identifying groups individuals belong to as well as identifying a spectrum of group allegiance to hostility becomes completely heuristically impossible for any practical effectiveness. which may explain why Polymoralism has gained an upper hand (focus on in-group identity, plunder all others) but it destabilizes itself over time as all other out-groups eventually unify against them.” –

    (via Brandon Cheshire )

  • “Nature always seeks the cheapest solution. Morality is costly.”—Martin Štěpán

    —“Nature always seeks the cheapest solution. Morality is costly.”—Martin Štěpán

  • “Nature always seeks the cheapest solution. Morality is costly.”—Martin Štěpán

    —“Nature always seeks the cheapest solution. Morality is costly.”—Martin Štěpán

  • “Every nation is a propositional nation. The proposition is written in the DNA.”

    —“Every nation is a propositional nation. The proposition is written in the DNA.”—Martin Štěpán

    (brilliant)

  • “Every nation is a propositional nation. The proposition is written in the DNA.”

    —“Every nation is a propositional nation. The proposition is written in the DNA.”—Martin Štěpán

    (brilliant)