(FB 1548890813 Timestamp) ((FOLLOW PATTERN PRINCIPLE (he disappeared for a while. he is back. he’s very good thinker)) UNDERSTANDING HIGHER ORDER SUBVERSION AND LYING By @[100006830866673:2048:Pattern Principle] We’re accustomed with being lied to and so the deceiving subverters will often put many lies on the table of options. Sometimes those lies are very palpable and familiar, because those options are very tangible, in the sense we can select them and they would have very tangible consequences and realistic outcomes. An example? Take Communism. We can see this option on the table, and while it is full of lying, we know that if we were to select it, we understand its outcome – for better or for worse. Yet there is a worse kind of lie still. A lie which presents itself as not only appealing because it appears to be in full alignment with your ideology, yet it is physically & tangibly unobtainable. Here’s the crucial danger: it will parade itself to be the answer of the most reasonable category and persuasion without empirical demonstration. An example? “No lords or kings for me.” In reality – we don’t get that option. You either have dark lords who rule from the shadows of the modern, Democratic post WWII state and central banking (with no accountability), or you have lords whose names you know and whose self interest is in total alignment with the well being of his subjects without parasitism. This lie is critically dangerous because it can only continue to thrive as long as we believe in a mythology of supporting lies which makes it seem palpable, especially in the United States. To be clear – you have never NOT had a lord – even though you may have not known his name. Yes Americans, that includes you. The worst lies are the lies which appeal but can not be realized without us knowing it. “The utility of a lie is determined by the desirability of its repetition. Lies are information products like any other market product. ” – Curt Doolittle
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1548890813 Timestamp) ((FOLLOW PATTERN PRINCIPLE (he disappeared for a while. he is back. he’s very good thinker)) UNDERSTANDING HIGHER ORDER SUBVERSION AND LYING By @[100006830866673:2048:Pattern Principle] We’re accustomed with being lied to and so the deceiving subverters will often put many lies on the table of options. Sometimes those lies are very palpable and familiar, because those options are very tangible, in the sense we can select them and they would have very tangible consequences and realistic outcomes. An example? Take Communism. We can see this option on the table, and while it is full of lying, we know that if we were to select it, we understand its outcome – for better or for worse. Yet there is a worse kind of lie still. A lie which presents itself as not only appealing because it appears to be in full alignment with your ideology, yet it is physically & tangibly unobtainable. Here’s the crucial danger: it will parade itself to be the answer of the most reasonable category and persuasion without empirical demonstration. An example? “No lords or kings for me.” In reality – we don’t get that option. You either have dark lords who rule from the shadows of the modern, Democratic post WWII state and central banking (with no accountability), or you have lords whose names you know and whose self interest is in total alignment with the well being of his subjects without parasitism. This lie is critically dangerous because it can only continue to thrive as long as we believe in a mythology of supporting lies which makes it seem palpable, especially in the United States. To be clear – you have never NOT had a lord – even though you may have not known his name. Yes Americans, that includes you. The worst lies are the lies which appeal but can not be realized without us knowing it. “The utility of a lie is determined by the desirability of its repetition. Lies are information products like any other market product. ” – Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549033326 Timestamp) EXTREME OWNERSHIP: PROPERTY IN TOTO While its the same message as every other self help book, this one is in masculine prose, and uses ownership which is compatible with property in toto – and that’s why I chose it. via Simon Felden YOUTUBE.COM Extreme Ownership | Jocko Willink | TEDxUniversityofNevada
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549033326 Timestamp) EXTREME OWNERSHIP: PROPERTY IN TOTO While its the same message as every other self help book, this one is in masculine prose, and uses ownership which is compatible with property in toto – and that’s why I chose it. via Simon Felden YOUTUBE.COM Extreme Ownership | Jocko Willink | TEDxUniversityofNevada
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548972243 Timestamp) CURZON ON STRETCHINESS OF PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS by Andy Curzon I see IQ as the sixth personality dimension. Each one has a ‘stretchiness’, a trainability. 1 – Conscientiousness [the activity & in some cases overlapping into the agency dimension] (the most trainable of all the traits upwards although after 11-12 years old this becomes harder, and increasingly so into one’s 20s and 30s); 2 – Agreeableness [in some sense the agency dimension and separates men as disagreeable and women agreeable] (remarkably stable throughout life, although there are Kuhnian paradigm shifts [huge life-changing events or epiphanies usually] that slide extremely disagreeable people to the other end of the scale or vice versa [I might suggest more often than not through brain trauma/restructuring]); 3 – Neuroticism [the right hemisphere / threat perceiving / negative emotion dimension](immovable upwards in a similar way to IQ [we haven’t found a way other than drugs yet] and bad life events oft make neurotic people hyper-neurotic); 4 – Openness [the creativity dimension, highly correlated with IQ] (the most interesting in that it appears people can train only toward their side of the fence…open people can ‘open the doors of perception’ [to use a Huxlian term] and closed people tend to become even more specialised as they mature, but cases of Kuhnian shifts have not been documented afaik, but there are almost always exceptions); 5 – Extraversion [the left hemisphere / opportunity perceiving / positive emotion dimension] (low-mid range trainability either way but high reversion rate so training has to be maintained); 6 – IQ [pattern recognition] many things bring IQ down (smart professors not doing exercise for example) but nothing is known to raise it, yet. I don’t know if you’re on board with all that but the key is they were all statistically derived….as a parallel to English common law, rather than by ‘fiat’ like the Myers-Briggs. I find the six dimension extremely useful when profiling people.
( CD: I use male (compartmental) vs female (integrated) first. then the six dimensions that includes above, which then explains male-female difference in Factor TRAITS, including male vs female in IQ distribution as well. ) METHOD: Gender > Factor(dimension) > Trait (bias)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548972243 Timestamp) CURZON ON STRETCHINESS OF PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS by Andy Curzon I see IQ as the sixth personality dimension. Each one has a ‘stretchiness’, a trainability. 1 – Conscientiousness [the activity & in some cases overlapping into the agency dimension] (the most trainable of all the traits upwards although after 11-12 years old this becomes harder, and increasingly so into one’s 20s and 30s); 2 – Agreeableness [in some sense the agency dimension and separates men as disagreeable and women agreeable] (remarkably stable throughout life, although there are Kuhnian paradigm shifts [huge life-changing events or epiphanies usually] that slide extremely disagreeable people to the other end of the scale or vice versa [I might suggest more often than not through brain trauma/restructuring]); 3 – Neuroticism [the right hemisphere / threat perceiving / negative emotion dimension](immovable upwards in a similar way to IQ [we haven’t found a way other than drugs yet] and bad life events oft make neurotic people hyper-neurotic); 4 – Openness [the creativity dimension, highly correlated with IQ] (the most interesting in that it appears people can train only toward their side of the fence…open people can ‘open the doors of perception’ [to use a Huxlian term] and closed people tend to become even more specialised as they mature, but cases of Kuhnian shifts have not been documented afaik, but there are almost always exceptions); 5 – Extraversion [the left hemisphere / opportunity perceiving / positive emotion dimension] (low-mid range trainability either way but high reversion rate so training has to be maintained); 6 – IQ [pattern recognition] many things bring IQ down (smart professors not doing exercise for example) but nothing is known to raise it, yet. I don’t know if you’re on board with all that but the key is they were all statistically derived….as a parallel to English common law, rather than by ‘fiat’ like the Myers-Briggs. I find the six dimension extremely useful when profiling people.
( CD: I use male (compartmental) vs female (integrated) first. then the six dimensions that includes above, which then explains male-female difference in Factor TRAITS, including male vs female in IQ distribution as well. ) METHOD: Gender > Factor(dimension) > Trait (bias)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1548951487 Timestamp) MADNESS AND CIVILIZATION by Hanzi Freinacht and Martin Å tÄpán It seems there’s an intimate relationship between madness and civilization. In recent years, it has become abundantly clear that there is a rising problem of mental health issues among adolescents and young adults in the most advanced economies of the world. We become civilized, and we subtly go batshit crazy. What is it that puts more and more of us, and increasingly often, face to face with madness? On a more general level of analysis, I would argue, it is not so much âcivilizationâ or âmodernityâ, as many classic scholars have suggested, nor âthe postmodern conditionâ or a variety thereof, as the analysts of today suggest. Rather, it is the staggering increase of complexity itself. As society becomes so much more complex, so quickly, it simply becomes more difficult for the mind to reach a somewhat stable âlocal maximumâ or âequilibriumâ. Itâs just more difficult to know who I am, whatâs right and wrong, and whatâs really real in the first place. Even as we are richer and safer than earlier generations, there are also countless social and psychological adaptations that have to be made and the problems we do have are less tangible and direct. Iâve said it before, and Iâll say it again: Weâre not built for this kind of complexity. The rewards are too great, the immediate gratifications too readily available, the threats too nebulous, the world and its horizons too vast. The mysterious relationship between madness and civilization has a name: increasing complexity. Late at night we wake up and face the creeping horror: that life itself as we know it is a social construction, one that ultimately cannot be real, only a fragment on top of an infinite abyss. And handling greater complexity in the world requires not only new ideas; it requires a kind of spiritual development of the average person. Hence, it should be a societal goal to develop not only higher subjective states in each of us, but also to help more of us develop and integrate greater inner depths, andâif possibleâto develop our ability to think more abstract thoughts, to cognitively grasp and relate to more complex realities. –response– by Martin Å tÄpán It’s a part of it. Lack of selection pressures is another. We let all sorts of people live here and reproduce, often even incentivize it, regardless of the effect on the superorganism. Thus you get more and more people with various disorders that would under most conditions be selected out. Worse, adapting the same strategy as cancer starts increasing one’s chance of reproductive success. It turns out you can’t stop selection, you can only push it up a level. If an organism is unable to select out its unfit cells, nature deems the whole organism unfit. If a nation fails to select out its unfit members, nature deems the whole nation unfit.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1548951487 Timestamp) MADNESS AND CIVILIZATION by Hanzi Freinacht and Martin Å tÄpán It seems there’s an intimate relationship between madness and civilization. In recent years, it has become abundantly clear that there is a rising problem of mental health issues among adolescents and young adults in the most advanced economies of the world. We become civilized, and we subtly go batshit crazy. What is it that puts more and more of us, and increasingly often, face to face with madness? On a more general level of analysis, I would argue, it is not so much âcivilizationâ or âmodernityâ, as many classic scholars have suggested, nor âthe postmodern conditionâ or a variety thereof, as the analysts of today suggest. Rather, it is the staggering increase of complexity itself. As society becomes so much more complex, so quickly, it simply becomes more difficult for the mind to reach a somewhat stable âlocal maximumâ or âequilibriumâ. Itâs just more difficult to know who I am, whatâs right and wrong, and whatâs really real in the first place. Even as we are richer and safer than earlier generations, there are also countless social and psychological adaptations that have to be made and the problems we do have are less tangible and direct. Iâve said it before, and Iâll say it again: Weâre not built for this kind of complexity. The rewards are too great, the immediate gratifications too readily available, the threats too nebulous, the world and its horizons too vast. The mysterious relationship between madness and civilization has a name: increasing complexity. Late at night we wake up and face the creeping horror: that life itself as we know it is a social construction, one that ultimately cannot be real, only a fragment on top of an infinite abyss. And handling greater complexity in the world requires not only new ideas; it requires a kind of spiritual development of the average person. Hence, it should be a societal goal to develop not only higher subjective states in each of us, but also to help more of us develop and integrate greater inner depths, andâif possibleâto develop our ability to think more abstract thoughts, to cognitively grasp and relate to more complex realities. –response– by Martin Å tÄpán It’s a part of it. Lack of selection pressures is another. We let all sorts of people live here and reproduce, often even incentivize it, regardless of the effect on the superorganism. Thus you get more and more people with various disorders that would under most conditions be selected out. Worse, adapting the same strategy as cancer starts increasing one’s chance of reproductive success. It turns out you can’t stop selection, you can only push it up a level. If an organism is unable to select out its unfit cells, nature deems the whole organism unfit. If a nation fails to select out its unfit members, nature deems the whole nation unfit.