Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer) RE: Olavo is wonderful. Reall

    https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html(ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer)

    RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html

    Olavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them.

    I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice.

    The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others.

    I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era.

    However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy.

    My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors.

    My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states.

    It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 00:00:00 UTC

  • “How Can I Learn Why Psychology Is a Pseudoscience?”

    October 20th, 2018 10:34 AM

    —“CURT: HOW CAN I LEARN WHY PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE?”— A Friend

    [H]mmm…. Well, psychology(Investigation/measurement) vs freudian psychology(projection/fictionalism). Start at the beginning with Karl Popper on Freud. The read about the “Operationist” movement in psychology. Then read about “The replication crisis”. Then take note of how hard it is to find any papers that do not try to deny psychology is a pseudoscience despite the near zero replicability of findings. “The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much” is rather obvious. Data is data. Replication is replication. Psychology and sociology don’t replicate. Ergo, it’s not science. Freudian categories are outright fabrications – he just made it up. Why? We all carry our cultural baggage with us. Judaism enforces conformity with the feminine bias (entrapment/herd) and europeanism encourages exceptionalism (innovation/pack). Freud stated the jewish and feminine psychology in pseudoscientific terms, (he basically invented the concept of ‘rape culture’ that is a psychosis of the feminine mind). Nietzsche stated the european and masculine psychology casting the feminine as a catastrophe (correctly). Just as Marx was a Jewish reaction to Darwin, Freud was a Jewish reaction to Nietzsche, Frankfurt was a Jewish Reaction to Spencer et al. Jung came along and tried to correct Freud by using literary archetypes, which were free of Jewish/Feminine psychosis, and provided a normative model compared to Nietzsche’s reformation and restoration of western civilization. The war period resulted in pseudoscience through about the Regan Revolution of the 1980s, and the technological revolution and fall of the soviet and chinese empires in the 1990’s. As usual, science (empiricism, and warranty of due diligence) saved us from nonsense. Psychotherapy is a pseudoscience (talk therapy), although counseling (mentoring) is not. Cognitive behavior therapy (training) is not a pseudoscience, it is just stoicism applied correctively rather than as an ordinary universal training of the mind. Psychiatry (medication and surgery) is not a pseudoscience and it was the first strike against the pseudosciences of the Freudians. Psychology isn’t always a pseudoscience – but is mostly – because only economics provides us with good data on human behavior (demonstrated preference and bias). The fact that we cannot actually run experiments in economics is precisely the reason we have a harder time projecting, and that economic pseudoscience is largely achieved by innumeracy: cherry picking the income statement over the balance sheet in order to hide destruction of accumulated capital. Cog Sci is not really a term used any longer, but represented an attempt by a GENERATION of scholars to LEAVE the pseudoscience of psychology behind. It was made possible largely by imaging and computer imaging technology which let us examine (relatively un-intrusively) the workings of the brain. And we have made huge progress in the past twenty years in exposing psychology (projectionism) as a pseudoscience. And replaced it with subfields that study language, cognitive bias, emotions, neurology, brain structure, etc without the ‘projection’ (fantasizing) that constituted psychology. Propertarianism/Acquisitionism provide a superior means of describing behavior (incentives, biases, and actions). This is why it’s so important a vocabulary and grammar for metaphysics, psychology, social science, politics, and law. Curt

  • “Did your views change at all when you had children?”

    October 20th, 2018 8:27 AM

    —“Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had children from when you didn’t?”— Dan Springhorn

    [N]o. It was just study of economics and history: data. And most importantly, when I understood the uniqueness of western civilization as commons. Now, there are no such thing as ‘public funds’ other than credit money. The rest is private funds that have been possible because of the political order of property rights. So, there is a difference between redistribution for consumption, and redistribution into commons, and the externalities whether consumptive or common. In general, parks, infrastructure, and insurance are good commons, but charity needs be private so that it produces the optimum externalities (charity) vs the worse possible externalities (welfare that breeds dysgenia). ( As a side note, I (me, myself) don’t figure into my thinking much at all. My test is reciprocity, capital production, competition, eugenics, and evolution-transcendence. )

  • “How Can I Learn Why Psychology Is a Pseudoscience?”

    October 20th, 2018 10:34 AM

    —“CURT: HOW CAN I LEARN WHY PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE?”— A Friend

    [H]mmm…. Well, psychology(Investigation/measurement) vs freudian psychology(projection/fictionalism). Start at the beginning with Karl Popper on Freud. The read about the “Operationist” movement in psychology. Then read about “The replication crisis”. Then take note of how hard it is to find any papers that do not try to deny psychology is a pseudoscience despite the near zero replicability of findings. “The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much” is rather obvious. Data is data. Replication is replication. Psychology and sociology don’t replicate. Ergo, it’s not science. Freudian categories are outright fabrications – he just made it up. Why? We all carry our cultural baggage with us. Judaism enforces conformity with the feminine bias (entrapment/herd) and europeanism encourages exceptionalism (innovation/pack). Freud stated the jewish and feminine psychology in pseudoscientific terms, (he basically invented the concept of ‘rape culture’ that is a psychosis of the feminine mind). Nietzsche stated the european and masculine psychology casting the feminine as a catastrophe (correctly). Just as Marx was a Jewish reaction to Darwin, Freud was a Jewish reaction to Nietzsche, Frankfurt was a Jewish Reaction to Spencer et al. Jung came along and tried to correct Freud by using literary archetypes, which were free of Jewish/Feminine psychosis, and provided a normative model compared to Nietzsche’s reformation and restoration of western civilization. The war period resulted in pseudoscience through about the Regan Revolution of the 1980s, and the technological revolution and fall of the soviet and chinese empires in the 1990’s. As usual, science (empiricism, and warranty of due diligence) saved us from nonsense. Psychotherapy is a pseudoscience (talk therapy), although counseling (mentoring) is not. Cognitive behavior therapy (training) is not a pseudoscience, it is just stoicism applied correctively rather than as an ordinary universal training of the mind. Psychiatry (medication and surgery) is not a pseudoscience and it was the first strike against the pseudosciences of the Freudians. Psychology isn’t always a pseudoscience – but is mostly – because only economics provides us with good data on human behavior (demonstrated preference and bias). The fact that we cannot actually run experiments in economics is precisely the reason we have a harder time projecting, and that economic pseudoscience is largely achieved by innumeracy: cherry picking the income statement over the balance sheet in order to hide destruction of accumulated capital. Cog Sci is not really a term used any longer, but represented an attempt by a GENERATION of scholars to LEAVE the pseudoscience of psychology behind. It was made possible largely by imaging and computer imaging technology which let us examine (relatively un-intrusively) the workings of the brain. And we have made huge progress in the past twenty years in exposing psychology (projectionism) as a pseudoscience. And replaced it with subfields that study language, cognitive bias, emotions, neurology, brain structure, etc without the ‘projection’ (fantasizing) that constituted psychology. Propertarianism/Acquisitionism provide a superior means of describing behavior (incentives, biases, and actions). This is why it’s so important a vocabulary and grammar for metaphysics, psychology, social science, politics, and law. Curt

  • “Did your views change at all when you had children?”

    October 20th, 2018 8:27 AM

    —“Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had children from when you didn’t?”— Dan Springhorn

    [N]o. It was just study of economics and history: data. And most importantly, when I understood the uniqueness of western civilization as commons. Now, there are no such thing as ‘public funds’ other than credit money. The rest is private funds that have been possible because of the political order of property rights. So, there is a difference between redistribution for consumption, and redistribution into commons, and the externalities whether consumptive or common. In general, parks, infrastructure, and insurance are good commons, but charity needs be private so that it produces the optimum externalities (charity) vs the worse possible externalities (welfare that breeds dysgenia). ( As a side note, I (me, myself) don’t figure into my thinking much at all. My test is reciprocity, capital production, competition, eugenics, and evolution-transcendence. )

  • there are plenty of people who treat fear as a nonsense emotion, yes

    there are plenty of people who treat fear as a nonsense emotion, yes.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 17:46:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053704129779064833

    Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053697921823240192

    IN REPLY TO:

    @SPQRIUS

    @curtdoolittle many great thinkers have tied to personify what controls the controllers. Takes a strong ego and constitution to even venture into that imagination, look what it did to Nietzsche, but I’ve heard tell it will take a man who knows no fear. Is there such a being?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053697921823240192

  • no. too hard to understand to distribute but it’s on point

    no. too hard to understand to distribute but it’s on point.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 17:10:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053694953740816384

    Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053691886676910080

    IN REPLY TO:

    @SPQRIUS

    @curtdoolittle too harsh?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053691886676910080

  • “CURT: HOW CAN I LEARN WHY PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE?”— A Friend Hmmm….

    —“CURT: HOW CAN I LEARN WHY PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE?”— A Friend

    Hmmm…. Well, psychology(Investigation/measurement) vs freudian psychology(projection/fictionalism).

    Start at the beginning with Karl Popper on Freud.

    The read about the “Operationist” movement in psychology.

    Then read about “The replication crisis”.

    Then take note of how hard it is to find any papers that do not try to deny psychology is a pseudoscience despite the near zero replicability of findings. “The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much” is rather obvious. Data is data. Replication is replication. Psychology and sociology don’t replicate. Ergo, it’s not science.

    Freudian categories are outright fabrications – he just made it up. Why? We all carry our cultural baggage with us. Judaism enforces conformity with the feminine bias (entrapment/herd) and europeanism encourages exceptionalism (innovation/pack). Freud stated the jewish and feminine psychology in pseudoscientific terms, (he basically invented the concept of ‘rape culture’ that is a psychosis of the feminine mind).

    Nietzsche stated the european and masculine psychology casting the feminine as a catastrophe (correctly). Just as Marx was a Jewish reaction to Darwin, Freud was a Jewish reaction to Nietzsche, Frankfurt was a Jewish Reaction to Spencer et al.

    Jung came along and tried to correct Freud by using literary archetypes, which were free of Jewish/Feminine psychosis, and provided a normative model compared to Nietzsche’s reformation and restoration of western civilization.

    The war period resulted in pseudoscience through about the Regan Revolution of the 1980s, and the technological revolution and fall of the soviet and chinese empires in the 1990’s.

    As usual, science (empiricism, and warranty of due diligence) saved us from nonsense.

    Psychotherapy is a pseudoscience (talk therapy), although counseling (mentoring) is not.

    Cognitive behavior therapy (training) is not a pseudoscience, it is just stoicism applied correctively rather than as an ordinary universal training of the mind.

    Psychiatry (medication and surgery) is not a pseudoscience and it was the first strike against the pseudosciences of the Freudians.

    Psychology isn’t always a pseudoscience – but is mostly – because only economics provides us with good data on human behavior (demonstrated preference and bias). The fact that we cannot actually run experiments in economics is precisely the reason we have a harder time projecting, and that economic pseudoscience is largely achieved by innumeracy: cherry picking the income statement over the balance sheet in order to hide destruction of accumulated capital.

    Cog Sci is not really a term used any longer, but represented an attempt by a GENERATION of scholars to LEAVE the pseudoscience of psychology behind. It was made possible largely by imaging and computer imaging technology which let us examine (relatively un-intrusively) the workings of the brain. And we have made huge progress in the past twenty years in exposing psychology (projectionism) as a pseudoscience. And replaced it with subfields that study language, cognitive bias, emotions, neurology, brain structure, etc without the ‘projection’ (fantasizing) that constituted psychology.

    Propertarianism/Acquisitionism provide a superior means of describing behavior (incentives, biases, and actions). This is why it’s so important a vocabulary and grammar for metaphysics, psychology, social science, politics, and law.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:34:00 UTC

  • “Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had childre

    —“Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had children from when you didn’t?”— Dan Springhorn

    No. It was just study of economics and history: data. And most importantly, when I understood the uniqueness of western civilization as commons. Now, there are no such thing as ‘public funds’ other than credit money. The rest is private funds that have been possible because of the political order of property rights. So, there is a difference between redistribution for consumption, and redistribution into commons, and the externalities whether consumptive or common. In general, parks, infrastructure, and insurance are good commons, but charity needs be private so that it produces the optimum externalities (charity) vs the worse possible externalities (welfare that breeds dysgenia).

    ( As a side note, I (me, myself) don’t figure into my thinking much at all. My test is reciprocity, capital production, competition, eugenics, and evolution-transcendence. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 08:27:00 UTC

  • lol… of course. I’m not letting this opportunity go by without making the most

    lol… of course. I’m not letting this opportunity go by without making the most of it. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 00:52:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053448779553271809

    Reply addressees: @Mrthundaro @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053448332058808321

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053448332058808321