Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • “Hey Curt, I’m a fan of your work. I’ve been following your facebook posts latel

    —-“Hey Curt, I’m a fan of your work. I’ve been following your facebook posts lately, and I enjoy a lot of what you write. I see you talking about coding, and I was wondering if you think it’s recommended for someone like me (economics major) to learn coding and programming through self-study? I want to develop software for the financial sector or work on smart contracts. Or do you believe that it may be better for me to hire or partner with a software engineer or computer scientist to make this possible? Thank you in advance”—

    I usually prefer to answer general rather than specific questions if for no other reason that I have a very hard time putting myself in the position of forecaster. I am pretty sure Cassandra should have been burned at the stake.

    that said, if anyone asks me if they are capable of learning programming in addition to one of the STEM majors, whether they should, the answer will ALWAYS be yes. Economics and programming come very close to studying the ancient combination of politics and philosophy, but in empirical terms.

    I expect the decline in the the market value of programming to continue outside of the west coast of the USA as cheaper labor continues to come online (at least until some new method arrives).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 12:00:00 UTC

  • He’s just easy to misinterpret. he’s talking about reserach in physical science

    He’s just easy to misinterpret. he’s talking about reserach in physical science using common language.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 01:09:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834208356181094402

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833618766244098048

    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/833618766244098048

  • How do you approach learning logic, as a ternary “science”?

    –“Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD”. Interesting piece. I wanted to learn math on my own to accompany my job in life sciences, but was always taken away from the simplistic nature of perspective. I wonder, how do you approach learning logic, the ternary “science” as you suggest? I know you are right, at least on an intuitive level, but I would like to know more.”—- A Friend. I came to my current understanding primarily because in my work, I’ve studied arguments in literally every field. BUT I have spent most of my time in computer science, which sits as bridge between engineering and mathematics. And so if you think in science, in engineering, in computer science, in mathematics, in logic, and in philosophy, and in law, you just come into contact with all these terms that everyone uses in each discipline that when studied whole simply refer to very different conditions. And by trying to resolve the conflicts between these disciplines you sort of get the insight into what ‘was wrong’.

    I don’t think anything i’m saying here is terribly radical, in fact, I think it’s all understood. But no one has put a comprehensive argument together that includes testimony and reciprocity before (that I know of) while at the same time relying upon falsificationism (survival of an idea in the market for criticism). Honestly there isn’t much more to know than: a) what is the difference between an axiomatic and justificationary proof, and a theoretic and critical hypothesis? What is the difference in information in each formulation of argument. I mean really, if you get that, then you just ignore anyone who uses the word ‘true’ until you figure out if they mean: 1) clearly stated (non conflationary) 2) logically possible (at least non contradictory) 3) axiomatically provable(justficationary) OR operationally constructable(critical) 4) theoretically survivable (externally correspondent) 5) morally reciprocal 6) fully accounted (did you consider all the inputs outputs costs of transformation, and externalities, such that you know the limits of your proposition. Then you can go back to the previous article you just mentioned and look at how the word true is used. and you say, “Well they mean they can construct a proof of possibiilty, but that’s just justificationary, we don’t yet know if that survives external correspondence yet” etc.

  • How do you approach learning logic, as a ternary “science”?

    –“Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD”. Interesting piece. I wanted to learn math on my own to accompany my job in life sciences, but was always taken away from the simplistic nature of perspective. I wonder, how do you approach learning logic, the ternary “science” as you suggest? I know you are right, at least on an intuitive level, but I would like to know more.”—- A Friend. I came to my current understanding primarily because in my work, I’ve studied arguments in literally every field. BUT I have spent most of my time in computer science, which sits as bridge between engineering and mathematics. And so if you think in science, in engineering, in computer science, in mathematics, in logic, and in philosophy, and in law, you just come into contact with all these terms that everyone uses in each discipline that when studied whole simply refer to very different conditions. And by trying to resolve the conflicts between these disciplines you sort of get the insight into what ‘was wrong’.

    I don’t think anything i’m saying here is terribly radical, in fact, I think it’s all understood. But no one has put a comprehensive argument together that includes testimony and reciprocity before (that I know of) while at the same time relying upon falsificationism (survival of an idea in the market for criticism). Honestly there isn’t much more to know than: a) what is the difference between an axiomatic and justificationary proof, and a theoretic and critical hypothesis? What is the difference in information in each formulation of argument. I mean really, if you get that, then you just ignore anyone who uses the word ‘true’ until you figure out if they mean: 1) clearly stated (non conflationary) 2) logically possible (at least non contradictory) 3) axiomatically provable(justficationary) OR operationally constructable(critical) 4) theoretically survivable (externally correspondent) 5) morally reciprocal 6) fully accounted (did you consider all the inputs outputs costs of transformation, and externalities, such that you know the limits of your proposition. Then you can go back to the previous article you just mentioned and look at how the word true is used. and you say, “Well they mean they can construct a proof of possibiilty, but that’s just justificationary, we don’t yet know if that survives external correspondence yet” etc.

  • Where does a Newbie Start?

    —” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry,  it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means.  You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology.  You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust

    THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth

  • Where does a Newbie Start?

    —” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry,  it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means.  You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology.  You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust

    THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth

  • The Final Word on Rand and Objectivism

    Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • Dammit Eli the agency thing… dammit. Powerful

    Dammit Eli the agency thing… dammit. Powerful

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:32:00 UTC

  • YES, WOMEN ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM MEN (because they behave differently fro

    YES, WOMEN ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM MEN

    (because they behave differently from men)

    Kimberley O’Brien: —“Men are treated differently than women. I named the areas within which equality need happen. You’re triggered, angry, for no reason related to me.”—-

    Yes women are treated with material privilege at all times but treated with suspicion of loyalty and agency at all times. Which again, you demonstrate.

    Women are demonstrably less loyal, destroy each other in the workplace, hen peck for advancement, readily make use of manipulation in the work place, are less empirical, less theoretical, and less neutral in decision making, and are widely unwanted as managers by both sexes.

    The evidence is that women are relatively poor empirical executives but can be successful relationship executives (customer relations). At the limits of ability almost without exception, worldwide, in every single theatre and discipline, men outperform women dramatically, simply because at the higher end, the ratio of competent men, who area also loyal, neutral, and empirical is so high as to make women by and large statistically insignificant. By the data on intelligence alone, we should never see women raise above the single digits in the most demanding of roles in society.

    in fact, when women are placed in executive roles it is because it is easier to find a woman who will manage a company through failure, or when in board roles what we see is women as a luxury good who adds value only in consumer products where women are the majority customer base.

    All of this occurs even before the recognition that women prefer a wider array of ‘goods’ in their lives, and are less likely to specialize, and demonstrate behavioral side effects, choose the cushiest and lowest risk jobs leaving the high risk to males, thereby pushing males out of the middle ‘cushy’ workplace, into the higher competitive top, more stressful and strenuous lower, and most risky lowest jobs – which of course, no feminist ever accounts for. Because women are creatures of selfishness that never extends beyond their children. And men are creatures of the tribe whose selfishness extends at least to that distance.

    These are just facts. I have not only followed the research and findings for decades, but run my own companies, and consulted for hundreds more, and the data is the same: women gather information from people better, and men interpret empirical information better, and decide better neutrally, and manage better neutrally. Why? we have infinitely less emotional baggage in our decision making.

    A baggage which you demonstrate.

    And willfully ignore.

    And then lie about.

    This is the LOYAL, NEUTRAL, EMPIRICAL, TRUTH.

    WHich is why you fear it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:11:00 UTC

  • “Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my pers

    —-“Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my personality is to ask “How did you go about this? [but you don’t go into enough detail, and I want to learn, becuase I sense ‘something is not right’ in what I have been taught”. —- A friend

    I heavily edited the end there so that I could quickly get the point across.

    It’s very simple from my end. I can only afford to do so much one on one tutorial so to speak. And when I do, I want to make sure (a) i’m informing others as I’m doing it, rather than just you, and (b) i’m improving my skill by doing it. Otherwise it is a sunk cost for me and I’m very conscious of my time left on this earth and the amount of work I have left to do.

    There are very simple things I talk about, and very complex things.

    I see no problem in explaining western civilization using a very small number of ideas that I think people can understand if they have a bit of reading and education behind them, and if they want to think hard a bit for a while.

    But I think it is very, very, very hard to explain epistemology to people.

    And while it is personally one of my favorite topics because it is one of the hardest philosophers have dealt with, and probably one of my more important insights, I actually don’t think it is possible (or a good use of my time anyway) to get into comparative truth with most people at the epistemological level. I think it’s FINE at the group evolutionary strategy level so that we can differentiate between parasitism and production between peoples. But you know, you just don’t need to know that stuff, and … it’s only useful for the category of problems i’m solving

    All you need to know is that when you justify reasoning, a moral action or legal action, that’s because you are trying to demonstrate honesty, morailty and due diligence – that you are cooperating.

    But when you are talking about discovering a truth rather than adhering to a rule, we cannot ‘justify’ truth statements. We must see if they survive all forms of criticism – we must see if they survive in the battle of ideas. This is how we discover truth candidates.

    We create proofs in math and logic and programming to show that we adhered to the rules. We create rational, moral, and legal justification to show that we adhere to the rules. Why? Because the rules are very simple and well known: the causal density of the rules is fairly low).

    When we conduct scientific inquiry in the social or physical world, the rules (the causal density of reality) is very high. So we the size of the problem is very different, and we must test not our intentions, not the rules we followed, but everyting regardless of our intentions.

    But we evolved as social creatures and we lived cooperative lives that required us to communicate in the language of cooperation, and to discuss things that were actionable and perceivable at human scale.

    So in the 19th century as we developed many tools and techniques and logics, and equations, we had to change our thinking from spending most of our time in the logic of cooperation: justification, to the logic of ‘everything bigger than that’, meaning science.

    In other words, we humans moved from a world of JUSTIFIABLE RULES at human scale, to a world of THEORIES at post-human scale. And frankly we have not evolved for it.

    So we are still in the process of converting people from thinking in simple human scale terms of justifications of those things we can act upon and experience, to participating in a society consisting of things we largely cannot perceive or act upon, except in very subtle ways.

    So the ‘alienation’ we experience in post village, post-tribal, post-familial civilization is caused not only by the movement of people to capital instead of capital to people, and the loss of all those human relationships that allow us to rely upon instinctual justification of our actions, but we live in a market society where there is very little feedback, and we think in concepts of very large scale, and we (almost all of us) lack the education necessary to THINK at large scale sufficiently to understand how we fit into that vast but alienating world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 13:33:00 UTC