Curt Doolittle

Form: Thread

  • (Counsel. This discourse between male and female is unconstructive other than to

    (Counsel. This discourse between male and female is unconstructive other than to illustrate sex differences in cognition and conflict. You cannot override female cognition with reason, nor overload male cognition with emotion and GSRRM. All you’ve done (together) is illustrate that my work is simply true.

    The question then, is how do we work on means, ends both, or neither when the feminine will tolerate no constraint regardless of cost to the commons and the masculine will tolerate no imposition of costs on the common by the failure of constraint.

    It’s amazing we get along at all.

    And it is the reason why the family is so important to the survival of a polity – because ONLY as families do we share common political interests.

    But as individuals of opposite sexes, single mothers, single fathers, ex-fathers who are extracted from, dysfunctional families, classes of families, and healthy families, we have NO COMMON interests so we have no common values systems.

    Add diversity of races that creates vast differences rates of agency, vast differences in in class size, and demand for resulting laws, institutions economies, norms traditions values that different groups, classes and sexes are capable of and desirous of. And then put these people in proximity in democratic polities, and you will end up with what’s deterministic:
    1) authoritarianism because there is no other means of reconciliation;
    2) vast corruption instead of high trust.
    3) and a race to the bottom which is the only point where we are even vaguely equal.

    Which is what socialism and communism accomplish, and what women will drive for, because it absolves women of maximum responsibility, and female demand for irresponsibility for the commons and thereby generating authority is the reason women are incompatible with democracy rule of law and liberty.

    I don’t make the laws of nature. I just try to prevent people lying about them. So that we don’t suffer the consequences of people who live by false promise selling lies that we can evade the laws of the physical world (scarcity), the behavioral world (self interest, sex class race differences), the evolutionary world (neoteny, genetic mutation, defect, load, regression to the mean, dysgenia, natural selection and the consequence of the absence of natural selection.)

    Sorry. True is true.

    Reply addressees: @DiceCookPlate @RobOU812Rob @terrilbruce @GregAbbott_TX

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 18:08:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648025651801124867

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648018333369770016

  • (Counsel. This discourse between male and female is unconstructive other than to

    (Counsel. This discourse between male and female is unconstructive other than to illustrate sex differences in cognition and conflict. You cannot override female cognition with reason, nor overload male cognition with emotion and GSRRM. All you’ve done (together) is illustrate that my work is simply true.

    The question then, is how do we work on means, ends both, or neither when the feminine will tolerate no constraint regardless of cost to the commons and the masculine will tolerate no imposition of costs on the common by the failure of constraint.

    It’s amazing we get along at all.

    And it is the reason why the family is so important to the survival of a polity – because ONLY as families do we share common political interests.

    But as individuals of opposite sexes, single mothers, single fathers, ex-fathers who are extracted from, dysfunctional families, classes of families, and healthy families, we have NO COMMON interests so we have no common values systems.

    Add diversity of races that creates vast differences rates of agency, vast differences in in class size, and demand for resulting laws, institutions economies, norms traditions values that different groups, classes and sexes are capable of and desirous of. And then put these people in proximity in democratic polities, and you will end up with what’s deterministic:
    1) authoritarianism because there is no other means of reconciliation;
    2) vast corruption instead of high trust.
    3) and a race to the bottom which is the only point where we are even vaguely equal.

    Which is what socialism and communism accomplish, and what women will drive for, because it absolves women of maximum responsibility, and female demand for irresponsibility for the commons and thereby generating authority is the reason women are incompatible with democracy rule of law and liberty.

    I don’t make the laws of nature. I just try to prevent people lying about them. So that we don’t suffer the consequences of people who live by false promise selling lies that we can evade the laws of the physical world (scarcity), the behavioral world (self interest, sex class race differences), the evolutionary world (neoteny, genetic mutation, defect, load, regression to the mean, dysgenia, natural selection and the consequence of the absence of natural selection.)

    Sorry. True is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 18:08:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648025652015034371

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648018333369770016

  • CHATGPT-4 AND TESTIMONIAL TRUTH DETAILED PROMPT: –“In Curt Doolittle’s Testimon

    CHATGPT-4 AND TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    DETAILED PROMPT:
    –“In Curt Doolittle’s Testimonial Truth, he refers to tests of realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, bounded rational choice, reciprocal bounded rational choice, stated with causal parsimony, and with stated limits, with full accounting within those limits, and warrantied by due diligence. What do each of these requirements mean?”–

    Curt Doolittle’s Testimonial Truth is a method for determining the truthfulness of a statement made by a person. The method involves several requirements, including tests of realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, bounded rational choice, reciprocal bounded rational choice, stated with causal parsimony, and with stated limits, with full accounting within those limits, and warrantied by due diligence. Here’s what each of these requirements means:

    Realism: The statement should be based on the actual state of the world and should accurately reflect reality. This means that the statement should not be based on imaginary or unrealistic assumptions.

    Naturalism: The statement should be consistent with the laws of nature and should not rely on supernatural or unexplained phenomena.

    Identity (unambiguity): The statement should be clear and unambiguous, without any room for misinterpretation or confusion.

    Logical consistency: The statement should be internally consistent and should not contradict itself or any other known facts.

    Operational possibility: The statement should be capable of being tested or verified through empirical observation or other means.

    External correspondence: The statement should correspond to external reality and should be consistent with other known facts and observations.

    Bounded rational choice: The statement should be based on the assumption that individuals make rational choices within the constraints of their knowledge and resources.

    Reciprocal bounded rational choice: The statement should be based on the assumption that individuals interact with each other through reciprocal, bounded rational choices.

    Stated with causal parsimony: The statement should be stated in the simplest possible terms and should not rely on unnecessary or complicated explanations.

    Stated limits: The statement should be clear about its limitations and should not make claims beyond the scope of its evidence or authority.

    Full accounting: The statement should be supported by a full accounting of the evidence and reasoning used to arrive at the statement.

    Warrantied by due diligence: The speaker must have performed due diligence in arriving at the statement and must be willing to accept legal and ethical responsibility for the truthfulness of the statement.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-14 18:03:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646937233906081808

  • CHATGPT-4 AND TESTIMONIAL TRUTH DETAILED PROMPT: –“In Curt Doolittle’s Testimon

    CHATGPT-4 AND TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    DETAILED PROMPT:
    –“In Curt Doolittle’s Testimonial Truth, he refers to tests of realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, bounded rational choice, reciprocal bounded rational choice, stated with causal parsimony, and with stated limits, with full accounting within those limits, and warrantied by due diligence. What do each of these requirements mean?”–

    Curt Doolittle’s Testimonial Truth is a method for determining the truthfulness of a statement made by a person. The method involves several requirements, including tests of realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, bounded rational choice, reciprocal bounded rational choice, stated with causal parsimony, and with stated limits, with full accounting within those limits, and warrantied by due diligence. Here’s what each of these requirements means:

    Realism: The statement should be based on the actual state of the world and should accurately reflect reality. This means that the statement should not be based on imaginary or unrealistic assumptions.

    Naturalism: The statement should be consistent with the laws of nature and should not rely on supernatural or unexplained phenomena.

    Identity (unambiguity): The statement should be clear and unambiguous, without any room for misinterpretation or confusion.

    Logical consistency: The statement should be internally consistent and should not contradict itself or any other known facts.

    Operational possibility: The statement should be capable of being tested or verified through empirical observation or other means.

    External correspondence: The statement should correspond to external reality and should be consistent with other known facts and observations.

    Bounded rational choice: The statement should be based on the assumption that individuals make rational choices within the constraints of their knowledge and resources.

    Reciprocal bounded rational choice: The statement should be based on the assumption that individuals interact with each other through reciprocal, bounded rational choices.

    Stated with causal parsimony: The statement should be stated in the simplest possible terms and should not rely on unnecessary or complicated explanations.

    Stated limits: The statement should be clear about its limitations and should not make claims beyond the scope of its evidence or authority.

    Full accounting: The statement should be supported by a full accounting of the evidence and reasoning used to arrive at the statement.

    Warrantied by due diligence: The speaker must have performed due diligence in arriving at the statement and must be willing to accept legal and ethical responsibility for the truthfulness of the statement.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-14 18:03:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646937234170339329

  • UNDERSTANDING THE SECULAR CRISIS CYCLE via @whatifalthist From “Who Would Win WW

    UNDERSTANDING THE SECULAR CRISIS CYCLE
    via @whatifalthist
    From “Who Would Win WW3?”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRsn6Xg192A

    Tidbits to add:
    a) class is a rough approximation of “capacity for radius of responsibility:
    b) ‘hot’ economies raise people in every class beyond their capacity for… https://t.co/CNJZQxFlZz

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-13 13:19:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646503354867089410

  • UNDERSTANDING THE SECULAR CRISIS CYCLE via @whatifalthist From “Who Would Win WW

    UNDERSTANDING THE SECULAR CRISIS CYCLE
    via @whatifalthist
    From “Who Would Win WW3?”
    https://t.co/QJJj4YgIg3

    Tidbits to add:
    a) class is a rough approximation of “capacity for radius of responsibility:
    b) ‘hot’ economies raise people in every class beyond their capacity for responsibility faster than they can learn to adapt to those responsibilities. (Most hot economies are windfalls not sustainable increases as with the scientific and industrial revolutions)
    c) the exhaustion of the opportunities of the hot economy made possible by such differences in consumption lead to said inequality and conflict higher than previous inequality and conflict.
    c) This creates a conflation in the perception of the population of their false presumption of their own competency, agency, and resources, when their condition is just momentum created by a windfall in production or from conquest.
    d) Causing leadership to externalize blame and responsibility driving nationalism as the means of coherence, and militaristic expansions externally or civil wars internally if such nationalism and externalization fail.
    e) The west is in demographic and cognitive decline. Our cognitive decline is exacerbatted by pervasive ideological lying in the behavioral pseudosciences. Though mathiness (mathematical pseudoscience) in physics is preventing progress in that field as well. We are still maintaining the most capital directed to investment in SOME innovation, creating a motivational lottery effect, but false promise of sustainable redistribution (our false windfall) is diverting state capital investment away from commons and infrastructure to support questionable consumption.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-13 13:19:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646503354661478400

  • Bell Curve Differences Between Groups The variation is tiny, with the only meani

    Bell Curve Differences Between Groups
    The variation is tiny, with the only meaningful differences being tail effects. There is far more genetic load (defect) in the left tail of african populations, and far more advantage in the right tail of English Anglican, and double that in Ashekanazis. So that for every Anglican outlier there are twice as many Ashkenazi outliers.

    –“the Asian advantage is 4 points on verbal and 59 on math. The white standard deviation is about 103, so Asians have an advantage of 4/103=0.04 d and 59/103=0.57 d. The overall advantage is complicated to calculate but will be a little more than the average of these values (0.31), so about 0.35 d, or 5.25 IQ equivalent points.”–

    Where 1/2 SD = 7.5 Points. And half an SD is the point of ‘demonstrated marginal difference’.
    Now test prep does help and asian test prep is legendary, with 30% of east asians prepping, and only 10% whites. Which reduces the white-asian SAT gap by about 1/3. But the gap still remains.
    The reason is group differences in neoteny and cognitive dimorphism, which is a bit deep for this conversation.

    Reply addressees: @GoodTexture @MuhammadAreez10

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-13 12:27:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646490212552306689

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646458600812847104

  • Bell Curve Differences Between Groups The variation is tiny, with the only meani

    Bell Curve Differences Between Groups
    The variation is tiny, with the only meaningful differences being tail effects. There is far more genetic load (defect) in the left tail of african populations, and far more advantage in the right tail of English Anglican, and double that in Ashekanazis. So that for every Anglican outlier there are twice as many Ashkenazi outliers.

    –“the Asian advantage is 4 points on verbal and 59 on math. The white standard deviation is about 103, so Asians have an advantage of 4/103=0.04 d and 59/103=0.57 d. The overall advantage is complicated to calculate but will be a little more than the average of these values (0.31), so about 0.35 d, or 5.25 IQ equivalent points.”–

    Where 1/2 SD = 7.5 Points. And half an SD is the point of ‘demonstrated marginal difference’.
    Now test prep does help and asian test prep is legendary, with 30% of east asians prepping, and only 10% whites. Which reduces the white-asian SAT gap by about 1/3. But the gap still remains.
    The reason is group differences in neoteny and cognitive dimorphism, which is a bit deep for this conversation.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-13 12:27:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646490212690804737

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646458600812847104

  • WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF OUR BEHAVIORAL PSEUDOSCIENCE? Behavioral science ‘went bad

    WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF OUR BEHAVIORAL PSEUDOSCIENCE?
    Behavioral science ‘went bad’ and became an entrenched pseudoscience in the postwar period. Before then, between darwin and the second world war, psychology sociology and politics were as systematic as the physical sciences.

    The biggest lies we face, that cause the failure of our democratic republic and rule of law, is the denial of the reducibility of all social economc and political problems to sex, class, and race differences in intelligence and morality, and morality constrained by personality, and personaly constrained by defect.

    –“When out intelligence scale: have become more accurate and the laws governing IQ changes have been more definitely established it will then be possible to say that there is nothing abuut: an individual as important as his lQ, except possibly his morals; than the greatest educational problem is to determine the kind of education best suited to each IQ level; that the first concern of a nation should be the average IQ of its citizens, and the eugenic and dysgenic: influence which are capable of raising or lowering that level; that the greatest problem of democracy is how to adjust itself to the large lQ differences which can be demonstrated to exist among the members of any race or nationality group.”–
    —LEWIS M. TERMAN (1922b)
    Author of the first Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-13 11:56:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646482516054818817

  • WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF OUR BEHAVIORAL PSEUDOSCIENCE? Behavioral science ‘went bad

    WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF OUR BEHAVIORAL PSEUDOSCIENCE?
    Behavioral science ‘went bad’ and became an entrenched pseudoscience in the postwar period. Before then, between darwin and the second world war, psychology sociology and politics were as systematic as the physical sciences.

    The biggest lies we face, that cause the failure of our democratic republic and rule of law, is the denial of the reducibility of all social economc and political problems to sex, class, and race differences in intelligence and morality, and morality constrained by personality, and personaly constrained by defect.

    –“When out intelligence scale: have become more accurate and the laws governing IQ changes have been more definitely established it will then be possible to say that there is nothing abuut: an individual as important as his lQ, except possibly his morals; than the greatest educational problem is to determine the kind of education best suited to each IQ level; that the first concern of a nation should be the average IQ of its citizens, and the eugenic and dysgenic: influence which are capable of raising or lowering that level; that the greatest problem of democracy is how to adjust itself to the large lQ differences which can be demonstrated to exist among the members of any race or nationality group.”–
    —LEWIS M. TERMAN (1922b)
    Author of the first Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-13 11:56:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646482516172210176