Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Yanny vs Laurel Some of us process more cycles per second and hear yanny, and so

    Yanny vs Laurel

    Some of us process more cycles per second and hear yanny, and some of us process fewer cycles per second and hear laurel. At lower speeds we hear yanny, and at higher speeds laurel. Some of us hear higher frequencies and some lower. Some of us sample more frequently than others.

    I’m sure someone will come along and explain it in detail. I can think of three or maybe four different reasons we process the frequency differently, some of which are resonance others of which are sampling rates. Most likely answer so far is that some of us cognitively bias the upper spectrum and therefore yanny, and some the lower, and therefore laurel.

    But it’s evidence we don’t experience time the same way either. There is a lot of time in my world.

    I hear Yanny, unless I pay it at high speed (+30%) and then the reverse.

    I also see a gold and white dress not a blue dress.

    I can’t digest dairy and certain greens.

    And I can’t arch my tongue.

    I have 0- blood type.

    I suspect that means I have old genes.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 13:39:00 UTC

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW, AND NO OTHER There is no reason for a basis of law other

    THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW, AND NO OTHER

    There is no reason for a basis of law other than reciprocity except to create a law of non-reciprocity (free riding, fraud, theft, harm, and to export risk upon others by taking actions that one cannot pay the restitution for if one fails.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 13:16:00 UTC

  • COMMENSURABILITY EVOLVES GRAMMATICAL SPECIALIZATION Now, in order for each of us

    COMMENSURABILITY EVOLVES GRAMMATICAL SPECIALIZATION

    Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary.

    Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives.

    Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar”

    Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability.

    Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof.

    What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS.

    And this is the whole point: commensurability.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:43:00 UTC

  • YOUR CHOICE OF PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY IS LIMITED BY OTHERS CHOICE OF POLITICAL PHIL

    YOUR CHOICE OF PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY IS LIMITED BY OTHERS CHOICE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

    Dear idiots. You don’t get to choose a personal philosophy that isn’t bound by a political philosophy agreed to by others – and still survive competition in that polity. Just as groups don’t get to choose a political philosophy that can’t survive the market for territories. It doesn’t matter what you alone think or want. A personal philosophy is, almost without exception, either a means of succeeding within a political philosophy, or a means of escapism from a political philosophy one is bound by. Further, one can create personal fantasies of escapism; personal philosophies of resistance; personal philosophies of navigation (survival); and of success (competition), and of excellence (heroism). A political philosophy ( meaning a social, economic, political, and military order) empowers enough of the people such that the group survives competition. Political philosophies change when a group either surrenders to competition (multiculturalism), resists competition, or seeks an opportunity for superior competition. But the individual is only as useful and only possesses so much choice, as his philosophy serves the interests of the body politic in the persistence of their group strategy ( what we call ‘philosophy’). So one either assists, is dead weight, or is a drag on the group’s strategy. And by and large, within the margins, one’s success is determined by the relationship one chooses wth the groups strategy. The only choice is creating a large enough group with an new enough strategy that one can disrupt the order and replace it with one that serves the same interests in the new order. In the case of the current order, we have let the evil people go too far in undermining the ‘Third Way’ provided by America in contrast to the other underclass and authoritarian civilizations. We were foolishly optimistic christians, and not empirical Aryans. As such it is very unlikely that without vast bloodshed, we will exit the next crisis with the entire continent. But we will exit the next crisis with self determination. They will decay from demographic weight alone. There is nothing they can do.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:16:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE OF THE CLASSES There is a very great difference between transforming t

    THE VALUE OF THE CLASSES

    There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:00:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 07:04:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC DEBATE? If your goal is to improve an idiot – it’s hopeles

    THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC DEBATE?

    If your goal is to improve an idiot – it’s hopeless.

    if your goal is to reduce the spread of idiocy – it’s not hopeless but nearly.

    If your goal is to improve your ability to communicate your ideas, argue your ideas, and argue against ignorance, error, bias and deceit – then that’s something else.

    The chief value of public discourse is not conversion – it’s self improvement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 20:27:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.businessinsider.com/salary-personality-men-2018-5

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 18:01:00 UTC

  • Men really need to speak to other men, without women in the room for the same re

    Men really need to speak to other men, without women in the room for the same reason women like to speak to women without men in the room. There are market value vulnerabilities that build trust between men but women abuse, and visa versa.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 14:03:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf): An affront to common sense: Liberals are more

    Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf):

    An affront to common sense: Liberals are more likely to attribute human characteristics to genetic causes than conservatives. https://t.co/4QMFzDoQ2g https://t.co/KzPiERAuGe

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 11:18:00 UTC