Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Untitled

    https://www.quora.com/How-fragile-is-the-US-economy-right-now/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=baae2a6a&srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 17:52:00 UTC

  • EMOTIONLESS VS EMOTIONALLY DISCIPLINED emotionless = one does not have emotions

    EMOTIONLESS VS EMOTIONALLY DISCIPLINED

    emotionless = one does not have emotions of the intensity necessary to interfere with one’s thoughts, words, displays and deeds

    -versus-

    emotionally disciplined = one does not let emotions interfere with one’s thoughts, words, displays and deeds..

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 17:34:00 UTC

  • THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF EMOTIONAL VS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY We often Make the mi

    THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF EMOTIONAL VS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

    We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population.

    The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage.

    Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends.

    We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring.

    Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency.

    In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue.

    We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 16:26:00 UTC

  • Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the

    Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the use of science and falsification.

    The former (justification) enforces priors and causes stagnation, the latter (falsification) defeats priors and causes evolution.

    I don’t make justifications or pragmatisms. I just solve for what’s true.

    If it’s true I ask if it’s existentially possible.

    If it’s possible I ask if its a rational choice.

    If it’s a rational choice I ask if it will be reciprocated, and if it will be reciprocated I as if it will produce externalities and be survivable under competition.

    I do my job as judge. That’s what I do.

    To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible, you’d have to persuade me that (a) a bringing about a theocracy was existentially possible by some means, (b) that it was possible without dictatorship to impose it for enough generations that the theological decline (end) could be reversed, and (c) that the rules were in fact moral in practice, (d) that such moral rules didn’t produce damaging externalities, (e) that people in time, place, and circumstance would adopt them or institution them and demonstrate them, and (f) that such moral rules were a competitive advantage, and therefore survivable.

    I mean, if you can answer those questions I’ll say it’s a possibility. I don’t ‘support’ anything. Propositions are either true, operationally possible, and moral; or they’re contingently so in the face of competing propositions, or they’re nonsense.

    As far as I know no theology is possible when by all accounts aristotelianism (empiricism or ‘descriptivism’) has replaced theology, and continues to do so, and the only people who do otherwise are either aging out of the pool, or those with below the threshold (95) group IQ’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 15:13:00 UTC

  • We have seen Baltimore and LA, but nothing will compare to empty ATM’s, Empty St

    We have seen Baltimore and LA, but nothing will compare to empty ATM’s, Empty Stores, no EBT’s, and hordes of the unwashed in the streets terrorizing the middle classes, and laying waste to the upper middle and upper. #Trump If we have a civil war the disaster will make history.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 11:58:00 UTC

  • A civil war looks very much like (a) systematically down data/power lines and tr

    A civil war looks very much like (a) systematically down data/power lines and transformers, (b) systematically break water mains and hydrants, (c) systematically set fires to every structure, (d) systematically empty petrol stations, (e) systematically hoard food. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 11:55:00 UTC

  • I don’t think Muller understands that if he managed to somehow use art and artif

    I don’t think Muller understands that if he managed to somehow use art and artifice to entrap the president, that the hard right will burn DC to the ground, salting the political earth, and then keep on going – and he will launch the bloodiest civil war in human history. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 11:52:00 UTC

  • I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a deba

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive?

    In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way.

    Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times.

    Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment.

    Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s.

    It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else.

    In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 11:29:00 UTC

  • LAYING DOWN THE LAW ON SOCIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE @KennethBuff @sapinker People vote P

    LAYING DOWN THE LAW ON SOCIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE

    @KennethBuff @sapinker

    People vote POWER given the CONDITIONS of competition. That’s why Democracy works for selecting priorities in a homogenous polity but not choosing differences in a heterogeneous polity, and why there is so much friction between American ‘tribes’.

    Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them.

    He (Steve) stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (Hence the legal requirement for “The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)

    What the NYT article referred to conveys is that virtue signaling is a form of conspicuous consumption that one forces others to pay the indirect cost of. (Theft by Fraud)

    Or stated directly: we are burning the most valuable form of capital in the world (homogeneity and high trust) for virtue signals, in order to obtain political power.

    If you cannot make a statement in social science using economic terms, then either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are engaged in selection bias, or worse, deception.

    Hence the rise of “Economic Imperialism” in the Academy as a counter to social pseudoscience.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 10:37:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/09/mormon-church-breaks-all-ties-with-boy-scouts-ending-100-year-relationship/

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 08:40:00 UTC