Source: Facebook

  • THE ANSWER YOU”RE LOOKING FOR IN TWO PARTS 1) In no small part, a male is produc

    THE ANSWER YOU”RE LOOKING FOR IN TWO PARTS

    1) In no small part, a male is produced by damaging the gender-neutral fetus in utero, so that males mature more slowly, and develop a bias toward specialization while females a bias toward generalization.

    This ‘damage’ by the mother in utero (likely due to testosterone), produces both less sensitive and therefore less ‘struggle for life’ by male infants, plus delays verbal and other sensitive development, which is why males both specialize (they must learn rather than feel), and why males mature more slowly than females both physically, emotionally, and mentally. But in exchange gain more ‘agency’ (less victims of emotion) and greater ability to perceive the physical world ‘as it is’.

    So, males have a lower survival rate.

    2) Plus (as others have mentioned) the benefit of male children decreases as the ratio approaches 1 to 1.

    3) Males are genetically expendable (and women treat us as such) since the genome improves if only the fittest survive. This may explain why we are still evolving but it is possible that we reached ‘peak human’ already, and that since agrarianism, and later, with urbanization, (because cities are defect creators).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-14 14:01:00 UTC

  • chinese are … different about the truth

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/778367/China-illrgal-law-insult-heroes-martyrs-Communist-PartyThe chinese are … different about the truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 23:21:00 UTC

  • OLDIE BUT GOODIE (worth repeating)

    OLDIE BUT GOODIE

    (worth repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 22:15:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) ( Getting rich provides evidence of ability, and gives you free

    (from elsewhere)

    ( Getting rich provides evidence of ability, and gives you freedom from the company of unnecessary idiocy, but it doesn’t necessarily make you happy. Owning your own home in a neighborhood that you don’t worry about, having at least a year’s salary in the bank, and not stressing about anything, is about as good as it gets. Personally I prefer to own nothing other than a car, a safety deposit box, a foreign bank account, and my time. ‘stuff’ isn’t good for anything.)

    My opinion at this stage of my life is that you should limit your expenses, particularly debt, and maximize your friends, family, and experiences.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 22:09:00 UTC

  • “Curt, I’d like to ask about your break down of class. It seems based on IQ and

    —“Curt, I’d like to ask about your break down of class. It seems based on IQ and income level is that a correct assessment?”—

    Um… well, I use genetic, social, occupational, and economic classes – even though they overlap a great deal as horizontal classes.

    And I use the three specializations in means of coercion as vertical classes.

    But since there is such a high correlation between genetic classes and all other horizontal classes, unless I say otherwise, I am generally referring to genetic classes.

    And genetic class refers to a portfolio of fitnesses that include IQ as well as personality, morphology, and health.

    So with that qualification, I think I would say that just as IQ a high predictor in life, it is not the only predictor. But for purpose of general argument it is as good a rule of thumb as any other.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 22:04:00 UTC

  • CRITICISM: PETERSON: FIGHTING THE LAST WAR, WITH A WEAPON THAT HARMS US AS MUCH

    CRITICISM: PETERSON: FIGHTING THE LAST WAR, WITH A WEAPON THAT HARMS US AS MUCH AS IT HELPS.

    (NET/NET (TL;DR): The narrative requires intention, authority, and indoctrination in an effort to create behavioral goods, but natural law, like the good of markets, requires only dispute resolution, caused by self interests, from which all ‘goods’ emerge – even the unimagined. Narratives explain values. Laws create them. )

    THE ENLIGHTENMENT, THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, AND THE PROBLEMS OF CHOICE UNDER POST-HUMAN-SCALE

    I’m still going to criticize Dr Peterson’s conflation of the true(decidable), the good(preferable), and the beautiful(best/excellent) the similarity between men’s judgements provides us with a ‘unit of measure’: man’s abilities. It is this unit of measure that assists us in determining candidate opportunity, objective judgement, and successful action. When we encountered the industrial age, we changed from group norms as the unit of measure (test), to the limits of man’s perception(test) as the unit of measure in methods of decidability. Everything grew in scale:, information, markets, awareness of differences, necessity of understanding that which was beyond personal limits to perception, individual limits to ability and action, and group limits to organization and understanding.

    It was this intellectual transition from small, homogenous, and local to large, heterogeneous and remote, that both created great opportunity for mankind, and created all our personal, cultural, institutional, and international conflict. We changed from ‘markets’ where we interacted with and cooperated with, and disputed with people in familiar and consensus context, to markets of all kinds where we interacted with, cooperated with, and disputed with peoples and groups, and nations on unfamiliar and very different consensual contexts. And our normative means of decision failed to scale. So we required methods of decidability not born then of consensus within a context, but of decidability regardless of context (and preference).

    This is the story of the anglo scientific enlightenment, the failed social scientific and political enlightenment that followed (French, German, Russian, Jewish, in europe), and the consequential and failed german scientific, social, and political enligthenment of the 19th and 20th centuries – cut short by the (Immoral and Destructive ) world wars.

    And it was the failure of 20th century philosophy and 20th century social science, only recently rescued by late 20th and early 21st century physical sciences, that has allowed an opportunity for the second conquest of the west by a ‘Second Great Deceit” – this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and propaganda, mass media, and the academy selling utopia to women and the underclasses, just as the the first conquest of the West by the First Great Deceit was achieved by Supernaturalism, pseudo-reasonableness, writing, the pulpit and the state sponsorship of monotheistic religion as a cheap means by which the wealthy east, could rule the independent but poorer west.

    The only central claim to ‘Darwinian’ thought is that it provides us with knowledge of long term consequence (outside of experience, outside of perception, outside of human scale), and that as such we possess decidability between what were previously either only preferential goods, or what were both preferential, normative, and institutionalized assumed goods that are in fact ‘bads’ (Islam’s (a) unearned respect, and (b) fixed scope of knowledge, or Judaism’s dual ethics and its parasitism upon the host’s commons, or Christianity’s superstition and submission to authoritarian falsehood as a means of creating docile agrarian labor forces and limiting the conflict of families, tribes, clans, chieftains, and states). With this long term tool we can understand the unintended consequences of comforting falsehoods. That is what ‘Darwinian’ thought provides us with: an understanding of consequences of scale.

    THE WANT OF DISCOUNTS – TO PRESERVE HUMAN SCALE

    I’m sympathetic. I’m human as well. Humans want an intuitionistic means of decidability to save them the labor of investigation and calculation. And the economics of time, energy, and ignorance prevent us from investigation and calculation. So our multitude of decisions must be reduced to simple general rules in the context of each era. We all want the Elephant to DRIVE, and for our minds to merely RIDE upon his labors, and enjoy the view. But that is to be animal – not human – to lack agency not possess it. Of course we would all love to ride easily on a river of normative conditions that suited our interests. But that is not the fate of our struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance – only possible in the pursuit of the cooperation with others at sufficient scale to win the struggle.

    So, while I agree with Jordan’s criticisms (as many of us do), his prescription is wrong. He’s wrong because he is playing to the reasons that religions fail modernity via conflation and deceit (his coherent truth) but literature, history, the common law of torts, and science achieve by non deceitful, non false, ends. He is against the current pseudoscientific religion of the state, but he’s regressing into fighting the last war, instead of continuing modernity by deflating the beautiful, the good, and the true, which is the source of western competitive success, and the reason the west dragged the rest out of poverty.

    We have struggled for millennia to tame the Elephant of evolutionary intuition with the Rider of reason, and we have obtained extraordinary benefits from doing so.

    THE SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT IS THE SAME AS THE SOLUTION TO THE PAST – RETURN TO TRUTH

    The solution to the present second attempt to ‘christianize the west’ – this time through cosmopolitan pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and Adorno – is not to regress to the past, in order to admit failure to defeat the pseudoscientific cosmopolitan religion of the present, but to defeat the pseudoscientific cosmopolitan religion of the present, with literature(ideation of and decision between possible contexts), history(judgement within each extant context), and decidability (truth – decidability REGARDLESS of context: judgement regardless of preference or opinion. ).

    Literary analogy can assist us in the free association that is necessary to identify candidate opportunities (ideation), but once possessed of an idea, we cannot, without deceit, choose other than to rely upon the record of man’s actions in matters of conflict (including law, norm, culture, religion, immigration, invasion, war, conquest, and genocide), and deflationary truth (science). Where by ‘science’ we mean not the via-positiva of investigation, but the via-negativa discipline by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.

    We may only be able to SHARE literary(and platonic) means of general rules in pursuit of remote common goods, but we must at least possess the knowledge of, and a caste of people who, specialize in Judgement in matters of conflict, tat relies upon deflationary truth(science) for the purpose of those judgements.

    No more lies. The west defeated the rest and dragged man kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, labor, starvation, disease, deceit and tyranny, by the the construction of one commons above all other: deflationary, testimonial, correspondent truth. Despite internal and external resistance at all times. We did it.

    And no retreat into eastern mysticism, jewish superstition, greek platonism, continental rationalism, or retention any of the enlightenment fallacies of the nature of man, will resurrect our civilization.

    THE TRUTH OF THE FOUNDING INDUSTRIES OF THE WEST: DOMESTICATION OF MAN FOR NECESSITY AND PROFIT

    The unwritten, unstated, impolitic history of the west is quite simple: a small number of independent, voluntary, warriors using advanced technology and advanced tactics of maneuver, where tactics were highly dependent upon adherence to oath (contract), sought to preserve their sovereignty( their independence and spoils of war) through continuing a contract of peerage. This retention of sovereignty, and their demonstrated, existential, superiority in action (conflict), leaves only one method of dispute resolution available: markets in everything. War constitutes the most intolerant market we know of, and martial epistemology is the most scientific. And the martial ‘reporting’ that we incorporated into our society as ‘testimony’, has permeated our civilization so much so that we cannot (unfortunately) understand that it is our uniqueness. That the bond of warriors – the oath – is of higher import than the bond of blood in matters of the commons. And it is the multitude of consequences of this bond of testimony – oath- using the epistemology of war (minimalist, deflationary, correspondence), that the aristocracy by practice, the middle class by aspiration, the craftsman class by necessity, and the working class by utility have created The Truthful Civilization and the most expensive commons that man has produced. Meanwhile, the outcast underclasses, the practitioners of gossip: politicians, priests, academics, and public intellectuals have fought against at every opportunity.

    The western aristocracy, having domesticated plants, animals, (and in large part, women), ever needing to increase the numbers of fellows possessing AGENCY IN FACT (both intellectual, physical, and existential), created a profitable industry: the domestication of the beast man from dysgenic, ignorant, superstitious, violent, parasitic, predatory, opponent, to eugenically produced human: rational, knowledgable, productive, competitive, through the process of slave, serf, freeman, citizen, and peerage. Humans were not oppressed. The beast man was domesticated through the organized use of violence to prevent his survival except through productivity in a market, and contribution to the informational, normative, institutional, and material commons.

    Just as the West evolved by the use of advanced technology, contractualism, truth, and markets in everything to evolve not first, but FASTER than the rest (and earlier) civilizations, the Cosmopolitans have used the advanced technology of mass communication, and the specialization in mass communication by politicians priests, academics, and public intellectuals, and their ‘soldiers’ in the school system, the media, and the underclasses, to rally against, and fight the people who use TRUTH, by the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF LYING. The product they sell is the hope of salvation in the present from Socialism ( discretionary rule over discretionary production, and discretionary allocation of production to individuals, families, and commons) that is the organizing model of the totalitarian flood-plain civilizations of antiquity that profit from the retention and expansion of the underclasses using religion (lying). And the cosmopolitan strategy is nothing other than a reformation of the promise of salvation (utopia) after death that is the source of Egyptian, abrahamic, judaic, christian, and muslim religions of the underclasses and the tellers of comforting lies that organize them.

    OUR CHOICES: THE POVERTY OF COMFORT OR THE PROSPERITY OF EFFORT

    We can choose between the imperial, dysgenic caste system of large scale underclasses taught by supernatural literature, and conflationary argument, that doctor Peterson seems enamored of, OR we can choose the eugenic production of sovereignty, agency, and equality of norther european warriors and universal militia taught by adherence to the oath, the common law, the decidability of the science (due diligence in testimony), testimonial (deflationary) truth, and producing a smaller and objectively superior majority middle class society in which we are all possessed of agency in institutions, and agency in mind, and agency in the face of a universe yet waiting to be domesticated by our will.

    The balanced argument (the market solution that is the product of western civilization) is that we need multiple forms of argument, education, economy, and a market (government) for exchanges of commons between the classes, to suit the needs of people who possess a range of abilities, from those who can but imitate to those who can most radically innovate.

    But we can only achieve that diversity (market) of available models for our people, if the means of decidability between them is parsimonious, deflationary, correspondent, Truth that is produced by the due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit that we call ‘science’.

    RETURNING TO HUMAN SCALE

    Its quite simple. Let a thousand nations bloom. End the empires and let loose the creativity of mankind. Its between empires that we make our rapid evolutions from one condition to another. we can all live in a diverse set of Denmarks (small homogenous egalitarian kin groups with commonality of interest and redistribution) or we can live in large empires (Brazil, India, China, Islam, and the United States) where we evolve once again into castes with high concentrations of wealth, vast underclasses, and stagnation – and the myths, superstitions, and comforting lies we tell ourselves to justify our condition.

    What has to change? Bring knowledge, capital, institutions, and norms to people – and expand ‘the good’, not people to knowledge, capital, institutions and norms – and degrade and consume ‘the good’.

    There is nothing in western civilization that cannot be copied by moral peoples.. There is nothing in western civlization that cannot be destroyed by large numbers of immoral peoples.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Philosophy of Western Civilization

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 16:02:00 UTC

  • YEP. EVERYTHING ANGLOS DO IS WRONG. Seriously. whatever anglo civilization intui

    YEP. EVERYTHING ANGLOS DO IS WRONG.

    Seriously. whatever anglo civilization intuits is evidence that we should do the opposite. we are good for one thing: punishing, killing people, blowing shit up. we are excellent at the organized application of violence, and completely incompetent at determining who, when, and how. Why? False belief in the nature of man, unnecessary defense of world oil prices.

    The answer has been the same: let russians take over the oil industry and rule it with an iron fist.

    we suck at it.

    Wall off the the Bosphorus. Close the airports. Close the ports. Let the chinese and russians deal with islam – they understand man and muslims.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 15:21:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC SCHOOLS IN ONE LESSON (from elsewhere) Can I put the seed of an idea in

    ECONOMIC SCHOOLS IN ONE LESSON

    (from elsewhere)

    Can I put the seed of an idea in your head?

    AUSTRIAN

    Austrian School: the search for economics of social science (natural law), and the means of improving institutions of cooperation without interference in the information system of the economy. Assumes the civilizational, generational, business, vocational, pedagogical, and fashion cycles, if interfered with, will produce greater subsequent harm than good. (CONSERVATIVE/ACHIEVED MASCULINE evolutionary strategy – eugenic – long term time preference )

    CHICAGO

    Chicago School: the search for economics under rule of law limited to predictable, rule based, interference in the information system of the economy, as a means of insuring against unnecessary asymmetries of information. Assumes civilization, generational, business, vocational, pedagogical, and fashion cycles will benefit from removal of unnecessary resistance. (LIBERTARIAN/ASCENDANT MASCULINE evolutionary strategy – balanced – medium term time preference )

    SALTWATER

    Saltwater School: the search for economics of discretionary rule, the abandonment of rule of law, and the abandonment of institutional improvements to cooperation in search for the maximization of consumption. Assumes civilizational, generational, business, vocational, pedagogical, and fashion cycles are both less important than current consumption, and that the benefits of current consumption will (like borrowing against interest), outweigh the later consequences (similar to how the non neutrality of money is simply absorbed inconsequentially in niche effects. )(PROGRESSIVE/FEMININE evolutionary strategy – dysgenic – short term time preference.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 15:14:00 UTC

  • SERIES: “COHERENCE, JUDGEMENT, TRUTH” Bill, (All), I had to think about this ove

    SERIES: “COHERENCE, JUDGEMENT, TRUTH”

    Bill, (All),

    I had to think about this overnight, but I think you’ve given me a way to speak about the difference between:

    – internal coherence (decidability in pursuit of preferences)

    – and judgement (decidability in resolution of conflict).

    And I am going to have to incorporate the three factors somehow:

    1) competitive utility of personal and cooperative rallying to social opportunity (coherence)

    2) competitive utility of decidability in cross preference conflict (judgement)

    3) competitive utility of physical transformation (truth)

    Even if by ‘competitive utility’ i’m referring to the anything between the red queen (evolution-nature outside of present), Time(scarcity in the present), survival, reproductive success, social success, and economic success, and personal fulfillment.

    I have had a very hard time finding a way of expressing this and I think between your statement and my understanding of peterson’s ‘literary and platonic’ I think I’m getting closer. And I think these are the three categories in the series of decidability.

    THREE SERIES OF INCREASING PRECISION

    Coherence > Judgement > Truth

    Literature > Law > Science

    Ideation > Decision > Action

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 12:50:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) (Note: this fellow, is calling me a pompous, illiterate, autist

    (from elsewhere)

    (Note: this fellow, is calling me a pompous, illiterate, autist. -And I’m offended by the false accusation of illiteracy- But the truthful criticism of my ‘research through prosecution’ is that it’s a violation of reciprocity that we currently assume in our culture of discourse and debate. I use people to conduct tests. Usually against their will. And the reason is that it’s the only way to get demonstrated behavior rather than reported behavior. Anyway, my immorality in pursuit of moral ends aside, and the continued success of this admittedly duplicitous investigatory technique aside, this serves as a record of my technique:

    1 – Look for opportunity to test arguments

    2 – Construct a ‘truthful’ criticism that will bait an argument.

    3 – If you get an engagement in the argument you have found someone intellectually honest enough to continue investigation with.

    4 – Most commonly you will be subject to attacks rather than the argument. Most people are not intellectually honest. Nor do they possess sufficient agency to question their own frames.

    5 – Prosecute the individual’s argument by attempting to force the other person to draw his own honest, correct, and position-changing conclusion. (This is the hard part. Don’t tell them the answer. Get them to draw it themselves.)

    5a – Answer any ridicule with (truthful) accusation of his incentives. The purpose here is to neutralize the adhom’s, and exhaust the emotion.

    5b – Return to the central question by repeating it. We succeed and inform through repetition in ways that even the most well reasoned statements cannot. In addition, the argument doesn’t get lost or distracted from. And moreover, those following the argument are educated through repetition. You will find that repetition succeeds where no other method can. I suggest reprahsing the central argument very slightly each time if you can do so creatively. (which is an art in itself).

    5c – Try to connect it with the moral responsibility for preservation of the informational commons. Insinuate his immorality and if possible, ask why the individual is immoral for not doing due diligence in preservation of the informational commons. OR Try to connect it with why he needs to appeal to false authority rathe than simply providing institutional means for voluntary exchanges.

    6 – just keep iterating (5) above until the emotion is exhausted and his attempts at avoidance are exhausted. It does not matter what conclusion he comes to in the moment. What matters is whether you have influence him a little – or the audience. People are just vehicles for educating the audience, and discovering candidates who themselves might be able to conduct operational arguments.

    )

    ===

    ….Interesting that you would call me illiterate.

    Pompous (actually it’s arrogant), Autism (actually it’s the practice of deflationary truth), and Parasitic (taking advantage of other’s conversations to run experiments) are all true.

    The theory remains: book choices (like cites) function as ability, personality, moral, and evolutionary strategy surveys in ways that self reporting does not. (it is hard to argue with this as evidence of demonstrated preference)

    The central argument remains: of all the books one would choose why does one choose a higher proportion of those that justify postwar moralizing, rather than prewar struggle? (demonstrated preference, paradigm adherence)

    If you want to attack the argument that’s very different from attacking the arguer. If attacking the argument is beyond you (this is how I taunt the persistence of the argument) then thats moral, but by attacking the arguer, that’s immoral.

    If your philosophical position (mine) seeks to test the costs of and means of policing the commons against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, and deceit; and if your effort in developing your philosophical position requires testing..

    You see, while debate consists of reciprocal exchanges in pursuit of reciprocal meaning, I do not pursue the act of *prosecution* under the assumption of equality or reciprocity, but instead as a social scientist conducting experiments. In other words, I *use* people like you to run tests (which I’ve been stating openly since 2012 and where my first public experiment was against Kinsella, in which he failed gloriously ). Like fighting, like mathematics, like programming the only way to develop the skill is to practice it.

    I teach people this technique as a means of defeating error, bias, and deceit. For example: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155118766937264

    So by retaining your position of attacking the person rather than the argument you learn nothing, and merely demonstrate that I am correct: that reason is insufficient and therefore the informational commons CAN ONLY be defended from pollution (harm) by the demand for warranty of due diligence.

    You see, what you consider ‘autistic’ is an attempt to create a formal logic that can be incorporated into law, and that will survive constant challenges from critics during legal conflicts.

    So there is no ‘room’ per se, for conflationary experience and analogy that we seek in ‘meaning’, in the demand for deflationary truth that we seek to provide means of decidability (dispute resolution) across networks of meaning.

    There is a very deliberate method to my ‘madness’. And strangely, the fact that I’m open about it, does nothing to change the reaction to it.

    Compare this current ‘educational’ post (comment), with previous ‘prosecutorial’ comments. In this post I’m explaining to you what I am doing and why. In the previous posts I was prosecuting you. This is because in previous posts you were attacking me rather than the argument, and doing so without asking WHY?

    So, now that I have been forthcoming with my experiment upon you, in closing, we are left with a few questions:

    1) Why didn’t you take the original post, labeled in all caps with the word ‘criticism’, as simply information? And ask WHY?

    2) Why did you fall prey to the common criticism of me rather than investigate the tactics?

    4) Who is more pompous illiterate and myopically attached to priors?

    (And, humorously, why would you fail to categorize your book list by theory of man’s nature, and theory of western civilization as I’d proposed – which would demonstrate that I’d been correct in the original post?)

    Thanks for letting me play in your sandbox, and use your involuntarily given test results for the education of myself and others.

    We are all victims of cognitive bias.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 10:05:00 UTC