Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • William Butchman (et all), This claim of Peterson’s is where he’s going wrong by

    William Butchman (et all),

    This claim of Peterson’s is where he’s going wrong by trying to justify his priors.

    Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.

    Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.

    Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.

    Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.

    Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.

    Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.

    Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.

    And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).

    BUT…

    1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.

    2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.

    3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.

    Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.

    It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.

    4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.

    And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.

    Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.

    5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.

    CLOSING

    We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth.

    That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 22:35:00 UTC

  • 1 – as to ‘beginning’ the central question is whether time has any meaning at th

    1 – as to ‘beginning’ the central question is whether time has any meaning at the extremes. We simply do not know the answer. But we know enough to know, that we do not know the answer. Ergo, any argument to ad-infinitum is no more likely than any argument to singularity because we don’t know if there is a difference.

    2 – As long as the set of forces that constitute mass-radiation-space-time are constant, there is no reason that the universe or universes do not simply pulse indefinitely, although it is very difficult to say whether they follow in sequence or repeat the same time over and over again. We just don’t know.

    3 – there are deep psychological reasons that cause us to seek the psychological safety of the pack in various group activities – and they are chiefly the result of living in large numbers rather than consanguineous bands and tribes. This need exists at the personal subconscious level, the group level(community), and the tribal (regional) level. And religions evolved to assist us in establishing normative expectations of one another on the one hand, and reducing the burden of uncertainty and fear of outsiders and being outside on the other.

    4 – As we have seen people seek replacement for talking around the campfire, being read to, watching a play or movie, listening to talking in church, listinening to lectures in university, watching people talk on television. The phenomenon is always the same.

    5 – We have seen people able to obtain the feeling of submission of reason to the pack (which is what feels good about religion) by many possible means: disciplined ritual, disciplined though (stoicism’s virtues), disciplined internal conversation (prayer), and disciplined quietude (buddhist meditation).

    6 – We have seen people use music and dancing, group runs and walks, organized sports, hunting, festival, holiday, and feast – even parade and war.

    7 – Each of these dimensions provides increasing safety of the pack in a world where – since agrarianism – we have existed uncomfortably as individuals. This allows us to ‘rest’ our minds from teh constant effort of reason and our constant battle with uncertainty whenever modernity’s comforting consumptions are insufficient for us to counter alienation that it produces.

    8 – The question remains why we must rely on lies (supernatural) rather than myths, legends, and aspirations. There is no reason to rely upon lies, superstitions, and falsehoods – because they are, just like alcohol and drugs, methods of escape and deceit, and self harm. The wonder of being human, of what we have done in our short time, and what we may yet do, is enough for us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 14:12:00 UTC

  • THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF T

    THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS.

    I teach everyone the same strategy:

    1) return ridicule or criticism,

    2) restate the central argument

    3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct.

    4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition.

    Ergo, (in response to ad hom)

    1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument.

    2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms.

    3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face.

    4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind.

    See how that works? See?

    Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences.

    However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument.

    And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers.

    To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life.

    The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 11:04:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) —“I don’t think there is a barrier that the pseudo-scientific

    (from elsewhere)

    —“I don’t think there is a barrier that the pseudo-scientific nature of your position doesn’t merit. No.”—

    Interesting, so, you would classify (a) analysis of incentives resulting in the phenomenon, (b) the results of tests of cognitive biases demonstrating the phenomenon, (c) Kuhn’s work in the scientific method (structure of scientific revolutions) in which the paradigm (orthodoxy) suppresses invention (heterodoxy), (d) the evidence of long running topical conflicts between orthodox and heterodox editing on the medium in question (Wikipedia), (e) and the social discord and shift in the economic viability of orthodox (mainstream) media that is caused by the availablilty of new lower coast media (the internet), (f) and the record in book editing, journal editing, and the peer review process of reinforcement of orthodox and rejection of heterodox arguments, as PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC?

    Or is that analysis scientific precisely because it is the primary struggle the discipline of science struggles against? (it is, which is why Popper and Kuhn wrote about it).

    Or more correctly, is your continued use of ad hom’s, name calling, rallying, and shaming merely a straw man – an attempt to lie. An act of fraud by which to defend your malinvestment in a pubescent ideology for the purpose of building personal decidability that results in unearned status signals and self worth? And your retaliation by fraud against me and others like me for having deprived you of your unearned self worth?

    It’s OK. I know the answer. And by your bad manners, and childish antics, you’ve given the the opportunity to demonstrate it for everyone else.

    Unfortunately the cost of demonstrating the childish antics of the emotionally, socially, intellectually, and economically infantilized is fairly high. And unfortunately, by paying that price I develop the reputation among the infantilized of “being an ass”, because the infantilized cannot bear the loss of their malinvestment. But I must do so out of self defense, and moral commitment, for the simple reason that the infantile, feminine, marxist use of gossip, rallying, and shaming in the absence of judicial duel, is the reason that the left was able to succeed in out-shouting the right.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 08:32:00 UTC

  • ITS NOT EASY BUT WHEN IT CLICKS IS THRILLING —“I’m getting it. Things just cli

    ITS NOT EASY BUT WHEN IT CLICKS IS THRILLING

    —“I’m getting it. Things just clicked a few weeks ago and it’s like a torrent of understanding”— A Friend

    I wish I could get across what it means to me every time I get one of these PM’s.

    Every time the light goes on for someone, the world is a little less lonely, a little less insane, and holds a little more promise.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 23:47:00 UTC

  • NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring pheno

    NICELY STATED

    —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 23:45:00 UTC

  • ( see. the right would go nowhere after the election, whereas we could have had

    ( see. the right would go nowhere after the election, whereas we could have had a revolution with her election. so the question is whether we are buying time, or losing momentum. the economy is looking very kindly at trump right now. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 21:39:00 UTC

  • I don’t know about other people but it takes me about three days of contemplatio

    I don’t know about other people but it takes me about three days of contemplation to get into the zone where I can produce any insight.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 19:55:00 UTC

  • Religion, among other things, provides a reason to deny others your cooperation,

    Religion, among other things, provides a reason to deny others your cooperation, and your effort questioning the worthiness of it. #tcot

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 19:54:00 UTC

  • QUESTION OF THE DAY: LIFEBOAT How do you answer the lifeboat question? Who goes

    QUESTION OF THE DAY: LIFEBOAT

    How do you answer the lifeboat question? Who goes in the lifeboats first?

    You’re the captain of an ocean liner or cruise ship. Its a Titanic scenario, meaning that the boat will go under before help arrives, and there are not enough seats in the lifeboats for everyone.

    Besides a large crew there are passengers from every walk of life.

    Your crew is asking what to do. What instructions do you give them?

    Remember that they must be able to make those decisions with crowds of people trying to get into the boats.

    And Yes I will delete irrelevant answers:

    (a) “Me” or any variation thereof

    (b) anything that the crew cannot reliably know

    (c) anything vaguely humorous (after I’ve had a chance to laugh).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 19:35:00 UTC