Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • INTELLIGENCE AND DECEPTION Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptiv

    INTELLIGENCE AND DECEPTION

    Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptive—can you explain this?

    A: The experiment was simplicity itself. A child is asked to sit facing away from a box. The experimenter puts something in the box and says “Do not peek, do not peek” and then leaves the room. Most children peek. The experimenter returns and asks, “Did you peek?” Most children lie—but they do so the more frequently the brighter they are, as judged by a simple cognitive test. If your child is especially bright, he or she lies 100 percent of the time, slow 65 percent of the time. The same thing is true for health at birth. The healthier you are the more apt you are to lie 4 years later.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 06:38:00 UTC

  • RETALIATION IS THE TEST OF LYING, NOT INTENT. Retaliation is the test of whether

    RETALIATION IS THE TEST OF LYING, NOT INTENT.

    Retaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it.

    Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules.

    (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 04:53:00 UTC

  • Oleh Kuts (@OlehKuts): Today #Russia|n-backed militants attacked #Ukraine’s army

    http://twitter.com/OlehKuts/status/673964800913899520/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=673971945164120066Retweeted Oleh Kuts (@OlehKuts):

    Today #Russia|n-backed militants attacked #Ukraine’s army over 50 times

    https://t.co/D8iFDD5xeN #Україна #PutinAtWar https://t.co/L5r0XeU4OB

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 16:06:00 UTC

  • (diary) did good work today. took kirill’s advice and worked at sleeping. plus t

    (diary)

    did good work today. took kirill’s advice and worked at sleeping. plus the vitamin d clearly works. still having problems because of the darkness but it’s a thousand times better than last year.

    today is one of those days where everything went well, but I really appreciate all my friends. thank god for all of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 14:46:00 UTC

  • IT’S NOT A FALLACY, IT’S A DECEIT. (First Draft) Working through Rallying and Sh

    IT’S NOT A FALLACY, IT’S A DECEIT. (First Draft)

    Working through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans.

    I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft.

    1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation)

    2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation)

    3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading)

    4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie)

    5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie)

    6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media

    All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 14:33:00 UTC

  • I just can’t live in a bigger city. Just can’t do it. (a) too loud, too dirty, a

    I just can’t live in a bigger city. Just can’t do it. (a) too loud, too dirty, and (b) too much bacteria, virus, and disease everywhere. (c) public transportation is exhausting, noisy, rude, disease carrying, and filthy. (d) too far to travel to get to it for work, too far to travel to get out of it for leisure. (e) shopping is the same everywhere now, and I’ve already owned everything a man can rationally want to own. And aside from a Porsche, ralph lauren clothes, and a fancy computer, the only other thing I want is good relationships, good restaurants, and time.

    A car ride of 25 minutes helps you relax and change from work to home context and visa versa. It’s sanitary assuming you’re sanitary. It’s relatively quiet, air conditioned, and filled with your news, audio book, news or even video (ahem).

    A city where you can walk without public transportation, that isn’t too loud, or too dirty is perfect.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 14:11:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE

    LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING.

    Libertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better.

    At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family.

    (( REPLY WAS A GIF OF FEMALE SAYING “WHATEVER” ))

    I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. 🙂 Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls.

    If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party.

    The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it.

    Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is.

    But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor.

    And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 13:54:00 UTC

  • NATURAL RIGHTS Natural “rights” are those legal rights of appeal for defense or

    NATURAL RIGHTS

    Natural “rights” are those legal rights of appeal for defense or restitution with which productive men must warranty they insure one another in order to resist the natural ‘wrongs’ that man demonstrates when unproductive.

    Rights are those actions we insure one another against by collective action when they are violated. But the means of violation is always the same: the imposition of costs upon others, rather than engaging in productive activities.

    This lack of including the requirement for productivity, which was obvious to men of property, was an obvious requirement of nature, and therefore a natural law not needing insurance, but one insured by nature herself. An unproductive man in the company of productive men need not be judged by men unless he imposes a cost upon them. His failure of productivity is a judgement passed against him by nature.

    Women circumvented this principle and with it destroyed aristocratic, egalitarian, western civilization.

    The Russians and Chinese bought the Great Lie of Communism. Americans bought the Great Lie of Neo Puritanism. These were the great lies.

    The answer was very simple: just keep on with what we were doing and create new houses for women and the working classes, and preserve our ancient monarchies, and our ancient rule of law.

    Napoleon was the first catastrophe. He started the ball rolling. He was the first plunderer of Europe since the Muslims Sacked Rome. And he broke our relative peace.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 09:15:00 UTC

  • FACEBOOK SCAMMERS You can tell a chat scammer because (a) they don’t use your na

    FACEBOOK SCAMMERS

    You can tell a chat scammer because (a) they don’t use your name, or refer to anything you have in common, and (b) they take a long time to respond to each post because they have so many going on

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 08:31:00 UTC

  • RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN METHODS COMPATIBLE Did you know that people with high fat c

    RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN METHODS COMPATIBLE

    Did you know that people with high fat content, and who are heavy drinkers, under the right conditions, can be used to create the wick effect we see in spontaneous human combustion – and that they’ll burn slowly for many many hours?

    However, the wicking effect can be created intentionally by splitting the skin, exposing the fat, inserting wicking material, and lighting it with a smoldering source of flame such as coal, charcoal, rope, cloth, or cigarette.

    Just sayin’ that in the sequence of:

    a) guillotining (by knife, sword, axe, or guillotine

    b) hanging (short-drop strangling and long-drop neck breaking forms)

    c) impaling (in both abdominal and anal forms)

    d) crucifixion (in its many forms)

    e) burning at the stake (in its many forms)

    we can add:

    f) ‘wicking’, which I assume must be a pretty horrible way to go, since burning slowly alive and watching it has got to be pretty horrible.

    The guillotine is more of an ‘industrial’ solution requiring very little effort and expense, while still providing civic entertainment for the many.

    Long drop hanging of 8-10 feet is pretty rewarding and less messy.

    I have this feeling americans would be more Organized about housecleaning, and the Russians would be more enthusiastic and, well, entertaining.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 08:25:00 UTC