Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • PRACTICAL UTILITY OF PERSONALITY TESTING: A YARDSTICK IS ENOUGH TOPIC: Arbitrary

    PRACTICAL UTILITY OF PERSONALITY TESTING: A YARDSTICK IS ENOUGH

    TOPIC: Arbitrary precision (general, generalizable rules), and the cost of increases in precision versus the utility of increases in precision.

    I have been involved in personality testing since 1981, and have researched the work back into the 1950’s, and IQ back into the first world war, and I stand by the Meyers Briggs as the least precise, yet most useful tool precisely because it is the least precise.

    When I worked with Predictive Index, I had to carry around something on the order of fifty index cards listing each personality type. In our company all management had to take the training. Then we had to try to figure out everyone’s personality in the company. The President would then tell us if we had it right or not, given the individual’s results.

    Even in that test I would vary greatly on introversion/extroversion, but not at all on dominance, patience, or fear of blame. And knowing that variation was very interesting, because it was true – I vary a lot.

    The Minnesota Multiphasic is useful, despite its framing, largely because it is exceptional at lie detection. But it’s like 600 questions or so. And it’s very negative. It forces you to obsess on the negative.

    The Big 5 is part of the fucked-up, pseudoscientific drivel of Freudian psychology – an elaborate system of framing in order to justify authoritarianism and demonize non-conformity to authoritarian (Jewish) ideology. This suits the kind of people who pursue psychology – to find a source of dominance.

    If we constructed a test with Nietzschean framing, and with as many questions, and as much lie detection, we would find a different and more useful LIBERTARIAN rather than authoritarian distribution of results.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to eliminate all this nonsense by framing all analysis as measures of means of acquisition, and the (a) production or non-production, and (b) truth or deceit we use to acquire. A Propertarian analysis would not lead to authoritarian framing, but instead, to moral framing: how suitable an individual is for cooperation.

    Propertarianism is the replacement for psychology. We can test that because all moral propositions are decidable.

    But Propertarianism is pretty analytically challenging to learn.

    Conversely, for most people, and for forecasting performance in the work place, MBTI can be constructed from as few as 30 questions, and as many as 100. And it’s all positive. It frames the questions as how you interact with others in public.

    Now, if I want to measure 5 attributes, and I ask 100 questions on each, with `100 additional lie detectors (20% more questions for the purpose of lie detection) I am going to get pretty accurate results if carefully administered.

    If I want to measure 4 attributes, and ask only 30 questions, with no lie detection, then I am going to get a pretty noisy set of answers. But if I ask 30 questions, then I attempt to frame everyone (practice it) that I interact with, then I will be soon able to develop a similar framing for the ascertainment of the motivations and means of cooperating with others in the workplace – if not in life.

    Now, we have really good data that MBTI is a great predictor of relationship compatibility. And we have really good data that shows that people can learn and use it, without a great deal of sophistication. And it’s cheap to administer. And over time you will understand yourself and others within the supplied frame.

    So, what I tend to tell people, is that it is the best extant tool.

    I would like to develop a similar questionnaire for Propertarianism. Because in Propertarianism we test what we know are the causal properties of human behavioral differences. And that would be the MOST scientific data set that I think humans could yet develop.

    But I also think it is for the purpose of TRUTH and I think MBTI is for the purpose of UTILITY, and while truth is useful, rules of thumb are just as useful if the PRECISION afforded by truth is at the expense of practical utility. In other words, we still use Newtonian mechanics in most of life, and very few of us more precise calculations. Because more precision isn’t useful. And its a lot more work.

    What this little comment has done, is convinced me that I need to work with some people to produce a Propertarian values test. Which is pretty easy really. But in Oversing, we will use a jungian analysis, for the simple reason that PEOPLE CAN USE IT TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 06:18:00 UTC

  • THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom) —“T

    THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION

    (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom)

    —“There’s the very Rothbardian argument that a woman has an absolute right to evict an embryo from her womb, on grounds that this embryo’s interactions with her are parasitic by default — and she’s got the right to stop parasites interacting with her.”— Johannes Meixner

    Once you grasp that the purpose of Rothbardian argument is not TRUTH, but JUSTIFICATION, you understand that it’s all irrelevant. (Actually, that it’s all dishonest. And actually, that it’s all lies.)

    As a mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    (Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons. Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic – I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument, and that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing. NOW… As for Parasitism, a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). A kin is an inter-temporal investment. It is the reason that you exist. The purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible. But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with murder. I argue that we should do, and we need to do, a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    (But then, that’s feminism for you: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring. All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others. **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    (Under Propertarianism all moral arguments are decidable. There are no moral paradoxes.)

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.facebook.com/johannes.jost.meixner/posts/807604825980936

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 05:47:00 UTC

  • variations, small number of axis, complex resulting behavior. Life is cool

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/333.summary?rss=1Small variations, small number of axis, complex resulting behavior.

    Life is cool

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-17 12:13:00 UTC

  • Don Finnegan?

    http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaninglesslol. Don Finnegan?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-17 08:26:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-17 08:22:00 UTC

  • Debate is a game in which the interlocutors attempt to defeat each other, typica

    —Debate is a game in which the interlocutors attempt to defeat each other, typically before an audience whose approbation they strive to secure. —

    Wield truth without mercy

    Inform the ignorant

    Correct the wrong

    Punish the wicked

    Kill the evil

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-17 04:56:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/04/14/how-progressives-purge-corporate-cultures/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 16:28:00 UTC

  • REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT. The non-aggress

    REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT.

    The non-aggression principle is a fallacious distraction specifically developed in order to permit deceit. True, one must not aggress, but that statement is meaningless without stating what it is we fail to aggress against.

    Under the NAP, as advocated by both Rothbard and Hoppe, and perpetuated by Block, the test of aggression is merely intersubjectively verifiable property. Under this fallacy, they argue that man SHOULD not retaliate, and must not retaliate, or he will be brought to court for his retaliation.

    But this test permits parasitism, and as Block advocates, even blackmail. And man retaliates against blackmail. We cannot explain away that man retaliates against blackmail. It is praxeologically irrational that man not retaliate against blackmail.

    The common law provides a means for preventing retaliation – and in large part that was solution that provided its origin: *to preserve cooperation by providing a means of retaliation, without the necessity of appeal to authority.*

    The test of demand for authority is that we must not aggress against anything that humans will retaliate against. And humans will retaliate against property-en-toto, not merely intersubjectively verifiable property.

    Rothbard attempted to preserve Levantine immorality. He attempted to preserve the opportunity to deceive. He attempted to preserve the ability to profit from unproductive activity. Rothbard attempted to preserve evasion of payment for the commons. Rothbard attempted to prohibit the construction of commons. Yet western high trust – the source of our universal economic advantage, the source of our science and reason, the source of rule by law and jury, is entirely dependent upon our ability to construct normative and material commons by prohibiting all human action that is parasitic, and even that which is unproductive.

    Conversely, without truth-telling, the common law, the jury, the normative commons, and total prohibition on the imposition of costs, wherein all possible disputes can be resolved under the law, without an authority, then, in such a condition, demand for the authoritarian state increases with the degree of those impositions that are not satisfied by law. As such, Levantine morality (immorality), de facto, praxeologically, without exception, increases demand for the state. Ergo, NAP is a source of demand for the state, not one of elimination of it. And we see this wherever Levantine low trust ethics are practiced.

    When you use the term NAP, you are invoking primitive, Levantine immorality. Instead, if you wish liberty, we must not impose costs upon one another. And our law must prohibit the imposition of costs upon one another. This eliminates demand for the state.

    Only by eliminating demand for the state, can we diminish it.

    The fallacious counter argument is that competition itself imposes costs upon others. But it imposes opportunity costs only. And without those opportunity costs, we cannot construct the voluntary organization of production that we unfortunately refer to as “capitalism”.

    So abandon the fallacy of non-aggression as one of the formal, logical, and moral reasons for the failure of libertarianism since Rothbard seized control of it from westerners, by the same means employed by the Marxists, socialists, postmodernists and neocons: mere saturation of the subject with repeated fallacies: loading, framing and overloading.

    Speak the truth. Impose no cost. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil. To do otherwise is to attempt to use deceit to purchase liberty at a discount, rather than to construct it by bearing the cost of doing so.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 12:47:00 UTC

  • THE SOCIAL CLASSES OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES – Scientific Software desig

    THE SOCIAL CLASSES OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES

    – Scientific Software design and development

    – Operating Systems Design and Development

    – Enterprise Software Product companies

    – Consumer Software Product companies

    – Business Software companies

    – Small Independent software companies

    – Internal Operational software

    – Consulting business operational software.

    – Internal IT staff.

    – Temporary (or long term) staffing.

    – Short term staffing.

    – Independent software consultants.

    – IT independent consultants.

    Varies a bit by company. But basically it’s driven by scarcity.

    (I need to write this list for economists, because it’s pretty funny.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 10:07:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES The technique we

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shameSHAMING THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES

    The technique we call Shaming (which is the public use of gossip), evolved (like gossip), as a means of controlling alphas by rallying support from many in order to limit the few.

    Gossip is one of the three possible means of social coercion:

    (1) Violence (murder, harm, loss, deprivation, threat),

    (2) Remuneration (credit, gift, payment or exchange, promise), and

    (3) Gossip (compliment, criticism, guilting, shaming, rallying, and ostracization).

    Whether Gossip, Violence or Remuneration is used, is immaterial. Gossip, Violence, and Remuneration are neutral actions. The questions are only (a) whether gossip, violence or remuneration are used to stop or prevent parasitism, or whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are used to create parasitism. And (b) whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are performed truthfully or dishonestly.

    The uncomfortable truth is that all advancement in civilization has been the result of the construction of private and semi-private (group commons) property. And that individuals have NOT BEEN OPPRESSED, but that they reproduce without the ability to support themselves, in an attempt to parasitically reproduce at the expense of others.

    In large part, the majority in the middle and upper middle classes, seek to prevent parasitism by the political elites, and seek to prevent parasitism by the lower classes who are insufficiently productive to maintain themselves – especially as technological innovation advances.

    So the feminist narrative that the author Jacqui Shine attempts to use as yet another form of shaming, is itself a deceit: she says people are oppressed when in fact they and their parents are parasites. She says the struggle throughout history was not Malthusian, but against oppression. Neither of which is true. So this entire argument is an immoral, parasitic attempt to justify the desire of women to reproduce parasitically without demonstrating that they are worthy of reproduction.

    That is the scientific and economic analysis. The moral analysis is that Jacqui’s argument is an immoral one. The logical and economic argument is that she engages in fraud as an attempt to obscure theft. And that this fraud is perpetrated by an obscurant deceit. And that she uses rallying and shaming to obscure this deceit.

    Those are the facts.

    Now, the question is, why do we not shame liars in all their parasitic forms?

    Of which Postmodernists, and Feminists are the most expert perpetrators. j

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 07:39:00 UTC