Source: Facebook

  • REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION (worth repeating) We are only ‘voluntaril

    REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION

    (worth repeating)

    We are only ‘voluntarily cooperating’ if we have a choice to cooperate or not. We use the term ‘cooperate’, originating with human voluntary cooperation, and by analogy apply it to other creatures who simulate voluntary cooperation.

    But, how many of those creatures voluntarily cooperate, and how many of them only appear to, and possess no sentience (volition) at all? What is required of for voluntary cooperation?

    REQUIREMENTS

    – The capacity for shared intent.

    – The capacity to determine if shared intent is beneficial or not.

    – The capacity to choose to invest in that shared intent or not.

    – The capacity to signal consent to shared intent.

    – The capacity to punish defectors / cheaters, whether by refusal of future cooperation, punishment, or death.

    So while it is true that verbal language is not required, signaling is. And that’s enough.

    As far as I know, if you cannot choose, consent, and punish defectors then its not voluntary cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 07:22:00 UTC

  • FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE QUESTION: Which of thes

    FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE

    QUESTION: Which of these is moral and ethical or not?

    1) WAR: Both parties prey upon each other in mutual destruction (consumption)

    2) PREDATION: In which on party preys upon the other for the purpose of destruction (consumption)

    3) PARASITISM: In which one party benefits at another’s expense

    4) COMMENSALISM: In which one party benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped

    5) EXCHANGE: In which costs are reciprocally offset without gain.

    6) MUTUALISM (production) : in which both parties benefit.

    7) COLONIALISM : In which one party pays the cost of training the other to cooperate.

    8) SACRIFICE: In which one party harms itself in order to benefit the other.

    9) SUICIDE: In which one party destroys itself in order to benefit the other.

    And, bonus question: which of these is western culture engaging in?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 06:35:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF BEING WELL READ NO MATTER WHAT YOUR IQ. The data is pretty good y

    THE PURPOSE OF BEING WELL READ NO MATTER WHAT YOUR IQ.

    The data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books.

    But the right books at your level of experience.

    Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity. However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.

    So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.

    The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas. But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.

    LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:

    Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions

    Moral arguments <- normative arguments

    Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)

    Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)

    Scientific Arguments <- specialists in causal relations

    Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations

    Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments

    Constructivist Explanations <- description of reality

    It gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.

    If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.

    SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?

    You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.

    But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.

    At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.

    Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 06:18:00 UTC

  • Of course? I’m sorry. But guys who are that smart and can work that hard just ca

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101679720Um. Of course?

    I’m sorry. But guys who are that smart and can work that hard just can out compete the rest of us. I might be pretty smart, and I can drill on something absurdly complicated forever; but I can’t grok stuff from that many different sources and contexts in one day without having a nervous breakdown. Some of these guys just amaze me. Their sheer ability to switch context on demand. All. Day. Long. Day after day. Year after year. With one person after another. And they don’t get tired. I am so jealous. lol. Sure some guys are lucky. But a lot of them are just smart.

    The market is not friendly to stupid. It’s only friendly to lucky once. Guys who do great stuff repeatedly – that’s not luck. That’s brains. And it’s freaking hard.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 16:28:00 UTC

  • think it’s actually harder to be a female exec over other women, than it is for

    http://clarissasblog.com/2014/05/14/i-dont-want-to-hire-women/I think it’s actually harder to be a female exec over other women, than it is for men. I mean. Not only are we oblivious, but we just don’t care, and women don’t expect us to care. We just do our thing. And go on obliviously.

    I have had very bad luck with women in senior exec positions. In fact, it’s been almost fruitless. I suppose in other industries it’d be different. But in my generation the combination of feminism and craziness has just been impossible.

    But in middle management, it’s been just the opposite. In middle management you’re trying to facilitate – herding cats. In executive management you’re trying to discriminate – apply scarce resources to the best return whether people like it or not. And women are much better at herding cats, and processing multiple lines of communication than men and that’s just how it is. I don’t argue with it. I just accept it. I have found male middle managers to be free riders, and female middle managers to be more effective. I think it’s genetic. I have been on a career long quest to reduce middle management, indeed all management, to the bare minimum wherever possible and to empower the talent whenever and wherever possible. This tends to lead to a project-based company that is often reorganized, rather than a department based company structure, that is rarely reorganized.

    The gossip mill that women create is almost always destructive and the only cure is over-communication. I’ve tried to manage anti-gossip campaigns whenever possible. But the gossip thing is just insanely painful to deal with.

    (My favorite example is the accusation that I was sleeping with my young female assistant, and I simply could not silence it, despite the fact that she was actually sleeping with one of my married business partners from the east coast. )

    Good gossip lifts people up. Bad gossip cuts people down. It’s hysterical how effective this technique is. (I tell people, “if you want to gossip and conspire to make me a more successful person then please do.”) So there are positive ways to channeling negative behavior if you understand the incentives. (As strange as chick-incentives are to us men.)

    It’s really good if you can get all the admin chicks in your company on a gossip containment committee. This turns the problem into an effective means of control because the girls at the lowest level who have the greatest access to gossip become empowered by policing gossip. You try to get them to tell you anything that’s negative. Then you tell the the TRUTH about what you’re doing and let them do the work. The problem is you can never lie to them. And if you screw up you have to tell them.

    What bothers me still, and something I would like to find a way to solve, is the degree of self destruction women practice upon one another. The hen pecking thing is just impossible. And yes (straight) women are much higher maintenance. I hope to improve some of this over the next decade with Oversing. But I suspect that stopping women from trying to social climb their chick-status-ladder by gossip and undermining is freaking impossible.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 14:57:00 UTC

  • Ukrainian women Ukrainian food. Ukrainian culture. The trifecta of perfection. T

    Ukrainian women

    Ukrainian food.

    Ukrainian culture.

    The trifecta of perfection.

    Three things you just cant compete with. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 10:39:00 UTC

  • OCCAM’S RAZOR : ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS Under constructionism,

    OCCAM’S RAZOR : ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Under constructionism, you cannot rely upon an argument that you cannot construct. If you cannot construct apriorism, you do not understand it. If one does not understand a truth claim, he cannot claim it is true. Since one cannot construct apriorism, or at least, the matter is in deep dispute, you cannot rely upon it.

    If you cannot construct natural rights, you do not understand them. SInce one cannot construct natural rights, you cannot honestly rely upon it.

    I can construct an agreement for insuring one another’s property rights with any man who is willing and able. This is the source of property rights.

    It is the only source.

    And that is occam’s razor.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 10:22:00 UTC

  • “It’s bad enough that we have dishonest socialism. We don’t need dishonest liber

    —“It’s bad enough that we have dishonest socialism. We don’t need dishonest libertarianism.”—

    (worth repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 10:08:00 UTC

  • PUTINS. πŸ™‚ Ukrainian humor. Sort of like our production of ‘Freedom Fries’ whene

    http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/video-2/ukraine-news-one-lvivs-sweet-revenge-on-putin-video-348174.htmlCHOCOLATE PUTINS. πŸ™‚

    Ukrainian humor. Sort of like our production of ‘Freedom Fries’ whenever our most undependable and cowardly ‘ally’ france, periodically screws us over.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 10:02:00 UTC

  • YOURSELF OF APRIORISM AND CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY – JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY The que

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Outer-Limits-Reason-Mathematics/dp/0262019353CURE YOURSELF OF APRIORISM AND CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY – JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY

    The quest for liberty shouldn’t be a prisoner of magical thinking.

    Three great works on the current knowledge of the human mind and its limitations.

    1 – CONSCIOUSNESS

    http://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Brain-Deciphering-Codes-Thoughts-ebook/dp/B00DMCVXO0/

    2 – THE OUTER LIMITS OF REASON

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Outer-Limits-Reason-Mathematics/dp/0262019353

    3 – NATURAL HISTORY OF HUMAN THINKING

    http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Human-Thinking-ebook/dp/B00GG0C9WK/


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 07:48:00 UTC