Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Why, in THOUSANDS OF YEARS, did no one accomplish ten percent of what europeans did

    Mar 10, 2020, 11:13 PM

    —“No. Actually during the so called dark ages Europe fell centuries behind Asia in science, medicine and technology.”—Sarah Jane@Sarahjanecares

    I don’t err. The question is why despite having two dark ages, in a few centuries in the ancient world, and a few centuries in the modern world europeans are responsible for 98% of inventions and dragged mankind out of ignorance poverty starvation and disease. Others didn’t. So the question is, why in THOUSANDS OF YEARS did no one accomplish ten percent of what europeans did in just hundreds? If the greeks had not overextended, we could have had the industrial revolution within two hundred years of archimedes. Deal with it. Genetics+Law+Culture.

  • Genetics

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:11 AM

    —“The 2-R allele of the MAOA gene has been found in a number of studies to be associated with higher levels of violence. It is present in about 5% of US black males and about .1% of US white males.”—

    Rates of violence by genetic background are a settled matter. The question is only what to do about it.

  • Genetics

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:11 AM

    —“The 2-R allele of the MAOA gene has been found in a number of studies to be associated with higher levels of violence. It is present in about 5% of US black males and about .1% of US white males.”—

    Rates of violence by genetic background are a settled matter. The question is only what to do about it.

  • The Need for Average Ability

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:19 AM Work it backwards. If you want a pareto distribution (20% professional) you want an average IQ of around 112-115 at present levels of technology. Conversely we can’t shift too much farther until we determine how to limit eccentricities (defects) above 140’s. My intuition is that those defects are due to the fact of simply being outliers during development. But it could be that higher investment parenting is necessary.

    —“A drop of 6 points in the average IQ of a population can have very significant effects. In the US an IQ of 115 is about the minimum required for professionals such as engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. This is about 16% of a population with average IQ 100 but only about 8% of a population with an average IQ of 94. The decline in the really high IQ “smart fraction” would be even greater. On the other hand Linda Gottfredson has stated that in the current US economy a person with an IQ below 75 is essentially useless. That is about 5% of a population with an average IQ of 100 but about 10% of a population with an average IQ of 94. So a reduction in IQ has a “double whammy” diminishing the highly productive proportion of the population and increasing the economically useless proportion. I doubt that a population with an average IQ of 94 would have much chance of being a really First World nation. The difference between the IQ of say Turkey and the countries of Northwest Europe is roughly six points or maybe a little more.”— Jim

  • The Need for Average Ability

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:19 AM Work it backwards. If you want a pareto distribution (20% professional) you want an average IQ of around 112-115 at present levels of technology. Conversely we can’t shift too much farther until we determine how to limit eccentricities (defects) above 140’s. My intuition is that those defects are due to the fact of simply being outliers during development. But it could be that higher investment parenting is necessary.

    —“A drop of 6 points in the average IQ of a population can have very significant effects. In the US an IQ of 115 is about the minimum required for professionals such as engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. This is about 16% of a population with average IQ 100 but only about 8% of a population with an average IQ of 94. The decline in the really high IQ “smart fraction” would be even greater. On the other hand Linda Gottfredson has stated that in the current US economy a person with an IQ below 75 is essentially useless. That is about 5% of a population with an average IQ of 100 but about 10% of a population with an average IQ of 94. So a reduction in IQ has a “double whammy” diminishing the highly productive proportion of the population and increasing the economically useless proportion. I doubt that a population with an average IQ of 94 would have much chance of being a really First World nation. The difference between the IQ of say Turkey and the countries of Northwest Europe is roughly six points or maybe a little more.”— Jim

  • A Little Debate

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“Morality is objective, reciprocity is not. Truth has no bearing on morality, reciprocity totally depends on truth”—Robert Danis

    i cant understand that

    —“that’s okay. I only believe in truth.”—Robert Danis

    i think you’re lying by pretense

    —“One person’s moral compass is different than another person’s moral compass. But the truth is a constant. example I believe abortion is wrong. Why? It not for a moral reason, it’s because in truth you’re stealing the future of someone else. My lens is different than yours I’m an American “I hold these truths to be self-evident” good morals are based on beliefs not truths. Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings. All of this comes from my background, look at what I did for employment.”—

    I can’t tell if you’re unskilled or dishonest. You are conflating moral(decidable, reciprocal), moral norm, and moral preference(choice).

    “…good morals are based on beliefs not truths…”

    Belief = Preference (arbitrary). Your preference of moral preference is based on beliefs and beliefs are arbitrary.

    “Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings”

    Correct. Morality = Reciprocity. Moral norms may or may not be in fact moral. Moral preferences are arbitrary and may or may not be in fact moral. But… disputes over moral norms and moral preferences may be decidable [by test of reciprocity].

    —“I will make it simple for you I don’t think morals have anything to do with reciprocity. I believe reciprocity is based on truth. You can disagree if you want but I’m not going to change because I only believe in truth. You do a lot of writing and say nothing. one person’s morals another person morals are not the same but truth is always the same.”—

    One person’s moral preference varies, just like one person’s interpretation opinion varies, morality like truth is decidable, which is why we have laws, and why laws express moral norms within group, and why reciprocity expresses morality across groups regardless of group preferences. Reciprocity is the structure of the world: personal bias reflects your reproductive strategy, normative bias reflects your group strategy, international uniformity of reciprocity in international law reflects evolutionary necessity. Not because we choose reciprocity. But because reciprocity is the only means of resolving conflicts. In other words, your opinion on the moral, your moral bias, or your moral preference, are just as likely to be false as your opinions on any other subject. The test of whether you are wrong is reciprocity. So: Moral (reciprocity) <- Moral Norm (group discovered reciprocity) <- Moral Preference-Bias (individual search for reciprocity) Give me an example of morality that is not decidable by reciprocity (other than abortion). I am very good at what I do. I am probably the best at what I do. I do not err. I am preventing you from making the false claim that morals are relative, rather than moral bias is simply a preference.

  • A Little Debate

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“Morality is objective, reciprocity is not. Truth has no bearing on morality, reciprocity totally depends on truth”—Robert Danis

    i cant understand that

    —“that’s okay. I only believe in truth.”—Robert Danis

    i think you’re lying by pretense

    —“One person’s moral compass is different than another person’s moral compass. But the truth is a constant. example I believe abortion is wrong. Why? It not for a moral reason, it’s because in truth you’re stealing the future of someone else. My lens is different than yours I’m an American “I hold these truths to be self-evident” good morals are based on beliefs not truths. Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings. All of this comes from my background, look at what I did for employment.”—

    I can’t tell if you’re unskilled or dishonest. You are conflating moral(decidable, reciprocal), moral norm, and moral preference(choice).

    “…good morals are based on beliefs not truths…”

    Belief = Preference (arbitrary). Your preference of moral preference is based on beliefs and beliefs are arbitrary.

    “Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings”

    Correct. Morality = Reciprocity. Moral norms may or may not be in fact moral. Moral preferences are arbitrary and may or may not be in fact moral. But… disputes over moral norms and moral preferences may be decidable [by test of reciprocity].

    —“I will make it simple for you I don’t think morals have anything to do with reciprocity. I believe reciprocity is based on truth. You can disagree if you want but I’m not going to change because I only believe in truth. You do a lot of writing and say nothing. one person’s morals another person morals are not the same but truth is always the same.”—

    One person’s moral preference varies, just like one person’s interpretation opinion varies, morality like truth is decidable, which is why we have laws, and why laws express moral norms within group, and why reciprocity expresses morality across groups regardless of group preferences. Reciprocity is the structure of the world: personal bias reflects your reproductive strategy, normative bias reflects your group strategy, international uniformity of reciprocity in international law reflects evolutionary necessity. Not because we choose reciprocity. But because reciprocity is the only means of resolving conflicts. In other words, your opinion on the moral, your moral bias, or your moral preference, are just as likely to be false as your opinions on any other subject. The test of whether you are wrong is reciprocity. So: Moral (reciprocity) <- Moral Norm (group discovered reciprocity) <- Moral Preference-Bias (individual search for reciprocity) Give me an example of morality that is not decidable by reciprocity (other than abortion). I am very good at what I do. I am probably the best at what I do. I do not err. I am preventing you from making the false claim that morals are relative, rather than moral bias is simply a preference.

  • Questions and Answers

    Mar 11, 2020, 11:35 AM

    —“Are there any books you would recommend on the early history of European peoples? I read a post of yours recently and realized There were several references I didn’t pick up. Specifically when you reference things about “indo-Europeans”, etc. Thanks. Interested in learning more about what informs your perspective on Christianity and it’s triumph over Olympian religion. You seem to view it as a net negative. Do you have any recommendations for other groups on FB having the types of discussions you are having?”— A Friend

    ANSWERS There is nowhere to learn more, better, faster, than following daily here. It is the lowest cost education you can get, in the education you want and need. My reading list is on the website under the Propertarianism menu heading. All of it is available for free in our digital library. The IE history is simple. Although I would recommend chapter one of Armstrong’s “Transformation” so you learn about the differences in the emergence of different religious traditions. Religion is the ‘hard problem’ because our religion is communicated with the Abrahamic Technique. And there is no easy way of reforming that religion without gradual supplement with what used to be stoicism-empiricism and natural law, and letting nature take it’s course. The only reason I’m interested in our IE religions is because they’re ethnocentric, and christianity is not. I view abrahamic deceit, submission, and universalism as antithetical to our civilization. You can ask the other leadership for advice. I’m a little overwhelmed with biz, video, and writing at the moment.

  • Questions and Answers

    Mar 11, 2020, 11:35 AM

    —“Are there any books you would recommend on the early history of European peoples? I read a post of yours recently and realized There were several references I didn’t pick up. Specifically when you reference things about “indo-Europeans”, etc. Thanks. Interested in learning more about what informs your perspective on Christianity and it’s triumph over Olympian religion. You seem to view it as a net negative. Do you have any recommendations for other groups on FB having the types of discussions you are having?”— A Friend

    ANSWERS There is nowhere to learn more, better, faster, than following daily here. It is the lowest cost education you can get, in the education you want and need. My reading list is on the website under the Propertarianism menu heading. All of it is available for free in our digital library. The IE history is simple. Although I would recommend chapter one of Armstrong’s “Transformation” so you learn about the differences in the emergence of different religious traditions. Religion is the ‘hard problem’ because our religion is communicated with the Abrahamic Technique. And there is no easy way of reforming that religion without gradual supplement with what used to be stoicism-empiricism and natural law, and letting nature take it’s course. The only reason I’m interested in our IE religions is because they’re ethnocentric, and christianity is not. I view abrahamic deceit, submission, and universalism as antithetical to our civilization. You can ask the other leadership for advice. I’m a little overwhelmed with biz, video, and writing at the moment.

  • Wisdom – Our Strategy Going Forward

    Mar 11, 2020, 3:09 PM by Luke Weinhagen This is the approach to take moving forward. We are in open debate here, all the time, on every issue we can think of. All are welcome to join. We do not need to pursue “debate” with anyone. We are engaged very intentionally in perpetual “Public Disputation”. Our pamphlets are freely available and our polemic on any topic is available for all to see. At this point we are better served by extending invites than we are by starting fights.