(FB 1543536720 Timestamp) TESTIMONY FROM A LURKER, NOW A FRIEND —“Thanks for what you do. Propertarianism is pretty much just a hobby for me at this point but in some ways, it has genuinely made more content with the world I’m living in. I learned that most people don’t know what they do where I previously had to conclude they’re just evil. I learned that violence is not inherently a bad thing and that it’s often necessary even when you’re on the right side. I learned that what’s coming to all those people has to come to them if there is to be a better future. And in that, I learned there actually is a better future. Plenty of people have tried to offer met that hope but there was always something missing and their ideas didn’t have predictive power. I don’t have that issue here.”— A New Friend
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543512265 Timestamp) —If you want to know why people from other countries follow me, that’s the reason: Truth is dependent only upon will, not upon geography, culture, or genes.—CD
-
Curt Doolittle added a new photo to Ely Harman’s timeline.
(FB 1543608359 Timestamp) STATUS FROM ELI
-
Curt Doolittle added a new photo to Ely Harman’s timeline.
(FB 1543608359 Timestamp) STATUS FROM ELI
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543607997 Timestamp) Another nit: Great Men “Candidates” evolve (emerge) in batches, usually over three generations of incentives (really). In other words, the market for great men exists at all times (iron law of oligarchy so to speak). World Communism was such a threat (and it’s legacy still is) that it created demand for great men to both take advantage of it, and to oppose it with Fascism. Everything else that occured within those societies was simply utilitarian. whether we get a Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot is merely a function of utility in the sphere of influences. And as controversial as it might seem today, Hitler and Mussolini if not Stalin and Mao, will be judged by history quite differently. And it is happening already. Science evolves with the death of the advocates of theories. As a struggle for expansion during an era of western dominance we skew one bias, and as an attempt to save the core of western civilization in a period of anticipation of decline, we skew yet another. History is unkind to the consensus of an era. That is because consensus is merely utilitarian – rarely true. Its not uncommon to see informed debate that the anglos should have stayed out of the wars, rather than contributing to cause and conflict.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543607997 Timestamp) Another nit: Great Men “Candidates” evolve (emerge) in batches, usually over three generations of incentives (really). In other words, the market for great men exists at all times (iron law of oligarchy so to speak). World Communism was such a threat (and it’s legacy still is) that it created demand for great men to both take advantage of it, and to oppose it with Fascism. Everything else that occured within those societies was simply utilitarian. whether we get a Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot is merely a function of utility in the sphere of influences. And as controversial as it might seem today, Hitler and Mussolini if not Stalin and Mao, will be judged by history quite differently. And it is happening already. Science evolves with the death of the advocates of theories. As a struggle for expansion during an era of western dominance we skew one bias, and as an attempt to save the core of western civilization in a period of anticipation of decline, we skew yet another. History is unkind to the consensus of an era. That is because consensus is merely utilitarian – rarely true. Its not uncommon to see informed debate that the anglos should have stayed out of the wars, rather than contributing to cause and conflict.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543605282 Timestamp) Your choice of grammar (paradigm) tells us how you understand yourself in relation to others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543605282 Timestamp) Your choice of grammar (paradigm) tells us how you understand yourself in relation to others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.