(FB 1549474741 Timestamp) POLICY: RESPECT âââ¦. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament … ââ You mean my way of filtering intellectually dishonest, lazy, stupid people from wasting my (our) time? Of demanding you do some research and construct an argument before offering criticism? You mean, the way I demand respect, by requiring respect first? Or do you mean the way I prosecute pseudoscience, sophism, pilpul, critique, GSRRM? I am not at all like my online personality. I have a job. that job requires certain things.I do my job. ASK QUESTIONS DON”T OFFER CRITICISMS IN IGNORANCE.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549515687 Timestamp) (ok, this holiday season was … undisciplined. you can legitimately criticize my BMI until I drop ten pounds. lol)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549473926 Timestamp) POSTING POLICY: THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS (repost) 1 =========ARGUMENTS=============== THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT OR STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION (this is a tag that cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. â–âthis is quoting someone elseââ– —this is quoting myself— ⦠this ⦠⦠is a ⦠⦠⦠series that you might want to learn. |series| another series > you might > want to > learn. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine <– Signature means I want to save it. 2 =========NOTES TO SELF======== this doesnât have header so itâs just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress. a sketchpad. 3 ====OPINIONS OR OBSERVATIONS=== (this doesnât have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means itâs possibly something to ignore ⦠because itâs not an argument, but an opinion, or comment, or thought. ) 4 =========DIARY ENTRIES========= (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other. =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I donât have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof of possibility.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549474741 Timestamp) POLICY: RESPECT âââ¦. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament … ââ You mean my way of filtering intellectually dishonest, lazy, stupid people from wasting my (our) time? Of demanding you do some research and construct an argument before offering criticism? You mean, the way I demand respect, by requiring respect first? Or do you mean the way I prosecute pseudoscience, sophism, pilpul, critique, GSRRM? I am not at all like my online personality. I have a job. that job requires certain things.I do my job. ASK QUESTIONS DON”T OFFER CRITICISMS IN IGNORANCE.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549470260 Timestamp) by John Horatio Fitzgerald –“You know this is a structural problem, not just policy, the polity failed to adapt. As Curt Doolittle explains here, it’s a failure of markets. “You get what you can from the market by voluntary exchange”, “We created a monopoly government and access to power, so we changed everybody from competing in markets in the service of each other to competing by lies deception, propaganda, gossip ridicule, shaming, pseudo science, pseudo rationalism, every possible means of deception so that we could get hold of that power…” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmtH9ERvUg
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549473926 Timestamp) POSTING POLICY: THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS (repost) 1 =========ARGUMENTS=============== THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT OR STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION (this is a tag that cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. â–âthis is quoting someone elseââ– —this is quoting myself— ⦠this ⦠⦠is a ⦠⦠⦠series that you might want to learn. |series| another series > you might > want to > learn. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine <– Signature means I want to save it. 2 =========NOTES TO SELF======== this doesnât have header so itâs just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress. a sketchpad. 3 ====OPINIONS OR OBSERVATIONS=== (this doesnât have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means itâs possibly something to ignore ⦠because itâs not an argument, but an opinion, or comment, or thought. ) 4 =========DIARY ENTRIES========= (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other. =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I donât have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof of possibility.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1549469401 Timestamp) LANGUAGE AND PROPERTARIANISM (repost via @[1914180:2048:Nick Dahlheim]) “Think of the language of propertarianism like this: Humans have possibly three emotional drivers: activation-rest, pain-pleasure, dominance-submission. And on top of those three we find our big five/six personality drivers – our sensitivity to those three emotional drivers. And on top of that the rather broad cacaphony of emotions you can see in diagrams of our emotinal ranges. And on top of that the combinations of all those emotions as we react to the complex symphony of emotions we feel when we percieve the any complex thing constituted in multiple causes and consequences. But underneath all those layers is a very simple machine that wants to obtain access to a higher ratio of calories under it’s control than the cost to obtain and consume them. And it turns out that the list of things we like to collect in our inventory, so that we find security and pleasure in our condition, is fairly small. We call it ‘property in toto’: those things people act to obtain, defend, transform, trade, and consume. So, if we speak in the language of the gain or loss of property in toto, we circumvent the apparent complexity of those emotions, the lies and denials that accompany them, we can state all of human perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and action as reactions to the changes in the state of their inventory – and nothing more. it only seems complex to learn to speak in causes rather than experiences. But the causes are much more simply: “what is this person attempting to acquire, or defend, and is he doing it truthfully and morally or untruthfully and immorally?” From this perspective, the argumentative power of propertarianism is so all encompassing because it relies upon first cause. But that said, it’s actually very simple compared to the arguments consisting of experiences, analogies, and deceits.” – Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549470260 Timestamp) by John Horatio Fitzgerald –“You know this is a structural problem, not just policy, the polity failed to adapt. As Curt Doolittle explains here, it’s a failure of markets. “You get what you can from the market by voluntary exchange”, “We created a monopoly government and access to power, so we changed everybody from competing in markets in the service of each other to competing by lies deception, propaganda, gossip ridicule, shaming, pseudo science, pseudo rationalism, every possible means of deception so that we could get hold of that power…” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmtH9ERvUg
-
(FB 1549430826 Timestamp) GO BIG OR GO HOME. 😉
(FB 1549430826 Timestamp) GO BIG OR GO HOME. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1549469401 Timestamp) LANGUAGE AND PROPERTARIANISM (repost via @[1914180:2048:Nick Dahlheim]) “Think of the language of propertarianism like this: Humans have possibly three emotional drivers: activation-rest, pain-pleasure, dominance-submission. And on top of those three we find our big five/six personality drivers – our sensitivity to those three emotional drivers. And on top of that the rather broad cacaphony of emotions you can see in diagrams of our emotinal ranges. And on top of that the combinations of all those emotions as we react to the complex symphony of emotions we feel when we percieve the any complex thing constituted in multiple causes and consequences. But underneath all those layers is a very simple machine that wants to obtain access to a higher ratio of calories under it’s control than the cost to obtain and consume them. And it turns out that the list of things we like to collect in our inventory, so that we find security and pleasure in our condition, is fairly small. We call it ‘property in toto’: those things people act to obtain, defend, transform, trade, and consume. So, if we speak in the language of the gain or loss of property in toto, we circumvent the apparent complexity of those emotions, the lies and denials that accompany them, we can state all of human perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and action as reactions to the changes in the state of their inventory – and nothing more. it only seems complex to learn to speak in causes rather than experiences. But the causes are much more simply: “what is this person attempting to acquire, or defend, and is he doing it truthfully and morally or untruthfully and immorally?” From this perspective, the argumentative power of propertarianism is so all encompassing because it relies upon first cause. But that said, it’s actually very simple compared to the arguments consisting of experiences, analogies, and deceits.” – Curt Doolittle