Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Again, All Stereotypes Are True

    October 30th, 2018 12:55 PM AGAIN, ALL STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE

    First Impressions of Personality Traits From Body Shapes Ying Hu, Connor J. Parde, Matthew Q. Hill, … First Published October 22, 2018 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618799300 https://t.co/zCti4BNwcT Abstract People infer the personalities of others from their facial appearance. Whether they do so from body shapes is less studied. We explored personality inferences made from body shapes. Participants rated personality traits for male and female bodies generated with a three-dimensional body model. Multivariate spaces created from these ratings indicated that people evaluate bodies on valence and agency in ways that directly contrast positive and negative traits from the Big Five domains. Body-trait stereotypes based on the trait ratings revealed a myriad of diverse body shapes that typify individual traits. Personality-trait profiles were predicted reliably from a subset of the body-shape features used to specify the three-dimensional bodies. Body features related to extraversion and conscientiousness were predicted with the highest consensus, followed by openness traits. This study provides the first comprehensive look at the range, diversity, and reliability of personality inferences that people make from body shapes.

  • Propertarianism: Our Definition of ‘Grammar’

    October 30th, 2018 11:12 AM PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’ (very important)

    –“Curt, How do you use grammar differently from the norm?”– A Friend.

    CURRENT: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “Recursive Disambiguation” …. – Languages …. …. – Vocabulary …. …. …. – Semantics …. …. – Grammar …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … This is the traditional undrestanding of grammar, even though the original term referred to a book containing the rules of the given language. PROPERTARIANISM “The Grammars” as I use them: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “CONTINUOUS Recursive Disambiguation”. …. – The DIMENSIONAL Grammars (spectrum of dimensions allowed) …. …. – Languages …. …. …. – Vocabulary LIMITED by dimensional grammar. …. …. …. …. – Paradigm (network of constant relations) …. …. …. …. …. – Semantics LIMITED by dimensional grammar …. …. …. – TRANSACTIONAL Grammar …. …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … etc. WHERE The DIMENSIONAL GRAMMARS Consist of no less than: – identity (property), logic (consistency) – arithmetic and accounting – mathematics, geometry, calculus, statistics – algorithm, computation, transaction, sentience, consciousness, reason, calculation – physics , chemistry, biology-ecology – contract, testimony, law – psychology, sociology, politics, economics – ordinary language (conversation) – narration, – story telling (plot) – myth, parable, (lesson) – fictionalisms (ideal-mental, magical-physical, supernatural-emotional) – Deceits (loading, framing, obscurantism … etc.) AND WHERE Each ‘grammar’ consist of the means of testing internal consistency (decidability) in the process of speech (continuous recursive disambiguation) while producing transactions (descriptions of changes in state). Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Joslin Demonstrates The Argument

    October 30th, 2018 12:24 PM by Bill Joslin [T]ruth, as a semantic axiom, with limitless constellations of interpretive frames. Correspondence presumes an existential frame. An existential frame provides a means of checking and vetting outside of the presumptions of the context one might bring to an assertion – that being testability of its existence. This testability then defines the methodology. The methodology then presumes the existential frame and uses said method to update the interpretive frame. By doing so a feedback between interpretation, methodology occurs and is measured by existence (what can be measured or observed – and how) this allows both the interpretive frame and methodology to be updated (both are provisional). This affords the most robust means of coherence to truth (small ‘t’ truth) in the context of truth as a semantic axiom i.e truthful and honest reporting. (CD: when you can understand and make that argument on your own, ” you are there “.

  • Everything is simple

    October 30th, 2018 10:48 AM “JUSTIFY VS RATIONALIZE” (vocabulary) [W]e justify by rational (internally consistent) means using reason (our ability to compare and decide) due to our logical (biological) facility, which we try to study in that discipline we call ‘logic’, which is nothing more than the grammar of constant relations between terms (references). The thing is that ‘rational’ is a heavily conflated term. So for clarity I avoid rationalize (which is value neutral) and use justify (which is not). |LOGIC| Logical Facility > Reason(Comparison) > Rationalism (Internal Consistency) > Calculation (Transformation) > Computation (Construction). Everything is simple. – Vitruvianism makes metaphysics simple. – The grammars make ‘thinking’ (reason) simple. – Acquisitionism makes psychology simple. – Compatibilism makes sociology simple – Propertarianism makes ethics and law simple. – Group Competitive Strategy makes Government Simple. – All of the above make Aesthetics simple. Everything is simple. A continuous, consistent, grammar of comprehension from the physical to the social to the personal to the mental.

  • Curt, What Do You Mean by Common Law and Tort Law

    October 30th, 2018 12:19 PM —“CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COMMON LAW AND TORT LAW AND HOW ARE THEY RELATED.”— [O]K. Um I’m talking about the common law in the old sense as ‘the traditional law’ which consists of sovereignty and tort. In both UK and USA ‘common law’ often includes legislation that violates sovereignty and tort. In my work I make a clear distinction between the one law (reciprocity) common law (findings of the court), legislative law (improving or undermining the common law and the one law) and regulation (enforcement of legislative law whether it improves or undermines the common law and the one law) I refer to tort when I want to remind people that legislation and regulation do not necessarily (and often do not) preserve our natural, customary, traditional, rule of law by findings of law. The legislature’s original purpose was to choose whether the monarchy’s demand for the population to bear costs was acceptable to the regions,the warriors, the militia, and sometimes out of pragmatism) to the people. The ‘enlightenment’ took the power of commons choice out of the hands of the monarchy and put it into the republic (elected representatives, and the peerage (local governors)). The marxist and social democratic movement reversed our civilization by expanding the commons such that they violated our underlying natural law of reciprocity, in favor of the rest of humanity’s underclass demand for proportionality, and upon receiving proportionality, the political and underclass demand for equality of outcome. So, great question.

  • The panic of ‘getting my work done’ is over

    October 30th, 2018 10:23 AM

    (Diary: been trying to figure out why i feel ‘back on my game’ again. And I think it’s that the panic of ‘getting my work done’ is over, and all that’s left is the rest of the editing. I mean, arguments flow now, across the entire spectrum. So maybe I was wrong and that while it only took me six months to work through the grammars, it took the past six months to fully integrate them into my thoughts, and my system of thought. I think the second effect is that the supreme court battle was the last straw and we all see revolution coming in one way or another, and the overton window has shifted HARD. I am also a little less worried about my friends in ukraine. And I think together this has sort of ended my multi-year physical, mental, and emotional burden. I wish I was self aware enough to understand this stuff when going through it but I’m not. In retrospect it’s understandable.)

  • The Future of Man

    October 30th, 2018 11:49 AM [S]o we have the genes for autobiographical (perfect) memory and we know the brain structure required. We have the genes for eliminating or drastically reducing pain. We have the genes for eliminating lactic acid buildup that would let us run continuously without tiring. We have the genes for heart size that improve our exercise ability. We have the genes for muscle density that improve our strength. It will take longer to find the genes for intelligence since there appear to be many involved, and it may be a developmental consequence of complexity. We will eventually find a way to prohibit errors in replication that give rise to accumulated cellular damage and eventually cancer. And it’s not inconceivable that we could begin our productive lives at 5-7 years old, and live in good health to well over 100. So, that revolution, if it is on the horizon, will be the next ‘big thing’. And one must choose between that vision (musk and augmentation) versus independent sentient machines (which I think will remain forever expensive, and I’m not sure will innovate faster than networks of humans will.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    October 30th, 2018 10:19 AM WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM? (defense of investment in fraud) [P]ropertarianism: All words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and arguments consist of measurements accumulating in transactions. Most importantly, propertarian argument makes visible ALL pretense of knowledge – falsifying any claim made with pretense of knowledge. Reciprocity is a value independent test of decidability. With these two tools we can falsify all fraudulent speech (argument). That’s why people FEAR propertarianism. Propertarianism serves its purpose as a formal logic of social science from metaphysics, through epistemology through psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics group evolutionary strategy and aesthetics. Propertarianism is ‘frightening’ to the ‘frauds’ precisely because it will restore the market for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality upon others. This will deny those who use false language to obtain status and therefore organize non-market action and restore all means of theft. Worse (for the frauds), it eliminates their ability to create false self image and false status signaling thereby ending the competition in the signal (status) economy by fraud. This is why people will resist propertarianism. Because it suppresses lies. Unlike abrahamism, marxism, postmodernism and feminism which enable lies – particularly when industrialized lying was made possible by media and the academy, which could then be used by the state to deceive in order to obtain POWER.

  • Harmony via Hierarchy or Sovereignty

    October 30th, 2018 11:41 AM HARMONY VIA HIERARCHY OR SOVERIEGNTY [S]orry man. I knew when I wrote it I was being lazy and leaving too much up to the reader, but I was tired…. here: 1) yes asian harmony is a commons paid for by NOT speaking truth regardless of the consequences, in order to preserve the harmony created by the hierarchy, under the presumption of the balance between humans and nature, man and woman, parent and children, rulers and people. 2) european (northern) disharmony (truth) is a commons paid for BY speaking and paying the costs to the dominance hierarchy. Soldiers REPORT to officers. OODA Loops (Maneuver) requires initiative within the limits of contract. Warriors volunteer for war as opportunity (booty). Serfs OBEY rulers. Children OBEY parents. And each maintains the contract for harmony by holding formation so to speak (and asians hold formation almost as well as we do). Sefs are recruited for war out of obligation and are paid. 3) So we produce sovereignty and property and commons, and they produce harmony and property and commons. And we develop faster than they do for that reason. Hence why they have adopted our means of rapid adaptation in POLITICS (law, accounting, industry, science) but not in NORMS (heroism, confrontation, demonstration of fitness by truth to power vs their demonstration of fitness by obedience and conformity).

  • Aristocracy?

    October 30th, 2018 3:12 PM

    —“Should the aristocracy that governs us be ultimately meritocratic or reproduce through birth.”—

    [N]ot necessarily an either-or proposition. Given: Monarchy, Aristocracy (military /territory), Nobility (church /governance /ability); the reason for inheritance of the MONARCHY evolved to be inheritable as (a) demand for singular rule decreased as participation by the aristocracy (territory) and nobility (ability) in rule increased, (b) demand for limiting competition over secession between the aristocracy and nobility increased. So via positiva meritocracy and via negativa aristocracy just rotate at different rates, and the monarchy slowest of all (if at all). In this context the elite intellectual families are doing a pretty good job of self perpetuation and maybe we should subsidize them a bit more.