Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • NBC “DEBRIS” Sci Fi Show Feedback Absolutely love it. Thrilled. Terrified that l

    NBC “DEBRIS” Sci Fi Show Feedback

    Absolutely love it. Thrilled. Terrified that like most ‘tv for smart folk’ this will meet an early demise.

    I can see where they are taking the metanarrative of Debris and its analysis of mankind and it’s relatively novel and brilliant. But there is a difference between a script, the reveal-mystery plot, the various arcs, the characters that walk us through it … and the directing (which is ok, other than careless cardboard cutout treatment of extras), the production (good enough), the casting (below), and the acting (adequate) – although the clone-actor in the second episode is fabulous. And the promotion. Which was non-existent. I only found out about it because Russian tech nerds were talking about streaming it. Right now Russia is producing much better Sci-Fi than the west. Why? Sci Fi is naturally heroic. The western ‘commentariat’ has gone full anti-heroic, fulfilling the postmodern threat of destroying culture from within. But enough of that:

    Usual failures that I see in Debris:

    1) Casting working-class actors for upper-middle-class roles. Compare with x-files or firefly casting of the leads. This is partly a side effect of the steady ‘lower classing’ of the television industry seeking to resonate with the wrong audience while alienating all.

    2) Overplaying personal drama. These characters aren’t that interesting. This plot device keeps production costs down, tries to develop characters external to the plot instead of in concert with the plot. Compare with Law and Order. This is not an x-files/Law-and-order context, not an Expanse or Dark Matter context.

    3) The female lead is talented but not for this role. The male lead has proven himself in the industry and he can pull off the acting easily. But the director (or the script) is overplaying the american ordinary guy archetype vs brit that makes him AND the female lead competitive with the suspension of disbelief. Besides, anyone with experience with British culture knows that brit working class are even worse(trashier), not better than the American working class. While the actors work well together they don’t ‘sell’ the brit/us conflict.

    That said (given that I was trained as an art critic) the concept will fly. My suspicion is production is so far ahead, that the mistakes I’m seeing might burn out the audience before the second season can be greenlit and the writing, costume (et all),

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 19:37:14 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105867184311635168

  • MB vs BIG5 … Again.

    MB vs BIG5 … Again.

    MB expanded to a similar number of questions as B5 would remain useful – for the workplace. B5 including empathy-systematizing would explain the difference in facets (subtraits) which vary by sex. So no it’s not bullshit. it teaches normal folk to think about motivations. I worked on this question, and the delta between Big Five and MB is trivial. And it’s due to the low number of MB questions(stability of results) & B5 includes neuroticism vs MB includes empathy-systematizing. MB is about all the normal folks can use in a business setting. So No.  

  • MB vs BIG5 … Again.

    MB vs BIG5 … Again.

    MB expanded to a similar number of questions as B5 would remain useful – for the workplace. B5 including empathy-systematizing would explain the difference in facets (subtraits) which vary by sex. So no it’s not bullshit. it teaches normal folk to think about motivations. I worked on this question, and the delta between Big Five and MB is trivial. And it’s due to the low number of MB questions(stability of results) & B5 includes neuroticism vs MB includes empathy-systematizing. MB is about all the normal folks can use in a business setting. So No.  

  • Max Tegmark Saves Me Work… 😉

    I found a video by Max Tegmark (MIT) that explains the math behind the Grammars. Not that I’ll get anywhere by showing formulae. But his slides explain what I’m trying to get across: that the pattern (grammar) is the same at every scale of the universe – including language. I use geometry as the ‘system of commensurability’ or the ‘system of measurement’ in P-Logic, Psychology, Behavior, Sociology, Group Strategy, and Law   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnEtNC8eFso

  • Max Tegmark Saves Me Work… 😉

    I found a video by Max Tegmark (MIT) that explains the math behind the Grammars. Not that I’ll get anywhere by showing formulae. But his slides explain what I’m trying to get across: that the pattern (grammar) is the same at every scale of the universe – including language. I use geometry as the ‘system of commensurability’ or the ‘system of measurement’ in P-Logic, Psychology, Behavior, Sociology, Group Strategy, and Law   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnEtNC8eFso

  • Less “School” more “church”, social, economic, and military participation.

    Young men are desperate for sex, to obtain it by team membership and competitive advantage, and to limit the duress in the pursuit of all. The only solution is to start earlier: developing socialization, craftsmanship skills, life skills, physical fitness – vs ‘school'(daycare).

  • Less “School” more “church”, social, economic, and military participation.

    Young men are desperate for sex, to obtain it by team membership and competitive advantage, and to limit the duress in the pursuit of all. The only solution is to start earlier: developing socialization, craftsmanship skills, life skills, physical fitness – vs ‘school'(daycare).

  • Fascism vs Roman Dicatorship in War. Same thing.

    It is extremely difficult to find something that the fascists were ‘wrong’ about other than dependence on a dictator rather than rule of law by natural law. In other words, ‘rule of law fascism’ (meaning zero tolerance) is the optimum polity for homogenous, domesticated peoples. If you want to confuse fascism with two sides of the coin, that’s claiming that fascism is other than a war footing, just like the romans’ used dictators in war.

    (a)Germans were right to seek to restore greater german civilization after the Napoleonic destruction of Europe,

    (b) germans were right to join other Europeans in colonial expansion

    (c) Communism was a threat to europeans.

    (d) Anglo civ’s liberalism (or Swiss) is only suitable for Island/naval/marine states with natural borders, whereas germans require Ordnung and ‘to compete better than others’ given that they are territorial, surrounded, and have fewer resources other than TALENT.

    (e) So Rule of Man Fascism is simply necessary in time of war, and Rule of Law fascism is simply the optimum in time of peace, given that Europe is bounded on the east and south by anti-european civilizations that cannot integrate into or compete with European civilization.

    (f) but there are no conditions under which anything other than zero tolerance for irreciprocity in european civilization is ‘tolerable’ or even ‘utilitarian’ except to ‘fund the enemy’.

  • Fascism vs Roman Dicatorship in War. Same thing.

    It is extremely difficult to find something that the fascists were ‘wrong’ about other than dependence on a dictator rather than rule of law by natural law. In other words, ‘rule of law fascism’ (meaning zero tolerance) is the optimum polity for homogenous, domesticated peoples. If you want to confuse fascism with two sides of the coin, that’s claiming that fascism is other than a war footing, just like the romans’ used dictators in war.

    (a)Germans were right to seek to restore greater german civilization after the Napoleonic destruction of Europe,

    (b) germans were right to join other Europeans in colonial expansion

    (c) Communism was a threat to europeans.

    (d) Anglo civ’s liberalism (or Swiss) is only suitable for Island/naval/marine states with natural borders, whereas germans require Ordnung and ‘to compete better than others’ given that they are territorial, surrounded, and have fewer resources other than TALENT.

    (e) So Rule of Man Fascism is simply necessary in time of war, and Rule of Law fascism is simply the optimum in time of peace, given that Europe is bounded on the east and south by anti-european civilizations that cannot integrate into or compete with European civilization.

    (f) but there are no conditions under which anything other than zero tolerance for irreciprocity in european civilization is ‘tolerable’ or even ‘utilitarian’ except to ‘fund the enemy’.

  • The Chinese are not wrong to dispute our use of markets, because while we use(us

    The Chinese are not wrong to dispute our use of markets, because while we use(used) markets to train the population in the absence of authority, they use authority in the absence of markets. So Europeans(rule of law) and Chinese(rule of state) force integration by opposite means.

    The problem is this: The chinese method minimizes risk at the expense of innovation and adaptation. The european method maximizes innovation and adaptation at the expense of risk.

    We should be far less tolerant.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 16:59:03 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105866562358425767