Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Do Races Exist?

    —“Races don’t genetically exist”— I don’t generally want to debunk this argument, because it’s intellectually insulting to even have to and it brings Island 120 wannabe idiots out of the woodwork. (a) it’s pseudoscientific nonsense that takes advantage of human statistical and genetic illiteracy. People don’t like feeling stupid and played, or being corrected when they’re stupid and played, even if they’ve been played for a very long time. And they have been played for a long time – by nearly all social ‘science’ from boas, marx, freud, frankfurt’s counter-enlightenment through perhaps the 1990’s. Boas, marx, freud and Frankfurt school comprised the majority of the ashkenazi scientific-counter-enlightenment against Darwin, Pareto/Durkheim/Weber, Spencer, Menger, Maxwell, and Poincare. The pseudoscientific trend was reversed due to advancements in genetics and brain imaging, and the subsequent lack of repeatability of nearly all social ‘science’ – meaning nearly every publication in social science was and most remain false. Conversely, Stereotypes – of which races are a category, are the most accurate predictor in the ‘real’ social sciences. Which is counter to identity-politics messaging. Stereotypes must survive constant daily empirical testing, by individuals, and that is why they are so accurate: they survive constant testing. (b) Just as we differentiate from chimps by only 3% genetically, and the rest is ‘noise’m a great deal of our genome is ‘noise’. Intelligence for example requires a large number of genes to express, with most variations harmful, appearing as ‘noisy’ in the data; and a large number of genes control our endocrine systems and therefore rates of development and gender-trait biases in development. And while those traits are many, they are a tiny bit of variation in the genome – as such BROAD statistical analysis of ALL traits vs NARROW MEANINGFUL traits simply serves mislead – to lie: to justify the falsehoods; and; (c) it’s unproductive to debate people, since all life is and must remain a biological competition and sortition to defeat the evolutionary Red Queen, and people are not arguing their intuitions rationally but on behalf of their political demands for increasing collective allies (left, female, r-selection strategy), or separating into specialized allies (right, male, k-selection strategy). In other words, It’s all just genes speaking, not sense – which is why we’re susceptible to such sophisms. In other words, we’re just using language to shame, gossip, and rally as a proxy for evolutionary violence. (d) under Nationalism groups can pay the costs of their underclasses and therefore they limit them – thereby assisting all of humanity in betterment. Under globalism (imperialism), groups can outsource the cost of their underclasses and therefore expand them at the host’s expense. In other words, bad governments that export underclasses are just conducting war by genetic rather than religious, economic, or military means. A SMALL NUMBER OF AXIS OF SPECIATION There are a small number of very important axis in differentiating human beings by physical, behavioral, and intellectual traits: (a) rates and depth of sexual maturity; (b) symmetry or asymmetry of gender expression (which matters a lot when it comes to brain structure), (c) and because of a+b, verbal acuity (data hints that we sacrifice capacity for verbal ability – which follows the trend of sacrificing some physical traits for cognitive traits, which appears necessary given that every gram of brain is eleven times as expensive as every gram of muscle.) WHY RACES EXIST: DEMONSTRATED BEHAVIOR 1 – Races exist as observable differences in morphology (physical); Most of which either increased neotonic evolution (finer), or reversed neotonic evolution (stronger) by changes in rate and depth of sexual maturity. 2 – They exist in demonstrated traits (distribution of abilities and behaviors), (meaning emotional, psychological, and intellectual) and; 3 – They exist in demonstrated kin selection in association and reproduction, with crossover still under 15%, which is largely at the extremes where the ratio of available mates of similar status is asymmetric. 4 – They exist by self sortition, in that groups tend to sort by neighborhood, by friends, by mates, by work, by voting block; 5 – They even exist at scale in the coloration of demonstrated social economic, and political classes, for the painfully unpleasant fact that neotonic traits are always and everywhere preferable to their opposite, and as such we ‘sort’ into classes (or castes) by neotonic differentiation. We still ‘pair off’ reproduce in a Nash equilibrium that continuously reinforces the classes limiting rotation except for slight up and down out of the middle. 6 – for those of us in the intellectual and upper middle or upper classes the differences are marginal, largely because we are reproductively, economically, and informationally independent of others, and the cost of those differences is lower within kin groups. However, for the vast majority, they are dependent upon reproductive, economic, and informational utility of working with near kin who is as equally ‘socially undesirable’ or ‘limited in productive capacity’ or ‘limited in out-group reproductive desirability. We develop with different levels of clannishness (kin selectivity) and different levels of disgust response. A conservative (male bias) quite literally feels genetic distance as ‘disgust’, and opportunities to cooperate only as valuable as they are in advancing the competitiveness of the group in the long term. A progressive (female bias) quite literally feels any chance of conflict with fear, and all opportunities for cooperation with others as potentially beneficial. The fact that two species can interbreed or two species not interbreed, or the distinction between species and breeds (races) is for the purpose of classification. And homo sapiens were pretty clearly in the process of speciation again, when trade, domestication of plants and animals, and finally metallurgy reversed it. We have been developing very quickly over the past 2m years, and frighteningly so once we developed language. EQUALITARIAN NATIONALISM OR UNEQUAL CASTE IMPERIALISM We get the opposite of what we think we’re seeking. This is why WE CAN ONLY CHOOSE between NATIONALISM where by we produce small equalitarian, homogenous polities, and EMPIRES where we produce many hierarchical classes. No matter what you do we do or we want, evolution (selection) will do its job and devolution its job. We will sort into large castes, or sort into small nations. The data shows that large caste systems increase underclass reproduction and imprison demographic groups in competitive deprivation (relative poverty), while small national systems decrease underclass reproduction and liberate demographic groups from competitive deprivation (relative prosperity). MARKET VALUE Races exist – they are a stereotype. Stereotypes are the most accurate measure we have to work with. We are exceptional judges of STATUS, meaning sexual, social, economic, and political market value. We call this market value “class”. We each vary in value in each of those markets. We will, forever, out of evolutionary necessity, SELECT for optimum possible sexual, social, economic, and political market value. It is what it is.
    May 10, 2018 8:19am

  • Laying Down the Law on Social Pseudoscience

    @KennethBuff @sapinker People vote POWER given the CONDITIONS of competition. That’s why Democracy works for selecting priorities in a homogenous polity but not choosing differences in a heterogeneous polity, and why there is so much friction between American ‘tribes’. Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He (Steve) stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (Hence the legal requirement for “The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”) What the NYT article referred to conveys is that virtue signaling is a form of conspicuous consumption that one forces others to pay the indirect cost of. (Theft by Fraud) Or stated directly: we are burning the most valuable form of capital in the world (homogeneity and high trust) for virtue signals, in order to obtain political power. If you cannot make a statement in social science using economic terms, then either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are engaged in selection bias, or worse, deception. Hence the rise of “Economic Imperialism” in the Academy as a counter to social pseudoscience.

  • Laying Down the Law on Social Pseudoscience

    @KennethBuff @sapinker People vote POWER given the CONDITIONS of competition. That’s why Democracy works for selecting priorities in a homogenous polity but not choosing differences in a heterogeneous polity, and why there is so much friction between American ‘tribes’. Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He (Steve) stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (Hence the legal requirement for “The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”) What the NYT article referred to conveys is that virtue signaling is a form of conspicuous consumption that one forces others to pay the indirect cost of. (Theft by Fraud) Or stated directly: we are burning the most valuable form of capital in the world (homogeneity and high trust) for virtue signals, in order to obtain political power. If you cannot make a statement in social science using economic terms, then either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are engaged in selection bias, or worse, deception. Hence the rise of “Economic Imperialism” in the Academy as a counter to social pseudoscience.

  • Are You Sure You Really Want Such a Debate or Discussion?

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive? In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way. Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times. Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment. Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else. In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

  • Are You Sure You Really Want Such a Debate or Discussion?

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive? In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way. Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times. Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment. Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else. In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

  • To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible …

    Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the use of science and falsification. The former (justification) enforces priors and causes stagnation, the latter (falsification) defeats priors and causes evolution. I don’t make justifications or pragmatisms. I just solve for what’s true. If it’s true I ask if it’s existentially possible. If it’s possible I ask if its a rational choice. If it’s a rational choice I ask if it will be reciprocated, and if it will be reciprocated I as if it will produce externalities and be survivable under competition. I do my job as judge. That’s what I do. To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible, you’d have to persuade me that (a) a bringing about a theocracy was existentially possible by some means, (b) that it was possible without dictatorship to impose it for enough generations that the theological decline (end) could be reversed, and (c) that the rules were in fact moral in practice, (d) that such moral rules didn’t produce damaging externalities, (e) that people in time, place, and circumstance would adopt them or institution them and demonstrate them, and (f) that such moral rules were a competitive advantage, and therefore survivable. I mean, if you can answer those questions I’ll say it’s a possibility. I don’t ‘support’ anything. Propositions are either true, operationally possible, and moral; or they’re contingently so in the face of competing propositions, or they’re nonsense. As far as I know no theology is possible when by all accounts aristotelianism (empiricism or ‘descriptivism’) has replaced theology, and continues to do so, and the only people who do otherwise are either aging out of the pool, or those with below the threshold (95) group IQ’s.

  • To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible …

    Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the use of science and falsification. The former (justification) enforces priors and causes stagnation, the latter (falsification) defeats priors and causes evolution. I don’t make justifications or pragmatisms. I just solve for what’s true. If it’s true I ask if it’s existentially possible. If it’s possible I ask if its a rational choice. If it’s a rational choice I ask if it will be reciprocated, and if it will be reciprocated I as if it will produce externalities and be survivable under competition. I do my job as judge. That’s what I do. To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible, you’d have to persuade me that (a) a bringing about a theocracy was existentially possible by some means, (b) that it was possible without dictatorship to impose it for enough generations that the theological decline (end) could be reversed, and (c) that the rules were in fact moral in practice, (d) that such moral rules didn’t produce damaging externalities, (e) that people in time, place, and circumstance would adopt them or institution them and demonstrate them, and (f) that such moral rules were a competitive advantage, and therefore survivable. I mean, if you can answer those questions I’ll say it’s a possibility. I don’t ‘support’ anything. Propositions are either true, operationally possible, and moral; or they’re contingently so in the face of competing propositions, or they’re nonsense. As far as I know no theology is possible when by all accounts aristotelianism (empiricism or ‘descriptivism’) has replaced theology, and continues to do so, and the only people who do otherwise are either aging out of the pool, or those with below the threshold (95) group IQ’s.

  • The Incommensurability of Emotional vs Intellectual Honesty

      We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population. The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage. Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends. We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring. Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency. In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue. We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).

  • The Incommensurability of Emotional vs Intellectual Honesty

      We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population. The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage. Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends. We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring. Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency. In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue. We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).

  • The Two Fold Morality of Achilles

    by Adam Voight The morality of Achilles is two fold: 1) Freedom – Rulers do not own the ruled; rulers owe their power to attracting good subjects who will fight for them and serve them. This is revealed in Achilles’ dealings with Agamemnon and Menelaos. 2) Universal Honor code – Just because you are fighting a war against some nation, does not mean that you hate those people or deal with them dishonorably. All just war is just insofar as it is fought for honor and fought with honor. The fact that Achilles recognizes the honor of the Trojans when he returns Hector’s body and when he dies accepting the Trojan’s word that it was the Greeks who broke the cease-fire.