by Candice Mary When foreigners kill men’s comrades and give them the option to surrender and become slaves, men attack. Women ask instead “what language do we speak? What god do we worship?”
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
by Oliver Westcott Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures. BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons. (Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law) We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust. There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.
by Oliver Westcott Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures. BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons. (Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law) We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust. There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.
THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL? 1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies. 2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it. 3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to? 4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy. We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies. 5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies. 6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive? 7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine. 8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam. 9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy). So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence? Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam. We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism. Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy. If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance. If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers. Cheers
THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL? 1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies. 2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it. 3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to? 4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy. We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies. 5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies. 6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive? 7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine. 8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam. 9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy). So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence? Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam. We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism. Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy. If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance. If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers. Cheers
EDUCATION. via Nassim Nicholas Taleb (NNT) Distilling the conversation with @bryan_caplan hosted by Tyler Cowen 1) There has been a traditional separation between: + “liberal education” for free men, (liber), who didn’t work for a living, & +”technical education”, for those who labor. 2) For instance, mathematics as taught for “liberal” education, was theoretical mind exercise. Euclid’s theorem was never used in building. Meanwhile builders (parts of guilds with trade secrets) were using their own heuristic, richer, geometry. (see #Antifragile) 3) The Anglo-Saxon world conflated the two, with aristocrat-envy: + Education to be civilized. (Literature, philosophy, poetry, abstract math, history, stamp collecting, etc.) + Education to learn to do things. (Engineering, medicine, accounting, law, belly dancing, plumbing) 4) So we need to separate “things to learn to be civilized” and “things you learn to do things” with separate institutions. The only overlap I could find was mathematics, though not a strong argument since applied math is a v. different animal. 5a) The problem of the peer review system is selecting professors on theories abt subject never checked for basic knowledge of subject. It is common for people to know the “post colonial gender theory” of Levant, teach it, but never the actual facts. 5b) The French solved the problem with knowledge exams for educators (“aggregation”); you never end up having people judged solely by peers (See #SkininTheGame ). 6) The educational model is now imploding as the only thing people seem to learn at colleges is ideology by losers who became professors because they aren’t good enough to create things & got together to BS in a citation ring #RentSeekers (not just in economics, but everywhere) 7) Finally, we can split education: + Taught by nonskininthegame people (math, poetry, etc.) + Taught by skininthegame people (engineering, medicine, belly dancing, plumbing, finance, law, burglarizing, computer “science”, accounting, …) In SEPARATE institutions. 8) The idea that liberal education makes free thinkers is about the greatest myth: empirically, liberal education creates the exact opposite of “thinkers” and “free”: indoctrinated and slaves.Nassim Nicholas Taleb added, Patrick Lee Miller 9) Remember that the “University” system for this “liberal education” (trivium/quadrivium) was historically closely associated with, and supervised by, the Church. Technical education was left to free thinkers. 10 In #Antifragile I document the confusion Business =>Technology => Science, far far far far more frequent than the reverse. Problem is that academic, not practitioners, write the books.
EDUCATION. via Nassim Nicholas Taleb (NNT) Distilling the conversation with @bryan_caplan hosted by Tyler Cowen 1) There has been a traditional separation between: + “liberal education” for free men, (liber), who didn’t work for a living, & +”technical education”, for those who labor. 2) For instance, mathematics as taught for “liberal” education, was theoretical mind exercise. Euclid’s theorem was never used in building. Meanwhile builders (parts of guilds with trade secrets) were using their own heuristic, richer, geometry. (see #Antifragile) 3) The Anglo-Saxon world conflated the two, with aristocrat-envy: + Education to be civilized. (Literature, philosophy, poetry, abstract math, history, stamp collecting, etc.) + Education to learn to do things. (Engineering, medicine, accounting, law, belly dancing, plumbing) 4) So we need to separate “things to learn to be civilized” and “things you learn to do things” with separate institutions. The only overlap I could find was mathematics, though not a strong argument since applied math is a v. different animal. 5a) The problem of the peer review system is selecting professors on theories abt subject never checked for basic knowledge of subject. It is common for people to know the “post colonial gender theory” of Levant, teach it, but never the actual facts. 5b) The French solved the problem with knowledge exams for educators (“aggregation”); you never end up having people judged solely by peers (See #SkininTheGame ). 6) The educational model is now imploding as the only thing people seem to learn at colleges is ideology by losers who became professors because they aren’t good enough to create things & got together to BS in a citation ring #RentSeekers (not just in economics, but everywhere) 7) Finally, we can split education: + Taught by nonskininthegame people (math, poetry, etc.) + Taught by skininthegame people (engineering, medicine, belly dancing, plumbing, finance, law, burglarizing, computer “science”, accounting, …) In SEPARATE institutions. 8) The idea that liberal education makes free thinkers is about the greatest myth: empirically, liberal education creates the exact opposite of “thinkers” and “free”: indoctrinated and slaves.Nassim Nicholas Taleb added, Patrick Lee Miller 9) Remember that the “University” system for this “liberal education” (trivium/quadrivium) was historically closely associated with, and supervised by, the Church. Technical education was left to free thinkers. 10 In #Antifragile I document the confusion Business =>Technology => Science, far far far far more frequent than the reverse. Problem is that academic, not practitioners, write the books.
TO TALEB (THE WESTERN CULT IS SOVEREIGNTY AND LAW) (possibly important post for followers) Replying to @nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen Nassim: a) Substitute “Warranty and Liability” for “Skin in the Game” and you switch from discourse under colloquial, rhetorical, propter-hoc, low trust, heterogeneous, bazaars, to scientific post-hoc, high trust, homogenous, rule-of-law ‘markets’ proper. Nassim: b) I’ve watched you slowly move this direction, but I haven’t seen you include the fact that western civ and all it’s +/-‘s are the result of the primacy of sovereignty and reciprocity in the traditional law back into oral (pre-)history. Nassim: c) And so, my reading of history, is that the aristocracy was taught to rule (meaning decide, not direct), and the nobility to govern (direct), and labor to obey. (Indo European Tripartism). Otherwise I’m certain your positioning of the ‘Doctrine’ vs ‘Techne’ is correct. Nassim: d) So my read is the law is taught as a craft (practiced) and the ‘liberal arts” are taught as doctrines, and we are wasting a phenomenal amount of money not separating Techne(craft), Religion(obedience), and Law(Rule). Meaning the problem is the Academy (secular church). Nassim e: (Closing) So my intuition is that we all carry our cultures with us and possibly to some degree in our genes, and that this cultural difference is what you are intuiting, but expressing in literary, rational, and mathematical rather than western (legal,scientific) form.