Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Is The Proliferation Of Food Allergies A Result Of The Human Race No Longer Adhering To The Survival Of The Fittest Theory And Subsequently Poor Genes That Would Have Previously Died Out Are Now Being Passed On?

    no. its due to dietary changes.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-proliferation-of-food-allergies-a-result-of-the-human-race-no-longer-adhering-to-the-survival-of-the-fittest-theory-and-subsequently-poor-genes-that-would-have-previously-died-out-are-now-being-passed-on

  • “We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intel

    —“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intelligence and have calculated from what we know that there are at least 100 SDs up for grabs. … people with IQs of 1,600 are yet to come probably before AI.”—

  • “We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intel

    —“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intelligence and have calculated from what we know that there are at least 100 SDs up for grabs. … people with IQs of 1,600 are yet to come probably before AI.”—

  • —“Curt, Are Complex Ideas Inaccessible Or Does It Just Take Some People Longer?”—

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”— While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses). As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet. In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things. I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own. The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will. My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media). This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense. Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be. -Cheers 😉

  • —“Curt, Are Complex Ideas Inaccessible Or Does It Just Take Some People Longer?”—

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”— While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses). As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet. In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things. I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own. The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will. My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media). This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense. Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be. -Cheers 😉

  • Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

    –“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other. Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically. If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands. The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people. So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question. You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns. But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon. The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race. Thanks brother 😉

  • Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

    –“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other. Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically. If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands. The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people. So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question. You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns. But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon. The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race. Thanks brother 😉

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉

  • “Extinction level events are WAY too rare.”

    –“Extinction level events are WAY too rare.”–