Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • If you are going to deviate from operational language, then you must have a reas

    If you are going to deviate from operational language, then you must have a reason for doing so that is other than an attempt to fictionalize. So far, I can’t find any case in which the individual isn’t engaging in fictionalism or deception.

  • Russian And American Involvement In Ukraine In International And Historic Context.

    (from Ukraine Today) I have long standing connections and was (very) tangentially involved as an advocate for Ukraine, and we were BEGGING for USA involvement, and we got NONE of it until the very end. If there was USA involvement I want to see some evidence of it. I have a fairly clear idea of how much money per week was funneled through the embassy and state departments (so to speak) to support the demonstrators. Just as the USA always supports demonstrators in self determination. It has been usa policy to force governments to focus on their citizenry since the end of the wars – in the hope that this would curtail wars of expansion. But from my up close and personal experience, the conflict was between the “Boyars” (the 40 or so rich gangster clans – two of whom I know -although they are the ‘good’ ones ), who wanted neither Russian takeover, nor to join europe, both of which would mean their extermination, but to preserve the status quo (they were largely successful). The young people of Ukraine, are the only poor white people remaining in the world, and they are poor because of largely non-white, non-ukrainian gangsters preserve the status quo. They want what their Polish relatives across the border have: a decent standard of living, economic opportunity, and freedom from endemic (Russian induced) corruption. USA has tried desperately to prevent world wars by suppressing wars of expansion and funding self determination by peoples. The USA is no longer in an economic or military position to do so. And (at least Trump) is trying to manage an increase in first world responsibility for the preservation of this pressure against external expansion, and toward internal advancement, that the USA has (expensively) provided postwar. However, europe, in the postwar period, has become nothing more than unappreciative client states of the USA and is not economically able to persist both her social programs, and take on the responsibility for preserving the postwar status quo. (and France and Russia have systematically worked to undermine American attempts – France at least since the revolution, always been the enemy of Europe.) However, american optimism born of a monopoly on power has been misguided, since China – lacking the enlightenment, lacking western high trust, lacking rule of law, lacking any ability whatsoever to speak truthfully, and possessed of both a chip on it’s shoulder and Chinese Supremacy as a traditional doctrine, has replaced the European vacuum and it is this conflict between Asian Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, Muslim Theological Authoritarianism, and Western Rule of Law (markets in everything) that will determine the future we all live in. Russia has the economy of italy, (tiny) and a population of 150M. She would need three times the population and ten times the economic capacity in order to play an economic, technological, and ideological role in world affairs. But because like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Norway, and Venezuela, is ENTIRELY dependent upon petroleum revenues, she can achieve by the centralization of profits and direction to military technology what she cannot achieve through other means. Russia still has an underutilized labor pool, and underutilized human capital (iq). (and they are fully aware of it). Russia needs only to abandon her long asiatic tradition of deception, and simply say “The west has gone wrong, and we are not following that tradition because it has gone wrong, and it would end Russia as rapidly as it has ended europe. But will will cooperate as long as it is in our national interests.” Unfortunately the russian empire cannot be restored for the simple reason that russia has not succeeded in suppression of her endemic corruption, diversity of her economy, and the speaking of truth regardless of cost – in a society where truth has traditionally held a high cost.

  • Russian And American Involvement In Ukraine In International And Historic Context.

    (from Ukraine Today) I have long standing connections and was (very) tangentially involved as an advocate for Ukraine, and we were BEGGING for USA involvement, and we got NONE of it until the very end. If there was USA involvement I want to see some evidence of it. I have a fairly clear idea of how much money per week was funneled through the embassy and state departments (so to speak) to support the demonstrators. Just as the USA always supports demonstrators in self determination. It has been usa policy to force governments to focus on their citizenry since the end of the wars – in the hope that this would curtail wars of expansion. But from my up close and personal experience, the conflict was between the “Boyars” (the 40 or so rich gangster clans – two of whom I know -although they are the ‘good’ ones ), who wanted neither Russian takeover, nor to join europe, both of which would mean their extermination, but to preserve the status quo (they were largely successful). The young people of Ukraine, are the only poor white people remaining in the world, and they are poor because of largely non-white, non-ukrainian gangsters preserve the status quo. They want what their Polish relatives across the border have: a decent standard of living, economic opportunity, and freedom from endemic (Russian induced) corruption. USA has tried desperately to prevent world wars by suppressing wars of expansion and funding self determination by peoples. The USA is no longer in an economic or military position to do so. And (at least Trump) is trying to manage an increase in first world responsibility for the preservation of this pressure against external expansion, and toward internal advancement, that the USA has (expensively) provided postwar. However, europe, in the postwar period, has become nothing more than unappreciative client states of the USA and is not economically able to persist both her social programs, and take on the responsibility for preserving the postwar status quo. (and France and Russia have systematically worked to undermine American attempts – France at least since the revolution, always been the enemy of Europe.) However, american optimism born of a monopoly on power has been misguided, since China – lacking the enlightenment, lacking western high trust, lacking rule of law, lacking any ability whatsoever to speak truthfully, and possessed of both a chip on it’s shoulder and Chinese Supremacy as a traditional doctrine, has replaced the European vacuum and it is this conflict between Asian Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, Muslim Theological Authoritarianism, and Western Rule of Law (markets in everything) that will determine the future we all live in. Russia has the economy of italy, (tiny) and a population of 150M. She would need three times the population and ten times the economic capacity in order to play an economic, technological, and ideological role in world affairs. But because like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Norway, and Venezuela, is ENTIRELY dependent upon petroleum revenues, she can achieve by the centralization of profits and direction to military technology what she cannot achieve through other means. Russia still has an underutilized labor pool, and underutilized human capital (iq). (and they are fully aware of it). Russia needs only to abandon her long asiatic tradition of deception, and simply say “The west has gone wrong, and we are not following that tradition because it has gone wrong, and it would end Russia as rapidly as it has ended europe. But will will cooperate as long as it is in our national interests.” Unfortunately the russian empire cannot be restored for the simple reason that russia has not succeeded in suppression of her endemic corruption, diversity of her economy, and the speaking of truth regardless of cost – in a society where truth has traditionally held a high cost.

  • The Problem Is He Used Little Green Men Instead Of Just Coming Out And Stating It.

    (From ukrainian news “Ukraine Today”) There was necessary global security and russian strategic security at stake. It would have been trivially easy for Putin to just say what he was doing, do it, and offer Ukraine gas discounts 50 or 90 years, as compensation. He could have easily just outright said “our military industrial facilities are in the donbas, and were a russian strategic investment. While we do not want to interfere with borders, we have a national defense issue that we must solve, and that is to return the donbas manufacturing capacity to russian hands. RUSSIA’S ENTIRE HISTORICAL PROBLEM IS THAT SHE WILL NOT ENGAGE IN TRUTHFUL SPEECH – EVEN WHEN SHE IS RIGHT. This is the primary reason for Russian people’s economic and political Lagging. The Russians have always been lower trust than eastern and western europeans. The soviets only made it much worse by institutionalizing lying at all levels of society. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT – JUST TELL THE DAMNED TRUTH. As an immigrant to Ukraine, I said this at the time, and I have been saying this since then. THE RUSSIAN PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONSIDER DECEIT HONORABLE RATHER THAN IMMORAL.

  • The Problem Is He Used Little Green Men Instead Of Just Coming Out And Stating It.

    (From ukrainian news “Ukraine Today”) There was necessary global security and russian strategic security at stake. It would have been trivially easy for Putin to just say what he was doing, do it, and offer Ukraine gas discounts 50 or 90 years, as compensation. He could have easily just outright said “our military industrial facilities are in the donbas, and were a russian strategic investment. While we do not want to interfere with borders, we have a national defense issue that we must solve, and that is to return the donbas manufacturing capacity to russian hands. RUSSIA’S ENTIRE HISTORICAL PROBLEM IS THAT SHE WILL NOT ENGAGE IN TRUTHFUL SPEECH – EVEN WHEN SHE IS RIGHT. This is the primary reason for Russian people’s economic and political Lagging. The Russians have always been lower trust than eastern and western europeans. The soviets only made it much worse by institutionalizing lying at all levels of society. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT – JUST TELL THE DAMNED TRUTH. As an immigrant to Ukraine, I said this at the time, and I have been saying this since then. THE RUSSIAN PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONSIDER DECEIT HONORABLE RATHER THAN IMMORAL.

  • Why Do We Own A Rifle?

    1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by preventing the usurpation of sovereignty of my kin by foreign invasion whether normative, cultural, religious, institutional, military, or demographic. 2 – To overthrow governments that by accumulated impositions of convenience incrementally deprive us of our rights as englishmen (warriors of the militia), and to replace it with a new generation of government that restores those rights: a) reciprocity without exception, b) universal standing, and c) universal applicability. 3 – To prevent the low from profiting by the criminal, unethical, and immoral. 4 – To levy retribution upon and demand restitution of the wicked. 5 – To prevent the indolent, lazy, and inferior from parasitism upon the private and common: my kin’s production of the intergenerational family and its assets. both personal, private, shareheld, common, and political. Western civilization began, evolved, and is maintained by nothing more than the militia. This is what differentiates the west from the rest. All that is unique and exceptional about western civilization from our law, our reason, our science, our institutions, our culture, and our mythology, begins with the distribution of capital and our intolerance for its centralization. Period. Ergo, the a personal rifle capable of war, revolution, prosecution, conviction, restitution and defense, is the minimum necessary arms by which a member of the militia persists the civlization of the militia: the west. And he who would demote the militia or disarm it by definition declares war on me, my kin, my people, my state, and civilization, and by proxy, all mankind – given our disproportionate contribution to dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, infant morality, early death, disease, and tyranny. There is no greater crime against humanity than to deprive me of my weaponry. If you declare war on me and mine we will, without exception withdraw our consent, and damage, harm, kill any and al that you hold dear. I AM SOVEREIGN. ALL MILITIA ARE SOVEREIGN. WE ARE SOVEREIGNTY BY THE SINGLE LAW OF RECIPROCITY IN ALL THINGS INCLUDING THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE OF ONE ANOTHER’S SOVEREIGNTY BY FORCE OF ARMS.

  • Why Do We Own A Rifle?

    1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by preventing the usurpation of sovereignty of my kin by foreign invasion whether normative, cultural, religious, institutional, military, or demographic. 2 – To overthrow governments that by accumulated impositions of convenience incrementally deprive us of our rights as englishmen (warriors of the militia), and to replace it with a new generation of government that restores those rights: a) reciprocity without exception, b) universal standing, and c) universal applicability. 3 – To prevent the low from profiting by the criminal, unethical, and immoral. 4 – To levy retribution upon and demand restitution of the wicked. 5 – To prevent the indolent, lazy, and inferior from parasitism upon the private and common: my kin’s production of the intergenerational family and its assets. both personal, private, shareheld, common, and political. Western civilization began, evolved, and is maintained by nothing more than the militia. This is what differentiates the west from the rest. All that is unique and exceptional about western civilization from our law, our reason, our science, our institutions, our culture, and our mythology, begins with the distribution of capital and our intolerance for its centralization. Period. Ergo, the a personal rifle capable of war, revolution, prosecution, conviction, restitution and defense, is the minimum necessary arms by which a member of the militia persists the civlization of the militia: the west. And he who would demote the militia or disarm it by definition declares war on me, my kin, my people, my state, and civilization, and by proxy, all mankind – given our disproportionate contribution to dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, infant morality, early death, disease, and tyranny. There is no greater crime against humanity than to deprive me of my weaponry. If you declare war on me and mine we will, without exception withdraw our consent, and damage, harm, kill any and al that you hold dear. I AM SOVEREIGN. ALL MILITIA ARE SOVEREIGN. WE ARE SOVEREIGNTY BY THE SINGLE LAW OF RECIPROCITY IN ALL THINGS INCLUDING THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE OF ONE ANOTHER’S SOVEREIGNTY BY FORCE OF ARMS.

  • Regarding The Pseudoscience Of Qualia

    —“You categorize like an engineer”— (As if that was an insult rather than compliment beyond measure.) I categorize and articulate as a scientist who prosecutes pseudoscience and pseudo rationalism: in operational language. And that is because science has adopted operational language to prevent the fictionalisms: pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, pseudo-wisdom-literature. And that is because operations provide a universally commensurable standard of measure, that is free of pseudoscience (pretense of causality), pseudo-rationalism (inflation, conflation, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism), pseudo-wisdom literature (mythology, supernaturalism), and the various deceits of the self and others in exchange for attention and signals. In mathematics there exists a pseudoscientific practice in that we call positional names ‘numbers’, to maintain the fiction that the square of two exists, when it cannot except for the name of a function (operation in a context). In economics there exists a pseudoscientific practice by in the use of the term ‘Utilis’ as a label by which the incommensurable is rendered to the commensurable. In philosophy, during that era in which philosophers attempted to ascend philosophy from reason, to logic, to science, we saw a host of attempts to formalize logic into mathematics, rather than to restore mathematics to language (grammar and semantics). All of these disciplines categorize ficitionaly in order to obscure the triviality of the underlying phenomenon that they describe. Qualia is, as i stated, a fictionalism ascribing to states that which consists of the neural persistence of vision of accordant and discordant state changes in continuous time. Qualia can no more exist than nothing, since nothing requires something to contrast with. Qualia developed out of wittgenstein’s attempt to cast the mind in the form of movie consisting of frames, rather than the persistence of vision between a host of fragments. Dennett proposed four criteria for Qualia: 1 – ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. This is false because we both share the same experiences but often lack introspective vocabulary to transmit xperiences. We can however, as in all forms of communication, construct complex experiences from universally simplistic forms. (this is the function of all storytelling). 2 – intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience’s relation to other things. This says precisely nothing other than the our senses provide us correct information about the real world, at human scale, within th elimits of our ability to act (because it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have senses beyond one’s ability to act. Hence why we lack thermal vision.) 3 – private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. This is false otherwise we could not empathize. If one says, that the range stimuli and excitement(intensity) that I experience from similar sensations, and the associations in memory that are stimulated by that experience, then yes, they are not identical but they are both marginally indifferent AND communicable. The problem is that we are usually unwilling to pay the high cost of that communication given the low value of stimulation beyond marginal indifference. 4 – directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. This is a definition Scope limitation) rather than a description, in that he’s stating that he’s demarcating those experiences open to self reflection from those not. And it is this last that informs us to the real purpose that philosophers are trying to achieve: a literature of experience. However, we have that literature of experience: the novel. And that is precisely what has occurred in the 20th century: Math is the rather trivial study of positional relations (the logic of ratios) – a grammar of positional relations. Logic has been found to be a grammar in which we study litte more than constant relations of some subsets between states (phrases). Science consists of measurement in constant relations in the grammar of action. Law consists of measurement of investments decided by reciprocity. Economics consists of measurements of the consequences of reciprocal exchange, and the process of removing frictions to that exchange by the use of institutions. And The novel (Of which Dostoyevsky and Orwell are probably the greatest example man has produced ) the study of experiences. And we have seen philosophy, starting with Kant’s attempt to reject anglo empiricism by conflation of the experiences and measurements, and continuing with the anti-empirical evolution of the Continental > Boazian > Marxist > Freudian > Postmodern schools, descend into pseudoscience and fictionalism in desperate attempt to preserve what is no more than the literature of pseudoscience, false wisdom lit, and anti-real (destructive) mythos. We know why philosophy is attractive: it’s cheap, and it lacks means of falsification against reality within perceivable time frames, and as such, causes the orator to attract attention from those who commiserate, and those who disapprove, and those who defend against such falsehoods. There is a reason operational (Scientific) language has evolved into the universal language of truthful speech. Because it is the only language of universal commensurability that prevents the great deceits of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion (loading), obscurantism(framing), fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, and pseudo-wisdom-literature/myth). Truthful statements are possible and small in number. But fictionalisms are endless means by which those who cannot tolerate reality create a fiction to describe it on their terms. Literature is at least honest.Economics is finally fairly honest – although some of us work to correct what remains. But it is more honest than all political philosophy that has come before it. Law is at least honest, even if legislation and regulation are not. Science has spent a century preserving its social status, by incrementally suppressing pseudoscience. However, philosophy has been descending – at least since kant, into nothing more than a conflation of pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-wisdom literature. It is little more than moral fictions to entertain those who are unsatisfied by the reality of reality: the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services and information, production of commons (politics), production of group evolutionary strategy (nation and civilization). Hence why it is increasingly unfunded, and relegated to theology – even classified with theology in libraries and book stores. As far as I know the disciplines are approaching completeness given the operations we describe at increasing scales, and as such the domain of philosophy is not simply empty verbalisms by which we attempt to signal wisdom we do not possess, but the determination of personal preference, and communal good, given the resources (choices) made available by the disciplines that measure that which is not preference, but truth: science. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Regarding The Pseudoscience Of Qualia

    —“You categorize like an engineer”— (As if that was an insult rather than compliment beyond measure.) I categorize and articulate as a scientist who prosecutes pseudoscience and pseudo rationalism: in operational language. And that is because science has adopted operational language to prevent the fictionalisms: pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, pseudo-wisdom-literature. And that is because operations provide a universally commensurable standard of measure, that is free of pseudoscience (pretense of causality), pseudo-rationalism (inflation, conflation, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism), pseudo-wisdom literature (mythology, supernaturalism), and the various deceits of the self and others in exchange for attention and signals. In mathematics there exists a pseudoscientific practice in that we call positional names ‘numbers’, to maintain the fiction that the square of two exists, when it cannot except for the name of a function (operation in a context). In economics there exists a pseudoscientific practice by in the use of the term ‘Utilis’ as a label by which the incommensurable is rendered to the commensurable. In philosophy, during that era in which philosophers attempted to ascend philosophy from reason, to logic, to science, we saw a host of attempts to formalize logic into mathematics, rather than to restore mathematics to language (grammar and semantics). All of these disciplines categorize ficitionaly in order to obscure the triviality of the underlying phenomenon that they describe. Qualia is, as i stated, a fictionalism ascribing to states that which consists of the neural persistence of vision of accordant and discordant state changes in continuous time. Qualia can no more exist than nothing, since nothing requires something to contrast with. Qualia developed out of wittgenstein’s attempt to cast the mind in the form of movie consisting of frames, rather than the persistence of vision between a host of fragments. Dennett proposed four criteria for Qualia: 1 – ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. This is false because we both share the same experiences but often lack introspective vocabulary to transmit xperiences. We can however, as in all forms of communication, construct complex experiences from universally simplistic forms. (this is the function of all storytelling). 2 – intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience’s relation to other things. This says precisely nothing other than the our senses provide us correct information about the real world, at human scale, within th elimits of our ability to act (because it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have senses beyond one’s ability to act. Hence why we lack thermal vision.) 3 – private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible. This is false otherwise we could not empathize. If one says, that the range stimuli and excitement(intensity) that I experience from similar sensations, and the associations in memory that are stimulated by that experience, then yes, they are not identical but they are both marginally indifferent AND communicable. The problem is that we are usually unwilling to pay the high cost of that communication given the low value of stimulation beyond marginal indifference. 4 – directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale. This is a definition Scope limitation) rather than a description, in that he’s stating that he’s demarcating those experiences open to self reflection from those not. And it is this last that informs us to the real purpose that philosophers are trying to achieve: a literature of experience. However, we have that literature of experience: the novel. And that is precisely what has occurred in the 20th century: Math is the rather trivial study of positional relations (the logic of ratios) – a grammar of positional relations. Logic has been found to be a grammar in which we study litte more than constant relations of some subsets between states (phrases). Science consists of measurement in constant relations in the grammar of action. Law consists of measurement of investments decided by reciprocity. Economics consists of measurements of the consequences of reciprocal exchange, and the process of removing frictions to that exchange by the use of institutions. And The novel (Of which Dostoyevsky and Orwell are probably the greatest example man has produced ) the study of experiences. And we have seen philosophy, starting with Kant’s attempt to reject anglo empiricism by conflation of the experiences and measurements, and continuing with the anti-empirical evolution of the Continental > Boazian > Marxist > Freudian > Postmodern schools, descend into pseudoscience and fictionalism in desperate attempt to preserve what is no more than the literature of pseudoscience, false wisdom lit, and anti-real (destructive) mythos. We know why philosophy is attractive: it’s cheap, and it lacks means of falsification against reality within perceivable time frames, and as such, causes the orator to attract attention from those who commiserate, and those who disapprove, and those who defend against such falsehoods. There is a reason operational (Scientific) language has evolved into the universal language of truthful speech. Because it is the only language of universal commensurability that prevents the great deceits of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion (loading), obscurantism(framing), fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, and pseudo-wisdom-literature/myth). Truthful statements are possible and small in number. But fictionalisms are endless means by which those who cannot tolerate reality create a fiction to describe it on their terms. Literature is at least honest.Economics is finally fairly honest – although some of us work to correct what remains. But it is more honest than all political philosophy that has come before it. Law is at least honest, even if legislation and regulation are not. Science has spent a century preserving its social status, by incrementally suppressing pseudoscience. However, philosophy has been descending – at least since kant, into nothing more than a conflation of pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-wisdom literature. It is little more than moral fictions to entertain those who are unsatisfied by the reality of reality: the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services and information, production of commons (politics), production of group evolutionary strategy (nation and civilization). Hence why it is increasingly unfunded, and relegated to theology – even classified with theology in libraries and book stores. As far as I know the disciplines are approaching completeness given the operations we describe at increasing scales, and as such the domain of philosophy is not simply empty verbalisms by which we attempt to signal wisdom we do not possess, but the determination of personal preference, and communal good, given the resources (choices) made available by the disciplines that measure that which is not preference, but truth: science. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • The Non-Monopoly Of Western Philosophy

    I think the answer is that we need to specialize and have the market do its job as did the pagans – and not try to create another abrahamic monolithic framework. The framework that developed the west is competition (m arkets) and a division of powers, and an absence of a clerical class, with civic duties performed by the monarchy, nobility, and lesser nobility (influential citizens). Markets in everything. Via positiva (narratives/inflating and loading) via negativa (calculation and unloading/deflating). If people compare me to one or the other then I’m going attack peterson justifiably. If people think peterson is right, then they’re simply wrong. He’s informative, explanatory, and accessible the same way that storytelling is more accessible than calculation. Via Negativa does not sell except as a defense because it is not the means by which we form narratives that allow us to cooperate despite only minor overlaps in interest. Via Positiva sells but is open to supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudo rational content (falsehoods) and detriments to a people because narrative are cheap, and easily loaded framed and suggested and obscured. And we are vulnerable to suggestion by the narrative because if we were NOT vulnerable to it, the act of communication which requires suggestion via continuous disambiguation would not be possible. There is NO TRUTH. There exist a market wherein we compete between via positiva imagination and opportunity and via negativa limits and constraints. All we can attempt is truthfulness through competition. I you cannot understand this principle the you understandn othing of testimonialism(via competition), vs falsificationism(via negativa) vs justificationism (via positiva). If peterson had not come out against controlled speech, then he would still be unknown and irrelevant. His book was irrelevant. Haidts was far more influential and haidt’s research far better and more empirical. There are hundreds of people who have written and spoken of similar things, but few of them (a) can afford to come forward (b) started out as libertarian activists so that they speak in the frame of reciprocity vs duty or consensus, (c) have a platform(opportunity) and funding that he has. (d) and he has higher disagreeableness than others (hence his appeal to those of us more scientific than agreeable). I have to defend myself from this kind of bullshit. But he is another example of offering explanation and confirmation bias, but not providing a solution other than moral confidence. If you want a spectrum, today it’s Taleb (risk), doolittle (law), haidt (politics), forgot his name (education, and Peterson (religion, myth, propaganda). In a market we specialize. Simpletons want a single rule to follow. The mind wants a single rule to follow, We all want consensus. Christianity and Democracy are errors of monopoly and consensus. Markets in everything. Via positiva for children, general rules for adult, and laws for the wise. Opportunity, action, and limits. Leraning, acting, and limiting. The intergenerational transfer of AGENCY.