Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Sex Differences in Intelligence Testing

    @curtdoolittle could you help me understand why men and women don’t show differences in general intelligence at the average, despite the fact that differences in brain size & brain structure between the sexes are greater (and more extreme) than those between races?”—James W. @kenationalist__

    1) Men and women do show TASK differences, avg of ~1/2 standard deviation. 2) Why? ~10% bigger brains. 3) Men mature later than women, and are men are more widely distributed and so produce nearly all outliers. Women are (far) more neurotic, and men (far) more criminal. 4) Most tests that I know of have been skewed to put greater emphasis on verbal to limit the delta male and female differences – even further masking differences than comparison by same-age testing. 5) Intelligence tests use age, and do not measure sexual maturity, cognitive bias, predictive error, predictive error under controversy. This means that tests measure average workforce performance (near-tasks), NOT adult economic social and political judgements (far-judgements).  Yet it is Political Prediction, not Task Performance where we differ most. 6) First rule of economic reasoning always applies in behavioral sciences: account for the seen and unseen. Or as well say ‘Full Accounting”. Always ask, What is the full spectrum they claim to measure, what are its limits, and what’s not being measured? Most lies: cherrypicking. 7) Race-differences in AVERAGE intelligence (big) are greater than in-group sex-differences in intelligence (small).

  • The Origin of Money – The Abrahamic Libertarians Are Always Lying

    –“What do you think made gold become money?”- Jeffrey Swann @AgoristView

    1) Gold was a valuable commodity like other commodities, but not ‘money’. I didn’t require refinement, but it was too expensive for use as money. So it was just a commodity. Silver required refinement. The first money was electrum. But any metal will do. The honest question is whether gold, ever in history served as money – and the answer is “no”. Gold coins were too expensive, and served as money-like commodities, only liquid in certain conditions, just as they do today, because the value is too high, and liquidity too low. 2) Metal Commodity Money (money proper) has the properties:

    a) Scarce, non-perishable, commodity(useful), and a universal signal good(luxury), b) Consistent weight and volume, unitizable, countable, with a low ratio of weight and volume to value. c) Trade-markable (warrantable), re-trade-markable (melt, re-stamp), and standard of weight and measure

    Therefore;

    d) STATES can create a market for a universally desirable commodity by demanding taxes paid in a universal commodity e) And POLITIES can increase economic velocity (reduce friction) by converting agricultural goods to money. f) And States can construct, defend, tax, and regulate MARKETS increasing returns. g) States Can Pay SOLDIERS, and scale the number of soldiers to expand markets. 3) Bitcoin in the Financial Product Hierarchy

  • The Origin of Money – The Abrahamic Libertarians Are Always Lying

    –“What do you think made gold become money?”- Jeffrey Swann @AgoristView

    1) Gold was a valuable commodity like other commodities, but not ‘money’. I didn’t require refinement, but it was too expensive for use as money. So it was just a commodity. Silver required refinement. The first money was electrum. But any metal will do. The honest question is whether gold, ever in history served as money – and the answer is “no”. Gold coins were too expensive, and served as money-like commodities, only liquid in certain conditions, just as they do today, because the value is too high, and liquidity too low. 2) Metal Commodity Money (money proper) has the properties:

    a) Scarce, non-perishable, commodity(useful), and a universal signal good(luxury), b) Consistent weight and volume, unitizable, countable, with a low ratio of weight and volume to value. c) Trade-markable (warrantable), re-trade-markable (melt, re-stamp), and standard of weight and measure

    Therefore;

    d) STATES can create a market for a universally desirable commodity by demanding taxes paid in a universal commodity e) And POLITIES can increase economic velocity (reduce friction) by converting agricultural goods to money. f) And States can construct, defend, tax, and regulate MARKETS increasing returns. g) States Can Pay SOLDIERS, and scale the number of soldiers to expand markets. 3) Bitcoin in the Financial Product Hierarchy

  • @a Correct

    @a Correct.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-12-05 19:06:21 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105329143436340865

  • Institutionalizing GSRRM: The Seven Tactics of Censorship

    The Seven Tactics of Censorship

    1. Direct Censorship,
    2. Delegitimizing,
    3. Discrediting
    4. Deamplification
    5. Demotion
    6. Demonetization,
    7. Deplatforming
    8. Conspiracy In All of the Above

    ( Credit: William Ammerman  )

  • Institutionalizing GSRRM: The Seven Tactics of Censorship

    The Seven Tactics of Censorship

    1. Direct Censorship,
    2. Delegitimizing,
    3. Discrediting
    4. Deamplification
    5. Demotion
    6. Demonetization,
    7. Deplatforming
    8. Conspiracy In All of the Above

    ( Credit: William Ammerman  )

  • History: Why The French Must Lose for Europe To Survive

    Schmitt didn’t himself realize how influenced by the French ‘counter-enlightenment’ against British Empirical, Sovereign, Legal, and Prussian Miltary and Tripartist restoration of europe.

    —“Schmitt contends that from 1890 the old Westphalian order of the jus publicum europaeum, born at the end of the Thirty Years’ War (1648), began to dissolve into a ‘universalism without territories’ and into the ’empty’ and abstract normativism of an international legality”— Alain de Benoist @Daily_Benoist

    We should call it what it is: 1) European civ was and remains the Common Law of self determination by sovereignty reciprocity we call Tort, the Holy Roman Empire (HRE), and the federation of states under a weak monarchy the optimum form of european govt – the optimum form of ALL government. 2) France warred against the HRE and Germania organized in response – to resist another French aggression. 3) The european conflict was, is, and remains, the Roman, Catholic, and French Feminine, Semitic, Monopoly, Authoritarian, Arrogant State against the Greek, Aryan(Protestant), Germanic, Masculine, European, Rule of Law, Market, Skeptical State. 4) The USA, a power that Europe seeks to replicate, is very close to a second civil war that will result most likely in a restoration of her original design as a mirror of the HRE with traditional Germanic law as that rule of law. Was preserved in England and never subject to the corrupting influence of Napoleonic law that deprived the people and the law of sovereignty. The rest of Europe should fear a unified Europe that contains Paris more than it should fear a unified Europe that contains Moscow. At least Moscow works in Russian people’s interests. Paris does not. So perhaps the French should look more objectively at the problem. It’s not that Europe fears integration. it’s that the French history of undermining european peoples, and the French authoritarian model rather than the Holy Roman Empire, British, and American model, is a threat to european civilization – as it always has been. That is the cause of the failure of european coherence. Humility, recognition of her role in destroying europe, would serve Paris better than ambitions to rule.

    Latin SemiticGermanic, European
    Roman,Greek,
    CatholicAryan(Protestant),
    FrenchGermanic,
    FeminineMasculine,
    SemiticEuropean,
    AuthoritarianRule of Law,
    MonopolyMarket,
    Arrogant StateSkeptical State.

    The French MUST LOSE for Europe to Survive.  

  • History: Why The French Must Lose for Europe To Survive

    Schmitt didn’t himself realize how influenced by the French ‘counter-enlightenment’ against British Empirical, Sovereign, Legal, and Prussian Miltary and Tripartist restoration of europe.

    —“Schmitt contends that from 1890 the old Westphalian order of the jus publicum europaeum, born at the end of the Thirty Years’ War (1648), began to dissolve into a ‘universalism without territories’ and into the ’empty’ and abstract normativism of an international legality”— Alain de Benoist @Daily_Benoist

    We should call it what it is: 1) European civ was and remains the Common Law of self determination by sovereignty reciprocity we call Tort, the Holy Roman Empire (HRE), and the federation of states under a weak monarchy the optimum form of european govt – the optimum form of ALL government. 2) France warred against the HRE and Germania organized in response – to resist another French aggression. 3) The european conflict was, is, and remains, the Roman, Catholic, and French Feminine, Semitic, Monopoly, Authoritarian, Arrogant State against the Greek, Aryan(Protestant), Germanic, Masculine, European, Rule of Law, Market, Skeptical State. 4) The USA, a power that Europe seeks to replicate, is very close to a second civil war that will result most likely in a restoration of her original design as a mirror of the HRE with traditional Germanic law as that rule of law. Was preserved in England and never subject to the corrupting influence of Napoleonic law that deprived the people and the law of sovereignty. The rest of Europe should fear a unified Europe that contains Paris more than it should fear a unified Europe that contains Moscow. At least Moscow works in Russian people’s interests. Paris does not. So perhaps the French should look more objectively at the problem. It’s not that Europe fears integration. it’s that the French history of undermining european peoples, and the French authoritarian model rather than the Holy Roman Empire, British, and American model, is a threat to european civilization – as it always has been. That is the cause of the failure of european coherence. Humility, recognition of her role in destroying europe, would serve Paris better than ambitions to rule.

    Latin SemiticGermanic, European
    Roman,Greek,
    CatholicAryan(Protestant),
    FrenchGermanic,
    FeminineMasculine,
    SemiticEuropean,
    AuthoritarianRule of Law,
    MonopolyMarket,
    Arrogant StateSkeptical State.

    The French MUST LOSE for Europe to Survive.  

  • Rights

    Are Rights testable in P-Law? If yes, are rights demonstrated by isolated + interpersonal exchanges for the acquisition of property, or are they ultimately only demonstrable by territorial sovereignty? —Romanius @ContraFabianist

    1. Cure yourself of Platonism:

    • Definition of a Right,
    • Within a Group Strategy of Eugenia vs Dysgenia,
    • whether they are Natural or Unnatural,
    • Creating a Demand for Rights vs
    • the Possibility of that Right, vs
    • how Rights can be brought into existence, vs
    • the Existence of Rights. 😉

    2. Rights can only be brought into existence by

    • (a) territorial sovereignty- military, state
    • (b) an insurer of last resort – court and court enforcement such as sheriffs, deputies and militia or a hierarchy of police and military.
    • (c) Under State vs Govt, Govt produces Commons.

    3. This is the complete answer to your question – by operationalizing we limit all the game playing associated with the difference between theology(supernatural), philosophy(sophistry), and law(science). 4. Yes rights are testable in P-Law and in the P-law amendments to the constitution.

  • Rights

    Are Rights testable in P-Law? If yes, are rights demonstrated by isolated + interpersonal exchanges for the acquisition of property, or are they ultimately only demonstrable by territorial sovereignty? —Romanius @ContraFabianist

    1. Cure yourself of Platonism:

    • Definition of a Right,
    • Within a Group Strategy of Eugenia vs Dysgenia,
    • whether they are Natural or Unnatural,
    • Creating a Demand for Rights vs
    • the Possibility of that Right, vs
    • how Rights can be brought into existence, vs
    • the Existence of Rights. 😉

    2. Rights can only be brought into existence by

    • (a) territorial sovereignty- military, state
    • (b) an insurer of last resort – court and court enforcement such as sheriffs, deputies and militia or a hierarchy of police and military.
    • (c) Under State vs Govt, Govt produces Commons.

    3. This is the complete answer to your question – by operationalizing we limit all the game playing associated with the difference between theology(supernatural), philosophy(sophistry), and law(science). 4. Yes rights are testable in P-Law and in the P-law amendments to the constitution.