I use the internet to run experiments. I take the results and post them for my students. These serve as case studies. Easy. I’ve only recently started using Twitter more – and the primary purpose is to run tests. Social media is a behavioral scientist’s free-of-charge research lab. Quality of thought is worse than FB, better than reddit, more diverse than blogs and online magagiens, but because twitter profits from generating conflict across the spectrum, twitter conversation much more agitated so demonstrated behavior is easier to provoke. And that’s what we’re looking for: ‘testimony’ or rather, demonstrated behavior (evidence). I use the public as mice. Rather, experimental test subjects. In previous decades we had to work hard to produce psychological and sociological tests – where self-reporting is always false. Today we can start debates on social media where people DEMONSTRATE rather than report – always true. 😉 So, I’m doing what I said I would do. You can read about my technique on my web site. It’s a long-standing frustration for the mice. 😉 I posted a serious response to a weak publication, you responded with postmodern pseudoscience and I explored it. 😉 So if you want to do ‘research’ you try to find a conversation that that’s tangential to the question, then state a provocative truth that will generate demonstrated behavior (advocacy or criticism). You then seek to construct an operational model of their incentives for making the argument. Repeat the central argument, and then exhaust all avenues of their arguments. This requires you to understand your material. It is why P-Law advocates are so good at it. Because we have mastered the logic of incentives, the logic of truth and most of all, the logic of lies. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/28/on-king-of-the-hill-games/ You see, people want you to be emotionally invested in their emotional expressions more so than in the reason or science of their arguments. So when you respond with cold hard facts that frustrate their emotions (animal instincts) then they double down in rage because it’s the only thing they can do. The strategy then is to stick to the central argument until their emotions are exhausted. At that point you have planted seeds they can’t forget, or found one of their member who you have educated, and produced a ‘case study’ to share, just as we share experimental results, legal case records, and economic evidence. Once in a great while you will either gain additional understanding into their position, or you will learn a new method of deception that you must counter, or you will learn how to construct your arguments better. Scientific experimental design varies by discipline with applied science being the ONLY meaningful test. Some tests cannot be run in experimental form (economics, law, or psychological inquiry because the action influences the output.) Hence the failure of academic behavior sci. You’ll find people are making an appeals to preference, or to authority, and not to truth or falsehood. It’s why economics replaced social science, neuroscience and AI replaced psychology, and my work in language unifies them into Law. 1) Darwin met vast disapproval despite his insights. I meet the same. People don’t care about truth in physical science. They HATE it in behavioral science. It prevents their lies. As such my response was that your disapproval was irrelevant. True is true regardless of approval. 2) An ethics board would not approve of my METHOD of running tests. On the other hand they approve of marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, anti-male feminism, HBD Denial, and do nothing to correct the replicability crisis in behavioral sciences – which DOESN’T use such methods. 3) You said I don’t use a method. I use the rigorous method in the sciences. Because I understand that science is the name we give to testimony that we warrant isn’t false (under realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, operationalism, correspondence, parsimony, completeness). 4) So either you can defeat the arguments I put forward or you can’t. I know you can’t,because if you were capable you would have put forth academic (scientific) arguments that could survive falsification. You didn’t. You just used sophistry and GSRRM. Meaning, you’re postmodern. I run tests. You proved the theory. You validated the test. I use your examples to educate my students just like teaching law or business theory by using case studies. So again, you claim I didn’t answer your questions but you never understood the simplest thing I said. This is why your generations are lost: you’ve been taught to have opinions you are unworthy of having using pseudoscience that is an anti-science revolution – a religion. I teach operationalism because the lesson of the 20th is (a) the logics are falsificationary not justificationary, (b) that all behavioral science was a failure (projection) subject to the anti-Darwinian revolution. As in subatomic physics any direct measurement biases outcomes. So as in mathematics, we must be able to construct an operational proof. In behavioral science, we must be able to construct an operational proof by incentives in order to ensure we are not using our data to lie to ourselves or others. I teach operationalism: strict construction.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Mice Can’t Tolerate Knowing Their Mice. 😉 But we learn anyway.
I use the internet to run experiments. I take the results and post them for my students. These serve as case studies. Easy. I’ve only recently started using Twitter more – and the primary purpose is to run tests. Social media is a behavioral scientist’s free-of-charge research lab. Quality of thought is worse than FB, better than reddit, more diverse than blogs and online magagiens, but because twitter profits from generating conflict across the spectrum, twitter conversation much more agitated so demonstrated behavior is easier to provoke. And that’s what we’re looking for: ‘testimony’ or rather, demonstrated behavior (evidence). I use the public as mice. Rather, experimental test subjects. In previous decades we had to work hard to produce psychological and sociological tests – where self-reporting is always false. Today we can start debates on social media where people DEMONSTRATE rather than report – always true. 😉 So, I’m doing what I said I would do. You can read about my technique on my web site. It’s a long-standing frustration for the mice. 😉 I posted a serious response to a weak publication, you responded with postmodern pseudoscience and I explored it. 😉 So if you want to do ‘research’ you try to find a conversation that that’s tangential to the question, then state a provocative truth that will generate demonstrated behavior (advocacy or criticism). You then seek to construct an operational model of their incentives for making the argument. Repeat the central argument, and then exhaust all avenues of their arguments. This requires you to understand your material. It is why P-Law advocates are so good at it. Because we have mastered the logic of incentives, the logic of truth and most of all, the logic of lies. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/28/on-king-of-the-hill-games/ You see, people want you to be emotionally invested in their emotional expressions more so than in the reason or science of their arguments. So when you respond with cold hard facts that frustrate their emotions (animal instincts) then they double down in rage because it’s the only thing they can do. The strategy then is to stick to the central argument until their emotions are exhausted. At that point you have planted seeds they can’t forget, or found one of their member who you have educated, and produced a ‘case study’ to share, just as we share experimental results, legal case records, and economic evidence. Once in a great while you will either gain additional understanding into their position, or you will learn a new method of deception that you must counter, or you will learn how to construct your arguments better. Scientific experimental design varies by discipline with applied science being the ONLY meaningful test. Some tests cannot be run in experimental form (economics, law, or psychological inquiry because the action influences the output.) Hence the failure of academic behavior sci. You’ll find people are making an appeals to preference, or to authority, and not to truth or falsehood. It’s why economics replaced social science, neuroscience and AI replaced psychology, and my work in language unifies them into Law. 1) Darwin met vast disapproval despite his insights. I meet the same. People don’t care about truth in physical science. They HATE it in behavioral science. It prevents their lies. As such my response was that your disapproval was irrelevant. True is true regardless of approval. 2) An ethics board would not approve of my METHOD of running tests. On the other hand they approve of marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, anti-male feminism, HBD Denial, and do nothing to correct the replicability crisis in behavioral sciences – which DOESN’T use such methods. 3) You said I don’t use a method. I use the rigorous method in the sciences. Because I understand that science is the name we give to testimony that we warrant isn’t false (under realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, operationalism, correspondence, parsimony, completeness). 4) So either you can defeat the arguments I put forward or you can’t. I know you can’t,because if you were capable you would have put forth academic (scientific) arguments that could survive falsification. You didn’t. You just used sophistry and GSRRM. Meaning, you’re postmodern. I run tests. You proved the theory. You validated the test. I use your examples to educate my students just like teaching law or business theory by using case studies. So again, you claim I didn’t answer your questions but you never understood the simplest thing I said. This is why your generations are lost: you’ve been taught to have opinions you are unworthy of having using pseudoscience that is an anti-science revolution – a religion. I teach operationalism because the lesson of the 20th is (a) the logics are falsificationary not justificationary, (b) that all behavioral science was a failure (projection) subject to the anti-Darwinian revolution. As in subatomic physics any direct measurement biases outcomes. So as in mathematics, we must be able to construct an operational proof. In behavioral science, we must be able to construct an operational proof by incentives in order to ensure we are not using our data to lie to ourselves or others. I teach operationalism: strict construction.
-
The Short Version of The Story of Evolution 😉
For all intents and purposes, isolation produces subspecies (races) and hybridization generally means ‘extermination’ by the more advanced people with some ‘leakage’. Genetic computation occurs by isolation and hybridization, with positive hybridization resulting in the replacement of previous generations. Evolutionary Events: African Rift Valley isolation event 80k > Pre-Flood Persian Gulf isolation event 50k > NE Asia isolation event 40k > Ancestral North Eurasian isolation event 24k > Agrarian Hybridization event 8k > Steppe-Europe Hybridization Event 5K > multiple Indian hybridization events > Han’s intentional ‘borg’ assimilation process > Sequences of middle eastern hybridization events into Jewish-christian-Islamic Hybridization event 2k > Dark Age Isolation Event > European World Unification Event 1l > (Jewish-Marxist, Islamist, female european revolt against evolution .1k) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were an evolutionary counter-revolution against evolution. All three religions try in one way or another to expand their reproduction of the underclasses rather than upward redistribution to genetic fitness as is the norm in history. Islamism, Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Anti-Male-feminism, and Genetic Denialism, are the second wave of revolts against human evolution. European and East Asian civs are naturally eugenic. The middle eastern are dysgenic. People aren’t oppressed. But domesticated. Judaism to undermine from within, christianity to weaken from within, islam to conquer and devolve from within and without. Judaism to undermine from within, jewish neo-marxism, postmodernism, ant-male feminism, hbd-denialism, replace christianity to weaken from within. Islam to invade, undermine, then conquer from within and without. Devolution. Judaism, Europeanized Judaism as ‘isms’, and Islamism are ‘anti-life’ beuase they are anti-evolutionary. They are the source of the great filter that will prevent the transcendence of man. There is no devil, but there is evil, and the personification of evil in a demon, and we know the name of that demon: His name is Abraham. He was from Ur, and Jews, Christians, and Muslims are his offspring. 😉 And his mission is to prevent the evolution of man into gods, by using our moral intution to cooperate and care against us, by claiming the use of markets as continuation of natural selection are oppression, rather than the transformation of demons and animals into humans, so that one day we can transform humans into gods. We must create a new religon of man, and defeat the religion of the demons invented by the Semites to destroy mankind as a means of destroying god..
-
The Short Version of The Story of Evolution 😉
For all intents and purposes, isolation produces subspecies (races) and hybridization generally means ‘extermination’ by the more advanced people with some ‘leakage’. Genetic computation occurs by isolation and hybridization, with positive hybridization resulting in the replacement of previous generations. Evolutionary Events: African Rift Valley isolation event 80k > Pre-Flood Persian Gulf isolation event 50k > NE Asia isolation event 40k > Ancestral North Eurasian isolation event 24k > Agrarian Hybridization event 8k > Steppe-Europe Hybridization Event 5K > multiple Indian hybridization events > Han’s intentional ‘borg’ assimilation process > Sequences of middle eastern hybridization events into Jewish-christian-Islamic Hybridization event 2k > Dark Age Isolation Event > European World Unification Event 1l > (Jewish-Marxist, Islamist, female european revolt against evolution .1k) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were an evolutionary counter-revolution against evolution. All three religions try in one way or another to expand their reproduction of the underclasses rather than upward redistribution to genetic fitness as is the norm in history. Islamism, Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Anti-Male-feminism, and Genetic Denialism, are the second wave of revolts against human evolution. European and East Asian civs are naturally eugenic. The middle eastern are dysgenic. People aren’t oppressed. But domesticated. Judaism to undermine from within, christianity to weaken from within, islam to conquer and devolve from within and without. Judaism to undermine from within, jewish neo-marxism, postmodernism, ant-male feminism, hbd-denialism, replace christianity to weaken from within. Islam to invade, undermine, then conquer from within and without. Devolution. Judaism, Europeanized Judaism as ‘isms’, and Islamism are ‘anti-life’ beuase they are anti-evolutionary. They are the source of the great filter that will prevent the transcendence of man. There is no devil, but there is evil, and the personification of evil in a demon, and we know the name of that demon: His name is Abraham. He was from Ur, and Jews, Christians, and Muslims are his offspring. 😉 And his mission is to prevent the evolution of man into gods, by using our moral intution to cooperate and care against us, by claiming the use of markets as continuation of natural selection are oppression, rather than the transformation of demons and animals into humans, so that one day we can transform humans into gods. We must create a new religon of man, and defeat the religion of the demons invented by the Semites to destroy mankind as a means of destroying god..
-
Yeah well, our history is rather obivious. Without the military aristocracy, and
Yeah well, our history is rather obivious. Without the military aristocracy, and without the germanic aristocracy, the utility of christianity in making pacifist docile peasants was a catastrophic weakness as christian magical thinking, unempirical optimism, unwarranted trust, and faith over state, created a gutless cowardly population waiting for real men to show up – that are gone.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-06 23:51:10 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105166056297091195
-
@Tayai Tell me where there will be ‘potential’ and I’ll go there. I show up
@Tayai Tell me where there will be ‘potential’ and I’ll go there. I show up.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-06 21:04:58 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105165402843271239
-
@RadioFreeNorthwest Well done. Shared
@RadioFreeNorthwest Well done. Shared.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-06 21:04:14 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105165399918660574
-
Formal Law is Just like Programming or Math, You Write Proofs.
I know y’all can’t grasp this but it’s how I work. Physicists use math, programmers use programs, I use arguments, but it’s the same thing: you run tests. Working on the origins and foundation of western civ has been extremely useful. It doesn’t come from thinking but from experimenting: trying to write proofs. The advantage of aspies is auto-associative depth. So every argument creates more pathways allowing more auto association until it’s possible to identify patterns that before were ‘too distant to intuit’. That’s because human intuition varies but generally is limited by the length of an associative jump it can make. Since P-Law is universally consistent it assists us in making more better jumps. But working on it, well, it’s like math: we learn by trying to write proofs, or programs: they compile, run, and don’t crash. 😉 Same for operational proofs in P-law. Now the word ‘proof’ means ‘test of internal consistency’. It’s just that the ‘internal consistency’ of Formal Natural Law is ‘complete’. In other words, it is consistent and coherent across all fields. So ‘consistent, correspondent, coherent, and operationally possible, is more demanding. I’m searching for that set.
-
Formal Law is Just like Programming or Math, You Write Proofs.
I know y’all can’t grasp this but it’s how I work. Physicists use math, programmers use programs, I use arguments, but it’s the same thing: you run tests. Working on the origins and foundation of western civ has been extremely useful. It doesn’t come from thinking but from experimenting: trying to write proofs. The advantage of aspies is auto-associative depth. So every argument creates more pathways allowing more auto association until it’s possible to identify patterns that before were ‘too distant to intuit’. That’s because human intuition varies but generally is limited by the length of an associative jump it can make. Since P-Law is universally consistent it assists us in making more better jumps. But working on it, well, it’s like math: we learn by trying to write proofs, or programs: they compile, run, and don’t crash. 😉 Same for operational proofs in P-law. Now the word ‘proof’ means ‘test of internal consistency’. It’s just that the ‘internal consistency’ of Formal Natural Law is ‘complete’. In other words, it is consistent and coherent across all fields. So ‘consistent, correspondent, coherent, and operationally possible, is more demanding. I’m searching for that set.
-
WE ARE THE UNSUBSTITUTABLE INSURERS OF LAST RESORT OF OUR SELF DETERMINATION
WE ARE THE UNSUBSTITUTABLE INSURERS OF LAST RESORT OF OUR SELF DETERMINATION.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-06 17:34:21 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105164574639940880