Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • How Can One Determine When Subjective Reasoning Might Be Preferable To Objective Reason?

    This question is not necessarily coherent, since subjective reason is a non-sequitur. If you mean, “When is intuition more useful than reason?” then that is a question currently addressed by Kahneman and Haidt.  Intuition is very powerful, but not logical or observable.  Reason is very weak, but observable.  And they inform one another.  However, any concept of truth is determined by reason.  Any concept of preference by intuition. And we lie to ourselves whenever possible in an effort to conflate the two.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-determine-when-subjective-reasoning-might-be-preferable-to-objective-reason

  • Which Historical Figure Is Least Recognized For Having Caused A Tremendous Amount Of Harm, And What Harm Did They Do?

    Abraham for religious totalitarianism.
    Marx for economic totalitarianism.
    Freud for pseudoscience.
    Cantor for pseudoscience.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-historical-figure-is-least-recognized-for-having-caused-a-tremendous-amount-of-harm-and-what-harm-did-they-do

  • Which Historical Figure Is Least Recognized For Having Caused A Tremendous Amount Of Harm, And What Harm Did They Do?

    Abraham for religious totalitarianism.
    Marx for economic totalitarianism.
    Freud for pseudoscience.
    Cantor for pseudoscience.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-historical-figure-is-least-recognized-for-having-caused-a-tremendous-amount-of-harm-and-what-harm-did-they-do

  • How Do Scientists And Inventors Benefit From Subjectivity And Intuition?

    NOT BENEFIT, BUT DEPEND

    Scientific investigation is not logical but intuitive, because it is conducted by free association.  Because formal logic has attracted unmerited attention in the 20th century, the importance of the scientist in the ‘decidability’ (which is the correct term, believe it or not) between possible avenues of exploration has been lost.  There is no such possible logical means of deciding how to investigate – other than perhaps the relationship between cost and content falsified.  But even this proposition is impossible to decide logically, since the domain of possible solutions is limited only by the general knowledge of the scientist and his or her capacity for free association (identification of possible patterns – which we tend to reduce to IQ.)

    In other words, it’s is not that they benefit from it, it is that they DEPEND UPON IT.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-and-inventors-benefit-from-subjectivity-and-intuition

  • How Could The Conflict Between Israel And Its Neighbors Be Solved To The Satisfaction Of All Parties Involved?

    History, not of just the middle east, but of the entire world,  says it cannot.

    https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-conflict-between-Israel-and-its-neighbors-be-solved-to-the-satisfaction-of-all-parties-involved

  • What Are The Most Difficult Cultural Understandings The French (from France) Have To Face When Living In North America?

    Protestants practice the Absolute Nuclear Family and the High Trust Society. In the Protestant (northern european) social model, high trust is extended to non-family members.  In the catholic countries, they practice the extended family model, and high trust is retained for use only by family members, and not extended to ‘everyone you meet’. 

    This explains the size of statism, and the authoritarianism in France, versus the libertarianism and rate of entrepreneurship in Anglo countries. The lower the trust in your polity, the more demand there is for authority to organize society, organize production and prevent conflicts.  The more trust in your society, the less need demand (or need) there is for the authoritarian organization of society and production.  This explains the difference between anglo high trust absolute nuclear, and french lower-trust extended families.

    Furthermore, as the original question positions, the high trust polity means that it is easier to take advantage of that trust and abuse it.  So anglos demonstrate higher Altruistic Punishment of offenders, whereas the French do not.

    To French, Anglos appear to be ‘stupid’ and ‘dishonestly friendly’.  And treat family members badly  To anglos, the French appear to be ill mannered, if not outright rude,  coddle laziness in the family; and the government appears to be predatory and corrupt. (In Quebec, it is possibly true.)

    SOME INTERESTING DATA
    1) In negotiations, who are the least hostile people in the world? Americans, Anglo-Canadians, and Germans.  Who are the most hostile people in the world: the French. (The study counts the use of certain categories of words). 

    2) In Canada, the Anglo immigrants came largely from the lower middle and middle classes. The French citizens of Quebec came disproportionately from the lower classes. This difference in classes provides greater insight into the different cultures than background alone.

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-difficult-cultural-understandings-the-French-from-France-have-to-face-when-living-in-North-America

  • How Do Scientists And Inventors Benefit From Subjectivity And Intuition?

    NOT BENEFIT, BUT DEPEND

    Scientific investigation is not logical but intuitive, because it is conducted by free association.  Because formal logic has attracted unmerited attention in the 20th century, the importance of the scientist in the ‘decidability’ (which is the correct term, believe it or not) between possible avenues of exploration has been lost.  There is no such possible logical means of deciding how to investigate – other than perhaps the relationship between cost and content falsified.  But even this proposition is impossible to decide logically, since the domain of possible solutions is limited only by the general knowledge of the scientist and his or her capacity for free association (identification of possible patterns – which we tend to reduce to IQ.)

    In other words, it’s is not that they benefit from it, it is that they DEPEND UPON IT.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-and-inventors-benefit-from-subjectivity-and-intuition

  • What’s Your Radical View?

    I assume that you do realize that you have not asked a question, and that you’ve advertised an opinion.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Whats-your-radical-view

  • What Are The Most Difficult Cultural Understandings The French (from France) Have To Face When Living In North America?

    Protestants practice the Absolute Nuclear Family and the High Trust Society. In the Protestant (northern european) social model, high trust is extended to non-family members.  In the catholic countries, they practice the extended family model, and high trust is retained for use only by family members, and not extended to ‘everyone you meet’. 

    This explains the size of statism, and the authoritarianism in France, versus the libertarianism and rate of entrepreneurship in Anglo countries. The lower the trust in your polity, the more demand there is for authority to organize society, organize production and prevent conflicts.  The more trust in your society, the less need demand (or need) there is for the authoritarian organization of society and production.  This explains the difference between anglo high trust absolute nuclear, and french lower-trust extended families.

    Furthermore, as the original question positions, the high trust polity means that it is easier to take advantage of that trust and abuse it.  So anglos demonstrate higher Altruistic Punishment of offenders, whereas the French do not.

    To French, Anglos appear to be ‘stupid’ and ‘dishonestly friendly’.  And treat family members badly  To anglos, the French appear to be ill mannered, if not outright rude,  coddle laziness in the family; and the government appears to be predatory and corrupt. (In Quebec, it is possibly true.)

    SOME INTERESTING DATA
    1) In negotiations, who are the least hostile people in the world? Americans, Anglo-Canadians, and Germans.  Who are the most hostile people in the world: the French. (The study counts the use of certain categories of words). 

    2) In Canada, the Anglo immigrants came largely from the lower middle and middle classes. The French citizens of Quebec came disproportionately from the lower classes. This difference in classes provides greater insight into the different cultures than background alone.

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-difficult-cultural-understandings-the-French-from-France-have-to-face-when-living-in-North-America

  • Can A Common Man With Average Intelligence Make A Significant Change In Society?

    An important and interesting question,  So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues. 

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time.  But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals.  The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common. 

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society.  If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity. 

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does.  On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-a-common-man-with-average-intelligence-make-a-significant-change-in-society