Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us https://t.co/WVna7Bqctt

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    –“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

    [T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

    That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

    This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

    In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

    —“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

    Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

    “Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    –“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

    [T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

    That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

    This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

    In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

    —“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

    Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

    “Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

  • “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The Fal

    “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The False Religion https://t.co/dlTPfTCodn

  • “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The False Religion

    In P-Law, ‘science’ is a testable definition, requiring inter-disciplinary categorical consistency: identity, internal, external, operational; testifiability(rare), limits and completeness(rare), test of malincentives(!!!), warranty (very rare), and liability(only extant commercially.
    We treat scientific speech like any other commercial product, where one must warranty and remain liable for any claim. By requiring specified limits, we limit claims, and with that alone prevent ‘hypothesis’ raging.

    Little applied science – Mathematics, chemistry, technology, engineering fails. Some physics fails. Most econ fails. And all climate, social, psych, fails.

    On the other hand, the academy was not formed to educate but de-indoctrinate from Christian superstition into reason, and eventually begrudgingly into science. The academy has been captured once again as an unaccountable religion with an unaccountable priesthood profiting from the sale of unwarrantable goods, that have undermined our civilization as badly as Judaism Christianity and Islam in the ancient world.

    Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Anti-Male Feminism, and HBD-Science-Denialism are just another Abrahamic religion of false promise from the Physical (scarcity), Natural (reciprocity), Evolutionary (eugenic) laws of the Universe, and casting European males, like Romans before them, as the makers of these laws, rather than discovering, adapting to, and applying them.

    Marxism – Bolshevism – NeoMarxism – Postmodernism – AntiMale Feminism – HBD-Science-Denialism is a secular religion of pseudoscience and sophistry that replaces political Judaism and political Christianity as a religion of supernaturalism and sophistry. And it will lead to political Islam.

    Because that’s the progression of devolution of cognitive ability: European Science, Reasoning, and law by Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism undermined by Jewish sophistry, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, adopted by Christians, who then undermine the martial empirical aristocracy and markets, who then make the civilization easy to conquer by Islam.

    There is no difference between the destruction of the ancient world and the destruction of the modern world. Sampe people same process.

    The only thing we can do is extend our law on fraud from commercial, to political, intellectual, and yes – religious – speech. And the only way to preserve Christianity for Christians is to make a specific exception for it, under specific limitations – deliver under god (faith), vs deliver under caesar (law), vs deliver unto alexander (war).

    I will fight for Christians to preserve their religion under those conditions. But only those conditions. Because Christianity without military aristocracy, and empirical law, exposes people to destruction by excessive expression of the feminine instinct. Christianity allows common people to tolerate the truth of markets and science while retaining empathy, emotion, and social inclusion. The universe is too absent caring nature, beast, man, or god for common people to bear. And for those of us with agency, we chose to face the truth of that universe and bend it to our will so that those who cannot face the truth of the universe no longer have need to.

  • “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The False Religion

    In P-Law, ‘science’ is a testable definition, requiring inter-disciplinary categorical consistency: identity, internal, external, operational; testifiability(rare), limits and completeness(rare), test of malincentives(!!!), warranty (very rare), and liability(only extant commercially.
    We treat scientific speech like any other commercial product, where one must warranty and remain liable for any claim. By requiring specified limits, we limit claims, and with that alone prevent ‘hypothesis’ raging.

    Little applied science – Mathematics, chemistry, technology, engineering fails. Some physics fails. Most econ fails. And all climate, social, psych, fails.

    On the other hand, the academy was not formed to educate but de-indoctrinate from Christian superstition into reason, and eventually begrudgingly into science. The academy has been captured once again as an unaccountable religion with an unaccountable priesthood profiting from the sale of unwarrantable goods, that have undermined our civilization as badly as Judaism Christianity and Islam in the ancient world.

    Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Anti-Male Feminism, and HBD-Science-Denialism are just another Abrahamic religion of false promise from the Physical (scarcity), Natural (reciprocity), Evolutionary (eugenic) laws of the Universe, and casting European males, like Romans before them, as the makers of these laws, rather than discovering, adapting to, and applying them.

    Marxism – Bolshevism – NeoMarxism – Postmodernism – AntiMale Feminism – HBD-Science-Denialism is a secular religion of pseudoscience and sophistry that replaces political Judaism and political Christianity as a religion of supernaturalism and sophistry. And it will lead to political Islam.

    Because that’s the progression of devolution of cognitive ability: European Science, Reasoning, and law by Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism undermined by Jewish sophistry, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, adopted by Christians, who then undermine the martial empirical aristocracy and markets, who then make the civilization easy to conquer by Islam.

    There is no difference between the destruction of the ancient world and the destruction of the modern world. Sampe people same process.

    The only thing we can do is extend our law on fraud from commercial, to political, intellectual, and yes – religious – speech. And the only way to preserve Christianity for Christians is to make a specific exception for it, under specific limitations – deliver under god (faith), vs deliver under caesar (law), vs deliver unto alexander (war).

    I will fight for Christians to preserve their religion under those conditions. But only those conditions. Because Christianity without military aristocracy, and empirical law, exposes people to destruction by excessive expression of the feminine instinct. Christianity allows common people to tolerate the truth of markets and science while retaining empathy, emotion, and social inclusion. The universe is too absent caring nature, beast, man, or god for common people to bear. And for those of us with agency, we chose to face the truth of that universe and bend it to our will so that those who cannot face the truth of the universe no longer have need to.

  • (I’ve blocked the other party. But, in P-Law, ‘science’ is a testable definition

    (I’ve blocked the other party. But, in P-Law, ‘science’ is a testable definition, requiring testifiability(rare), completeness(rare), test of malincentives(!!!), warranty (very rare), and liability(only extant commercially). Some physics, econ, all climate, social, psych, fails.)

    Reply addressees: @Derek86342645 @galt_the

  • (I’m sort of ‘settled’ in workflow. I use mind maps or lists for note-taking; wr

    (I’m sort of ‘settled’ in workflow. I use mind maps or lists for note-taking; write in text to organize my thoughts; use full-text search for my ‘databases’;and organize ideas in my head spatially, and are systematized so ‘organized’. Now I’m just trying to write down synthesis.)

    Reply addressees: @bierlingm @RoamResearch

  • Sorry. Seriously. You’re the most “respectful” AND intellectually honest friend

    Sorry. Seriously. You’re the most “respectful” AND intellectually honest friend I have. (a hard thing to accomplish), and it’s my fault for getting blocked.

    My fault for commenting on his post rather than a share of his post.

    Apologies.

    Reply addressees: @bierlingm @adamsafron

  • “Cobbling together a pseudo-argument by references to papers, as a false pretens

    “Cobbling together a pseudo-argument by references to papers, as a false pretense of legitimacy by association.”

    Claims a theory. Never presents one. Instead, presents a loose association of cites that records his present level of understanding. (thin)

    Reply addressees: @bierlingm @adamsafron