Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • THE UNDERSTANDABLE ORIGINS OF JUSTIFICATIONISM We evolved justificationary argum

    THE UNDERSTANDABLE ORIGINS OF JUSTIFICATIONISM

    We evolved justificationary argument for a set of understandable reasons:

    0) Our memories evolved to repeat what succeeded in the past.

    1) We learned to observe one another, then teach one another by imitation.

    2) It’s far less expensive to describe a route from problem to solution, rather than compare all alternative routes.

    3) Moral and legal rules are contractual, and as such at least lightly axiomatic, and therefore justificationary: “i did this because I though it ok to do this in our group”.

    4) Mathematics evolved prior to science, and as the most simple form of logic, it is the logical discipline in which the method of exploration and the method of proof (justification) are operationally nearly identical. Mathematics appeared to be justificationary because of this limited difference between exploration and proof.

    So between the evolutionary results of memory, learning through imitation, the economic demands of thought, moral justification, and mathematica justification, we continued the trend attempting to make truth justificationary.

    But truth is not constrained by our costs of finding it, the limits of our memories, the difficulty in transmitting it, and our moral appreciation for it.

    Truth is what it is precisely because it is not bounded by human limits.

    Truth is that description which both provides us with a recipe that consistently produces an existential result within a set of limits, and survives all attempts at falsification within those limits.

    Limits are significant, since professing the existential possibility of a perfect, complete, most parsimonious truth is in itself a logical impossibility. Parsimony depends upon the limits of the mind.

    So more parsimonious truths may be possible on any subject, but there are not more parsimonious truths within the limit of the claims we make.

    Limits are how we remove platonism – mysticism – from the art of truth telling. This remains a fallacy within critical rationalism that operationalism – the test of existential possibility – assists us in correcting.

    This process Re-Aryanizes “Truth” into testimony. And all the rest that we do not know is merely unknown information yet to be discovered or invented.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 04:47:00 UTC

  • Josh Jeppson (ALL) I figured out how to do it. I knew I would. Thank you for you

    Josh Jeppson (ALL)

    I figured out how to do it. I knew I would. Thank you for your aggressive persuasion. You were right. I could do it. I can do it.

    (Now I just have to live long enough to finish it. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-09 04:25:00 UTC

  • Our senses are limited because (a) sensory processing is expensive. (b) senses e

    Our senses are limited because

    (a) sensory processing is expensive.

    (b) senses evolved to assist in action – without being too expensive

    (c) senses we cannot act upon are unnecessary expenses.

    (d) humans operate in groups and divide the responsibility of sensing, and that is a better way of increasing sensory power.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-07 00:33:00 UTC

  • On Gossip and Shunning

    by Vivek UpadhyayGOSSIP Gossip is a non-correspondent, warranty-free means of enhancing personal status through deploying and extrapolating upon selective information about the person being gossiped about. Through use of loaded statements, jokes, rash impressionistic judgments, etc. in a shared consensus often exhibiting “shared information bias” despite the demonstrable costs of this error, gossipers seek to obtain a non-correspondent and parasitic discount on interpersonal status relative to a subject gossiped about, in part, by circumventing the high cognitive requirements of engaging in constructive criticism (rather than loaded critique) which involves a truthful gauging of the gossip subject’s incentives to have said or done supposedly cost-imposing and investment worthiness-undermining things. Gossip also circumvents the fully correspondent comparison of interpersonal track records of transparently conducted, measurable, merit-based, productive and value-adding achievements and attempts thereof (which comprise some rudiments of a bottom line determining whether a person is distinctly worth investing in to complete a designated task or succession of tasks relative to other candidates in his/her task competitor pool). Gossip imposes gratuitous costs in (at least) two forms: i) via avoiding truthful, fully correspondent conversational language in the gossiping interlocutors conversations, thereby polluting the informational commons within their interpersonal dealings, which when exported elsewhere gradually expands outside of the scope of their interactions to lower interpersonal trust through producing gratuitous trust-establishing mechanisms in social interactions between interlocutors whose interpersonal economic velocity becomes susceptible to needless compromise, and ii) via rallying and shaming: eventually confronting the person gossiped about with loaded statements and questions instead of first seeking the incentives-based context of the gossiped about person’s purportedly (but not yet demonstrably) costly or varied capital investment-disincentivizing speech and actions. _____ SHUNNING (vaguely, an advice post – not written as carefully, just a provisional post in its imperfect form) Shunning is a cost-imposing behavior which fails to give a fully informed accounting of why one shuns the shunned. It imposes conduct boundaries upon the shunned within which the shunned must operate to maintain relations; these boundaries are non-correspondent transaction terms upon the shunned which reinforce the shunner’s loaded, non-correspondent interpretation of events (even if in shared consensus with another). What a shunner administers an unexplained test delivered without warranty that this test is even worth taking: ‘behave and speak as I want or I will deprive you of affection, instruction, resources, and the investment of other forms of capital’. It fails to register the behavioral and speech incentives of the shunned and thereby compromises the shunner’s reality-testing in favor of his/her intuited, discounted means to pressure the shunned into appeasing to the shunner’s preferences; preferences which are demonstrably or intuitively costly for the shunned). If someone shuns you, question their value in your life before you consider even asking for the context of their shunning. They provide nothing of unique value that you couldn’t get elsewhere at a mutually understood (comparable) discount between yourself and your non-shunning interlocutor? You confirm that through the non-intuitive convenience of their shunning, you incidentally gain peace and more capital with which to love and produce for those kin and kith in your trust, who do not demonstrate the imposition of such costs as shunning upon you? You lose nothing by leaving them *after* having tried to establish a non-loaded context-seeking for their shunning — if they are even worth *that* to begin with — to no avail, perhaps while receiving an accountability-avoiding, evasive answer? Yes? Then leave them while sharing that these newfound value additions must continually incentivize your non-interaction with them. After clarifying this simply leave them to their own devices. Leave them without any animosity. Make sure that if it’s ever in your interests to rekindle dealings with them, you can do so without having the stain of a cost-imposing attack — that is, a critique not based on a criticism of someone’s alterable choices and/or virtues — inject gratuitous costs into your attempts to re-establish a connection in which the both of you can either exclusively add value to the lives of one another, according to voluntary and mutually established communicative terms which do not impose costs upon your family and friends, or choose to simply not interact in a given instance.

  • On Gossip and Shunning

    by Vivek UpadhyayGOSSIP Gossip is a non-correspondent, warranty-free means of enhancing personal status through deploying and extrapolating upon selective information about the person being gossiped about. Through use of loaded statements, jokes, rash impressionistic judgments, etc. in a shared consensus often exhibiting “shared information bias” despite the demonstrable costs of this error, gossipers seek to obtain a non-correspondent and parasitic discount on interpersonal status relative to a subject gossiped about, in part, by circumventing the high cognitive requirements of engaging in constructive criticism (rather than loaded critique) which involves a truthful gauging of the gossip subject’s incentives to have said or done supposedly cost-imposing and investment worthiness-undermining things. Gossip also circumvents the fully correspondent comparison of interpersonal track records of transparently conducted, measurable, merit-based, productive and value-adding achievements and attempts thereof (which comprise some rudiments of a bottom line determining whether a person is distinctly worth investing in to complete a designated task or succession of tasks relative to other candidates in his/her task competitor pool). Gossip imposes gratuitous costs in (at least) two forms: i) via avoiding truthful, fully correspondent conversational language in the gossiping interlocutors conversations, thereby polluting the informational commons within their interpersonal dealings, which when exported elsewhere gradually expands outside of the scope of their interactions to lower interpersonal trust through producing gratuitous trust-establishing mechanisms in social interactions between interlocutors whose interpersonal economic velocity becomes susceptible to needless compromise, and ii) via rallying and shaming: eventually confronting the person gossiped about with loaded statements and questions instead of first seeking the incentives-based context of the gossiped about person’s purportedly (but not yet demonstrably) costly or varied capital investment-disincentivizing speech and actions. _____ SHUNNING (vaguely, an advice post – not written as carefully, just a provisional post in its imperfect form) Shunning is a cost-imposing behavior which fails to give a fully informed accounting of why one shuns the shunned. It imposes conduct boundaries upon the shunned within which the shunned must operate to maintain relations; these boundaries are non-correspondent transaction terms upon the shunned which reinforce the shunner’s loaded, non-correspondent interpretation of events (even if in shared consensus with another). What a shunner administers an unexplained test delivered without warranty that this test is even worth taking: ‘behave and speak as I want or I will deprive you of affection, instruction, resources, and the investment of other forms of capital’. It fails to register the behavioral and speech incentives of the shunned and thereby compromises the shunner’s reality-testing in favor of his/her intuited, discounted means to pressure the shunned into appeasing to the shunner’s preferences; preferences which are demonstrably or intuitively costly for the shunned). If someone shuns you, question their value in your life before you consider even asking for the context of their shunning. They provide nothing of unique value that you couldn’t get elsewhere at a mutually understood (comparable) discount between yourself and your non-shunning interlocutor? You confirm that through the non-intuitive convenience of their shunning, you incidentally gain peace and more capital with which to love and produce for those kin and kith in your trust, who do not demonstrate the imposition of such costs as shunning upon you? You lose nothing by leaving them *after* having tried to establish a non-loaded context-seeking for their shunning — if they are even worth *that* to begin with — to no avail, perhaps while receiving an accountability-avoiding, evasive answer? Yes? Then leave them while sharing that these newfound value additions must continually incentivize your non-interaction with them. After clarifying this simply leave them to their own devices. Leave them without any animosity. Make sure that if it’s ever in your interests to rekindle dealings with them, you can do so without having the stain of a cost-imposing attack — that is, a critique not based on a criticism of someone’s alterable choices and/or virtues — inject gratuitous costs into your attempts to re-establish a connection in which the both of you can either exclusively add value to the lives of one another, according to voluntary and mutually established communicative terms which do not impose costs upon your family and friends, or choose to simply not interact in a given instance.

  • ( You know, when most of us see something well designed we ‘notice it’ and feel

    ( You know, when most of us see something well designed we ‘notice it’ and feel ‘pleasure’ in it. But we tend to ignore what is not well designed. We accommodate it. But some of us (aspies and ocd’s) don’t ever accommodate the imperfect. It’s more that we feel relaxation at the perfect, not pleasure. Instead we feel the absence of displeasure. I look at everything, and I see what’s ‘wrong’ with it – meaning asymmetric or atonal or disordered.

    I look at the building next to me and I see that one of the windows is bricked in, and it ruins the aesthetic of an otherwise beautiful 19th century building. It bothers me that there are salmon curtains in the window of this other building. I notice that the lines of that car were a compromise not a solution. I notice that the brick joinery on the curb was done lazily. I notice facial asymmetries, walking, and body language patterns. And I notice all of it as constant unending stream. And worse I tend to see the whole history and future of these things at the same time as a rushing set of images. And yes it’s freaking annoying. But it’s also useful.

    This ‘seeing the bad’ makes me ‘look for the good’. And I usually find some good to compliment in almost everyone. But, despite seeing a world of imperfect things, I don’t find it ‘dishonest’ to say ‘I like this person’, or ‘he is a good person’, and at the same time say ‘he’s terribly stupid in this way’ or ‘he has very bad taste in this context’. Any more than I notice my own facial asymmetries, my own ‘stiff’ body language, my own weakness in the left side, my own stupidities in one way or another. I can love my dog, my friends, my family, my mate and still know their failings. I don’t see a contradiction in any of that. It just is what it is.

    What I have been told quite frequently here in Ukraine, is that it’s dishonest – lying – to seek the optimistic path even if I see all these negatives. And this is an interesting insight into the intuitionism and moralism of Ukrainians – and Russians – that we don’t experience in the west: we work with the good we have. We tolerate that which we can tolerate. We ignore what we can ignore. And we operate from an optimistic if not utopian set of judgements – or at least, some of us do. I certainly do. Because if I thought of or worried about the imperfections I would be incapable of action. Worse, if I was ‘honest’ in all that I SAW people would fucking hate me. lol. And neither they, nor I, would be better off. So, while germans are empirical, British are moral, and Americans are utopian, Ukrainians are intuitionistic, call themselves ‘honest’, and in fact, are not trustworthy whatsoever except to their closest friends. Russians are equally intuitionistic, but nihilistic, call themselves honest, and are only trustworthy if they have no other choice. And this is borne out in all the data on trustworthiness, language use in negotiations, and visible corruption.

    Hence we must humor people from other cultures because as intuitionistic they cannot be reasoned with. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • I mean. I was involved in every kind of prank imaginable. Pranks are a great sub

    I mean. I was involved in every kind of prank imaginable. Pranks are a great substitute for raiding the tribes on the other side of the valley. As long as they are witty, unexpected, and don’t cause (serious) damage, pranks are a fantastic outlet, they are entertaining, and they keep you out of real trouble. I mean, if I listed all of the pranks I could remember … it would take a long, long long, time.

    Yeah. some of them were a bit dangerous. And some were a tad destructive. And I am sure most were somewhat annoying. But I mean…. it was awesome.

    1) Switching ALL the political signs in a west-hartford neighborhood. I mean ALL of them. Personal favorite. Every year.

    2) Garbage-can bowling.

    3) Mailbox baseball.

    4) Snowballs at cars and trucks – especially police cars – I pity Connecticut police officers. They were mere pawns for our entertainment.

    5) Lighting a stream gasoline across the road.

    6) Scotch tape across the road between signs (favorite)

    7) Switching hubcaps between cars in the same driveway.

    8) Every imaginable amount of trouble you can get into with fireworks

    9) Shooting out Streetlights with rocks or wrist-rockets.

    10) Hanging signs upside down. Switching Signs.

    11) Moving under-construction signs, road blocks etc in some confusing arrangement.

    12) Collecting traffic cones and then making ‘crop circles’ with them somewhere unexpected.

    13) Drawing chalk-outlines of ‘dead’-people in random places.

    14) Moving an entire fence. (that was so fun I still can’t believe we did it).

    15) Hanging whatever strange thing was possible from the school flag pole.

    16) Stacking bales of hay in the middle of main street.

    17) Every imaginable bit of trouble you could get into with model rocketry.

    18) Trying to ‘spank’ girls while driving by in a car, hanging out the window. (never succeeding. that would be uncool).

    19) Stuffing old clothes as a dummy and throwing it out of the car.

    20) (oops…. Accidentally lighting the biggest brush fire in the city’s history…)

    21) Minibike jousting.

    22) On bikes: Snowball or insult Hit and run on the older boys. (omg. so awesome.)

    23) I met my girlfriend Anna Marie by just walking up to her and grabbing her backside. We dated for the whole summer. I mean, you just can’t do this stuff any more.

    You get the idea. In other words. Celebrating life. 🙂

    Sorry but it was waaaaay better than video games, getting high, or drinking.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-04 07:52:00 UTC

  • RT @pkanske: Strong empathizers are not necessarily good mentalizers. Our newest

    RT @pkanske: Strong empathizers are not necessarily good mentalizers. Our newest paper just came out: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301733388_Are_strong_empathizers_better_mentalizers_Evidence_for_independence_and_interaction_between_the_routes_of_social_cognition https://t.co/…

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-02 15:41:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/727161181413216256

  • Philipp Kanske (@pkanske): Strong empathizers are not necessarily good mentalize

    http://twitter.com/pkanske/status/726890648650047488/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=727161181413216256Retweeted Philipp Kanske (@pkanske):

    Strong empathizers are not necessarily good mentalizers. Our newest paper just came out: https://t.co/1dVCGoiSKR https://t.co/gPpLr3f7YR

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-02 11:41:00 UTC

  • It’s all genetics guys. Get over it. Improve breeding. Nothing else matters

    It’s all genetics guys. Get over it. Improve breeding. Nothing else matters.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-01 19:20:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726853758496440320

    Reply addressees: @JustinWolfers

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726160232230064129

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JustinWolfers

    Is this what equality of opportunity looks like?
    https://t.co/vmPKJJHwES https://t.co/z58wCnnUHh

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726160232230064129