Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • The Impact of Ordinary Man?

    (Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere, but giving them a note of solace in return…. Can an ordinary person significantly change society?)

    [A]n 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.

  • The Impact of Ordinary Man?

    (Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere, but giving them a note of solace in return…. Can an ordinary person significantly change society?)

    [A]n 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.

  • CONSEQUENCES: THE UNLOADED LANGUAGE OF AUTISTICS It is interesting, as an autist

    CONSEQUENCES: THE UNLOADED LANGUAGE OF AUTISTICS

    It is interesting, as an autistic, who thinks in almost entirely spatial terms, and who, for many, many years, as struggled to find a language for communicating those ideas in as unloaded form as I visualize them (and found it), to watch one’s own skill improve with constant practice, to the point where one sees all humans making similar mistakes using loaded language of convention that they do not understand except as loose associations. Whereas as an autistic a loose association is extremely uncomfortable, if not disturbing – something to be avoided at all costs. We lacked (prior to the work I’m doing) a language for communicating ‘loaded’ social concepts in unloaded form, and had to rely on the closest analogies available (physics and science) as proxies. But those analogies are only that – not descriptions, but analogies, and human behavior is not, like the physical universe, insulated from heuristic and constant changes in relations, methods, and properties.

    I have always been able to identify autistic speech, but it wasn’t until recently that I understood that we all do exactly the same thing – sense a reality that we have no words for, and cannot quite complete, and frustratingly use analogies unsuited to the application to express those ideas. These analogies are useful because they lack the loading that rather ‘poetic’ human discourse develops with use, like the marks in an old an still functioning machine part – still useful for the original purpose but no longer suitable for the fine work it was originally designed to produce.

    Normals do not shy from loaded speech – they revel in it. They use it to attempt to persuade or lie to one another that the world is, or should be one way or another. Truth is undesirable unless it advances that world view. And our world views are but representations that suit our reproductive strategies. Truth is for aristocracy.

    Is propertarianism but the logical consequence of attempting to solve autistic speech in the social sciences? Its Propertarianism – the formal logic of cooperation – merely the natural result of an autistic mind’s frustration at the inability to express ideas in unladen form? Am I just a genetic machine, probabilistically, if not deterministically, producing an available output given that the patterns developed in multiple fields of inquiry made such a leap possible given human ability to form parallels between patterns of limited difference?

    I don’t really like to think about life in those terms, because it’s dehumanizing. But I suspect that is closer to the truth than not.

    I wonder if propertarianism can help all autistics, as it can help normals. But I suspect that the truth it provides us with is further alienating.

    He who breeds wins, and the locusts breed better than the lions.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 10:39:00 UTC

  • FOR ASPIES: UNDERSTANDING NORMALS (Normals talk about meaningless nonsense all t

    FOR ASPIES: UNDERSTANDING NORMALS

    (Normals talk about meaningless nonsense all the time. we can learn to talk about meaningless nonsense too. it’s kind of hard at first to imagine meaningless nonsense, or even why you’d care about it. but it’s a product that the market wants, and if you want to obtain attention in the market, you have to use the currency of choice, and the currency of attention is meaningless nonsense: signals that do not require much of the recipient. once you try to talk about nonsense enough, it’s really just returning served pingpong ball with a little spin, not adding much to it at all. You sort of pick five topics that normals know something about, and keep informed about those in some niche, so you can always add niche info to a conversation. Most aspies specialize. But specializing in nonsense is unprofitable. So it is good to spread your specialization to something popular like fashion, music, politics, news, and spend the rest of your time on your specialization. This will let you talk to normals about meaningless stuff and enjoy it, as long as you simply understand that the entire purpose is NOT to share meaning, but pleasant images, and positive associations. we really like to talk about things that require thinking. normals have to work at thinking. we just think at the same volume that they feel. so they want to free associate with feelings, not with facts. when we free associate with facts, we look for contradictions. when they free associate with experiences they look for confirmations. when we look for dominance in our facts, they look for submissions in their experiences, so that they signal ‘I’m safe’ to one another. We find safety in knowledge and understanding, they find safety in shared experiences. They find pleasure in experiential novelty, and we find pleasure in informational novelty. Conversely, they find discomfort in the unknown information, and we in the unknown experience. It is far easier for us to work at contributing to the experiential association of normals, than it is for normals to work at contributing to the informational association of autistics. don’t be hard on normals for being dim. but don’t be easy on yourself for being dim either. Imagine that each of us sees a slightly different section of the spectrum of radiation, and that normals see most of the visual spectrum, and some of them are a little color blind. We on the other hand see in the equivalent of infrared. It is a much simpler view of the universe with clearer lines of delineation between entities that are meaningful (heat) and hose that are not (cold). But that is our only difference. Our world must be constructed of perceptions and analogies to perception. But with instrumentation and practice we can observe each other’s worlds. It just has to be cost effective. It isn’t really cost effective for them to perceive our world. But it is usually very cost effective for us to learn to perceive their world. It was very hard for me, and I am very bright and I worked very hard, but it is possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-23 05:10:00 UTC

  • FIGHT THE RIGHT BATTLE: ITS NOT ANTI-BLACK ITS ANTI-MALE (innovative idea) The u

    FIGHT THE RIGHT BATTLE: ITS NOT ANTI-BLACK ITS ANTI-MALE

    (innovative idea)

    The unpleasant truth is that the USA is anti masculine; and black males are more masculine – with much more testosterone and much more impulsivity – so black males endure disproportionate suppression of their masculinity, and exhibit a disproportionate intolerance for submission to the state.

    This is the real, unstated, incognizant origin of black criminalization: suppression of natural male behavior.

    In no other country is it so prohibited. In no other country are black males so suppressed. In no other country are males so suppressed.

    I will leave America because I understand that the war on black men is just the front line of the war on men, in the most feminist country on earth.

    God forbid men should resist enslavement by the state, and suppression of their masculinity so that privileged white men and their silly women can feel a sense of superiority through altruistic punishment.

    Free all masculinity and take black men off the front lines of the war against masculinity.

    The first problem is to know the correct enemy, and your enemy’s motivations.

    Fight the right battle.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-22 13:59:00 UTC

  • What Is Racism, Prejudice And Discrimination? Why Are They So Hard To Overcome?

    A postmodern attempt to demonize behavior that is universally demonstrated by all groups as an expression of kin selection.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-racism-prejudice-and-discrimination-Why-are-they-so-hard-to-overcome

  • Why Don’t Those With High Intelligence Or Those At The Top Of Society End Up Making The World Significantly Better?

    REALLY BAD ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO DO BETTER
    1) How can the world be ‘significantly better’?
    2) If the world would be significantly better,  for whom would the world be ‘significantly worse’ in your interpretation of how the world would be ‘significantly better?’
    3) Before we took action on our hypothesis of, how would we know the world would in fact, ‘be significantly better?’.
    4) Isn’t the most scientific way to make the world significantly better, to experiment with small changes and see if they are successful?
    5) The reason the world is not ‘significantly better’ is not for lack of efforts. Aristotle, Aquinas, Smith and Hume, all made the world better by explaining how the real world works.
    6) When smart people have tried specifically to make the world ‘significantly better’ by telling us what we SHOULD do, rather than what we DO do, they have caused enormous bloodshed (Marx). 
    7) Smart people make the world better all the time.
    8) There is some truth to the fact that very, very, smart people do not engage in the social sciences (it’s the university discipline with the lowest IQ professors and students.) That is because very abstract problems are more interesting; and it is more interesting to convince other very smart people of the obvious, than it is less smart people of that which is not obvious to them. Secondly, unfortunate as it is, we tend to communicate well in a radius of about 15 points of IQ, and cease to be able to communicate across 30 points of IQ. So it’s the people who are above average, but not exceptional that tend to speak to the majority the best. 
    9) To make matters worse, morality increases above 100 points of IQ, and decreases rapidly below it. Furthermore, the ability to determine whether someone is attempting to deceive you or not decreases as well. This leads to the Dunning-Kreuger effect: where we become unconsciously incompetent and overestimate our abilities when we have insufficiently mastered a field of inquiry. Whereas people with higher trust, higher intelligence, and more general knowledge, and who learn by abstract problem solving rather than imitation or training, tend to be able to discern deception, verbalism and pseudoscience, from a truth candidate. So what happens is that smart people find that less smart people can’t discern fact from fiction, and treat them skeptically, and so it is just too much effort, time and frustration to try.  (Really. I work very, very hard at it, and people say I’m good at it, but frankly I think people just can tell that I’m honest, and so that’s why they listen to me, not because they understand what I say.)
    10) The underlying assumption is quite problematic, and only a northern european, a victim of the fallacy of **altruistic punishment** would ask that question. Most of the world does not want to make the world better, but better for them. The difference between warfare and commerce is merely that commerce is mutually constructive.  In both cases we are still competing.  In fact, given history, I am very concerned about anyone who thinks he or she is smart enough to recommend how the world WOULD be better, because it would require a great deal of violence to change it.  I think instead, it is better to state how the world *IS*, in the most scientific terms possible, so that we can make constant improvements to it through incentives.  Lots of marxists justified the murder of 100M people and the destruction of eastern european civilization. Lots of others spent the 20th century constructing pseudosciences and deceptions.  The cost of which we now bear.  As far as I know, science is the only way to make the world better. And even then, it takes a skilled mind to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-those-with-high-intelligence-or-those-at-the-top-of-society-end-up-making-the-world-significantly-better

  • Why Don’t Those With High Intelligence Or Those At The Top Of Society End Up Making The World Significantly Better?

    REALLY BAD ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO DO BETTER
    1) How can the world be ‘significantly better’?
    2) If the world would be significantly better,  for whom would the world be ‘significantly worse’ in your interpretation of how the world would be ‘significantly better?’
    3) Before we took action on our hypothesis of, how would we know the world would in fact, ‘be significantly better?’.
    4) Isn’t the most scientific way to make the world significantly better, to experiment with small changes and see if they are successful?
    5) The reason the world is not ‘significantly better’ is not for lack of efforts. Aristotle, Aquinas, Smith and Hume, all made the world better by explaining how the real world works.
    6) When smart people have tried specifically to make the world ‘significantly better’ by telling us what we SHOULD do, rather than what we DO do, they have caused enormous bloodshed (Marx). 
    7) Smart people make the world better all the time.
    8) There is some truth to the fact that very, very, smart people do not engage in the social sciences (it’s the university discipline with the lowest IQ professors and students.) That is because very abstract problems are more interesting; and it is more interesting to convince other very smart people of the obvious, than it is less smart people of that which is not obvious to them. Secondly, unfortunate as it is, we tend to communicate well in a radius of about 15 points of IQ, and cease to be able to communicate across 30 points of IQ. So it’s the people who are above average, but not exceptional that tend to speak to the majority the best. 
    9) To make matters worse, morality increases above 100 points of IQ, and decreases rapidly below it. Furthermore, the ability to determine whether someone is attempting to deceive you or not decreases as well. This leads to the Dunning-Kreuger effect: where we become unconsciously incompetent and overestimate our abilities when we have insufficiently mastered a field of inquiry. Whereas people with higher trust, higher intelligence, and more general knowledge, and who learn by abstract problem solving rather than imitation or training, tend to be able to discern deception, verbalism and pseudoscience, from a truth candidate. So what happens is that smart people find that less smart people can’t discern fact from fiction, and treat them skeptically, and so it is just too much effort, time and frustration to try.  (Really. I work very, very hard at it, and people say I’m good at it, but frankly I think people just can tell that I’m honest, and so that’s why they listen to me, not because they understand what I say.)
    10) The underlying assumption is quite problematic, and only a northern european, a victim of the fallacy of **altruistic punishment** would ask that question. Most of the world does not want to make the world better, but better for them. The difference between warfare and commerce is merely that commerce is mutually constructive.  In both cases we are still competing.  In fact, given history, I am very concerned about anyone who thinks he or she is smart enough to recommend how the world WOULD be better, because it would require a great deal of violence to change it.  I think instead, it is better to state how the world *IS*, in the most scientific terms possible, so that we can make constant improvements to it through incentives.  Lots of marxists justified the murder of 100M people and the destruction of eastern european civilization. Lots of others spent the 20th century constructing pseudosciences and deceptions.  The cost of which we now bear.  As far as I know, science is the only way to make the world better. And even then, it takes a skilled mind to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-those-with-high-intelligence-or-those-at-the-top-of-society-end-up-making-the-world-significantly-better

  • If you cannot succeed in gaining approval, acceptance, permission, and rights, t

    If you cannot succeed in gaining approval, acceptance, permission, and rights, then de facto you are treated as an enemy.

    If you are treated as an enemy, it is only rational that you act as an enemy.

    And no longer seek approval, acceptance, permission and rights.

    Instead seek resistance, conquest, and if necessary, subjugation.

    The highest art available to man: the organized application of violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-18 08:05:00 UTC

  • OPPORTUNITY COSTS: PROBLEMS VS PUZZLES (not to dismiss entertainment, but this i

    OPPORTUNITY COSTS: PROBLEMS VS PUZZLES

    (not to dismiss entertainment, but this is one of my rules)

    Chess is like crack or math – I love it, and I love puzzles. I love it like I would love heroin, or cocaine. But puzzles are not problems. Puzzles eat time, and don’t make money. I learned to enjoy puzzles that make money. And those puzzles have a name: ‘problems’.

    I am not sure that fitness at puzzles assists you in fitness at problems. In fact, I am fairly sure that the answer is no. Since every solved puzzle is a lost opportunity for problem solving, I cant imagine so.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 16:47:00 UTC