Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • REVOLUTIONARY MOMENTUM You put a bunch of guys together with room temperature IQ

    REVOLUTIONARY MOMENTUM

    You put a bunch of guys together with room temperature IQ’s who want a revolution and nothing happens except the consumption of alcohol. If you put together a bunch of guys at the opposite end of the spectrum, you can accomplish anything you’re willing to devote your attention to. It’s not complicated. You just have to have the IQ, and the desire. Entrenched fragile bureaucracies that lack popular support are merely prey. And they’re overconfident prey.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 07:13:00 UTC

  • Operationalism Is Synonymous With Human Action

    [I] guess, I just assumed that it was so obvious that I didn’t need to say it. But apparently it’s not. So why would you try to rely on all this Kantian nonsense, in order to justify human action? Instead, why wouldn’t you base the philosophy of human action, on human action? What is the difference between, say, justifying something aprioristically, and simply stating that it appears that we are able to use description, deduction, induction, abduction given the amount of information available to us. But that deduction is possible only when describing constant relations? What is the difference between stating, the obvious falsehood, that categorical descriptions of human actions are axiomatic, as in mathematics, and therefore not bounded by reality, rather than that any general description of human actions is theoretical, parsimonious, with broad explanatory power, but remains bounded by reality? Why would one want to appeal to an authority using verbal contrivances, instead of honest descriptions of human actions? Why would you base the theoretical system upon which we analyze human actions on anything other than human actions? Especially when to do so you must misrepresent that which is ‘axiom-like’ but not axiomatic, as that which it is not? Unless you were trying to justify an appeal to an authority? To grant to that which is empirical, scientific and theoretical, the authoritative content of mathematics and logic, which because both are axiomatic, are fully tautological and unbounded by reality? Misesian reasoning, and rothbardian ethics, could be simply an intellectual error. Or it could be a dishonest use of obscurantism to hide the fact that human actions are observable. Even introspective actions are observable by the actor who makes them, and if communicated, observable by others. And as observable, those actions are empirical. Theories may be very hard or very weak. Some theories are very hard, in that under most conditions they are true. But because of time and space, no economic theories are axiomatic. They are bounded by reality. This does not mean that they need to be tested. That is a fallacy of positivism. It means that there are always the possibility of conditions under which they may or may not apply, for any given period of time. In axiomatic systems this is never true. That is what defines them as axiomatic. Operationalism solves the problem of reducing all statements to empirical (observable) and therefore sympathetically testable terms. Praxeology is either an empirical science for the purpose of determining the rationality of human actions, and the voluntary exchange of property, and therefore it is the test of moral action – or it is another of the many, many, cosmopolitan and continental fallacies. If you cannot explain human actions as human actions, then you are either unsure of what it is that you speak, or engaging in obscurantist deception. Continental and Cosmopolitan authors were (and are) trying to preserve traditional authority in the face of science, for the purpose of maintaining group homogeneity. We must treat their arguments as specious. Because they are. All we need is property rights, a contract for their fullest expression enforceable under the private, common, law, and the willingness to organize and use violence for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity to construct those property rights, contract, and private common law. Everything else is obscurant nonsense. Science won. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev.

  • Operationalism Is Synonymous With Human Action

    [I] guess, I just assumed that it was so obvious that I didn’t need to say it. But apparently it’s not. So why would you try to rely on all this Kantian nonsense, in order to justify human action? Instead, why wouldn’t you base the philosophy of human action, on human action? What is the difference between, say, justifying something aprioristically, and simply stating that it appears that we are able to use description, deduction, induction, abduction given the amount of information available to us. But that deduction is possible only when describing constant relations? What is the difference between stating, the obvious falsehood, that categorical descriptions of human actions are axiomatic, as in mathematics, and therefore not bounded by reality, rather than that any general description of human actions is theoretical, parsimonious, with broad explanatory power, but remains bounded by reality? Why would one want to appeal to an authority using verbal contrivances, instead of honest descriptions of human actions? Why would you base the theoretical system upon which we analyze human actions on anything other than human actions? Especially when to do so you must misrepresent that which is ‘axiom-like’ but not axiomatic, as that which it is not? Unless you were trying to justify an appeal to an authority? To grant to that which is empirical, scientific and theoretical, the authoritative content of mathematics and logic, which because both are axiomatic, are fully tautological and unbounded by reality? Misesian reasoning, and rothbardian ethics, could be simply an intellectual error. Or it could be a dishonest use of obscurantism to hide the fact that human actions are observable. Even introspective actions are observable by the actor who makes them, and if communicated, observable by others. And as observable, those actions are empirical. Theories may be very hard or very weak. Some theories are very hard, in that under most conditions they are true. But because of time and space, no economic theories are axiomatic. They are bounded by reality. This does not mean that they need to be tested. That is a fallacy of positivism. It means that there are always the possibility of conditions under which they may or may not apply, for any given period of time. In axiomatic systems this is never true. That is what defines them as axiomatic. Operationalism solves the problem of reducing all statements to empirical (observable) and therefore sympathetically testable terms. Praxeology is either an empirical science for the purpose of determining the rationality of human actions, and the voluntary exchange of property, and therefore it is the test of moral action – or it is another of the many, many, cosmopolitan and continental fallacies. If you cannot explain human actions as human actions, then you are either unsure of what it is that you speak, or engaging in obscurantist deception. Continental and Cosmopolitan authors were (and are) trying to preserve traditional authority in the face of science, for the purpose of maintaining group homogeneity. We must treat their arguments as specious. Because they are. All we need is property rights, a contract for their fullest expression enforceable under the private, common, law, and the willingness to organize and use violence for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity to construct those property rights, contract, and private common law. Everything else is obscurant nonsense. Science won. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev.

  • OPERATIONALISM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH HUMAN ACTION I guess, I just assumed that it w

    OPERATIONALISM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH HUMAN ACTION

    I guess, I just assumed that it was so obvious that I didn’t need to say it. But apparently it’s not.

    So why would you try to rely on all this Kantian nonsense, in order to justify human action? Instead, why wouldn’t you base the philosophy of human action, on human action?

    What is the difference between, say, justifying something aprioristically, and simply stating that it appears that we are able to use description, deduction, induction, abduction given the amount of information available to us. But that deduction is possible only when describing constant relations?

    What is the difference between stating, the obvious falsehood, that categorical descriptions of human actions are axiomatic, as in mathematics, and therefore not bounded by reality, rather than that any general description of human actions is theoretical, parsimonious, with broad explanatory power, but remains bounded by reality?

    Why would one want to appeal to an authority using verbal contrivances, instead of honest descriptions of human actions? Why would you base the theoretical system upon which we analyze human actions on anything other than human actions? Especially when to do so you must misrepresent that which is ‘axiom-like’ but not axiomatic, as that which it is not?

    Unless you were trying to justify an appeal to an authority? To grant to that which is empirical, scientific and theoretical, the authoritative content of mathematics and logic, which because both are axiomatic, are fully tautological and unbounded by reality?

    Misesian reasoning, and rothbardian ethics, could be simply an intellectual error. Or it could be a dishonest use of obscurantism to hide the fact that human actions are observable. Even introspective actions are observable by the actor who makes them, and if communicated, observable by others. And as observable, those actions are empirical.

    Theories may be very hard or very weak. Some theories are very hard, in that under most conditions they are true. But because of time and space, no economic theories are axiomatic. They are bounded by reality. This does not mean that they need to be tested. That is a fallacy of positivism. It means that there are always the possibility of conditions under which they may or may not apply, for any given period of time. In axiomatic systems this is never true. That is what defines them as axiomatic.

    Operationalism solves the problem of reducing all statements to empirical (observable) and therefore sympathetically testable terms.

    Praxeology is either an empirical science for the purpose of determining the rationality of human actions, and the voluntary exchange of property, and therefore it is the test of moral action – or it is another of the many, many, cosmopolitan and continental fallacies.

    If you cannot explain human actions as human actions, then you are either unsure of what it is that you speak, or engaging in obscurantist deception. Continental and Cosmopolitan authors were (and are) trying to preserve traditional authority in the face of science, for the purpose of maintaining group homogeneity. We must treat their arguments as specious. Because they are.

    All we need is property rights, a contract for their fullest expression enforceable under the private, common, law, and the willingness to organize and use violence for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity to construct those property rights, contract, and private common law.

    Everything else is obscurant nonsense.

    Science won.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 06:22:00 UTC

  • REVELATIONS There are revelations that you are glad you had, and revelations tha

    REVELATIONS

    There are revelations that you are glad you had, and revelations that you’re sad you’ve had. I’ve had a lot of great revelations that filled me with awe. And a small number that have filled me with …. depression.

    Most of us remember when we realized our parents are not people we really should listen to any longer.

    The hard one for me was realizing just how dim most people were. They weren’t evil really. The just don’t know better. The idea of going through life like that, as an ordinary person, was terrifying. I was depressed for months.

    Today was just one of those days where you realize that the number of ‘human’ humans is actually very, very small. And the rest are just trained apes that we hope don’t do too much damage.

    How do you know you’re talking to a human? You know when you cross disciplinary boundaries and someone can follow you, and you them. Because the ultimate wisdom is in how we know what we can know, and how to go about the possibility of knowing it. Regardless of discipline.

    Everyone else is just imitating some behavior or other, like a well trained pet.

    I know why Socrates tried to walk out of athens, and why Lao Tzu and St Patrick did. It seems completely hopeless.

    Sigh. Bad day.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 16:54:00 UTC

  • FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE QUESTION: Which of thes

    FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE

    QUESTION: Which of these is moral and ethical or not?

    1) WAR: Both parties prey upon each other in mutual destruction (consumption)

    2) PREDATION: In which on party preys upon the other for the purpose of destruction (consumption)

    3) PARASITISM: In which one party benefits at another’s expense

    4) COMMENSALISM: In which one party benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped

    5) EXCHANGE: In which costs are reciprocally offset without gain.

    6) MUTUALISM (production) : in which both parties benefit.

    7) COLONIALISM : In which one party pays the cost of training the other to cooperate.

    8) SACRIFICE: In which one party harms itself in order to benefit the other.

    9) SUICIDE: In which one party destroys itself in order to benefit the other.

    And, bonus question: which of these is western culture engaging in?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 06:35:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF BEING WELL READ NO MATTER WHAT YOUR IQ. The data is pretty good y

    THE PURPOSE OF BEING WELL READ NO MATTER WHAT YOUR IQ.

    The data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books.

    But the right books at your level of experience.

    Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity. However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.

    So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.

    The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas. But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.

    LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:

    Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions

    Moral arguments <- normative arguments

    Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)

    Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)

    Scientific Arguments <- specialists in causal relations

    Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations

    Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments

    Constructivist Explanations <- description of reality

    It gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.

    If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.

    SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?

    You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.

    But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.

    At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.

    Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 06:18:00 UTC

  • think it’s actually harder to be a female exec over other women, than it is for

    http://clarissasblog.com/2014/05/14/i-dont-want-to-hire-women/I think it’s actually harder to be a female exec over other women, than it is for men. I mean. Not only are we oblivious, but we just don’t care, and women don’t expect us to care. We just do our thing. And go on obliviously.

    I have had very bad luck with women in senior exec positions. In fact, it’s been almost fruitless. I suppose in other industries it’d be different. But in my generation the combination of feminism and craziness has just been impossible.

    But in middle management, it’s been just the opposite. In middle management you’re trying to facilitate – herding cats. In executive management you’re trying to discriminate – apply scarce resources to the best return whether people like it or not. And women are much better at herding cats, and processing multiple lines of communication than men and that’s just how it is. I don’t argue with it. I just accept it. I have found male middle managers to be free riders, and female middle managers to be more effective. I think it’s genetic. I have been on a career long quest to reduce middle management, indeed all management, to the bare minimum wherever possible and to empower the talent whenever and wherever possible. This tends to lead to a project-based company that is often reorganized, rather than a department based company structure, that is rarely reorganized.

    The gossip mill that women create is almost always destructive and the only cure is over-communication. I’ve tried to manage anti-gossip campaigns whenever possible. But the gossip thing is just insanely painful to deal with.

    (My favorite example is the accusation that I was sleeping with my young female assistant, and I simply could not silence it, despite the fact that she was actually sleeping with one of my married business partners from the east coast. )

    Good gossip lifts people up. Bad gossip cuts people down. It’s hysterical how effective this technique is. (I tell people, “if you want to gossip and conspire to make me a more successful person then please do.”) So there are positive ways to channeling negative behavior if you understand the incentives. (As strange as chick-incentives are to us men.)

    It’s really good if you can get all the admin chicks in your company on a gossip containment committee. This turns the problem into an effective means of control because the girls at the lowest level who have the greatest access to gossip become empowered by policing gossip. You try to get them to tell you anything that’s negative. Then you tell the the TRUTH about what you’re doing and let them do the work. The problem is you can never lie to them. And if you screw up you have to tell them.

    What bothers me still, and something I would like to find a way to solve, is the degree of self destruction women practice upon one another. The hen pecking thing is just impossible. And yes (straight) women are much higher maintenance. I hope to improve some of this over the next decade with Oversing. But I suspect that stopping women from trying to social climb their chick-status-ladder by gossip and undermining is freaking impossible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 14:57:00 UTC

  • “Out of life’s school of war, that which does not kill us, only serves to make u

    —“Out of life’s school of war, that which does not kill us, only serves to make us stronger.”—

    You can love that statement or fear it. You can seek out those wars to make yourself stronger, or avoid them and remain weaker. Aristocracy like science only learns through testing and failure. Science runs tests – luxury goods, so that all of us may benefit. The wealthy run tests of consumption so that all of us may one day have luxuries as consumer goods. Aristocracy runs tests, so that other people do not have to, and can merely learn from imitation. The common law records our successes and prohibitions and society evolves without intent, every constantly to a ‘stronger’ state, than the one before it.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 06:38:00 UTC

  • FIRE, BEER, MEAT, WEAPONS, EACH OTHER Friend of mine used to say that all men re

    FIRE, BEER, MEAT, WEAPONS, EACH OTHER

    Friend of mine used to say that all men really require to be happy is fire, beer, meat, weapons, and each other. Everything else is just an excuse to get the attention of women.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-15 15:26:00 UTC