Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • Answering Questions on Soft Eugenics – the Autistic Child Example

    —“[“Demarcation between animal and human is agency, not…”] Interesting. So this would make all children non human by this logic.”— @thanos_pope —“So let’s hypothetically say I have a child with a more severe form of autism. It is unlikely he will ever have full agency. Would P reclassify him as animal? What would happen to him in this hypothetical structure?”—

    I have no idea. I’m not making a political or moral statement, I’m simply stating that we use conflation for deception. either one has agency or not. If one has agency one is certainly fully human. If one does not then evolution and parenting failed the transition to fully human.

    —Fascinating. Obviously I was not trying to be conflating in my questions. I was asking to better understand where my real life son would fit in. I found you thru the videos of @JohnMarkSays and liked what he had to say. I am a little concerned with how we would treat my son.”—

    The context is in discussing the point at which one has the agency to make decisions in a polity. Would you want him lead a polity? Body or soldiers? A family? Make decisions for himself?

    —“You understand my worry Mr Doolittle. Using the demarcation “human” has been done before. And lead to tragedies. No I wouldn’t want him to do those things in his current condition. Neither would i like him to be treated badly as subhuman. T4 program started similar to this talk”—

    I understand completely. Although, we have deal with the reality that the reason we are talking about this subject is the utility of soft eugenics(one child, no child policy), and not hard eugenics(euthanasia). Hard eugenics breaks reciprocity. Not having soft eugenics does too.

    —“Now that makes more sense. But I wouldn’t remove humanity from them. There has to be a better way. Certainly no citizenship (under your system). But residency and policy on not allowing (though I don’t see this happening for him regardless) procreation.”—

    Well, you’re an in-group member, speaking truthfully, not trying to engage in parasitism, but wanting ‘insurance’ from the rest of us. Now what if you’re an immigrant, you want free money, education, but you don’t want pay by giving up your manners, customs, language, religion? And by doing so you want to impose costs on our civilization’s money, education, markets, manners, customs, language, religion, law, government? Is that reciprocity or theft? Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft? Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft? Take it a step farther. You and your family are unable to produce your own income, and are dependent upon the rest of us to provide for you. Should you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing given the unproductivity of your genes – making reciprocity or theft? Take it a step farther. Your family has a record of not only inability to produce income, but criminal behavior, anti social behavior (alcohol, drugs, violence, promiscuity), or mental illness. Do you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing, engaging in theft? Now flip it around. Your family has a record of self sufficiency, achievement, pro-social behavior, and not only mental health, but mental achievement. It’s not-reproducing a loss? No. But it is lowering the talent pool of the polity. Is failing to reproduce an irreciprocity? Next look to a world where the genetic inventory of western civilization and east asian civilization that we both produced over thousands of years of ‘soft’ eugenics under agrarianism, and capital punishment for anti-social behavior, has been reversed by dysgenic reproduction. And it is no longer possible to organize majority genetic middle class polities, because the rates of reproduction of the underclasses have reversed our eugenic selection, and ‘economic growth’ making that reversal, is no longer possible. So what is ‘moral’ when we have through pretense of morality, reduced the developed world to south america, india, and africa – except for the east asians who are not so ‘affected’ by ‘feminine’ preoccupation in political matters. Nature does not let us have our cake and eat it too. Unless we stay ahead of her, the red queen always wins, if for no other reason than human genes regress to the mean, and the mean of human genetics is barely able to manage literacy.

  • Disambiguation of ‘rational’

      Rational choice(as in reasonable) within the limits of knowledge and ability, not rational(logical) as in logical when possessed of sufficient information (justification), or rationalism using logic and tests of non-contradiction (textual or linguistic argument). Free Association … Competing Hypotheses … … Rational Choice (reasonable) … … … Logical Conclusion … … … … Using philosophical Rationalism

  • Disambiguation of ‘rational’

      Rational choice(as in reasonable) within the limits of knowledge and ability, not rational(logical) as in logical when possessed of sufficient information (justification), or rationalism using logic and tests of non-contradiction (textual or linguistic argument). Free Association … Competing Hypotheses … … Rational Choice (reasonable) … … … Logical Conclusion … … … … Using philosophical Rationalism

  • Q: Biggest Programming Mistakes?

    Q: Biggest programming mistakes? (from elsewhere) All my big mistakes are the same, and I remember them. I keep working when I’m too tired to keep working: So, I wrote more functionality than I needed to; I forget that I wrote something and wrote it again; I forget that I wrote it over there and wrote it here. I forgot that I did it that way and so did it this way, and now I have to fix one or the other. I made only one architectural mistake with a new product because I rushed with it. The rest are all the same. Tired = stupid. I keep lots of notes, I plan my work, I use diagrams to design it. I usually do databases for rules, then services, then ui designs; Then the class architecture. I pseudocode the work, I write code for readability first; I document as I go; I (mostly) write test then code, the reason I’m slower I think I should be is that I test more than I should, especially UI functionality, and so I revise too much. I refactor a lot. and sometimes I shouldn’t. I should focus on functionality coverage so that I have a better understanding of how different services interact in practice. Most recent mistakes that sit with me is the message bag in Oversing, where I’d replaced one technique with another and then forgot I’d done so until … oops. The other is writing one set of panels one week using one method of data propagation, and coming back the next week and writing another set of panels with a slightly different method of data propagation, when I should have used a different method of data propagation. My general strategy is to make it work, make it work together, make it durable, then make it elegant. I stopped writing code myself because there are people who are faster and better and my core strength is user interface design, business rules, and data structures, and not wiring everything together. And the reason is that with all the visual cues I do better than I do in code editors without them. ie: as I usually complain my weakness is short term memory. I remember almost everything. but that’s not the same as working memory. But in general, tired = stupid. Don’t write code tired. Don’t send emails tired (or angry)

  • Q: Biggest Programming Mistakes?

    Q: Biggest programming mistakes? (from elsewhere) All my big mistakes are the same, and I remember them. I keep working when I’m too tired to keep working: So, I wrote more functionality than I needed to; I forget that I wrote something and wrote it again; I forget that I wrote it over there and wrote it here. I forgot that I did it that way and so did it this way, and now I have to fix one or the other. I made only one architectural mistake with a new product because I rushed with it. The rest are all the same. Tired = stupid. I keep lots of notes, I plan my work, I use diagrams to design it. I usually do databases for rules, then services, then ui designs; Then the class architecture. I pseudocode the work, I write code for readability first; I document as I go; I (mostly) write test then code, the reason I’m slower I think I should be is that I test more than I should, especially UI functionality, and so I revise too much. I refactor a lot. and sometimes I shouldn’t. I should focus on functionality coverage so that I have a better understanding of how different services interact in practice. Most recent mistakes that sit with me is the message bag in Oversing, where I’d replaced one technique with another and then forgot I’d done so until … oops. The other is writing one set of panels one week using one method of data propagation, and coming back the next week and writing another set of panels with a slightly different method of data propagation, when I should have used a different method of data propagation. My general strategy is to make it work, make it work together, make it durable, then make it elegant. I stopped writing code myself because there are people who are faster and better and my core strength is user interface design, business rules, and data structures, and not wiring everything together. And the reason is that with all the visual cues I do better than I do in code editors without them. ie: as I usually complain my weakness is short term memory. I remember almost everything. but that’s not the same as working memory. But in general, tired = stupid. Don’t write code tired. Don’t send emails tired (or angry)

  • You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses.

    —“But I think you miss the mark somewhat here because heroism is fundamentally not about the material or Darwinian advantages.”—

    Heroism is a means of paying status and opportunity rather than material rewards, in exchange for directing dominance display to the production of commons. those commons may be physical, may be opportunities, may be, normative, may be informational or anything in between. So your mistake is failing to grasp that the use of ‘materialism’ as a criticism is an attempt to lie. instead, we seek gains whether material, opportunistic, or informational, and to prevent losses of the same. Because in all things we are simply an extension of the physical laws of the universe, with nothing other than the use of memory to choose optimum opportunities, rather than fae the limits of the physical world in seizing the first opportunity. it is by this vast accumulation of differences using different forms of memory that we capture and resist entropy while the reset of the universe decays. If I can get this thru: if you cannot convert an emotion to its underlying economic terms, then you are still talking superstition. It’s pseudoscientific superstition. But it’s superstition. In this example you are still thinking feelings have value, instead of that we evolved to experience positive and negative feelings for having increasing or decreasing assets, in physical (premium), opportunistic(discount), or informational (discount) form.

  • You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses.

    —“But I think you miss the mark somewhat here because heroism is fundamentally not about the material or Darwinian advantages.”—

    Heroism is a means of paying status and opportunity rather than material rewards, in exchange for directing dominance display to the production of commons. those commons may be physical, may be opportunities, may be, normative, may be informational or anything in between. So your mistake is failing to grasp that the use of ‘materialism’ as a criticism is an attempt to lie. instead, we seek gains whether material, opportunistic, or informational, and to prevent losses of the same. Because in all things we are simply an extension of the physical laws of the universe, with nothing other than the use of memory to choose optimum opportunities, rather than fae the limits of the physical world in seizing the first opportunity. it is by this vast accumulation of differences using different forms of memory that we capture and resist entropy while the reset of the universe decays. If I can get this thru: if you cannot convert an emotion to its underlying economic terms, then you are still talking superstition. It’s pseudoscientific superstition. But it’s superstition. In this example you are still thinking feelings have value, instead of that we evolved to experience positive and negative feelings for having increasing or decreasing assets, in physical (premium), opportunistic(discount), or informational (discount) form.

  • Parental Influence on Husband Selection

    Parental Influence on Husband Selection https://t.co/iTua06Sh4f

  • Parental Influence on Husband Selection

    Parental Influence on Husband Selection https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/parental-influence-on-husband-selection/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:39:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267254315498029057

  • Parental Influence on Husband Selection

      It’s not that women didn’t select their own mates: … (a) parents had the spectrum: control > veto > influence; … (b) dependent upon the age at marriage, with parental influence declining the later the age of marriage … (c) insurance was provided by the family, and income (self insurance) harder to come by. So the family had an interest in the success of the marriage. … (d) adult death was common, and children without a father or mother put pressure on the family network to feed children in eras where productivity had not been industrialized, and food was always scarce, and a lot of work to produce (which is why women killed so many children) … (e) property was often transferred and it was of such value that it had to be restorable to the family. One of The Big Lies, is that traditions are arbitrary rather than of economic necessity in the context in which they are practiced. These ‘big lies’ are the feminine means of psychologizing and moralizing that which is fact, so that they can undermine by fomenting conflcit between people who are ignorant, rather than argue the facts of reality.