Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • HEIGHT AVERSION IS GENETIC I love it that hight aversion is genetic. In the 90’s

    HEIGHT AVERSION IS GENETIC

    I love it that hight aversion is genetic. In the 90’s I had to take drugs to work on the 22nd floor, and even the 9th floor in Kiev was hard on me. I’m good thru about six. Otherwise it triggers the vertigo, and once it start’s is unmanageable. I can’t even watch videos, tv, or movies of heights. The vertigo sticks for up to three days. Worst episode was that dance club in Vegas at fifty something floors with a glass floor. I just lost my vision typing this by remembering it. I did fine until I broke my concentration. Once I did in like three seconds it was over. I had to keep my eyes closed and hug the wall all the way down. My sister can’t do bridges. They don’t bother me. Neither do planes. And I don’t have a problem on mountains, just buildings. It’s something about flatness – any time my brain can imagine the ground as a wall it’s over. I did this sales call once on the thirty-something’th floor of the Darth Vader building in Seattle. I sat in a chair and pressed my left foot down crossed legs, and pushed my right knee upward under the table for an anchor. The entire time the room was doing the whole carousel thing and I maintained composure. We got the deal. Really. The staff had no idea. Not until we got near the elevator and I couldn’t control it any longer. lol Truth is I think it was one of our few project failures. Company was in deeper trouble than they let on. They needed a contractor but wanted someone to take the liability. Doesn’t work that way. You want staff and cheap get a body shop. You want liability then you pay for it. That’s how tech works. But don’t ask for one and then try to morph it into the other. We did like 2500 projects a year last I recall. Always within 3%. Pretty much never failed. No matter what it takes. A good firm whether advertising, marketing, or tech, can only hold so many customers in the portfolio at any time and take ownership of success. Customer acquisition is like 250K. Much better to hold them. So if you gotta eat profit it’s totally worth it. But you gotta fire customers regularly if they don’t appreciate it.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-07 15:49:00 UTC

  • TRUMP’S SPEECH PATTERN Let me explain Trump for you in simple strategic terms. 1

    TRUMP’S SPEECH PATTERN

    Let me explain Trump for you in simple strategic terms.

    1. Make people solve problems for you.

    2. Propose a controversial solution to a problem

    3. Give away little information.

    4. Collect Maximum Information

    5. Sow chaos to keep the opposition occupied and collect more information

    6. Retaliate against GSRRM(female strategy of undermining by gossiping, rallying, ridiculing, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, straw manning, and reputation destruction) as a means of avoiding truthful, reciprocal, rational argument by reflecting the same and demonstrating invulnerability to undermining.

    7. Let the solution emerge with other people owning responsibility for the idea and its execution. You trap people who are endemically irresponsible into responsibility and the inability to claim it was the boss’ idea.

    It’s a King of the Hill Game.

    This is how you conduct negotiations from a position of power with hostile, dishonest, or incompetent parties.

    The speech pattern is the consequence of that strategy.

    How do I know?

    I do it. So do many many many men in positions of power.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-07 11:23:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING A little frustrated with the conservative vox populi. The liberals

    UNDERSTANDING

    A little frustrated with the conservative vox populi. The liberals think you are evil for requiring meritocracy, and you think they have your agency. You’re both wrong. If you think people know what they’re doing then you tend to hate them. If you think all but a few of us are gene-machines and barely domesticated animals following genetic, traditional, cultural, and institutional programming, you just hate the programming that enables the irreciprocal bias in genes. I say this all the time but (a) I am pretty certain even those of us with cognitive agency are gene machines, (b) people have no idea what they’re doing, they’re just poorly trained animals,( c) that those of us with agency must create institutions, education, and rules (laws) to train and constrain the barely domesticated animals from falsehood an irrecirocity – even if it is against their will, and even if it requires force. (d) So I don’t hate people, (e) and I realize that words do not work when depriving people of their parasitism, rent seeking, and free riding, so (f) the poorly trained animals need those of us with agency to ‘do what we must’ to design, create, and enforce institutions, positive education, and negative rules (laws) that constrain them to truth, reciprocity, and therefore cooperation via exchange, and as a consequence the limiting of reproduction to self sufficiency – largely of the underclasses.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-06 15:32:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING A little frustrated with the conservative vox populi. The liberals

    UNDERSTANDING

    A little frustrated with the conservative vox populi. The liberals think you are evil for requiring meritocracy, and you think they have your agency. You’re both wrong. If you think people know what they’re doing then you tend to hate them. If you think all but a few of us are gene-machines and barely domesticated animals following genetic, traditional, cultural, and institutional programming, then you just hate the programming that enables the irreciprocal bias in genes and not people. I say this all the time but (a) I am pretty certain even those of us with cognitive agency are also gene machines, (b) people have no idea what they’re doing, they’re just poorly trained animals,( c) that those of us with agency must create institutions, education, and rules (laws) to train and constrain the barely domesticated animals from falsehood an irrecirocity – even if it is against their will, and even if it requires force. (d) So I don’t hate people, (e) and I realize that words do not work when depriving people of their parasitism, rent seeking, and free riding, so (f) the poorly trained animals need those of us with agency to ‘do what we must’ to design, create, and enforce institutions, positive education, and negative rules (laws) that constrain them to truth, reciprocity, and therefore cooperation via exchange, and as a consequence the limiting of reproduction to self sufficiency – largely of the underclasses.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-06 15:31:00 UTC

  • As far as I know Trump manages just like I do, and it’s the optimum method of ge

    As far as I know Trump manages just like I do, and it’s the optimum method of getting the truth out of people. He brings in the staff, he puts the person reporting to one side, and senior staff sits on the couches behind. He fosters debate. He instigates debate. He even instigates conflict.

    Now, what happens when you read reports instead? What happens if you listen to briefings instead? You are captured (as was obama) by the frame.

    Trump falsifies. (I do the same fking thing)

    Then he stays on mission: what will advance america’s interests first *now that peace and harmony are no longer in american interests, but each country’s taking full responsibility is on our interests.*

    King of the hill.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 17:05:00 UTC

  • ON WRITING FICTION All the time in every submission, every publisher’s read of i

    ON WRITING FICTION

    All the time in every submission, every publisher’s read of it, and every rejection of it, and every reaction to rejection, and every thought about your reaction to rejection is a reflection of the time that you didn’t put into researching people, places, and things, that would fill your head with possibilities for novelty that would inform the reader, capture the reader’s attention, and increase the chance of publication.

    All entertainment is novelty seeking. Human experience is translated in to emotion, and into memory, and into auto-association, an later contemplation by its degree of novelty.

    If you aren’t teaching the reader something new about others, about life, about people, about places, about things, or asking the reader to outwit you and your characters, you’re wasting your time, the editors time, the publisher’s time and the reader’s time – if you ever manage to get one.

    1. Learning the archetypes and the plots is trivial.

    2. Adapting them to contemporary life takes a bit of thought.

    3. Informing the reader about life takes more thought.

    4. Planting clues for the reader to speculate where the plot is going takes a bit more thought.

    5. Planting outwitting the reader’s speculation takes more thought.

    6. Novel combinations of all the above takes much more thought.

    7. More characters and more plot lines and more sets of clues takes much more thought.

    8. Using all of the above to teach the audience a philosophy for the present, a state of the world in the past or future – a system of thought that reframes the world – that is what literature means.

    9. Doing #8 so that you capture the essence of the age in the myths of the age: theology, fantasy, science fiction, fiction, biography, history, philosophy, law or science is extremely difficult and those that endure are extremely rare.

    But in the end, answer the question every art, music, literature, play, and script professional will ask you?

    1. Are you engaging in therapy?

    2. Are you engaging in escapism?

    3. Are you engaging in self-entertainment?

    4. Are you engaging in approval-seeking?

    5. Are you engaging in business or entrepreneurship?

    6. Are you engaging in craftsmanship or engineering (production)?

    7. Are you engaging in entertainment (novelty)?

    9. Are you engaging in politics or propaganda?

    9. Are you engaging in philosophy?

    10. Are you engaging in art?

    The amount of knowledge that you must reflect in, or incorporate in your work increases with scale.

    Postmodernism is a cancer on mankind – as bad as monotheism was in the past.

    But we are almost done with it.

    We are in a period of chaos.

    The period before the great change.

    We require authors to create a new vision.

    We live the vision of technology created in 1980 by William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, and Bruce Sterling.

    We live in the vision of civilization destruction created by Derrida.

    We live in the literary model of GRR Martin’s Futility of heroism, where the meek inherit the devastated earth.

    We live in the reverse gender model of harry (Harriet) Potter vs Hermione (Herman) Granger.

    We live in the political order of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

    What are you bringing to the table in exchange for others attention?

    Because they couldn’t care less, nor should they, about your therapy, escapism, self-entertainment, approval seeking, entrepreneurship, and they expect at least craftsmanship and production quality in exchange for not only their (increasingly trivial) money, and (increasingly costly) attention.

    I’ve taught creativity for decades and it’s trivial.

    1. Fill the shelves of your mind with everything possible until you have so many ideas you can’t choose among them.

    2. Sketch characters, locations, things, incentives, and obstacles.

    3. Sketch plots (arcs)

    That’s filling your head.

    4. Write scenes with beginning middle and end.

    5. Write chapters with beginning middle and end.

    6. Write arcs with beginning middle and end.

    7. Write stories with beginning middle and end.

    The rest is editing- be merciless.

    You want to feel your way through a writing book, but you can’t feel your way through emptiness. Give yourself resources to work with. Otherwise you’re just using free association to create a poor imitation of whatever authors you’ve read who did what you didn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 12:47:00 UTC

  • Some of us think of minimizing risk and living a long time. Some of us think abo

    Some of us think of minimizing risk and living a long time. Some of us think about of a mark on history, and having a good death. Another example of Feminine Consumption vs Masculine Production in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-02 12:56:00 UTC

  • P is Difficult? Understanding is overrated. Soldiers do their duty. Man up. 😉

    P is Difficult?

    Understanding is overrated.

    Soldiers do their duty.

    Man up. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-31 09:22:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing is an example of failure to make an argument because of cognitive

    Psychologizing is an example of failure to make an argument because of cognitively female mind.

    Instead, why should I not calmly professional rigor use reason and argument to suppress irreciprocity, fraud and deceit? (what you’re doing.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 15:33:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211671567119335425

    Reply addressees: @AreRadical @TheCelticOrder

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211665099322208256

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211665099322208256

  • That’s ignorant nonsense. It takes a day of safety training, a few hours of prac

    That’s ignorant nonsense. It takes a day of safety training, a few hours of practice, and what comes naturally to mankind comes naturally. The military does very little weapons training. It doesn’t take any b/c 90% of training is teaching teens safety, not how to use a weapon.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-30 14:24:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211654236938870785

    Reply addressees: @DBF_NYC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211630209021157376

    IN REPLY TO:

    @VitaminDeon

    The hero regularly does target practice at a range and was working security detail. He was not a random civilian with a gun.

    Unless you’re prepared to commit as much time with target practice as he does, your good guy with a gun argument makes Zero sense.

    #TexasChurchShooting

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211630209021157376