—“In a leadership vacuum new leadership will constantly emerge whether you like it or not. Its up to us to decide if that leadership is friendly or hostile.”—Noah J Revoy
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 11:51:00 UTC
—“In a leadership vacuum new leadership will constantly emerge whether you like it or not. Its up to us to decide if that leadership is friendly or hostile.”—Noah J Revoy
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 11:51:00 UTC
Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf):
Aping recent results in humans, Capuchin monkeys show no evidence of ego depletion, the exhaustion of the willpower muscle. I still find Roy Baumeister a towering figure of psychology!
https://t.co/uQ8Cb8rKI0 https://t.co/4zLmJ3M5qs
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 10:52:00 UTC
By Bill Joslin
Duschene posed that a shift to, in his words, autonomy (rather than individualism – but colloquially it’s the same reference) is what allowed west to rise – individuals are more productive without necessarily working harder under those conditions.
The outcome was to raise all of humanity out of poverty, sickness and early death. In short Europe, by accidentally providing individual protections and access to markets, did what the Buddha couldn’t.
We have to stop fighting the left according to their definitions because it ends up us doing damages to ourselves.
Early forms of “diversity” specifically the abstraction of kinship sentiment into civic values, produced VARIATION in the polis (variations of those who held the same civic values) and law constrained variation from spinning off into diversity.
Just as equality before the law produces equity, the left blows this into a moral ideal and has us arguing against equality before the law.
They’ve taken the notion of tolerating arbitrary and irrelevant differences for civic life, which increases trust, franchise, and cooperation without destroying civic cohesion (a replacement for religion I might add) and blown this into an ideal and have us arguing against core mechanisms which have produced our rise.
We got here because we incrementally increases agency in the polis by ensuring autonomy (legal.protections access to.
markets) and we did so under the term “individualism” (which I might add is a pre-roman European value of which, without it, western “restlessness” would not have been preserved.)
Let’s stop fighting the enemy’s battles for them.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:20:00 UTC
I dunno about that… lol. But I will say that working on Propertarianism has made my mind extraordinarily CLEAR – mindful so to speak. With very little noise. And much more agency. And if I could propagate that utility to people I would feel like I did the world a lot of good.
I dunno about that… lol. But I will say that working on Propertarianism has made my mind extraordinarily CLEAR – mindful so to speak. With very little noise. And much more agency. And if I could propagate that utility to people I would feel like I did the world a lot of good.
2) Fast, wide, and synthetic vs slow, deep, and analytic.
3) Feelings (emotionas) are of high value in synthetic searches, and approach zero value in analytic searches.
4) Modeling AI using emotions as gauges of change in the state of ‘assets’ taught me a great deal.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 13:35:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996383501229445120
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996382699932839937
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@DegenRolf 1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searches are cheaper and faster with lower returns on recursion than depth searches with higher recursion. In general, minor variations in neural organization should produce large variations in cognition.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996382699932839937
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@DegenRolf 1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searches are cheaper and faster with lower returns on recursion than depth searches with higher recursion. In general, minor variations in neural organization should produce large variations in cognition.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/996382699932839937
1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searches are cheaper and faster with lower returns on recursion than depth searches with higher recursion. In general, minor variations in neural organization should produce large variations in cognition.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 13:32:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996382699932839937
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996361839477968896
IN REPLY TO:
@DegenRolf
The brains of more intelligent individuals are interconnected to a lesser extent, having less dendrites at command in the cerebral cortex. https://t.co/h5eBggGVpt https://t.co/jmuvEm9TiA
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996361839477968896
DOOLITTLE’S LAW OF EDUCATION
1) Children’s potential is 80% genetics, and 20% early physical development, and nearly zero anything else.
2) You cannot improve on genetics – and all temporary gains measured will dissipate within one forgetting cycle (3 years).
3) You can harm children’s development through trauma and exposure to malincentives and bad behavior, but you cannot improve it beyond their genetic potential.
4) People are wealthier or poorer because they are more or less sexually, socially, economically, politically, and militarily valuable to others (“Genetic Market Value” – GMV ).
5) Peoples GMV is determined by physical appearance, personality traits (particularly industriousness and agreeableness), and intelligence. In general, all positive traits increase and decrease together, and intelligence is the proxy. People perform worse not because they are poor, they are poor because they perform worse, and they perform worse because of their genes. All else is just statistical outlier.
6) Human groups differ by rates and depths of sexual maturity, with slower developmental and depth rates yielding better results, and faster and deeper rates worse behavioral results. We are domesticated animals like all other domesticated animals, and human groups have varied in our degree of self-domestication (limiting depth and rate of sexual maturity).
7) When the USA was founded there was 1000 years of middle class genetics trapped by the dead capital in the church. Those middle class genetics existed because northern europeans practiced manorialism, aggressive hanging, suffered the plagues, and frequent wars. This caused the downward distribution of middle class genetics into the lower economic classes. By the time we reached 1900 that genetic capital had been redistributed, and the dead capital of the church redistributed. Beginning in 1964 the prohibition on underclass immigration was lifted, and we immigrated vast numbers of underclasses that were not static human capital. Instead, we have been spending increasing amounts of money trying to compensate for an increasingly poor stock of human capital.
8 ) A teacher is born not taught. Teaching is an art (talent) not a skill. All the evidence we have to date is that a teacher succeeds in the first six months or not, and no further improvement is made. Teaching is simple for the talented and beneficial to the taught. For the untalented each student is effectively punished by the experience. The truth is that teachers are largely from the bottom of the intellectual pool and this is the primary difference. Not pay: lack of intelligence, and lack of life experience outside the classroom. Tenure merely institutionalizes incompetence.
9) All we can do is help teachers perform better is teaching them project planning (curriculum development), like all other industries teach project planning. Project planning is a basic, necessary, human life skill. This is not a complicated skill. The problem for managing the project of education is the ‘art’ of teaching individual minds in a group, and a constantly rotating curriculum and the materials teachers need to teach it. The fact that budgets are not in the hands of teachers, and curricula are not marketed on the academic equivalent of amazon is the problem.
10) The fact that teachers do not ‘own’ the schools themselves is the origin of the problem, since there is absolutely zero evidence that the entire hierarchy of the school system provides any value. Education evolved as colleges (collections of professors) and that is the optimum model. The voucher system would redistribute purchasing power. Political control of education as a means of indoctrination would be eliminated. Market forces not ideology would provide the competitive education children need given their genetics and family circumstances. (or lack of family as is mostly the case of underperforming children).
11) Other than reading, writing, history, geography, basic sciences, mathematics, almost every other course is a waste of time with no results. The competitive advantage of western civilization is our law and our economics that favor entrepreneurship and innovation at all costs, and we do not teach money, checkbooks, financing, micro, macro economics basic statistics, and basic contracts when these are the skills most valuable to citizens. Worse we teach falsehoods about our government which was never designed and never should be converted to, a democracy. Democracies always fail. This educational content should be corrected.
12) After grade six it appears we would invest better in our children by reducing their school hours and putting them into the workplace and then bringing them into apprenticeship programs (as is common in Germany). The central problem is making use of labor so that labor produces sufficient multiples, that labor creates wealth rather than costs it.
13) Professors are often bad because the university is organized to market it’s top professors, but deliver its bottom professors and its graduate students.
14) Teaching professors are not rewarded, since publications are required. Yet there is no correlation between the quality of teaching and the quality of publication.
15) Universities stack large first and second year classes knowing that the students will fail out, or that the class material is worthless. This money is used to fund the bureaucracy. If we do the basic math, it should cost about 15K + Room and Board for a college education at the outside. Anything above this is extraction.
16) Worse, we have many fake degrees. If a field does not require calculation (math, logic, programming) then it is a craft, not a profession. Calculation determines the difference between a craft and a profession. The reason being that one can sense a craft directly, but cannot sense a profession directly – and must rely upon calculation.
17) ….
(more later….)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 10:03:00 UTC
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”— Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument. My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together. Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite. There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty. -Cheers
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”— Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument. My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together. Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite. There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty. -Cheers