@JonHaidt Great appearances in 2018 so far Jonathan. And, given the field of personalities, it’s interesting how Americans are selecting speakers by dominance expression in argument, when content is effectively the same. That in itself is something to study. -cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-13 17:58:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984853313425412096
–“Do you think it’s possible Paul Nehlen might have Aspergers?”—
Well, you know, this is another psychologism. Lets just say instead, that all of us demonstrate a bias somewhere on the spectrum between the extreme female brain (psychotic / solipsistic / general) and the extreme male brain ( autistic / objective / particular).
You are more likely to favor truth when you cannot decide by intuition. Just as you are more likely to decide by intuition when it is available to you.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-13 14:05:00 UTC
DESPERATE JUSTIFICATION
—For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”—
Not even close.
“1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.”
The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself.
You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law.
All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses.
So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant).
So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft.
What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm.
We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between.
We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds.
We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.
Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion.
It’s a truth.
Thus endeth the lesson.
—“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson
Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion.
Painful truths are not popular.
The law is the least popular.
They are however, decidable.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-13 13:33:00 UTC
—For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”— Not even close. “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.” The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself. You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law. All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses. So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant). So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft. What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm. We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between. We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds. We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others. Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion. It’s a truth. Thus endeth the lesson. —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion. Painful truths are not popular. The law is the least popular. They are however, decidable. Apr 13, 2018 1:33pm
—For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”— Not even close. “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.” The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself. You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law. All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses. So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant). So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft. What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm. We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between. We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds. We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others. Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion. It’s a truth. Thus endeth the lesson. —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion. Painful truths are not popular. The law is the least popular. They are however, decidable. Apr 13, 2018 1:33pm
—“FATHER is supposed be our Captain to the adult world, that grounding familiar voice with direct access to our mind and heart, offering us his ever-present assurance, camaraderie and help for facing up to and navigating through the dangers and hazards inherent with our youthful self. His love and faith and hope forge what feels to be a bridge connecting our immature developing mind to the more refined wise man we are destined in his mind to become. “— William L. Benge
Mothers make us survive to adulthood. Fathers make us adults.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-12 11:53:00 UTC
I think the first difference between my thought and traditional thought, is that i treat us as gene machines first, and our rational and verbal minds as negotiators on behalf of those genes – totally unaware that what we consider good and true are merely instructions from those genes telling us what success conditions are.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-10 09:43:00 UTC
SALESMANSHIP
People want a salesman that they think can understand them. The way you make people think you understand them is through listening, and paraphrasing, and preferably adding a touch of insight to the paraphrasing. So the principle issue with sales is getting the other person to talk, because when you’re talking, you’re not listening, and if you’re not listening, you aren’t paraphrasing. It’s only after we have negotiated this ‘protocol’ of shared understanding that we can begin to ‘inform’ and only once we have informed, we can persuade. The best classes I have taken and taught have been in personality traits and sales. I taught sales for quite a few years and built some very good sales teams, and it’s a very simple process. The only difficulty is in finding leads. Sales is easy. It’s just not efficient. And it’s the people who understand it’s inefficient and have high tolerance or interest in listening to and understanding potential customers that develop into good salesman. Extroversion (getting a charge from interactions) is extremely valuable.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-07 12:36:00 UTC
We can use food to sedate, to medicate, cure, and to entertain.
Most foods i see today are used as sedatives for lack of exercise, sociability, and rest. If you are using food as a curative or sedative you’re working on the wrong problem.
It’s fitness, socialization, and rest.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 10:06:00 UTC
—“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence?”— Three positive factors: 1 – greater neurogenesis 2 – greater neural density 3 – greater white matter (reduced friction) Three negative factors 4 – Lack of defect in biochemistry (or other illness) 5 – Lack of defect in personality trait (brain structure and chemistry) 6 – Lack of defect due to trauma (of any kind). And one less obvious: 7 – False knowledge or beliefs (non-correspondence). Certain sets of ideas are incredibly attractive but entirely destructive to our ability to think. We should note that so far, (as most of us expected) a) intelligence is influenced by a very large number of genes. b) unfortunately most influences are negative not positive. HOWEVER That means: c) that potential intelligence does not require we increase any substantial capacity. d) that potential intelligence can be incrementally increased by cumulative, specific, genetic corrections. AND f) Ot seems likely that intelligence then developed a long time ago by accident but through reproduction we have not been able to produce dominance in intelligence without controlled reproduction (like we do with animals), OR g) Or the innate possibility was there originally and we have actually devolved from it. This hypothesis isn’t as strange as it originally sounds. Its entirely possible that the rapid increases in our ability to communicate produced greater selection pressure on verbal ability than it did intelligence, and we began to function more as a collective (social) intelligence than individually intelligent agents who imitated each other. The relationship between brain size and intelligence isn’t linear but it exists, and we have smaller (less expensive) brains than both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon’s for example. In other words, we might have passed peak genetic ability in the past but because of verbal communication reduced the cost and size of our brains, and as such, increased the survival of our weakest. We don’t know yet.