Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • Reported and demonstrated behavior are often polar opposites. in your case i can

    Reported and demonstrated behavior are often polar opposites. in your case i can tell from two tweets you by no means possess the agency to either control your emotions or honestly predict your behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 21:47:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975851276864032769

    Reply addressees: @MikeMischnick @lucy_castille @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975849591177441280

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MikeMischnick

    @curtdoolittle @lucy_castille @realDonaldTrump I’m not the head of the government… if the government comes after me, I’m not obstructing justice by saying the investigation should be stopped because I have no power to stop it…. Also, If I hadn’t done anything, I wouldn’t feel the need to attack, because I’d be innocent.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975849591177441280

  • “Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”– Because conscientiousness a

    —“Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”– Because conscientiousness and ambition are equally important legs on the step stool to accomplishment. It is not actually enjoyable being exceptionally smart after grade school. Exercising that intelligence in the marketplace (world) produces competition that results in interpersonal frictions. The joy in life is largely the result of cooperation with others in the absence of stress. Smart people have many options for working with others in the absence of stress and enjoying life’s journey.

  • “Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”– Because conscientiousness a

    —“Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”– Because conscientiousness and ambition are equally important legs on the step stool to accomplishment. It is not actually enjoyable being exceptionally smart after grade school. Exercising that intelligence in the marketplace (world) produces competition that results in interpersonal frictions. The joy in life is largely the result of cooperation with others in the absence of stress. Smart people have many options for working with others in the absence of stress and enjoying life’s journey.

  • “Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”– Because conscientiousness a

    —“Why do so many high IQ people amount to nothing?”–

    Because conscientiousness and ambition are equally important legs on the step stool to accomplishment.

    It is not actually enjoyable being exceptionally smart after grade school. Exercising that intelligence in the marketplace (world) produces competition that results in interpersonal frictions.

    The joy in life is largely the result of cooperation with others in the absence of stress.

    Smart people have many options for working with others in the absence of stress and enjoying life’s journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 13:55:00 UTC

  • Via-Negativa in Everything: Of all the genetic markers we have identified in the

    Via-Negativa in Everything: Of all the genetic markers we have identified in the production of intelligence, nearly all of them are inhibitory.The problems we face are eliminating error: ignorance, error, bias, suggestion and deceit. This is the intellectual shift I’m advancing..

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 13:14:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975722057458647040

  • –“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

    –“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • –“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

    –“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin wi

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-very-smart-people-so-quiet/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b38e0456&srid=u4Qv–“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”–

    **I’ll give you a much better answer.**

    To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet:

    1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.

    2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.

    3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.

    4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.

    5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.

    6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.

    In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.

    If you do this, people will generally like you very much.

    We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, UkraineUpdated Mar 19, 2018, 11:59 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 11:59:00 UTC

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated. I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus. In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers. So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions. This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it. I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated. I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus. In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers. So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions. This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it. I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.