Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • (I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are o

    (I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are often happy to compete rather than conform. So as she describes herself as a bleeding heart liberal – in other words has the intuitions of a female – I ended up the opposite specializing in competition and natural law – with the intuitions of a male. As far as I know the autism spectrum increases the distance between our intuitions and our reason for what appear to be extremely trivial reasons in the early neural economy – but that has had zero impact on how we decide those questions that are solved only by intuition: by rather than reason. Women think like women do, and men think like men do, because our competing gender reproductive strategies evolved prior to our use of reason, and almost certainly before our development of consciousness. There is a difference between the male and female brain structure due to the development of that distance, but there is also a difference between the male and female structure due to endocrine influences. But we can still observe that we see both genders with both reproductive, social and cognitive biases each varying along the male and female axis of development.)

  • (I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are o

    (I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are often happy to compete rather than conform. So as she describes herself as a bleeding heart liberal – in other words has the intuitions of a female – I ended up the opposite specializing in competition and natural law – with the intuitions of a male. As far as I know the autism spectrum increases the distance between our intuitions and our reason for what appear to be extremely trivial reasons in the early neural economy – but that has had zero impact on how we decide those questions that are solved only by intuition: by rather than reason. Women think like women do, and men think like men do, because our competing gender reproductive strategies evolved prior to our use of reason, and almost certainly before our development of consciousness. There is a difference between the male and female brain structure due to the development of that distance, but there is also a difference between the male and female structure due to endocrine influences. But we can still observe that we see both genders with both reproductive, social and cognitive biases each varying along the male and female axis of development.)

  • 1) Understanding is overrated, because (a) few people understand,(b) the rest ei

    1) Understanding is overrated, because (a) few people understand,(b) the rest either ignore it,(c) justify it,or (d) aggressively oppose it and pursue their bet interests anyway.Hence communication and understanding fails and authoring and enforcing law succeeds. @jordanpeterson

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:40:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975366400767295488

  • PETERSON EXPLAINED: He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self a

    PETERSON EXPLAINED:

    He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific.

    We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’.

    Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him.

    We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 12:37:00 UTC

  • Peterson Explained:

    He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific. We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’. Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him. We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade.

  • Peterson Explained:

    He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific. We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’. Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him. We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade.

  • Your questions all start from the presumption of equality that doesn’t exist.If

    Your questions all start from the presumption of equality that doesn’t exist.If those of us who are strong enough, able enough, influential enough, and resourceful enough to eliminate ALL redistribution whatsoever,then why not return you to serfdom or poverty if it is preferable?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 00:27:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975166672981168128

    Reply addressees: @Jory_Nal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975158769838706688

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jory_Nal

    @curtdoolittle So cultural unity counts. Sure.

    How would one calculate any such “optimum”? What are the factors that change with tech or economy or faith diversity?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975158769838706688

  • I’m Inexperienced With Women And I Never Know What Is The Next Step To Take. What Should I Do?

    Stop thinking of them as women, and just other people you talk to. Learn to be friends. Then in a few years you will find a woman. You are too underdeveloped socially to be worth anything to a woman. Women are not stupid. They know you are not worthy yet.

    https://www.quora.com/Im-inexperienced-with-women-and-I-never-know-what-is-the-next-step-to-take-What-should-I-do

  • What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics And Metaphysics? Why?

    This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

    1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.
    2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves.
    3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.
    4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)
    5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.
    6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.
    7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.
    8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.
    9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.
    10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

    This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-personal-philosophy-as-it-relates-to-ethics-and-metaphysics-Why

  • If You Have An Iq Lower Than 130, Can You Trust Your Own Thoughts?

    Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?

    I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.

    1. Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.
    2. Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.

      Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.
    3. Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in every day life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).
    4. Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.
    5. People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.
    6. So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.
    7. So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.
    8. That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-have-an-IQ-lower-than-130-can-you-trust-your-own-thoughts