Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • MS. “L” I have three objections to the options above: 1)I reject the premise inh

    MS. “L”

    I have three objections to the options above: 1)I reject the premise inherent in these choices. They are based on the assumption that human nature is all about self-interest. Not only is that a harsh view of human nature, it is also inaccurate. An important characteristic of human nature is gregariousness., and depriving people of the capacity is to associate with others is considered harsh punishment, even torture. That is why the use of isolation cells in prison in the Western world is regulated. So I might cooperate with others because I like associating with others–it’s fun!

    Curt Doolittle

    1) only a woman would say such a thing since it demonstrates the cognitive bias of ‘blindness to the distribution”.

    2) human nature *is* demonstrably entirely driven by self interest and we can find no instances where it is not – not only that, we can’t find it anywhere else in nature either. All cooperation is for self beneficial ends. Even kin selection still is for beneficial ends of one’s genes.

    3) the significant difference between humans and other creatures is that we can imitate one another (model one another), such that we can comprehend intention, and therefore cooperate on intentions. That fact aside, we evolved moral instincts to both encourage cooperation but punish parasitism (free riding). All herd and pack animals are gregarious to the herd/pack. Its just good kin selection.

    4) women must bear the high cost of offspring, are weaker and more vulnerable more often and they and their offspring are even vulnerable to other women so they purchase lots of insurance and they experience this insurance purchase as gregariousness. They do so to the point where when given access to political resources (commons) they attempt to give them away (see the dominance of women in government jobs, and in charity work, and the absence of women in the most competitive of professions). This is all nothing but genetic self interest. If creatures were not self-interested they would be exterminated by evolutionary pressures.

    5) Women lie to themselves largely because they have less agency in the control of their emotions. Men lie to others. But not to themselves. It’s too dangerous for them.

    MS. “L”

    2) The identities attached to the various options are stereotypes, especially the father stereotype.

    Curt Doolittle

    Stereotypes are the MOST ACCURATE measurement in the social sciences. So much so that we can pretty much claim that they are the ONLY accurate measurement in the social sciences.

    Female cognitive bias against stereotypes is driven by the need to believe her children are ‘good’ and ‘worth her investment’ regardless of their worth (or worthlessness). It is also because women who ‘stand out’ are destroyed by other women in the pack. Women work together to ensure the even distribution of resources. They hen-peck competitors to ensure they do not obtain more resources.

    MS. “L”

    3) Option #4, the Libertine option, is not even an option. If Libertine is left alone, L. will not be able to participate in the commercial market. If left alone (let’s say with just the immediate family), L. will not have the education, health or infrastructure necessary to participate in the commercial market. For instance, how many people in Liberia participate in the commercial market versus how many more would participate if education, infrastructure and health care (remember Ebola?) were freely available.

    Curt Doolittle

    This is not true. There are always marginal people on the edge of society. Yet again you’ve demonstrated distribution-blindness.

    Only women do this. Men never do. Unless feminized by a single mother.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 15:21:00 UTC

  • Jonathan: —“This book is relevant here. There are models that predict low-IQ n

    https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation-s-Matters/dp/150360067X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid&srJon Jonathan: —“This book is relevant here. There are models that predict low-IQ nations will become indebted to high-IQ nations. Maining a high-IQ population is a requirement for a healthy economy and low corruption.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:36:00 UTC

  • NO ITS NOT FAUSTIAN (a) sovereignty/heroism and (b) lower impulsivity / higher s

    NO ITS NOT FAUSTIAN

    (a) sovereignty/heroism and (b) lower impulsivity / higher separation of mind and intuition/ lower susceptibility to ‘dream state'(conflation) higher tendency of ‘reality’, (c) higher incidence of neuroticism (worry, obsession, future orientation), (d) balance of verbal / spatial abilities. (e) lower clannishness.

    I know all of these are basically true but wether we possessed them all in prehistory (“Yaman”) or whether we evolved them since then, or some combination is hard to tell.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 15:07:00 UTC

  • (Archived response to Andy Curzon’s post) (1)”The world needs all kinds of minds

    (Archived response to Andy Curzon’s post)

    (1)”The world needs all kinds of minds” …. yes, that says it all.

    (2) Different kinds of minds value different means and ends. (Conversely, ‘we all need to think like this’ is an effort to create a monopoly in values where we need a market in values)

    (3) The world needs all kinds of disciplines(means and ends) for those minds to specialize in.

    (4) The world needs multiple economic models (production consumption) to provide opportunities for different minds – specialized and not.

    (5)The world needs multiple political models (commons construction) that vary according to the distribution of those minds – some with a bias toward collective production (early stage societies) and some with a bias toward voluntary commons production (late stage societies),

    (6) The world needs multiple countries/nation-states (markets) for the same reason.

    HOWEVER – these are all ‘positiva’ assertions by which search for opportunities of all kinds. How is cooperation possible between so many diverse forms of inquiry, choice, and production of generations, goods, services, information and commons? These are the ‘negativa’ propositions:

    (6) The world needs one language – one that corresponds most highly with truth, thereby reducing ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. That language is TRUTH and the language of truth is science.

    7) the world needs one method of decidability in matters of conflict between these diverse polities – equally expressed in the language of truth. That method of decidability is non-imposition of costs against property in toto – that which we call ‘natural law’.

    9) And the world needs one method of decidability between preferences(policy): not to sink into dysgenia – which is the natural outcome of all orders that are not explicitly eugenic (west and east), and to transcend the beast man (which is the natural outcome of all orders that are explicitly eugenic.).

    This sequence provides decidability for the full scope of the initial proposition, from the individual to mankind.

    We can create a market for the positive that we do not know is good, by eliminating the market for that which we do know is bad: that which impedes individual opportunity, productive cooperation, and human transcendence.

    The more trial and error the better as long as one is risking (gambling) with his own purse.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 13:58:00 UTC

  • MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING Curt.. It’s all very well what Grandin

    MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING Curt..

    It’s all very well what Grandin adumbrates but what about people who are visual/spacial, pattern recognizers, AND verbal?

    If someone asks me what I do I usually say I’m a ‘specialist’ because I find something (or two or three things)…build joy for it through specialisation, then do it for many hours a day and make it my life until the improvements diminish. And then onto the next thing. After doing that for a decade or two things kind of flow together and learning new things becomes so easy and quick. Or so it seems in relative terms.

    Someone once asked

    — “What do you specialize in?” —

    And I said

    — ‘Everything.’ —

    They were obviously baffled (although in retrospect, of course, ‘everything’ is technically inaccurate).

    For me these range from artistic (architecture/design) to coordination (combat/sport) to visual/spacial (mapping/[games such as] Go) to verbal (learning the dictionary definition of thousands of words/imitating people’s voices) to pattern recognition (pure maths/coding/chess) to a combination of them in different forms (poker/business/connecting people/project managing/conferences).

    For me, to do any one of these without the others would be holding back expansive nourishment from a ravenous mind – a form of torture.

    Then you get the people with 2 of the three like you (and my best friend from school Sir Edward Townes) – visual/spacial and pattern recognizing. If you are a 10/10 in the abstraction pattern field and 9.5/10 in the visual/spacial the Ed is t’other way around. He can visualize things beyond anyone I have encountered – I am training every day but WAY behind.

    So I suppose my question really is do you not feel like you’re starving your verbal mind by not spending years becoming a writer like Joseph Conrad (who was also ‘autistic’ in the visual/spacial [he was a captain of a ship] and verbal) or H.L.Mencken? And a speaker? You come across well in interviews but I think more practice and a few years could make you a 3/3 trifecta polymath.

    Am I wrong?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 13:32:00 UTC

  • MY THOUGHTS ON : John-Paul Wright / Stefan Molyneux THE LEFT – People on the lef

    MY THOUGHTS ON : John-Paul Wright / Stefan Molyneux

    THE LEFT

    – People on the left score lower than people on the right in self control.

    – Self control (impulsivity) along with IQ, is an ubiquitous predictor of life outcomes.

    – People on the left score higher on aggression than people on the right.

    – Leftists assume through self experience that agency is limited.

    – Criminals overwhelmingly tend to be leftists.

    – Justify and glamorize anti-social violence (rebels, criminals, political deceit)

    – Moral Specialization (motherhood)

    – Left academia is engaged in ADVOCACY not in CRITICISM. (lying)

    THE RIGHT

    – The right is more conscientious, less impulsive, less aggressive, has greater assumption of agency, and far lower criminality.

    – Justify and glamorize pro-social violence (war, police, sheriff, heroism).

    – Moral Generalization(‘tribal-hood’)

    – Right academia is engaged in criticism, not advocacy.

    TIME PREFERENCES

    – The right is empirical(skeptical) ‘show me, so that we know the consequences first.’

    – The right self corrects and prosecutes its own members.

    – The left is rational(optimistic) ‘just do it and figure out the consequences later’

    – The left ‘forgets’ rather than self-corrects, and ‘reframes’ its own members.

    INARGUABLE CORRELATIONS

    There are two of the strongest correlations in social science:

    1) impulsivity and aggression

    2) stereotypes.

    The left lies about these two factors consistently.

    ORIGINS

    – Women need to be impulsive since the cost of child rearing is irrationally high.

    – Women must invest heavily in children so they advance them regardless of their merit (denial).

    – Women who are married with children develop conservative political positions.

    – Women who are married with more than two children develop most conservative political positions because they are unable to fantasize given the evidence before them.

    CONSEQUENCES

    1. the left produces a kleptocratic order (female strategy)

    2. it’s necessary for women to employ a kleptocratic (parasitic) strategy given the asymmetry of costs of reproduction.

    3. gender biases can cross genders, and do, so men demonstrate the same parasitic strategy when they cannot compete without doing so.

    4. some individuals adopt these biases for signaling purposes.

    5. the only method of improving a society is to reduce the number of the impulsive (leftists). A leftist society will always degenerate.

    6. the method of decreasing the possibility of leftist action is rule of natural law.

    7. the method of decreasing the number of leftist actors is by limiting the reproduction of leftist actors.

    8. the method of increasing the number of rightist actors is by retention of the results of their productivity when allocated to reproduction, and subsidy of their reproduction if possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 09:24:00 UTC

  • I use class as a {set} of values: CLASS: } ….genetic class (physical symmetry,

    I use class as a {set} of values:

    CLASS:

    }

    ….genetic class (physical symmetry, health, intelligence etc)

    ….reproductive class (reproductive desirability)

    ….associative class (associative cooperative desirability)

    ….social class (regional ethnicity, family structure, values, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, myths)

    ….occupational class (occupational achievement)

    ….economic class (economic achievement)

    ….political class (fame: entertainment / political achievement)

    }

    The effects of each class are cumulative.

    It’s pretty scary how accurate this measure is.

    I don’t weight economic or political at all – they’re outliers.

    If you want to create a simulation you start with this model and build out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 11:45:00 UTC

  • Upper social class: Discuss Power, Associations, Opportunities. My social class(

    Upper social class: Discuss Power, Associations, Opportunities.

    My social class(upper middle/lower upper): Discuss ideas. Excellences. Possibilities.

    The next social class(middle): discuss events, biz, possessions. travel.

    The next social class (working): discuss sports, family, experiences

    The next social class (proletarian): discuss people.

    all the old italian guys in my range of hearing are showing off family, the way other people show of new cars or houses, the way I show off ideas, the way others show off power and opportunities.

    The proles make me crazy, and sports are an opiate that tires me, but I’m big on the middle and working class.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 11:05:00 UTC

  • One of the most interesting transformations I’ve seen in Adam. Someone who has e

    One of the most interesting transformations I’ve seen in Adam. Someone who has experience and devoted himself to multiple systems of thought. And who advocates a very egalitarian world. Yet his emerging work is an elegant synthesis of scientific language and philosophy.

    Skye is also interesting because he can empathize with a host of philosophical frameworks the way most of us can empathize with different genres of literature. Although, I am still stuck with that negativa other than subjective intuition that philosophical aesthetes rely upon.

    Bierling consistently astounds me, and he seems to seek to strike the balance between mores and truth, and can conduct most arguments easily despite rather recent work. he has a public persona that’s genuine, insightful, and frankly, marketable. I feel very emotionally close to him because I have very similar moral sentiments.

    Josh Jeppeson is intersesting because he already bridged science and the aesthetic occult in his own life (which seems to be a common combination that I run across), and he, like many nietzcheans, feels the occult, and judges scientifically, and there is something fascinating in that positiva/negativa combination. I have learned a great deal from his criticism and some of my more recent insights are the result of trying to answer him.

    Berens is interesting in that he is so frighteningly good at constructing propertarian arguments that i am often humbled – he gives me something to aspire to. This is a very talented guy and I haven’t seen any of his development so I can’t comment on his transition.

    Ziavalov is much closer to my perspective, in that he is pretty rigidly scientific (something the russians have been excellent at developing at scale). I notice that our differences derive from my america distaste for conflict, and while I know nothing about him, his name suggests russian origin or influence. And he has that attitude toward conflict: ‘it is what it is, grow up’.

    I’ve long considered Eli and I partners even though we really just riff off each other. Eli takes a more ‘working class man’s view’ of things which i am sure he considers a compliment. But if you are an average person and want to learn Propertariaism (to which he is a major contributor), the price is time with Eli, and a few beers.

    I consider Butch a partner as well, and an advisor and he is better at explaining my position on many subjects than I am – those that relate to libertarian positions especially.

    I see Bill rapidly fulfilling this role as well, but against more philosophical and argumentative positions. Where James Berens would (like me) stomp on you, Bill tries to educate you.

    We have a lot of advocates … some of whom are dear friends to me, but who aren’t terribly interested in the formal work. That said that list is too long to include here.

    Curt Doolittle

    Bill Joslin

    Steve Pender

    Ulysses Aaron Cartwright

    Ivan Ilakovac

    Moritz Bierling

    Con Eli Khan

    Josh Jeppson

    Austyn Pember

    Lycurgus Lawgiver

    Nicholas Arthur Catton

    Arkan Nathanael

    Carlos Clark

    Ely Harman

    Joel Davis

    William Butchman

    James Augustus Berens

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:38:00 UTC

  • ARE WE GOOD OR BAD? People are rational. Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people

    ARE WE GOOD OR BAD?

    People are rational.

    Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people’s interest – at least in the long term.

    But choosing to ‘be bad’ is in many other people’s interest – at least in the short term.

    The principle problem in expanding the size of the good, is that each individual who chooses to be bad has greater influence upon others’ ability to choose to be good, than each individual who chooses to be good has influence upon those who choose to be bad.

    In other words, roughly speaking, every person at the bottom is six times as costly as the benefits created by every person at the top. For the simple reason that discouragement, gossip, threat and failure spread fear of risk faster and farther than encouragement, compliment, opportunity and success.

    There is nothing to be done about human nature.

    All we can do is make it very difficult to be bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 10:40:00 UTC