Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • ON USE OF LANGUAGE – SLANGS AND SUBLANGUAGES – STATUS SIGNALS Different distribu

    ON USE OF LANGUAGE – SLANGS AND SUBLANGUAGES – STATUS SIGNALS

    Different distributions achieve their utilitarian optimums by different standards of complexity. English is an empirical, unemotional language. Where the British use art in language to convey emotion, americans use exaggeration and hyperbole. This language was not evolved for use by a passionate people, but a functional one.

    Whereas latin languages contain the most expressive and heavily loaded content and methods, slavic forms a middle ground. To listen to slavs and russians is to listen to conservative italian speaker. To listen to germans is to listen to a conservative slavic speaker. To listen to the english is to listen to a playful and mischievous german.

    African gene pools, because of their *distribution* of talents, if not very different facial neurology and musculature, prefer more impulsive, and more reliant on emotion, and more *appreciative* of emotion, and the *honesty* of rapid emotional displays.

    However, this problem affects lower class whites as much as lower class blacks. And the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ implied by the anglo american political mythology of equality, is an equal burden on both lower classes.

    Articulate english can be viewed as a computationally difficult language that requires a significant bit of planning one’s speech – and is counter intuitive to our brain’s language processes.

    For this reason, articulate use of language is the first, most visible, least easily faked, most dependable means of determining the abilities and social class of the individual.

    This is the underlying cause of frustration with that language. We cannot legislate or educate around it. WE cannot make it different by wishing it so.

    Rebelling against articulate language is like rebelling against the SAT or IQ tests, or the human bias that symmetrical features are beautiful. Nothing more.

    (from an autist who has some difficulty with language)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-21 11:16:00 UTC

  • Adam, do you know of any (academic and secular) comparisons of buddhist and stoi

    Adam, do you know of any (academic and secular) comparisons of buddhist and stoic thought and practice? Differences in verbal skills required? Perhaps suitability for social classes? Do you have any ideas or opinions on that contrast? -Thanks in advance.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-21 04:54:00 UTC

  • COLLEGE GRADS WAIT FOR MARRIAGE TO HAVE KIDS (everyone else is a single mom)

    http://www.vox.com/2014/6/20/5824594/marriage-an-upper-class-luxuryONLY COLLEGE GRADS WAIT FOR MARRIAGE TO HAVE KIDS

    (everyone else is a single mom)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-20 15:30:00 UTC

  • Sad Revelations And The End Of Hero Worship

    [I] just realized the my intellectual hero is not interested in liberty, he is interested in obtaining status by demonstrating that he is an alpha. Libertarianism was just a vehicle for demonstrating it. And that is why his arguments are so heavily loaded and framed. Sure, there is also valuable content there, but it is obscured by signal seeking, sycophancy, ridicule, empty verbalism, anti-empiricism, deceptive framing, shoddy selective reasoning, and obscurantist fallacy. So apparently one can learn a lot about the method of argument from Marxists if you study them. By contrast, I don’t matter. I don’t need to earn a living from my philosophical work. I’ve obtained my status already – and frankly I’d rather live simply having done it. My goal is not recognition, not status, but to obtain liberty. This is war for the soul if not survival of the west. I’m just a warrior. And I want to win. Not just for me, but for all of us.

  • Sad Revelations And The End Of Hero Worship

    [I] just realized the my intellectual hero is not interested in liberty, he is interested in obtaining status by demonstrating that he is an alpha. Libertarianism was just a vehicle for demonstrating it. And that is why his arguments are so heavily loaded and framed. Sure, there is also valuable content there, but it is obscured by signal seeking, sycophancy, ridicule, empty verbalism, anti-empiricism, deceptive framing, shoddy selective reasoning, and obscurantist fallacy. So apparently one can learn a lot about the method of argument from Marxists if you study them. By contrast, I don’t matter. I don’t need to earn a living from my philosophical work. I’ve obtained my status already – and frankly I’d rather live simply having done it. My goal is not recognition, not status, but to obtain liberty. This is war for the soul if not survival of the west. I’m just a warrior. And I want to win. Not just for me, but for all of us.

  • SAD REVELATIONS AND THE END OF HERO WORSHIP I just realized the my intellectual

    SAD REVELATIONS AND THE END OF HERO WORSHIP

    I just realized the my intellectual hero is not interested in liberty, he is interested in obtaining status by demonstrating that he is an alpha. Libertarianism was just a vehicle for demonstrating it. And that is why his arguments are so heavily loaded and framed. Sure, there is also valuable content there, but it is obscured by signal seeking, sycophancy, ridicule, empty verbalism, anti-empiricism, deceptive framing, shoddy selective reasoning, and obscurantist fallacy. So apparently one can learn a lot about the method of argument from Marxists if you study them.

    By contrast, I don’t matter. I don’t need to earn a living from my philosophical work. I’ve obtained my status already – and frankly I’d rather live simply having done it. My goal is not recognition, not status, but to obtain liberty. This is war for the soul if not survival of the west. I’m just a warrior. And I want to win. Not just for me, but for all of us.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 02:44:00 UTC

  • Over my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasse

    Over my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasses that I wouldn’t have expected. We know that the spread of science has had profound impact and is probably responsible for the continued increase in intelligence. We know that the spread of general knowledge has had impact. But we have also seen the spread of ‘general awareness’, which means everyone seems to know about almost everything so that unscientific or irrational rumours are much harder to spread.

    A lot of this has accelerated since the expansion of the internet, and now even more so because of the universal spread of smartphones. But it was already happening under television, radio, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and books.

    But while the method and content of intellectual discourse (IMHO) hasn’t changed much in the past 150 years or more, the method and content of underclass conversation has changed so much that it’s unimaginable.

    I sat at a kitchen table listening to some ‘poor-folk’ (loggers) as a child and I remember how much it horrified me that adults could talk about such nonsense. I couldn’t have been more than twelve at the time. Probably younger. Conspiracy theory is and must be (Dunning Krueger) part and parcel of underclass experience. And it’s probably the most consistent metaphysical assumption of underclass conversation.

    But that level of ignorance has been forced out of all but the sub-80-IQ crowd.

    I routinely read academic work written over a century ago, and some back into the post-civil-war period. And honestly, aside from changes in technology, the metaphysical assumptions shared in that thought is pretty consistent across the century. (We have to largely discount the sixties and seventies though as an age of mysticism.) I could talk to most pre-war thinkers on level terms and not feel a void separated us. But if you talked to common people in 1900, 1965 and 2014 the difference would be astounding. Not just in what they talked abut, but what they knew about.

    Knowledge is enough. Saturation in information will do the job that training cannot.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-15 08:52:00 UTC

  • The Difference In Underclass Communication Due To Science

    [O]ver my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasses that I wouldn’t have expected. We know that the spread of science has had profound impact and is probably responsible for the continued increase in intelligence. We know that the spread of general knowledge has had impact. But we have also seen the spread of ‘general awareness’, which means everyone seems to know about almost everything so that unscientific or irrational rumours are much harder to spread. A lot of this has accelerated since the expansion of the internet, and now even more so because of the universal spread of smartphones. But it was already happening under television, radio, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and books. But while the method and content of intellectual discourse (IMHO) hasn’t changed much in the past 150 years or more, the method and content of underclass conversation has changed so much that it’s unimaginable. I sat at a kitchen table listening to some ‘poor-folk’ (loggers) as a child and I remember how much it horrified me that adults could talk about such nonsense. I couldn’t have been more than twelve at the time. Probably younger. Conspiracy theory is and must be (Dunning Krueger) part and parcel of underclass experience. And it’s probably the most consistent metaphysical assumption of underclass conversation. But that level of ignorance has been forced out of all but the sub-80-IQ crowd. I routinely read academic work written over a century ago, and some back into the post-civil-war period. And honestly, aside from changes in technology, the metaphysical assumptions shared in that thought is pretty consistent across the century. (We have to largely discount the sixties and seventies though as an age of mysticism.) I could talk to most pre-war thinkers on level terms and not feel a void separated us. But if you talked to common people in 1900, 1965 and 2014 the difference would be astounding. Not just in what they talked abut, but what they knew about. Knowledge is enough. Saturation in information will do the job that training cannot.

  • The Difference In Underclass Communication Due To Science

    [O]ver my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasses that I wouldn’t have expected. We know that the spread of science has had profound impact and is probably responsible for the continued increase in intelligence. We know that the spread of general knowledge has had impact. But we have also seen the spread of ‘general awareness’, which means everyone seems to know about almost everything so that unscientific or irrational rumours are much harder to spread. A lot of this has accelerated since the expansion of the internet, and now even more so because of the universal spread of smartphones. But it was already happening under television, radio, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and books. But while the method and content of intellectual discourse (IMHO) hasn’t changed much in the past 150 years or more, the method and content of underclass conversation has changed so much that it’s unimaginable. I sat at a kitchen table listening to some ‘poor-folk’ (loggers) as a child and I remember how much it horrified me that adults could talk about such nonsense. I couldn’t have been more than twelve at the time. Probably younger. Conspiracy theory is and must be (Dunning Krueger) part and parcel of underclass experience. And it’s probably the most consistent metaphysical assumption of underclass conversation. But that level of ignorance has been forced out of all but the sub-80-IQ crowd. I routinely read academic work written over a century ago, and some back into the post-civil-war period. And honestly, aside from changes in technology, the metaphysical assumptions shared in that thought is pretty consistent across the century. (We have to largely discount the sixties and seventies though as an age of mysticism.) I could talk to most pre-war thinkers on level terms and not feel a void separated us. But if you talked to common people in 1900, 1965 and 2014 the difference would be astounding. Not just in what they talked abut, but what they knew about. Knowledge is enough. Saturation in information will do the job that training cannot.

  • A PLACE IN THE NATURAL ARISTOCRACY I consider myself a warrior – a physical, com

    A PLACE IN THE NATURAL ARISTOCRACY

    I consider myself a warrior – a physical, commercial and intellectual competitor. I have no desire to participate in an effete, affluent, managerial aristocracy. But I desire that others do, so that I need not. I prefer to have a leader who takes care of leadership duties. I just prefer to choose my leader from the best available. I prefer to choose a leader who is better than I.

    The upper class – the perpetuating nobility – the natural aristocracy – produce families of consistent quality, as long as they demonstrate retention of their position by commercial, military, and intellectual performance.

    This family scope is a very different burden from that of the individual warrior, who wishes to achieve his greatest personal possibilities. It is a very different thing to seek to build a noble family, from that which it is to seek to build great arts, great sciences, great commerce.

    So the philosophy of aristocracy does not require that all of us seek the status of intergenerational familial nobility. But instead, that we pursue our excellences – only one of which is intergenerational familial nobility.

    To be a great thinker, artist, tradesman, investor, warrior, scientist, does not require that my siblings do. Only that I have the will to demonstrated excellence – aristocracy – myself.

    If I succeed and reproduce with others of the same ilk, then over time, perhaps my genes can participate in the natural aristocracy of families. And that is the greatest aspiration I care to dream of. Because it is the greatest aspiration that is possible for me to act upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-11 07:11:00 UTC