Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • MORE ON MY POSITION ON RACE (from elsewhere) Just maybe let me add this: there i

    MORE ON MY POSITION ON RACE

    (from elsewhere)

    Just maybe let me add this: there is no material difference between men. There is a material difference in how groups of men behave because there are material differences in the distributions between groups of men. I feel that evolution via mutation is less impactful than changes in who breeds at what rate. This means that man is very plastic in adaptation, always able to move forward into the cerebral or backward into the physical as necessary. The central problem of any society is the PERCENTAGE of individuals above 125/130 where ideas are created, and how much property is in their hands, and the nearest 20% of people that they influence. This is how institutions and organizations are formed. It is imperative that any group of people achieve the Pareto relationship between order and ability if one wants to exit tyranny. I do not believe there are material differences between people of similar abilities. I believe that there are material differences in the distribution of abilities. If you let your lower classes over-reproduce, you cannot accumulate wealth in the hands of meritocracy. I do not think this is particularly difficult or complex to understand. We are all families at different stages of maturity. I think that we should treat our families, extended families, distant relations, and other races as families who are at different levels of maturity, but that there is no meaningful difference otherwise. This is my position. Racism is stupid. Democracy makes it worse. All families can help other families however.I choose to help all families who wish to improve their lot without doing it at the expense of Others.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 09:05:00 UTC

  • THE CHOICE: TRIBE OR CORPORATION There exists one species of man remaining that

    THE CHOICE: TRIBE OR CORPORATION

    There exists one species of man remaining that we know of (we have killed and eaten the rest), and of the single species that remains, there are at least major races of man: white, black, and mongoloid, with multiple blending points in areas of contact – the most obvious being the middle eastern high aggression peoples. Any other statement is an unscientific and intentional denial of demonstrated human behavior.

    Races are not artificial constructs no matter how hopeful you might wish them to be (admittedly under the various false consensus biases endemic to the solipsistic female intuition), any more than gender is a false construct, any more than reproductive desirability is a false construct, any more than any reproductive strategy is a false construct, any more than aggression is a false construct.

    People demonstrate in politics (voting) in business(commerce), in friendship, and in mating, in humor, in body language, and in tastes – that they overwhelmingly practice in-group cooperation and affiliation (kinship/kin-selection).

    The market (thankfully) eliminates a great deal of the advantage of kin-selection for consumers even if NOT for workers, and more intensely, not in politics. More so than any other walk of life, in politics, everywhere on earth, humans absolutely favor kin-selection.

    Denialism and pseudoscience change nothing except to increase the severity of conflict by propagating pseudoscience. The only reason race is an issue is democracy, imperialism, and colonialism.

    The south americans and the hindus have successfully integrated races at the cost of creating caste systems. So by and large we get to choose between high trust redistributive tribal-nationalism, and low trust high corruption low-redistribution caste-corporatism.

    You can get away with anything for a while. But not forever.

    We are just gene machines, and all our rationalization is merely an attempt to improve our reproductive strategies.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 06:56:00 UTC

  • The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

    [T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff. 

    The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy.  Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.

    Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? 

    Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

    Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).


  • The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

    [T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff. 

    The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy.  Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.

    Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? 

    Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

    Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).


  • “good jokes offend someone”–Taleb Jokes : the production of chemical reward for

    —“good jokes offend someone”–Taleb

    Jokes : the production of chemical reward for unexpected free associations.

    Hierarchy:

    1-Jokes that improve relations reduce separateness between group members.

    2-Jokes that bind members and increase separateness between group members and non members.

    3-Jokes that bind members and increase relative status increase trust.

    Jokes are gifts of chemical exchanges of rewards for increasing group cohesion.

    So technically speaking, Nassim is correct. Good jokes – that is jokes that offend others and increase binding among group members – are more valuable and therefore better than those that do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 04:45:00 UTC

  • IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CO

    IMMORAL DECEITS MUST BE CAST ASIDE. WE MUST PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH INCENTIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

    (important sketch)(capitalism)(efficient uses of capital)

    There are many more empirically efficient allocations of capital at any given moment. But there are not necessarily more efficient allocations of incentives. Since the voluntary organization of production requires an efficient allocation of incentives, then the maximum efficiency of any allocation of capital, is one in which we produce the widest distribution of incentives. The reason being that the construction of the voluntary organization of production that we call capitalism is not (as libertarians fantasize) natural behavior or rational choice, whatsoever. People must be provided with incentives to voluntarily organize production.

    This means that the entire cosmopolitan fantasy promoted by Rothbard on one side, and Soros on the other, and other advocates of immorality like Walter Block, is a justification. The most efficient use of capital is that in which the population is incentivized to construct and preserve the foundation of the economy: the voluntary organization of production.

    And so we seek a Pareto optimum between incentives to produce the voluntary order, and the efficiency of capital allocation in production within that voluntary order. And any increase in capital efficiency that produces a decrease in incentives is actually destructive.

    In Propertarianism I have tried to demonstrate that if people cannot join the market for production, that we must compensate them for the work of constructing the voluntary organization of production that makes the high productivity, high trust, high velocity and low friction under the voluntary organization of production possible.

    From this perspective, most rothbardian thought, like most cosmopolitan thought, is merely an elaborate obscurant art of fraud for the purpose of declaring without cost, that which is hugely expensive: high trust, high velocity, and the voluntary organization of production.

    If you understand this you will abandon libertinism (cosmopolitan libertarianism) and revert to aristocratic libertarianism (classical liberalism). Because we had it right. We did. But the American Neo-Puritans put a dent in it, women put a hole in it, and Jews and Catholics made a fissure out of it.

    Thankfully it isn’t impossible to fix: truth telling is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 02:38:00 UTC

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

  • PINKER’S CRITICISM OF GROUP/MULTI-LEVEL SELECTION First, both of them are making

    PINKER’S CRITICISM OF GROUP/MULTI-LEVEL SELECTION

    First, both of them are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-04 02:14:00 UTC

  • The measure of the level of achievement of any civilization is not relative but

    The measure of the level of achievement of any civilization is not relative but absolute: the greater the suppression of free riding (property rights) and the faster the adaptation of prohibitions (the common law), producing the highest standard of living (purchasing power), producing the most innovation (technology), with the lowest corruption (parasitism), producing the greatest inter-temporal commons (monuments).

    So no. Morality isn’t relative.

    It all comes down to truth-telling.

    Truth telling is the most expensive commons that a people can construct.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-02 06:42:00 UTC