Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE = LYING Aug 06, 2017 1:51pm by Bill Joslin —“Curt equate

    LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE = LYING

    Aug 06, 2017 1:51pm

    by Bill Joslin

    —“Curt equates a lack of due diligence to vet ones ideas against error, bias, self deception, overloading etc as lying. Any primacy of consciousness or theism stands as arguing for a preference opposed to arguing a point in the commons.

    Theism and primacy of-conciousness are not verifiable in the commons – to proceed with them you must accept these premises.

    ***When we verify via our best empirical methods, our arguments gain credibility from reality. When we assert based on a priorisms which can not be found in reality we use logic to “steal credibility from reality” – we assert it as reality without consulting reality- a transfer of credibility from existence in reality, to the interpretive framework.***

    If an argument holds arbitrary assertions we can dismiss it off-hand. (If asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 10:14:00 UTC

  • In my Glossary (((Abrahamism))) refers to the argumentative technique of using P

    In my Glossary (((Abrahamism))) refers to the argumentative technique of using Pilpul (positiva), and critique (negativa) to construct sophisms w/ loading, framing,suggestion, obscurantism,overloading, Fictionalism,appeals to reasonableness, and false promise, to create hazards.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 17:52:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010581396769984513

  • The Fallacy of Liberal Academic Achievement

    —“What I always tell people who cite more “educational achievement” among liberals, besides what this article said about how universities are really indoctrination centers, is that there is a repolarization at the top that mirrors the 50/50 split amongst the general population. Intelligence is a predictor of leftist leanings until you hit the the top one or two percent. “They don’t know what they don’t know” is basically another way of saying “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” They get to the point of questioning preconceived notions, realizing they’re not wholly rational, but not even scratching the surface of why we developed those instincts to begin with.”– Brian McQuiston “…Not questioning why we developed those instincts to begin with…” or why a central tenet of western and eastern civilization is the warning by Icarus against hubris. Why? It counters (a) that idealism and reason can somehow compete with a market for demonstrated results, and (b) that we are unequal in every possible way and that markets are the only means of calculating coincidences of wants and needs, and (c) that because of “b”, many people are dead weight or deleterious to the group as a whole.

  • The Fallacy of Liberal Academic Achievement

    —“What I always tell people who cite more “educational achievement” among liberals, besides what this article said about how universities are really indoctrination centers, is that there is a repolarization at the top that mirrors the 50/50 split amongst the general population. Intelligence is a predictor of leftist leanings until you hit the the top one or two percent. “They don’t know what they don’t know” is basically another way of saying “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” They get to the point of questioning preconceived notions, realizing they’re not wholly rational, but not even scratching the surface of why we developed those instincts to begin with.”– Brian McQuiston “…Not questioning why we developed those instincts to begin with…” or why a central tenet of western and eastern civilization is the warning by Icarus against hubris. Why? It counters (a) that idealism and reason can somehow compete with a market for demonstrated results, and (b) that we are unequal in every possible way and that markets are the only means of calculating coincidences of wants and needs, and (c) that because of “b”, many people are dead weight or deleterious to the group as a whole.

  • The Albegensions were murdered for stating the obvious: that the god of the old

    The Albegensions were murdered for stating the obvious: that the god of the old Testament was Evil, and god of the new testament Good. The Evil false god of the Jews, and the good false god of the christians.

    We have no false gods.
    We are the gods we imagined.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 16:18:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010195406804914177

  • THE WEAK USE TOOLS OF THE WEAK The problem with mythology, conflation and fictio

    THE WEAK USE TOOLS OF THE WEAK

    The problem with mythology, conflation and fictionalism is that like numerology astrology and scriptural interpretation, you can find any meaning you look for. Just as any opponent can do the same. As such it is just the wittiest liar that wins the tactical argument and the most utilitarian lies that win the war of political control. The only way for the good to win is the truth, and to abandon all convenient sophisms and to prosecute as liars all who do otherwise.

    Weak and false is weak and false no matter how useful weakness and falsehood are.

    THE STRONG USE TRUTH , VIOLENCE, AND RULE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 12:04:00 UTC

  • NEWBS: Meme Free Zone. I teach argument. Memes are a substitute for argument. Th

    NEWBS: Meme Free Zone.

    I teach argument. Memes are a substitute for argument. That does not mean they are not useful or enjoyable means of propaganda. They are however, not argument. And I teach argument. So make an argument. I delete memes, stupidity, and non-contribution to the discourse. And play meme games elsewhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 08:14:00 UTC

  • Motivated Reasoning

    Young men are often weak, and will seek self medication in narratives. Aristocracy = Agency = Action (Dominance)-vs-Priesthood = Justification = Inaction (Submission)–Cognitive strategy– The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3] –Mechanisms– Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability, in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations.[4] More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational[5] or affective processes[6] to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning “was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation”.[3] This section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal. –Goal-oriented motivated reasoning– One review of the research develops the following theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[7] The model is summarized as follows: Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. Historically, motivated reasoning theory identifies that directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, information, knowledge) that are consistent with desired conclusions. This theory endorses previous research on accessing information, but adds a procedural component in specifying that the motivation to achieve directional goals will also influence which rules (procedural structures such as inferential rules) and which beliefs are accessed to guide the search for information. In this model the beliefs and rule structures are instrumental in directing which information will be obtained to support the desired conclusion. In comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2000) introduce an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds. This model has three components: On-line processing in which when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect; Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[8] A “heuristic mechanism” for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on “How do I feel?” about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information. This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber’s The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[9] Interestingly, David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[10] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.

  • Motivated Reasoning

    Young men are often weak, and will seek self medication in narratives. Aristocracy = Agency = Action (Dominance)-vs-Priesthood = Justification = Inaction (Submission)–Cognitive strategy– The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3] –Mechanisms– Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability, in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations.[4] More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational[5] or affective processes[6] to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning “was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation”.[3] This section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal. –Goal-oriented motivated reasoning– One review of the research develops the following theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[7] The model is summarized as follows: Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. Historically, motivated reasoning theory identifies that directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, information, knowledge) that are consistent with desired conclusions. This theory endorses previous research on accessing information, but adds a procedural component in specifying that the motivation to achieve directional goals will also influence which rules (procedural structures such as inferential rules) and which beliefs are accessed to guide the search for information. In this model the beliefs and rule structures are instrumental in directing which information will be obtained to support the desired conclusion. In comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2000) introduce an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds. This model has three components: On-line processing in which when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect; Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[8] A “heuristic mechanism” for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on “How do I feel?” about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information. This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber’s The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[9] Interestingly, David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[10] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.

  • FINISHING UP THE SINGLE MOTHERHOOD TOPIC I wanted to use the single motherhood s

    FINISHING UP THE SINGLE MOTHERHOOD TOPIC

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection.

    As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’.

    1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family.

    2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons.

    3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities

    Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out.

    As I understand it, this is the set of incentives;

    0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe.

    1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage.

    2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work.

    3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control.

    4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress.

    As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 15:39:00 UTC