Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • “Being ‘Nice’ is just using the herd to hide”—Nick Heywood

    —“Being ‘Nice’ is just using the herd to hide”—Nick Heywood

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:47:00 UTC

  • “Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic”

    By Danika Fears, NYP

    —“Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.” In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism. The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones. The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.” The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.”—

  • “Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic”

    By Danika Fears, NYP

    —“Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.” In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism. The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones. The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.” The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.”—

  • There are many useful means of free association (conflation) but only one means

    There are many useful means of free association (conflation) but only one means of falsification (deflation). Justificationism is false.

    The question is not what is true such that we can make an excuse, so that we can claim justification for preference, but whether we engage in falsehood, deception, reciprocity, and externality. Wisdom lit is full of falsehood, deception, suggestion, obscurantism reciprocity and externality.

    So solving for a truth claim in wisdom lit is simply an act of fraud. What you mean is ‘it works to satisfy a need’. Whether or not it ‘s true reciprocal, and free of externality is still open to question regardless of opinion.

    The question then is wheher something is preferable yet not false, irreciprocal and plagued with externatlities

    That is the only wisdom we need understand.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 22:21:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/29694894_10156265825022264_15392498

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/29694894_10156265825022264_1539249835742330880_o_10156265825012264.jpg 40 NEW PAPERS IN 2018 SAY GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST.

    FROM

    NOTRICKS ZONE- CLIMATE NEWS FROM GERMANY IN ENGLISH.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.J5s6KM7i.2ywZNTZ9.dpbsRob McMullanI accept that i’m not qualified at all to comment on global warming, but I’m confident in how full of shit people, especially leftists, can be.. so i’m not at all surprised.

    What is your opinion so far on global warming and the science?Apr 04, 2018 10:29pmEric Thomasyikes be careful they are citing Brietbart in this article – also a closer look at the two graphs and you realize that one of them is just a graph for europe while the other one is just surface temps. I’d take this with a grain of salt.Apr 04, 2018 10:47pmCurt Doolittlei know the people in that movement and they’re not good peopleApr 04, 2018 11:09pmCurt Doolittledetails added to op.Apr 04, 2018 11:13pmEric ThomasI’m always on the look out for new science (especially science that shows us evidence that global warming is exaggerated) https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htmApr 04, 2018 11:21pmTrè GreystokeYournewswire is fake news lmaoApr 04, 2018 11:32pmEric Thomasyikes 43 articles on Snopes debunked….cmon @[741197263:2048:Curt Doolittle]Apr 04, 2018 11:38pmEric Thomashttps://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire-com/Apr 04, 2018 11:38pmMichael AndradeMost modern academics are bad hombres.Apr 04, 2018 11:51pmMike RoseYikes citing snopes as researchApr 04, 2018 11:57pmMike RoseSnopes is garbage. Try harder.Apr 04, 2018 11:57pmEric ThomasMike Rose Snopes has always been reputable. Try hardest.Apr 04, 2018 11:58pmCurt Doolittleum. go to the papers not the gossip columnApr 05, 2018 12:02amCurt Doolittlego to the papersApr 05, 2018 12:03amEly HarmanLol.Apr 05, 2018 12:06amEly HarmanInteresting. Not surprised. What about the precautionary principle? What about Elon Musk’s view that running an experiment like “how much carbon can we pump into the atmosphere before it becomes a problem” is inherently reckless and irresponsible?Apr 05, 2018 12:07amPhilip ChristopherElon Musk is, like the vast majority of innovators, inherently reckless. Irresponsible is arguable. No one celebrates the guy who stayed home.Apr 05, 2018 12:25amEly HarmanA strong precautionary principle is basically an admonition against doing anything. So obviously, I don’t accept it in that form. But Taleb advocates a form of it as well based on assymetrical risk/reward which I think is tenable.Apr 05, 2018 12:42amGreg Hamilton@[100001322449172:2048:Eric Thomas] hahaha.Apr 05, 2018 12:49amChris JonesPascals wagerApr 05, 2018 12:57amChristian WarwickYournewswire isn’t fake news per se. They do post stuff that’s controversial and does sometimes hold info that does not eventually turn out to be true. But alot of their content is good.Apr 05, 2018 1:49amMichael PettenuzzoSnopes 😂Apr 05, 2018 3:16amThomas BeesleySnopes stopped being reputable when they threw their hat into the political arena and revealed their bias.Apr 05, 2018 3:29amCurt DoolittleWATCH THIS….. (Changed op)Apr 05, 2018 8:19amCurt DoolittleSO, NOW I DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE ANALYSIS.

    How does that affect the argument?

    And … um… you thought you were smart by criticizing the distributor rather than the manufacturer???????

    Same reason pseudoscience exists…. presumptions.Apr 05, 2018 8:23amTrè Greystokehttp://yournewswire.com/adolf-hitler-black/Apr 05, 2018 8:24amTrent Fowler”Pascals wager”

    That’s both nonsensical and way *too* precautionary.

    “Not surprised. What about the precautionary principle? What about Elon Musk’s view that running an experiment like “how much carbon can we pump into the atmosphere before it becomes a problem” is inherently reckless and irresponsible?”

    I say that if you can afford the capital investments to build SpaceX and Tesla then go for it. Plenty of precautionary strategies are cause-agnostic — it’s good to be an interplanetary species whether you believe in AGW or not, because even if carbon emissions aren’t driving heat increases we could still perish in a bad singularity or in a nuclear exchange.

    This is the same logic I give for taking ‘prepping’ seriously. A lot of preppers believe patently silly things (e.g. “Obama is the antichrist”), but regardless of what you think will bring civilization down you’re going to need water, so stock up on that.Apr 05, 2018 9:42amChristian WarwickHitler was a brother. It’s clear as day. Or dark as night.Apr 05, 2018 10:14amChristian SeriousEven if that’s true the destruction of common property by government subsidized multinational corporations that eventually damage the private properties of people who never make as much money in a lifetime as some of these thugs make a year is wrong

    The overall goal to cut back on pollution is still a fight worth having. While I still disagree with the idea of market interference from government it is time to cut back on pollutionApr 05, 2018 11:27pmMatthew Gillwhat about the precautionary principle regarding all the pollutants and radiation humans emit? co2 is one of the few that is non-toxic and beneficial to living things (plants). i’m more concerned about tesla’s batteries than co2, and more about the other pollutants released by drilling for and burning oil and coal. humanity as it currently operates is reckless and irresponsible, but co2 is a red herring imo, and a “easy fix” pseudo-solution that doesn’t deal with real problems like deforestation, monocultures, and sickening populations due to deliberately distributed toxins.Apr 05, 2018 11:59pmMicah Pezdirtz3 publications convinced me global warming is a false alarm.

    The first one informed me that the margin of error in the study’s temperature measurements was basically the same as the purported increase in temperature they claimed had taken place over some decades (0.5°C) So they basically revealed no change and painted it as significant change. Lies.

    The second publication demonstrated the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuate periodically and relatively predictably, with a maximum 8 times higher than at current at several points in the past several hundred thousand years. (With no corresponding mass extinctions to my knowledge)

    The third publication investigated the sources of CO2 generation and sequestration and indicated a significant (30%) source of non human generated CO2, as well as general lack of understanding where it goes. Speculated on the acceleration of plant growth as a feedback loop.

    Bonus publication: posited the falsehood of greenhouse gas as a theory bringing attention to the flaws of the original experiment. The atmosphere is not a box of gas with a fixed volume (which rises in temperature and pressure) but is allowed to expand and cool, normalizing pressure, constrained only by gravity.Apr 07, 2018 3:17pm40 NEW PAPERS IN 2018 SAY GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST.

    FROM

    NOTRICKS ZONE- CLIMATE NEWS FROM GERMANY IN ENGLISH.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.J5s6KM7i.2ywZNTZ9.dpbs

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

  • A Reminder: “I Don’t Hate on Anyone.”

    I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict. Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.) And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own. Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment. If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide. At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments. So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian. And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well. Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind. And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not. And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law. So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.
    Apr 04, 2018 11:17am

  • A Reminder: “I Don’t Hate on Anyone.”

    I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict. Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.) And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own. Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment. If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide. At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments. So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian. And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well. Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind. And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not. And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law. So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.
    Apr 04, 2018 11:17am

  • A REMINDER: “I DON’T HATE ON ANYONE.” I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a raci

    A REMINDER: “I DON’T HATE ON ANYONE.”

    I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict.

    Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.)

    And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own.

    Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment.

    If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide.

    At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments.

    So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian.

    And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well.

    Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind.

    And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not.

    And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law.

    So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 11:17:00 UTC

  • #YoutubeHQ Shooter Identified as Nasim Najafi Aghdam Iranian Woman. A REGISTERED

    #YoutubeHQ Shooter Identified as Nasim Najafi Aghdam

    Iranian Woman.

    A REGISTERED @DNC VOTER.

    PETA Activist

    Wearing Hijab at time of Shooting

    Because of Youtube Censorship.

    The shooter was identified as Nasim Aghdam who slammed YouTube for purportedly censoring her after she claimed that they demonetized her channels, including an exercise one devoted to exercise videos and another devoted to veganism. Aghdam channeled her anger toward YouTube into a manifesto published online. She wrote in her purported manifesto: “Be aware! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for personal and short-term profits and do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people, hiding the truth, manipulating science and everything, putting public mental and physical health at risk, abusing non-human animals, polluting the environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism and sexual degeneration in the name of freedom and turning people into programmed robots!”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 23:33:00 UTC

  • No, I prosecute disapproval, ridicule, shaming, gossiping and rallying as an inf

    No, I prosecute disapproval, ridicule, shaming, gossiping and rallying as an infantile substitute for argument – it just so happens that (as you demonstrate) women have a far higher proclivity for emoting rather than debating. Which is why women have the deserved reputation for resorting to instinctual disapproval as if their approval mattered, rather than doing the work of reason to produce truth and truth alone, regardless of their approval or disapproval – which likewise dominates male discourse. Much to the frustration of feminists everywhere who desperately try create pseudosciences and excuses for justifying worthless opinion over valuable argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-01 10:12:00 UTC