Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein

  • ERIC WEINSTEIN ON THE FAILURE OF THE GATED INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE Including: –

    ERIC WEINSTEIN ON THE FAILURE OF THE GATED INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE

    Including:

    – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula.

    – The Disagreeables,

    – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory.

    1) Consider these adjectives:

    Embattled

    Controversial

    Divisive

    Reclusive

    Provocative

    Struggling

    Right-Wing

    Eccentric

    Self-styled

    Far-Left

    Recovering

    Disgraced

    Self-Promoting

    Free-thinking

    Volatile

    etc.

    2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns.

    3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached.

    4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor.

    So…how can that be?

    5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick.

    The point is that real humans don’t talk like this.

    6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target.

    Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality

    7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn.

    And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability.

    8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility.

    This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures.

    9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn?

    10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them.

    So something new *has* to happen.

    Here goes…

    Either:

    A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again.

    B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out.

    C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables.

    CLOSING

    My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg.

    And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables.

    Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb.

    –Eric Weinstein

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 17:23:00 UTC

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein

  • So marxism freudianism, boazianism, keynesianism, and islam did no harm?Lies and

    So marxism freudianism, boazianism, keynesianism, and islam did no harm?Lies and frauds do no harm? Creating hazard creates no harm? what is the difference between the markets for goods, services, information, and opportunity? nothing. speech can only exist if we act to say it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 00:58:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954880731716685825

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954879157976141826

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954879157976141826

  • Speech is an action. If speech did not have the effect of actions, then ignoranc

    Speech is an action. If speech did not have the effect of actions, then ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, would be irrelevant. But in all societies everywhere we have limited speech.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 00:21:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954871527027159040

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954859537202319360

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954859537202319360

  • If Defenders Of Communism Could Not Use The Phrase “that Wasn’t Real Communism,” What Would Their Defence Be?

    (Thanks for asking me to answer, and yes this area (Pseudoscience Pseudo-rationalism, Abrahamism, and Pilpul) is one of my specialties. You will easily make note of other people’s use of pseudoscientific psychologisms, unrelated justifications, and outright excuses in some other answers.)

    My response would be the same scientific response that the entire empirical establishment settled by the 1960’s.

    1. The organization of economic calculation necessary for complex multi-part networks of production is impossible without money and prices. Imputations cannot be made. However, assuming a people desired a minimum autarkic (insulated from external trade) static economy (and underclasses often do), then at least in theory, aside from adaptation to shocks, it might be possible, albeit the middle class would be very unlikely to develop, and a managerial and bureaucratic elite might be able to direct production, distribution, trade, and consumption.
    2. Assuming the calculation of production was possible, we are stuck with the organization of people in the act of production, distribution, and transfer (trade). And people demonstrated universally, and continue to demonstrate universally, that they will both do the minimum possible, engage in false reporting, and engage in corruption and fraud to do the minimum possible, because they have no incentive to do otherwise.
    3. Humans need to demonstrate status signals in order to obtain mates. Without access to markets of all kinds to do so, they do so by political, and black market means. Humans need new experiences. Black markets form and black markets compete with command driven production.
    4. In every place it has been tried, the centralization can be used to rapidly advance a backward country without incurring external financial debt, but as a byproduct the people never develop the middle class of managers and resource calculators necessary to develop middle class norms, manners, ethics and morals.
    5. The reverse solution has won out, which is to preserve status signaling, preserve markets, and produce common goods where markets fail. Poor people in america wear designer clothes cast off by the middle class in thrift stores for example.
    6. The failure of the american model is due to heterogeneity since no people will permit the sacrifice of their own in order to let loose a political competitor.
    7. The failure of the european model is the intertemporal version of the failure of communism: people reproduced insufficiently and engaged in work lives insufficiently to perpetuate the one-generation of benefits of redistribution under american protection that obviated their spending on defense.
    8. There is no difference between communism, socialism, and social democracy except the time for to accumulate consequences. Or as others have said, any kind of democracy is just the slow road to communism – and the deterministic outcome of communism: suicide.
    9. The abrahamic deception (pseudoscientific religion) of the ancient world killed something on the order of 500M people – mostly due to the Arabs – and destroyed four great civilizations of profound achievement and duration – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age. The second Abrahamic deception of Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, the Frankfurt and Postmodern schools, has killed no less than 100M, so far, and set large parts of the globe back a century. The chinese were the smartest and walled off the barbarian peoples. The romans began the project but were overwhelmed, and cold not complete it. Had we walled off europe from the urals to the bosphorus we might have saved ourselves from the Abrahamic Dark Age. However, due to northern european persistence and isolation it was possible to restore western civilization and climb out of the Abrahamic Dark Age via empiricism, and eventually science, technology, accounting, contract, and the western natural law of torts.
    10. Europeans have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, and tyranny by one means: markets. Why? Because european civilization is predicated upon sovereignty and non-submission. An as such the only means of cooperation is via market competition. And markets calculate what men cannot through that continuous process of trial and error we call ‘innovation’.

    Marxism was and always will be a pseudoscience. Marxist ‘economics’ and history, Boazian athropology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian sets, and Frankfurt school aesthetics, were all pseudoscientific at best, and outright lies at worst. Just as the Abrahamic Pilpul that they originated from:the invention of the industrialization of lying.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/If-defenders-of-communism-could-not-use-the-phrase-That-wasnt-real-communism-what-would-their-defence-be

  • If Defenders Of Communism Could Not Use The Phrase “that Wasn’t Real Communism,” What Would Their Defence Be?

    (Thanks for asking me to answer, and yes this area (Pseudoscience Pseudo-rationalism, Abrahamism, and Pilpul) is one of my specialties. You will easily make note of other people’s use of pseudoscientific psychologisms, unrelated justifications, and outright excuses in some other answers.)

    My response would be the same scientific response that the entire empirical establishment settled by the 1960’s.

    1. The organization of economic calculation necessary for complex multi-part networks of production is impossible without money and prices. Imputations cannot be made. However, assuming a people desired a minimum autarkic (insulated from external trade) static economy (and underclasses often do), then at least in theory, aside from adaptation to shocks, it might be possible, albeit the middle class would be very unlikely to develop, and a managerial and bureaucratic elite might be able to direct production, distribution, trade, and consumption.
    2. Assuming the calculation of production was possible, we are stuck with the organization of people in the act of production, distribution, and transfer (trade). And people demonstrated universally, and continue to demonstrate universally, that they will both do the minimum possible, engage in false reporting, and engage in corruption and fraud to do the minimum possible, because they have no incentive to do otherwise.
    3. Humans need to demonstrate status signals in order to obtain mates. Without access to markets of all kinds to do so, they do so by political, and black market means. Humans need new experiences. Black markets form and black markets compete with command driven production.
    4. In every place it has been tried, the centralization can be used to rapidly advance a backward country without incurring external financial debt, but as a byproduct the people never develop the middle class of managers and resource calculators necessary to develop middle class norms, manners, ethics and morals.
    5. The reverse solution has won out, which is to preserve status signaling, preserve markets, and produce common goods where markets fail. Poor people in america wear designer clothes cast off by the middle class in thrift stores for example.
    6. The failure of the american model is due to heterogeneity since no people will permit the sacrifice of their own in order to let loose a political competitor.
    7. The failure of the european model is the intertemporal version of the failure of communism: people reproduced insufficiently and engaged in work lives insufficiently to perpetuate the one-generation of benefits of redistribution under american protection that obviated their spending on defense.
    8. There is no difference between communism, socialism, and social democracy except the time for to accumulate consequences. Or as others have said, any kind of democracy is just the slow road to communism – and the deterministic outcome of communism: suicide.
    9. The abrahamic deception (pseudoscientific religion) of the ancient world killed something on the order of 500M people – mostly due to the Arabs – and destroyed four great civilizations of profound achievement and duration – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age. The second Abrahamic deception of Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, the Frankfurt and Postmodern schools, has killed no less than 100M, so far, and set large parts of the globe back a century. The chinese were the smartest and walled off the barbarian peoples. The romans began the project but were overwhelmed, and cold not complete it. Had we walled off europe from the urals to the bosphorus we might have saved ourselves from the Abrahamic Dark Age. However, due to northern european persistence and isolation it was possible to restore western civilization and climb out of the Abrahamic Dark Age via empiricism, and eventually science, technology, accounting, contract, and the western natural law of torts.
    10. Europeans have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, and tyranny by one means: markets. Why? Because european civilization is predicated upon sovereignty and non-submission. An as such the only means of cooperation is via market competition. And markets calculate what men cannot through that continuous process of trial and error we call ‘innovation’.

    Marxism was and always will be a pseudoscience. Marxist ‘economics’ and history, Boazian athropology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian sets, and Frankfurt school aesthetics, were all pseudoscientific at best, and outright lies at worst. Just as the Abrahamic Pilpul that they originated from:the invention of the industrialization of lying.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/If-defenders-of-communism-could-not-use-the-phrase-That-wasnt-real-communism-what-would-their-defence-be

  • The worst discount societies take is making it comfortable to assert in public o

    The worst discount societies take is making it comfortable to assert in public one’s ignorant, erroneous, biased, wishfully-thought, suggestive, obscurant, fictionalst opinions without fear of punishment for the damage they cause. Why not warranty speech as we do all else? #trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 23:13:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954854365902311424

  • The worst discount a society creates makes it comfortable to assert in public th

    The worst discount a society creates makes it comfortable to assert in public the ignorant, erroneous, biased, wishfully-thought, suggestive, obscurant, fictionalst opinions without fear of punishment for the damage they cause. Why not warranty speech as we do all else? #trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 23:03:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954851907012571141

  • And the market has an opening: how to facilitate debates that bubble (as does yo

    And the market has an opening: how to facilitate debates that bubble (as does yours), while insulating us from our taboos, yet illustrating the simplicity of all arguments as either capital retention (conservative) capital invention(libertarian), and consumption (progressive).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 21:45:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954832196573061120

    Reply addressees: @KialoHQ

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KialoHQ The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @KialoHQ The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617