Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • —“Can Someone Put This In Common Language?”—

    —“CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”— Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (a) We spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism (the islamic counter-revolution against modernity, which is the latest iteration of the Ashkenazi counter-revolution (marx, freud, boaz, cantor), and the German( Kant, Hegel, etc), French v1(Rousseau) and v2 (Derrida et all). Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (b) Very few people are killed by terrorists. (ie: “6 people”). (c) we have many diseases (actually there are only ten that account for almost all deaths, and they are deaths of accumulated cellular damage). And we might cure those diseases instead with money spent on terror. Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (d) but the cost disease is slow and does not interfere with the world, economic, political, social, and familial ‘velocity of cooperation’ (stuff we do). While the cost of terrorism and its ability to spread is very high (civilizational). Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (e) We can easily see the costs of the plagues and major diseases. What has it cost us to cure Abrahamism? And its successors, Marxism, Postmodernism, leaving the compromise social democracy? The SEEN and the UNSEEN.

  • “CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”— Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    —“CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”—

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (a) We spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism (the islamic counter-revolution against modernity, which is the latest iteration of the Ashkenazi counter-revolution (marx, freud, boaz, cantor), and the German( Kant, Hegel, etc), French v1(Rousseau) and v2 (Derrida et all).

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (b) Very few people are killed by terrorists. (ie: “6 people”).

    (c) we have many diseases (actually there are only ten that account for almost all deaths, and they are deaths of accumulated cellular damage). And we might cure those diseases instead with money spent on terror.

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (d) but the cost disease is slow and does not interfere with the world, economic, political, social, and familial ‘velocity of cooperation’ (stuff we do). While the cost of terrorism and its ability to spread is very high (civilizational).

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (e) We can easily see the costs of the plagues and major diseases. What has it cost us to cure Abrahamism? And its successors, Marxism, Postmodernism, leaving the compromise social democracy? The SEEN and the UNSEEN.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 08:21:00 UTC

  • Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the maj

    Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the maj

    Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.)

    @Imperius__13

    Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion.

    it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital.

    @Imperius__13

    Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb

    Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility.

    No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying.

    The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft.

    (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 07:24:00 UTC

  • Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the maj

    Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking

    Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking

    Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.)

    @Imperius__13

    Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion.

    it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital.

    @Imperius__13

    Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb

    Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility.

    No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying.

    The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft.

    (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 07:13:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking

    Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • Is Racism The Ideology Of The Idiots?

    I thought race realism was just science. And that lying about it is simply a postmodern pseudoscientific religion.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-racism-the-ideology-of-the-idiots

  • However crudely, the president explodes shibboleths

    However crudely, the president explodes shibboleths.