Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • It’s not a dodgy subject at all. As the audience here can easily observe, you’ve

    It’s not a dodgy subject at all. As the audience here can easily observe, you’ve done nothing but read pop sci articles and propaganda.
    We solved the question of IQ in the 80s, the nature over nuture debate by 2000, sex differences in intelligence and personality by 2012, and race differences by 2018.

    We now the direction of human evolution from chimps and it’s relatively simple (noteny) and that evolution has been accelerating – at least until the industrial revolution’s reversal of natural selection.

    All we are doing is slowly accumulating the polygenic scores to try to determine if we can identify enough of the causally dense contributions to intelligence, personality and cognitive development.

    Now, if you know anything at all you would state it.

    I’m pretty rock solid on brain development beginning with neural tube formation, and migration of stem cells to different parts of the body, and from there the incremental evolutionary development of our brains.

    I can discuss every single function in the process of the organization of the brain and resulting cognition and I’ve made educational videos on the subject, and have a handful left to produce.

    So I know you’re a nitwit and I know you have psychological problems, because a full third of women have psychological problems (which we were warned about prior to women’s entry into the franchise). Of the remaining two thirds of women who lack mental problems, more than half demonstrate feminine proglems with cognition and I’ve documented the I’m painful detail, by explaining how the science of female antisocial behavior originates in neurological structure. In fact as far as I know I’m one of the top single digits of experts in the subject despite not wanting to be.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @helenfromhel @Barbarian_Brain @dosontheshinshi @MudKevin

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 20:57:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670173763990614016

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670171159239745538

  • Note the dependence on idiosyncratic experience. Total absence of terminology or

    Note the dependence on idiosyncratic experience. Total absence of terminology or common knowledge in the field. Doubling down on disapproval in the absence of argument. Evasion and denial.

    I mean I could ask the team to comment on your thread helen but the’ll just say your mentally unstable highly neurotic externalizing your dissatisfaction with your life’s failures, you’re low sexual market value, and low status and unlikability.

    Reply addressees: @helenfromhel @Dek01907133

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 20:49:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670171764431675393

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670159898338836481

  • You’re proving my point that women can’t tell the difference between truth and p

    You’re proving my point that women can’t tell the difference between truth and preference – and lying as I’ve documented in detail, and explained with excruiciating precision.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 19:19:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670149272879214593

    Reply addressees: @helenfromhel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670148666483417088

  • You are demonstratly incorrect. You’re just opining (projecting) pretence of kno

    You are demonstratly incorrect. You’re just opining (projecting) pretence of knowledge (lying).

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 19:19:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670149074501214208

    Reply addressees: @XLColdJ @xMajorKills

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670148587504771075

  • Environment has almost no impact on individuals. Genetics do. What we can do is

    Environment has almost no impact on individuals. Genetics do. What we can do is provide training to eliminate the maximum ignorance, error, bias, deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 17:24:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670120286010654720

    Reply addressees: @MudKevin @Pepe65318510638

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670104507227987974

  • The eugenics movement was successful, and mainstream, and progressive movement (

    The eugenics movement was successful, and mainstream, and progressive movement (like prohibition that also was successful). Anyone who thinks otherwise is the victim of war and postwar propaganda. In fact, the entire marxist-to-woke movement is nothing but a revolt against dariwin and the necesity of maintaining natural selection given the accumulation of dysgenia, and the reversal of asymmetric reproduction.

    There is a Great Filter.
    It’s the failure to implement soft (natural) eugenics.
    And it’s killing us already.

    Reply addressees: @realdanstilwell @digitildream

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 14:10:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670071409551237121

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670035277350313985

  • “NO, WE AREN’T SEEKING UTOPIA” We aren’t, seeking utopia. We’re seeking another

    “NO, WE AREN’T SEEKING UTOPIA”
    We aren’t, seeking utopia. We’re seeking another leap in the incremental suppression of lying and crime made possible by the industrial revolution and massive increases in population. That’s all.

    We don’t claim anything other than the eradication of crime produces a field of opportunities so that markets for cooperation can experiment with a multitude of potential good governments, that evolutionary pressures will subject to natural selection, and we will learn EMPIRICALLY what is superior and not, instead of hypothetically what is superior and not.

    Utopians propose the good. We don’t and can’t know it. Instead, empiricists eliminate the bad, and let the people, market and evolution decide. Anything not bad is good. Anything that survives and is good is the best that we humans can do.

    Reply addressees: @LibertarianTrap @digitildream @realdanstilwell

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 14:07:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670070697324838914

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670069333181988864

  • And he was powerless to perform anything other than giving them attention for te

    And he was powerless to perform anything other than giving them attention for temporary relief and giving them false hope.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-16 18:10:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669769346342682627

    Reply addressees: @FlorianRose_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669764308862132225

  • Once someone has established they engage in magical and justificationary thinkin

    Once someone has established they engage in magical and justificationary thinking, the practice of pilpul and critique, respond with intellectual dishonesty, and worse, demonstrated that they can’t identify, dismiss, or deliberately ignore the pattern between their words and others’ criticism of it, that individual is irredeemable, and all investment is sunk cost. Because instinc-bots, addicts, and criminals do not reform until they have no other choice.

    Simple questions from existing exchanges:
    (a) Are you denying the existence of your recent article (post) on conservatism?
    (b) Are you able to reduce your own bias to first cuases such that you can compare your presumptions with the opposition’s presumptions?
    (c) Are you ignoring the criticism of your use of the feminine > abrahamic > leftist method of undermining and virtue signaling in lieu of argument, or are you just unaware of the differences between the systematic and empirical method of masculine and european criticism and the empathic and social method of feminine and abrahamic criticism?
    (d) Why did you evade the sex differences in cognition as the origin of interpersonal, moral, and political bias? And claim I had no specific criticism?
    (e) If you are so unaware of the scientific and logical foundations of your own and others bias and understanding, then why are you even vaguely fit to comment on it as other than gossip? (You are, because that’s what you’re doing. Using feminine GSRRM – gossip.

    Because that’s all you are capable of.

    1. If you were intellectualy capable you would recognize the patterns betwen the arguments I’m making and your writing.
    2. If you were intellectually informed you would respond with specific questions that illustrated your understanding (you haven’t).
    3. If you were intellectually honest as well, then you would seek to understand rather than object.

    So you have failed all three tests of capacity, knowledge, and honesty. Why should I or anyone else take you as anything other than seeking attention to confirm your bias, create a false self image, and a pretense of ability and status, by your act of calling the science you are ignorant of ‘esoteric’ rather than your own work as consisting of nothing more than atention seeking conformity and populist drivel?

    Adulthood is seeking to do precisely the opposite of every behavior you are demonstrating. The purpose of governing by demonstrated competency instead of credentialism is precisely to prevent your kind of folly from being politically imposed upon others who are, quite opposite from you, competent and moral.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @jcallahanbryant @Thaeus4

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-16 16:32:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669744846351872005

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669737433888591872

  • A criticism from JC Bryant who thinks sophistry in political analysis and sarcas

    A criticism from JC Bryant who thinks sophistry in political analysis and sarcasm in political insult are a sufficient substitute for demonstrated competency and intelligence.
    For example, JCB’s tedious criticism of conservatism, and vapid praise of the new age.
    Conservatism(capitalization) is reducible to the male (not you) extreme bias, and progressivism (consumption) the female extreme bias. The terms are statements of bias in the use of capital. With the central institutions of the West dating back to the steppe, the ongoing conservative demand for the preservation of those institutions for the single purpose of maximizing individual responsibility, prohibiting hubris (you), given the demonstrated tendency of man toward parasitism (feminine, progressive, leftism), which led to aristocracy, church, and peasantry a consistent barrier to the rise of the middle class – who has the only demonstrated moral incentives and resulting moral character.

    While under agrarianism, even small subsistence farmers were effectively entrepreneurs, but lacking the ability to scale, and extracted from by state and church, the industrial age and now the technological age have given a vast opportunity for people to exit the market into commercial employment or worse, academy, and state employment, where they have restored the parasitism of the aristocracy, of the church, and thru immigration and redistribution the peasantry.

    Now, if you studied something valuable with your Ph.D. like neuroscience, artificial intelligence, economics, and law, then you’d work from the evidence of man’s constitution and his behavior – good and bad – and at individual and large scale.

    But no. You’re living with the delusion of insight obscured by your shallow success with ridicule and wit, which is of course, the feminine, progressive, left’s use of female undermining, social construction, and critique because, they (you) lack the knowledge competency and insight to produce solutions that contribute to innovation, adaptation, and evolution, and continue our long tradition of outpacing the rate of development of the entire world in the bronze, iron, and now steel ages.

    So before you ridicule what you not only do not comprehend and may not possibly be able to comprehend, look in the mirror and don’t antagonize your betters with your pretension of other than cunning.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @jcallahanbryant @Thaeus4

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-15 20:02:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669435157189652483

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669417242281537536