Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • CORRECTNESS – LYING – BEHIND TRUMP PHENOM. (read it) Victor David Hanson does it

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428256/donald-trump-muslims-political-correctnessPOLITICAL CORRECTNESS – LYING – BEHIND TRUMP PHENOM.

    (read it)

    Victor David Hanson does it again.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-10 16:17:00 UTC

  • (Follow-up) The Failed Book of Athenian Truth, The Successful Book of Jerusalem Deceit.

    —Dr. Dolittle, you’re an ignorant anti-semite!!—

    [A]ctually I’m not anti-anything (and certainly not anti-gene pool, just the opposite) other than theft and deceit, and I am probably the most knowledgeable person working today on the subject of Truth, and its consequences in Ethics, Morality, and Politics. Which I’m happy to demonstrate in any debate with anyone living at any time. And I probably know the very few people capable of debating me. Either statements are true, statements are false or statements are undecidable. Either you can attack the arguments that I put forward or you cant. No name calling will alter the truth or falsity of the statements. All it demonstrates is that you’re either ignorant or dishonest. The fact of the matter is that westerners discovered quite by accident, the technology of truth and it resulted in reason, science, medicine, technology and nearly all significant advancements made by mankind. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, probably necessity, the hebrews created very useful means of deception of simple people who wished for the world to be other than it is. Their first great lie was scriptural monotheism. Their second great lies were pseudoscience. The New England neo-puritans (my people, my ancestors, since my ancestors were norman and then puritans in the plymouth and new haven colonies,) evolved into the anti-slavery movement as a way of preparing the way for women’s suffrage. This is all well documented history. Sorry. The combination of the radical changes of the industrial revolution, the anglo, french, german, and jewish enlightenment failures, and the failure of western governments to successfully adapt rule of law and political processes that provide a means of constructing commons, could not adapt. While a good number of our greatest minds understood that a problem was in progress they failed at solving it. Poincaré, Russell, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brouwer, all failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. And because they failed, the 20th century will be remembered both as a rapid economic expansion, and (as Hayek warned it would be) a century of mysticism. Or, given their lack of understanding of the reason for the success of the discipline of science, ‘the century of pseudoscience.’. These are just facts. Deal with reality. We don’t need more lies. We’ve destroyed western civilization with those lies.

  • (Follow-up) The Failed Book of Athenian Truth, The Successful Book of Jerusalem Deceit.

    —Dr. Dolittle, you’re an ignorant anti-semite!!—

    [A]ctually I’m not anti-anything (and certainly not anti-gene pool, just the opposite) other than theft and deceit, and I am probably the most knowledgeable person working today on the subject of Truth, and its consequences in Ethics, Morality, and Politics. Which I’m happy to demonstrate in any debate with anyone living at any time. And I probably know the very few people capable of debating me. Either statements are true, statements are false or statements are undecidable. Either you can attack the arguments that I put forward or you cant. No name calling will alter the truth or falsity of the statements. All it demonstrates is that you’re either ignorant or dishonest. The fact of the matter is that westerners discovered quite by accident, the technology of truth and it resulted in reason, science, medicine, technology and nearly all significant advancements made by mankind. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, probably necessity, the hebrews created very useful means of deception of simple people who wished for the world to be other than it is. Their first great lie was scriptural monotheism. Their second great lies were pseudoscience. The New England neo-puritans (my people, my ancestors, since my ancestors were norman and then puritans in the plymouth and new haven colonies,) evolved into the anti-slavery movement as a way of preparing the way for women’s suffrage. This is all well documented history. Sorry. The combination of the radical changes of the industrial revolution, the anglo, french, german, and jewish enlightenment failures, and the failure of western governments to successfully adapt rule of law and political processes that provide a means of constructing commons, could not adapt. While a good number of our greatest minds understood that a problem was in progress they failed at solving it. Poincaré, Russell, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brouwer, all failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. And because they failed, the 20th century will be remembered both as a rapid economic expansion, and (as Hayek warned it would be) a century of mysticism. Or, given their lack of understanding of the reason for the success of the discipline of science, ‘the century of pseudoscience.’. These are just facts. Deal with reality. We don’t need more lies. We’ve destroyed western civilization with those lies.

  • It’s Not A Fallacy, It’s A Deceit

    (First Draft) [W]orking through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans. I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft. 1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation) 2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation) 3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading) 4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie) 5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie) 6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.

  • It’s Not A Fallacy, It’s A Deceit

    (First Draft) [W]orking through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans. I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft. 1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation) 2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation) 3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading) 4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie) 5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie) 6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Intelligence and Rule-Breaking Deception

    Smart kids lie 100% of the time? Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptive—can you explain this?A: The experiment was simplicity itself. A child is asked to sit facing away from a box. The experimenter puts something in the box and says “Do not peek, do not peek” and then leaves the room. Most children peek. The experimenter returns and asks, “Did you peek?” Most children lie—but they do so the more frequently the brighter they are, as judged by a simple cognitive test. If your child is especially bright, he or she lies 100 percent of the time, slow 65 percent of the time. The same thing is true for health at birth. The healthier you are the more apt you are to lie 4 years later. —I wonder if fear of reprisal factors into that experiment?— Curt Doolittle I actually think it’s **awareness of harm**. The child does not obey rules so much as the single rule of doing no harm. The dumber the child the less certain he is that he does no harm. The smarter the more certain he is that he does no harm. This matches the 5 or 6 personality type measures that most of the field relies upon: what we call many things but what I learned as ‘blame avoidance’ or ‘fear of harm’ or ‘fear of retaliation’. I have been criticized my entire life, from childhood to the present for having no respect for rules. I’ve said, I think since I was 13? that “rules are for people who need them”. we only need one rule: do no harm. Or more correctly: impose no cost upon property en toto of others. Or epistemologically stated: impose no cost except upon that proerty-en-toto which you know to be yours.

  • Intelligence and Rule-Breaking Deception

    Smart kids lie 100% of the time? Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptive—can you explain this?A: The experiment was simplicity itself. A child is asked to sit facing away from a box. The experimenter puts something in the box and says “Do not peek, do not peek” and then leaves the room. Most children peek. The experimenter returns and asks, “Did you peek?” Most children lie—but they do so the more frequently the brighter they are, as judged by a simple cognitive test. If your child is especially bright, he or she lies 100 percent of the time, slow 65 percent of the time. The same thing is true for health at birth. The healthier you are the more apt you are to lie 4 years later. —I wonder if fear of reprisal factors into that experiment?— Curt Doolittle I actually think it’s **awareness of harm**. The child does not obey rules so much as the single rule of doing no harm. The dumber the child the less certain he is that he does no harm. The smarter the more certain he is that he does no harm. This matches the 5 or 6 personality type measures that most of the field relies upon: what we call many things but what I learned as ‘blame avoidance’ or ‘fear of harm’ or ‘fear of retaliation’. I have been criticized my entire life, from childhood to the present for having no respect for rules. I’ve said, I think since I was 13? that “rules are for people who need them”. we only need one rule: do no harm. Or more correctly: impose no cost upon property en toto of others. Or epistemologically stated: impose no cost except upon that proerty-en-toto which you know to be yours.

  • Krugman’s world view is that we can play musical chairs forever, and as long as

    Krugman’s world view is that we can play musical chairs forever, and as long as the music never stops, and no one has to sit down, then it doesnt matter how many chairs there are (or how many have been privatized by financialization).

    The problem is … shocks.

    Eventually someone has to sit down.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-10 12:53:00 UTC