Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of co

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/dalrymple-a-society-of-emasculated-liars-is-easy-to-control/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dalrymple-a-society-of-emasculated-liars-is-easy-to-control—“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”—

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH. REQUIRE TRUTHFUL SPEECH IN THE COMMONS

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 12:18:00 UTC

  • @paulromer #mathiness I set out to debunk libertarian justificationism. I did no

    @paulromer #mathiness I set out to debunk libertarian justificationism. I did not expect to solve the problem of ‘mathiness’ by doing so.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 09:18:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606389452299247617

  • @paulromer #mathiness Law and Morality: justificationary. Science: critical. Ope

    @paulromer #mathiness Law and Morality: justificationary. Science: critical. Operational definitions warranty against: error, bias, deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:45:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606381185464455168

  • @paulromer #mathiness Math and Rationalism are not the only means of justifying

    @paulromer #mathiness Math and Rationalism are not the only means of justifying pseudoscientific statements. Propaganda is also.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:38:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606379402314805248

  • GOES ALL CRITIQUE ON TROLLS Caplan’s a good guy. But using Psychological Critiqu

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/06/the_psychology_3.htmlCAPLAN GOES ALL CRITIQUE ON TROLLS

    Caplan’s a good guy. But using Psychological Critique to criticize Trolls is so painfully ironic that I cant bear it.

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/06/the_psychology_3.html

    —————-

    Brian,

    Or we could just adopt the strategy of analyzing incentives, and continue the longstanding criticism of psychology as a pseudoscience. And that all use of psychological criticism is merely ‘Critique’ (Gossip for the purpose of shaming and rallying.) It is a sophisticated deceit, but a deceit none the less.

    Trolls want attention. They found a way to get attention. They vent frustration. It’s not complicated. Why is it that they aren’t getting attention. And how can we provide negative incentives for their behavior?

    (And how can we keep Putin’s foot soldiers in St Petersburg off the internet entirely.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-02 06:00:00 UTC

  • WITH CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE MEME”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job-interviews-2013-9″CONTRAST WITH CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE MEME”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-29 05:32:00 UTC

  • POISONS ANOTHER CRITIC

    http://www.businessinsider.com/putins-accused-of-poisoning-critic-2015-5PUTIN POISONS ANOTHER CRITIC

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-28 17:57:00 UTC

  • This wiki article is propaganda. It seems to positions ingroups and outgroups as

    This wiki article is propaganda. It seems to positions ingroups and outgroups as psychological phantasms. It has a section labeled ‘Postulated role in human evolution’. The genetic basis of ingroup/outgroup is essential to propertarianism. This cannot stand. It will be fun to help erase this mysticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-27 20:17:00 UTC

  • I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths. I judge the ara

    I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths.

    I judge the arational expression of agreement with falsehhids; and the rational justification of falsehoods, and the pseudoscientific justification if falsehoods.

    But increasingly I judge the incomplete use of due diligence in truth claims.

    Which is novel.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 04:19:00 UTC

  • Noah, I can throw an wrench in the saltwater either-or comparison and say this:

    Noah,

    I can throw an wrench in the saltwater either-or comparison and say this:

    That if saltwater economists and justify pseudo-scientific morality, then why can’t freshwater economists defend morality with pseudo-scientific models.

    The problem isn’t that one side or the other errs. It’s that both sides err.

    Why do politicians and voters react positively to freshwater arguments, and negatively to saltwater arguments?

    Is it because they are ill informed? Or is because justifying morality poorly is preferable to justifying immorality well.

    And lest you suggest that morals are subjective, one would have to answer why cooperation is preferable to non-cooperation. It is only preferable if it is not parasitic for the individual – not if it is merely Pareto optimal in the aggregate.

    And why is this conflict raging in economics and politics?

    The underlying question is one of familialism, tribalism and dysgenia – is our society moral or not? Is heterogeneity a good or a bad?

    And that is too uncomfortable a question for the Academy to answer.

    Which is why some of us are out here trying to answer it.

    Uncomfortable truth that it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 12:01:00 UTC