Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • IS IT TRUE YOU NEED A HIGH IQ FOR P? (NO) —“If I remember correctly, you once

    IS IT TRUE YOU NEED A HIGH IQ FOR P? (NO)

    —“If I remember correctly, you once stated that an IQ of 120 is required as a bare minimum for having the most basic understanding of Propertarianism. Is this correct? Be honest”—Korey Savoie

    I almost wouldn’t answer this because of ‘be honest’. WTF do you think I do all day? At great personal cost. lol 😉

    THE INFLUENCE OF IQ

    1 – IQ determines time and effort in learning something.

    2 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest time and effort in learning the subject.

    3 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest in the time and effort of assisting others in their learning of the subject.

    So when I say “You need x IQ to understand P” it’s in the context of learning the METHOD along with the group. The 140/150+ crowd can do it quickly. Others not. It is very hard to explain and apply the method. That seems to be a 130/140 requirement. But pretty much anyone can understand everything up to applying it, and I’m not sure other than theoretical mathematicians will understand the underlying logic.

    UNDERSTAND WHAT PART OF THE PROJECT?

    EVERYONE

    The psychology (acquisition) sociology (compatibilism), the Ethics (basic reciprocity, telling the truth), and politics (optimum government)?

    MOST EVERYONE

    The foundations of western civ in natural law?

    The group strategies of different civilizations?

    The history? The JQ/20th C attack on our civ?

    SOME

    The method? Reciprocity? Testimony, the grammars?

    The legal method? Strict construction of law?

    The constitution?

    FEW

    Applying and arguing with the method

    VERY FEW

    The operational description of brain and consciousness?

    The logical foundations?

    The geometry of thought?

    —“Excellent. For some reason I thought you or Bill or Brandon posted a few months ago that an IQ of 120 was required just to scratch the surface. I haven’t been tested, but I assumed mine to be somewhere in the 100-109.”—

    Korey Savoie

    It’s because if someone ARGUES with us, that requires we resort to using the METHOD and if they can’t use the method we can’t conduct an argument.

    So we can understand what it tells us, vs understand how to use it.

    You don’t need to undrestand calculus to understand most statistical diagrams. You do if you want to argue against those diagrams.

    You don’t need to understand operationalism to undrestand the findings of operational analysis using P-law. You do if you want to argue against those findings.

    Understanding WHAT vs understanding HOW.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 09:37:00 UTC

  • Advice for Newbs?

    —“Hello Curt, I have been trying to follow your work but the vocab is above my level, I was wondering if you could recommend me anything similar to your work but a bit easier to read for the less seasoned reader so I can work up to your stuff?”—

    [P]ersonally I think everything I recommend will take you years of work to read through. Check out our reading list. I would say that when you don’t understand terms, simply ask, and we’ll provide links, and share those links too. So that means when you don’t understand something, and ask, we teach everyone who doesn’t understand. We are very patient in teaching the vocabulary because we know that like any system of measurement it’s the primary hurdle to learning Natural Law (P-Law). My experience is that John Mark and InTruthVictorious videos are the best explanation. But everyone here will help if you ask, and we prefer this ‘hands on’ teaching of others rather than sending you off to read because it builds skill in both you and the teacher, and develops relationships. It TAKES TIME. There are only a few basic concepts really, and not that many terms that explain them. But learning to (a) use them rather than appeal to your intuition, and (b) use equilibrial thinking, and (c) use full accounting takes some time. Its a lot like learning programming. Others please comment with advice.

  • Advice for Newbs?

    —“Hello Curt, I have been trying to follow your work but the vocab is above my level, I was wondering if you could recommend me anything similar to your work but a bit easier to read for the less seasoned reader so I can work up to your stuff?”—

    [P]ersonally I think everything I recommend will take you years of work to read through. Check out our reading list. I would say that when you don’t understand terms, simply ask, and we’ll provide links, and share those links too. So that means when you don’t understand something, and ask, we teach everyone who doesn’t understand. We are very patient in teaching the vocabulary because we know that like any system of measurement it’s the primary hurdle to learning Natural Law (P-Law). My experience is that John Mark and InTruthVictorious videos are the best explanation. But everyone here will help if you ask, and we prefer this ‘hands on’ teaching of others rather than sending you off to read because it builds skill in both you and the teacher, and develops relationships. It TAKES TIME. There are only a few basic concepts really, and not that many terms that explain them. But learning to (a) use them rather than appeal to your intuition, and (b) use equilibrial thinking, and (c) use full accounting takes some time. Its a lot like learning programming. Others please comment with advice.

  • Why So Many People Make Economics a Mystery

    —“I’m not entirely sure why so many people make economics a mystery.”—Robert Danis

    Fixed Pie vs: 1) opportunity costs 2) equilibration and full accounting 3) lacking basic vocabulary and knowledge of the two cycles. 4) ISLM->ISMP vocabulary talking about aggregates vs operational vocabulary talking about behaviors)

  • Why So Many People Make Economics a Mystery

    —“I’m not entirely sure why so many people make economics a mystery.”—Robert Danis

    Fixed Pie vs: 1) opportunity costs 2) equilibration and full accounting 3) lacking basic vocabulary and knowledge of the two cycles. 4) ISLM->ISMP vocabulary talking about aggregates vs operational vocabulary talking about behaviors)

  • I can teach a smart person the foundations rather quickly. Practicing them is li

    I can teach a smart person the foundations rather quickly. Practicing them is like math or programming. you just have to do it.

    We have an inside joke: that P makes a career path for aspies. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:19:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253735446280101888

    Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253715712696152065

  • Now, I realize my kid lives across the street from Microsoft’s campus, so it’s n

    Now, I realize my kid lives across the street from Microsoft’s campus, so it’s not necessarily representative of the rest of the country. But from his behavior and from the school lesson criteria, and how well it’s working online, it’s painfully obvious that bringing the majority of kids to classrooms after say, third grade – is pretty pointless – at least for other than the ‘ahem’ underclasses whose parenting skills and food supplies are lacking. Same for college courses. Almost none of it benefits from physical presence.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:00:00 UTC

  • But it’s certainly possible. And if we change law and education so that people a

    But it’s certainly possible. And if we change law and education so that people are as aware of criminality, including female anti-social and interpersonal and social criminality, then we should be able (over time) to suppress it as we have suppressed other anti-social behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 13:34:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253678634205839366

    Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716 @YouTube

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253678232626495489

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @unfinis06265716 @YouTube If it’s genetic then as I’ve suggested our laws must evolve to protect against cognitively female anti-social and social-criminal behavior (Undermining, Seduction,False promise, Baiting into Hazard, Magical Thinking). But it is difficult to imagine females or Ashkenazim changing.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253678232626495489

  • Learning P by Following Posts

    Learning P by Following Posts https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/learning-p-by-following-posts/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 21:23:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253434405504217088

  • Learning P by Following Posts

    —“I’m a good example of someone who didn’t learn P, just kept following posts and after around 6 months I can follow posts pretty easily. A lot of the operational terms come up consistently and once you’ve looked up ‘demarcation’ a few times, and seen how it’s used you know what it means. Still haven’t won a King of the Hill yet though, I figure I’ll have to actually learn P to be able to do that.”— Grant Cameron McPhee

    Yeah, well, you just illustrated that you learned by playing king of the hill: observing the game until you’re ready to try to make the climb. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO TEACH HUMANS THAN KING OF THE HILL GAMES – IT IS HOW WE EVOLVED TO LEARN