Watching Brits unable to answer the question of who was the first king of England, and feeling only a tiny bit better about the ignorance of contemporary American generations. 😉
I mean, I know the first king of England. Shouldn’t they know? 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-21 04:20:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792772426402496822
I’m aware of that. 😉 What I would like is for us to transform that worldview for more people even if it means simply teaching them directly, or enacting laws that educate them ‘with persuasive power’. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-20 18:05:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792617672124911858
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @TheoAdoreDore @romanyam
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792616114608025970
TELEGRAM, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THE PROBLEM OF ‘UNSERIOUS POPLE’ DRIVING AWAY SERIOUS PEOPLE
–“You need to do something about the NLI Telegram channel. That place was taken by people with no interest in the institute, and they’re preventing more serious individuals from engaging with NLI”– @TheoAdoreDore
Hmmm… I’m aware of this problem. “Our” thoughts are that it is better to isolate that class of people on Telegram, and focus “Our” attention on Twitter, where “that kind of behavior” from “that class of people” is suppressed, and the platform tends to eliminate them. In addition, Martin can and does ‘handle’ those people.
Personally, I can’t tolerate the Telegram group behavior and I try to ‘correct’ people or start blocking them rather quickly. But Martin objects saying something along the lines that it takes time to educate ‘that class of people’ and it must be done in their own frame, and it’s better to move those people a little than have them continually influenced by others and not move them at all (at least not move them helpfully).
I did host my own Telegram channels but I found it just attracted more of “that class of people” and drove out those people I want to reach.
I had the same problem on Gab. “that class of people” ruined all discourse.
And it’s as bad or worse on Reddit.
I had a pretty good reputation on Quora, with thousands of views every month, but Quora started suppressing anything on sex, class, group, civilization and race differences, which affected my reach there as well.
Facebook banned our whole organization after an organized raid by the “nazi” sympathizers of all people. And the ADL didn’t help either.
Here on Twitter, where the algorithm seeks to produce networks people with common interests and associations and LIMIT them to those networks, just responding to “that class of people” limits my reach.
If I could compose and post here on Twitter and auto-post the full (long) post to Telegram then maybe that might be worth it. But it would mean I would have to aggressively police the Telegram feed.
And you see, that’s the issue. My job isn’t social media. It’s to use social media to compose and test ideas to both improve my ability to argue and convey those ideas. And to ‘feed’ those ideas into the conservative discourse so that they gradually dissipate through it, and achieve our objectives indirectly. And in the off chance we find someone capable of joining the team, we do (note that it very very rarely happens). And most of those we’ve tried to add have failed rather quickly.
I started using social media because it was essentially a free and voluntary research tool for obtaining demonstrated behavior instead of reported behavior that is all but meaningless if it can be influenced at all by virtue or moral signals.
And, with social media, it was the first time it was possible to do research at scale on the linguistic expression of demonstrated intuition instinct and learned bias and preference. I have stopped running ‘king of the hill games’ for research – simply because I don’t need to. The work is done. And at a level of granularity that hasn’t been done in cognitive science, psychology and sociology.
Now what I work on is largely reducing all that knowledge to a systematic form and then attempting to communicate the knowledge that exists in the sciences into that form, and then into narrative explanations that can relate that form to ordinary human experience so that it’s something a college level person of adequate ability can learn by reading.
So, the better question is why I don’t delete my work from all of social media, and instead, write papers and articles like most intellectuals do. It’s not as if I can’t. But it does take much more time per idea, and instead of efficiency running tests on social media so that I can increase the quality of the book (that’s finally getting there), papers and articles would take time away from that goal: the science, logic, and constitution of Natural Law.
Make sense? Feedback appreciated if you have more. 🙂
– Hugs
Reply addressees: @TheoAdoreDore @romanyam
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-20 15:57:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792585362713296896
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792544615423267119
Great Question.
The TLDR answer is, only after we teach it, and even then it will take a while to tune it. But producing it from scratch is almost impossible to imagine. 😉
I work with the AI’s, meaning the paid versions, every day and it’s amazing how astoundingly dumb they are. 😉 I also have a fairly good understanding of the evolutionary direction and functionality that will be necessary to produce AGI. And it’s incrementally approaching that capacity – despite that I know, and these organizations konw, that the power consumption necessary to convert from single shot and attention based replies to a spectrum of answers, competing together, and then recursively competitively compared with one another.
So, I haven’t seen any genesis of knowledge or understanding at all, such as people produce, no matter how simple. And I have a very hard time imagining that there is any possible difference between the type of instruction I give ai’s today so that they gradually even understand a question I want to ask evolve into the capacity to even interpret those questions until after I’ve trained it to so so.
Now we have a fairly clear idea of how to train an AI to do the work, but there are two considerations (a) the rate of progress means any present investment may not carry forward (b) there are only so many people in our organization, and while the basic construct of all decidability is something we’re comfortable with training, the catalogue of relatively universal criminal, ethical, and moral questions – at least the thirty general categories – and each of those thirty general categories will take 200 to 500 training examples (input-output pairs) both expressions and questions, and it will require multiple cultural variations before it learns the general pattern across cultures. So for our existing staff, it would be almost impossible. Instead we’d need to train people possibly with economics or legal degrees, in the material then have that larger group produce the training data. (c) this kind of thing is expensive for a think tank. 😉
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @romanyam
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 21:24:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792305333135687680
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792230523168788882
THE JOY OF LEARNING AT THE MISES INSTITUTE, THE MI PROGRAM, IT’S CONSEQUENCES, AND FUTURE.
Perspective: I work in power not evasion, so I work in law, not philosophy. And there is something to be learned from that difference.
And, IMO you cannot understand a science of Natural Law without understanding Austrian economics, because Austrian economics is the closest to social science, because demonstrated interests (what we call property) is the foundation of cooperation, and cooperation is the foundation of social science, and economics (positiva) and law (negativa), and politics (positiva/negativa) if at all both empirical (non false), are the result of non variation from non violation of the natural law of tort, meaning the prohibition on imposition of costs on the demonstrated interests(property) of others – what libertarians oddly refer to as non-aggression.
While I advocate that Rothbardian libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism are impossible programs to bring into being for other than a diasporic subpopulation, and that Classical Liberalism and it’s Empirical Natural Law, empirical common law, and empirical concurrent legislation are necessary to form a sustainable and survivable polity under a condition of liberty that IS possible to bring into being – I still advocate the libertarian to anarcho-capitalism research program and the intellectual journey through libertarianism for as many as possible.
The Misesian, Rothbardian, Hoppeian reduction of social science to property (demonstrated interests) to a value neutral scale independent system of measurement of both all individual action, and human interaction, and therefore all human behavior, by demarcating clearly the explanation of conflict, the explanation of conflict evasion, and the explanation of cooperation, and as a consequence of dispute resolution.
Its also necessary (as I think Hoppe overstates) to produce an understanding and legal codification that prevents the lessons of the libertarian and anarchocapitalist research programs producing a system of measurement, that can be used to prevent the transformation of the Classical Liberalism’s “Commons-ism” into Progressivism, social democracy, socialism, and communism – each of which imposes more costs on individual demonstrated interests, and in doing so baits a population into irresponsibility for production and property, both private and common, and generates demand for authority to resolve conflicts that would not come into being if demonstrated interests were respected and respected because they were enforced.
In my understanding, Hoppe’s most important contributions were:
First, his explanation of monarchical responsibly as owners and politicians’ irresponsibility as renters, which, at the opposite end of the scale is no different from that of the populace toward the commons. and more so.
And second, Hoppe’s formalism of the logic of property that by producing logical commensurability regardless of context and scale, reduced all social science to property (what I call demonstrated interests), but he did so under the research program (auspices) of limiting the definition of property (demonstrated interests) to the intersubjectively verifiable, meaning material things.
Third, and in my opinion, most importantly, this emphasis Hoppe’s work and in the broader Rothbardian program, effectively formalized the foundations of natural law (of cooperation) for the first time converting it from the philosophical to the empirical to the operational – which is a term that the neither rather Kantian germanic framework Hoppe relies upon, or present philosophical libertarians are aware of, but should be since operations (actions), and construction (survival from falsification of) from first principles (irreducible causality, laws of nature), are the end point of scientific discoverty, producing a constructive logic that can falsify (and indirectly justify) any and all claims within a domain.
And so the importance of Hoppe’s work, which unfortunately he favors promoting by Argumentation, is a profound contribution to intellectual history IF it is the foundation he discovered and articulated so completely that all social science, all economics, all law, and politics can be constructed in a single universally commensurable logic of decidability produced from first principles.
And this combination of outcomes is my assessment of the durable value of the anarcho capitalist research program, even if the libertarian attempt to generalize this understanding into the possibility of an absence of the necessity to produce those commons that are necessary to produce and insure sovereignty and property, that is universal in the diasporic communities, precisely because they failed to produce survivable sovereignty because of their ideology, philosophy, religion, and customs.
In other words libertarian and anarcho capitalist polities are unsurvivable because they depend on the commons produced by other polities, select for those members who those polities judge extract unearned gains (particularly baitings into hazard), and as such, eventually suppress those communities.
The difference in survivability of polities then, is the production of common capital that indirectly reduces costs for all (capitalization) instead of direct redistribution of returns to all (consumption). Indirect wealth that fosters additional incentive for that responsibility for private and common and production.
In addition, classical liberals seek to produce common physical and institutional capital, and Hayek added informal capital as a property (demonstrated interest), and I added informational capital (truth) as a demonstrated interests to prevent “fraud, baiting into hazard, deception, and lying in public to the public in matters public” there by producing the quality of information as a common asset upon which all in the commons depend.
Oddly enough all this emphasis on truth, reciprocity, sovereignty, reciprocal insurance by duty to defend private and common, is just a continuation of the European group evolutionary strategy: where rule of law is the only possible means of cooperation at scale for pirates, raiders, and conquerors, whose mobility prevents the accumulation of fixed capital, whose warriors, raiders and pirates join the group as speculative investors (shareholders) are the only capital, and without the capacity to use rent on fixed capital, the leadership survives and governs by permission, obtained by volition, contract, and property.
In my opinion, in three intellectual between Mises and Rothbard (jewish diasporic value), Hoppe (german city state values), Hayek (anglo-germanic national values) and myself (anglo american imperial values) we have incrementally solved all of social science, at all four scales of community, polity, state, and federation (or empire), by converting what was otherwise merely a philosophy of advocacy to a science of indisputability, and in an operationally constructible science from first principles at that.
As such, IMO, the Mises Institute should celebrate that success and claim victory perhaps more so than promoting anarcho capitalism alone, which is, and will continue to decline, as the ebullient optimism of the postwar era continues to dissipate with the end of the false promise of endless growth, the decline of freedom produced by European dominance, and not only the left’s absurd programs continue to crash into civilizational conflict.
And regardless, the libertarian and Anarcho Capitalist programs offered insight as a stepping stone completing social science and allowing the formalization of natural law, and survivable polities restricted to preservation of liberty, while still producing capitalizing commons, reducing costs for all – thus preserving the most liberty that is possible to construct among human beings.
Claim victory rather than claiming victimhood. 😉
And make possible the pursuit of power instead of evasion. 😉
Affections all,
Thank you to MI and everyone in the movement.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @johnleask @mises @DA_Stockman
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 20:43:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792294951591534592
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792262840490873200
(Video ~22min) A Discussion between Curt Doolittle and Bradley Werrell: The case for blaming the boomers on the elites that produced, incentivized, propagandized, educated, and governed a population of people nearly all of whom were from previously uneducated families and only one or two generations off the farm. Terms used are included in definitions at the end of the article.)
(Editor’s Note: apparently X.COM has a problem with ‘eating’ uploaded videos. So We’ve provided a link to the Youtube site here. If by some magic the video I’ve uploaded here on X appears, then I’ll edit the video so there is only one copy. 😉 )
https://youtu.be/-Un7ATONLOA
So, What Happened?
The historical arc of causality from the end of the industrial revolution to the present, and the boomers, especially the upscaling of the lower and working classes made possible post war, with the introduction of women into the franchise, and and into business, education, academy – all functioned as the ‘tool’ that the radical postwar financial and credentialist elites could use to appropriate the aristocratic and classical liberal postwar strategy, into a means of spreading the rebellion against civilization and the licensing of degeneracy (devolution) under the legitimacy of that classical liberal strategy, and the great project of ending the tyranny and war of empires – when their postwar elite ambitions were precisely the opposite.
So after WW1, the Lost Generation was destroyed and humiliated and the traditions were lost. So there emerged an opportunity for a new narrative and strategy to emerge. And while the civil war is where our constitution failed and led to the central government, WW1’s where we went wrong as culture, and post WW2 is where the people that ‘went wrong’ were able to exert influence. And the success by the soviets at rapid industrialization created a tempting prospect for those without any REAL WORLD experience managing businesses, industries, polities, or nations. And thus the age of ideology and credentialists gained purchase over the traditional (aristocratic) culture of europeans.
When the lost generation was crushed by the world wars, we lost not only empires, but the remnants of aristocratic values that accompanied them, producing ‘lost people’. These lost people re-entered a world that was hopelessly changed, It is very hard to blame any generation given that it’s responding to events that existed during it’s youth and teens. I think I have a grasp of ‘what went wrong’ and it’s largely that the wars opened teh doors for the marxist sequence, and the conversion of the colleges and universities postwar such that the elite institutions stopped training the ‘pseudo-noble’ American families with that traditional loyalty, led to credentialism on one hand and the capacity of marxists and progressives to bypass those traditions and instead use those educations and media to destroy our civilization from within. I Mean, Carnegie was seeking to merge the soviets with the Americans. That kind of idiocy was everywhere: the belief that you can replace aristocratic traditions that made the west rather than lift up the other lasses into that system and build upon it.
And while not explicitly stated in the video (I avoided it) the implication is that the conversion of the anglo and anglo American cultural aristocracy, when it was replaced by the financial sector elites, then credentialist elites, and supported by ‘talking class’ elites, lost control of the strategic objective of the anglo classical liberal, prewar, and war era, when the financial sector, and the unification of progressives and marxists, and their unification with feminism, allowed the Financial Elites and then the Credentialed elites, to capture the anglo aristocratic strategy consistent with european aristocratic tradition, and impose financial predation and globalism, and then the neo-marxist to feminist to woke cancer that has infected civilization.
The transformation from a society governed by an Anglo elite with a “long view” and paternal sense of responsibility to one characterized by credentialism and a decline in institutional trust has had profound impacts on American society.
The key causes and consequences of this shift:
Credentialism Over Traditional Elitism: The rise of credentialism replaced the traditional social hierarchy based on heritage and lineage with one based on educational attainment and professional qualifications. This shift was facilitated by expanded access to higher education and the democratization of knowledge through initiatives like the GI Bill.
Meritocratic Ideals: Meritocratic ideals promoted the idea that anyone, regardless of background, could succeed through education and hard work. This undermined the old elite’s traditional sense of responsibility and stewardship, which was often tied to their inherited status and long-term view of societal welfare.
Economic and Technological Changes: The postwar economic boom, technological advancements, and the rise of a knowledge-based economy prioritized technical expertise and innovation over traditional leadership roles held by the old elite.
Consequences
Erosion of Institutional Trust: The transition to credentialism contributed to an erosion of trust in traditional institutions. The Anglo elite’s paternalistic view, which emphasized stability and long-term planning, was replaced by a focus on individual achievement and short-term gains. This shift has led to a perception that institutions are no longer serving the common good.
Social Alienation: Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” highlights the decline in social capital and community engagement, which has led to increased social alienation. The breakdown of traditional social networks and communal activities has resulted in a more fragmented society.
Decline in Academic Standards: Credential inflation has led to a devaluation of academic qualifications and a decline in the perceived quality of education. Universities and colleges, once bastions of elite cultural production, have become more focused on vocational training and less on cultivating critical thinking and civic responsibility.
Government Inefficiency: The shift from a paternalistic elite to a credential-based system has affected government operations. The focus on technical expertise and bureaucratic procedures has sometimes led to inefficiency and a lack of coherent long-term policy planning. The decline in public trust has further exacerbated the challenges in governance.
Economic Consequences: And worst of all the economic consequences:
1. Credential Inflation and Workforce Competence
Credential Inflation: As more people obtain higher education degrees, the value of these credentials has diminished, leading to credential inflation. Jobs that previously required only a high school diploma now often require a bachelor’s degree, while positions that required a bachelor’s degree now often demand a master’s or higher.
.Mismatch of Skills: The emphasis on formal qualifications over practical skills can lead to a workforce that is highly educated but not necessarily more skilled or competent in practical, job-related tasks. This mismatch can reduce productivity and innovation within the economy (What Generation Am I?) (Art and Popular Culture
2. Economic Inefficiencies
Bureaucratization: The rise of credentialism has contributed to the growth of bureaucracy in both public and private sectors. This can lead to inefficiencies and increased operational costs, as more resources are devoted to maintaining and navigating complex administrative structures.
Short-term Focus: Credentialism can promote a focus on immediate, measurable achievements (e.g., test scores, degree attainment) rather than long-term planning and investment. This short-term focus can hinder sustained economic growth and competitiveness.
3. Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Barrier to Entry: The emphasis on credentials can create barriers to entry for talented individuals who may lack formal qualifications but possess the skills and innovative ideas necessary for entrepreneurship. This can stifle innovation and limit the dynamism of the economy.
Risk Aversion: Credentialism can foster a culture of risk aversion, where individuals and institutions prioritize safe, conventional paths over innovative, riskier ventures. This aversion can slow the pace of technological advancement and economic progress .
4. Global Competitiveness
Lagging Behind: As other countries invest in education systems that balance practical skills and formal education, the U.S. may fall behind in global competitiveness. Countries like Germany and Switzerland, with strong vocational training programs, produce highly skilled workers who contribute to robust economies.
Talent Drain: Highly skilled individuals may seek opportunities abroad if they perceive the U.S. job market as overly reliant on credentials rather than merit and innovation, leading to a potential talent drain.
5. Economic Inequality
Wage Gaps: Credentialism can exacerbate economic inequality by creating a divide between those who can afford higher education and those who cannot. This divide can lead to wage gaps and reduced social mobility, ultimately impacting economic stability and growth .
Access to Opportunities: Inequitable access to quality education and the resulting credentials can limit economic opportunities for large segments of the population, reducing the overall talent pool available to the economy.
Supporting Theories and Research
Human Capital Theory: Suggests that investment in education should improve economic productivity. However, if the education system emphasizes credentials over actual skill acquisition, this investment may not yield the expected economic benefits .
Credentialism Critique: Scholars like Randall Collins argue that credentialism serves to reinforce social stratification without necessarily improving job performance or economic efficiency .
Conclusion
The shift towards credentialism in the postwar era has had mixed effects on the competitiveness of the American economy. While it has democratized access to education and created a more meritocratic system, it has also led to inefficiencies, skill mismatches, and barriers to innovation. Addressing these challenges requires a balanced approach that values practical skills and competencies alongside formal educational achievements.
Cheers
CD
Definitions
Credentialism: Credentialism is the overemphasis on certificates, degrees, and formal qualifications in assessing an individual’s capabilities, skills, and suitability for a job or social position. It involves the belief that formal educational credentials are the primary indicators of a person’s ability and worth, often at the expense of practical experience or other forms of competence.
Credentialist: A credentialist is someone who practices or supports credentialism. This person places significant value on formal educational qualifications when evaluating others for employment, promotion, or other opportunities, often to the exclusion of other measures of ability or competence.
American Generations:
Generation: “a “generation” is defined as a cohort of individuals born over a span of approximately 20-22 years who share a common location in history and collectively possess a distinct set of beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes shaped by the major social, political, and economic events they experience during their formative years.”
– Gilded Generation: 1822–1842
– Progressive Generation: 1843–1859
– Missionary Generation: 1860–1882
– Lost Generation: 1883–1900
The term “Lost Generation” encapsulates the feelings of disillusionment, aimlessness, and cultural dislocation experienced by those who lived through World War I and its aftermath. It highlights the generational impact of the war on traditional values and societal norms, leading to a pervasive sense of loss and search for new meaning.
– G.I. Generation: 1901–1924
– Silent Generation: 1925–1942
– Baby Boom Generation: 1943–1960
– Generation X (1961–1981)
– Millennials (1982–2000)
– Generation Z (2001–2015)
– Generation Alpha (2016–Present)
Generational Archetypes (Rotation of Generational Behavior):
Strauss and Howe identify four generational archetypes that repeat in a fixed cycle: Prophets, Nomads, Heroes, and Artists.
– Prophets (Idealist generation): Born during or just after a crisis, they grow up as increasingly indulged children, come of age as the self-absorbed young crusaders of a spiritual awakening, and age into moralistic midlife leaders.
– Nomads (Reactive generation): Born during an awakening, they grow up as under-protected children, come of age as the alienated young adults of a post-awakening world, and age into pragmatic midlife leaders.
– Heroes (Civic generation): Born after an awakening, they grow up as protected children, come of age as the heroic young team-workers of a crisis, and age into energetic midlife leaders.
– Artists (Adaptive generation): Born during a crisis, they grow up as overprotected children, come of age as the sensitive young adults of a post-crisis world, and age into thoughtful midlife leaders.
The Marxist Sequence: the marxist sequence of sedition by conflict generation consist of marxism(working class marxism), neo-marxism(anti-cultural), postmodernism(relativism, anti-truth, anti-merit, anti-excellence), political correctness (anti-truth), feminism (sex), libertarianism(middle class marxism), neoconservatism(ruling class marxism), woke (race marxism) as the sequence by which the radical left has sought to destroy the institutions of cultural production of the west by the self-confessed ‘march through the institutions of cultural production’, resulting in capture of education, academy, media, bureaucracy and state, augmented by the undermining of group homogeneity through immigration and replacement reproduction.
[END]
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-18 22:42:48 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1791962669529825280
(NLI Nonsense)
I just spent two hours reviewing neuroscience through personality with martin because he’s working on a presentation, and, well, first, I love working with martin on anything, he’s such a joy, and his extremely dry yet extremely kind personality is … infectious. Secondly, you know, all I can ever do is fill in a few gaps because the man is cognitive machine. 😉
We really have amazing talent here at the institute, and I thank god every day for these people not only as co workers and friends, but partners in a great mission we are increasingly close to completing. All men need a brotherhood.
Love you all.
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-17 16:23:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791504869674676227
HOW CAN WE REFORM BEHAVIORAL SERVICES?
re: coaching > mentoring > behavioral training > counseling > therapy > psychology
I have a problem with treating coaching, mentoring, behavioral training, counseling, therapy, and psychiatry as ‘mental health’ services. I mean, that’s probably true for psychiatry, but the rest is just behavioral modification by the degree of effort needed to apply some form of education, suggestion, or repetitive exposure (suggestion) to assist someone in improving, overcoming, and correcting behaviors.
I also have a problem with the pretense that the universities graduate competency in mental health, given the state of the industry and it’s long march out of pseudoscience on one hand and it’s feminine infantilization as the solution to everything on the other.
So assuming we could obtain the power to legislate a change in an industry that is too frequently either backward, ineffective, or harmful, how could we both reframe the spectrum of behavioral modification, and how could we legitimize those who demonstrated competency rather than demonstrated time in the education system?
CURT
So, much of my work is constructed out of cognitive and behavioral science and the scale of those behaviors in law, economics, politics, and group strategic differences.
At the moment the crisis in psychology is continuing because there is a lag between the discipline as practiced, and the state of the science. (see Kuhn’s ‘disciplines progress via tombstones.’)
At present we have a spectrum of coaching (unlicensed) > Counseling (licensed) > Therapists (licensed) > Psychiatry (licensed) and Neurologist (licensed).
Unfortunately there are people who are using the term ‘coach’ even though they are practicing counseling (advice), training(behavioral modification), counseling (crisis) and therapy (repair), because they have developed enough of a client base, published books and articles, and reputation in the market for the quality of their work.
So, first, is there a label or name for this category of ‘craftsmen’ not yet academically certified (titled), and second, if not, what would be appropriate, and what method could we certify them by?
Because we are in a period of rapid expansion of mental health issues (for reasons we do understand but we can’t modify the education system to correct it). And the demand for competency is increasing.
Even in the licensed disciplines of counseling and therapy these are perhaps the most behind, and there are social and political and economic consequences to the present state of these disciplines in the context of the current state of the population.
And, finally, I guess, third, what would you recommend we do to alter this state of affairs?
CLAUDE:
The situation you describe, where individuals are providing mental health services (is it health or fitness?) without formal licensing or academic certification, is a complex issue that raises concerns about quality control, standardization, and public safety.
The term “coach” is often used as a catch-all for these types of practitioners, but it can be misleading, as it doesn’t adequately distinguish between those providing general guidance and those offering more specialized mental health services.
Labeling the category of “craftsmen” not yet academically certified: One potential label for this group could be “mental health practitioners” or “mental health consultants.” (Or” behavioral fitness consultants”) Another option might be “behavioral health advisors,” which emphasizes their focus on helping individuals with cognitive and behavioral challenges.
These terms acknowledge their work in the mental health field while distinguishing them from licensed professionals such as therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists.
Certifying practitioners: Establishing a certification process for these practitioners could help ensure a minimum standard of competency and provide a level of accountability.
This certification could be based on a combination of factors, such as:
a. Relevant education and training in psychology, counseling, or related fields (<< No. This Is the Problem)
b. Practical experience working with clients (Yes)
c. Completion of specific courses or workshops focused on evidence-based practices << Again, no.
d. Adherence to a code of ethics and professional conduct (Yes)
e. Ongoing professional development and supervision (No)
The certification could be overseen by a professional association or an independent certifying body, which would set the standards and requirements for certification.
(SNIP) (The rest is drivel)
CURT:
Hmm… Ok. I have one response that I think is important.
– There is no evidence that educational certification produces the outcome it promises.
– All it does is insulate the practitioner from liability and give him or her access to funds from insurance companies – which may sound like an exaggeration but the evidence of iQ scores and performance in the field justifies that claim.
– And the education system has basically certified anyone who puts in the time and pays the bill.
Conversely, In the case of the law, and in the case of accounting, and in the case of investments (series seven certification) one demonstrates competency by rigorous tests that are demonstrably difficult to pass. In the case of at least german PhD’s you must survive an onslaught of questions by those who train PhD’s.
IMO we would be better off with apprenticeships and demonstrated success with clients, and tests than we are with academic programs, especially when the academic programs are still using information and strategies that are sixty years behind in many cases. And the entirety of which began with the pseudoscientific narrative of freud, that cause the bifurcation of psychology into from into cognitive science and neurology.
So if we still have states that you can apprentice in law and just take the test, and if this is the way most disciplines are regulated (‘can you do it’) then why shouldn’t we do so with that border between those people who need help thinking and behaving differently, and those people who are in trauma or crisis, and those people who have some sort of biological issue that requires medical attention and constant moderation?
CLAUDE:
You raise a valid point about the limitations of educational certification in ensuring the quality and competency of mental health practitioners. The current system, which relies heavily on academic programs and certifications, does not always guarantee that practitioners have the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively help their clients.
The idea of shifting towards an apprenticeship model and competency-based testing is an interesting alternative. This approach would focus on practical skills and demonstrable abilities rather than solely on educational credentials. Apprenticeships could provide aspiring mental health practitioners with hands-on experience, allowing them to learn from experienced professionals and develop the skills needed to work effectively with clients.
Competency-based testing, similar to the rigorous exams required for lawyers, accountants, and investment professionals, could help ensure that mental health practitioners have the necessary knowledge and skills to provide quality care. These tests could cover a range of topics, including:
(Snip) (Nonsense criteria – failure to know the difference between an obstacle (mental fitness) and a problem (mental health)).
Moreover, categorizing mental health services based on the level of care required, as you suggest, could help ensure that clients receive the appropriate type of support.
This could involve distinguishing between:
1 – Coaching and Encouragement with ordinary life and occcupation.
2 – Psychological Mentoring for those who need help with thinking and behavior modification
3 – Counseling or Therapy for individuals experiencing trauma or crisis
4 – Medical attention and ongoing moderation for those with biological or severe mental health issues
Implementing such changes would require a significant shift in the current system and would likely face resistance from established institutions and professionals.
[END]
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-16 18:41:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791177175309201408
WHAT KIND OF COACHING, COUNSELING, THERAPY, MEDICAL CARE DO YOU NEED
(riffing off a friend’s post)
Having been on the spectrum and worked my way thorough it I’ve had plenty of experience with the mental health industry – more positive than negative but the negative was VERY…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-16 17:36:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791160777107226744
Reply addressees: @al_masani_royal @NoahRevoy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791146845642838361
WHAT KIND OF COACHING, COUNSELING, THERAPY, MEDICAL CARE DO YOU NEED
(riffing off a friend’s post)
Having been on the spectrum and worked my way thorough it I’ve had plenty of experience with the mental health industry – more positive than negative but the negative was VERY negative. So my work on AI , neuroscience, and cognitive science has given me insights into the failings of the field. And I see the industry as unfortunately needing to continue to transition (reform) out of the hole it dug itself into prior to 2000 – for over a century – just at a tie when our people need it more than at any time in history.
Coaching, Therapy, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Modification by everything from ‘suggestion’, to repetition, to shocks, to hallucinogenics to surgery can work. 😉
IMO the various versions of ketamine are the most effective, fast, and durable means of altering negative thoughts and their consequences. But I doubt that we will ever escape the need for pharmaceuticals if modern levels of stress across the spectrum aren’t alleviated through ‘ritual’ meaning ‘training’ means, early enoug in life to serve as a prophylactic.
So:
(1) Coaching (enhancement therapy) is almost always effective if you find someone who can sympathize with your cognitive and emotional framework. I have a problem with this term because some people are in fact therapists and others are simply randomly adopting this term as ‘advisors’ or ‘friendly advice you pay for’. So I would rather see a new field between coaching and therapy. But at present the problem is determining the criteria for licensing someone to use that term.
(2) Therapy (corrective therapy) is a systematic process of suggestion, training, and education, and can be effective but it is more dependent on sympathy with your frameworks than is coaching – and about 80% of therapists are just bad at it, and of the remaining 20%, most are using outdated feminine paradigms, when people like Noah Revoy (coaching) and Taraban (therapy) have completed the transition of the industry out of that debilitating infantilizing depressing model of therapy. I use therapy like most people use the doctor. When I have a problem and I don’t want to burden family, friends, girlfriend, wife, business partners etc, I just make an appointment and usually I can work thorugh ordinary life issues in as few as three weeks, and as long as a couple of months.
3) Psychiatry works just fine, though the same 80/20 rule applies, but the ‘filtering’ process given that it’s effectively a medical degree will often produce better talent at a higher cost.
Within Psychiatry the following techniques work just fine, Why? Because you’re trying to cause different neural pathways to organize – and neurons are plastic – and can adapt if you find a way to adapt them, when prevarication and obsession on stressors trauma and other odd behaviors and depressions continually reinforce those networks.
So to alter your behavior you have to ‘overstimulate’ some other neural network in order to ‘bypass’ and develop different networks of association:
… (1) Hypnotherapy etc: though there are genetic reasons some of us are more or less susceptible to suggestion. This is a very ‘light touch’ means of altering the behavior of some people in the population.
… (2) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy will adjust minor oddities like irrational fears by repetitions of exposure to the stresses until you’ve trained some network or other to interpret it as other than a risk. (BTW: fear of heights is genetic, sorry.)
… (3) Shock Therapy such as cold therapy as stated above works for trauma and should try it first.
… (4) Ketamine therapy (or any related version) will almost certainly work for depression and trauma
… (5) Pharmaceuticals will work if either a) you need an immediate relief (xanax etc), (b) or it’s a biological rather than trauma problem such as social anxiety, panic disorders, chronic depression, in my case autistic difficulty switching topics, and many cases of ADD (which would not exist if most boys were not forced to sit in chairs in classrooms)
… (6) and even surgery can be required in some extreme cases – (sarcasm:) Even though it appears that the use of lobotomy hasn’t been fully suppressed given the number of radical leftists out there…. 😉
Personal: Pharmaceuticals do work. The problem is they can also hurt you – and often irreversibly. (I had a lighter version of the same reaction as Jordan Peterson). It’s not good.) 😉 I’m perfectly happy without OCD and ADD medication. However, it seems to annoy the heck out of people around me now and then. Because while it’s a profound asset at times, the inability to switch contexts or even ‘hear’ or pay attention to others is just, well annoying to them. 😉
Hope this helps someone.
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-16 17:36:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791160776750739456