Theme: Education

  • I teach natural law (Reciprocity). I’m asking followers to construct an argument

    I teach natural law (Reciprocity). I’m asking followers to construct an argument that is difficult.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-18 17:34:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019636617571700737

    Reply addressees: @IgnatiusBalliol

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019635617012113413


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019635617012113413

  • “Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual un

    —“Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual understanding already in place. Some of his stuff is difficult for me and I’m 135-140 (some of it I have to make an effort to “get” which I’m not accustomed to). That being said Curt’s posts/writing have gotten a lot more accessible over time IMO. But some of it can’t be simplified all that much or too much important detail is lost. At the same time, many of the key insights and their ramifications I believe can be explained to avg IQ audiences (maybe even sub-100 if communicated well) in basic form. Some detail will be lost in that process, but it will be valuable for normal folks to understand the basic what & why, while all the detail will be available to the high IQ men who will be implementing it (ruling). Curt has said before that he is relying on people in the 130-140 range to carry his ideas down the IQ range.”—John Mark

  • “Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual un

    —“Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual understanding already in place. Some of his stuff is difficult for me and I’m 135-140 (some of it I have to make an effort to “get” which I’m not accustomed to). That being said Curt’s posts/writing have gotten a lot more accessible over time IMO. But some of it can’t be simplified all that much or too much important detail is lost. At the same time, many of the key insights and their ramifications I believe can be explained to avg IQ audiences (maybe even sub-100 if communicated well) in basic form. Some detail will be lost in that process, but it will be valuable for normal folks to understand the basic what & why, while all the detail will be available to the high IQ men who will be implementing it (ruling). Curt has said before that he is relying on people in the 130-140 range to carry his ideas down the IQ range.”—John Mark

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —“Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual understanding already in place. Some of his stuff is difficult for me and I’m 135-140 (some of it I have to make an effort to “get” which I’m not accustomed to). That being said Curt’s posts/writing have gotten a lot more accessible over time IMO. But some of it can’t be simplified all that much or too much important detail is lost. At the same time, many of the key insights and their ramifications I believe can be explained to avg IQ audiences (maybe even sub-100 if communicated well) in basic form. Some detail will be lost in that process, but it will be valuable for normal folks to understand the basic what & why, while all the detail will be available to the high IQ men who will be implementing it (ruling). Curt has said before that he is relying on people in the 130-140 range to carry his ideas down the IQ range.”—John Mark


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 16:46:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link. DEAR NEWBS. REQUIRED READING These posts give you

    Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    DEAR NEWBS. REQUIRED READING
    These posts give you most of what you need to start.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 15:24:19 UTC

  • “Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual un

    —“Curt purposely writes for (very) high-IQ people who have a lot of contextual understanding already in place. Some of his stuff is difficult for me and I’m 135-140 (some of it I have to make an effort to “get” which I’m not accustomed to). That being said Curt’s posts/writing have gotten a lot more accessible over time IMO. But some of it can’t be simplified all that much or too much important detail is lost. At the same time, many of the key insights and their ramifications I believe can be explained to avg IQ audiences (maybe even sub-100 if communicated well) in basic form. Some detail will be lost in that process, but it will be valuable for normal folks to understand the basic what & why, while all the detail will be available to the high IQ men who will be implementing it (ruling). Curt has said before that he is relying on people in the 130-140 range to carry his ideas down the IQ range.”—John Mark


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 12:46:00 UTC

  • NEWBS. REQUIRED READING These posts give you most of what you need to start

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/DEAR NEWBS. REQUIRED READING

    These posts give you most of what you need to start.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 11:24:00 UTC

  • NEWBS. REQUIRED READING These posts give you most of what you need to start

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/DEAR NEWBS. REQUIRED READING

    These posts give you most of what you need to start.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 11:24:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (From elsewhere) If this thread was on one of

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (From elsewhere)
    If this thread was on one of my pages I would prune the comments above.

    1) The point of sharing this set of images is to illustrate that demonstrated intelligence contains specializations (divergencies).
    2) So not only are there cognitive biases in the low end but the high.
    3) This knowledge helps understand our cognitive biases at all levels is consistent in structure (white matter organization and density) not just chemistry.
    4) The odd observation that people at the high end of the distribution think extremely differently from people at the bottom of the distribution, who think very similarly.
    5) We do attract an odd distribution over 130 here, and a few over 150, but it is combined with a certain category of personality types in the intellectual end, material in the middle, and a moral predisposition at the lower.
    6) And lastly a constant reminder that I do not claim to be one of the few with equidistribution of ability at the high end – I just have a rather extraordinary memory combined with an obsessive need for order, which results in an obsessive interest in logic and correspondence.

    So I am not sure this argument has any basis since (a) yes members of this group share certain specializations, and that they are consistent across the spectrum, (b) that I am and some of us are very clearly above the 130 and 145 thresholds and (c) we have not much choice in how we think only the interpersonal COMMENSURABILITY OF THE model we think with.(d) and that propertarianism provides both that commensurable model AND the political order that takes best advantage of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-16 16:11:17 UTC

  • (From elsewhere) If this thread was on one of my pages I would prune the comment

    (From elsewhere)

    If this thread was on one of my pages I would prune the comments above.

    1) The point of sharing this set of images is to illustrate that demonstrated intelligence contains specializations (divergencies).

    2) So not only are there cognitive biases in the low end but the high.

    3) This knowledge helps understand our cognitive biases at all levels is consistent in structure (white matter organization and density) not just chemistry.

    4) The odd observation that people at the high end of the distribution think extremely differently from people at the bottom of the distribution, who think very similarly.

    5) We do attract an odd distribution over 130 here, and a few over 150, but it is combined with a certain category of personality types in the intellectual end, material in the middle, and a moral predisposition at the lower.

    6) And lastly a constant reminder that I do not claim to be one of the few with equidistribution of ability at the high end – I just have a rather extraordinary memory combined with an obsessive need for order, which results in an obsessive interest in logic and correspondence.

    So I am not sure this argument has any basis since (a) yes members of this group share certain specializations, and that they are consistent across the spectrum, (b) that I am and some of us are very clearly above the 130 and 145 thresholds and (c) we have not much choice in how we think only the interpersonal COMMENSURABILITY OF THE model we think with.(d) and that propertarianism provides both that commensurable model AND the political order that takes best advantage of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-16 12:11:00 UTC