Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • Peterson and Such: They Do Their Best.

    —“Curt, Is Peterson still….”— In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian Scientist (description), Stoic Self Authoring (education and training), Platonist Philosopher (literature), and Abrahamic Theologian (Religion), Peterson cherry picks from each for support, but is narrative (what he argues with) is pure platonism (literature). My hope was that he would favor the scientific and stoic, but he pulls from each discipline as needed. My understanding of him (as well as most others) is that they lack the method of description obtained from (micro) economics (incentives). So they do their best. We should not expect perfection of an individual, but that he advances the cause. And instead we should expect that a field of individuals supply a range of arguments

  • Reading Habits

    —“What’s your reading schedule look like? Do you take a structured approach or just wander about at random? Are you still reading a lot these days?”– A Friend Um… I go through all the economics, hbd, archeological, blogs every day, and if a paper or article looks interesting, or if a book is recommended I add it to my list. I write when i’m fresh. I scan blogs when i’m no longer fresh, and read the papers right away, and then read the books when I’m tired. When I read the books I follow Adler’s advice: I scan the table of contents, scan a few pages, look for the central argument, read that, and rarely do I read all the ‘filler’ around it. Most books can be summarized in a paper, and the best books start out as papers. If I don’t understand something or if I disagree with something I read more until I can tell if the author is making an error or not. (Which is far easier than you’d think.) If I want to read something and thoroughly understand it I will import it somehow – usually into pdf, and have my machine read it to me while I’m doing something else. I rarely do one thing at a time. And authors typically present information too slowly. (hence why I am a fan of gary stanley becker.) That said I read certain authors no matter what they write. But I write far more than I read. Why? I read a great deal before I started writing. And the rate of change is something that I can keep up with pretty easily (outside of materials science… and in particular chemistry, which has always offended my autism). I don’t like getting my hands dirty, like finger painting, or gardening, and my memories of chemistry and biology are nothing bug icky stuff that smells bad. lol
    May 14, 2018 1:14pm

  • Reading Habits

    —“What’s your reading schedule look like? Do you take a structured approach or just wander about at random? Are you still reading a lot these days?”– A Friend Um… I go through all the economics, hbd, archeological, blogs every day, and if a paper or article looks interesting, or if a book is recommended I add it to my list. I write when i’m fresh. I scan blogs when i’m no longer fresh, and read the papers right away, and then read the books when I’m tired. When I read the books I follow Adler’s advice: I scan the table of contents, scan a few pages, look for the central argument, read that, and rarely do I read all the ‘filler’ around it. Most books can be summarized in a paper, and the best books start out as papers. If I don’t understand something or if I disagree with something I read more until I can tell if the author is making an error or not. (Which is far easier than you’d think.) If I want to read something and thoroughly understand it I will import it somehow – usually into pdf, and have my machine read it to me while I’m doing something else. I rarely do one thing at a time. And authors typically present information too slowly. (hence why I am a fan of gary stanley becker.) That said I read certain authors no matter what they write. But I write far more than I read. Why? I read a great deal before I started writing. And the rate of change is something that I can keep up with pretty easily (outside of materials science… and in particular chemistry, which has always offended my autism). I don’t like getting my hands dirty, like finger painting, or gardening, and my memories of chemistry and biology are nothing bug icky stuff that smells bad. lol
    May 14, 2018 1:14pm

  • “Curt, Is Peterson still….”— In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian

    —“Curt, Is Peterson still….”—

    In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian Scientist (description), Stoic Self Authoring (education and training), Platonist Philosopher (literature), and Abrahamic Theologian (Religion), Peterson cherry picks from each for support, but is narrative (what he argues with) is pure platonism (literature).

    My hope was that he would favor the scientific and stoic, but he pulls from each discipline as needed.

    My understanding of him (as well as most others) is that they lack the method of description obtained from (micro) economics (incentives).

    So they do their best.

    We should not expect perfection of an individual, but that he advances the cause. And instead we should expect that a field of individuals supply a range of arguments.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 09:20:00 UTC

  • Are You Sure You Really Want Such a Debate or Discussion?

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive? In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way. Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times. Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment. Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else. In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

  • Are You Sure You Really Want Such a Debate or Discussion?

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive? In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way. Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times. Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment. Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else. In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

  • Selling Degrees vs Indulgences

    —“Academia is the modern priesthood.”— Bill Anderson  It should be. The academy evolved out of the church instead out of the greek and roman upper middle class and aristocracy. And who filled the void of the church when the church failed to adapt to modernity? The church-in-waiting. However, the church and it’s selling of Indulgences had NOTHING on the academy selling degrees that are meaningless. I mean, the academy is the greatest scam since monotheistic religion.

  • Selling Degrees vs Indulgences

    —“Academia is the modern priesthood.”— Bill Anderson  It should be. The academy evolved out of the church instead out of the greek and roman upper middle class and aristocracy. And who filled the void of the church when the church failed to adapt to modernity? The church-in-waiting. However, the church and it’s selling of Indulgences had NOTHING on the academy selling degrees that are meaningless. I mean, the academy is the greatest scam since monotheistic religion.

  • THE VIRTUE OF HISTORY POLY-HEROISM AS CIVIC RELIGION (important ideas) The probl

    THE VIRTUE OF HISTORY POLY-HEROISM AS CIVIC RELIGION

    (important ideas)

    The problem in producing a positive religion is providing a sufficient portfolio of virtues that people can select from and use to respond to differing circumstances.

    It’s the same with political orders. everyone wants to mandate an optimum when the romans know a long time ago that you give shit away when you’re prosperous, you run a market order most of the time, and you run a fascist generalship in times of war, with the only constant being rule of law (reciprocity) as the point of equilibrium between the two extremes.

    Hence my argument for real or semi-real historical figures, and enough of them so that we can call upon their example no matter what the conditions.

    The only reason not to is authoritarianism and as far as I know all religious people are closet authoritarians, whether they want to lead or follow, just as they care closet regressives by seeking static rules regardless of whether they do so for discounts on mental labor, or discounts on the work to compromise with those having different ends, or they want to rally people to their chosen reproductive strategy despite the fact it’s not in the interest of others to do so.

    Economic analysis explains everything and no matter what you do religious people lose. In fact, it’s pretty easy to argue that organized religion is the worse thing to happen to humanity in history.

    I mean, we already now that the source of all monotheistic religions was the failure of the indo-iranians to compete with the europeans, and therefore they spread west to escape them, but took the technology with them while inverting the aryan religion from one of defeating nature to one submissive to it.

    it’s very hard to tell people that their desire for predictability is suicidal and that it’s only trustworthiness despite unpredictability that produces goods. It’s very hard to tell people who are dedicated to fictionalisms in which they find comforts that they are destructive to humanity and the most regressive people living. But it’s simply a fact.

    I didn’t expect to end up here but then I have more intellectual honesty and moral courage than most people, and am more willing to be wrong than most people for reasons that were nothing to do with my own choice.

    Truth is truth. It is very hard to face it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 13:43:00 UTC

  • SELLING DEGREES VS INDULGENCES —“Academia is the modern priesthood.”— Bill A

    SELLING DEGREES VS INDULGENCES

    —“Academia is the modern priesthood.”— Bill Anderson

    It should be. The academy evolved out of the church instead out of the greek and roman upper middle class and aristocracy.

    And who filled the void of the church when the church failed to adapt to modernity? The church-in-waiting.

    However, the church and it’s selling of Indulgences had NOTHING on the academy selling degrees that are meaningless.

    I mean, the academy is the greatest scam since monotheistic religion.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 10:27:00 UTC