Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • Curt Doolittle’s answer: —-”How does accounting degree differs from economics de

    Curt Doolittle’s answer: —-”How does accounting degree differs from economics degree?”— (note: economics in some countries means ‘business’ which means ‘nothing’. In Anglo countries, ‘economics’ refers to the measurement of behaviors, institutions, economies, policies, and invest…

  • How Does Accounting Degree Differs From Economics Degree?

    —-”How does accounting degree differs from economics degree?”—

    (Note: economics in some countries means ‘business’ which means ‘gut course’. In Anglo countries, ‘economics’ refers to the measurement of behaviors, institutions, economies, policies, and investments using available data.)

    The difference between Accounting and Economics is the difference between Arithmetic(accounting), Algorithms (computer science) and Calculus(economics) which is only a bit less difficult than Algebraic Geometry (physics), which is only a bit less difficult than Lie Groups(Pure Mathematics).

    Economics requires the use of calculus and statistics largely for the purpose of ‘fitting’ data that doesn’t necessarily fit, because nothing you measure (no category) is causally consistent over time. This differs from Physics in which the categories we measure are constant we just don’t know what causes them (although we are slowly getting there).

    Accounting is a clerical degree that the average person can obtain, and earn a middle class income.

    Economics is one of the harder degrees because everything in economics is counter-intuitive, and it is math, data, (and logic) intensive.

    If you are in the upper 10% of graduates, Economics is probably the highest value lifetime degree.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-accounting-degree-differs-from-economics-degree

  • —“Curt, Are Complex Ideas Inaccessible Or Does It Just Take Some People Longer?”—

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”— While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses). As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet. In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things. I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own. The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will. My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media). This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense. Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be. -Cheers 😉

  • “CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”-

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”—

    While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses).

    As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet.

    In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns.

    The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things.

    I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own.

    The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will.

    My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media).

    This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense.

    Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be.

    -Cheers 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 22:08:00 UTC

  • —“Curt, Are Complex Ideas Inaccessible Or Does It Just Take Some People Longer?”—

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”— While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses). As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet. In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things. I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own. The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will. My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media). This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense. Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be. -Cheers 😉

  • How Do We Teach Morality If We Disagree What Is Moral?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong. There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity. The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above. The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments. The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so). It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy. That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

  • HOW DO WE TEACH MORALITY IF WE DISAGREE WHAT IS MORAL? Because if we disagree, t

    HOW DO WE TEACH MORALITY IF WE DISAGREE WHAT IS MORAL?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong.

    There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity.

    The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above.

    The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments.

    The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so).

    It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy.

    That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:25:00 UTC

  • How Do We Teach Morality If We Disagree What Is Moral?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong. There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity. The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above. The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments. The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so). It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy. That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

  • 1) Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks, 2) Maps Of Meaning by Jordan B. Peterson, 3)

    1) Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks, 2) Maps Of Meaning by Jordan B. Peterson, 3) Psychology And Alchemy by C.G. Jung, 4) Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by C.G. Jung, 5) The Sword And The Shield by Cristopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, 6) New Lies For Old by Anatoliy Golitsyn, 7) Disinformation by Lt Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa, 8) Putin’s Kleptocracy by Karen Dawisha, 9) The Road To Socialism and the New World Order by Dennis L. Cuddy, 10) Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto, 11) The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto, 12) The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, 13) National Security Cinema by Matthew Alford & Tom Secker, 14) The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, 15) Crime And Punishment by Fidor Dostoyevsky, 16) Ethics by Spinoza, 17) Rhetoric by Aristotle, 18) Pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini.

  • Why Are Medical School Acceptance Rates Significantly Higher For African Americans And Latinos Than For Whites And Asians With The Same Gpa/mcat Scores?

    Anti-white (Male) bias, and the dominance of academic postmodern virtue signaling. Really, that’s the only reason.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Medical-School-acceptance-rates-significantly-higher-for-African-Americans-and-Latinos-than-for-whites-and-Asians-with-the-same-GPA-MCAT-scores