Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • Challenges in Teaching Propertarianism

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult. The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me). So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors. I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail. ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. ) So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis. But in the end, truth is merciless to priors. And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.

  • Challenges in Teaching Propertarianism

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult. The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me). So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors. I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail. ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. ) So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis. But in the end, truth is merciless to priors. And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.

  • I can teach you the natural law. This is a technical category of knowledge. Accu

    I can teach you the natural law. This is a technical category of knowledge. Accumulating the wisdom to know why it is true will take quite a bit of reading.

    Now, I would prefer, that you did not take natural law on faith, explanatory power, argumentative power, discovery, and decidability power, but understood, because of your wisdom, why the alternative propositions have all failed.

    But that said, if you take it purely on the evidence of the explanatory, argumentative, discovery, and decidability power it provides you then you will compete more successfully in life, and contribute to the restoration of your people.

    If you take it on faith, I suppose that is good for you and good for us. But then this defeats the purpose of natural law. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-01 09:49:00 UTC

  • When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acqusition

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acqusitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult.

    The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me).

    So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors.

    I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail.

    ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. )

    So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis.

    But in the end, truth is merciless to priors.

    And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 19:42:00 UTC

  • Working on so many subjects right now. 1) Our Software. 2) The First “course” on

    Working on so many subjects right now.

    1) Our Software.

    2) The First “course” on Propertarianism.

    3) Converting the big five (ten) personality data to propertarian terms (acquisitionism)

    4) Complete definitions (essays) of Science, Natural Law, Philosophy and Religion.

    5) And … Religion has really been amazingly difficult. Truth was trivial compared to religion. Philosophy was easy compared to religion. But religion consists of so many properties by which to circumvent the weaknesses of pack-animals (humans) in increasingly complex relationships, economies, polities and civilizations that it’s extremely difficult to pin down.

    Plus unlike law which is involuntarily imposed by states upon individuals, and philosophy which is sold to individuals, and chosen for its utility by individuals, religion must be both sold to individuals, chosen by them, and to then together, to some degree, imposed upon states.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 18:22:00 UTC

  • ZERO TOLERANCE? —“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded

    ZERO TOLERANCE?

    —“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded by “Zero Tolerance” All he did was bite his poptart into the shape of a gun… Got suspended…Empirical evidencial judgement is the wind before the chaff.”— Anne Tripp

    Well the question is, zero tolerance for WHAT?

    (Same problem as Non Aggression. Non aggression against what?)

    Did he say or do anything false? (no)

    Did he try to defraud anyone? (no)

    Did he impose a cost on others (no)

    Ergo, no crime. Or as we say ‘no harm no foul’

    Conversely, would someone be able to compose such a regulation against a child if we lived under zero tolerance for impositions against natural law? Well, no.

    See?

    Natural law solves the problem of decidability. Always and Everywhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 14:07:00 UTC

  • Education myth: the headstart program: remove the context, remove the demonstrat

    Education myth: the headstart program: remove the context, remove the demonstrated improvements.

    Education myth: put idiots in with exceptionals and they improve. False. Remove the context and restore the natural differences.

    What does all society (markets) do? Sort people by ability.

    What do smart people do? struggle to separate themselves from lesser (more annoying, untrustworthy, accident prone, error-spreading) people.

    People below 90 iq cannot (its just science) make use of democracy, or markets, anything else for that matter. Middle easterners cannot make use of democracy and markets.

    Social pathology takes place in the lower end of the iq scale. And high intelligence is inversely correlated with social pathologies. It’s a linear progression.

    The G-factor (how you process complexity) is not affected by the flynn effect, our white Iq has gone down by 1 standard deviation (15 points) since 1850 according to Nyborg, and Lynn. (I havent asked Flynn).

    It’s really simple. Educational gains whither when exposed to the light of reality. You can harm a child. But you cannot improve him or her. The market seeks truth. Parenting and education are crutches. Once gone the organism reverts to type.

    You want better and smarter children? Less school. Less prepared food. More mom, and exposure to reality. More reading books.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 19:16:00 UTC

  • Imagine a Very Different World

    Apr 18, 2017 11:29am IMAGINE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD…. Imagine how much smarter you would be, the entire population would be, if the same increase in intelligence made possible by physical science was made possible by operational science? In other words, imaging how much smarter people were after literacy. (about a full standard deviation) Imagine how much smarter people were after mass education in the sciences. (about a full standard deviation) We have some idea how much dumber people are because of NOT teaching history, economics, grammar, logic, rhetoric. What would happen if instead of being saturated by lies, you lived your life in a world of informational truths – at least in the commons. (I suspect it would produce a full standard deviation). Your IQ is a genetic thing, but the application of it is dependent upon the quality and quantity of information MINUS the effort you expend in falsification of it. If the market for goods, services, and information, increases in productivity and quality (and our assumption about man as well) increases in optimism, undrer the incremental expansion of law from violence to theft, to fraud, to disinformation… then why ca’nt we do the same with information by the same means? Why is it so hard to ask for journalists, public intellectuals, and politicians, all of whom distribute information into the market, to warranty their speech the same way we warranty goods, services, and other information that can cause harm? Are you saying that more harm is done by marketers than is done by politicians and intellectuals, and journalists? Are you crazy? these people almost to a man, lie for a living.

  • Imagine a Very Different World

    Apr 18, 2017 11:29am IMAGINE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD…. Imagine how much smarter you would be, the entire population would be, if the same increase in intelligence made possible by physical science was made possible by operational science? In other words, imaging how much smarter people were after literacy. (about a full standard deviation) Imagine how much smarter people were after mass education in the sciences. (about a full standard deviation) We have some idea how much dumber people are because of NOT teaching history, economics, grammar, logic, rhetoric. What would happen if instead of being saturated by lies, you lived your life in a world of informational truths – at least in the commons. (I suspect it would produce a full standard deviation). Your IQ is a genetic thing, but the application of it is dependent upon the quality and quantity of information MINUS the effort you expend in falsification of it. If the market for goods, services, and information, increases in productivity and quality (and our assumption about man as well) increases in optimism, undrer the incremental expansion of law from violence to theft, to fraud, to disinformation… then why ca’nt we do the same with information by the same means? Why is it so hard to ask for journalists, public intellectuals, and politicians, all of whom distribute information into the market, to warranty their speech the same way we warranty goods, services, and other information that can cause harm? Are you saying that more harm is done by marketers than is done by politicians and intellectuals, and journalists? Are you crazy? these people almost to a man, lie for a living.

  • The American Generations For Ignorant Alt-Righters

    THE AMERICAN GENERATIONS FOR IGNORANT ALT-RIGHTERS THE DEPRESSION ERA Born: 1912-1921 Coming of Age: 1930-1939 Age in 2004: 83 to 92 Current Population: 11-12 million (and declining rapidly) Depression era individuals tend to be conservative, compulsive savers, maintain low debt and use more secure financial products like CDs versus stocks. These individuals tend to feel a responsibility to leave a legacy to their children. Tend to be patriotic, oriented toward work before pleasure, respect for authority, have a sense of moral obligation. WORLD WAR II Born: 1922 to 1927 Coming of Age: 1940-1945 Age in 2004: 77-82 Current Population: 11 million (in quickening decline) People in this cohort shared in a common goal of defeating the Axis powers. There was an accepted sense of “deferment” among this group, contrasted with the emphasis on “me” in more recent (i.e. Gen X) cohorts. POST-WAR COHORT Born: 1928-1945 Coming of Age: 1946-1963 Age in 2004: 59 to 76 Current Population: 41 million (declining) This generation had significant opportunities in jobs and education as the War ended and a post-war economic boom struck America. However, the growth in Cold War tensions, the potential for nuclear war and other never before seen threats led to levels of discomfort and uncertainty throughout the generation. Members of this group value security, comfort, and familiar, known activities and environments. BOOMERS I OR THE BABY BOOMERS Born: 1946-1954 Coming of Age: 1963-1972 Age in 2004: 50-58 Current Population: 33 million For a long time the Baby Boomers were defined as those born between 1945 and 1964. That would make the generation huge (71 million) and encompass people who were 20 years apart in age. It didn’t compute to have those born in 1964 compared with those born in 1946. Life experiences were completely different. Attitudes, behaviors and society were vastly different. In effect, all the elements that help to define a cohort were violated by the broad span of years originally included in the concept of the Baby Boomers. The first Boomer segment is bounded by the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, the Civil Rights movements and the Vietnam War. Boomers I were in or protested the War. Boomers 2 or the Jones Generation missed the whole thing. Boomers I had good economic opportunities and were largely optimistic about the potential for America and their own lives, the Vietnam War notwithstanding. BOOMERS II OR GENERATION JONES Born: 1955-1965 Coming of Age: 1973-1983 Age in 2004: 39 to 49 Current Population: 49 million This first post-Watergate generation lost much of its trust in government and optimistic views the Boomers I maintained. Economic struggles including the oil embargo of 1979 reinforced a sense of “I’m out for me” and narcissism and a focus on self-help and skepticism over media and institutions is representative of attitudes of this cohort. While Boomers I had Vietnam, Boomers II had AIDS as part of their rites of passage. The youngest members of the Boomer II generation in fact did not have the benefits of the Boomer I class as many of the best jobs, opportunities, housing etc. were taken by the larger and earlier group. Both Gen X and Boomer II s suffer from this long shadow cast by Boomers I. GENERATION X Born: 1966-1976 Coming of Age: 1988-1994 Age in 2004: 28 to 38 Current Population: 41 million Sometimes referred to as the “lost” generation, this was the first generation of “latchkey” kids, exposed to lots of daycare and divorce. Known as the generation with the lowest voting participation rate of any generation, Gen Xers were quoted by Newsweek as “the generation that dropped out without ever turning on the news or tuning in to the social issues around them.” Gen X is often characterized by high levels of skepticism, “what’s in it for me” attitudes and a reputation for some of the worst music to ever gain popularity. Now, moving into adulthood William Morrow (Generations) cited the childhood divorce of many Gen Xers as “one of the most decisive experiences influencing how Gen Xers will shape their own families”. Gen Xers are arguably the best educated generation with 29% obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher (6% higher than the previous cohort). And, with that education and a growing maturity they are starting to form families with a higher level of caution and pragmatism than their parents demonstrated. Concerns run high over avoiding broken homes, kids growing up without a parent around and financial planning. GENERATION Y, ECHO BOOMERS, OR MILLENNIALS Born: 1977-1994 Coming of Age: 1998-2006 Age in 2004: 10 to 22 Current Population: 71 million The largest cohort since the Baby Boomers, their high numbers reflect their births as that of their parent generation. The last of the Boomer Is and most of the Boomer II s. Gen Y kids are known as incredibly sophisticated, technology wise, immune to most traditional marketing and sales pitches…as they not only grew up with it all, they’ve seen it all and been exposed to it all since early childhood. Gen Y members are much more racially and ethnically diverse and they are much more segmented as an audience aided by the rapid expansion in Cable TV channels, satellite radio, the Internet, e-zines, etc. Gen Y are less brand loyal and the speed of the Internet has led the cohort to be similarly flexible and changing in its fashion, style consciousness and where and how it is communicated with. Gen Y kids often raised in dual income or single parent families have been more involved in family purchases…everything from groceries to new cars. One in nine Gen Yers has a credit card co-signed by a parent. GENERATION Z Born: 1995-2012 Coming of Age: 2013-2020 Age in 2004: 0-9 Current Population: 23 million and growing rapidly While we don’t know much about Gen Z yet…we know a lot about the environment they are growing up in. This highly diverse environment will make the grade schools of the next generation the most diverse ever. Higher levels of technology will make significant inroads in academics allowing for customized instruction, data mining of student histories to enable pinpoint diagnostics and remediation or accelerated achievement opportunities. Gen Z kids will grow up with a highly sophisticated media and computer environment and will be more Internet savvy and expert than their Gen Y forerunners. More to come on Gen Z…stay tuned.