Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • You Don’t Need Pebbles In Your Mouth

    LEARNING TO SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY: YOU DON’T NEED TO PUT PEBBLES IN YOUR MOUTH

    • Our brains evolved problem solving in order to speak.
    • Our minds improve by the act of speaking.
    • Our speech improves by problem solving in writing.

    The way to improve your speech, is to write about what you think, realize how stupid you sound, and keep working until you no longer sound stupid. Why the hell do you think I spend all my time doing this? lol And why do you think the people who follow me and try to make their own arguments in their own words improve the fastest?

  • You Don’t Need Pebbles In Your Mouth

    LEARNING TO SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY: YOU DON’T NEED TO PUT PEBBLES IN YOUR MOUTH

    • Our brains evolved problem solving in order to speak.
    • Our minds improve by the act of speaking.
    • Our speech improves by problem solving in writing.

    The way to improve your speech, is to write about what you think, realize how stupid you sound, and keep working until you no longer sound stupid. Why the hell do you think I spend all my time doing this? lol And why do you think the people who follow me and try to make their own arguments in their own words improve the fastest?

  • ( There is a reason a phd takes six or seven years, and to be good in a craft or

    ( There is a reason a phd takes six or seven years, and to be good in a craft or career takes eight to ten. we…. humans…. are….. sloooooowwww. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 16:42:00 UTC

  • LEARNING TO SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY: YOU DON’T NEED TO PUT PEBBLES IN YOUR MOUTH Our

    LEARNING TO SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY: YOU DON’T NEED TO PUT PEBBLES IN YOUR MOUTH

    Our brains evolved problem solving in order to speak.

    Our minds improve by the act of speaking.

    Our speech improves by problem solving in writing.

    The way to improve your speech, is to write about what you think, realize how stupid you sound, and keep working until you no longer sound stupid.

    Why the hell do you think I spend all my time doing this? lol

    And why do you think the people who follow me and try to make their own arguments in their own words improve the fastest?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 16:21:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT HOW DO I LEARN ABOUT ECONOMICS?” IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the

    Q&A: “CURT HOW DO I LEARN ABOUT ECONOMICS?”

    IMPLIED (why don’t you recommend the Jewish austrian canon of : mises, rothbard, hoppe? In fact, why not austrians at all?

    GREAT QUESTION:

    No I don’t really recommend you read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe any longer, except for the works below, qualified as I have qualified them below. And all of Austrian (Mengerian) Economics has been incorporated into mainstream economics, with the single exception of the certainty (determinism) of the business cycle.

    Instead I’ve listed some books below that I consider the least bad at this point in time.

    Why? Not Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe

    MISES: We must see Mises Praxeology an attempt to (a) preserve jewish separatism (b) prevent funding of the commons, and (c) a failed attempt at operationalism in economics – mostly because he did not understand science, or mathematics, or logic for that matter, and was, making a facile attempt at creating a logic of social science.

    ROTHBARD: We must see rothbard as again, attempting not to create liberty but to (a) restate jewish law of disaporic separatism (libertinism) and poly-ethicalism, (b) propose the ethics of the Caravan Trader, the Bazaar and the Ghetto as enlightenment universal morality (none of which can hold territory, construct rule of law, or create competitive commons) (c) preserve the ability to conduct parasitsm through verbal means, coercion, and trickery while at the same time prohibiting retaliation for parasitism through verbal means, coercion, and tricker – all of which make the formation of a voluntarily organized polity with consensual commons an impossibility due to the malincentives and high transaction and opportunity costs.

    HOPPE: As I’ve written elsewhere, (here: ) Hoppe is a victim of (a) his ‘German’ education in LITERARY, and Kantian (rationalism) rather than scientific (ratio-empirical-operational) thought (b) his education by Marxists who attempted to take Kantian moral argument, into jewish legal argument, and (c) his love of his friend and mentor rothbard (which is we must appreciate – he was a wonderful human I wish I had met), and his infuence under rothbard reinforcing (a) and (b). What we CAN take from hoppe is valuable but it is very hard to access without falling victim to his ‘nonsensical but sophisticated use of ‘Pilpul’ arguments: argumentation in particular.

    THE TRAP OF LITERATURE

    We all learn by different means and the more literary and accessible the easier, and the more abstract, deductive, and calculative, the more difficult.

    Libertarianism is writte almost entirely in entry level prose. IT is written almost entirely in literary prose. it is written almost entirely in morally intuitive prose. So it is attractive to the high school and college level individual in no small part because it includes basic economics, a simplified version of law, and for all intents and purposes never questions whether a libertarian polity can survive competition against opponents with different interests and institutions. (no it can’t).

    The reason we require money, prices, contract, law, institutions that regulate our actions and defend our investments, is precisely because the world of specialists who make improtant decisions that influence our lives does not consist of entry level prose, literary prose, morally intuitive prose, and it is not accessible to high school and colloge level readers – people those with specialized knoweldge employ.

    The world operates by war, technology, economy, government, demographics, law, norm, tradition, and myth – in precisely that order.

    So what is Curt telling you? Don’t be tricked by literature.

    When I tell people to become informed, I tell them to read a literary history, a biography or two, an economic history, and then get into the science of it (measurements). This takes us through the natural learning curve of myth, literature, history, and science. And through that incremental process we learn as we evolved to learn.

    READ THESE INSTEAD

    Instead Consider These Instead.

    (High School Market)

    1. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (80% of everything you need to know about economics can be reduced to ‘full accounting’ of differences between potential actions, and their internal and external consequences.)

    (College Market)

    1. Nial Ferguson’s Ascent of Money

    2. Rothbard’s History of Banking (best work he did)

    3. Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.

    4. Fukuyama: Trust

    5. Civilization: The West and the Rest

    (College Graduate Market)

    1. Mankiw’s Micro Economics

    2. Mankiew’s Macro Economics (I don’t think macro helps other than to understand how policy is made and why feds work they way they do.)

    3. Mises Human Action (!!! but ONLY chapter 6+. The first five chapters are the cause of his failure.) Mises could have done it. I have looked at trying to correct it but it’s almost impossible.

    Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money

    ( Graduate School Market) (by: Emil Suric )

    1. Capital and its Structure (Lachmann);

    2. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (Hayek);

    3. Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (Hayek);

    4. Prices and Production (Hayek);

    5. Interest and Prices (Wicksell);

    6. Theory of Money and Credit (Mises);

    7. The Positive Theory of Capital (Bohm-Bawerk);

    8. They Keynesian Episode (Hutt);

    9. Anything ever written by Garrison.

    (optional)

    Hoppe: read his PAPERS,on his website, not his books.

    THE MOST IMPORTANT ADVICE

    Mortimer Adler’s “How To Read A Book” Why? Because you don’t really try to remember what you read. You definitely read the table of contents. You pick out a chapter or two that’s interesting to you. And then if you feel like you can chew it, read more of it. Only read what you get value out of. Return later once you’ve had more experience if there is something new to grasp.

    I swear it is more important to understand the table of contents so that you understand the author’s basic outline of his argument than it is to go through the book which is largely all the excuses he makes for proposing that argument.

    Read a bunch of Amazon reviews that have high ratings. Then read the Table of contents, pick a chapter. And for god’s sake, remember we have almost all these books online in digital form where you can read them for free if you are impoverished. If you can afford books, or use the library then please ‘pay the author his due’. But never sacrifice your learning. Copyright is a privilege not a right.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 14:43:00 UTC

  • It’s hard to learn, it’s easier for the younger guys. They have less to ‘re-lear

    It’s hard to learn, it’s easier for the younger guys. They have less to ‘re-learn’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 22:34:00 UTC

  • (on writing style)(via pm)(with a friend) As the guys tell me, I tend to write f

    (on writing style)(via pm)(with a friend)

    As the guys tell me, I tend to write for a cognitive elite, and it seems that it takes about a 130 IQ to understand it.

    Our strategy group for the past five years has been for me to work out all the fine details then hope the guys like you translate it for the masses.

    I try but I just don’t think I can talk tot he masses. I think in very … granular(?) terms. In my mind I’m talking about identity, math, logic, programming, and operational law. And that is just … alien to the mass of humanity that was raised upon myth, literature, and history. (the narrative.)

    I feel my job is to create the equivalent of the Frankfurt School, or the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and create a hundred and then a thousand people who can argue natural law.

    I would rather enjoy starting a revolution and getting that job done. But I think others will do that job better than I will.

    I would love it if I could reach the masses through speech.

    I would love it if I could write novels and stories as the literature of natural law – even though the Iliad and the Odyssey, the greek and roman myths, the rings of the Nibelungelied, the tales of Arthur and the Carolingians, or the story of Colonialism, and now the great heroic task that is before us, are probably sufficient and tested narrative.

    I’m just one guy. I’m in my 50s. I’ve been seriously ill multiple times, and had a possibly lethal amount of radiation. I have a product in development for many years which I must work on at the same time as the philosophy. Both are taxing. The purpose of the product is to fund me (and others) in taking it to its conclusion: the ‘bible’ of western civilization beyond which no man or government may tread: the cult of non-submission: the philosophy of arsitocracy: sovereignty, and its ‘scripture’: natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 17:24:00 UTC

  • “Your writing style is getting better, Curt.”—Aleister Vandal Thank you 😉 Um.

    —“Your writing style is getting better, Curt.”—Aleister Vandal

    Thank you 😉

    Um. FYI: (a) I have always been able to write empathically, and persuasively. It was hard to learn to argue ‘scientifically’. Just as it is hard for most libertarians and conservatives to argue ‘scientifically’ because the langauge simply didn’t exist to do so.

    (b) it helps when you finally understand the subject, develop terminology, and can relate those terms for others. That’s why I work at all these lists (series/sequences) and definitions, and operational language.

    (c) Long time followers know I experiment a lot in my posts. Most posts are sketches of proofs. meaning: can I construct an argument. I try to construct proofs tens or dozens of times. Most are incomplete. It is by constructing those ‘difficult to read’ proofs that I can create these more ‘readable’ and ’empathic’ statements of greater clarity. I learned a long time ago that people like ‘watching’ that process. But that it also confuses those who don’t know what process is in process so to speak.

    Why am I saying this?

    Because it does bother me a bit when people don’t understand what I’m doing. I have to invent a language and grammar for arguing in favor of our ancient group evolutionary strategy: the philosophy of western civilization.

    -hugs man. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 14:46:00 UTC

  • It’s Not Easy But When it Clicks, it’s Thrilling

    ITS NOT EASY BUT WHEN IT CLICKS IS THRILLING —“I’m getting it. Things just clicked a few weeks ago and it’s like a torrent of understanding”— A Friend I wish I could get across what it means to me every time I get one of these PM’s. Every time the light goes on for someone, the world is a little less lonely, a little less insane, and holds a little more promise.

  • It’s Not Easy But When it Clicks, it’s Thrilling

    ITS NOT EASY BUT WHEN IT CLICKS IS THRILLING —“I’m getting it. Things just clicked a few weeks ago and it’s like a torrent of understanding”— A Friend I wish I could get across what it means to me every time I get one of these PM’s. Every time the light goes on for someone, the world is a little less lonely, a little less insane, and holds a little more promise.