Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • (from elsewhere) (in response to a book list) —“What on earth did I just read,

    (from elsewhere) (in response to a book list)

    —“What on earth did I just read, why does it have basically nothing to do with the actual list (most of the books are critical theory? Dafuq?) and since when does Curt Doolittle follow this page?”—

    (I collect book lists, for use in comparison of underlying assumptions (biases, priors) and someone forwarded it to me, so I followed your page.)

    Critical theory rests on an extension of the assumption of the Rousseauian vision of man as oppressed, and offers a criticism of western civilization from that assumption.

    All works of historical reference can be divided by the assumptions of the authors notion of mans nature and the possibility of action.

    These assumptions can be categorized as the fallen angel vs risen beast; or dionysian vs apollonian; or Whig History vs Rousseauian; or Critical Theory vs Western Heroic Tradition; dysgenic advocacy vs Eugenic advocacy; or any other variation on the theme.

    In reviewing your list there are a disproportionate number of fallen angel, dionysian, rousseauian, critical theorist, dysgenicist works.

    From what I can gather, it appears that the sentimental bias of this group is optimistic and romantic in the literary continental enlightenment tradition, and preserving individualism.

    We can work with meaning, method of argument, persuasion or discourse, or the underlying assumptions that meaning and method rely upon. By weighing the choices in the book list it’s rather obvious that the assumtpions, meaning, and method, are what they are.

    This form of ‘survey’ is usually the most objective method of determining the political, moral, ethical, and personal biases of individuals and groups.

    You probably don’t care but if someone finds this level of discourse interesting, its always worth a few words.

    Why is it that of available books, one chooses the books one does?

    (Its fascinating actually. because we self report very differently than we demonstrate.)

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 14:35:00 UTC

  • Has Anyone Described A Simple Iq Capability Table?

    Plenty of people have. This one is readable:

    I.Q. ranges and real-life functioning.

    As a general rule, IQ affects rate and therefore cost of learning, but also affects everything else like longevity, health, accidents, and income.

    And I find it most helpful to speak in those terms. For about every ten points in IQ we dramatically change the ability of people to learn.

    BELOW AVERAGE

    • 60’s are mildly retarded. May still function with supervision. usually socially inept
    • 70’s are borderline retarded. They have problems with basic literacy and instructions, and require supervision.
    • 80’s are problematic. Because the ‘evil 80s’ are where most violence comes from, and the average intelligence of most backward communities is in the 80’s. This is because people in this range are unable to compete but still able to plot and execute simple crimes.

    AVERAGE

    • 90 is the minimum for following written instructions, and operating machines. This is the minimum employability for routine work.
    • 100 to learn from written materials and 105 capable of repairing machines. (Arguably 106 to articulate your own ideas). 106 appears to be the minimum median IQ for the formation of a high trust polity.

    ABOVE AVERAGE

    • 110 to manage one’s learning from instructors (college format). The closer we get in median IQ to 110 the more likely we are to have a golden age.
    • 120 to investigate and learn on one’s own (graduate format) and 125 capable of designing machines. It is probably impossible to achieve a median IQ in this range.
    • 130 capable of synthesizing ideas and communicating them (low level phd in soft subjects). The good to great authors are in this range.

    INTELLIGENT

    • 140+ capable of discovering and inventing new ideas using highly structured reasoning. (PhD in hard subjects)

    RULES OF THUMB

    • One standard deviation is 15 points. We can usually communicate within one standard deviation of one another. By two standard deviations we cannot generally communicate successfully.
    • If we look at loose averages, our social and economic classes roughly reflect this distribution.
    • In my experience, and according to most professionals, 140 is the limit of IQ tests, and over that we must test specific abilities. Some would say that 130 is the limit of meaningful testing. Above those levels we start to see dispersion of traits so that while we might demonstrate exceptional ability in some area or other, we tend not to possess the full suite of abilities in balanced form.

    HEDGING A BIT

    But let me qualify it a bit and say that while the theory of multiple intelligences is nonsense, intelligence is just one property of personality that affects demonstrated behavior.

    The combinations of low impulsivity, high conscientiousness, and high intelligence need to go together. One can be less intelligent, but highly disciplined, conscientious, and work very hard, and someone can be highly intelligent, impulsive, and devoid of conscientiousness.

    A lot of things must ‘go right’ for high intelligence to produce positive outcomes in life. (the good stuff kicks in at 115 and above). A lot of things can ‘go wrong’ and we end up with dim(90’s), dangerous (80’s), and untrainable (70’s and below).

    For example, I read Neal Ferguson and I realize he has a better memory than I do and is more organized. I read Hayek and identify myself almost perfectly in every way – even speech pattern. I read Chomsky and it’s obvious he’s more intelligent than I am. But of those people the most ‘whole’ or ‘balanced’ person is definitely Ferguson.

    There are people I can tell are quite a bit faster than I am especially at mathematical operations, or maintaining sets of states in short term memory. And others who have higher reading comprehension than I do – and greater patience with it. But what I see most often is that people with increasingly high ‘scores’ tend to possess side effects. Not all of them (Norman Schwartzkopf).

    So this is why being smart isn’t enough. And this is why the ‘great families’ control reproduction and marriage so carefully, and only hand down assets to those that demonstrate performance. It’s hard work to make things ‘go right’ for generations.

    Thankfully we tend to marry and reproduce within genetic classes if not within social and economic classes, and this tends to limit the damage done by the lower classes to the gene pool. That was until redistribution which took rates of reproduction from the working, middle, and upper classes and replaced it with reproduction and immigration from the lower classes.

    It matters more for a society to have the smallest possible number of people at the bottom than it does to increase the number of people at the top. Context in everything affects everything else.

    And in real life, it matters more that you have few “bads”, than that you have tremendously outlying “goods”.

    FWIW: the evidence is clear that average people are almost always far happier than smart people. Mostly, we’re frustrated. The world doesn’t exist for us. We’re tools for the majority. And the world exists for them.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-described-a-simple-IQ-capability-table

  • Has Anyone Described A Simple Iq Capability Table?

    Plenty of people have. This one is readable:

    I.Q. ranges and real-life functioning.

    As a general rule, IQ affects rate and therefore cost of learning, but also affects everything else like longevity, health, accidents, and income.

    And I find it most helpful to speak in those terms. For about every ten points in IQ we dramatically change the ability of people to learn.

    BELOW AVERAGE

    • 60’s are mildly retarded. May still function with supervision. usually socially inept
    • 70’s are borderline retarded. They have problems with basic literacy and instructions, and require supervision.
    • 80’s are problematic. Because the ‘evil 80s’ are where most violence comes from, and the average intelligence of most backward communities is in the 80’s. This is because people in this range are unable to compete but still able to plot and execute simple crimes.

    AVERAGE

    • 90 is the minimum for following written instructions, and operating machines. This is the minimum employability for routine work.
    • 100 to learn from written materials and 105 capable of repairing machines. (Arguably 106 to articulate your own ideas). 106 appears to be the minimum median IQ for the formation of a high trust polity.

    ABOVE AVERAGE

    • 110 to manage one’s learning from instructors (college format). The closer we get in median IQ to 110 the more likely we are to have a golden age.
    • 120 to investigate and learn on one’s own (graduate format) and 125 capable of designing machines. It is probably impossible to achieve a median IQ in this range.
    • 130 capable of synthesizing ideas and communicating them (low level phd in soft subjects). The good to great authors are in this range.

    INTELLIGENT

    • 140+ capable of discovering and inventing new ideas using highly structured reasoning. (PhD in hard subjects)

    RULES OF THUMB

    • One standard deviation is 15 points. We can usually communicate within one standard deviation of one another. By two standard deviations we cannot generally communicate successfully.
    • If we look at loose averages, our social and economic classes roughly reflect this distribution.
    • In my experience, and according to most professionals, 140 is the limit of IQ tests, and over that we must test specific abilities. Some would say that 130 is the limit of meaningful testing. Above those levels we start to see dispersion of traits so that while we might demonstrate exceptional ability in some area or other, we tend not to possess the full suite of abilities in balanced form.

    HEDGING A BIT

    But let me qualify it a bit and say that while the theory of multiple intelligences is nonsense, intelligence is just one property of personality that affects demonstrated behavior.

    The combinations of low impulsivity, high conscientiousness, and high intelligence need to go together. One can be less intelligent, but highly disciplined, conscientious, and work very hard, and someone can be highly intelligent, impulsive, and devoid of conscientiousness.

    A lot of things must ‘go right’ for high intelligence to produce positive outcomes in life. (the good stuff kicks in at 115 and above). A lot of things can ‘go wrong’ and we end up with dim(90’s), dangerous (80’s), and untrainable (70’s and below).

    For example, I read Neal Ferguson and I realize he has a better memory than I do and is more organized. I read Hayek and identify myself almost perfectly in every way – even speech pattern. I read Chomsky and it’s obvious he’s more intelligent than I am. But of those people the most ‘whole’ or ‘balanced’ person is definitely Ferguson.

    There are people I can tell are quite a bit faster than I am especially at mathematical operations, or maintaining sets of states in short term memory. And others who have higher reading comprehension than I do – and greater patience with it. But what I see most often is that people with increasingly high ‘scores’ tend to possess side effects. Not all of them (Norman Schwartzkopf).

    So this is why being smart isn’t enough. And this is why the ‘great families’ control reproduction and marriage so carefully, and only hand down assets to those that demonstrate performance. It’s hard work to make things ‘go right’ for generations.

    Thankfully we tend to marry and reproduce within genetic classes if not within social and economic classes, and this tends to limit the damage done by the lower classes to the gene pool. That was until redistribution which took rates of reproduction from the working, middle, and upper classes and replaced it with reproduction and immigration from the lower classes.

    It matters more for a society to have the smallest possible number of people at the bottom than it does to increase the number of people at the top. Context in everything affects everything else.

    And in real life, it matters more that you have few “bads”, than that you have tremendously outlying “goods”.

    FWIW: the evidence is clear that average people are almost always far happier than smart people. Mostly, we’re frustrated. The world doesn’t exist for us. We’re tools for the majority. And the world exists for them.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-described-a-simple-IQ-capability-table

  • Jordan Peterson on {Operationalism} in child raising

    Jordan Peterson on {Operationalism} in child raising:

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-09 17:14:00 UTC

  • Curious…. Outside of the natural sciences, engineering, computer science, and

    Curious…. Outside of the natural sciences, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, does the academy teach anything that can’t be reduced to some form of lying, cheating, and stealing?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 16:12:00 UTC

  • ***It is not my job to educate, but to prosecute. I have succeeded in my prosecu

    ***It is not my job to educate, but to prosecute. I have succeeded in my prosecution. …. If you need instruction you can ask. Had you asked for instruction we would not have prosecuted you. It is only by your arrogance that you required prosecution.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 18:54:00 UTC

  • Honestly people, the accusation that Propertarianism isn’t accessible is simply

    Honestly people, the accusation that Propertarianism isn’t accessible is simply untrue. It isn’t in COURSE form, but all the insights are there to consume as fairly simple series (lists). The ‘book’ is up there. The courses are not.

    If you want ‘in early’ you can do it. I’ve laid it all out for you.

    otherwise when I get the courses done you’ll know it.

    Look at what we did in the thread on “line” the past few days.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 21:52:00 UTC

  • “I think that communistic countries [ like mine ], heavily relied on memorizatio

    —“I think that communistic countries [ like mine ], heavily relied on memorization in schools as an mark of excellence. That really annoyed me. I couldn’t touch that stuff, but loved how American universities handled the issue. So, when I read your stuff, I could see that math primarily “start-up-ed” to count money (accounting and economics). But nobody in communistic countries wants you to think about money, better leave that to the government.”— A Friend

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 18:16:00 UTC

  • THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS 1 ========================== THIS MEANS I

    THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS

    1 ==========================

    THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT

    (this cues you to important stuff)

    And this is the body text here.

    –“this is quoting someone else”–

    ***this is quoting myself***

    … this

    … … is a

    … … … series that you might want to learn.

    2 ===========================

    this doesn’t have header so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress.

    3 ===========================

    (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument.)

    4 ===========================

    (diary entry)

    this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

    ===========================

    Closing:

    I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 11:27:00 UTC

  • While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a b

    While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a byproduct of that research.

    One of the reasons I like “teaching” online is because people have time to contemplate in a way that they do not have time in the classroom. Furthermore they can choose what to contemplate, and when to contemplate it.

    One of the other reasons is the One Room Schoolhouse where people of all levels exist, and people can learn by observation, repetition, asking questions, making arguments, and teaching others.

    We can cover the same material from dozens of different directions.

    To some people this may seem inefficient. But is it? You can teach a hell of a lot of people this way. Versus a classroom? We have an enormous one room schoolhouse on the internet.

    We teach most humans the wrong way – not as a campfire, but as a job. Not through stories and problems but through stress. Not through repetition but through force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 02:22:00 UTC