Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need

    NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE.

    I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable.

    If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’.

    We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population.

    We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia.

    We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn.

    These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination).

    When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 12:20:00 UTC

  • School, Academy, State, Business, and Media give people false hopes, encourage t

    School, Academy, State, Business, and Media give people false hopes, encourage them to accumulate debt, and then enslave and reduce them to suffering if they were entrapped by the bait.

    Look at all these optimistic young people on the road to nowhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 13:13:00 UTC

  • WHAT SHALL BE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S PUNISHMENT FOR THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL? For cri

    WHAT SHALL BE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S PUNISHMENT FOR THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL?

    For crimes against humanity, against western civilization, against the united states of america, what shall be the punishment for Columbia University?

    1) Sponsorship of a Natural Law School and Degree?

    2) “Cornell Style” Forcible Restructuring of Curriculum and Staff?

    3) Total Purge of Staff and Replacement?

    4) Closure, Destruction, And Prosecution?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-06 08:18:00 UTC

  • I think I am ‘finished’. The rest is just advocacy, education, direct action, an

    I think I am ‘finished’. The rest is just advocacy, education, direct action, and taking control.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 16:15:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805807873586528256

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805807561517633537

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle you hit the nail on the head with natural law fundamentalism, exactly where I was going with this

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805807561517633537

  • TEACHING OTHERS: LEAPS VS STEPS My general philosophy is to produce and generate

    TEACHING OTHERS: LEAPS VS STEPS

    My general philosophy is to produce and generate interest. I don’t like to ‘direct’. I love answering questions. But I prefer each of us makes his own journey out of recognizing and acting on his own opportunities. I have found over my life that if I try to structure learning for others that I fail because the way I learn myself is too different from the way the majority learn. There are some of us who intuit great leaps between seemingly unrelated concepts then try to learn how to fill in the steps between them. But most of us learn by taking one step at a time. The kind of people who make great leaps also, only need content, and for me to answer a few questions. The kind of people who learn step by step are harder for me to reach. In part because I reach the ‘steps’ at the end of my journey – not the beginning. So I can’t really ‘think backward’ until I’ve thoroughly solved the problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 15:41:00 UTC

  • DOES PROPERTARIANISM’S NATURAL LAW REQUIRE THAT MUCH IQ? It doesn’t take all tha

    DOES PROPERTARIANISM’S NATURAL LAW REQUIRE THAT MUCH IQ?

    It doesn’t take all that high an iQ to learn Propertarianism: Natural Law. The difference is that we live the existing anglo law and we don’t live Propertarianism’s Natural Law. So while there is more content to the study of the existing law, there is more novelty in the study of Propertarianism. So it’s not that you need to LEARN so much in Propertarianism, it’s that you have to RELEARN quite a bit.

    We humans rely heavily on intuition and overestimate our reason. So learning a lot of confirmations like the existing law, is much easier than learning a lot of reformations like Natural Law.

    The reason we invest the time in learning something reforming like Propertarianism’s Natural Law, is the additional explanatory power, coercive power, and justification for violence that it gives us.

    So yes, it is somewhat hard to learn if you want to prosecute, less so if you want to persuade, and less so if you want to know what to fight for, and less so if you just want justification to fight.

    Learn only what you need to.

    A few us of us need to be prosecutors, a few more lawyers, a few more sheriffs, but a whole lot of warriors. Warriors just need to know the objective, and to fight. The rest of us just administrate the result.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 11:55:00 UTC

  • NO, IT’S NOT EASY. PROPERTARIANISM =~= LAW DEGREE —“You’ll never create a move

    NO, IT’S NOT EASY. PROPERTARIANISM =~= LAW DEGREE

    —“You’ll never create a movement with such a complex ideology, it’s not appealing.”—- “liberty owl”.

    Well, you have to study the law for years and pass the bar. Since Propertarianism is an internally consistent (logical) and externally correspondent (empirical) and existentially possible (operational), and morally consistent (reciprocal), that defines its own scope (full accounting, limits, and parsimony), restatement of Law, then it shouldn’t be surprising that (a) it takes a lawyer’s IQ and effort to master it, and (b) a not insignificant amount of time, and (c) must be ‘simplified’ for consumption by the lower classes with new, simple, general rules, and (d) that simple general rules for average people must be defensible by scientific arguments for more advanced people.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 11:10:00 UTC

  • “a thing is never said too much when it has not been well enough learned. Some p

    “a thing is never said too much when it has not been well enough learned. Some people need to have remedies shown to them; others need them trodden in”- Seneca, Letters 27.9

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 13:50:00 UTC

  • via @NickmhTw The Academy transformed into harvesters of emotion rather than dis

    via @NickmhTw The Academy transformed into harvesters of emotion rather than distributors of wisdom. (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 00:45:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805211437065011200

    Reply addressees: @NewRight

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805210580239818752

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nickTw7m47amfe

    @curtdoolittle and became harvesters of emotion rather than distributors of wisdom 😆

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805210580239818752

  • “The Academy transformed into harvesters of emotion rather than distributors of

    —“The Academy transformed into harvesters of emotion rather than distributors of wisdom.”— Nick Heywood

    (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 19:46:00 UTC