Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TALEB AND DOOLITTLE? Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Ta

    A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TALEB AND DOOLITTLE?

    Rob De Geer

    I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment.

    Curt Doolittle

    We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing.

    So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century.

    Rob De Geer

    OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements.

    Curt Doolittle

    I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls.

    Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit)

    Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically.

    This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental.

    Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools.

    I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans.

    I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 05:20:00 UTC

  • SORRY BOB, YOU CAN’T PROFESSIONALIZE PROGRAMMING. ITS JUST THE NEWEST OF THE TRA

    SORRY BOB, YOU CAN’T PROFESSIONALIZE PROGRAMMING. ITS JUST THE NEWEST OF THE TRADES.

    (computer science, programming, sociology of technology)

    Bob Martin, like many of the Agile leadership, dreams of a return to the original history of programming as an art practiced by professional scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. His hopes that programming will join the ranks of the other professions: accounting, law, and medicine. He correctly identifies the problem that given the rate of expansion of our industry, the exaggerated demand, and the constant entry of many young people means that the majority of programmers are unprofessional. Meaning that they are unable to manage themselves, and take responsibilty for the scope, time, budget, and quality of deliverables.

    But while where bob envisions a profession, I am absolutely certain I see a trade: a hierarchy of skill sets from cleanup crews (support desks) to maintenance crews (IT departments), to refurbishment crews (ongoing development and maintenance), to construction crews ( ordinary web, enterprise, and application developers) to retail architects (small systems) to commercial architects (large systems), to specialty suppliers (drivers, frameworks, tools, IDEs, operating sytsems), to Monumental architects (for government and the international industries). The secret in these industries is that it’s the suppliers, not the architects or the craftsmen that possess the material knowledge, that architects and craftsmen rely upon.

    Nick Carr predicted the deflation of IT years ago and IT has already become a tradesman’s occupation in a hierarchy culminating in hosting centers. He did not address programming specifically that I recall.

    Perhaps we might consider advanced degrees, but we already have them. Unfortunately those degrees are just as unpredictive of market survivability as architectural degrees are predictive of market survivability. The only proof of market surivability is the market, or insurance and bonding where there is skin-in-the-game.

    I can easily see a future where there is an equivalent to a building code for software, and architects and development leads are bonded. this would create a semi-professional trade where chaos reigns.

    The problem is of course, that while we can establish codes for recreational, residential, light commercial, heavy commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial, agrarian, grazing and forresting, we would have to also produce codes for each of these. ISO9000 makes very little sense really, just as many other regulatory hurdles that claim some degree of extreme, make little sense – and we would just create a black market for the offshoring of software development.

    Quality and Certainty increase price dramatically. And software is still too useful and too cheap, and without sufficient damage – at least in commercial settings – to drive up its cost to the point where it’s not worth taking the risk for liability reasons rather than cost reasons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kieve, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 04:28:00 UTC

  • Maybe the correct way to describe it is this: At 100-110 you start to be able to

    Maybe the correct way to describe it is this:

    At 100-110 you start to be able to construct physical models. You can repair machines. And learn by being taught.

    At 110 to 120 you start to be able to construct non physical models and learn independently. ( calculate )

    At 120 to 130 you start to be able to model new machines (design machines. )

    At 130 to 140 synthesize and communicate abstract ideas.

    140 + model ( invent ) new ideas

    The modeling is what I need to work into it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 07:43:00 UTC

  • I WILL DEFINITELY OFFEND YOU AT SOME POINT (important) Eventually, I am going to

    I WILL DEFINITELY OFFEND YOU AT SOME POINT

    (important)

    Eventually, I am going to say something that contradicts a belief that you hold dear. I am sorry. But you’re not special. I do it to myself all the time. The difference is I just accept that I erred or was ignorant.

    If you cannot accept such a thing, the question is why? Most likely because you cannot abandon the utopian rule (anchor) by which you make many of your judgments (provide decidability).

    In my experience, most of the time, this means that you are unwilling to TRADE for the conditions you want, and therefore unwilling to PAY for the conditions you want. Either because your utopia (criteria for decidability) is unachievable by trade. Or you are unwilling to pay the costs of achieving it, or both.

    Conservatives are NOT reducible to free riders – just the opposite they save everything. Libertarians are almost always reducible to free riding in commons if not also moral and ethical free-riding even if not material free riding. And progressives are ALWAYS reducible to moral, ethical, AND material free riding.

    This is because of our long (tribal conservative), medium (self libertarian) and short (offspring progressive) oriented reproductive strategies.

    Now, this is why I use the terms “true” and “necessary” rather than “good” or “right”. Because the possible order is that in which we make use of all information from all time preferences, which reflect the needs of the group evolutionary strategy, by trade in the form of status, information, cooperation, production, reproduction, and production of commons.

    Very few of us are capable of scientific and testimonial truth in the construction of the social order.

    And the only way to get one bias or the other is either by force (conservative) or overpopulation (progressive), with the stable state being provided not by force or population but by markets: reproduction, production, production of commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (MORE: Watch my video on the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, memory, labor, and advocacy.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 04:55:00 UTC

  • Computer programming varies in difficulty just as math varies in difficulty. So

    Computer programming varies in difficulty just as math varies in difficulty. So just as we have people who do basic accounting with IQ’s in the 90’s, and people who work with differential or algebraic geometry who are in the 140’s, we have people who program at 100iq and those that program in the 140s.

    As far as I know the average computer programmer has +.5 to +1 SD. (107-115) And the average computer science graduate has +1.5 SD ( 120’s ).

    Although we must realize that these numbers are from iffy data they do match what we would predict given the (wide) distribution of programming tasks, and the rough baseline that “problem solving intelligence begins at 106.”

    Programming well is like any craft: if you make 1m chopstics I don’t know how good you will be at carpentry. If you make five programs of every design pattern in the three families of programming languages (imperative, functional, declarative), you are going to be a pretty good programmer.

    The more important property of the best programmers (which I am not) is the same as the most important property in mathematics: short term memory. I have a rather weak short term memory but I remember almost everything I see, read, hear and think – if I’m paying attention that is. So I tend to be good at solving ‘the big problems’ but it seems that I take forever to program them because I get distracted by tangent possibilities when I am working. So I would argue low neuroticism ( a mind that stays in context ) or one that has practiced any of the mental disciplines (mindfulness) is as important as intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 01:07:00 UTC

  • Well, you know, it’s freaking hard to amass knowledge across fields today. Histo

    Well, you know, it’s freaking hard to amass knowledge across fields today. History, economics, scientific epistemology, cognitive science, law, and the rather deep problems of philosophy.

    I look back at Hayek and he came the closest. He came SOOO close but he couldn’t do it. And no one could synthesize the three of them: Hayek, popper and mises. And they were likely not aware of or at least sufficiently understanding of Brouwer, Bridgman, and Poincare’s efforts.

    We just have too much an advantage in knowledge and information over those who wrote two generations ago.

    I wish I could hug Hayek. And just talk to him for one hour. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-26 04:51:00 UTC

  • LEVELS OF EDUCATION CALCULATION (PREDICTION) 140 Physics and Econometrics (appli

    LEVELS OF EDUCATION

    CALCULATION (PREDICTION) 140

    Physics and Econometrics (applied mathematics) (ORGANIZATION OF ENTROPY)

    BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING (ORGANIZATION OF GROWTH) 130

    Chemistry, Biology, Medicine,

    ENGINEERING (CONSTRUCTION) 120

    computer science (language), electronic engineering ( fields ), mechanical engineering (power), public engineering (mass, scale and distance), structural engineering (forces of nature)

    COMPUTATION (MEASUREMENT) 110

    Law, Finance, Accounting,

    ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (ORGANIZATION) 105

    Business and Marketing

    Criminal Justice

    Primary Education.

    TRADES

    (best learned by doing)

    ORGANIZATION OF REPRODUCTION (PARENTING)

    (best learned by doing)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-26 04:24:00 UTC

  • LIKE ALL THINGS, THE COST OF TEACHING LIES INCLUDES THE UNSEEN AS WELL AS THE SE

    LIKE ALL THINGS, THE COST OF TEACHING LIES INCLUDES THE UNSEEN AS WELL AS THE SEEN.

    I wonder what would happen to boy’s performance in school if we stopped forcing them to memorize, and telling them lies, and instead forced them to repeatedly solve model-problems, and taught them the truth?

    Sure, girls mature faster than we do, are more interested in pleasing others, are more verbally inclined, and more comfortable sitting still. Sure, boys mature more slowly, are less interested in pleasing as they are discovering limits, are more spatio-physically inclined and it appears that they are brain damaged by sitting still so much.

    In other words, *boys are more expensive to teach*.

    But, when we account for outcomes, what is the cost of teaching obeyance, lies, memorization, and sitting still, compared to the cost of teaching how to form hunting parties, the truth of the word, learning by doing, and engaging in action.

    We all know the answer intuitively – that we have made our western aristocracy into scribes and water-carriers for a deceitful priesthood conducting a genetic, cultural, and territorial war under the ruse of ‘care’ – when it’s just dysgenics warfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-26 03:25:00 UTC

  • THE ACADEMY ISN’T A GOOD FILTER Many revolutionary thinkers in history have not

    THE ACADEMY ISN’T A GOOD FILTER

    Many revolutionary thinkers in history have not written from inside the academy. Machiavelli, Spinoza, Hume, Marx, Rousseau, Darwin, Spencer. Sure Aristotle, Plato, Smith, Kant. But the issue is one of time to write not occupation. It’s just that teaching makes it a bit easier to make time for writing.

    I regret not joining the philosophy department but I kind of doubt I would have come to these conclusions from within the discipline.

    Maybe others. But not these.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-25 14:58:00 UTC

  • NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS My reading list is at www.propertarianism.com/reading-

    http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-listFOR NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS

    My reading list is at www.propertarianism.com/reading-list

    My glossary (which admittedly lags a bit) is at www.propertarianism.com/glossary

    Our librarian Ramsey Mekdaschi keeps most of it in digital form for people who register with the web site.

    (Yes if you know of something I’ve probably read it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-25 10:12:00 UTC