Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • INTELLIGENCE Practicable Intelligence is comprised of four different factors: 1)

    INTELLIGENCE

    Practicable Intelligence is comprised of four different factors:

    1) General intelligence. Which we usually aggregate under the measurement of IQ. This is the ability to identify and make use of abstractions in real time. Given enough time, random trial and error can solve any problem. Intelligence reduces the time necessary to identify a causal relation.

    2) Short Term Memory. As a rule of thumb, a concept of any complexity can be ‘experienced’ and therefore understood, if it can be constructed from a combination of memories and stimuli within a two to three second window. Short term memory. Short term memory facilitates this process so that the association engine (intuition) can be steered toward desired ends, until enough of a construct can be created to facilitate the formation of a new idea. Einstein was being serious when he said that he had just thought about the problem longer than anyone else. (this is my particular weakness)

    3) General knowledge. The more you have, the more likely it is that a pattern that you encounter will exist in your memory rather than require pure association from your brain. General knowledge must be separated into explicit versus tacit forms, and into true (correspondence with reality) and false (failure to correspond to reality) categories. Long term memory, and the ability to access it, is necessary for the accumulation of general knowledge, and the ability to retain that knowledge by forming associations that give access to that knowledge from multiple avenues.

    4) Desires and Beliefs. If you believe or desire something that does not or cannot correspond to reality, then this In my experience intelligence comes from wanting to know the answer to a problem, rather than wanting an outcome and seeking an answer suit it.

    While intelligence can be limited by any one of these factors, most correctable human intellectual failure comes not from general intelligence, a lack of short term memory, or an absence of general knowledge. But from beliefs and desires, usually instinctual, or sentimental, that do not correspond with the reality of life in a division of knowledge and labor, whose information system is the abstraction of prices, where social cues are often contrary to price information.

    The human senses are available to almost all of us. They are easily access without rational criticism. But they tell us very little about which actions we should take. That information comes from the purely abstract information of prices. And we cannot access the content of prices without rational criticism, the institution of property which allows us to plan using prices, and a significant effort expended in planning, forgoing sensory experiences, and expending effort on the promise of reward in the future.

    In our homes, pubs, coffee houses, churches, and jobs we can rely on our senses. In the market we cannot. We can only hope that by submersion in a culture within the market that our senses adapt to the patterns that emerge from the market, expressed in the behavior of others who do understand that market, and by doing so, obtain by imitation and empathy that which we cannot obtain by abstract reason and the information supplied by prices.

    For this reason, one need not be possessed of extraordinary cognitive power, short term memory, general knowledge, or even rational wants and beliefs. One only need experience and imitate the patterns of behavior of others within that market who are successful within it.

    In simple terms, this means, that traditions, morals, ethics, and habits in a homogenous society can compensate for an unequal distribution of intelligence and impulsivity.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-19 18:34:00 UTC

  • SACRED – “SACREDNESS” It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the

    SACRED – “SACREDNESS”

    It is very hard to build the concept of ‘sacred’ into the values of a population. External threat, common strife, shared ambition, education, and indoctrination all can achieve it.

    Sacred concepts are a form of The Commons. They are a community property. And a community property, whether real land, built capital, formal institution, or cherished narrative, may be used by all, but not consumed by any.

    Conservatives invest in a large portfolio of such commons, and as such treat them as sacred. Conservatism is, by and large, a government of norms. It is intrinsically anarchic, but not intrinsically libertarian. And as such, ‘Sacredness’ is pervasive in conservative culture.

    Rothbardian Libertarians disavow the existence of a commons, other than the institution of property itself – a seeming contradiction. But the purpose of that denial is to forbid the existence of a state which must arbitrate the use of such commons.

    Hoppeian Libertarians restored the commons into libertarianism, while prohibiting any commons that consists of an organizations of human beings- thereby forbidding the existence of a state, while allowing for the existence of contractual, private government.

    Social democrats treat all property as a commons, and the means of distributing it as a commons. But they treat nothing as sacred other than the emotional predisposition to prevent harm and express care-taking. Sacredness is an act of self denial, and progressives avoid deprivation at all costs. As such, all forms of property other than the current-consensus for the purpose of reducing conflict, are absent. With that absence must also go the sacred.

    Under this analysis, Sacredness is not exclusive to conservatism. It is only that conservatism treats moral capital – forgoing opportunities, and building moral capital in the population – as

    Contrary to popular, studied, and academic belief, the debate as to whether the enormous power of fiat money eliminates the need for sacredness – forms of property we call norms which require self denial – is not over. Fiat money can be used

    Conservatism is not so much about the seen as unseen. Its pretense is a form of respect of the sacred. And the sacred consists of common property that they pay for with constant acts of self denial.

    Having paid this high price for the commons, it is no wonder why they object to the consumption of it by progressives, or the destruction of its institutions by Rothbardians.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-16 11:55:00 UTC

  • OPAQUE PHILOSOPHY – IN HUMBLING COMPANY I’ve been extremely self critical about

    OPAQUE PHILOSOPHY – IN HUMBLING COMPANY

    I’ve been extremely self critical about the opacity of my writing, and struggling to make it digestible. It’s brutally difficult to follow Spinoza’s advice: “Speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people.” And, while I’ll never be able to address common people, I think I’ve finally reduced propertarianism to something that’s at least reasonably accessible, and analytically clear, regardless of one’s political preferences and moral codes. Perhaps I can get it down to twenty pages if I can figure out how to elegantly and succinctly tie the biology of moral codes, to the necessity of property, to the institutions necessary for property. Maybe thirty pages. My first draft was almost three hundred. So obviously i’m making progress.

    I still have years worth of work ahead of me. I’ve used Rothbard’s ideas to reframe classical liberalism and conservatism, and then social democracy, into Propertarian language. But the excruciating work of defending these ideas against the legion of very smart people both past and present is so daunting I become easily overwhelmed every time I pull my head out of one little problem or the other.

    And I don’t really find those defensive problems interesting. This is where my lack of academic training fails me. It is one thing to solve a conceptual problem. It is quite another to create an edifice with which to defend it against crushingly great minds. It is either the mark of an incredible fool, unconscionable hubris, or accidental ignorance, to take on this category of problem, and to even mention one’s feeble efforts in the same sentence with minds like this.

    Spinoza spent his entire life on two hundred pages. How did Murray work on one book for seven years full time? Rawls? And Rawls clearly needed to do a lot more work than he did. You have to be amazed by someone like Rothbard, who I’m honestly in awe of. If you look at his writing, while he oversimplifies the problem of political theory almost absurdly, he’s at least accessible and his breadth just daunting, even if you disagree with his premise.

    On the other hand, after re-reading those who don’t oversimplify the problem, namely Rawls and Nozick, I feel like the bar isn’t all that high. I mean, those works are highly influential despite being painfully inaccessible. Which is a small comfort. A very small comfort. But a comfort none the less.

    One cannot distill complex ideas to first principles expressed in analytical language unless one understands the problem thoroughly. The genius of Rothbard’s insight is a barrier to adoption because of his passion for his particular ethics of anarchism. But his Propertarianism is applicable to all political philosophy and ideology. In fact, it’s the only thing that makes them commensurable.

    Shoulders of giants and all that. Humbling. Witheringly humbling.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-26 23:35:00 UTC

  • TO A SEMINAR ON LIBERTARIAN REASONING: “THE PROPERTARIANS”. This fall, to help m

    http://www.meetup.com/Seminar-On-Political-Philosophy-Using-Libertarian-Reasoning/COME TO A SEMINAR ON LIBERTARIAN REASONING: “THE PROPERTARIANS”.

    This fall, to help me flesh out my work, I’m running a seminar on political philosophy using the libertarian “Propertarian” reasoning of Rothbard and Hoppe combined with the moral research of Jonathan Haidt. In the first week, without any promotion, we have collected about a dozen interested people. I’d like to get about twenty regular participants, with an average of about 15 showing up at each meeting. And I’d like to run the seminar in multiple cities if there is sufficient interest.

    If you know anyone who is interested send them to Meetup.com via the link below. Click on the [Read More About Us] button on the left.

    -Cheers 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-17 12:32:00 UTC

  • The average European and particularly the average working class European always

    The average European and particularly the average working class European always appears on average so much better educated than his American peer. This may be a selection effect since I can only interact with those who are competent English speakers. But the test data seems to confirm it. And while it is heretical to state that the heterogeneity of the American population accounts for those scores, it remains that peers of Europeans in the USA are less literate and less numerate.

    On the other hand, the average American is extraordinarily conscious of the country’s military, political, and financial role in the world – even though the cannot choose whether to be pleased or frustrated by it.

    I am one of those Americans that tends to resent Europeans who treat us with disdain despite our expensive subsidy of their economies.

    American foreign policy is not conducted on emotive or moral grounds, but strategic grounds. Always. Good or bad.

    The world would be a better place if we withdrew from europe and forced them to bear the same burdens we do.

    Perhaps then our values would converge. It is not understood on either side of the pond that two centuries ago Americans thought precisely about Europe what Europeans think about America today.

    And people around the world congratulate themselves on their moral choices despite the fact that geography, demographics, and economic conditions are the source of their opinion, not their deliberate choice.

    The usa will be energy independent soon which will put us in strategic conflict with Europe. We will no longer have material reason nor the means to play policeman to the world.

    Maintaining a stable price of oil as well as food and currency is too much of a burden for the American people.

    So something will change here one way or another.

    And self congratulatory moral convenience will change with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-01 13:35:00 UTC

  • SCHOOLS GETTING DOWN THERE IN APPROVAL WITH THAT OF CONGRESS

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155258/confidence-public-schools-new-low.aspxUS SCHOOLS GETTING DOWN THERE IN APPROVAL WITH THAT OF CONGRESS

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-25 21:56:00 UTC

  • Why Do People Who Never Read James Madison Or Edmund Burke, But Listen To Hannity Or Limbaugh Think Of Themselves As Conservative?

    Conservatism is a sentiment. It has biological, environmental, pedagogical and rational components that reinforce it. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy.  Conservatives in the USA are conservative TOWARD classical liberalism. Christian Aristocratic Manorialism is a social model.  Conservatives are conservative TOWARD Christian Aristocratic Manorialism.  One does not need to read anything.  In fact, having to ‘read’ something is a decidedly negative property of any social model. It must be capable of propagation by experience, and in particular, the experience of a child.

    All rational models seek to advocate in favor of the sentiment.  Not the other way around.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-who-never-read-James-Madison-or-Edmund-Burke-but-listen-to-Hannity-or-Limbaugh-think-of-themselves-as-conservative

  • Why Do People Who Never Read James Madison Or Edmund Burke, But Listen To Hannity Or Limbaugh Think Of Themselves As Conservative?

    Conservatism is a sentiment. It has biological, environmental, pedagogical and rational components that reinforce it. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy.  Conservatives in the USA are conservative TOWARD classical liberalism. Christian Aristocratic Manorialism is a social model.  Conservatives are conservative TOWARD Christian Aristocratic Manorialism.  One does not need to read anything.  In fact, having to ‘read’ something is a decidedly negative property of any social model. It must be capable of propagation by experience, and in particular, the experience of a child.

    All rational models seek to advocate in favor of the sentiment.  Not the other way around.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-who-never-read-James-Madison-or-Edmund-Burke-but-listen-to-Hannity-or-Limbaugh-think-of-themselves-as-conservative

  • DEBATING AND TEACHING AS THE CRUCIBLES OF THOUGHT You cannot get good at boxing

    DEBATING AND TEACHING AS THE CRUCIBLES OF THOUGHT

    You cannot get good at boxing or fencing without sparring partners. Likewise you cannot get good at a subject without teaching it or debating it. Although — you can amuse yourself with the pretense of untested wisdom, a mind on its own is little more than an echo chamber. Debate affords one greater flexibility in taking risks, and teaching is the test of whether or not you can reduce your ideas to communicable narratives that survive attempts at refutation. Personally I think both are valuable and necessary tools. And unless you master both well enough to test your ideas by both means, it’s hard to prove you know anything at all. There are plenty of teachers without ideas. There are plenty of debaters with ideas who lack rational arguments. But the only test is the successful mastery of both.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-03 11:06:00 UTC

  • Pew Research: Republicans are More Informed And Open Minded Than Democrats

    (From Pew Research.) If Republicans skew male, and Democrats skew female, and men accumulate more economic and political knowledge than women, and women have fewer and less diverse friends than men, then isn’t the fact that Republicans are better informed and more open minded than Democrats simply an artifact of the distribution of men and women between the parties? The classical liberal system was designed to create separate houses for different classes of males. It has not survived the addition of females to the electorate. We should not have eliminated the class division of houses, we should have added to it. Then we could compromise rather than conduct ideological warfare, class warfare, and gender warfare. And the results of these polls would be obvious.