Theme: Education

  • (NLI, IRONY) Ok. Brad and I have just finished two chapters on ‘stupidity’ – whi

    (NLI, IRONY)
    Ok. Brad and I have just finished two chapters on ‘stupidity’ – which, is the falsificationary equivalent of studying IQ. And in doing so we have explained the hierarchy of malincentives across the structure of the population and the resulting affect on humility, morality, and competency.

    I wasn’t even sure we should include this topic in the volume at all, but it turns out it’s one of the most important in the work. (Certainly the most … painful)

    This is one of those ‘Never count your chickens’ bits of wisdom. Instead, just follow the logic of causal disambiguation until it’s exhausted by reduction to first principles. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-08 17:53:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1931771601965748499

  • Quite a few of them. There is a video on it on our YT channel under The Method p

    Quite a few of them. There is a video on it on our YT channel under The Method playlist, and in the videos covering “Terms”.
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=VqhkEP
    mhXLw&list=PLnyifULzMnvkreeTqzEOBaAW4f0oWy0B4

    Though I think you misunderstand: “Disambiguation by operationalization, serialization, and adversarialism” – it means we make definitions unambiguous and non overlapping so that they are ‘deflationary’ (non inflationary and closed to ambiguity).

    This is part of ensuring that when we speak we are doing so commensurably because our terms are commensurable. And it defends against most sophistry by substitution, conflation, and inflation.

    To test truth we test the testifiability of the ten or so dimensions humans can possibly testify to. So between the unambiguousness of terms, the truth test, the reciprocity test, and the first principles exposed by the ternary logic of evolutionary computation, we can pretty much test every statement for whether it’s a possible truth claim – and better – we can determine the motive to deceive if one claims the unjustifiable as true.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 18:03:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929962152166863098

  • Most of the intro articles we’re producing are here on substack. I didn’t think

    Most of the intro articles we’re producing are here on substack. I didn’t think of sending you there immediately. But it’s a good choice.

    https://curtdoolittle.substack.com


    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 17:30:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929953903405347206

  • If it was simple someone would have done it before. There are foundation videos

    If it was simple someone would have done it before.
    There are foundation videos on our youtube channel.
    You can follow me and the rest of the team, and look through my (our) past articles and posts.
    Or you can wait until we publish volumes 1 and 2 this fall.
    The information is all publicly available but the books present the information in organized form.
    If you can ask this caliber of questions you have been, with a bit of work, understand it. The outline of it all is quite simple, using it as a methodology just takes ‘relearning’.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 17:25:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929952640454275375

  • Minor clarification. I was referring to ghe “Introduction” to the chapter. 🙂 Ev

    Minor clarification. I was referring to ghe “Introduction” to the chapter. 🙂 Every chapter starts with an introduction, a list of takeaways, and follows a five step outline of causes and consequences culminating in an explanation of how they work as a system. Followed by a summary, list of concepts covered, and transition to the next chapter. I use lots of headings, subheadings, bullet point lists and tables for easy scanning.

    Now, the underlying argument is quite simple. But the knowledge it requires to understand its simplicity – and to understand it persuasively because it’s written as causal proofs – well, that’s the hard part. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-26 20:29:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1927099745392082983

  • The Cost of Comprehension as Technology Increases in Complexity Civilization sca

    The Cost of Comprehension as Technology Increases in Complexity

    Civilization scales by compressing complexity into habits, institutions, and tools. But each leap in technological and epistemic capability increases the minimum cost of participation in its systems. That cost is cognitive. The present age—the age of ubiquitous computation, AI acceleration, and global informational abundance—confronts us with a novel problem: the cognitive demands of cooperation now exceed the abilities of much of the population.
    We are entering a crisis not of production, coordination, or energy—but of comprehension.
    Civilizations rise and stabilize by matching the cognitive demands of their environment with the cognitive capacities of their people. Each increase in knowledge or institutional scale raises those demands.
    Each stage reduces the fraction of the population able to function without augmentation. Today, even the most basic jobs require toolchain interaction, abstraction, and decision filtering that exceed the capability of many.
    Each stage reflects a transformation along the following dimensions:
    a progressive reduction in the
    need for subjective narrative closure and an increase in the capacity for decidable, testifiable action within an increasingly intelligible universe.
    1. Compression of Error:
      Each step increases compression of ignorance, error, and bias. We move from:
      Projection from the selfprojection from the godsprojection from logicmeasurement from the world itselfoperations in the world by cost and consequence.
    2. Expansion of Commensurability:
      From
      qualitative similarity (analogy) → to ordinal hierarchy (theology) → to dimensional reasoning (philosophy and science) → to operational sequence and recursive prediction (operationalism).
      This progression
      increases the dimensionality of possible statements that are testable and decidable.
    3. Evolution of Decidability:
      Early stages provided undecidable closure (myths/theology) to preserve social cohesion.
      Later stages replaced closure with
      progressive decidability—trading comfort for truth and ambiguity for precision.
    4. Transformation in Confidence:
      Confidence shifts from faith in agency (gods/kings) to faith in process (reason, law) to faith in reality’s regularity (science) to faith in our own ability to compute actions and consequences (operationalism).
      We move from
      dependence on external justification to internal accountability in demonstrated results.
    • Myth provided meaning in a world too complex to model.
    • Theology provided order in a world too chaotic to regulate by norms alone.
    • Philosophy provided structure to argue over alternatives.
    • Empiricism provided grounding by replacing abstraction with accumulation of observations.
    • Science provided certainty by enabling us to falsify, not merely believe.
    • Operationalism provides sufficiency—by ensuring not just that we know, but that we can construct, repeat, and account for our actions and their consequences.
    1. The Universe Did Not Change—We Did:
      Our perception has evolved from one of
      participatory subjugation (we live in a world ruled by incomprehensible forces) to one of participatory sovereignty (we act in a world governed by intelligible processes).
    2. The Function of Thought Evolved:
      From comforting explanation → to moral constraint → to rational coordination → to predictive capacity → to actionable accountability.
    3. Human Confidence Mirrors Human Commensurability:
      The more we can reduce the universe to measurable, operational relations, the greater our
      confidence to act without discretion, and to act across increasingly abstract domains.
    4. The Demand for Infallibility Increases:
      Each transition increases the
      burden of proof, narrowing the range of acceptable justification from myth to model to machinery.
    • Each stage does not eliminate the prior—it subsumes and refactors it:
      – Myth lives in literature.
      – Theology lives in norms.
      – Philosophy governs institutional discourse.
      – Empiricism fuels data pipelines.
      – Science builds models.
      – Operationalism directs systems.
    • Civilization is the progressive institutionalization of this epistemic hierarchy—each stage enabling greater cooperation through greater decidability at greater scale.
    A. Historical Pattern: Increases in Knowledge Raise the Cost of Participation
    • In the Agrarian world, ~80% could contribute under apprenticeship and imitation.
    • In the Industrial world, ~60–70% could participate after basic education and training.
    • In the Post-Industrial world, functional contribution dropped as symbolic systems required higher abstraction (logic, software, symbolic management).
    • In the AI age, contribution requires:
      Systemic thinking
      Bayesian intuition
      Toolchain adaptation
      Epistemic humility + procedural trust
    Consequence:
    The minimum viable cognition to meaningfully participate is likely beyond:
    • 30–40% of the population without copilot augmentation.
    • 50–60% of the population without continuous retraining and reconfiguration.
    A. What AI is Doing:
    1. Compressing domain-specific knowledge into toolchains.
    2. Eliminating roles based on memory or procedural repetition.
    3. Requiring human cognition to shift from execution to navigation, curation, and goal-setting.
    B. What the Mass of Humanity is Facing:
    • Dissonance between:
      What the
      market demands (adaptive cognition).
      What the
      population possesses (domain-specific repetition and belief-based cognition).
    • Most people can’t interpret ambiguity and statistical inference.
    • Most people aren’t trained to distinguish model error from operational noise.
    • Most people aren’t epistemically literate—trained in what not to believe.

    A. Destruction of Simple Labor:
    • Farming jobs: eliminated by industrial machinery.
    • Retail jobs: hollowed out by automation and e-commerce.
    • Manufacturing: increasingly requires CNC-level procedural and digital interface skills.
    • White-collar roles: AI is dissolving mid-tier symbolic labor (clerks, analysts, managers).
    B. Rise of Adaptive Labor:
    Remaining labor requires:
    • Navigational use of complex toolchains.
    • Dynamic adaptation to interfaces and processes.
    • Cognitive resilience under ambiguity.
    • Bayesian inference (cost, probability, tradeoffs).
    C. The Core Problem:
    This is no longer a problem of will, culture, or training alone. It is structural.
    A class system based on fluid but hardened cognitive castes:
    • Top: Goal-setters, modelers, system architects.
    • Middle: Operators, toolchain curators.
    • Bottom: Symbolic or procedural dependents.
    Outcome: Political instability, status resentment, legitimacy collapse.
    AI copilots tailored to:
    • Scaffold comprehension.
    • Reduce decision complexity.
    • Teach and test boundaries of actions.
    Outcome: Extended productivity for majority, but risk of de-skilling and dependency.
    Retreat to:
    • Religious, mythic, or ideological simplifications.
    • Narratives over mechanisms.
    • Coercive hierarchies to enforce low-information compliance.
    Outcome: Technological stagnation, authoritarian regressions, vulnerability to more cognitively scalable civilizations.
    A. Redesign Education
    • Teach navigation, not facts; teach testing, not belief.
    • Embed epistemic hygiene and model testing.
    • From memorization and obedience → to exploration, discernment, and toolchain fluency.
    • Train for problem decomposition and continuous adaptation, not careers.
    • Replace career training with adaptive reasoning training.
    B. Build Cognitive Copilots
    • AI copilots must not just answer, but teach epistemic hygiene, scope awareness, and limits of models.
    • Think of copilots as functional epistemic interfaces between median human cognition and exponential complexity.
    • AI as epistemic prosthetics.
    • Guide humans through complex environments by affordance, not explanation.
    C. Institutional Adaptation
    • Shift from deliberative justification → outcome auditability. Ensure that decisions are auditable rather than explainable.
    • Reduce legal and political surface area for decision-making.
    • Embed AI accountability inside institutions to close the loop between complexity and visibility.
    D. Recognition of Cognitive Capital as the New Scarcity:
    • The limit to growth is not energy, food, or data.
    • It is trained minds capable of safe, adaptive cooperation at scale.
    The singularity is not technological. It is civilizational incapacity to cognitively scale with the tools it has produced. We have built a civilization of exponential knowledge, recursive optimization, and ubiquitous interface—but the minds to navigate it remain biological, evolved for myth and mimicry.
    Civilization is no longer constrained by resources. It is constrained by the intelligence of its population relative to the complexity of its systems.
    The Demand Curve of Cognitive Capital
    This is the real singularity:
    Not technological, but
    civilizational incapacity to cognitively scale with the tools it has produced.
    This is the cost of comprehension. And it is the price we must now learn how to pay—or collapse under.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-16 16:42:09 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1923418705033347260

  • RT @dr_duchesne: In 2012, I concluded the great replacement was real and that un

    RT @dr_duchesne: In 2012, I concluded the great replacement was real and that universities, including the one where I taught, were fosterin…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-13 00:10:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922081879877882314

  • RT @bryan_caplan: Arguably the biggest change in higher ed in my lifetime: IQs o

    RT @bryan_caplan: Arguably the biggest change in higher ed in my lifetime: IQs of humanities profs have crashed.

    Back in the 80s, even E…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-12 10:22:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921873559036604487

  • I dunno. I am old enough that I have watched the impact of education and the int

    I dunno. I am old enough that I have watched the impact of education and the internet and, and I am watching the conversion and abandonment data. My view is that if islam has the reformation you mention that it can achieve parity at least with india. But i mean, i study this subject in painful detail, and an 84IQ population without really good secular government is going to have a very hard time. India is at least partly indo-european just like Persia used to be. And they have a c ulture that is far superior for the purpose of modernization.

    SO I’ll hold out hope. 😉

    Reply addressees: @White_Kaay @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-10 03:15:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921041367746441217

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921038330264744053


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921038330264744053

  • HMM. THE UTILITY OF STORYTELLING. It’s more that they’re universally accessible

    HMM. THE UTILITY OF STORYTELLING.
    It’s more that they’re universally accessible and they are accessible without specialist experience, study, or training.
    It’s also more that they convey general principles more successfully (intuitively) even if they convey specifics poorly.
    It’s also that all communication is in some sense storytelling. The question is, the degree of abstraction.

    As such empathically accessible stories are more accessible and superior for conveyance of psychological content, while abstract accessible stories are superior for content that is NOT empathically accessible.

    “Or as we say, calculus is hard. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Superstition, Sophistry and Deceit are easy. That doesn’t mean they’re right.”

    Not everything can be dumbed down. However it is possible that everything important to teach a five year old about successfully (and morally) navigating life can be. 😉 There is more genius in Aesop than there is in most of the books of philosophical discourse.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-10 02:32:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1921030573801541632

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920859142496960926


    IN REPLY TO:

    @whatifalthist

    On a neurological basis, and this is where Jordan Peterson was genuinely an academic trailblazer before he became a political pundit, humans prioritize stories since they’re one of the most antifragile ways to convey info in a complex ways. Basically the story is the only way to convey large amounts of information in a way with high context and detail. This is why the field of history has for thousands of years percolated across the general public while science or metaphysics have not. That’s since the narrative structure of how humans live history is infinitely more comprehensible to people than a science textbook. If science develops a way to narrative itself, it will be the best thing for human progress since the public will be passively aware of scientific concepts which will raise the computational power of the culture engine enormously.

    The story of the Bible is an easy example where it shows what did and didn’t work over Jewish history as a sort of play through video game model for how society or life works. Lord of the Rings can encapsulate highly complex theme of modern times or western civilization that would take an academic thousands of pages to explain intellectually, subconsciously added to the collective zeitgeist. Human society operates through empathy and stories are the most powerful empathic tools

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920859142496960926