Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • Is There A Biological Category Between “race” And “population Group”?

    Races refer to visible differences in physical characteristics that define one as kin or non-kin, and causes us to respond according to our sensitivity to kin selection.

    We generally divide people in to major races (four), sub-races (at least thirty), and then into regional or tribal groups, and then into clan, groups.

    So the axis of decidability in race is kin selection: demonstration of genetic affiliation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, politics, ‘religion’, and war.

    By contrast, a ‘population group’ is a political and demographic term, invented in the era of ‘political correctness’ as an alternative to the use of the word ‘race’ or ‘subrace’, or ‘mixed race’ primarily because of crossbreeding that is producing various overlapping subgroups in this period of world migrations. It is not a term that refers to the demonstration of kin selection behavior by humans (and all other animals).

    So as far as I know “population group” is a catch all term for the current era and the correct terminology for any subset would simply be “population sub group”, or whatever variation you feel you audience would comprehend. And I would recommend resisting the temptation to creative terminology that attempts to add scientific categorization for that which we cannot currently categorize.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-biological-category-between-race-and-population-group

  • How Does Civilization Lead To Racism?

    As we developed polities, economies, empires, and civilizations we cooperate in greater numbers, with greater anonymity, first across families, then tribes, then nations, and then races.

    People in every region, in every race, in every era act POLITICALLY as a group even if they act pragmatically when acting individually in daily life.

    The more possible it is to use political, economic, or military power to increase status for a group, the more likely it is to cause racial tensions.

    Those states that have been most successful at minimizing racial and tribal tensions have been those that preserve majority control of political, economic, and military institutions such that while people may cooperate as individuals, they cannot compete as groups.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-civilization-lead-to-racism

  • Is There A Biological Category Between “race” And “population Group”?

    Races refer to visible differences in physical characteristics that define one as kin or non-kin, and causes us to respond according to our sensitivity to kin selection.

    We generally divide people in to major races (four), sub-races (at least thirty), and then into regional or tribal groups, and then into clan, groups.

    So the axis of decidability in race is kin selection: demonstration of genetic affiliation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, politics, ‘religion’, and war.

    By contrast, a ‘population group’ is a political and demographic term, invented in the era of ‘political correctness’ as an alternative to the use of the word ‘race’ or ‘subrace’, or ‘mixed race’ primarily because of crossbreeding that is producing various overlapping subgroups in this period of world migrations. It is not a term that refers to the demonstration of kin selection behavior by humans (and all other animals).

    So as far as I know “population group” is a catch all term for the current era and the correct terminology for any subset would simply be “population sub group”, or whatever variation you feel you audience would comprehend. And I would recommend resisting the temptation to creative terminology that attempts to add scientific categorization for that which we cannot currently categorize.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-biological-category-between-race-and-population-group

  • How Does Civilization Lead To Racism?

    As we developed polities, economies, empires, and civilizations we cooperate in greater numbers, with greater anonymity, first across families, then tribes, then nations, and then races.

    People in every region, in every race, in every era act POLITICALLY as a group even if they act pragmatically when acting individually in daily life.

    The more possible it is to use political, economic, or military power to increase status for a group, the more likely it is to cause racial tensions.

    Those states that have been most successful at minimizing racial and tribal tensions have been those that preserve majority control of political, economic, and military institutions such that while people may cooperate as individuals, they cannot compete as groups.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-civilization-lead-to-racism

  • MY POSITION ON THE JEWISH QUESTION (revised and updated) ( Hint: My position is

    MY POSITION ON THE JEWISH QUESTION

    (revised and updated)

    ( Hint: My position is the same toward every out group. )

    I WILL BRUTALLY MANAGE THIS THREAD AGAINST STUPIDITY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-03 10:12:00 UTC

  • You are so interesting because you speak in both levantine and western cognitive

    You are so interesting because you speak in both levantine and western cognitive tendencies as the same time. -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 21:42:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837417916526182401

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837123578634125312

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    Skin in the game, almost finished https://t.co/6sEm1JDeWg

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837123578634125312

  • When you discuss cultural deltas I hear (a) levantine low trust with (b) mathema

    When you discuss cultural deltas I hear (a) levantine low trust with (b) mathematical and literary platonism. Not Natural Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 21:41:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837417512526626816

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837123578634125312

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    Skin in the game, almost finished https://t.co/6sEm1JDeWg

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837123578634125312

  • EUROPE AND EAST ASIA ‘HAVE DONE BETTER’ BECAUSE OF TERRITORIAL ADVANTAGE WITHIN

    EUROPE AND EAST ASIA ‘HAVE DONE BETTER’ BECAUSE OF TERRITORIAL ADVANTAGE WITHIN GEOGRAPHIC FORTRESSES

    Fortress Europa obtained non-territorial advantage by:

    A COLLECTION of hypotheses that include:

    a) europeans have higher neuroticism (creativity)

    b) europeans have lower clannishness (dislike of outsiders)

    c) europeans have dramatically reduced the size of the underclass ( produced a higher distribution of Iq, and lower distribution of testosterone)

    d) there seems to be a longstanding IQ advantage in the north and an intellectual tradition into pre-history in the british isles (the ‘athens’ of pre-literate europe).

    e) the yamnaya brought aryanism (realism, sovereignty, martial rule, hierarchical organization, testimony, jury, common law ) to europe. And that this has been our most meaningful competitive advantage.

    f) that each wave of europeans out of Ukraine has been as much an ‘improvement’ over the prior as each wave out of Africa was an ‘improvement’ over the prior – for the same reason; africa and the steppe are brutal evolutionary furnaces.

    As far as I know all these hypotheses survive all possible scrutiny without requiring a particular genetic advantage other than perhaps reduced clannishness common among circumpolar peoples.

    This is why I adhere to this solution. Because it does not depend upon ‘magical’ genetics evolving by accidental mutation in the european genome, but merely adaptation to local conditions from a marginally indifferent set of homo sapiens in the past.

    As far as I know all human variation is in intensity of expression of possibilities extant already in the genome.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 11:49:00 UTC

  • AS I UNDERSTAND IT THIS IS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF REGIONAL AND NOW TRIBAL,

    AS I UNDERSTAND IT THIS IS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF REGIONAL AND NOW TRIBAL, GROUP GENETICS.

    As far as I know all human variation is demonstrably caused by little more than the intensity of expression of possibilities extant already in the genome. Despite partial speciation, we did did not complete sufficient physical speciation for typical classification because our primary means of speciation migrated from the physical to the conceptual, and the conceptual is highly affected by the distribution (norm) and therefore physical expression required little physical mutation in the genome, only substantial modification of the mind post birth. These changes have been consistently selected for whenever possible and they universally favor selection for youthfulness (fertility), which is achieved by delaying the intensity of maturity. A point which asians have unfortunately probably exceeded and whites have approached with dangerous proximity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 11:45:00 UTC

  • DATA YOU WANT ON THE WEST VS THE REST Via William Butchman As Butch mentioned ab

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/09/civilization-powered-by-the-west-threatened-by-the-rest/?fb_action_ids=1717545211841844&fb_action_types=og.commentsTHE DATA YOU WANT ON THE WEST VS THE REST

    Via William Butchman

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/09/civilization-powered-by-the-west-threatened-by-the-rest/?fb_action_ids=1717545211841844&fb_action_types=og.comments

    As Butch mentioned above, (I just saw this post tonight, on March 1st) I’m increasingly confident that what accounts for the west consistently competing faster than ‘the rest’ is sovereignty, and its requirement for deflationary truth, and everything else results from it. The question is, why does it appear that westerners to have had this rather aristotelian bias “realism” or “military epistemology” even into prehistory? The only explanation that fits consists of a small number of related traits: (a) the lack of clannishness that seems to be a predisposition of near-arctic peoples everywhere in the upper hemisphere, (b) the long term use of metallurgy outside of the authoritarian mysticism necessary to organize irrigation in the river valleys, and (c) the battle tactics of raiders who family-financed bronze, horse, and wheel: beginning with voluntary membership in the ‘venture’, selection of leaders (generals), contractual adherence to promised battle plans even at risk of death, contractual distribution of proceeds from battle, and the merciless demands of military epistemology – a discipline we still practice in basic training today: testimony.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 22:51:00 UTC