ETYMOLOGY: “SHUTTER DOG”
In engineering, a dog is a tool or part of a tool that prevents movement or imparts movement by offering physical obstruction or engagement of some kind.
It may hold another object in place by blocking it, clamping it, or otherwise obstructing its… https://t.co/r9mSt6xoMs
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-28 02:51:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254966502672957446
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/94819585_268162841248543_2048228680366292992_n_268162837915210.jpg ETYMOLOGY: “SHUTTER DOG”
In engineering, a dog is a tool or part of a tool that prevents movement or imparts movement by offering physical obstruction or engagement of some kind.
It may hold another object in place by blocking it, clamping it, or otherwise obstructing its movement. Or it may couple various parts together so that they move in unison – the primary example of this being a flexible drive to mate two shafts in order to transmit torque.
This word usage is a metaphor derived from the idea of a dog (animal) biting and holding on, the “dog” name derived from the basic idea of how a dog jaw locks on, by the movement of the jaw, or by the presence of many teeth.
The first shutter dog named the “rat tail shutter dog” was hand forged in Colonial Williamsburg. Made with a hammer and anvil, steel was formed into an elongated hook that spiraled at the bottom. The earliest method of mounting the rat tail shutter dog involved a wrought nail hammered in to a wooden structure. The wrought nail later evolved in to a threaded bolt.ETYMOLOGY: “SHUTTER DOG”
In engineering, a dog is a tool or part of a tool that prevents movement or imparts movement by offering physical obstruction or engagement of some kind.
It may hold another object in place by blocking it, clamping it, or otherwise obstructing its movement. Or it may couple various parts together so that they move in unison – the primary example of this being a flexible drive to mate two shafts in order to transmit torque.
This word usage is a metaphor derived from the idea of a dog (animal) biting and holding on, the “dog” name derived from the basic idea of how a dog jaw locks on, by the movement of the jaw, or by the presence of many teeth.
The first shutter dog named the “rat tail shutter dog” was hand forged in Colonial Williamsburg. Made with a hammer and anvil, steel was formed into an elongated hook that spiraled at the bottom. The earliest method of mounting the rat tail shutter dog involved a wrought nail hammered in to a wooden structure. The wrought nail later evolved in to a threaded bolt.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 22:51:00 UTC
IS IT TRUE YOU NEED A HIGH IQ FOR P? (NO)
—“If I remember correctly, you once stated that an IQ of 120 is required as a bare minimum for having the most basic understanding of Propertarianism. Is this correct? Be honest”—Korey Savoie
I almost wouldn’t answer this because of ‘be honest’. WTF do you think I do all day? At great personal cost. lol 😉
THE INFLUENCE OF IQ
1 – IQ determines time and effort in learning something.
2 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest time and effort in learning the subject.
3 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest in the time and effort of assisting others in their learning of the subject.
So when I say “You need x IQ to understand P” it’s in the context of learning the METHOD along with the group. The 140/150+ crowd can do it quickly. Others not. It is very hard to explain and apply the method. That seems to be a 130/140 requirement. But pretty much anyone can understand everything up to applying it, and I’m not sure other than theoretical mathematicians will understand the underlying logic.
UNDERSTAND WHAT PART OF THE PROJECT?
EVERYONE
The psychology (acquisition) sociology (compatibilism), the Ethics (basic reciprocity, telling the truth), and politics (optimum government)?
MOST EVERYONE
The foundations of western civ in natural law?
The group strategies of different civilizations?
The history? The JQ/20th C attack on our civ?
SOME
The method? Reciprocity? Testimony, the grammars?
The legal method? Strict construction of law?
The constitution?
FEW
Applying and arguing with the method
VERY FEW
The operational description of brain and consciousness?
The logical foundations?
The geometry of thought?
—“Excellent. For some reason I thought you or Bill or Brandon posted a few months ago that an IQ of 120 was required just to scratch the surface. I haven’t been tested, but I assumed mine to be somewhere in the 100-109.”—
Korey Savoie
It’s because if someone ARGUES with us, that requires we resort to using the METHOD and if they can’t use the method we can’t conduct an argument.
So we can understand what it tells us, vs understand how to use it.
You don’t need to undrestand calculus to understand most statistical diagrams. You do if you want to argue against those diagrams.
You don’t need to understand operationalism to undrestand the findings of operational analysis using P-law. You do if you want to argue against those findings.
Understanding WHAT vs understanding HOW.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 09:37:00 UTC
YES. IN THAT SENSE, WITTGENSTEIN IS CORRECT
—“Do you recommend a Wittgenstein approach, a la philosophy just being a misunderstanding of language?”—Caleb Stevenson
Correct. I didnt understand until I’d finished the grammars, and come to the same conclusion, but yes. he’s correct.
Philosophy is either an error, a pseudoscience, or a deceit.
If we instead say that we have a problem of continuously reorganizing our paradigms to accommodate new knowledge, and from that to develop new choices (tactics) of transcendence (evolution) then that is the place I see for philosophical inquiry.
But truth is still a matter of law and its systems of measurement science and mathematics.
All language consists of measurements.
We can measure poorly or well.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 20:44:00 UTC
THE TECHNIQUES: USING SOPHISTRY FOR DECEPTION
Our Logical Facility
… Reason:
… … 1. theology: wisdom: mythology, literary wisdom literature.
… … … theo-sophistry: supernatural sophistry, abrahamism
… … 2. philosophy: choice: realism, naturalism, operationalism, rational choice, reciprocity, completeness
… … … philo-sophistry: Idealism (platonism), textual interpretation, …. philosophical rationalism.
… … 3. Law: testimony: by realism, naturalism, operationalism
… … … legal-sophistry: ( … )
… … 4. science: testimony: by realism, naturalism, operationalism
… … … pseudo-science: material sophistry (…)
… … 5. mathematics:
… … … pseudo-mathematics: (…)
TOOLS OF DECEIT
|Falsehood -> Deceit|:
… Ignorance -> Error >
… … Bias->wishful_thiking >
… … … Loading->framing >
… … … … Suggestion->Obscurantism >
… … … … … Sophistry->Idealism (verbal) >
… … … … … … Magic ->Pseudoscience (physical) >
… … … … … … … Occult-> Supernaturalism (imaginary) >
… … … … … … … … Fiction (fabrication) >
… … … … … … … … … Denial
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 19:19:00 UTC
MALE FEMALE COGNITION IN MATH IS INSIGHTFUL
Very interesting insight into mathematics is that the mathematicians who by far, best explain mathematics as a language are women. While the mathematicians that practice mathematics have a tendency to platonism. This is interesting in that for men the spatial-mathematical world is existential and for women its predominantly verbal. And we see this same differences in gender behavior across the spectrum with women providing empirical insight and men providing theoretical insight. Just as we see in all workplaces women are usually superior at many empirical details and certainty and men are superior at coalescing theoretical innovations and risks.
To educate people in ‘what is math’ (a language of positional names) I would interview four specific women. If I wanted to educate people in the language of logic-proper I’d ask one woman.
If I wanted to extend mathematics from points to geometric combinatorics (i do) I’d interview the same number of men.
Just odd that it’s so obvious when you look at the best people in every field. Same in economics. Elinor Ostrom. Empirical not theoretical. Same in computing. Babbage and his wife. Einstein and his significant other. (My ex-wife Allora and I in biz for that matter.)
Fascinating.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 10:11:00 UTC
DISAMBIGUATION: “P VS APPLIED P”
I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies.
THE METHODOLOGY
1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….)
2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition)
3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed.
… a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution)
… b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars
… c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability
… … c’) The Specification for Man
… d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed
… … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity.
… e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor)
… f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism
… g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis
APPLIED GENERALLY
4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies
5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization.
6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and
APPLIED SPECIFICALLY
7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization.
8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations.
Which thing are you talking about?
If it’s political it’s 7 or 8.
Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time.
That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P.
P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science.
P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories.
So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 09:24:00 UTC
—“English is 4 languages in a trench coat pretending to be one.’—Andrew M Gilmour
—English is an omnivorous language.”—Sawyerr J Biodun
Common German, (Those Who Work)
… Political French, (Those Who Rule)
… … Intellectual Latin and Greek. (Those Who Pray)
And anything else it can mug and rob for new vocabulary like spare change.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 08:36:00 UTC
—“I’m a good example of someone who didn’t learn P, just kept following posts and after around 6 months I can follow posts pretty easily. A lot of the operational terms come up consistently and once you’ve looked up ‘demarcation’ a few times, and seen how it’s used you know what it means. Still haven’t won a King of the Hill yet though, I figure I’ll have to actually learn P to be able to do that.”— Grant Cameron McPhee
Yeah, well, you just illustrated that you learned by playing king of the hill: observing the game until you’re ready to try to make the climb. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO TEACH HUMANS THAN KING OF THE HILL GAMES – IT IS HOW WE EVOLVED TO LEARN
—“I’m a good example of someone who didn’t learn P, just kept following posts and after around 6 months I can follow posts pretty easily. A lot of the operational terms come up consistently and once you’ve looked up ‘demarcation’ a few times, and seen how it’s used you know what it means. Still haven’t won a King of the Hill yet though, I figure I’ll have to actually learn P to be able to do that.”— Grant Cameron McPhee
Yeah, well, you just illustrated that you learned by playing king of the hill: observing the game until you’re ready to try to make the climb. THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO TEACH HUMANS THAN KING OF THE HILL GAMES – IT IS HOW WE EVOLVED TO LEARN