Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • He hasn’t got the chops. He’s already under economic pressure. He doesn’t feel a

    He hasn’t got the chops. He’s already under economic pressure. He doesn’t feel able to move off his ‘soft’ position any faster than he does. And he has no reason to transfer attention to me that he wants to keep for himself. I understand. BUT WE NEED TO MOVE FAST NOW.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 18:36:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187800225299210243

    Reply addressees: @h0b0spic3s @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187797697631326208

    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/1187797697631326208

  • THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGTH —“That is the problem with the egalita

    THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGTH

    —“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=492657594664469&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 18:32:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187799035266162688

  • The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possib

    The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital.

    In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason.

    I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion.

    The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity.

    The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism.

    We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital.

    All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 16:29:00 UTC

  • THE PAST CHALLENGE OF BRINGING WOMEN INTO, AND KEEPING THEM IN, PROPERTARIANISM

    THE PAST CHALLENGE OF BRINGING WOMEN INTO, AND KEEPING THEM IN, PROPERTARIANISM

    —“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉

    Awesome.

    It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy.

    Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created. 　 )

    The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive.

    Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes.

    Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions.,

    So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’.

    I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 16:01:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT —“That is the problem with the egalita

    THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT

    —“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital.

    (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!)

    This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them.

    This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:32:00 UTC

  • TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS People are rational actors acting in their rational sel

    TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS

    People are rational actors acting in their rational self interests, that observe the minimum conformance to rule, procedure, norm, tradition, regulation, legislation, and law, necessary to preserve their status in the social order. Period. End of Story. Good luck falsifying it.

    People are not good, ethical, or moral. They are amoral. They discover what is in their self interest within the environmental limits and congratulate themselves for the content of their character (self image).

    This is the empirical evidence from all people in all cultures, in all countries, in all civilizations, across all of history.

    The civilization of man was performed by the incremental provision of incentives to find self congratulation in minimum accomodation of the various systems of rules, by the incremental evolution of law, norm, and custom to suppress as many opportunities for bad, unethical, immoral, conduct as affordable by the polity, and where incentives are possible to construct. Hence the necessity of sheriffs and policemen and populations increased in anonymity.

    We must govern amoral humans because all are amoral.

    Ergo we must govern pessimistically so that we continuously evolve the suppression of irreciprocity (the bad, unethical, immoral) as quickly as we evolve new methods of bad, unethical and immoral behavior.

    Optimism is why progressive governments fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 20:20:00 UTC

  • THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P There is nothing in psychology, sociology, eth

    THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P

    There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=491841631412732&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:47:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187380057607684097

  • THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but

    THE ECONOMICS OF DATING

    AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they bias the attention in the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=491841378079424&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:47:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187379977861435392

  • Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group str

    Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:43:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187379171565150208

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187378861903884288

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DegenRolf There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187378861903884288

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DegenRolf There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187378861903884288

  • There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy t

    There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:42:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187378861903884288

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DegenRolf So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money monopolize attention, and increase women’s competition.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DegenRolf So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money monopolize attention, and increase women’s competition.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987