Curt Doolittle

Theme: Incentives

  • So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group socia

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:41:08 UTC

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

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DegenRolf 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 relationship, or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention = Access to social opportunity.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DegenRolf 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 relationship, or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention = Access to social opportunity.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833

  • AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can affor

    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 relationship, or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention = Access to social opportunity.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:39:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187233189569421312

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    Do women find wealthy men more attractive in a dating context? Not if they come straight out with their bank account. https://t.co/KzOp9GO7Uo https://t.co/UlMPr43Vhf

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187233189569421312

  • GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION The brain functions by a market f

    GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION

    The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with urgent attention provided by fears, and long term attention provided by incentives. Attention is easier for men because we compartmentalize our brains with less interaction, and harder for women because their brains are more integrated. Worse, the ability to suppress impulse from the frontal region and back to the hippocampal region and own to the thalamus varies by individual regardless of gender. Worse, men are more dominant and less agreeable by a bit, and as such are more likely to express physical urgencies, where women verbal urgencies.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 11:15:00 UTC

  • 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 attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion.

    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 garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition.

    Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly.

    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.

    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.

    The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 10:46:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS

    PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS SUICIDAL

    —“… so People figured out the game was a losing battle & decided to withdraw from society &… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=491296481467247&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 20:33:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187104895775772674

  • Like anything else, proportional taxation and proportional insurance – as long a

    Like anything else, proportional taxation and proportional insurance – as long as costs and returns are shared we continue to support each other. We just must eliminate free riding on top as well as bottom.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 19:09:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187083563910516736

    Reply addressees: @fryskefilosoof

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @fryskefilosoof Great question. (a) yes the family, otherwise we have the rapid expansion of bad families like we have in the 20th. (b) That does not mean that if a family’s means of provision of care are exhausted we cannot insure the family from destitution – that’s irreciprocal (moral hazard)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @fryskefilosoof Great question. (a) yes the family, otherwise we have the rapid expansion of bad families like we have in the 20th. (b) That does not mean that if a family’s means of provision of care are exhausted we cannot insure the family from destitution – that’s irreciprocal (moral hazard)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387

  • ARGUMENTUM AD THEOLOGICUM (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible) We al

    ARGUMENTUM AD THEOLOGICUM

    (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible)

    We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal.

    In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law.

    We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer.

    When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for:

    (a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting …

    … Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony.

    … And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution.

    So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon.

    There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology.

    There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments.

    That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises.

    Not much to do about it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 18:20:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS

    PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS SUICIDAL

    —“… so People figured out the game was a losing battle & decided to withdraw from society & their obligations to that society? So People have chosen an easier route, stop including those which make their lives harder… So we grow cold toward on another?”—Mak McDaddy @MakMcdaddy

    We don’t just go cold (a feminine concern), we go to war (a masculine concern).

    People chose to follow their interests, which were interests created deliberately by our enemies: undermine rule of law, trust, norms, traditions, and the intergenerational family as the central institution of society, b/c of its natural effect of limiting parasitism and dysgenia.

    The used Marxism to undermine compromise between the classes, Feminism to undermine compromise between genders, Postmodernism to undermine identities, families, traditions, eugenics, science, and truth itself – and outright denial (political correctness) to suppress debate.

    Progressivism = lying and undermining for the purpose of hyperconsumption, largely of virtue signals.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 16:33:00 UTC

  • RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very

    RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK

    How much more evidence d’ y’all need.

    I’m very good at what I do.

    Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking.

    The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!!Updated Oct 23, 2019, 4:04 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 16:04:00 UTC

  • THE MARKET DEMAND FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELIGION 1. The market demand for per

    THE MARKET DEMAND FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELIGION

    1. The market demand for personal mindfulness (Spiritualism) whether empathic-femining (theological), moral-masculine(rational), or… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490402481556647&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 16:38:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186683245909413888