Theme: Institution

  • “Curt: What about (religion).”– I think I have it figured out. It’s a matter of

    —“Curt: What about (religion).”–

    I think I have it figured out. It’s a matter of content, incentives, and institutions. I think I have worked out the incentives and most of the content. But that will take me as much as another five years or so. There is no rush other than my age and health.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 19:23:00 UTC

  • yep. After 4th grade (10), if not in 4th grade, teachers should come exclusively

    yep. After 4th grade (10), if not in 4th grade, teachers should come exclusively from people with successful life experience (parents, grandparents). this also kill the unions and tenure.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 00:13:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012126742708965377

    Reply addressees: @3Spooki5u @MartialSociety @SelimSeesYou

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012073870772396032


    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/1012073870772396032

  • Commensurability and decidability between individuals

    —“Without shared mythology, values, rituals, signals, institutions, language, culture, and kinship …. without some local commonality in these, there is no commensurability or decidability possible between individuals, and no coincidence of interests, and therefore no cooperation, only conflict.”— Eli Harman Eli hitting it out of the park on that one.

  • Commensurability and decidability between individuals

    —“Without shared mythology, values, rituals, signals, institutions, language, culture, and kinship …. without some local commonality in these, there is no commensurability or decidability possible between individuals, and no coincidence of interests, and therefore no cooperation, only conflict.”— Eli Harman Eli hitting it out of the park on that one.

  • The problem is that it’s also a graph of the exploitation of fossil fuels. It’s

    The problem is that it’s also a graph of the exploitation of fossil fuels. It’s not clear that the entire gain isn’t from accounting, rule of law, capitalism, and the exploitation of fossil fuels. Not to counter your point but to caution against extrapolating it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 23:48:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012120531288690688

    Reply addressees: @SteveStuWill

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012115928274776064


    IN REPLY TO:

    @SteveStuWill

    The Most Important Graph in the World https://t.co/FzIE37EFL2 https://t.co/6eOmvQP4Mu

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012115928274776064

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“Without shared mythology, values, rituals

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —“Without shared mythology, values, rituals, signals, institutions, language, culture, and kinship …. without some local commonality in these, there is no commensurability or decidability possible between individuals, and no coincidence of interests, and therefore no cooperation, only conflict.”— Eli Harman

    Eli hitting it out of the park on that one.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 16:39:07 UTC

  • “Without shared mythology, values, rituals, signals, institutions, language, cul

    —“Without shared mythology, values, rituals, signals, institutions, language, culture, and kinship …. without some local commonality in these, there is no commensurability or decidability possible between individuals, and no coincidence of interests, and therefore no cooperation, only conflict.”— Eli Harman

    Eli hitting it out of the park on that one.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 12:39:00 UTC

  • The Chinese Created Their Cultural Revolution with Violence and Political Intent

    THE CHINESE CREATED THEIR CULTURAL REVOLUTION WITH VIOLENCE AND POLITICAL INTENT. WE DID IT WITH A SELF ORGANIZING MARKET – WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THAT DIFFERENCE? Their ‘Cultural Revolution’ involved granting liberal tolerance to defectors, then rounding them up and brutally killing them in the streets. A uniquely Chinese degree of practical political violence. Their difference in value of individual human life, and intra-cultural trust is evident. A difference we have only attributed to competitive outsiders and religious defectors. Our ‘Cultural Revolution’ (means of identifying defectors, and those with in-group defects) is a free market where the defectors and defective are self-identifying by self-organizing. Where the Chinese exterminated to maintain homogeneity, we can merely politically separate. *Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate.* Look at the current crisis – genocide against our people – as an opportunity to voluntarily exit from the gene pool those costly genes that impede our transcendence into Overmen (gods). Where we could struggle for another thousand years or more to produce a eugenic meritocratic, aristocratic, high trust, high commons, order – we can instead, radically separate not only others, but our own, and make a rapid leap in evolutionary progress. Revel in our time. Few men have the opportunity to leave a mark not only on history – but on the transcendence of mankind. This is the greatest opportunity since the failed construction of Roman Walls. Again – the Chinese succeeded where we have failed; for the simple reason that they use extraordinary violence to produce a hierarchical monopoly, where we use the violence necessary to produce a market of voluntary cooperation. This insight helps us understand not just the Chinese method, but how our method differs, and where it is stronger (innovation and velocity) and where it is weaker (markets make one vulnerable to greed that consumes genetic, cultural, institutional, behavioral, and knowledge capital.)

  • The Chinese Created Their Cultural Revolution with Violence and Political Intent

    THE CHINESE CREATED THEIR CULTURAL REVOLUTION WITH VIOLENCE AND POLITICAL INTENT. WE DID IT WITH A SELF ORGANIZING MARKET – WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THAT DIFFERENCE? Their ‘Cultural Revolution’ involved granting liberal tolerance to defectors, then rounding them up and brutally killing them in the streets. A uniquely Chinese degree of practical political violence. Their difference in value of individual human life, and intra-cultural trust is evident. A difference we have only attributed to competitive outsiders and religious defectors. Our ‘Cultural Revolution’ (means of identifying defectors, and those with in-group defects) is a free market where the defectors and defective are self-identifying by self-organizing. Where the Chinese exterminated to maintain homogeneity, we can merely politically separate. *Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate.* Look at the current crisis – genocide against our people – as an opportunity to voluntarily exit from the gene pool those costly genes that impede our transcendence into Overmen (gods). Where we could struggle for another thousand years or more to produce a eugenic meritocratic, aristocratic, high trust, high commons, order – we can instead, radically separate not only others, but our own, and make a rapid leap in evolutionary progress. Revel in our time. Few men have the opportunity to leave a mark not only on history – but on the transcendence of mankind. This is the greatest opportunity since the failed construction of Roman Walls. Again – the Chinese succeeded where we have failed; for the simple reason that they use extraordinary violence to produce a hierarchical monopoly, where we use the violence necessary to produce a market of voluntary cooperation. This insight helps us understand not just the Chinese method, but how our method differs, and where it is stronger (innovation and velocity) and where it is weaker (markets make one vulnerable to greed that consumes genetic, cultural, institutional, behavioral, and knowledge capital.)

  • Rule of Law Produces Trust, and Trust Produces Opportunity for Risk

    —“Many people keep deploring the low level of formal education in the United states (as defined by, say, math grades). Yet these fail to realize that the new comes from here and gets imitated elsewhere. And it is not thanks to universities, which obviously claim a lot more credit than their accomplishments warrant. Like Britain in the Industrial Revolution, America’s asset is, simply, risk taking and the use of optionality, this remarkable ability to engage in rational forms fo trial and error, with no comparative shame in failing again, starting again, and repeating failure.” ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb,