Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the C

    The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the Courtyard House is the Ultimate Multi-Generational home design, and that the Courtyard Block of ‘interior facing condos’, or exterior facing Town Homes, is the ultimate Multi-Family Intergenerational home design, and we have all been trying to develop farm houses, which were not homes but small businesses; and manor houses, which were medium and large sized businesses, and our aesthetic is for farm houses, and for Manors despite the fact that we no longer have farms, or conduct business from our homes – and in particular, do not have six children per woman, and household servants to assist in training, clothing, and feeding them. I’ve been drawing home designs since I was nine (I satisfied my OCD by 3d construction drawings of our many Victorian Homes, and guessing at the internal wood construction. What is scary, even knowing myself now, is that because I was working for my father as a delivery runner, I knew every house in town from memory, and could do the drawings from memory. And I think I have only lost that facility because I simply don’t use it.) But it became obvious to me, after living in a courtyard home, that it is the perfect solution to home design. It is not as cheap as two story winter-weather standing homes, but it is infinitely more desirable to live in. Particularly as diversity increases and trust and norms decrease. 1 – Long house (territorial family) 2 – Courtyard TownHomes (non-territorial family) 2 – Courtyard House (intergenerational non-territorial family) 3 – Courtyard Homes (multiple intergenerational non territorial families.)

  • The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the C

    The irony that the Long House is the Ultimate Family home design, and that the Courtyard House is the Ultimate Multi-Generational home design, and that the Courtyard Block of ‘interior facing condos’, or exterior facing Town Homes, is the ultimate Multi-Family Intergenerational home design, and we have all been trying to develop farm houses, which were not homes but small businesses; and manor houses, which were medium and large sized businesses, and our aesthetic is for farm houses, and for Manors despite the fact that we no longer have farms, or conduct business from our homes – and in particular, do not have six children per woman, and household servants to assist in training, clothing, and feeding them.

    I’ve been drawing home designs since I was nine (I satisfied my OCD by 3d construction drawings of our many Victorian Homes, and guessing at the internal wood construction. What is scary, even knowing myself now, is that because I was working for my father as a delivery runner, I knew every house in town from memory, and could do the drawings from memory. And I think I have only lost that facility because I simply don’t use it.)

    But it became obvious to me, after living in a courtyard home, that it is the perfect solution to home design. It is not as cheap as two story winter-weather standing homes, but it is infinitely more desirable to live in. Particularly as diversity increases and trust and norms decrease.

    1 – Long house (territorial family)

    2 – Courtyard TownHomes (non-territorial family)

    2 – Courtyard House (intergenerational non-territorial family)

    3 – Courtyard Homes (multiple intergenerational non territorial families.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 10:45:00 UTC

  • What Will Happen If All The Black People Become White And Vice Versa, Permanently On The 1st Of February 2018?

    The world economy would crash, the justice system and the government would collapse. Why? look at the data.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-will-happen-if-all-the-black-people-become-white-and-vice-versa-permanently-on-the-1st-of-February-2018

  • “The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop

    —“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”— i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.

  • “The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop

    —“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”— i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.

  • “The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop

    —“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”—

    i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 05:22:00 UTC

  • Don’t be daft. It’s because we have signlaning power over our kin group, but we

    Don’t be daft. It’s because we have signlaning power over our kin group, but we do NOT have signaling power over outgroups. Signals create norms. No signals. No norms. No norms, devolution of social capital.

  • SEEN AND UNSEEN. Why do we have licensing?

    SEEN AND UNSEEN.
    Why do we have licensing?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 13:27:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955431842722725889

    Reply addressees: @campusevangel @IJ @EconTalker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955231913161121792

    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/955231913161121792

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein