Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers

  • Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers

  • Why We Failed

    WHY WE FAILED. All men are comprehensible. All men are rational within their limits.

    And as rational we choose what is in our interests whether moral or immoral. And we create institutions that increase the cost of the immoral. So that it is rational to choose the moral. The problem of the twentieth century is that we eliminated the normative prohibition on libel, slander, ridicule, shaming, rallying, lying, pseudoscience, and propaganda. And caused the industrialization of profiting from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, rallying, shaming, and deceit. The reason for our failure is visible in retrospect as an inability to switch from traditional and moral justification in societies with relationships at human scale, to warranty of due diligence by thorough criticism of statements pertaining to cause and consequence when relationships exceeded human scale under the industrial revolution. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Why We Failed

    WHY WE FAILED. All men are comprehensible. All men are rational within their limits.

    And as rational we choose what is in our interests whether moral or immoral. And we create institutions that increase the cost of the immoral. So that it is rational to choose the moral. The problem of the twentieth century is that we eliminated the normative prohibition on libel, slander, ridicule, shaming, rallying, lying, pseudoscience, and propaganda. And caused the industrialization of profiting from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, rallying, shaming, and deceit. The reason for our failure is visible in retrospect as an inability to switch from traditional and moral justification in societies with relationships at human scale, to warranty of due diligence by thorough criticism of statements pertaining to cause and consequence when relationships exceeded human scale under the industrial revolution. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Harsh Talk for Spreading Lies

    HARSH TALK FOR SPREADING LIES (staying on message: different institutions for different distributions) It isn’t. It’s judged by the dominance of its race in failures of education, crime, civic behavior, business achievement, intellectual achievement, and artistic and literary achievement.

    The east Asian and western Europeans have aggressively killed off their lower classes through winters, starvation, enslavement, hanging, beheading, war, and a very severe justice system for thousands of years. The rest of the world has not. So the size of the underclasses in the black, Arabic, Turkic, Hispanic, and southeast Asian worlds is far higher a percentage than in the more northern climes. West and east were eugenic civilizations. Rice is a brutal system requiring disciplined work 360 days a year. Western winters are unforgiving. We know the reasons for black underclass achievement: (a) the disproportionate size of the black underclass below 85 IQ, and the comparatively small sizes of its middle and upper middle classes, and total absence of an upper class, (b) earlier and more rapid maturity accompanied by the same level of hormones, leading to impulsivity and aggression, (c) lower verbal intelligence, (d) lower aggregate intelligence, (e) destruction of the black family by the progressive programs of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs of the 1960’s – his attempt to mimic soviet resettlement programs from villages to urban areas without grasping the vast differences in Russian and black human capital. (f) the attempt to educate different races that mature more or less, more quickly or more slowly, at the same age under the same conditions. Educate black and Hispanic men in what equates to military training and you will get good men out of it. You cannot ask humans in their youth to fight hormones that intense. Educating pliable Asians and less pliable and more physical whites at the same rates is equally destructive. We can start Asians and east Asians one to two years earlier than whites, and it’s arguable that we should provide two more years for Hispanics and three for blacks. It prevents schools from tailoring programs to the genetic needs of the children. As a gentleman, I will try to refrain from chastising you for posing this question as a lie, in order to perpetuate a lie, for the purpose of causing people to believe a lie. But if lying on matters of public policy were punishable, you’d be incarcerated for this one. We get nowhere by lying that we’re equally distributed. It’s liberal lies of equality that prevent us from developing institutions that support the needs of different genetic organisms, with different rates of maturity, different degrees of maturity, and different sizes of underclass. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute My job is to prevent lies in public discourse that prevent us from coming to compromises on policies.

  • Harsh Talk for Spreading Lies

    HARSH TALK FOR SPREADING LIES (staying on message: different institutions for different distributions) It isn’t. It’s judged by the dominance of its race in failures of education, crime, civic behavior, business achievement, intellectual achievement, and artistic and literary achievement.

    The east Asian and western Europeans have aggressively killed off their lower classes through winters, starvation, enslavement, hanging, beheading, war, and a very severe justice system for thousands of years. The rest of the world has not. So the size of the underclasses in the black, Arabic, Turkic, Hispanic, and southeast Asian worlds is far higher a percentage than in the more northern climes. West and east were eugenic civilizations. Rice is a brutal system requiring disciplined work 360 days a year. Western winters are unforgiving. We know the reasons for black underclass achievement: (a) the disproportionate size of the black underclass below 85 IQ, and the comparatively small sizes of its middle and upper middle classes, and total absence of an upper class, (b) earlier and more rapid maturity accompanied by the same level of hormones, leading to impulsivity and aggression, (c) lower verbal intelligence, (d) lower aggregate intelligence, (e) destruction of the black family by the progressive programs of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs of the 1960’s – his attempt to mimic soviet resettlement programs from villages to urban areas without grasping the vast differences in Russian and black human capital. (f) the attempt to educate different races that mature more or less, more quickly or more slowly, at the same age under the same conditions. Educate black and Hispanic men in what equates to military training and you will get good men out of it. You cannot ask humans in their youth to fight hormones that intense. Educating pliable Asians and less pliable and more physical whites at the same rates is equally destructive. We can start Asians and east Asians one to two years earlier than whites, and it’s arguable that we should provide two more years for Hispanics and three for blacks. It prevents schools from tailoring programs to the genetic needs of the children. As a gentleman, I will try to refrain from chastising you for posing this question as a lie, in order to perpetuate a lie, for the purpose of causing people to believe a lie. But if lying on matters of public policy were punishable, you’d be incarcerated for this one. We get nowhere by lying that we’re equally distributed. It’s liberal lies of equality that prevent us from developing institutions that support the needs of different genetic organisms, with different rates of maturity, different degrees of maturity, and different sizes of underclass. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute My job is to prevent lies in public discourse that prevent us from coming to compromises on policies.

  • The Cycle of Orders

    [T]he cycle of history in genes, polities, economies, and knowledge is the same: A new opportunity to exploit is discovered by those capable of exploiting it.

    The innovators profit from the cooperation of followers. The followers and those who profit expand in a hierarchy or school until one of the following occurs: 1 – the ‘market’ opportunity is exhausted, …1.1 – followers who can be incentivised are exhausted, …1.2 – or increases in profits are exhausted, …1.3 – or the resources needed to exploit the opportunity are exhausted. 2 – or the institutions of cooperation (the pricing system) is overwhelmed, resulting in hyper-consumption. 3 – or a shock is encountered sufficient that the order cannot restructure while preserving the incentives to maintain the order; 4 – or Disaster, Plague, Famine, and War create a shock that no order can survive. This is the universal rule of the evolution of orders.

  • The Cycle of Orders

    [T]he cycle of history in genes, polities, economies, and knowledge is the same: A new opportunity to exploit is discovered by those capable of exploiting it.

    The innovators profit from the cooperation of followers. The followers and those who profit expand in a hierarchy or school until one of the following occurs: 1 – the ‘market’ opportunity is exhausted, …1.1 – followers who can be incentivised are exhausted, …1.2 – or increases in profits are exhausted, …1.3 – or the resources needed to exploit the opportunity are exhausted. 2 – or the institutions of cooperation (the pricing system) is overwhelmed, resulting in hyper-consumption. 3 – or a shock is encountered sufficient that the order cannot restructure while preserving the incentives to maintain the order; 4 – or Disaster, Plague, Famine, and War create a shock that no order can survive. This is the universal rule of the evolution of orders.

  • “most governments have been oligarchies – ruled by a minority, chosen either by

    —“most governments have been oligarchies – ruled by a minority,

    chosen either by birth, as in aristocracies, or by a religious

    organization, as in theocracies, or by wealth, as in democracies”— Will Durant

    Cheap Religion, Expensive Law, and Very Expensive Commerce.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-15 09:51:00 UTC

  • @mises That’s not true. It’s possible to save MI and libertarianism. But need to

    @mises That’s not true. It’s possible to save MI and libertarianism. But need to bring donors AND repositioning at the same time. Who can?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:26:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775702240300531712