RT @DegenRolf: @Nataleo71379448 Beliefs are just kind of attitudes, while intuition is a cognitive score, measured here (among others) by t…
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 20:07:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248341744988676097
Autism Memories.
Test Results. Standardized. Teacher. Man.
“Great. You only got one wrong!”
Me: “I didn’t get any wrong”
(scowl) “this one…”
Me: (read. look at answers.) “You can’t know that from the information in the question.”
“How can you say that? These are made by…”
Me: “It doesn’t matter, You can’t know that from the information in the question. I answered correctly.” (I consider the conversation settled, because it’s so obvious.).
Him: (puzzled) (he puts the folder away) (They had no idea what to do with us.)
(I continue my youth of wondering how the fk adults don’t get us all killed, and how it’s unbelievable anything works at all, and I try to help them when I can, or at least not create too man problems, because I have no idea what to do if they screw up even worse and I”m stuck with these kids that aren’t any better than barn animals.)
I was completely oblivious.
It’s hysterical.
I love aspies.
I would hug that ‘me’ if I was that teacher today.
it’s just delayed social development.
And in retrospect it’s funny.
At the time it was annoying.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 21:41:00 UTC
WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM: “THE LAW”
“The Natural Law of European Peoples”: A fully commensurable system of measurement across all disciplines that tests for reciprocity in display, word (truth) and deed (action); the extension of the logic of the physical sciences (realism, naturalism, equilibration) to the psychological(individual) and social(group) sciences using economic terms (acquisition, cooperation, reciprocity); thereby completing the scientific method (falsification of all dimensions possible human cognition); and thereby completing the Aristotelian program; and thereby providing the explanation for the success of western civilization under that program: sovereignty, reciprocity, and truth – and the markets that result from their universal enforcement, and the evolutionary velocity (adaptation, innovation) that results from those markets.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 14:30:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92324954_249561333108694_2159433170435440640_o_249561326442028.jpg OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important)
(a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)
1) Theology (intuition) Feminine
2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise
3) Law-Science (action) Masculine.
and otherwise in:
4) Ordinary (normative) language
Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine.
I largely speak in law-science
I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism)
I can bridge to theology (intuition)
This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground.
We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually).
We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience.
Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important)
(a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)
1) Theology (intuition) Feminine
2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise
3) Law-Science (action) Masculine.
and otherwise in:
4) Ordinary (normative) language
Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine.
I largely speak in law-science
I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism)
I can bridge to theology (intuition)
This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground.
We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually).
We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience.
Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 11:19:00 UTC
Serialize rather than idealize.
Operationalize rather than analogize.
Aristotle got it almost right.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 16:31:00 UTC
RT @DegenRolf: Lay people perceive the typical effect sizes reported in psychological research to be “small, rather meaningless, and unconv…
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 19:47:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246162481799663627
Yep: Divination, Astrology, Numerology, Scriptural, Stock market, Noise-Data interpretation.
(Today: the minor racial delta in Detroit mortality without the obvious age, smoking, and other lifestyle risk given the left leaning distribution of the African American demographic.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 19:46:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246162166404743169
Reply addressees: @toad_spotted
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245801768543494144
THE TEN CANONICAL PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS.
1. Commensurability: Definitions by Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization
2. Truth: Satisfaction of demand for infallibility.
3. Testimony: Due diligence against perceivable dimensions.
4. Reciprocity: Due diligence against incentive to retaliate.
5. Property In Toto: Measurements of Demonstrated intersets
6. Compatibilism: Gender and class division of perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, and cooperation.
7. Trifunctionalism: Three possible means of coercion, produces three competing specializations of elites.
8. Perfect Government: rule of law, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for regions, classes, genders, with one family one vote – adapting to authority under threat, markets under peace, and redistribution during windfalls.
9. Transcendence: Evolutionary necessity ‘to become the red queen’ – we may never stop nor never rest.
10. Western Group Evolutionary strategy is “OODA” meaning technology, maneuver and initiative. This strategy is created by excellence and beauty, heroism and duty, truth and oath, sovereignty and reciprocity, rule of law and jury, and markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war – while suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, and devoting the surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples for all that result.
That’s the core of P.
The rest is application.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 14:23:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92587113_247850863279741_3273847742023073792_o_247850856613075.jpg NOTES ON ERIC WEINSTEIN’S THEORY
He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes.
He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome.
His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument.
He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have.
His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected.
He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry.
He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves.
He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure.
And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates).
So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry.
It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar.
So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error.
(My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.)
— Curt DoolittleNOTES ON ERIC WEINSTEIN’S THEORY
He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes.
He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome.
His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument.
He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have.
His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected.
He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry.
He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves.
He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure.
And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates).
So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry.
It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar.
So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error.
(My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.)
— Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:44:00 UTC
( FYI: First, I love this question. Second, this category of questions provides the best example of why self reporting in social science is pseudoscience. People can’t self report. that’s why we use economic data. It’s demonstrated preference not self-reporting. As far as I know economics is the only structure of social science because it asks us to explain demonstrated preferences. All we learn from self reporting is how people prefer to lie.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-30 18:51:00 UTC