(FB 1546134524 Timestamp) —“Just saw you table of grammars, there is enough material for ten years of study just there.”— Singular Speech Yep. Grammars, Dimensional Warranties of Due Diligence, operational language, acquisitions, propertarianism. Those sets of concepts produce a formal logic of social science, expressible not with set language, but with operational language. Like I said. There is a wonderful parsimonious elegance underneath it all. It’s beautiful. Truth is enough – and it is now possible.
Theme: Measurement
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546366269 Timestamp) THE MALE COGNITIVE LOAD? by Simon Ström How is the male cognitive load operationalized? It isn’t as easily because of greater variation and division of labor among the male population. But the most basic load to which males are predisposed to carry should be the dominance hierarchy and male peer group. It probably goes a lot deeper and varies with class and IQ, and I bet there are actually evolved, discrete, ‘archetypical male clusters’ beyond the random, gaussian normal distribution of psychometric traits traits, (and the male-female division common to all of the animal kingdom.) Whereas the female cognitive load varies in sophistication along the class or IQ axis, I think the lifecycle of the reproductive bottleneck-sex limits the evolutionary plasticity of its physiological cognitive load. Men are not only biologically expendable but also evolutionarily plastic and differentiated along multiple axes of skills and ‘loads’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546366269 Timestamp) THE MALE COGNITIVE LOAD? by Simon Ström How is the male cognitive load operationalized? It isn’t as easily because of greater variation and division of labor among the male population. But the most basic load to which males are predisposed to carry should be the dominance hierarchy and male peer group. It probably goes a lot deeper and varies with class and IQ, and I bet there are actually evolved, discrete, ‘archetypical male clusters’ beyond the random, gaussian normal distribution of psychometric traits traits, (and the male-female division common to all of the animal kingdom.) Whereas the female cognitive load varies in sophistication along the class or IQ axis, I think the lifecycle of the reproductive bottleneck-sex limits the evolutionary plasticity of its physiological cognitive load. Men are not only biologically expendable but also evolutionarily plastic and differentiated along multiple axes of skills and ‘loads’.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546803700 Timestamp) STEREOTYPES ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg Predmetsky
(worth repeating) (just like IQ the most accurate measure in psychology). from: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response/ THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelsonâs Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016). Summarizing those reviews: Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded râs of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1] The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are âmassiveâ (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that âstereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.â There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy. Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion. Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy. -
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546803700 Timestamp) STEREOTYPES ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg Predmetsky
(worth repeating) (just like IQ the most accurate measure in psychology). from: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response/ THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelsonâs Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016). Summarizing those reviews: Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded râs of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1] The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are âmassiveâ (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that âstereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.â There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy. Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion. Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy. -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547133273 Timestamp) USING LOGIC IS WESTERN BECAUSE WESTERNERS ACCOUNT FOR COSTS. —“Now, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, but you have to ask yourself, why, if mathematical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, arguments with tests of scope, completeness, and coherence exist, why it would be that you would argue by any other means.”—- CD —“bUt UsInG lOgIc Is ToO wEsTeRn”– Rosenborg Predmetsky
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547132816 Timestamp) YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important concept) —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs. (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today” (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD Adam Voight asks a profound question: —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs. Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice. Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward. Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs. Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs. So here is the simple psychology of it: Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs. Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs. The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs. That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law. Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547059043 Timestamp) THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation. LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY: A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy. An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state. EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time. A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience. A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations. CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference. NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent. ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division). ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements. A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies. A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability. GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume. CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change. It has two major branches: a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and; b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves). –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”– This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech. Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’). HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions. EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again. This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy. All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information: 1. Identity 2. Equality 3. Deduction 4. Induction 5. Abduction 6. Guessing 7. Free Association 8. Intuition. 9. Unobservable. In reasoning we can either: 1. construct (justify), 2. test (falsify) 3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language) 4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis. 5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application. We can deceive by: 1. Failure of due diligence 2. Denial 3. Obscurantism, loading, framing 4. Conflation 5. Inflation 6. fictionalization 7. Deceit 8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda) EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS The competition between: 1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and; 2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and; 3. continuous falsification (elimination). In this order: 1. Experience (market for association in memory) > 2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) > 3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) > 4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) > 5. Law(survival) > 6. Habituation (presumption) > 7. Revision (iterate) Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception: 1. survival from falsification of identity 2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic) 3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism). 4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description. 5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice 7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice. 8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope). 9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence). In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions. The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential. Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.
- Cheers
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547132816 Timestamp) YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important concept) —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs. (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today” (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD Adam Voight asks a profound question: —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs. Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice. Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward. Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs. Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs. So here is the simple psychology of it: Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs. Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs. The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs. That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law. Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547059043 Timestamp) THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation. LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY: A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy. An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state. EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time. A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience. A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations. CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference. NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent. ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division). ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements. A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies. A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability. GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume. CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change. It has two major branches: a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and; b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves). –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”– This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech. Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’). HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions. EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again. This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy. All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information: 1. Identity 2. Equality 3. Deduction 4. Induction 5. Abduction 6. Guessing 7. Free Association 8. Intuition. 9. Unobservable. In reasoning we can either: 1. construct (justify), 2. test (falsify) 3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language) 4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis. 5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application. We can deceive by: 1. Failure of due diligence 2. Denial 3. Obscurantism, loading, framing 4. Conflation 5. Inflation 6. fictionalization 7. Deceit 8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda) EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS The competition between: 1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and; 2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and; 3. continuous falsification (elimination). In this order: 1. Experience (market for association in memory) > 2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) > 3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) > 4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) > 5. Law(survival) > 6. Habituation (presumption) > 7. Revision (iterate) Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception: 1. survival from falsification of identity 2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic) 3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism). 4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description. 5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice 7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice. 8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope). 9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence). In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions. The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential. Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.
- Cheers