Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • “Curt, is your field (philosophy) art or science?”— Francesco Principi As I un

    —“Curt, is your field (philosophy) art or science?”— Francesco Principi

    As I understand my work, given that science is an extension of the law, these are the three options:

    1) Law, Sciences(Logics/Mathematics), Measurements. -vs- reality, competition, and testimony w/ warranty THE TRUE (EXISTENTIAL/REAL) – I consider this a ‘a science’.

    -vs-

    2) Philosophy, Literature, History, -vs- sophism, justification, and deceit w/o warranty THE IDEAL – I consider this an ‘art’.

    -vs-

    3) Theology, Scripture, Mythology -vs- supernaturalism, authoritarianism, and deceit w/o warranty THE FANTASY(IMAGINARY) – i consider this a ‘fraud or deceit’

    In other words, I am not sure that the old versions of these terms have any meaning. I consider philosophy that which is yet unsolved in the narrow sense, OR the imagination of possible worlds (fantasy literature) in the broader sense.

    So in the narrow sense I see philosophy closed (completed), and what was philosophy of ‘the big questions’ are solved. In the broad sense of imagining and reconstructing relations that we might prefer or that might be good, there will never be an end to that category of philosophizing.

    As far as I know theorizing about the true and possible has replaced philosophizing, and theorizing completely under testimonialism has replaced the limited theorizing of the 19th and 20th century sciences.

    So I tend to say I am a philosopher of natural law because it is all people can understand in the historical context of the available term.

    But, technically speaking, what I understand that I am doing is the science of the law. Which in itself I think is what natural law must eventually mean. Where natural law and the laws of nature are separated only by conscious choice.

    And so I don’t see any difference between science and law other than warranty. And as we have seen, science without warranty of due diligence is largely pseudoscience. and pseudoscience is just another term for fraud.

    So as I understand it, truth = law, and all else are sub-grammars of that law if that is all that is required to solve that problem, or deciets that violate that law.

    1) The Physical Laws (invariability),

    2) the Natural Law (decidability),

    3) History, and Literature (meaning), …

    … are the only non-false domains and methods of inquiry remaining.

    Drug addicts defend their habits. There are many ways of drugging the mind. Lies are the most common of them.

    And stoicism, family, oath-feast-festival, and our nation of all those that came before, all those that are, and all those that are yet to be, are the cure for that addiction.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-02 16:27:00 UTC

  • agile manifesto simply tech application of universal frame. not unique. common b

    agile manifesto simply tech application of universal frame. not unique. common before industrialization. continuous recursive progress with immediate feedback eliminates error early and cheaply, reinforces early and cheaply, and merely restates normal life’s epistemology.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-01 21:01:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080207519635697664

    Reply addressees: @jonathanwilson @tferriss

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080200923014725632

    IN REPLY TO:

    @jonathanwilson

    @curtdoolittle Very similar, yes! I’d love some examples you can think of where Agile’s manifesto sounds like Seneca. @tferriss will be interested in this thread.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080200923014725632

  • There are two absolutely rock solid measures in social science: IQ and Stereotyp

    There are two absolutely rock solid measures in social science: IQ and Stereotypes. And for the same reason: exhaustively tested.

    Nassim is making half true observation that low trust people of cunning can make more money in the tall area of a curve.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-01 16:23:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080137398384762880

    Reply addressees: @pirateblade86 @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080104030859337728

    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/1080104030859337728

  • G is a summation that we use as a measure since all faculties scale LARGELY in t

    G is a summation that we use as a measure since all faculties scale LARGELY in tandem. The measurement g exists. the behavior generating it exists. You might argue that it is more or less genetic (nature vs nurture) but then you would be counter to all the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-01 16:21:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080136958280634369

    Reply addressees: @pirateblade86 @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080104030859337728

    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/1080104030859337728

  • As Taleb was illustrating with his odd iq curve, then we can start with 140/150

    As Taleb was illustrating with his odd iq curve, then we can start with 140/150 and consider that a possible biological optimum and declines inefficiencies. We can do the same for polities. Norms must suit the median, yet ideas are increasingly inefficient lower on the curve.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-01 13:40:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080096360895049728

    Reply addressees: @pirateblade86 @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080084987486060545

    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/1080084987486060545

  • I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. There is no such thing as ‘group intelligenc

    I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. There is no such thing as ‘group intelligence’. Only individual intelligence, and discounts provided by those methods of communication and calculation we call language, norms, knowledge, that consist of names, properties, relations, values.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-01 13:35:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080095201241300993

    Reply addressees: @pirateblade86 @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1080084987486060545

    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/1080084987486060545

  • THE MALE COGNITIVE LOAD? by Simon Ström How is the male cognitive load operation

    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’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-01 13:11:00 UTC

  • “Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification

    —“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite

    All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive):

    1 – True (not false),

    2 – Excellent(not faulty),

    3 – Actionable (not inactionable),

    4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal),

    5 – Beautiful (not ugly).

    So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality.

    No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

    I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error.

    In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance.

    Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech.

    Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth).

    This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry.

    And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-30 11:44:00 UTC

  • “Just saw you table of grammars, there is enough material for ten years of study

    —“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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-29 20:48:00 UTC

  • FOR NEWBIES: WORK METHODOLOGY (worth repeating) The way I work is by relating id

    FOR NEWBIES: WORK METHODOLOGY

    (worth repeating)

    The way I work is by relating ideas across the spectrum in a series of shorter arguments – because I ‘whittle away’ at the stone so to speak, turning it to view it from different angles, working to gradually expose the figure (truth) below.

    I try to produce operational definitions in series, and to describe behavior as supply and demand using those series of definitions.

    Then I attempt to turn the fundamental insight into one or more aphorisms (summaries).

    Then to create a narrative that explains the topic and its applications.

    Then to weave these narratives together using the same constant language – this editing is what exhausts me and is why it takes me so long to produce a work.

    WORKFLOW

    I work from an outline of the complete scope of human thought.

    I work through the outline from metaphysics to group competitive strategy.

    Then I work with (many) sketches on FB. I move most of them to the web site.

    Then I collect the best of them into what I call ‘short courses’ or collections of posts.

    Then I take those ‘short courses’ and put them into the book.

    Then edit it all into an explanation.

    That’s my workflow.

    It’s actually painfully methodical. It just doesn’t look like it to the casual observer, because most people are desirous of rushing to judgment whereas i tend to exhaust a topic completely (very) before adding it to the canon. Then refine the network of concepts added to the canon once there.

    cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-28 08:51:00 UTC