Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • WHAT’S YOUR IQ? I don’t find it constructive to go there. as far as I know incre

    WHAT’S YOUR IQ?

    I don’t find it constructive to go there. as far as I know increases over 140 make little substantive difference, and decreases below 60 make no substantive difference. Above 140 and below 60 other personality factors (I consider IQ a personality factor) determine demonstrated intelligence.

    For example, I can tell that, say, Chomsky (and many highly intelligent jews for that matter) can express ideas – which is a trait that starts at 105 and seems to flower at about 130 – and do it far better than I can. But this only lets him (like Wittgenstein and Marx) ‘get it wrong’ elegantly. However, those people can do that because their empathy for frames of reference is higher than mine. Whereas I don’t ‘pay that cost or gain that return’ because I can’t. Yet, conversely, I don’t make the errors that others that empathize with frames of reference do. But what I notice is that they matured emotionally earlier than I did (or I much later than they did). And I think that’s where their advantage played out over mine.

    If you have a lot of general knowledge, an IQ over 105, and a no disruptive personality traits, and an interest in learning, you can pretty much learn the important concepts in this world. You may need to have 115 to learn them more easily, and 125 to learn them on your own, 135 to explain them, and 145 to discover them. Sure. But the ideas are available to you across the spectrum. It’s below 105 that we incrementally develop limitations, and below 95 where functional utility starts to rapidly decline.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 05:05:00 UTC

  • (on race and IQ) … Flynn, Lynn, Vanen, and as far as I know the vast majority

    (on race and IQ)

    …

    Flynn, Lynn, Vanen, and as far as I know the vast majority of specilists agree with the difference in racial distributions.

    What is not obvious is simply the consequence of size of the bottom of the distributions. Meaning, that whites and east asians, because of climate, agriculture, and government, have literally killed off large portions of the underclasses for more than one thousand years, and in both societies used reverse redistribution to increase rates of reproduction in their upper middle, and upper classes.

    As far as I know, the difference between the races is largely a function of the rates of reproduction of the classes. This heavily affected by the difference between the burden of particularist thought (memory) and the advantage of generalist thought (general theories), plus the increase provided by education and nutrition.

    However, the deltas between the racial distributions raised universally across all races maintaining the relative centers of the distributions.

    Futhermore, ashkenazis, whites, and east asians, have succeeded in selective breeding for pedomorphism producing much lower testosterone levels, and much lower impulsivity and aggression than the warmer(temperate) and more competitive (africa) regions. So much so that this appears to be a reproductive problem for east asians in modernity. (impulsivity and lower intelligence in the absence of subsistence pressures produce higher rates of reproduction, while lack of impulsivity and higher intelligence produce lower rates of reproduction.)

    So as far as I know (and I am pretty completely informed), the issue remains not one of necessarily material differences (although there are some) but largely a matter of the size of the underclasses in the relative groups, and the degree of ‘domestication’ through pedomorphic reproduction that has been possible in the territory of racial occupation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 20:52:00 UTC

  • FIVE PROPERTIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE Demonstrated intelligence consists

    FIVE PROPERTIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    Demonstrated intelligence consists of a set of primary functions any one of which will fail you, but if none of them fails, compensates substantially for differences in IQ.

    All people with demonstrated intelligence are the same, all demonstratedly unintelligent people are different.

    1 – Intelligence, esp, verbal. (rate you reduce information to patterns)

    2 – short term memory (the ability to maintain states, and therefore sustain comparative searches and comparisons)

    3 – general knowledge (inventory of patterns that intelligence can search for patterns)

    4 – “wants”, (wanting correspondence with or difference from reality, or force you to select general knowledge that confirms the biases.)

    5 – genetic intuitions (genetic influences that harmfully bias wants)

    If all of these work to some degree you will be functionally intelligent’ regardless of your IQ. If any one of these is substantially defective it will not matter what your IQ is.

    BY ANALOGY, DOMESTICATABLE ANIMALS:

    All domesticatable animals are the same, all undomesticatable animals are different.

    1 – cannot be picky eaters

    2 – reach maturity quickly

    3 – willing to breed in captivity

    4 – docile by nature

    5 – conform to a social hierarchy

    If any one of these fails the animal is not domesticatable (in numbers).

    BY ANALOGY, HAPPY FAMILIES

    “all happy families are the same, all unhappy families are different”. As Dostoyevsky stated, if any one of the criteria for a happy family is absent the family will be unhappy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 17:12:00 UTC

  • (thinking about an upcoming interview) Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to descr

    (thinking about an upcoming interview)

    Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to describe empiricism before empiricism, rationalism before rationalism, reason before reason. So it’s pretty hard to describe Testimonialism, a little less so Propertarianism, and a little less so market government.

    And just as language had to change in response to every major conceptual evolutionary leap, learning that language each time is pretty hard. But in exchange for that leap, those problems of that were previously not understood, describable, and debatable, become understandable, describable, and debatable – extending our understanding of the universe we live in.

    To create internally consistent means of categorizing, comparing, and deciding between increasingly complex questions (problems) we have developed a number of categories of increasing complexity. In mathematics we think in terms of numbers, sets of numbers (arithmetic), ratios of numbers (mathematics), spatial relations (geometry), and relations in time (calculus), and fragmentary information (statistics). Each method increases the number of dimensions we are able to describe as constant relations.

    Outside of mathematics, in philosophy (or at least in analytic philosophy) we use similar categories to describe a spectrum of increasingly complex constant relations.

    They are science andMetaphysics, psychology and Epistemology, sociology and Ethics, politics and Law, the arts and Aesthetics, group competitive strategy and War( violence, immigration, economic, norms(religion) and information (propaganda).)

    Note the use of lower case for the physical and social sciences, and the uppercase for the branches of philosophy.

    What I have tried to accomplish, and I think successfully, is to create a common value neutral, scientific language, for the categorization, comparison, decidability of all of these subjects, across all of these fields. Whether you want to call it a science or philosophy at this point is rather meaningless, since the result of my work is that those two terms are now synonyms, and everything else is either pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, utopian literature, or the supernatural.

    The net result of which is that I have, I think, made it much harder to use language at every scale, from the intrapersonal (self), to interpersonal, to an audience, to the media, to the government, to the courts, to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, omission and suggestion; loading framing and overloading; or pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, and supernaturalism; our outright deceit, and repetition of falsehoods (propagandizing).

    And just as empiricism radically reduced falsehood in the informational commons, I am fairly sure that testimonialism will radically reduce falsehood in the commons. And I am entirely certain that Testimonialism(epistemology) and Propertarianism(ethics) will produce as great a change in human existence as did empiricism and darwinism.

    So when I tell you that my work consists of a framework:

    Acquisitionism (psychology)

    Testimonialism (epistemology)

    Propertarianism (Sociology)

    Strictly Constructed Natural Law (Law)

    Market Government (Politics)

    Sovereignty, Heroism, Transcenence (Aesthetics)

    Group Evolutionary Strategy (War)

    And that this framework completes the promise of the Anglo scientific enlightenment by solving the problem of the social sciences.

    That’s what my work has accomplished.

    And that is why it takes a bit of explaining.

    But if you want to know WHY I spent my life on it. It’s because (a) I really dislike conflict, (b) I really dislike deceit, (c) I really love my people, (d) I understand the unique accidents that are i-life, ii-sentient life, iii-cooperative life, and iv-western civilization: the people who discovered “Truth Proper”.

    And so when I heard conservatives fail to say anything intelligent in arguments against the pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, outright lying, and propaganda of the de-civilizing left, I wanted to create a rational language to explain their ancient group evolutionary strategy, and the reasons that that strategy had resulted in dragging mankind out of ignorance, disease, and poverty in the pre-historic world of the bronze age, in the ancient greco roman world, and in the modern european world.

    But somewhere along teh way I decided that I had to not only provide a positive means of explanation, but a negative means of criticism. In other words, I had to make it much harder than it is today, to engage in very complex lies.

    Because just as in the early world we developed domesticationism (paternalism/property/sovergitny), and in the ancient world we developed reason, and in the modern world we developed science, the middle east developed authoritarian religion (zoroaster) in response to domesticationism, authoritarian monotheism (judaism/christianity/islam) in response to reason, and authoritarian pseudoscientific cosmopolitanism (Boaz, Marx/Lenin/Trotsky, Freud, {Frankfurt School}, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard/Rand, and Strauss) using the same utopian fictionalism that had Abraham and his cult, and Zoroaster and his cult.

    I have no doubt that they will seek to invent another authoritarian set of lies to counter against testimonialism, but in the interim, we can take at least one step forward in restoring western civilization from the Third Great Utopian Lie of the East.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 14:44:00 UTC

  • DO YOU SEE WHAT I’M TRYIN’ TA’ DO THERE? 😉 identity – constant properties(categ

    DO YOU SEE WHAT I’M TRYIN’ TA’ DO THERE? 😉

    identity – constant properties(categories)

    logic – constant sets

    math – constant relations

    algorithms – constant causality (operations)(closed change)

    evolution – constant self modification (open change) (reactionary)

    awareness – forecasting of possible futures (choice)

    consciousness – choice of self modification via possible futures.

    sympathy – awareness of intentions of others,

    cooperation – assistance of others.

    negotiation – persuasion of others.

    truth – due diligence in negotiation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 08:47:00 UTC

  • Commercial Prices alone do not capture the entire change in state of total capit

    Commercial Prices alone do not capture the entire change in state of total capital

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 15:15:00 UTC

  • We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to

    We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to remember the minority of what works than the majority of what doesn’t. Just as it’s informaitonally less expensive to remember bits and pieces of relations than to store a full record of stimuli. Our brains had to develop with the rate of electro chemical processing possible in wet systems. I mean we take about 90-100 watts to operate, and that’s pretty cheap really given how expensive brains are.

    limits exist. The fact that we categorize ‘that which is not limited but actionable” is just a discounted means of storing the information we need to act with.

    So limits to actions exist. The world exists as limits to actions. We categorize these limits to action as positives (connections) because positive connections are actionable, and we associate emotions with them so that we are excited to pursue what is actionable and beneficial.

    This is a very simple system in practice. We just use billions of very cheap neurons to do it.

    so when one say x doesn’t exist (without saying how it exists) that’s false. limits exist. if the limits exist the inverse exists. a unicorn exists the way jesus exists: as a memory of a common narrative that can be verified by reciprocal agreement on the symbol we communicate when we use the term.

    Unicorns exist like words exist, like stories exist, like jesus and aristotole exist. Except that the limits we place on unicorns are different from the limits we place on aristotle and jesus.

    I can believe that jesus and aristotle existed, and that aristotle composed the ethics, and jesus gave the sermon on the mount.

    but I cannot believe that unicorns exist given my current understanding of the meaning of the term.

    nature exists. man can bring objects into existence. men can bring ideas for objects into existence. men can bring ideas in to existence by recreating them each time he desires to. The question is merley a verbalism. Do we bring a unicorn into existence as the imaginry experience? Or do we bring about an imaginary experience by the reconstruction of the symbol we call ‘unicorn’?

    The answer is that the experience exists, not the unicorn.

    The word unicorn exists. The imaginary memory exist. The experience of activating that memory exists. Does the unicorn exist?

    IT exists the same way that the square root of two exists: as a verbal convenience. Neitehr the squre of two or the unicorn exists.

    The difference is we might some day be able to technologically bring a unicorn into existence (actually, we can already make the horns exist by planting horn buds). But as yet, they do not exist in that THEY CANNOT PERSIST WITHOUT MAN’S IMAGINATION TO EXPERIENCE THEM

    Conflation of existence (persistence) with existence (memory) is either error or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:22:00 UTC

  • Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of c

    Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of constant relations as superior to set operations (which they, and I ) clearly agree are problematic (and in my opinion, one of the reasons for 20th c pseudoscience, and the failure of 20thc philosophy to contribute anything meaningful.)

    My view goes something like this (and I don’t know if its been touched on in math before):

    Properties > Operations > “Categories”(incl math cat) > Sets (sets of categories) > (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    This is a language of constant mathematical relations that in my opinion is a reflection of verbal (theoretical) semi-constant relations expressed by the universal epistemelogical process:

    Free association > pattern > wayfinding > hypothesis > theory > Law (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    In other words mathematics functions as a test of constant relations, and that is the best that we can do until we discover the underlying operations.

    Moreover, think of it like this: We evolved to think at human scale, and just as we use mathematics to describe relations about which we do not know the causal operations, to explore the GRANULAR, we also can engage in combinatorial ‘categories’ at higher and higher levels of abstraction in order to imagine (envision) greater and greater patterns. So that between math for reduction, and language for expansion, we are starting from the conceptual middle (human scale) and working toward the finite (descriptive) and the infinite (imaginary) using the tools of higher precisino (math, operations) and the tools of opportunity generation (langauge, free assocaiaion).

    By the processs of imaginatino and reduction we attempt to construct that which is OPERATIONALLY POSSIBLE at HUMAN SCALE.

    I think this is the most profound way that I know how to unify the range of human thought into a single explanatory narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:41:00 UTC

  • (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistem

    (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistemological method) (human scale)

    (read the comments with Davin and I.)

    MATH VS SCIENCE?

    Mathematics is not a science (theoretic system of external correspondence) but a logic (axiomatic system of internal consistency).

    We are, almost universally, fooled by the fact that we cannot imagine all consequences of our axiomatic declarations, and equate this to the same phenomenon of our inability to imagine all consequences of our observations of reality. But axiomatic systems are declared (models) and theoretic systems are observed (reality). When our models and reality appear to correspond, we say that the model appears good or true.

    For this reason mathematical (axiomatic systems) do not produce truths (ultimately parsimonious and completely correspondent descriptions of reality) , but proofs of internal consistency. Theories = True correspondence. Axioms = Proof of internal consistency. Both of which require that we are describing constant relations.

    Until we discover the set of possible operations in the universe (causality or causal particulars) we must content ourselves with descriptions of the consequences of those operations (mathematics), by creating models with which we declare descriptive axioms as a general expression of the unknown causal operations.

    Ergo we can use mathematics to create models of theoretic systems (reality) because axioms express constant relations and the universe operates deterministically (according to a set of rules that produce observably constant relations).

    Science != to Empiricism (that the error of positivism). Instead, identity, logics, empiricism, operations, and morality when tested by limits, full accounting, and parsimony, assist us in removing error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deception from our thoughts, words, and deeds.

    This is why mathematics generally succeeds in representing highly deterministic systems (constant relations of constant categories) but why mathematics fails us in slightly deterministic systems – in particular, heuristic systems (inconstant relations of inconstant categories.)

    Mathematics is an abstraction of operations. A generalization for the expression of observations about which we do not know the operations.

    Science on the other hand ensures that we use categories, sets, mathematical descriptions, empirical correspondence, causal operations, moral reciprocity (in matters of cooperation: social science) and then define limits, test for full accounting, and test for parsimony.

    This process of ensuring is what we call falsification. if a description (theory) can survive all those tests, we can warranty that we have performed due diligence and speak truthfully.

    In other words science provides us with a universal epistemology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 09:45:00 UTC

  • If, in your reasoning, you do not account for costs, you are not a philosopher b

    If, in your reasoning, you do not account for costs, you are not a philosopher but a mystic at best, and a fraud at worst. Good luck finding many philosophers who survive that test. Most are frauds and the rest are mystics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 10:43:00 UTC