Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • So this diagram *intentionally* overstates US homicides by 600%. Why? Compare ap

    So this diagram *intentionally* overstates US homicides by 600%. Why? Compare apples to apples and see.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:23:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662998895941844992

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

    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/662995675274067968

  • US homicides are about on par with Canada and Belgium

    US homicides are about on par with Canada and Belgium.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:22:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662998528587866113

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

    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/662995675274067968

  • 65% of ‘gun deaths’ are suicides. 50% of the remainder are black on black homici

    65% of ‘gun deaths’ are suicides. 50% of the remainder are black on black homicides. https://t.co/Lpg4U5YY5u

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662998420945305602

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

    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/662995675274067968

  • Two statistical values were invented to obscure, mislead, and deceive: “househol

    Two statistical values were invented to obscure, mislead, and deceive: “household income”, and “gun deaths”. (Fool bait).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:20:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662998047308292096

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

    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/662995675274067968

  • 65% of “Gun deaths” are suicides, and suicide by gun is the preferred method by

    65% of “Gun deaths” are suicides, and suicide by gun is the preferred method by white males.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:16:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662997134241853440

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

    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/662995675274067968

  • Day. 24 hours Year. 1 year Crossing the Galactic Plane: 60M years +/- 200LY Cosm

    Day. 24 hours

    Year. 1 year

    Crossing the Galactic Plane: 60M years +/- 200LY

    Cosmic Year: 225-250M years (circle the galaxy)

    Velocity 500K kph

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 08:55:00 UTC

  • PROOFS AND TRUTHS (important summary) When we write a proof, we demonstrate that

    PROOFS AND TRUTHS

    (important summary)

    When we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 05:23:00 UTC

  • Counter Intuitive Econ Solved By Operational Analysis: The Internet Increases Prices

    —Economists have two standard very simple models of product competition: firms can compete on price or compete on quantity.— —“whether firms compete on price or quantity depends more on which of these they must commit to earliest, not which is easier to change at the last minute. Knowing this, once you heard that it would be easier to change prices at the last minute for products sold on internet, you should have predicted that the internet would increase quantity competition and reduce price competition. Which it in fact has. Economics is general and robust enough to predict things like how selling products on the internet changes competition. But you have to use it right.”— https://shar.es/17xxNn

    [F]irst, I want to point out that the reason the author is able to make his argument is that he has operationally explained the phenomenon as a sequence of decisions and actions in time.  Yet intuitive economics would suggest that price competition would be increased while operational analysis (incentives) would cause competition to be decreased.   This simple example illustrates why operationalism is so important to the testing of hypothesis. [S]econd, the author is trying to make a different point, but I want to riff off it to show that firms compete in commodity and non-commodity spaces. And to some degree economists study commodity activity where noise and signal cancel one another out. But that isn’t how companies think about competition, it’s how distributors do. I have taught the following means of competition by firms: 1) Price, 2) Quantity, 3) Profitability or Debt 4) Rents (firms like polities accumulate renters) 5) Adaptation Costs (innovator’s dilemma). 6) Geographic Housing Costs (salary costs) 7) Segmentation (startups start in niches and expand) Why? Decreasing production cycles, increasing distribution of production, the increasing importance of TALENT and innovation service industries. vs capital or credit in manufacturing and distribution companies. In a highly efficient market, one can sacrifice profits for talent while larger organizations accumulate internal rents. This is most frequently the reason Generally speaking, higher profits incentivize more rents. And while prices are sticky, internal rents are much stickier than prices. Generally speaking, adaptation costs vary dramatically from industry to industry: service firms trade out people and production firms trade out people and capital. The difference being that GAP regulation and tax policy obscure the tail of fixed vs human capital, largely because we can finance against the illusion of fixed capital value while we cannot finance against the obvious lack of control over human capital. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Counter Intuitive Econ Solved By Operational Analysis: The Internet Increases Prices

    —Economists have two standard very simple models of product competition: firms can compete on price or compete on quantity.— —“whether firms compete on price or quantity depends more on which of these they must commit to earliest, not which is easier to change at the last minute. Knowing this, once you heard that it would be easier to change prices at the last minute for products sold on internet, you should have predicted that the internet would increase quantity competition and reduce price competition. Which it in fact has. Economics is general and robust enough to predict things like how selling products on the internet changes competition. But you have to use it right.”— https://shar.es/17xxNn

    [F]irst, I want to point out that the reason the author is able to make his argument is that he has operationally explained the phenomenon as a sequence of decisions and actions in time.  Yet intuitive economics would suggest that price competition would be increased while operational analysis (incentives) would cause competition to be decreased.   This simple example illustrates why operationalism is so important to the testing of hypothesis. [S]econd, the author is trying to make a different point, but I want to riff off it to show that firms compete in commodity and non-commodity spaces. And to some degree economists study commodity activity where noise and signal cancel one another out. But that isn’t how companies think about competition, it’s how distributors do. I have taught the following means of competition by firms: 1) Price, 2) Quantity, 3) Profitability or Debt 4) Rents (firms like polities accumulate renters) 5) Adaptation Costs (innovator’s dilemma). 6) Geographic Housing Costs (salary costs) 7) Segmentation (startups start in niches and expand) Why? Decreasing production cycles, increasing distribution of production, the increasing importance of TALENT and innovation service industries. vs capital or credit in manufacturing and distribution companies. In a highly efficient market, one can sacrifice profits for talent while larger organizations accumulate internal rents. This is most frequently the reason Generally speaking, higher profits incentivize more rents. And while prices are sticky, internal rents are much stickier than prices. Generally speaking, adaptation costs vary dramatically from industry to industry: service firms trade out people and production firms trade out people and capital. The difference being that GAP regulation and tax policy obscure the tail of fixed vs human capital, largely because we can finance against the illusion of fixed capital value while we cannot finance against the obvious lack of control over human capital. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • “WHO IS TO DO THE LAUNDERING?” THE EFFECT OF WARRANTY —“As for truth, who is t

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/21/a-hierarchy-of-truths/Q&A: “WHO IS TO DO THE LAUNDERING?” THE EFFECT OF WARRANTY

    —“As for truth, who is to do the laundering and how do we know if it has been done in error?”—Karl Smith

    We do it ourselves, and warranty we have done so. If we have ‘interests’ then we can test it. But warranty tends to produce desired ends: “skin in the game”.

    1) Spectrum: Deceitful, Honest, Truthful, True, Tautological.

    See: A Hierarchy of Truths

    http://www.propertarianism.com%2F2015%2F06%2F21%2Fa-hierarchy-of-truths%2F

    2) We can give honest testimony but honesty is not warrantied (promise) that we have performed due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. As such we cannot state that we have laundered that information consisting of imaginary, erroneous, imaginary, biased, or wishful thinking from it.

    We can give truthful testimony, if we can warranty we have performed due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. We need a method of performing due diligence (criticism) of our statements.

    We cannot testify to truth even if we utter it, because even if we perform due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we cannot know if we are informationally complete, and cannot warranty it.

    We can testify to a tautology because it is informationally complete, but as informationally complete it has no theoretical content (no general rule), and therefore no general explanatory power, and requires no warranty.

    3) We can subject our theories to criticisms:

    – identity (naming, properties, category)

    – internal consistency(logic),

    – external correspondence(empiricism),

    – parsimony(limits),

    – existential possibility (operationalism),

    – morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of hazard and externality of the same criteria),

    Or more simply, we can use the scientific method, which has nothing unique to the sciences per se, and instead is a general process of criticism for the production of truthful testimony: epistemology.

    Science is a Moral Discipline

    http://www.propertarianism.com%2F2014%2F12%2F23%2Fscience-is-a-moral-discipline-in-which-we-struggle-to-speak-truthfully%2F

    MORE – SEE

    a) A Short Course In Testimonial Truth

    https://www.google.com/search…

    b) A Short Course in Propertarian Morality

    www.propertarianism.com%2F2015%2F07%2F27%2Fa-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2%2F

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-16 04:46:00 UTC