Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • On Measured IQ vs Demonstrated Intelligence

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/…/do-you-really-und…

    [B]ruce,

    Demonstrated intelligence is a subject I work quite hard on so I think I might try to change your mind a bit, by at the very least giving you a different framework and language for approaching it.

    DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    I think I understand the difference between DEMONSTRATED intelligence, and the aggregate and commensurable MEASURE of our various intelligences, as well as anyone else. The reason being that it’s not very difficult to understand: the aggregation of the verbal(experiential)-spatial(temporal) measures is so predictive of life achievement that all other measures are all but insignificant.

    So for the purposes that we use these measures (the cost of training the individual increasingly abstractly-perceptible skills) they are possibly as good a measure as we we are ever to get, and likely more precise than is relevant. It may in fact be better to reduce IQ to standard deviation from the magic ‘cliff’ of 106, where we begin to be able to articulate ideas and repair machines, since at every six to seven points, individuals display perceptible differences in ability and greater resolution in that measure is just noise. At every fifteen they display substantial differences in abilities allowing them access to different occupations, and at every 30 points of difference individuals begin to have difficulty communicating with on another in similar terms.

    PERSONALITY AND MORALITY

    We also understand a great deal about variations in personality and moral instinct.

    The research into the evolutionary origins of our moral intuitions (versus our learned norms) has progressed rapidly thanks to the conversion of the discipline of philosophy from a subjective pseudoscience measured against an ideal norm (freud), to an operationalist (observable) science measured against the requirements of evolutionary biology.

    For the same reason our understanding of personality is shifting greatly. And while the five factor analysis is highly predictive given it’s (pseudoscientific authoritarian feminist freudian) origins, the term ‘neurotic’ should probably be homogenized with the sciences as ‘impulsivity’, the Autistic-Solipsistic spectrum, verbal IQ and Spatial IQ and Gender should be added to those measures. And the remaining four should be reframed as reproductive strategies.

    The current error in personality analysis is the attempt to separate out empathy as a separate form of intelligence, rather than describe the influence that the feminine/solipsistic<–empathic–>autistic/masculine spectrum imposes upon verbal and spatial intelligence.

    If done, then morality and personality, gender and reproductive strategy would be rendered commensurable. (The unfortunate long term impact of Cantorian, Marxist, Misesian, Boazian and Freudian pseudoscience remains with us and prevents us from unifying what appear to be different fields of inquiry, but that are identical if we reduce them to first principles: genetic expression of our evolutionary biology – a record of our evolution of the intuitions of cooperation which perform in an uncomfortable equilibrium with our self interest: reproductive strategy.

    There is a reason the socialists suppressed darwin as heavily as the fundamentalists.) As an aside, we also know what properties make an individual desirable and undesirable as a mate (symmetry, skin, height, etc). And if we were to roughly measure those every seven years we would find that reproductive desirability, personality, cognitive abilities, morality, reproductive strategy would remain in parallel except at the margins. But this borders on ‘too much information’ since few of us want to face such facts.

    REGARDING HIGH DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT HIGH IQ SCORE

    1) —“a person may be of high intelligence and not have a high IQ score”—

    Hmmm…, a person may DEMONSTRATE more intelligent thinking and action than someone with a higher IQ. This is true. But it does not tell us why he demonstrates it. Even though the reason WHY is quite simple: Demonstrated intelligence is largely a factor of general knowledge of the subject and its application with limited error. While IQ is determined only by the rate of pattern recognition. Now it so happens that people who recognize patterns more rapidly tend to make fewer errors, and to accumulate new information with less error.

    But say, if one has a high incidence of impulsivity (Neuroticism) this will not be the case. His energies (and time) will be spent in justifications of his impulses, not in acquisitions of useful information). So, for example, Dr Higgs (of the higgs-boson particle) has argued that he would not obtain a professorship today because he works slowly and is unproductive. This does not prohibit him from genius. It merely means that he is disciplined and methodical. (I am of the same temperament, I would never find a dissertation committee that would tolerate my rate of production which like Spinoza will have taken many many years on a very risky hypothesis.)

    In fact, most Nobel Prize winners are not actually of exceptional intelligence (merely in the 140’s) – which seems to indicate that the value of IQ declines in utility at some point (all measurements are questionable above 140 really). If for no other reason than it is difficult to find people to work with and communicate with, but most likely because somewhere above that range, the improvement is caused by a corresponding limitation.

    Demonstrated intelligence consists of the following criteria:
    i) IQ (rate of pattern recognition)
    ii) Short term memory (necessary for mathematicians and chess players)
    iii) General knowledge (reading a lot on a lot of subjects generally makes you smarter)
    iv) Method of inquiry consisting of inputs ( allegory, parable, history, measurement) and methods ( free association, mysticism, reason, rationalism(justification), science(criticism).
    v) Wants: Impossible Wants, Impossible Beliefs, Metaphysical Errors, and Erroneous Assumptions
    vi) Lack of impulsivity: Discipline, and Time (great ideas are achieved by focused work over very long periods – often approaching a decade or more)

    The greater evolutionary problem appears to be that exceptional intelligence is genetically caused by possessing fewer negative alleles rather than any special allele. Just as evolution is a process of surviving. Just as epistemology is a process of eliminating error from free associations leaving only truth candidates.

    Most of the time, and we can go through almost every thinker in history, great or small, the reason for failure is not intelligence or short term memory, or even impulsivity, but impulsivity, wants, and method. It is rarely intelligence. The failure of intelligence is one in which we observe that the individual does not identify patterns extant in the knowledge available. We do not fault Aristote for his failed innovations. We fault marx for continuing to take money from Engels once he had discovered that the marginalists and proved him wrong, and that all his work and fame was fallacy. He stopped writing. Did nothing. Continued taking his income from Engels until he died. A simple ‘capitalist’ motivation kept him from admitting his errors.

    SUMMARY

    So I think that we understand demonstrated intelligence enough to say that one can demonstrate intelligence in any sphere in which one can master the subject matter, apply scientific reasoning (criticism), insulate one’s study and practice from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit (including self deception), and spend sufficient time on the subject that others cannot.

    Some of us cannot even master ourselves. Some of us can barely master simple duties. Some of us can do it only through imitation of others. Some of us can do it only with experiential subjects. Some of us can do it with abstract subjects. Some of us can do it with purely theoretical subjects. And some of us can do MANY OF THESE AT ONCE. In fact, Polymathy and theoretical polymathy are probably the best test of demonstrated intelligence because polymathy demonstrates both rate of acquisition AND limited error in acquisition, and theoretical polymathy demonstrates that the individual can add a original insight (Hayek says he had two) to human knowledge.

    SOME NITS : ‘SCIENTIFIC THINKING’

    2) –“…on the nature of scientific thinking as it should be..” —

    This paragraph is reducible to the statement: demonstrable intelligence requires the construction of a model that corresponds to the extant reality, and survives attempts to falsify it.

    What you don’t mention, and which will conflict with your own mode of inquiry, is that such scientific thinking requires that the model be sufficiently complete that one need not appeal to introspection for the evaluation of results. This is where I generally see you get into trouble with your own work. Any model that requires introspection rather than correspondence by definition lacks sufficient information and means of decidability such that one can claim one’s observation or testimony to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    Now, if by some chance your intuition corresponds to reality (and in many cases yours does) then this correspondence can be used to provide comfort to your priors, but may cause you error in bias in matters wherein you rely upon introspection rather than correspondence independent of introspection (decidability).

    (But I am struck with the question of why you feel the need to retain your expertise in introspection? Why do you seek to justify it? When we know that this introspection merely results in confirmation bias?)

    Man: need to persist. need to acquire, need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of acquisition. need to reproduce. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of reproduction. need to defend kin. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of defending kin. need to produce cooperate to produce common assets since cooperation on commons is disproportionately rewarding compared to individual production. To act one must engage in perception, intuition, awareness, searching, reasoning, remembering, deciding, acting. But all that complexity is reducible to we must act to acquire, and cooperation that is non-parasitic (imposes no costs on others) is disproportionately productive.

    NIT: THE MEANING OF ‘UNDERSTANDING’ (Avoiding crutches)

    3) –“understanding is not quantitative but qualitative” —

    This statement demonstrates confusion between means of measurement rather than epistemological differences.

    Understanding : general rules or general principles (of arbitrary precision) one uses for categorization, properties, methods and relations for some subsequent action – even if that subsequent action is merely consequent understanding.

    Qualitative relations: the ability to stack relative to one another even if we cannot articulate the reason for stacking, and even if stacking is merely a preference.

    And

    Quantitative Measurements: the ability to define relations against a constant. These two forms of measurement serve two purposes. That is all.

    So when you say ‘understanding’ you mean that any rule of general utility must be constructed with arbitrary precision equal to the context of application. (That’s a mouthful, I know. So we need examples.)

    For example, I understand how to bake, but I bake a cake and bread differently by using recipes. Baking is a level of precision useful only for communication with others, while a recipe is necessary for the baking of a cake or bread. But, yet, it is not necessary that I understand the chemical transitions that occur during the process of preparation and baking and cooling in order for me to bake a cake.

    So while in casual conversation we may use these terms loosely: baking, baking a cake, and the chemical transformations that occur through the combination of substances and the application of heat; each of these is a level of precision, just like predicting the trajectory of a ball you throw by commons intuition, firing a projectile using newtonian physics, or explaining the evolution of the universe using quantum mechanics – if we wish to reason from them, we must use that level of precision that we need for such reasoning – else we are just making excuses and calling them reasons: justification.

    So ‘understanding’ requires general rules that help us evaluate explore and hypothesize within some useful context (arbitrary precision), not recipes that allow us to construct individual instances, nor too general to allow us to decide between actions in that context.

    I understand the basics of carpentry but I am not capable of deducing the construction of a modern home from that. Most economists specialize in some field of inquiry but since the rules of economic specialties are interesting for their counter-intuitiveness, economists cannot generalize – which is why large groups of economists are non-predictive: at any given point only a few people possess the specialized knowledge to understand a current model. Meaning that the Dunning Kruger Effect is always with us – maybe more so for smart people.

    CLOSING

    I follow you. Don’t comment often. I like the Christian loading. Not crazy about method of doing it. I tend to just get to the central proposition of Christianity: extension of kinship love to non-kin as a means of increasing trust, increasing the velocity of cooperation, economic velocity, rate of innovation, and prosperity. We will never have a restoration without another dark age.  So we must take from christianity the truth, and launder the error, bias, wishful thinking and (rather plentiful) deception from it.

    Love, Truth, and Commons, are Enough.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • IQ VERSUS DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE (intelligence and iq debate) (important idea

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/08/do-you-really-understand-intelligence.htmlMEASURED IQ VERSUS DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    (intelligence and iq debate) (important ideas)

    http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/08/do-you-really-understand-intelligence.html

    Bruce,

    Demonstrated intelligence is a subject I work quite hard on so I think I might try to change your mind a bit, by at the very least giving you a different framework and language for approaching it.

    DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE

    I think I understand the difference between DEMONSTRATED intelligence, and the aggregate and commensurable MEASURE of our various intelligences, as well as anyone else. The reason being that it’s not very difficult to understand: the aggregation of the verbal(experiential)-spatial(temporal) measures is so predictive of life achievement that all other measures are all but insignificant.

    So for the purposes that we use these measures (the cost of training the individual increasingly abstractly-perceptible skills) they are possibly as good a measure as we we are ever to get, and likely more precise than is relevant. It may in fact be better to reduce IQ to standard deviation from the magic ‘cliff’ of 106, where we begin to be able to articulate ideas and repair machines, since at every six to seven points, individuals display perceptible differences in ability and greater resolution in that measure is just noise. At every fifteen they display substantial differences in abilities allowing them access to different occupations, and at every 30 points of difference individuals begin to have difficulty communicating with on another in similar terms.

    PERSONALITY AND MORALITY

    We also understand a great deal about variations in personality and moral instinct.

    The research into the evolutionary origins of our moral intuitions (versus our learned norms) has progressed rapidly thanks to the conversion of the discipline of philosophy from a subjective pseudoscience measured against an ideal norm (freud), to an operationalist (observable) science measured against the requirements of evolutionary biology.

    For the same reason our understanding of personality is shifting greatly. And while the five factor analysis is highly predictive given it’s (pseudoscientific authoritarian feminist freudian) origins, the term ‘neurotic’ should probably be homogenized with the sciences as ‘impulsivity’, the Autistic-Solipsistic spectrum, verbal IQ and Spatial IQ and Gender should be added to those measures. And the remaining four should be reframed as reproductive strategies.

    The current error in personality analysis is the attempt to separate out empathy as a separate form of intelligence, rather than describe the influence that the feminine/solipsistic<–empathic–>autistic/masculine spectrum imposes upon verbal and spatial intelligence.

    If done, then morality and personality, gender and reproductive strategy would be rendered commensurable. (The unfortunate long term impact of Cantorian, Marxist, Misesian, Boazian and Freudian pseudoscience remains with us and prevents us from unifying what appear to be different fields of inquiry, but that are identical if we reduce them to first principles: genetic expression of our evolutionary biology – a record of our evolution of the intuitions of cooperation which perform in an uncomfortable equilibrium with our self interest: reproductive strategy.

    There is a reason the socialists suppressed darwin as heavily as the fundamentalists.) As an aside, we also know what properties make an individual desirable and undesirable as a mate (symmetry, skin, height, etc). And if we were to roughly measure those every seven years we would find that reproductive desirability, personality, cognitive abilities, morality, reproductive strategy would remain in parallel except at the margins. But this borders on ‘too much information’ since few of us want to face such facts.

    REGARDING HIGH DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT HIGH IQ SCORE

    1) —“a person may be of high intelligence and not have a high IQ score”—

    Hmmm…, a person may DEMONSTRATE more intelligent thinking and action than someone with a higher IQ. This is true. But it does not tell us why he demonstrates it. Even though the reason WHY is quite simple: Demonstrated intelligence is largely a factor of general knowledge of the subject and its application with limited error. While IQ is determined only by the rate of pattern recognition. Now it so happens that people who recognize patterns more rapidly tend to make fewer errors, and to accumulate new information with less friction and less error.

    But say, if one has a high incidence of impulsivity (Neuroticism) this will not be the case. His energies (and time) will be spent in justifications of his impulses, not in acquisitions of useful information). So, for example, Dr Higgs (of the higgs-boson particle) has argued that he would not obtain a professorship today because he works slowly and is unproductive. This does not prohibit him from genius. It merely means that he is disciplined and methodical. (I am of the same temperament, I would never find a dissertation committee that would tolerate my rate of production which like Spinoza will have taken many many years on a very risky hypothesis.)

    In fact, most Nobel Prize winners are not actually of exceptional intelligence (merely in the 140’s) – which seems to indicate that the value of IQ declines in utility at some point (all measurements are questionable above 140 really). If for no other reason than it is difficult to find people to work with and communicate with, but most likely because somewhere above that range, the improvement is caused by a corresponding limitation.

    Demonstrated intelligence consists of the following criteria:

    i) IQ (rate of pattern recognition)

    ii) Short term memory (necessary for mathematicians and chess players)

    iii) General knowledge (reading a lot on a lot of subjects generally makes you smarter)

    iv) Method of inquiry consisting of inputs ( allegory, parable, history, measurement) and methods ( free association, mysticism, reason, rationalism(justification), science(criticism).

    v) Wants: Impossible Wants, Impossible Beliefs, Metaphysical Errors, and Erroneous Assumptions

    vi) Lack of impulsivity: Discipline, and Time (great ideas are achieved by focused work over very long periods – often approaching a decade or more)

    The greater evolutionary problem appears to be that exceptional intelligence is genetically caused by possessing fewer negative alleles rather than any special allele. Just as evolution is a process of surviving. Just as epistemology is a process of eliminating error from free associations leaving only truth candidates.

    Most of the time, and we can go through almost every thinker in history, great or small, the reason for failure is not intelligence or short term memory, or even impulsivity, but impulsivity, wants, and method. It is rarely intelligence. The failure of intelligence is one in which we observe that the individual does not identify patterns extant in the knowledge available. We do not fault Aristote for his failed innovations. We fault marx for continuing to take money from Engels once he had discovered that the marginalists and proved him wrong, and that all his work and fame was fallacy. He stopped writing. Did nothing. Continued taking his income from Engels until he died. A simple ‘capitalist’ motivation kept him from admitting his errors.

    SUMMARY

    So I think that we understand demonstrated intelligence enough to say that one can demonstrate intelligence in any sphere in which one can master the subject matter, apply scientific reasoning (criticism), insulate one’s study and practice from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit (including self deception), and spend sufficient time on the subject that others cannot.

    Some of us cannot even master ourselves. Some of us can barely master simple duties. Some of us can do it only through imitation of others. Some of us can do it only with experiential subjects. Some of us can do it with abstract subjects. Some of us can do it with purely theoretical subjects. And some of us can do MANY OF THESE AT ONCE. In fact, Polymathy and theoretical polymathy are probably the best test of demonstrated intelligence because polymathy demonstrates both rate of acquisition AND limited error in acquisition, and theoretical polymathy demonstrates that the individual can add a original insight (Hayek says he had two) to human knowledge.

    SOME NITS : ‘SCIENTIFIC THINKING’

    2) –“…on the nature of scientific thinking as it should be..” —

    This paragraph is reducible to the statement: demonstrable intelligence requires the construction of a model that corresponds to the extant reality, and survives attempts to falsify it.

    What you don’t mention, and which will conflict with your own mode of inquiry, is that such scientific thinking requires that the model be sufficiently complete that one need not appeal to introspection for the evaluation of results. This is where I generally see you get into trouble with your own work. Any model that requires introspection rather than correspondence by definition lacks sufficient information and means of decidability such that one can claim one’s observation or testimony to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    Now, if by some chance your intuition corresponds to reality (and in many cases yours does) then this correspondence can be used to provide comfort to your priors, but may cause you error in bias in matters wherein you rely upon introspection rather than correspondence independent of introspection (decidability).

    (But I am struck with the question of why you feel the need to retain your expertise in introspection? Why do you seek to justify it? When we know that this introspection merely results in confirmation bias?)

    Man: need to persist. need to acquire, need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of acquisition. need to reproduce. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of reproduction. need to defend kin. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of defending kin. need to produce cooperate to produce common assets since cooperation on commons is disproportionately rewarding compared to individual production. To act one must engage in perception, intuition, awareness, searching, reasoning, remembering, deciding, acting. But all that complexity is reducible to we must act to acquire, and cooperation that is non-parasitic (imposes no costs on others) is disproportionately productive.

    NIT: THE MEANING OF ‘UNDERSTANDING’ (Avoiding crutches)

    3) –“understanding is not quantitative but qualitative” —

    This statement demonstrates confusion between means of measurement rather than epistemological differences. Understanding = general rules or general principles (of arbitrary precision) one uses for categorization, properties, methods and relations for some subsequent action. Qualitative relations: the ability to stack relative to one another even if we cannot articulate the reason for stacking, and even if stacking is merely a preference. And Quantitative Measurements: the ability to define relations against a constant. These two forms of measurement serve two purposes. That is all.

    So when you say ‘understanding’ you mean that any rule of general utility must equally be constructed of arbitrary precision. For example, I understand how to bake, but I bake a cake and bread differently by using recipes. Baking is a level of precision useful only for communication with others, while a recipe is necessary for the baking of a cake or bread. While it is not necessary that I understand the chemical transitions that occur during the process of preparation and baking and cooling in order for me to bake a cake. So while in casual conversation we may use these terms loosely: baking, baking a cake, and the chemical transformations that occur through the combination of substances and the application of heat, each of these is a level of precision, just like throwing a ball by commons sense, firing a projectile using newtonian physics, or explaining the evolution of the universe using quantum mechanics – if we wish to reason from them, we must use that level of precision that we need for such reasoning – else we are just making excuses and calling them reasons: justification.

    So ‘understanding’ requires general rules that help us evaluate explore and hypothesize, not recipes that allow us to construct. I understand the basics of carpentry but I am not capable of deducing the construction of a modern home from that. Most economists specialize in some field of inquiry but since the rules of economic specialties are interesting for their counter-intuitiveness, economists cannot generalize – which is why economists are non-predictive: at any given point only a few people possess the specialized knowledge to understand a current model. Meaning that the Dunning Kruger Effect is always with us – maybe more so for smart people.

    CLOSING

    Follow you. Don’t comment often. Like the Christian loading. Not crazy about method of doing it. I tend to just get to the central proposition of Christianity: extension of kinship love to non-kin as a means of increasing trust, increasing the velocity of cooperation, economic velocity, rate of innovation, and prosperity. We will never have a restoration.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 05:33:00 UTC

  • Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

    [M]athematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

    http://www.env-econ.net/2015/08/coding.html

    Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

    It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

    For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

    The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

    In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

    We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.

    Cheers

  • Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

    [M]athematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

    http://www.env-econ.net/2015/08/coding.html

    Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

    It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

    For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

    The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

    In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

    We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.

    Cheers

  • THE VALUE OF TRUTH INCREASES WITH THE SCALE OF THE CONSEQUENCES The more parsimo

    THE VALUE OF TRUTH INCREASES WITH THE SCALE OF THE CONSEQUENCES

    The more parsimonious the statement of correspondence the more truth content and decidability. (This is a very loaded sentence.)

    As scale increases or decreases, and as consequence increases, and as the number of people affected increase, then the value of truth increases.

    Conversely, loose general rules expressed allegorically or in parable of one king or another are equally useful for individual action.

    For these reasons we increasingly favor increases in precision (parsimony) as the division of labor and scale of polity have increased.

    Because our collective actions are of greater consequences to those external to the decision.

    That is the explanation for the value of different systems of thought.

    Wisdom can be found many places but truth that survives falsification or criticism is a different thing altogether.

    In matters of money or life and death I think most moral men prefer to be adjudicated by truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 12:33:00 UTC

  • THE COSTLY FEMININE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF OUR LANGUAGE

    THE COSTLY FEMININE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF OUR LANGUAGE

    (worth repeating)(revised and expanded)

    It is extremely difficult to translate subjective experiential feminine language into rational and scientific masculine language. Which is something that is often agonized over by feminist philosophers. One of the things I like about propertarianism is that it is possible to translate feminine experiential language into a neutral medium.

    But it is impossible to capture the fact that emotions are COSTLY for women and their reactions UNCONTROLLABLE or overwhelming. So while we see women as absurd creatures it is because we do not appreciate the effort and therefore the cost that women feel they bear in managing them.

    Our language, developed largely for men, and by men, does not account for this burden. I think if it did, it would go a long way to improving inter-gender understanding of the vast differences between the male and female experiences of life that are not captured in our language.

    That does not mean we should tolerate the diminution of our language into postmodern or worse devolutions, but it does me that we should develop a language for the rational description of the female experience so that we are aware of their costs.

    Because of this high cost of emotions, women use verbal deceits to morally justify the transfer of emotional costs from the self to the rest of society.

    Meanwhile, men, who have developed a multitude of institutions to control and suppress their equally expensive to control emotions of violence somehow are taken for granted. We exert equal control, but we have had 50K years to develop institutional means of directing our aggressiveness and competition to productive ends.

    As yet women have not found a way to devote their emotions to constructive ends. Instead, they have – or at least single women have – in large part voted to destroy civilization by the systematic attack on property, family, and marriage that makes the compromise between the gender’s possible despite our differences in reproductive strategy.

    Language would help women articulate the cost of their experience and allow the genders to engage in exchanges to assist them, rather than lies and rents in order to justify them.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-05 20:16:00 UTC

  • How do we empirically test that they are (a) good men, (b) have common interests

    How do we empirically test that they are (a) good men, (b) have common interests (c) seek not rents nor priv’s (d) are kin?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-04 16:46:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628608014526849024

    Reply addressees: @AppleCiderRadio

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628606475573661696

    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/628606475573661696

  • THE ARCHITECTURE OF PROPERTARIANISM Thinking through the remainder of Propertari

    THE ARCHITECTURE OF PROPERTARIANISM

    Thinking through the remainder of Propertarianism.

    COMMUNICATION METHOD

    1) Poem / Parable / Story / Novel / Play, (analogy), Dostoyevsky, Orwell

    2) Essay(Advice / Preference), Locke, Smith, and Hume.

    3) Argument(scholarly persuasion / Necessity), Darwin.

    4) Prescription (law, actionable / requirement ), The US Constitution.

    5) Bible(Law+Myth, Pedagogy) Koran, Hebrew law. The Western Canon

    ETHICAL METHOD

    1) Virtue Ethics (Imitation) – in Youth – Using Story

    2) Deontological Ethics (Rules) – at Maturity – Using Prescription(Law) or Argument

    3) Teleological Ethics (Outcomes) – when Aged – Using Essay or Bible

    LIFE EXPERIENCE REQUIRED

    1) Youth – Little Experience – virtue ethics – outcomes

    2) Maturity – Some Experience – Deontological ethics.

    3) Aged – Much : Teleological ethics – outcomes.

    REQUIREMENTS

    1) Durable medium – the longer the better. myths last forever.

    2) Pedagogical – can be taught by parable or by rule, or studied to gain wisdom.

    3) Hard to criticize – can survive decades if not centuries of criticism

    THOUGHTS

    My first draft in 2006 was an essay. The second draft in 2013 was an argument. But both were plagued by ideosyncratic language. So (on advice from hoppe) I rewrote it using standard philosophical language, using the five branches of philosophy as the skeleton.

    Over the past two years, I’ve been able to condense the arguments substantially, and make them more comprehensible. Mostly through continuing to enumerate a number of spectra. And at this point, Propertarianism is much closer to Spinoza’s extremely parsimonious work than Smith’s windy narrative, and Hume or Kant’s, structured arguments.

    My intuition tells me that since propertarianism and testimonialism constitute a LEGAL philosophy (a political philosophy expressed as law), that I should not really get into the business of defending each of the propositions. I would lose the reader. And rather than justify the reasoning I should merely DEMONSTRATE it’s explanatory power. I should state the law as “given x, we seek y, by doing z, and this is moral because of w.” Then to follow with examples showing adherence to the rule, then failure to adhere to the rule. Then to address every possible questions of conflict both private and public that I can (like the reformed Torah).

    The intuition that I should write Propertrianism (Testimonialism) as a legal version of the 48 Laws of Power (book) has been nagging me for years now. And it’s held up consistently enough that I don’t think it’s going to change.

    I am incapable of writing a novel. Novels, Essays and Arguments are not as durable as laws and bibles. And I want Propertariaism(Testimonialism) to be durable. For centuries. At least.

    So the big question is: “can I write a bible”. And the answer, I think is yes.

    Science, Philosophy, Morality, Law, Politics and Religion in a single volume.

    All identical.

    All unified.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-04 06:17:00 UTC

  • Definitions: Calculable, Computational, Rational, Irrational, Arational, and “Black Box”

    (draft) (learning propertarianism) [T]he subtle differences in terms of comparison. DEFINITIONS:

    CALCULATIVE (HYPOTHETICAL) vs COMPUTATIONAL(DETERMINISTIC) – A process is CALCULATIVE if human beings are required to perform it, and COMPUTATIONAL if (current) computers can perform it. CALCULATIVE INSTITUTIONS – The set of technologies that permit human beings to extend their perception and comparison ability, and therefore their ability to understand and forecast in complexity, particularly a division of knowledge and labor, as a means of assisting in planning, forecasting, production and decision making. Specifically: numbers, counting, arithmetic, accounting, algebra, calculus, statistics, combined with money, numeric time, banking, interest, contract, rule of law, combined with narrative, history, objective truth, combined with property, exchange, trade, markets. CALCULATION / CALCULATIVE: A calculation is a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change. The term is generally used to describe a spectrum of methods of reasoning, from the very definite arithmetical calculation of using an algorithm, to the vague heuristics of calculating a strategy in a competition or calculating the chance of a successful relationship between two people. OPERATIONAL: A recipe for a description of a series of actions that produce a result within a limit of precision. (an existence proof) COMPUTATIONAL: A sequence of mechanically producible and repeatable operations. LOGICAL – A sequence of operations Not entirely a synonym for rational, since logical statements should be formally testable, while rational statements nearly need not be irrational. RATIONAL – Reasonable. Reasoned. A conclusion achieved through the process of reason. Drawing hypotheses from juxtaposing facts against each other and determining their relations. Does not imply that the answer is correct. Only that logic was reasoning was properly applied. IRRATIONAL – Not reasonable. Not correctly reasoned. In philosophical usage, means illogical, or poor reasoning. Specifically that the reasoning applied or decision made, does not result in the desired ends. ARATIONAL – Having no rational characteristics; having no capacity to reason. In philosophy, not within the domain of what can be understood or analyzed by reason; outside the competence of the rules of reason. ARATIONAL BLACK BOX – I use the terms “Black Box” and “Arational” to refer to non-logical content that produces beneficial ends. The problem with all religions other than perhaps stoicism and Buddhism, is that their resulting strategy differs from their claimed mythology. Christianity for example is a set of myths and ideals the purpose of which is to encourage if not force the extension of kinship love to non-kin, and by consequence, produce a high trust society.

  • Definitions: Calculable, Computational, Rational, Irrational, Arational, and “Black Box”

    (draft) (learning propertarianism) [T]he subtle differences in terms of comparison. DEFINITIONS:

    CALCULATIVE (HYPOTHETICAL) vs COMPUTATIONAL(DETERMINISTIC) – A process is CALCULATIVE if human beings are required to perform it, and COMPUTATIONAL if (current) computers can perform it. CALCULATIVE INSTITUTIONS – The set of technologies that permit human beings to extend their perception and comparison ability, and therefore their ability to understand and forecast in complexity, particularly a division of knowledge and labor, as a means of assisting in planning, forecasting, production and decision making. Specifically: numbers, counting, arithmetic, accounting, algebra, calculus, statistics, combined with money, numeric time, banking, interest, contract, rule of law, combined with narrative, history, objective truth, combined with property, exchange, trade, markets. CALCULATION / CALCULATIVE: A calculation is a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change. The term is generally used to describe a spectrum of methods of reasoning, from the very definite arithmetical calculation of using an algorithm, to the vague heuristics of calculating a strategy in a competition or calculating the chance of a successful relationship between two people. OPERATIONAL: A recipe for a description of a series of actions that produce a result within a limit of precision. (an existence proof) COMPUTATIONAL: A sequence of mechanically producible and repeatable operations. LOGICAL – A sequence of operations Not entirely a synonym for rational, since logical statements should be formally testable, while rational statements nearly need not be irrational. RATIONAL – Reasonable. Reasoned. A conclusion achieved through the process of reason. Drawing hypotheses from juxtaposing facts against each other and determining their relations. Does not imply that the answer is correct. Only that logic was reasoning was properly applied. IRRATIONAL – Not reasonable. Not correctly reasoned. In philosophical usage, means illogical, or poor reasoning. Specifically that the reasoning applied or decision made, does not result in the desired ends. ARATIONAL – Having no rational characteristics; having no capacity to reason. In philosophy, not within the domain of what can be understood or analyzed by reason; outside the competence of the rules of reason. ARATIONAL BLACK BOX – I use the terms “Black Box” and “Arational” to refer to non-logical content that produces beneficial ends. The problem with all religions other than perhaps stoicism and Buddhism, is that their resulting strategy differs from their claimed mythology. Christianity for example is a set of myths and ideals the purpose of which is to encourage if not force the extension of kinship love to non-kin, and by consequence, produce a high trust society.