Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements,

    I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements, but that within any universal statement tolerating a distribution. This is necessary for the construction of general rules of communication.

    I have had numerous death threats, and been asked to run for office frequently, and I’ve had people stalk me, and I see nothing special about women with the same problem.

    Women are a dead weight in battle and thats the evidence and the evidence is in – women get men killed.

    The value women provide in any conflict is the provision of supplies, staffing the work force, and providing care taking – and losing their sons.

    But there is no equal to the loss of life and limb. So no, this is a statement that has no merit.

    Nature produces many more males than females for precisely this purpose and under stress females produce more males, and under prosperity more females.

    We evolved this way. Men are where nature experiments and we are disposable. ON the other hand possibly because we know we are disposable, we are highly sensitive to politics – so that we cannot be easily disposed of.

    Women on the other hand evolved to make sure they were safe enough to care for their offspring even if their off spring are harmful to the population (see the stats on mothers defense of serial killers and criminals vs fathers)

    So my point is that we feel what our genes instruct us to feel, and our words are just negotiations.

    The family and one vote per family neutralizez the use of government to conduct war between the genders.

    I think this is one of the insights I have tried to provide. And I will never convince women that their offspring are ugly, stupid, and a terrible additoni to the gene pool, and net drain on humanity. I mean, can you imagine women actually looking at their children that way?

    I cannot imagine not. Women used to expose their children if they could not care for them without self harm. Now they don’t need to expose them, just let others pay for them.

    The cost of this is being paid by men who will now see their old ages in poverty, and loneliness.

    Anyway, that is why men will fight. to the death, or why other men will conquer any group that manages to succeed at the feminist program.

    It’s suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 08:09:00 UTC

  • that relies upon statistical correlation is merely a side effect of advancements

    http://bv.ms/1thsTYtScience that relies upon statistical correlation is merely a side effect of advancements in data collection, calculation, and computing by increasingly mechanical means of instrumentation. With these advanced, made possible by instrumentation, collection, analysis and explanation were specialised – but without operationalism as a moral and logical constraint upon scientific statements, pseudoscience has evolved as a specific disciple – and means of fund and attention getting – because it’s easier than practicing science.

    This fallacy is so embedded in western thought at this point it will be as difficult to erase as was anthropomorphism or the act of divine hand.

    It is the phlogiston theory of the 20th century brought about by advances in tools without corresponding advances in reason.

    We can intuit a theory by any possible means. Statistical collection analysis extends our sense, perception, and therefore reduces the imperceptible to an analogy to experience that renders it perceptible.

    And such correlations can help us develop hypotheses, and can invalidate older theories.

    But without converting hypotheses intuited from statistical observations to a series of testable actions on the part of humans, no such pseudoscientific statement can be said to have been tested.

    This is the reason for the fallacies of social science over the past centuries: wishful thinking about human nature in the left and pessimistic thinking about human nature as purely incentive driven if required to pay costs of decisions in the other.

    Mor later. Thanks for the post. – curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 00:18:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) (worth repeating) The problem is one of scale. Families operate

    (from elsewhere) (worth repeating)

    The problem is one of scale. Families operate on non monetary internal signals, but families still operate as an economy. That economy simply makes use of kin selection. But outside of the family it is nearly impossible to construct kin selection without an island or a northern european peninsula.

    ****You cannot break the Dunbar number without an information and incentive system to compensate for exceeding human cognitive ability****

    Cults rely on expensive rituals and verbal contrivance in order to attempt to construct some alternative kinship alliance. This is why only very eccentric cults with high costs of entry and ritual persist beyond the original founders.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-29 11:06:00 UTC

  • Operational – Empirical Ratio – Empirical Economically empirical. Experimentally

    Operational – Empirical

    Ratio – Empirical

    Economically empirical.

    Experimentally Empirical

    Ratio – Historical

    Ratio – Moral

    Moral / Religio-moral

    A-rational Sentimental.

    Expressive

    … Ok I can write the operational method now, showing that the scientific method consists of a subset of that method.

    Took me almost a year an a half to figure this out. 🙁 and in retrospect it should have been obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 07:50:00 UTC

  • “Hayek did not disagree with Mises because he used words to express his ideas. “

    —“Hayek did not disagree with Mises because he used words to express his ideas. “—

    Words consist of names (extant observable), experiences (unobservable, extant), allegories(unobservable in-extant). Words can be used to convey truth, or meaning, or truth and meaning, or falsehood and meaning. If I speak in names, (operational descriptions are unique just as positional numbers are unique) then I can speak in names of extant entities. Otherwise nothing else is observable. It is very hard to err, lie, or add imaginary content.

    Conversely if I speak in analogies and allegories, I can convey meaning to those with asymmetric information (less), but I can also load and frame that meaning, and with effort, overload our reason (via suggestion). And if I speak in analogies I cannot make a truth claim. What I **CAN** do is first convey meaning by analogy, then restate the idea operationally, and convey truth. And this is, it turns out, the only honest way of conveying understanding truthfully.

    So, as an example of deception and error, your statement that I relied upon the category ‘words’ was dishonest, when my argument relied upon the category ‘analogies’.

    –“You deny that distinctly human minds have a logical structure.”–

    Well aside from the fact that ‘mind’ is the name of an experience that requires time to produce changes in state, and brain is the name of the extant organ, this is a very poor sentence, but I will try to repair it by restating it as: the acts of daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, calculating and computing demonstrate that humans are capable of the practice of logical argument. Therefore humans are capable of logical thought.

    Now, again, you have used fuzzy language to make a dishonest statement. Instead, what I have said is that the capacity of humans to perceive, remember, compare, and judge is extremely limited, and that we must rely upon instrumentation both logical and physical to assist us in all but the most trivial of comparisons. (I don’t know how it is possible to refute this.) I have furthermore stated that language, unless operationally articulated, is so imprecise that error, bias, loading, framing, overloading, wishful thinking and the addition of imaginary content, that reason independent of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth (stated in e-prime for that matter) is not only insufficient a technology for the prevention of error, bias, loading, framing, overloading, wishful thinking, and the addition of imaginary content, but that if we look at the evidence throughout history, the primary function of rationalism is to justify, deceive, frame, and overload, and that humans do not seem to be easily able to detect errors when communication takes place in this method.

    So your entire paragraph on rationalism is an example of how one can attempt to use reason to justify the black or white fallacy: that you levy an accusation of denying that the capacity to reason logically, exists, when I merely state that the capacity to reason independent of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth is extremely limited, (as evidenced by the failure of your own argument), and that is after accusing me of saying that reason cannot be used for honest discourse, rather than the fact that the vast majority of lies, deceptions and fallacies have been created using rationalism.

    —“But a method of doing the natural sciences is not the only logic that, in a pragmatic sense, has succeeded in helping humankind achieve progress. The logic of the classical economists has also succeeded. “—

    I stated that it is extremely hard to lie, cheat, steal, add imaginary content, frame, load, overload, and err, using the scientific method as constituted in empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and testimonial truth. But it is very easy to conduct a dishonest argument that postulates straw men, and black or white fallacies using rationalism.

    The data suggests that the only reason to rely upon rationalism is to lie. That is because most liars rely upon rationalism. The reason scientists rely upon the method (more accurately as empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth), is because it is harder to err, bias and lie. So if any given argument can be conducted both in the language of liars, and in in the language of truth tellers, then why would one defend use of the language of liars?

    The most troubling thing about rationalism, is that it does not help correct those people who are telling lies, but who are not desirous of lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-23 08:42:00 UTC

  • If we cannot agree with that which we cannot sense (reduce to an analogy to expe

    If we cannot agree with that which we cannot sense (reduce to an analogy to experience), then how can we convince people that something that they cannot intuit is in fact moral…… How the hell do we solve this problem…

    If one is intuitively immoral (as it appears the majority are) then, then how is any argument able to persuade?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:59:00 UTC

  • Ok. This isn’t my thing. I’m just trying to look into the economics and the math

    Ok. This isn’t my thing. I’m just trying to look into the economics and the math of it. But if Ebola really can have a 42 or even 21 day incubation period, that means it’s impossible to know if you have been exposed, and so every sniffle someone gets is suspect. I know people aren’t contagious until they show symptoms, but this long a period means you can’t really isolate people, and that unless you are perfectly healthy you must stay home. I guess we could temporarily criminalize public illness for a while. But it’s almost impossible to control. And with these mortality rates it’s not like 1918 even. It’s very hard to wipe out something with these characteristics. That outbreak had only a 20% mortality rate and killed about 6% of the world population. I don’t really know enough about transmission to have an opinion, but with the extreme level of care needed, that long a a gestation period, the mortality rate, it seems economically devastating just from having to fight it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-15 08:57:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS IS AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE – ALL DISCIPLINES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AS EMPIR

    ECONOMICS IS AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE – ALL DISCIPLINES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AS EMPIRICAL SCIENCES – AND THOSE THAT ONE ARGUES OTHERWISE DEMONSTRATE EMPTY VERBALISM ON THE PART OF THE ADVOCATE.

    (from elsewhere)

    a) to be classified as a science a discipline must practice the scientific method: observation (measurement to overcome limits to perception and memory), tests of external correspondence (experiments), tests of internal consistency (logic).

    b) empiricism (observation) is not equal to experimentation (positivism).

    c) economic properties are not deducible from first principles, and we have dozens of examples, the most common of which is sticky prices.

    d) humans are able to cooperate because of sympathetic intention, and could not do so without it. That is, we can (as can dogs, but not apes) understand intentions. We are also marginally indifferent in our incentives. As such we can test the rationality of incentives. Therefore all economic statements are empirically testable by sympathetic experience (the reduction of stimuli to that which we can perceive by our senses.) Or what is called ‘instrumentalism’.

    e) as such economics does not differ from any other scientific discipline in that we require instrumentation (both mechanical and logical) to reduce that which we cannot experience to that which we can experience, and upon experiencing, make a comparison. We simply need less instrumentation to perceive the data than we do in most other fields.

    f) the purpose of which is to develop general rules of arbitrary precision that we can use to model that which we cannot experience directly, from fragmentary information that we can experience directly.

    g) All statements of external correspondence are and always must be theoretical (in the spectrum intuition->hypothesis->theory->law.

    h) Since all hypothetical statements must include arbitrary precision, all general rules are limited by some scale or another(greater or lesser), beyond which the theory fails. In other words, all phenomenon demonstrate a distribution. That which does not is merely tautological.

    i) All axiomatic statements consist of constructions, with deterministic consequences, not observations – because all information that can exist, exists in the axioms.

    Ergo, economics is an empirical science as are all disciplines. All thought is empirical, hypothetical, theoretical, and bound by one or more axis of arbitrary precision. Logical MODELS consist of general rules. Axiomatic systems are TAUTOLOGICAL. Their value is in their tautology: which allows us to test the internal consistency of our statements.

    Mises failed to grasp operationalism which is why he had to create a lot of verbalist nonsense by equating verbal definitions with the properties of reality, so that he could justify his failure.

    (Honestly in retrospect, it’s amazing that like marx he could create that much nonsense – enough nonsense to overload the gullible.).

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 03:48:00 UTC

  • objective definition of Dysgenic

    http://feedly.com/k/1p4dLYVAn objective definition of Dysgenic.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 15:52:00 UTC