Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • FALSE We absolutely positively know what IQ measures, because it’s simple: neura

    FALSE
    We absolutely positively know what IQ measures, because it’s simple: neural responsiveness (adaptation).
    We absolutely positively know what causes variation in IQ.
    We absolutely positively know why we apply our IQ variation differently resulting in the spectra of demonstrated behavior.
    And we absolutely positively know the variation consists of sex differences in brain organization, personality differences that result, degree of neotenic evolution, and genetic load, followed by cultural differences in indoctrination, training, and ideosyncratic experience.
    The only interesting question is why those with high empathizing and low systematizing deny these facts – and we know that answer as well.
    What you all fear is that your reliance on empathizing and projection may (likely) expose the limits of your cognitive ability to model human behavior at scale. And those of you who empathize first would panic at the realization of your limitiations.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-30 10:41:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652624230511521797

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652572917073428484

  • FALSE We absolutely positively know what IQ measures, because it’s simple: neura

    FALSE
    We absolutely positively know what IQ measures, because it’s simple: neural responsiveness (adaptation).
    We absolutely positively know what causes variation in IQ.
    We absolutely positively know why we apply our IQ variation differently resulting in the spectra of demonstrated behavior.
    And we absolutely positively know the variation consists of sex differences in brain organization, personality differences that result, degree of neotenic evolution, and genetic load, followed by cultural differences in indoctrination, training, and ideosyncratic experience.
    The only interesting question is why those with high empathizing and low systematizing deny these facts – and we know that answer as well.
    What you all fear is that your reliance on empathizing and projection may (likely) expose the limits of your cognitive ability to model human behavior at scale. And those of you who empathize first would panic at the realization of your limitiations.

    Reply addressees: @semiliterate @PaoloShirasi @kareem_carr

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-30 10:41:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652624230414991360

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652572917073428484

  • “But means have been decreasing as uptake is increasing. In Denmark average iq o

    –“But means have been decreasing as uptake is increasing. In Denmark average iq of PhD students is about 113 now.”–

    Like I said. PhD teaches you how to perform research in a domain. It is not a measure of exceptional intelligence or competency. Instead the domain in which you… https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1652272397217562624

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-29 12:49:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652293979923177473

  • (core) (sex differences) Corrective Measures Needed for ‘undergrads’. 😉 P-Law r

    (core) (sex differences)
    Corrective Measures Needed for ‘undergrads’. 😉

    P-Law requires we cognitively switch to the use of series (measures) rather than sets (ideals). So you can’t reduce everything to single test as (archaic) philosophical “set-morons” do. Mathiness, Verbalism, Ideals, and Sets are what prevented and still resist evolution into computation, operations, original measures, and ordinal tests.

    But because you’ve been indoctrinated by religion, philosophy, and moral reasoning into ‘doing it wrong’ – simply because doing it wrong is simpler and requires less knowledge, it’s harder for you to learn how to ‘do it right’.

    Everything we do: disambiguation into a system of measurement, by enumeration serialization and operationalization, producing ordinal measures, from which we produce tests by a series of ordinal measures.

    So, Instead, we test the entire spectrum of sex differences in cognition just as we test the entire spectrum of testimony, reciprocity, and demonstrated interests, and the hierarchy of ternary logic at physical scale to trifunctional behaviors at macro scale.

    So just as we have checklists for testimony(truth), reciprocity(morality), and demonstrated interests (facts), we have checklists for male and female differences – but the list is quite large, and this is only the first order of that list:

    Masculine: Supply: predator, systematizing, over time, physical(outcomes), empirical thinking, political, loyal, harming, productive status via accumulation of responsibility for capital (capitalizing).

    -versus-

    Feminine: Demand: prey, empathizing, in time, emotional(experiential), magical thinking, social, devoted, undermining, parasitic, status via accumulating irresponsibiilty for capital (hyperconsumption).

    Whenever you’re making a comparison between ‘left (feminine) and right (masculine) cognitive and moral biases, then you must run the entire list, lest you misapply causality.

    Fast Focused Predator over time vs Reactive General Prey in time is just the beginning of the sex differences in brain organization that we too often reduce to ‘reals vs feels’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-28 13:59:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651949376602767362

  • (core) (sex differences) Corrective Measures Needed for ‘undergrads’. 😉 P-Law r

    (core) (sex differences)
    Corrective Measures Needed for ‘undergrads’. 😉

    P-Law requires we cognitively switch to the use of series (measures) rather than sets (ideals). So you can’t reduce everything to single test as (archaic) philosophical “set-morons” do. Mathiness, Verbalism, Ideals, and Sets are what prevented and still resist evolution into computation, operations, original measures, and ordinal tests.

    But because you’ve been indoctrinated by religion, philosophy, and moral reasoning into ‘doing it wrong’ – simply because doing it wrong is simpler and requires less knowledge, it’s harder for you to learn how to ‘do it right’.

    Everything we do: disambiguation into a system of measurement, by enumeration serialization and operationalization, producing ordinal measures, from which we produce tests by a series of ordinal measures.

    So, Instead, we test the entire spectrum of sex differences in cognition just as we test the entire spectrum of testimony, reciprocity, and demonstrated interests, and the hierarchy of ternary logic at physical scale to trifunctional behaviors at macro scale.

    So just as we have checklists for testimony(truth), reciprocity(morality), and demonstrated interests (facts), we have checklists for male and female differences – but the list is quite large, and this is only the first order of that list:

    Masculine: Supply: predator, systematizing, over time, physical(outcomes), empirical thinking, political, loyal, harming, productive status via accumulation of responsibility for capital (capitalizing).

    -versus-

    Feminine: Demand: prey, empathizing, in time, emotional(experiential), magical thinking, social, devoted, undermining, parasitic, status via accumulating irresponsibiilty for capital (hyperconsumption).

    Whenever you’re making a comparison between ‘left (feminine) and right (masculine) cognitive and moral biases, then you must run the entire list, lest you misapply causality.

    Fast Focused Predator over time vs Reactive General Prey in time is just the beginning of the sex differences in brain organization that we too often reduce to ‘reals vs feels’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-28 13:59:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651949376405753860

  • (core) (sex differences) Corrective Measures Needed for ‘undergrads’. 😉 P-Law r

    (core) (sex differences)
    Corrective Measures Needed for ‘undergrads’. 😉

    P-Law requires we cognitively switch to the use of series (measures) rather than sets (ideals). So you can’t reduce everything to single test as (archaic) philosophical “set-morons” do. Mathiness, Verbalism, Ideals, and Sets are what prevented and still resist evolution into computation, operations, original measures, and ordinal tests.

    But because you’ve been indoctrinated by religion, philosophy, and moral reasoning into ‘doing it wrong’ – simply because doing it wrong is simpler and requires less knowledge, it’s harder for you to learn how to ‘do it right’.

    Everything we do: disambiguation into a system of measurement, by enumeration serialization and operationalization, producing ordinal measures, from which we produce tests by a series of ordinal measures.

    So, Instead, we test the entire spectrum of sex differences in cognition just as we test the entire spectrum of testimony, reciprocity, and demonstrated interests, and the hierarchy of ternary logic at physical scale to trifunctional behaviors at macro scale.

    So just as we have checklists for testimony(truth), reciprocity(morality), and demonstrated interests (facts), we have checklists for male and female differences – but the list is quite large, and this is only the first order of that list:

    Masculine: Supply: predator, systematizing, over time, physical(outcomes), empirical thinking, political, loyal, harming, productive status via accumulation of responsibility for capital (capitalizing).

    -versus-

    Feminine: Demand: prey, empathizing, in time, emotional(experiential), magical thinking, social, devoted, undermining, parasitic, status via accumulating irresponsibiilty for capital (hyperconsumption).

    Whenever you’re making a comparison between ‘left (feminine) and right (masculine) cognitive and moral biases, then you must run the entire list, lest you misapply causality.

    Fast Focused Predator in time vs Reactive General Prey in time is just the beginning of the sex differences in brain organization that we too often reduce to ‘reals vs feels’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-28 13:59:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651944693884674052

  • Natural Law’s basis is purely empirical (now). Religion as a set of rituals that

    Natural Law’s basis is purely empirical (now). Religion as a set of rituals that produce social weights and measures (commensurability) must produce mindfulness. That is not to say that religions must be supernatural whatsoever (stoicism, and early buddhism). Or that fictional characters are needed (shinto), or that we must lie that we know the words of supernatural entities (hinduism, abrahmamic religions). Can we make a religion free of lies? Sure.

    Reply addressees: @CrackerYakub

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-26 23:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651367139389964294

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651365129278091264

  • Natural Law’s basis is purely empirical (now). Religion as a set of rituals that

    Natural Law’s basis is purely empirical (now). Religion as a set of rituals that produce social weights and measures (commensurability) must produce mindfulness. That is not to say that religions must be supernatural whatsoever (stoicism, and early buddhism). Or that fictional characters are needed (shinto), or that we must lie that we know the words of supernatural entities (hinduism, abrahmamic religions). Can we make a religion free of lies? Sure.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-26 23:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651367139524190210

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1651365129278091264

  • is explaining via philosophy and theology. We are solving via operational episte

    is explaining via philosophy and theology. We are solving via operational epistemology, lingquistics, cog sci, economics, and law. It’s very difficult to understand our solving without having the explaining.
    The more success James has the more people will be…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-20 20:32:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649149035565969409

    Reply addressees: @ThruTheHayes @GracianoGreen @ConceptualJames

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649147801295548428

  • @ConceptualJames is explaining via philosophy and theology. We are solving via o

    @ConceptualJames is explaining via philosophy and theology. We are solving via operational epistemology, lingquistics, cog sci, economics, and law. It’s very difficult to understand our solving without having the explaining.
    The more success James has the more people will be able to grasp the reason for the solutions.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-20 20:32:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1649149035435945991