Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • (worth repeaging) CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM Try this:

    (worth repeaging)
    CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM

    Try this:
    1) All syllogistic (verbal, set) logic is either tautological or contingent upon premises.
    2) All axiomatic logic is contingent upon axioms.
    3) All operational logic from first principles is not contingent – it’s either constructible or not: surviving falsification or not.

    See?
    Everythign we state in P-law is constructed from first principles in operational prose.
    We don’t necessarily need to know something is true.
    But we can pretty securely say it’s false.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634314951807442944

  • (worth repeaging) CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM Try this:

    (worth repeaging)
    CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM

    Try this:
    1) All syllogistic (verbal, set) logic is either tautological or contingent upon premises.
    2) All axiomatic logic is contingent upon axioms.
    3) All operational logic from first principles is not contingent – it’s either constructible or not: surviving falsification or not.

    See?
    Everythign we state in P-law is constructed from first principles in operational prose.
    We don’t necessarily need to know something is true.
    But we can pretty securely say it’s false.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634314951920611351

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

    THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
    Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
    The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
    Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
    In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
    The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
    What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

    For example:
    All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
    Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
    Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
    Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
    Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
    Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
    Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

    How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

    While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

    In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

    Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

    That’s how it’s done.

    And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @RVAwonk

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723101102080

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

    THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
    Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
    The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
    Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
    In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
    The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
    What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

    For example:
    All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
    Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
    Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
    Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
    Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
    Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
    Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

    How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

    While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

    In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

    Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

    That’s how it’s done.

    And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723415674880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897

  • (lame critics) FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING RE: Silicon

    (lame critics)
    FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
    FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
    RE: Silicon Valley Bank

    Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.

    Let me clue you in.
    Banks are in a market.
    The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
    The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
    The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
    They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
    The compound debt system does not work.
    Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
    The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
    So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
    But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
    Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
    Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
    FIxing it’s possible.
    And it’s eventually necessary.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164058120193

  • (lame critics) FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING RE: Silicon

    (lame critics)
    FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
    FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
    RE: Silicon Valley Bank

    Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.

    Let me clue you in.
    Banks are in a market.
    The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
    The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
    The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
    They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
    The compound debt system does not work.
    Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
    The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
    So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
    But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
    Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
    Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
    FIxing it’s possible.
    And it’s eventually necessary.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164230127620

  • NIT: %change isn’t really telling us much at the moment

    NIT: %change isn’t really telling us much at the moment.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:53:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634296337746345984

    Reply addressees: @monitoringbias

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634283641395204096

  • Correct. Hence the need for a value-neutral language of ethics economics and pol

    Correct. Hence the need for a value-neutral language of ethics economics and politics https://twitter.com/kontherad1/status/1634082140106416128

  • TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA? (easy answer that applie

    TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA?
    (easy answer that applies to every civilization)

    1) The principle difference between civilizations is the degree of trust: meaning the trustworthiness of each individual in personal, private, social, economic, and political life.. Russia is a low-trust civilization. China is a lower-trust civilization. India is an even lower-trust civilization. The middle east (MENA) is a much much lower-trust civilization. Sub Saharan Africa is a trustless civilization. The Japanese, South Koreans, and the Europeans (mostly northern Europeans) are the only high-trust civilizations.

    2) Russia is a low trust civ. Duggin is looking for a justification for Russian imperial authoritarianism that is necessary for a low-trust population to maintain a geographic extreme of eleven time zones, when there is no means of political, social, economic, and cultural, competition against competitors. In other words, (just like Canadians virtue signal over Americans) Russians need a means of excusing their untrustworthiness and not developing trustworthiness.

    3) Those civilizations that experimented with communism and socialism ‘blew the window’ of modernizing, where they hade but a century to seize their share of incentives to create a majority middle-class society, before market differences between civilizations eliminated any chance of an advantage. Now they have built up consumption, but they have no capital to use to transform, and no market means of transformation. So most will choose like Dugin to double down on ideology religion or authority to compensate. Some others will knuckle under (India) and develop quickly. Others more slowly.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 02:15:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634015030545899529

  • TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA? (easy answer that applie

    TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA?
    (easy answer that applies to every civilization)

    1) The principle difference between civilizations is the degree of trust: meaning the trustworthiness of each individual in personal, private, social, economic, and political life.. Russia is a low-trust civilization. China is a lower-trust civilization. India is an even lower-trust civilization. The middle east (MENA) is a much much lower-trust civilization. Sub Saharan Africa is a trustless civilization. The Japanese, South Koreans, and the Europeans (mostly northern Europeans) are the only high-trust civilizations.

    2) Russia is a low trust civ. Duggin is looking for a justification for Russian imperial authoritarianism that is necessary for a low-trust population to maintain a geographic extreme of eleven time zones, when there is no means of political, social, economic, and cultural, competition against competitors. In other words, (just like Canadians virtue signal over Americans) Russians need a means of excusing their untrustworthiness and not developing trustworthiness.

    3) Those civilizations that experimented with communism and socialism ‘blew the window’ of modernizing, where they hade but a century to seize their share of incentives to create a majority middle-class society, before market differences between civilizations eliminated any chance of an advantage. Now they have built up consumption, but they have no capital to use to transform, and no market means of transformation. So most will choose like Dugin to double down on ideology religion or authority to compensate. Some others will knuckle under (India) and develop quickly. Others more slowly.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 02:15:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634015030441123840