Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Scientists, Engineers, and Software folk tend to understand better propertariani

    Scientists, Engineers, and Software folk tend to understand better propertarianism because they have been analytically framed – they have trained themselves to divorce subjective and moral value from truth propositions.

    The problem with literary and philosophical (and continental especially) readers is that they have trained themselves to preserve subjective or moral value to reason.

    Given that most philosophy (other than logic, law, and science) consists of fantasy moral literature (secular theology) as either a form of escapism, or means of rallying against the status quo (power), this subjective(personal) and moral (interpersonal) framing is understandable.

    The truth is we live under scientists, jurists, philosophers, and theologians. And the competition between them serves the distribution of abilities at the cost of competition over decidability (truth), when the only difference philosophy and theology can provide is choice of the preferable and the good – not decidability. Hence why I think the law must be inviolate so that choice of preference and good is not conflated with the decidability of truth, and such that false arguments can no longer be made.

    Why? Because false arguments to the preferable and the good (and the true for that matter) are just acts of fraud to escape voluntary exchange or obtain exchange at an unwarranted discount.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 10:07:00 UTC

  • Why Is (was) Psychology a Pseudoscience?

    —“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE) (a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’), (b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement (c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm: (d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm. (e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.) SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE ) (a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”. (b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire. (c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic)) (d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes. (e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits. (f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….

  • Why Is (was) Psychology a Pseudoscience?

    —“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE) (a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’), (b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement (c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm: (d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm. (e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.) SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE ) (a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”. (b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire. (c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic)) (d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes. (e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits. (f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • SCIENTISM IS SHAMING UNLESS YOU MEAN POSITIVISM – I DON’T. I DO TESTIMONIALISM.

    SCIENTISM IS SHAMING UNLESS YOU MEAN POSITIVISM – I DON’T. I DO TESTIMONIALISM.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin

    Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood.

    As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases.

    We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act).

    Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration).

    No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference.

    Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 12:27:00 UTC

  • Um…. again, why would I want to. (And yes mike’s shows with me have been some

    Um…. again, why would I want to. (And yes mike’s shows with me have been some of the more popular, sorry”) Your opinion doesn’t matter. If I can’t teach you to make an operational argument in testimonial prose you’re just someone who wants validation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 20:22:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997935501356273665

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13 @Aristomedes @DSA_dienstmann @RichardBSpencer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997933670139875328

    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/997933670139875328

  • “You seem a little obsessed”—Vicente Pozo Muñiz I have a hard time grasping ho

    —“You seem a little obsessed”—Vicente Pozo Muñiz

    I have a hard time grasping how it should be surprising that a guy who specializes in the operational language of natural law, the grammar and semantics of that law, and making arguments in the grammar and semantics of that law at a level that includes falsifying every dimension of possible human perception would sound or act other than ‘obsessive’.

    I mean I don’t wanna say that’s kinda stupid really. But isn’t it?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 15:26:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Operational language couples context to content by how that conte

    by Bill Joslin

    Operational language couples context to content by how that content can exist in reality.

    For example within language – nouns provide identity, and verbs provide action properties to nouns (verbs describe state).

    In spoken language we can say “the dog flew off the dock into the ocean”.

    But, dogs don’t fly.

    We conflate the existential properties of birds (flying animals) with the properties dogs (nonflying animals).

    Of course this allows us to color (load) to our speech acts, but this demonstrates conflation from one existential context to another, and then the audience uses culture and norms fill in the gap with “not literally flew – but rather travels very fast” – a substitution of the ‘poetic’ (conflationary) with the ‘descriptive’ (deflationary).

    In engineering grammars (in this case mathematical formula and scientific laws) we constrain usage to only that which is possible existentially possible.

    For example you could not use formula which maps electrical activity to calculate drag coefficients of an aircraft. It simply wouldn’t make sense. The inputs don’t correspond to the argument’s of that equation.

    When we think this through a little bit more, means-of-measurement couple grammars (the language), in for example aircraft design, to reality. The inputs to discover a drag coefficient pertains to the geometry of the air surface, where as the inputs for electrical calculation pertain to voltages and amperes etc.

    The mathematical equations express the operations (verbs), the measurement captures the properties (adverb, adjectives) which the operations depend. The start and end points of calculation express the identity(nouns) and change of state it undergoes.

    Operationalism in spoken language provides a consistent “measurement”: Commensurability with reality.

    The commensurability (measuring across disparate objects) across contexts, which we must choose and couple to our content, forces us to think about the relationship between properties, actions, identity and the result,. If done well, this provides a means of measurement within that domain.

    Reciprocity as a means of measuring morality, property as a means of measuring impositions and gain, agency etc.

    This cultivates clarity of thought and provides decidibility for those who can and are willing to invest in it’s habituation

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 08:52:00 UTC

  • The Grammars

    —“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube intro to propertarianism. When you talk about operational grammars, are you talking about isolating the rules of each domain of human knowledge and find a common ground between them ?”— A Friend Wow, that is one of the smartest first-questions anyone has ever asked me. Yes. “universal commensurability” or “universal language”. This allows us to criticize (judge) across all disciplines.