Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • HOW ABOUT OPERATIONAL [true] NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS? Why don’t we just r

    HOW ABOUT OPERATIONAL [true] NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS?

    Why don’t we just rename each branch of econ operationally instead of geographically:

    1 – Austrian: Economic Social Science.

    2 – And then follow with Chicago: Economic Rule of Law.

    3 – And follow finally with Saltwater: Economic Discretionary Spending.

    There is plenty of reason there is such conflict between schools over method when the schools seek three different ends:

    1 – Institutional improvement seeking to eliminate frictions and asymmetries of information.

    2 – insurance against shocks and errors given asymmetries of information and natural frictions.

    3 – disinformation to force corrections to the asymmetries of information and natural frictions.

    There is no monopoly methodology to be found in social science. There are just actions we can take at different points in the inter-generational organization of production of offspring(families), goods and services(market), commons(govt), and polities(nations).

    Each group specializes in their reproductive interests:

    1) good intergenerational families (Austrian/social-science),

    2) aspiring families (classical liberal / rule of law ),

    3) and unsuccessful families and their priesthoods (saltwater / progressive / discretionary spending)

    When you argue (falsely) that some method is true or false for the purpose of providing a monopoly of decidability, then you’re engaging in fallacy. When you argue that we have only so many domains of action in economics, and that each school studies that means of action, that’s simply true. When you state that the consequences of three intertemporal strategies: eugenic long term, pragmatic medium term, and dysgenic short term, then just admit that’s what we’re doing.

    The fact that we (a) try to create a monopoly framework of decision making from (b) a set of tools of limited utility, (c) serving different reproductive (and therefore class and race) strategies, then we are just making the same fallacy that monopoly majoritarian, first-past-the-post rule does: that we need a monopoly rather than a market in government and therefore a monopoly rather than a market in economics.

    Let’s imagine for a minute that we had three houses of government, and that economists in each field held one house: austrian/social science, Chicago/rule-of-law, and freshwater/discretionary-rule .

    Now let’s imagine that these three groups had to create a policy where all three compromised upon the result. What would we see? Smaller government(medium term) and better normative behavior(long term), in exchange for higher redistribution (short term).

    Now let’s extend this model and ask why we don’t have a senate (Austrian), a house (freshwater), and a lower house (saltwater), and that these economists advised members of each house.

    This is what we had in the old English system of monarchy, lords, house, and church.

    We had a perfect government. The classical liberals were just wrong. Not all of us can or wish to, join the middle class. Most people simply wish to consume the most that they can with the least effort and risk. The rest of us want to compete for the crown.

    There is very little new under the sun. Most human discourse is as polluted as the waters of Bangladesh with error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Our rhetorical problems exist largely because it is so easy to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    And that problem exists only because, while we force producers to involuntarily warranty goods, involuntarily warranty services, we do not force them to involuntarily warranty their words.

    Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system.

    So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it.

    When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.

    We cannot warranty perfection but for the purpose intended. What we can do is warranty that we have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 09:18:00 UTC

  • ( HOW ABOUT OPERATIONAL [true] NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS ) Why don’t we jus

    ( HOW ABOUT OPERATIONAL [true] NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS )

    Why don’t we just rename each branch of econ operationally instead of geographically:

    1 – Austrian: Economic Social Science.

    2 – And then follow with Chicago: Economic Rule of Law.

    3 – And follow finally with Saltwater: Economic Discretionary Spending.

    There is plenty of reason there is such conflict between schools over method when the schools seek three different ends:

    1 – Institutional improvement seeking to eliminate frictions and asymmetries of information.

    2 – insurance against shocks and errors given asymmetries of information and natural frictions.

    3 – disinformation to force corrections to the asymmetries of information and natural frictions.

    There is no monopoly methodology to be found in social science. There are just actions we can take at different points in the inter-generational organization of production of offspring(families), goods and services(market), commons(govt), and polities(nations).

    Each group specializes in their reproductive interests:

    1) good intergenerational families (Austrian/social-science),

    2) aspiring families (classical liberal / rule of law ),

    3) and unsuccessful families and their priesthoods (saltwater / progressive / discretionary spending)

    When you argue (falsely) that some method is true or false for the purpose of providing a monopoly of decidability, then you’re engaging in fallacy. When you argue that we have only so many domains of action in economics, and that each school studies that means of action, that’s simply true. When you state that the consequences of three intertemporal strategies: eugenic long term, pragmatic medium term, and dysgenic short term, then just admit that’s what we’re doing.

    The fact that we (a) try to create a monopoly framework of decision making from (b) a set of tools of limited utility, (c) serving different reproductive (and therefore class and race) strategies, then we are just making the same fallacy that monopoly majoritarian, first-past-the-post rule does: that we need a monopoly rather than a market in government and therefore a monopoly rather than a market in economics.

    Let’s imagine for a minute that we had three houses of government, and that economists in each field held one house: austrian/social science, Chicago/rule-of-law, and freshwater/discretionary-rule .

    Now let’s imagine that these three groups had to create a policy where all three compromised upon the result. What would we see? Smaller government(medium term) and better normative behavior(long term), in exchange for higher redistribution (short term).

    Now let’s extend this model and ask why we don’t have a senate (Austrian), a house (freshwater), and a lower house (saltwater), and that these economists advised members of each house.

    This is what we had in the old English system of monarchy, lords, house, and church.

    We had a perfect government. The classical liberals were just wrong. Not all of us can or wish to, join the middle class. Most people simply wish to consume the most that they can with the least effort and risk. The rest of us want to compete for the crown.

    There is very little new under the sun. Most human discourse is as polluted as the waters of Bangladesh with error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Our rhetorical problems exist largely because it is so easy to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    And that problem exists only because, while we force producers to involuntarily warranty goods, involuntarily warranty services, we do not force them to involuntarily warranty their words.

    Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system.

    So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it.

    When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.

    We cannot warranty perfection but for the purpose intended. What we can do is warranty that we have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 09:12:00 UTC

  • WHAT ARE “VERBAL ILLUSIONS”? ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVAL

    WHAT ARE “VERBAL ILLUSIONS”?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS

    (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”.

    So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures.

    The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself.

    We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts.

    But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution.

    In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution.

    This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse.

    Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man.

    It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy.

    Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 05:01:00 UTC

  • PROGRAMMING PROVIDES THE CURRENT LOGIC OF OPERATIONALISM – YET WE CAN EXTEND IT.

    PROGRAMMING PROVIDES THE CURRENT LOGIC OF OPERATIONALISM – YET WE CAN EXTEND IT.

    Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential).

    I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent.

    When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum.

    If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition.

    My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are.

    But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training teh mind to think operatoinally – existentially?

    Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wishted to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know.

    In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others.

    Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made.

    (Good luck trying to argue otherwise)

    My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind.

    Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons.

    If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:45:00 UTC

  • Justification is irrelevant. If a statement survives all six dimensional tests t

    Justification is irrelevant. If a statement survives all six dimensional tests then we can warranty it. If we warranty it we speak truthfully. If it functions for the purpose intended it is ‘true’. It may not be the most parsimonious truth that is possible in the evolution of the theory, but that is projection not a claim.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 02:23:00 UTC

  • THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) 😉 PROPOSITIONS 1) All dom

    THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM

    (read it and weep) 😉

    PROPOSITIONS

    1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them.

    2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons.

    3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons.

    4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions.

    5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions.

    6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions.

    7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions.

    THEREFORE

    1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed).

    2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification).

    3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’.

    4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions:

    i) categorical consistency (identity consistency)

    ii) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence)

    v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal)

    vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency)

    5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high.

    THEREFORE

    1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions.

    – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline.

    – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.)

    WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING?

    1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,)

    Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere).

    2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable).

    3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions.

    4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups.

    5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment).

    6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance.

    i) Categorical and Logical (mental)

    ii) Operational and Existential (physical)

    iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-04 02:19:00 UTC

  • Now, if you try to operationally state “organically arise” it will be impossible

    Now, if you try to operationally state “organically arise” it will be impossible. So again. Left lies, right denies. Liars lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 09:49:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772008535538405376

    Reply addressees: @Alt_Left

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772003422815985665

    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/772003422815985665

  • TIP ON PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS. Notice how I don’t describe ‘points’ (ideal types

    TIP ON PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS.

    Notice how I don’t describe ‘points’ (ideal types), but that I describe spectra from limit to limit?

    So I might say Natural Law, but I repeat the NPP at every opportunity: “Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria”. By repetition, I state the precise definition of natural law: the law of cooperation.

    Then I make sure I state the inverse of natural law, the means of violating it: “murder, harm, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, and conquest.”

    And when I talk about falsehood, I use the means of conducting it: “error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.”

    When I talk of philosophy, I use metaphysics(action), psychology, epistemology, sociology, ethics, economics, morality, Law and Politics, group competitive strategy, and religion/war/immigration.

    In other words, I try to show by repetition the difference between the many verbal fallacies that arise from the use of ideal types (analogies) that are corrected by the use of spectra and limits.

    This eliminates many of the ‘weasel words’ that fallacious arguments depend upon. But more importantly it teaches people how to think in more dimensions than we desire to. Just as we want to train people to think intertemporally rather than impulsively or temporally, we want to to train others and ourselves to think in high causal density with precision.

    Humans want simple answers they want a single axis of causality. But almost nothing we do is not caused by multiple axis (spectra) operating in multiple supply and demand curves.

    Now, you can see what most people do is reach for a word that they don’t understand but sounds more sophisticated. This is almost always nonsense. Instead, create a ‘proof’. If you write a spectrum you are writing a ‘proof’ of meaning. You are describing what something MUST MEAN, not what you imagine it means from colloquial usage.

    So when you want to use a term, write out the spectrum from beginning to end, and instead of using the term, enumerate the sequence, over, and over, again. You will refine it over time. And it will be very difficult for you, and for others to err by the use of ‘loose analogy’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:51:00 UTC

  • There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (dec

    There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling.

    This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism.

    And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 01:02:00 UTC

  • so far you can’t even define your terms, nor speak them operationally, and you j

    so far you can’t even define your terms, nor speak them operationally, and you just use straw men, and excuses. You’re a fraud

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 19:42:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768171580732149760

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768166676453953536

    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/768166676453953536