Theme: Operationalism

  • You see, that word patriarchy? It doesn’t mean much. It’s a sentimental word lac

    You see, that word patriarchy? It doesn’t mean much. It’s a sentimental word lacking operational definition. So how do you operationalize the ‘feeling’ in that word? If you can’t make people feel or believe, what rule(s) do they need to follow?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-31 20:08:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322631569018884097

    Reply addressees: @CruiserGurgess

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322631254081196033

  • Again, it’s ok. This is why you’re a midwit. lol As term means what the speaker

    Again, it’s ok. This is why you’re a midwit. lol

    As term means what the speaker defines it to mean. you think in the verbal logic of sets, I think the operational logic of processes in time. This is the difference between verbal and operational thought. 😉 It’s ok. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-29 19:18:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321894210694455296

    Reply addressees: @PotsPol

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321893535700914176

  • So the methodology I (we) use is disambiguation of causality by serialization. I

    So the methodology I (we) use is disambiguation of causality by serialization. In other words we define processes(operations in time) not states (sets w/o time). So instead of seeking to understand you sought to falsify.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-29 18:50:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321887228822495232

    Reply addressees: @PotsPol

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321886690617810947


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @PotsPol Again, all contracts (including agreements for meaning) are dependent upon the definition of terms (measurements). I came into this discussion knowing a great deal about this subject, as well as about the problem of pseudoscience in the 20th/21st century.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1321886690617810947

  • In other words you keep trying to claim i’m stating a falsehood because you can’

    In other words you keep trying to claim i’m stating a falsehood because you can’t seem to or are unwilling to grasp the operational rather than “ideal type” definition that I’m using. In other words: sophistry in ignorance.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-29 18:21:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321879934596427781

    Reply addressees: @PotsPol

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321879517636534273


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @PotsPol So is the criteria for speciation both descriptively and causally the spectrum of reproductive preference as I’ve defined it as the economy of opportunity and risk under plenty and duress, the means by which species evolve and are categorized with or without human intentions?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1321879517636534273

  • That’s a very poor description. Very. In my course i’ve covered most of it. It’s

    That’s a very poor description. Very. In my course i’ve covered most of it. It’s only this summer that I feel I can construct a narrative most people can follow that’s operationally descriptive. So I’m adding that to the content.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-28 22:28:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321579563089076225

    Reply addressees: @NRxAuthors

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321578671539453955

  • Yes, although I think I can do a bit better. But yes. He’s the only other smart

    Yes, although I think I can do a bit better. But yes. He’s the only other smart guy I know that has fully shifted from mathematics to operationalism. I think Hawkins is there on consciousness too but he’s less able to articulate it. But literally, that’s it. No one else.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-28 22:26:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321579074901467136

    Reply addressees: @NRxAuthors

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1321577815242952708

  • Philosophers used to call this particular specialization ‘epistemology’ or ‘trut

    Philosophers used to call this particular specialization ‘epistemology’ or ‘truth’ both of which are Greek Idealisms, and unaccountable. In P-Law we use the performative and accountable term ‘Testimony’. There is no difference between science and law – both require testimony.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-21 21:27:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1319027507350339584

  • Yes, Curtis Yarvin Argues using the Abrahamic Method.

    Pretty good.

    But no, Yarvin is using the Jewish technique of pilpul and critique, which is also why he writes in long-form, absent analytic, operational, or empirical arguments.

    Both sexes transfer a cognitive bias, all genes transfer a cognitive bias, all cultures transfer a competitive (evolutionary) group strategy, a mythology (Narrative), a metaphysics(set of value presumptions within), a set of rituals or norms to perpetuate it, and an argumentative bias to advance it.

    (Something anyone who has read Goldberg’s Jews and the State, Todd’s Invention of Europe, or Fischer’s Albion’s Seed will be familiar with).

    So “Argumentative Forensics” are rather simple. And yes, the spread of the Jewish (Abrahamic) method of communication, approval-disapproval as a substitute for truth and falsehood, their use of false promise of freedom from physical natural and evolutionary laws, their use of pilpul(sophistry) and critique (undermining), social construction (saturation, polluting the informational commons), and their escape into plausible deniability, avoidance of warranty and liability, and their failure to put forth equally criticizable solutions – that would be rejected, are rapidly identifiable when taught (we teach it), and excruciatingly and predictably consistent.

    Why? It’s the female strategy of undermining dominant males (Europeans) and depriving them of the ability to form Pareto hierarchies (advanced civilizations), for the same reason females seek to maintain dominance and influence over children throughout their lives. Unfortunately, xianity, manufactured by paulians, is constructed just as Judaism and Islam, upon this method of deception that destroys rational cognition: the principle innovation of European peoples. … but that’s enough on that for now.

    1) Yarvin argues using the Abrahamic method of deceit (indirection by undermining using pilpul, suggestion, critique).
    2) His proposed solution perpetuates the Jewish method of organization.
    3) The Protestant evangelical anti-church, anti-state, the puritanical new England female tactics of liberating the slaves as the first incremental step in gaining the franchise differ from the Jewish strategy of continuous undermining thereby preventing Pareto hierarchies, their own inability to organize such hierarchies at scale (universal among middle easterners), their continuous undermining of Aryan->Roman->Germanic->Anglo military hierarchy, rule of law, and markets, and worst of all, their enlightenment ‘reformation’ merely transformed their group strategy mythology and argument from supernatural sophistry, false promise and deceit, to pseudoscientific sophistry false promise, and deceit.

    How to tell the difference between a European and non? When Europeans speak in public, whether court, church, council, or oratory, we TESTIFY. “Truth before face regardless of cost”. Under realism, naturalism, and empiricism (rules of evidence). And ALL other peoples on this earth tell stories, justify, put face before truth, endemically lie, or deny. The Abrahamic method like all middle eastern methods finds heroism cunning and reward in deceit. It is a group strategy of deceit, from civilization that practices deceit as heroic, that began its organization with priests using deceit. and that built myths, metaphysics, rituals, and methods of argument by those methods of deceit. This is why, as Fukuyama and H demonstrate so thoroughly, that they have never been able to form a post bronze age government that wasn’t run by Persians, Europeans, or Turks. And why the Jews couldn’t hold a homeland: the inability to build scale organizations created incentives to specialize in undermining those that could.

    Truth: Testimony, is what made European excellence possible. Not xianity, not philosophy, but entrepreneurial warriors developed rule of law as the first institution, and there are only three principal institutions a civilization can develop because there are only three principal means of coercing humans. 1) Female: Ostracization/Religion/SupernaturalAuthority, 2) Established male: Threat(risk)/State/CommandsAuthority, 3) Ascendant male: Exchange(opportunity)/Law/Rules: commensurability with physical natural, an evolutionary laws.

    Yarvin practices Jewish critique, puts forth a jewish group strategy, and defense himself with pilpul and critique.

    The solution to our age is very simple: organize sufficient force to extend criminal law of defamation, deception, and fraud, to deprive EVERYONE of the permissiveness of using the Abrahamic (Jewish, Semitic) method of deceit in public, to the public, in matters public. This would immediately begin the cleansing of the state, the academy, the media, and the financial sector.

    Profiting from suppressing the left would immediately become the same scale of industry as today’s left profits from undermining truth, reciprocity, rule of law, self-determination, and the gifts to the world that European civilization has uniquely provided – despite hating us for it.

  • Yes, Curtis Yarvin Argues using the Abrahamic Method.

    Pretty good.

    But no, Yarvin is using the Jewish technique of pilpul and critique, which is also why he writes in long-form, absent analytic, operational, or empirical arguments.

    Both sexes transfer a cognitive bias, all genes transfer a cognitive bias, all cultures transfer a competitive (evolutionary) group strategy, a mythology (Narrative), a metaphysics(set of value presumptions within), a set of rituals or norms to perpetuate it, and an argumentative bias to advance it.

    (Something anyone who has read Goldberg’s Jews and the State, Todd’s Invention of Europe, or Fischer’s Albion’s Seed will be familiar with).

    So “Argumentative Forensics” are rather simple. And yes, the spread of the Jewish (Abrahamic) method of communication, approval-disapproval as a substitute for truth and falsehood, their use of false promise of freedom from physical natural and evolutionary laws, their use of pilpul(sophistry) and critique (undermining), social construction (saturation, polluting the informational commons), and their escape into plausible deniability, avoidance of warranty and liability, and their failure to put forth equally criticizable solutions – that would be rejected, are rapidly identifiable when taught (we teach it), and excruciatingly and predictably consistent.

    Why? It’s the female strategy of undermining dominant males (Europeans) and depriving them of the ability to form Pareto hierarchies (advanced civilizations), for the same reason females seek to maintain dominance and influence over children throughout their lives. Unfortunately, xianity, manufactured by paulians, is constructed just as Judaism and Islam, upon this method of deception that destroys rational cognition: the principle innovation of European peoples. … but that’s enough on that for now.

    1) Yarvin argues using the Abrahamic method of deceit (indirection by undermining using pilpul, suggestion, critique).
    2) His proposed solution perpetuates the Jewish method of organization.
    3) The Protestant evangelical anti-church, anti-state, the puritanical new England female tactics of liberating the slaves as the first incremental step in gaining the franchise differ from the Jewish strategy of continuous undermining thereby preventing Pareto hierarchies, their own inability to organize such hierarchies at scale (universal among middle easterners), their continuous undermining of Aryan->Roman->Germanic->Anglo military hierarchy, rule of law, and markets, and worst of all, their enlightenment ‘reformation’ merely transformed their group strategy mythology and argument from supernatural sophistry, false promise and deceit, to pseudoscientific sophistry false promise, and deceit.

    How to tell the difference between a European and non? When Europeans speak in public, whether court, church, council, or oratory, we TESTIFY. “Truth before face regardless of cost”. Under realism, naturalism, and empiricism (rules of evidence). And ALL other peoples on this earth tell stories, justify, put face before truth, endemically lie, or deny. The Abrahamic method like all middle eastern methods finds heroism cunning and reward in deceit. It is a group strategy of deceit, from civilization that practices deceit as heroic, that began its organization with priests using deceit. and that built myths, metaphysics, rituals, and methods of argument by those methods of deceit. This is why, as Fukuyama and H demonstrate so thoroughly, that they have never been able to form a post bronze age government that wasn’t run by Persians, Europeans, or Turks. And why the Jews couldn’t hold a homeland: the inability to build scale organizations created incentives to specialize in undermining those that could.

    Truth: Testimony, is what made European excellence possible. Not xianity, not philosophy, but entrepreneurial warriors developed rule of law as the first institution, and there are only three principal institutions a civilization can develop because there are only three principal means of coercing humans. 1) Female: Ostracization/Religion/SupernaturalAuthority, 2) Established male: Threat(risk)/State/CommandsAuthority, 3) Ascendant male: Exchange(opportunity)/Law/Rules: commensurability with physical natural, an evolutionary laws.

    Yarvin practices Jewish critique, puts forth a jewish group strategy, and defense himself with pilpul and critique.

    The solution to our age is very simple: organize sufficient force to extend criminal law of defamation, deception, and fraud, to deprive EVERYONE of the permissiveness of using the Abrahamic (Jewish, Semitic) method of deceit in public, to the public, in matters public. This would immediately begin the cleansing of the state, the academy, the media, and the financial sector.

    Profiting from suppressing the left would immediately become the same scale of industry as today’s left profits from undermining truth, reciprocity, rule of law, self-determination, and the gifts to the world that European civilization has uniquely provided – despite hating us for it.

  • The method I use is exhaustive disambiguation, by serialization (into measuremen

    The method I use is exhaustive disambiguation, by serialization (into measurements), operationalization (commensurability of measurements), synthesis (commensurability of processes), incentives (opportunity), equilibria(counter opportunity. ie: Constructivism as falsificationism.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-19 15:55:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1318219327154376704