Jan 5, 2020, 5:23 PM 0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense. 1) Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems. The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters. Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid. The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it. And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties. And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail. Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure your time. 2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance. 3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice. 4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended. 5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage. 6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law. 7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts. 8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard. 9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision. That’s just the surface.
Theme: Responsibility
-
Stoicism’s Answer to Mindfulness
Jan 9, 2020, 4:04 PM Missed this, but omfg, yes it’s that simple. I am a Stoic if: 1) I live in accordance with natural law and reason; 2) I avoid fallacy of sunk costs in everything; 3) I limit my attention to what is actionable; 4) I am never a victim of circumstances as I always have a choice to change them. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Stoic. – Martin Štěpán In effect, mindfulness provides control of loss aversion and all the subsequent feeling of being ‘out of control’ of one’s environment. Saying “it’s god’s plan” does exactly the same thing”. The difference being that under stoicism you are in control and under theology the big man in the sky is in control. Why? Because we are twice as motivate by fear of lass as we are by incentive to gain. Why? Because we know most of our theories (plans) fail. Why? Because of neural economy, mental calculation (thinking) is expensive, error prone, but we must maintain the will to act in the kaleidic universe so we preserve the illusion. SUNK COSTS Fallacy of sunken cost is when you consider something you’ve already invested into more valuable even though that investment doesn’t exist anymore. I.e. I might keep repairing an old car I’ve already poured lots of money into despite the fact that I’d save money by replacing it with a better because I fallaciously include what I paid in the value of the old one. In Stoicism, I can use the most extreme example provided by Epictetus. If my child dies, there’s no sense in getting emotional over it because that investment is gone and I can’t get it back. LOSS AVERSION Loss aversion is encapsulated in the expression “losses loom larger than gains” The pain of losing is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. People are more willing to take risks (or behave dishonestly) to avoid a loss than to make a gain. Loss aversion has been used to explain the endowment effect and sunk cost fallacy, and it may also play a role in the status quo bias. The basic principle of loss aversion can explain why penalty frames are sometimes more effective than reward frames in motivating people. REGRET AVERSION When people fear that their decision will turn out to be wrong in hindsight, they exhibit regret aversion. Regret-averse people may fear the consequences of both errors of omission (e.g. not buying the right investment property) and commission (e.g. buying the wrong investment property) (Seiler et al., 2008). The effect of anticipated regret is particularly well-studied in the domain of health, such as people’s decisions about medical treatments. A meta-analysis in this area suggests that anticipated regret is a better predictor of intentions and behavior than other kinds of anticipated negative emotions and evaluations of risk (Brewer et al., 2016). MENTAL ACCOUNTING Mental accounting is when people think of value in relative rather than absolute terms. They derive pleasure not just from an object’s value, but also the quality of the deal – its transaction utility (Thaler, 1985). In addition, humans often fail to fully consider opportunity costs (tradeoffs) and are susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy. Why are people willing to spend more when they pay with a credit card than cash? Why would more individuals spend $10 on a theater ticket if they had just lost a $10 bill than if they had to replace a lost ticket worth $10? Why are people more likely to spend a small inheritance and invest a large one? According to the theory of mental accounting, people treat money differently, depending on factors such as the money’s origin and intended use, rather than thinking of it in terms of the “bottom line” as in formal accounting (Thaler, 1999). An important term underlying the theory is fungibility, the fact that all money is interchangable and has no labels. In mental accounting, people treat assets as less fungible than they really are. Even seasoned investors are susceptible to this bias when they view recent gains as disposable “house money” that can be used in high-risk investments. In doing so, they make decisions on each mental account separately, losing out the big picture of the portfolio. Consumers’ tendency to work with mental accounts is reflected in various domains of applied behavioral science, especially in the financial services industry. Examples include banks offering multiple accounts with savings goal labels, which make mental accounting more explicit, as well as third-party services that provide consumers with aggregate financial information across different financial institutions ENDOWMENT EFFECT This bias occurs when we overvalue something that we own, regardless of its objective market value. It is evident when people become relatively reluctant to part with a good they own for its cash equivalent, or if the amount that people are willing to pay for the good is lower than what they are willing to accept when selling it. Put more simply, people place a greater value on things once they have established ownership. This is especially true for things that wouldn’t normally be bought or sold on the market, usually items with symbolic, experiential, or emotional significance. Endowment effect research has been conducted with goods ranging from coffee mugs to sports cards (List, 2011). While researchers have proposed different reasons for the effect, it may be best explained by psychological factors related to loss aversion. STATUS QUO BIAS Status quo bias is evident when people prefer things to stay the same by doing nothing (see also inertia) or by sticking with a decision made previously. This may happen even when only small transition costs are involved and the importance of the decision is great. Field data from university health plan enrollments, for example, show a large disparity in health plan choices between new and existing enrollees. One particular plan with significantly more favorable premiums and deductibles had a growing market share among new employees, but a significantly lower share among older enrollees. This suggests that a lack of switching could not be explained by unchanging preferences. Samuelson and Zeckhauser note that status quo bias is consistent with loss aversion, and that it could be psychologically explained by previously made commitments, sunk cost thinking, cognitive dissonance, a need to feel in control, and regret avoidance. The latter is based on Kahneman and Tversky’s observation that people feel greater regret for bad outcomes that result from new actions taken than for bad consequences that are the consequence of inaction. While status quo bias is frequently considered to be irrational, sticking to choices that worked in the past is often a safe and less difficult decision due to informational and cognitive limitations (see bounded rationality). For example, status quo bias is more likely when there is choice overload or high uncertainty and deliberation costs. COMMITMENT BIAS Commitments (see also precommitment) are often used as a tool to counteract people’s lack of willpower and to achieve behavior change, such as in the areas of dieting or saving. The greater the cost of breaking a commitment, the more effective it is (Dolan et al., 2010). From the perspective of social psychology, individuals are motivated to maintain a consistent and positive self-image (Cialdini, 2008), and they are likely to keep commitments to avoid reputational damage (if done publicly) and/or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). A field experiment in a hotel, for example, found 25% greater towel reuse among guests who made a commitment to reuse towels at check-in and wore a “Friend of the Earth” lapel pin to signal their commitment during their stay (Baca-Motes et al., 2012). The behavior change technique of ‘goal setting’ is related to making commitments (Strecher et al., 1995), while reciprocity involves an implicit commitment. ACTION BIAS Some core ideas in behavioral economics focus on people’s propensity to do nothing, as evident in default bias and status quo bias. Inaction may be due to a number of factors, including inertia or anticipated regret. However, sometimes people have an impulse to act in order to gain a sense of control over a situation and eliminate a problem. This has been termed the action bias (Patt & Zeckhauser, 2000). For example, a person may opt for a medical treatment rather than a no-treatment alternative, even though clinical trials have not supported the treatment’s effectiveness. Action bias is particularly likely to occur if we do something for others or others expect us to act (see social norms), as illustrated by the tendency for soccer goal keepers to jump to left or right on penalty kicks, even though statistically they would be better off if they just stayed in the middle of the goal (Bar-Eli et al., 2007). Action bias may also be more likely among overconfident individuals or if a person has experienced prior negative outcomes (Zeelenberg et al., 2002), where subsequent inaction would be a failure to do something to improve the situation. INFORMATION AVOIDANCE Information avoidance in behavioral economics (Golman et al., 2017) refers to situations in which people choose not to obtain knowledge that is freely available. Active information avoidance includes physical avoidance, inattention, the biased interpretation of information (see also confirmation bias) and even some forms of forgetting. In behavioral finance, for example, research has shown that investors are less likely to check their portfolio online when the stock market is down than when it is up, which has been termed the ostrich effect (Karlsson et al., 2009). More serious cases of avoidance happen when people fail to return to clinics to get medical test results, for instance (Sullivan et al., 2004). While information avoidance is sometimes strategic, it can have immediate hedonic benefits for people if it prevents the negative (usually psychological) consequences of knowing the information. It usually carries negative utility in the long term, because it deprives people of potentially useful information for decision making and feedback for future behavior. Furthermore, information avoidance can contribute to a polarization of political opinions and media bias. CONFIRMATION BIAS Confirmation bias (Wason, 1960) occurs when people seek out or evaluate information in a way that fits with their existing thinking and preconceptions. The domain of science, where theories should advance based on both falsifying and supporting evidence, has not been immune to bias, which is often associated with people processing hypotheses in ways that end up confirming them (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004). Similarly, a consumer who likes a particular brand and researches a new purchase may be motivated to seek out customer reviews on the internet that favor that brand. Confirmation bias has also been related to unmotivated processes, including primacy effects and anchoring, evident in a reliance on information that is encountered early in a process (Nickerson, 1998). Edit
-
Stoicism’s Answer to Mindfulness
Jan 9, 2020, 4:04 PM Missed this, but omfg, yes it’s that simple. I am a Stoic if: 1) I live in accordance with natural law and reason; 2) I avoid fallacy of sunk costs in everything; 3) I limit my attention to what is actionable; 4) I am never a victim of circumstances as I always have a choice to change them. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Stoic. – Martin Štěpán In effect, mindfulness provides control of loss aversion and all the subsequent feeling of being ‘out of control’ of one’s environment. Saying “it’s god’s plan” does exactly the same thing”. The difference being that under stoicism you are in control and under theology the big man in the sky is in control. Why? Because we are twice as motivate by fear of lass as we are by incentive to gain. Why? Because we know most of our theories (plans) fail. Why? Because of neural economy, mental calculation (thinking) is expensive, error prone, but we must maintain the will to act in the kaleidic universe so we preserve the illusion. SUNK COSTS Fallacy of sunken cost is when you consider something you’ve already invested into more valuable even though that investment doesn’t exist anymore. I.e. I might keep repairing an old car I’ve already poured lots of money into despite the fact that I’d save money by replacing it with a better because I fallaciously include what I paid in the value of the old one. In Stoicism, I can use the most extreme example provided by Epictetus. If my child dies, there’s no sense in getting emotional over it because that investment is gone and I can’t get it back. LOSS AVERSION Loss aversion is encapsulated in the expression “losses loom larger than gains” The pain of losing is psychologically about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. People are more willing to take risks (or behave dishonestly) to avoid a loss than to make a gain. Loss aversion has been used to explain the endowment effect and sunk cost fallacy, and it may also play a role in the status quo bias. The basic principle of loss aversion can explain why penalty frames are sometimes more effective than reward frames in motivating people. REGRET AVERSION When people fear that their decision will turn out to be wrong in hindsight, they exhibit regret aversion. Regret-averse people may fear the consequences of both errors of omission (e.g. not buying the right investment property) and commission (e.g. buying the wrong investment property) (Seiler et al., 2008). The effect of anticipated regret is particularly well-studied in the domain of health, such as people’s decisions about medical treatments. A meta-analysis in this area suggests that anticipated regret is a better predictor of intentions and behavior than other kinds of anticipated negative emotions and evaluations of risk (Brewer et al., 2016). MENTAL ACCOUNTING Mental accounting is when people think of value in relative rather than absolute terms. They derive pleasure not just from an object’s value, but also the quality of the deal – its transaction utility (Thaler, 1985). In addition, humans often fail to fully consider opportunity costs (tradeoffs) and are susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy. Why are people willing to spend more when they pay with a credit card than cash? Why would more individuals spend $10 on a theater ticket if they had just lost a $10 bill than if they had to replace a lost ticket worth $10? Why are people more likely to spend a small inheritance and invest a large one? According to the theory of mental accounting, people treat money differently, depending on factors such as the money’s origin and intended use, rather than thinking of it in terms of the “bottom line” as in formal accounting (Thaler, 1999). An important term underlying the theory is fungibility, the fact that all money is interchangable and has no labels. In mental accounting, people treat assets as less fungible than they really are. Even seasoned investors are susceptible to this bias when they view recent gains as disposable “house money” that can be used in high-risk investments. In doing so, they make decisions on each mental account separately, losing out the big picture of the portfolio. Consumers’ tendency to work with mental accounts is reflected in various domains of applied behavioral science, especially in the financial services industry. Examples include banks offering multiple accounts with savings goal labels, which make mental accounting more explicit, as well as third-party services that provide consumers with aggregate financial information across different financial institutions ENDOWMENT EFFECT This bias occurs when we overvalue something that we own, regardless of its objective market value. It is evident when people become relatively reluctant to part with a good they own for its cash equivalent, or if the amount that people are willing to pay for the good is lower than what they are willing to accept when selling it. Put more simply, people place a greater value on things once they have established ownership. This is especially true for things that wouldn’t normally be bought or sold on the market, usually items with symbolic, experiential, or emotional significance. Endowment effect research has been conducted with goods ranging from coffee mugs to sports cards (List, 2011). While researchers have proposed different reasons for the effect, it may be best explained by psychological factors related to loss aversion. STATUS QUO BIAS Status quo bias is evident when people prefer things to stay the same by doing nothing (see also inertia) or by sticking with a decision made previously. This may happen even when only small transition costs are involved and the importance of the decision is great. Field data from university health plan enrollments, for example, show a large disparity in health plan choices between new and existing enrollees. One particular plan with significantly more favorable premiums and deductibles had a growing market share among new employees, but a significantly lower share among older enrollees. This suggests that a lack of switching could not be explained by unchanging preferences. Samuelson and Zeckhauser note that status quo bias is consistent with loss aversion, and that it could be psychologically explained by previously made commitments, sunk cost thinking, cognitive dissonance, a need to feel in control, and regret avoidance. The latter is based on Kahneman and Tversky’s observation that people feel greater regret for bad outcomes that result from new actions taken than for bad consequences that are the consequence of inaction. While status quo bias is frequently considered to be irrational, sticking to choices that worked in the past is often a safe and less difficult decision due to informational and cognitive limitations (see bounded rationality). For example, status quo bias is more likely when there is choice overload or high uncertainty and deliberation costs. COMMITMENT BIAS Commitments (see also precommitment) are often used as a tool to counteract people’s lack of willpower and to achieve behavior change, such as in the areas of dieting or saving. The greater the cost of breaking a commitment, the more effective it is (Dolan et al., 2010). From the perspective of social psychology, individuals are motivated to maintain a consistent and positive self-image (Cialdini, 2008), and they are likely to keep commitments to avoid reputational damage (if done publicly) and/or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). A field experiment in a hotel, for example, found 25% greater towel reuse among guests who made a commitment to reuse towels at check-in and wore a “Friend of the Earth” lapel pin to signal their commitment during their stay (Baca-Motes et al., 2012). The behavior change technique of ‘goal setting’ is related to making commitments (Strecher et al., 1995), while reciprocity involves an implicit commitment. ACTION BIAS Some core ideas in behavioral economics focus on people’s propensity to do nothing, as evident in default bias and status quo bias. Inaction may be due to a number of factors, including inertia or anticipated regret. However, sometimes people have an impulse to act in order to gain a sense of control over a situation and eliminate a problem. This has been termed the action bias (Patt & Zeckhauser, 2000). For example, a person may opt for a medical treatment rather than a no-treatment alternative, even though clinical trials have not supported the treatment’s effectiveness. Action bias is particularly likely to occur if we do something for others or others expect us to act (see social norms), as illustrated by the tendency for soccer goal keepers to jump to left or right on penalty kicks, even though statistically they would be better off if they just stayed in the middle of the goal (Bar-Eli et al., 2007). Action bias may also be more likely among overconfident individuals or if a person has experienced prior negative outcomes (Zeelenberg et al., 2002), where subsequent inaction would be a failure to do something to improve the situation. INFORMATION AVOIDANCE Information avoidance in behavioral economics (Golman et al., 2017) refers to situations in which people choose not to obtain knowledge that is freely available. Active information avoidance includes physical avoidance, inattention, the biased interpretation of information (see also confirmation bias) and even some forms of forgetting. In behavioral finance, for example, research has shown that investors are less likely to check their portfolio online when the stock market is down than when it is up, which has been termed the ostrich effect (Karlsson et al., 2009). More serious cases of avoidance happen when people fail to return to clinics to get medical test results, for instance (Sullivan et al., 2004). While information avoidance is sometimes strategic, it can have immediate hedonic benefits for people if it prevents the negative (usually psychological) consequences of knowing the information. It usually carries negative utility in the long term, because it deprives people of potentially useful information for decision making and feedback for future behavior. Furthermore, information avoidance can contribute to a polarization of political opinions and media bias. CONFIRMATION BIAS Confirmation bias (Wason, 1960) occurs when people seek out or evaluate information in a way that fits with their existing thinking and preconceptions. The domain of science, where theories should advance based on both falsifying and supporting evidence, has not been immune to bias, which is often associated with people processing hypotheses in ways that end up confirming them (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004). Similarly, a consumer who likes a particular brand and researches a new purchase may be motivated to seek out customer reviews on the internet that favor that brand. Confirmation bias has also been related to unmotivated processes, including primacy effects and anchoring, evident in a reliance on information that is encountered early in a process (Nickerson, 1998). Edit
-
You Want Parsimony? 😉
Jan 9, 2020, 5:03 PM RECIPE
- A Heroic Narrative of Truth, Duty, Oath and Contract, Heroism, Excellence, Achievement, Mindfulness and The direction of dominance expression to the production of commons.
Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, The universal military as the polity, The individual as the subject of Law and the Family as the subject of Policy
Aristotelianism: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Testimonial Truth (science)
Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity and via positiva markets in everything, and a via negativa Market for the Suppression of parasitism in court.
A Power Distribution of law, Pareto Distribution of Capital, and Nash Distribution of Returns.
A majority genetic middle class and the suppression of the reproduction of the underclass (unproductive).
GIVEN THE SPECTRUM OF HUMAN FACILITIES
1. Sense Facility (stimuli) … … Perception (composition) … … … Association 2. Logic Facility (constant relations) … … Imagination Facility (prediction) … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation) 4. Grammar facility (statements) … … Paradigms ('metaphysics', 'dimensions') … … … Frame ('boundaries') … … … … Context ('pragmatics') … … Grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) … … … Syntax (rules of sentences) … … … Stories … … … … Sentences … … … … … Phrases … … … … … … Clauses … … … Operations (logic) … … … Vocabulary (Semantics) … … … … Rules of Organization (Morphology) … … … … Sounds (Phonology) … … … … Signs (acts, actions) … … … … Marks (records) … … … … … accidental … … … … … intentional … … … … … … Mark … … … … … … Symbol … … … … … … … Glyph … … … … … … Pictogram … … … … … … Picture … … … … … … Picture Series … … … … … … Animation 4. Communication Facility ("Language") ( ... ) 3. (epistemology)WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:
1. Complete Sentences 2. In promissory form 3. In testimonial form 4. In operational vocabulary (as actions) 5. From an observer’s point of view 6. Absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…) 7. Including all changes in state 8. Including all consequences of change in state 9. Producing a series of testable transactions.
WARRANTIED AS:
1. Existential > ... 2. Realism > ... 3. Naturalism > 4. Possible > ... 5. Operational - Demonstrable > ... 6. Empirical - Externally Correspondent > ... 7. Logical > 8. Rational > ... 9. Rational Choice - Demonstrated Preference > ... ... 10. Incentives - Demonstrated Interest > ... ... ... 11. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time ... ... ... 12. Mates, Offspring, Kin ... ... ... 13. Status, Reputation, Kith ... ... ... 14. Several Interests (in many forms) ... ... ... 15. Common Interests (in many forms) ... 16. Reciprocal > ... ... 17. Productive ... ... 18. Fully Informed ... ... 19. Voluntary Transfer > ... ... 20. Free of Negative Externality > 21. Survivable > ... 22. Power Distribution of Law > ... 23. Pareto Distribution of Assets > ... 24. Nash Distribution of Rewards > 25. Complete > ... 26. Consistency, Coherence, Limits, Completeness 27. Warrantable > ... 28. Liable and Warrantied, within the Bounds of Restitution.
IN PURSUIT OF THE SPECTRUM OF DEMONSTRATED INTERESTS
... 1. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time ... 2. Mates, Offspring, Kin ... 3. Status, Reputation, Kith ... 4. Several Interests (in many forms) ... 5. Common Interests (in many forms)
BY RECIPROCAL OR IRRECIPROCAL MEANS
Where Reciprocity Consists in: ... Productive, ... Fully informed, sufficient to meet demand for infallibility ... ... Free of ... ... ... ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, ... ... ... loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, ... ... ... fictionalisms, ... ... ... baiting into hazards, frauds, and deceits. ... Voluntary transfer, of demonstrated interests, ... ... Free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, ... and Within the limits of restitutability, ... and Liable and warranted by due diligence against all of the above.
And Where Irreciprocity Consists in: ... Failing any one of the criteria for Reciprocity.IN PURSUIT OR AVOIDANCE OF THE SPECTRUM OF CRIMES
1. Murder, 2. Violence, Harm 3. Theft, Destruction 4. Deceit, Fraud, Baiting into hazard 5. Free Riding, Socialization of Losses, Privatization of The Commons, 6. Conspiracy, 7. Conversion, 8. Immigration, 9. Warfare 10. Conquest
FOR MORAL(ETHICAL) OR IMMORAL PURPOSES
.. .. .. .. Evil - interpersonal, extrapersonal, irreciprocity without gain (harm for harm's sake) .. .. .. Immoral - extrapersonal irreciprocity at gain .. .. Unethical - interpersonal irreciprocity at gain .. Criminal - direct irreciprocity at gain Amoral - no affect on others at gain. .. Reciprocal - direct reciprocity at gain .. .. Ethical - interpersonal reciprocity at gain .. .. .. Moral - extrapersonal reciprocity at gain .. .. .. .. Good - interpersonal, extrapersonal, reciprocity without gain (investment, for investment's sake)
USING THE SPECTRUM OF GRAMMARS
(Deflationary Grammars) … Truths (Sciences) … … Formal Sciences … … … Logics (deflationary Grammars) … … … Mathematics … … … Algorithms … … … … Recipes … … … … Protocols, Procedures … … Physical Sciences … … … Physics … … … Chemistry … … … Biology … … Human Sciences … … … Consciousness … … … Metaphysics (language) … … … Psychology (individual) … … … Sociology (group) … Descriptions … … Testimony (^ - deflationary Grammars) … … Rhetoric (persuasive Grammars) … Communication … … Ordinary Language (Descriptive Grammar) … … idiomatic language … Narrations (v- inflationary Grammars) … … Narrative (history, explaining) … … … Storytelling (loading, framing) … … … … Fictions (analogies, teaching) … Deceits … … … Fictionalism (pretense of knowledge) … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic … … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and … … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring creating ignorance) … … … … Overloading … … … … Propaganda … … … … Social Construction … Frauds … … … Misdirection (lying) … … … Baiting Into Hazards … … … Fraud (for gain) … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain) (Inflationary Grammars)
AND THE SPECTRUM OF CIVILIZATIONAL WISDOM LITERATURES
Aristotle.......Real/Natural: .....Science (Decidability) Law Plato: .........Ideal/Natural: ....Sophistry (Justification) Philo Confucian:....Real/Myth-Natural:...~Reason(Harmony) Reason Hindu: ......Unreal/Supernatural...Wisdom (Harmony) Mytho. Persian .....Unreal/Supernatural...Wisdom (?) Mytho/Philo. Egyptian.....Unreal/Supernatural...Wisdom (Order) Mytho. Semitic......Unreal/Supernatural:..Fraud(Authority) Theo.
We are forever bound by the grammars of our wisdom literatures. (Grammar: paradigms, vocabulary, logic, grammar) WE INVENTED TRUTH AND THEY INVENTED LYING IN RESPONSE
.....Female and Semitic vs Male and European ..............Dysgenics vs Eugenics ............Consumption vs Capitalization ....Private Consumption vs Commons Production ............Undermining vs Order ...Approval/Disapproval vs True/False .........Incrementalism vs zero tolerance ..Plausible Deniability vs Warranty ..................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost ...............Critique vs Falsification .................Pilpul vs Justification ..........False Promise vs Promise ....Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity ...............One Herd vs Many Packs
-
You Want Parsimony? 😉
Jan 9, 2020, 5:03 PM RECIPE
- A Heroic Narrative of Truth, Duty, Oath and Contract, Heroism, Excellence, Achievement, Mindfulness and The direction of dominance expression to the production of commons.
Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, The universal military as the polity, The individual as the subject of Law and the Family as the subject of Policy
Aristotelianism: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Testimonial Truth (science)
Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity and via positiva markets in everything, and a via negativa Market for the Suppression of parasitism in court.
A Power Distribution of law, Pareto Distribution of Capital, and Nash Distribution of Returns.
A majority genetic middle class and the suppression of the reproduction of the underclass (unproductive).
GIVEN THE SPECTRUM OF HUMAN FACILITIES
1. Sense Facility (stimuli) … … Perception (composition) … … … Association 2. Logic Facility (constant relations) … … Imagination Facility (prediction) … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation) 4. Grammar facility (statements) … … Paradigms ('metaphysics', 'dimensions') … … … Frame ('boundaries') … … … … Context ('pragmatics') … … Grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) … … … Syntax (rules of sentences) … … … Stories … … … … Sentences … … … … … Phrases … … … … … … Clauses … … … Operations (logic) … … … Vocabulary (Semantics) … … … … Rules of Organization (Morphology) … … … … Sounds (Phonology) … … … … Signs (acts, actions) … … … … Marks (records) … … … … … accidental … … … … … intentional … … … … … … Mark … … … … … … Symbol … … … … … … … Glyph … … … … … … Pictogram … … … … … … Picture … … … … … … Picture Series … … … … … … Animation 4. Communication Facility ("Language") ( ... ) 3. (epistemology)WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:
1. Complete Sentences 2. In promissory form 3. In testimonial form 4. In operational vocabulary (as actions) 5. From an observer’s point of view 6. Absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…) 7. Including all changes in state 8. Including all consequences of change in state 9. Producing a series of testable transactions.
WARRANTIED AS:
1. Existential > ... 2. Realism > ... 3. Naturalism > 4. Possible > ... 5. Operational - Demonstrable > ... 6. Empirical - Externally Correspondent > ... 7. Logical > 8. Rational > ... 9. Rational Choice - Demonstrated Preference > ... ... 10. Incentives - Demonstrated Interest > ... ... ... 11. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time ... ... ... 12. Mates, Offspring, Kin ... ... ... 13. Status, Reputation, Kith ... ... ... 14. Several Interests (in many forms) ... ... ... 15. Common Interests (in many forms) ... 16. Reciprocal > ... ... 17. Productive ... ... 18. Fully Informed ... ... 19. Voluntary Transfer > ... ... 20. Free of Negative Externality > 21. Survivable > ... 22. Power Distribution of Law > ... 23. Pareto Distribution of Assets > ... 24. Nash Distribution of Rewards > 25. Complete > ... 26. Consistency, Coherence, Limits, Completeness 27. Warrantable > ... 28. Liable and Warrantied, within the Bounds of Restitution.
IN PURSUIT OF THE SPECTRUM OF DEMONSTRATED INTERESTS
... 1. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time ... 2. Mates, Offspring, Kin ... 3. Status, Reputation, Kith ... 4. Several Interests (in many forms) ... 5. Common Interests (in many forms)
BY RECIPROCAL OR IRRECIPROCAL MEANS
Where Reciprocity Consists in: ... Productive, ... Fully informed, sufficient to meet demand for infallibility ... ... Free of ... ... ... ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, ... ... ... loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, ... ... ... fictionalisms, ... ... ... baiting into hazards, frauds, and deceits. ... Voluntary transfer, of demonstrated interests, ... ... Free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, ... and Within the limits of restitutability, ... and Liable and warranted by due diligence against all of the above.
And Where Irreciprocity Consists in: ... Failing any one of the criteria for Reciprocity.IN PURSUIT OR AVOIDANCE OF THE SPECTRUM OF CRIMES
1. Murder, 2. Violence, Harm 3. Theft, Destruction 4. Deceit, Fraud, Baiting into hazard 5. Free Riding, Socialization of Losses, Privatization of The Commons, 6. Conspiracy, 7. Conversion, 8. Immigration, 9. Warfare 10. Conquest
FOR MORAL(ETHICAL) OR IMMORAL PURPOSES
.. .. .. .. Evil - interpersonal, extrapersonal, irreciprocity without gain (harm for harm's sake) .. .. .. Immoral - extrapersonal irreciprocity at gain .. .. Unethical - interpersonal irreciprocity at gain .. Criminal - direct irreciprocity at gain Amoral - no affect on others at gain. .. Reciprocal - direct reciprocity at gain .. .. Ethical - interpersonal reciprocity at gain .. .. .. Moral - extrapersonal reciprocity at gain .. .. .. .. Good - interpersonal, extrapersonal, reciprocity without gain (investment, for investment's sake)
USING THE SPECTRUM OF GRAMMARS
(Deflationary Grammars) … Truths (Sciences) … … Formal Sciences … … … Logics (deflationary Grammars) … … … Mathematics … … … Algorithms … … … … Recipes … … … … Protocols, Procedures … … Physical Sciences … … … Physics … … … Chemistry … … … Biology … … Human Sciences … … … Consciousness … … … Metaphysics (language) … … … Psychology (individual) … … … Sociology (group) … Descriptions … … Testimony (^ - deflationary Grammars) … … Rhetoric (persuasive Grammars) … Communication … … Ordinary Language (Descriptive Grammar) … … idiomatic language … Narrations (v- inflationary Grammars) … … Narrative (history, explaining) … … … Storytelling (loading, framing) … … … … Fictions (analogies, teaching) … Deceits … … … Fictionalism (pretense of knowledge) … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic … … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and … … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring creating ignorance) … … … … Overloading … … … … Propaganda … … … … Social Construction … Frauds … … … Misdirection (lying) … … … Baiting Into Hazards … … … Fraud (for gain) … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain) (Inflationary Grammars)
AND THE SPECTRUM OF CIVILIZATIONAL WISDOM LITERATURES
Aristotle.......Real/Natural: .....Science (Decidability) Law Plato: .........Ideal/Natural: ....Sophistry (Justification) Philo Confucian:....Real/Myth-Natural:...~Reason(Harmony) Reason Hindu: ......Unreal/Supernatural...Wisdom (Harmony) Mytho. Persian .....Unreal/Supernatural...Wisdom (?) Mytho/Philo. Egyptian.....Unreal/Supernatural...Wisdom (Order) Mytho. Semitic......Unreal/Supernatural:..Fraud(Authority) Theo.
We are forever bound by the grammars of our wisdom literatures. (Grammar: paradigms, vocabulary, logic, grammar) WE INVENTED TRUTH AND THEY INVENTED LYING IN RESPONSE
.....Female and Semitic vs Male and European ..............Dysgenics vs Eugenics ............Consumption vs Capitalization ....Private Consumption vs Commons Production ............Undermining vs Order ...Approval/Disapproval vs True/False .........Incrementalism vs zero tolerance ..Plausible Deniability vs Warranty ..................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost ...............Critique vs Falsification .................Pilpul vs Justification ..........False Promise vs Promise ....Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity ...............One Herd vs Many Packs
-
Jan 13, 2020, 5:24 PM In the western tradition we are all members of a vast army
Jan 13, 2020, 5:24 PM In the western tradition we are all members of a vast army fulfilling our duties becasue of accidents of time and space. We all are due respect no matter our rank, as long as we do our duty. We are all due distrespect or even punishment if we do not do our duties. This is how we produced harmony – more harmony than any other civilization in history – while at the same time producing the most adaptive and rapidly evolutionary body of people in human history. We took control of evolution. The left is the antithesis of western civilization. Monopoly, equality, submission, dysgenia. The herd. Separate. Evolve, Speciate.
-
Jan 13, 2020, 5:24 PM In the western tradition we are all members of a vast army
Jan 13, 2020, 5:24 PM In the western tradition we are all members of a vast army fulfilling our duties becasue of accidents of time and space. We all are due respect no matter our rank, as long as we do our duty. We are all due distrespect or even punishment if we do not do our duties. This is how we produced harmony – more harmony than any other civilization in history – while at the same time producing the most adaptive and rapidly evolutionary body of people in human history. We took control of evolution. The left is the antithesis of western civilization. Monopoly, equality, submission, dysgenia. The herd. Separate. Evolve, Speciate.
-
Allegations of irreciprocity to cover one’s irreciprocity.
Jan 22, 2020, 12:02 PM
—” I’d be curious to hear cowardice put into economic terms. I’d say something like: an irreciprocal transfer of risk onto the leadership/heros.”–Daniel T. Johnson
It’s the conservative form of GSRRM. Guilting others for not acting on their behalf, as cover for their cowardice on acting on all of our behalf. It’s fraud. Allegations of irreciprocity to cover one’s irreciprocity.
-
Allegations of irreciprocity to cover one’s irreciprocity.
Jan 22, 2020, 12:02 PM
—” I’d be curious to hear cowardice put into economic terms. I’d say something like: an irreciprocal transfer of risk onto the leadership/heros.”–Daniel T. Johnson
It’s the conservative form of GSRRM. Guilting others for not acting on their behalf, as cover for their cowardice on acting on all of our behalf. It’s fraud. Allegations of irreciprocity to cover one’s irreciprocity.
-
Answers to Three Questions
Jan 26, 2020, 8:07 AM 1) —“Hi Curt, wondering what your thoughts are on ostracism as an effective way to discourage degenerate behaviour. It’s something Stef points to and I’m beginning to see it as a rather feminine method”— Well, I think both pre and post are valulable in the sense that I think it is very important to preserve both ostracism AND to require demonstraion of competence for inclusion. In other words, everyone may require via negativa protection under natural law, but fewer people are capable of via positiva exercise of political judgement, and there are some if not many people who must be ostracized (lose citizenship, benefits, liberty, or life) in defense of others – and that we have been far too tolerant by ending the general eugenic process provided by hanging a lot of malcontents every year. 2) —“Re: the successful march, important to be involved in such an historic moment. When shit goes down it will be remembered as “the first peaceful demonstration of American patriotism”, or some such. Year after year of Antifa antics are met by 20000 armed men. It’s beautiful”— The point is (a) we can show up in large numbers, even on a work day (b) antifa is always the source of violence, not us (c) c’ville was antifa not the right. So I think we succeeded in making our points: 1) we have to show up in large numbers, 2) we have to use the rights framework not the identity framework, even though the result is the same. 3) revolution comes. 3) —“I’m interested to know your thoughts on the cultural importance of cinema and the shift from written to visual communication”— Cinema combines the play and photography, to produce greater accessibility, and extraordinary beauty, but the era with which we produced cinematic “literature” ended by the 1960’s. And we are in full postmodern anti-civilizational decline in the arts just as the jews intended. Just as they destroyed the arts and literature of the ancient world. The most important feature of cinema otherwise has been the concentration of income in the cinema industry thereby depleting the rest of the arts of income and funding. So between the marxist, cultural marxist, postmodernist, feminist, denialist undermining of civilization; cinematic decline in post-lit screenwriting; collapse in funding of the arts; the use of panel products in construction of our buildings and therefore, incompatibility of art and architecture; and the perception of building spaces as temporary rather than intergenerational – cinema has been good and bad. But we are seeing the collapse of the income model. I have a fairly clear view of the future of the arts if we end the american empire and especially if we end copyright and substitute creative commons, then I think we will deprive the industry of any chance of funding, and this will force the correction we are looking for.