Theme: Science

  • “Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”- (Our agenda is to produce a universally co

    -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”-
    (Our agenda is to produce a universally commensurable value-neutral science and logic of decidability, applied to the spectrum of human cooperation from ethics to economics to politics, producing a constitution of ‘menu items’ that allows groups to produce governments that will function in their interests by suiting their needs, but prevents the government, public intellectuals, the academy, a priesthood and all those others with political interests from lying about the possibilities, costs, and benefits. So in most reductive form our agenda is a science of law that that mandates “No More Lies” in public policy.)

    RULE OF LAW CONSTITUTIONALISM (REPUBLIC) WITH ADAPTIVE ECONOMICS
    There is a tendency to interpret the institute as pursuing a specific political agenda – usually, one that is favored by whichever one of the Institute Fellows that you follow. And while our work gravitates to the classical liberal – meaning modern, rule-of-law constitutional republic – that’s not the only solution we provide. It’s just the one that we give the most attention to because we’re operating in an anglosphere country. And our political activism is directed to use of the courts to bring about change in anglosphere and continental european countries, beginning with the USA.

    OUR JOB
    We have a job, that job is the science, the resulting logic, and the constitution of that science and logic. This allows us to defeat lying in government and those who would undermine governments as well. But that means we have to satisfy everyone’s need for a polity that suits their interests.

    In other words. We work to create a constitutional template with a set of menu choices. Because as I explain often, demographic composition determines agency, and agency determines demand for institutions and resulting economies.

    RESTORING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
    Why? Enlightenment and Marxist ideology – as revolts against the anglo innovation of classical liberal empiricsm – has permeated education with the false promise of equality other than under the law, leading many to fail, while the government, using this false claim of equality, can escape responsibility and accountability for the success of citizens due to this lie. Where instead, a responsible and accountable government and it’s employees and contractors and all those under its regulatory domain, can, should, and must (if legitimate) bear responsibility and accountability for success of individual citizens within the limites of their ability and will. This is the best possible outcome because it works to assist each person in maximizing his or her potential in life – but in the context of everyone else also doing so – producing a distribution and a hierarchy of competency that is in everyone’s interest.

    In fact, our democratic governments when not limited by constitutions of empirical, formal, natural law, are LESS accountable for success of the polity while claiming democratic voting makes them accountable. And its evidently not true.

    OUR POLICY
    So the “institute” policy is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’. It isn’t ‘do this or that’.

    If you ask me (us) what’s the ‘best’, the answer is ‘for whom?’. If you mean for Europeans, we can state that. If it’s for non Europeans, that set of menu choices might be different – and the group will pay the cost for those differences. That’s all we say.

    But, we also present a solution for the united states: to return it to a federation as originally constituted, and as was Europe was under the church and holy roman empire – instead of the empires of Centralized DC or France(pretending Belgium). And that solution would restore all choices to the states and restore state control and state boundaries etc. This lets a thousand nations bloom domestically, ending the conflict between the nine or eleven or how many nations that make up the USA, because of the ethnic and cultural differences that settled and conquered the USA.

    Now if you ask, ‘Well, Curt, all that aside, what’s the optimum?’

    I’ll say the truth, that a small ethnically homogenous nation-state is the optimum for a demographic group, or all demographic groups. If you were to say ‘How do we even improve on that?” I would say you have to create another Monaco and give the super competent a place to retreat to because they need the least government and need pay the least taxes because they have the least ‘dependents’.

    Now, if you come and ask me “Well, Curt, what’s the opposite? for the poor and least competent demographic?”

    I would say it’s still a rule of law under a natural law constitution, but you’d organize the economy as if it were a military with assigned duties, but give people access to courts to sue for corruption that will absolutely positively emerge under that hierarchical system of governance.

    That said, most people DO prefer to be serfs. And most people will be better off as serfs. And what does that mean? The state (or manor or however you break it up) assigns you work (as did unions) and you do that work in exchange for basic shelter, food, medical care, etc. And then you earn money for entertainment and ‘joy’ from market participation in your off time.

    This eradicates the stress, at the cost of market efficiency, high risk of corruption, and the tendency of the political system to degrade into clientelism or gangster corruption, supplemented by black markets and people doing the minimum work possible for their subsidies.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-04 10:47:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676180935975264257

  • “Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA? IDEOLOGY?”- (a universally commensurable val

    -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA? IDEOLOGY?”-
    (a universally commensurable value-neutral science and logic of decidability, applied to human cooperation including economics and politics, producing a constitution of ‘menu items’ that prevents lying but allows groups to produce governments that will function in their interests by suiting their needs.’)

    There is a tendency to interpret the institute as pursuing a specific political agenda – usually, one that is favored by whichever one of the Institute Fellows that you follow. And while our work gravitates to the classical liberal, meaning modern, rule-of-law constitutional republic, that’s not the only solution we provide. It’s just the one that we give the most attention to because we’re operating in an anglosphere country in the northern European tradition in the European civilization’s tradition: the USA, UK, CA, AUS, NZ. And our political action is directed to use of the courts to bring about change in those countries, beginning with the USA.

    OUR JOB
    We have a job, that job is the science, the resulting logic, and the constitution of that science and logic. This means we produce a science of cooperation through economics and politics. This allows us to defeat lying in government and those who would undermine governments as well.

    But that means we have to satisfy everyone’s need for a polity that suits their interests. In other words. We have to create a constitution with a set of menu choices. Because as I explain often, demographic composition determines agency, and agency determines demand for institutions and resulting economies.

    OUR POLICY
    So the “institute” policy is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’. It isn’t ‘do this or that’.

    If you ask me (us) what’s the ‘best’, the answer is ‘for whom?’. If you mean for Europeans, we can state that. If it’s for non Europeans, that set of menu choices might be different – and the group will pay the cost for those differences. That’s all we say.

    But, we also present a solution for the united states: to return it to a federation as originally constituted, and as was Europe was under the church and holy roman empire – instead of the empires of Centralized DC or France(pretending Belgium). And that solution would restore all choices to the states and restore state control and state boundaries etc.

    This lets a thousand nations bloom domestically, ending the conflict between the nine or eleven or how many nations that make up the USA, because of the ethnic and cultural differences that settled and conquered the USA.

    Now if you ask, ‘Well, Curt, all that aside, what’s the optimum?’

    I’ll say the truth is a small ethnically homogenous nation-state is the optimum for a demographic group, or all demographic groups. If you were to say ‘How do we even improve on that?” I would say you have to create another Monaco and give the super competent a place to retreat to because they need the least government and need pay the least taxes because they have the least ‘dependents’.

    Now, if you come and ask me “Well, Curt, what’s the opposite? for the poor and least competent demographic?”

    I would say it’s still a rule of law under a natural law constitution, but you’d organize the economy as if it were a military with assigned duties, but give people access to courts to sue for corruption that will absolutely positively emerge under that hierarchical system of governance.

    That said, most people DO prefer to be serfs. And most people will be better off as serfs. And what does that mean? The state (or manor or however you break it up) assigns you work (as did unions) and you do that work in exchange for basic shelter, food, medical care, etc. And then you earn money for entertainment and ‘joy’ from market participation in your off time.

    This eradicates the stress, at the cost of market efficiency, high risk of corruption, and the tendency of the political system to degrade into clientelism or gangster corruption, supplemented by black markets and people doing the minimum work possible for their subsidies.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-03 19:31:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675950349310390272

  • I don’t know if there is any truth to that statement: HERE –“Scientific researc

    I don’t know if there is any truth to that statement:

    HERE
    –“Scientific research has found that pedophilia is a separate disease from and in no way related to homosexuality. In fact, research demonstrates that most pedophiles (more than 95 percent) are heterosexually oriented. However, some studies have found that homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses. For example, a study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses. Another study calculated the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles to be approximately 11:1.”—

    That’s like saying whites are overrrepresented among serial killers – until we compensate for population size and discover serial killers are about equal in the races. And more so, because it’s somehow worse or less expected when white people are serial killers because whites have an international reputation for higher trustworthiness.

    Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 22:50:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674913311148613635

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674910511287156739

  • “No. We Don’t Live In A Simulation” The nonsense of “living in a simulation” is

    “No. We Don’t Live In A Simulation”

    The nonsense of “living in a simulation” is a series of attention-seeking, misinterpretations, fictions, and pseudoscience based on ignorance.

    The universe *IS* quite accidentally (or deterministically) computing something (persistence), but it’s not a simulation. And the fundamental laws of the universe exist and persist because they evolved the only means of their survival – just like every other property of the universe that evolved from those fundamental laws.

    We are, each of us living in an experience that consists of perception (existence) competing with an overlay of auto association we call prediction (imagination) and then shifting our attention as we do focusing between something near and something far.

    We maintain different focuses, so some live more in the world of existence (present), some of us in imagination(thinking), some of us closer to dream state (disconnected).

    So it’s understandable that some ‘pseudoscientists and philosophers and nonsense-speakers’ would try to preserve mysticism and woo woo by claiming we live in a simulation.

    We dont. We see as much of the world as we can act upon. Because that’s all it’s useful for us to see, hear, feel, smell, and disambiguate into a model we can act in. But just as the camera sees the world as it is, so do we. We break the world into bits (disambiguate it) by means that allow us to move through and act on it. Just like any and all sentient life in this world or any other.

    The only ‘miracles’ are:
    … a) we percive a three dimensional world at a scale we can move through. This hippocampal magic is the most fascinating part of the brain. The rest is simple by comparison.
    … b) We have developed enough brain matter in enough of a hierarchy to recursively think about thinking (consciousness).

    The rest is just tediously boring physics really.

    The age of philosophy, mysticism, and woo woo is over.

    It’s just going to take a generation for the nonsense-speakers to die off and the current state of understanding to reproduce in the population.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @Jut2685 @PolitiStoned @VivekGRamaswamy


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 21:20:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674890767708348416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674876320684158979

  • I love it when people ask me for cites, assuming, I’m as ignorant as they are. T

    I love it when people ask me for cites, assuming, I’m as ignorant as they are. The answer is I never say anything that isn’t in the literature. 😉

    CORE PROBLEM
    Female mental illness.
    Caused by
    1) higher neuroticism
    2) empathizing over systematizing
    3) Higher susceptibility to trauma emotional trauma
    4) Internalizing instead of externalizing
    5) Externalzing against children by psychological and emotional abuse – and. more physical abuse.
    6) Infantilizing rather than ‘adulting’ children.
    7) Mothers (filicide) kill more of their own childen.
    8) Single mothers more responsible for criminality and
    9) Single mothers more responsible for ‘mass shooters’ and ‘serial killers’
    10) Fathers are superior single parents, in part because they are more likely to recreate a stable two parent household.

    Mothers In General
    Mothers often serve as primary caregivers, especially in single-parent households, and therefore their actions can significantly impact a child’s well-being. Factors that may contribute to adverse childhood experiences in these contexts include:

    1. Stress: Single mothers often face higher levels of stress due to the demands of raising children without a partner. This stress can be exacerbated by financial difficulties, lack of social support, or personal issues like mental health problems or substance abuse. High-stress environments can contribute to instances of neglect or emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.

    2. Mental Health Issues: Mothers with untreated mental health issues, such as depression or anxiety, may struggle to provide consistent, nurturing care. This can lead to situations that are confusing or distressing for children.

    3. Intergenerational Trauma: Mothers who experienced trauma in their own childhoods are at a higher risk of creating environments where their children experience trauma. This can be due to a lack of healthy coping mechanisms, unresolved mental health issues, or repeating patterns of behavior that were modeled in their own upbringing.

    4. Lack of Resources: Single mothers, in particular, may lack the resources needed to provide a stable, nurturing environment for their children. This can include financial resources, time, social support, and access to quality healthcare and education.

    Households headed by single mothers.

    1. Crime rates are a complex issue that has been the subject of much research and debate. However, certain risk factors associated with single parent families can contribute to higher crime rates.

    2. Socioeconomic Factors: Single-parent families, especially those headed by single mothers, are more likely to live in poverty compared to two-parent families. Financial stress can lead to a variety of negative outcomes for children, including increased risk of involvement in crime.

    3. Lack of Supervision: Single parents, due to the demands of providing for the family on their own, may have less time to supervise their children. Lack of parental supervision has been linked to higher rates of juvenile delinquency.

    4. Educational Outcomes: Children from single-parent families often have lower educational attainment, which is a risk factor for criminal behavior.

    5. Neighborhood Factors: Single-parent families are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher crime rates, fewer resources, and lower levels of social cohesion, all of which can increase the risk of criminal behavior.

    6. Stress and Mental Health: Children in single-parent families may experience more stress due to financial instability, parental stress, and lack of resources, which can impact their mental health and increase the risk of criminal behavior.

    BASIC CITES:
    1. “The degree of mothers’ regulatory skills in the context of posttraumatic stress symptoms reflects a key process through which the intergenerational transmission of trauma may occur.”
    Pat‐Horenczyk, R., Cohen, S., Ziv, Y., Achituv, M., Asulin-Peretz, L., Blanchard, T., Schiff, M., & Brom, D. (2015). Emotion regulation in mothers and young children faced with trauma.. Infant mental health journal. .3) magical thinking as self-regulatory therapy
    4) responsibility evasion as failure of self regulatory therapy.

    2. “mothers’ posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms significantly mediated the effects of mothers’ past torture on their children’s adjustment—a pattern indicative of intergenerational traumatization.”
    East, P., Gahagan, S., & Al-Delaimy, W. (2018). The Impact of Refugee Mothers’ Trauma, Posttraumatic Stress, and Depression on Their Children’s Adjustment. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. https://t.co/MtXpTSNj7s.

    3. “mothers’ aspirations to shield their children from trauma was a fragile endeavor for mothers who faced ongoing trauma and economic hardships.”
    SmithBattle, L. (2018). The past is prologue? The long arc of childhood trauma in a multigenerational study of teen mothering.. Social science & medicine. https://t.co/umOILzP0MN.

    I could spend all day copying and pasting cites here. But you can pull up google scholar or any of the new AIs for scholars and search for cites on the subject.
    Unfortunately, @ChatGPT as been ‘sterilized’ and will not answer contentious questions so it’s unusable for scholarly work.

    Reply addressees: @FU_transphobes @Citygerl @JessVonMiqobutt @JessicaInsanity @RyanShead


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 19:54:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674868983042826253

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674861675646705665

  • I don’t make laws of nature, nor human nature, nor behavioral development, nor e

    I don’t make laws of nature, nor human nature, nor behavioral development, nor empirical evidence.
    Truth doesn’t care about your approval.
    There are plenty of things everyone would like to justify doing in public.
    I’ve been warned by police around the world for hand holding, kissing, and putting my arm around my wife with my thumb in her belt loop – all by habitual accident despite knowing it’s a rule, and all of which are appropriate in my country but very inappropriate in others.
    You don’t get to choose norms.
    You don’t have rights.
    People grant you rights.
    Because people construct rights.
    And they construct them normatively and legislatively.
    And they construct them with rights, obligations, and inclinations.
    Because rights obligations and inalienations almost exclusively exist to prevent you from imposing a cost on others, whether you weigh that cost or not.
    Becuase that’s what moral means: non imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests (costs) paid by others – one of the most important being the hgh cost of self regulation and the high cost of raising children capable of self regulation and competition in the rather brutal meritocratic arena of the sexual, social, economic, and political marketplaces.
    Where those markets calculate the good and bad empirically independently of our opinions.

    Reply addressees: @JessVonMiqobutt @JessicaInsanity @RyanShead


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-30 19:16:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674859585100734465

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674855262065156096

  • Happy to test that hypothesis, because it’s almost certain to be false as nearly

    Happy to test that hypothesis, because it’s almost certain to be false as nearly anyone who has ever spoken to me for more than a few minutes will attest. 😉

    You’ve done good quality clerical work in the sciences. But you haven’t contributed to them with insight or innovation. Or created an intellectual movement. Or built a business of any scale, showing competence with organizing and inspiring human achievement.

    And your only response to accusations of ignorance of the subject matter which you question as an act of disapproval is ad hominem. Either you know the subject matter or you don’t, I do. In fact one of my areas of specialization is sex differences in cognition, and in particular, lying.

    So please don’t waste any more of my time – unless intellectual honesty and doing the work is something you aspire to.

    Reply addressees: @RWiSblog @JamesDebord18 @charlesmurray


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 23:00:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673828699370602497

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673824249444810752

  • There is plenty of research on sex differences in signals frienship, prosocial a

    There is plenty of research on sex differences in signals frienship, prosocial and antisocial behavior. If you dn’t know it then go find it, but don’t opine without having read it, or engage in cancel culture by sewing doubt because you’re eighter ignorant or biased.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 21:24:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673804460336791554

    Reply addressees: @RWiSblog @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673728137065119753

  • Quantum Dointers? (NLI Neologism) 😉 –“Quantum Dointer: Describes someone who m

    Quantum Dointers?
    (NLI Neologism) 😉

    –“Quantum Dointer: Describes someone who makes a living turning physics into cheap tricks, confusing and amazing people. Neil Degrasse Tyson would go there too if he talked about quantum more. “– Michael

    –“Take the water analogy: “Use a hose. The water sprays forward from the hose but the water droplets (e-) hit the air-resistance and scatter, probabilistically to us because the water drops (e-) interact with the air but also each other. The only difference is water coheres on contact, electrons repel.
    Quantum Dointers like Michio Kaku or Brian Greene will say “Even Saturn gets a little wet!” Or something like that. Because a probability distribution like a Gaussian never touches 0.
    What a bunch of jerks.”– Michael


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 18:12:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673756095834193920

  • Now, why you’re confused (as is common) about the meaning of ‘law’ as in laws of

    Now, why you’re confused (as is common) about the meaning of ‘law’ as in laws of the universe.

    This is a long standing problem in western thought even though western thought is far superior to the thought in every other civilization – we still have a few issues.

    So let’s understand what’s possible to describe by what system of description (measurement).

    |Sequence|: Sets(Identification, Logic) > Math(Descriptions), Computation(Operations) > Simulation (Adversarial Competition)

    1. Set Reducibility (Language, Logic)
    2. Mathematical Reducibility (Physics)
    3. Computational Reducibility (Behavior)
    4. Simulational Reducibility (Evolution)

    How does prediction change in that sequence?
    Why do we need each increase in precision?
    What dimensions are we adding with each increase in precision?

    See? 😉

    Reply addressees: @justinmchase


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-27 16:53:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673736283775025169

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673734153542549512


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Yes, because when we refer to “The Method”, we’re referring to producing sequences of terms as measurements by the process of ‘disambiguation by enumeration, operationalization, aversarial competition, and serialization’, thereby creating a discreet definition of a term.

    Science consists of the means of producing testifiable testimony by production of falsifiable operations. Scientific statesments contain two properties: the formula (description) and search criteria (context).

    There are four sciences: the physical (before state), behavioral (during state), evolutionary (after state), and the formal science (the logics) we describe those states with.

    All four sciences are constructable from the one first principle (first law) of the ternary logic of evolutionary computation by the defeat of entropy by the concentration of energy consisting of positive, negative charges in stable persistent organizations.

    All language consitsts of measurements of levels of ambiguous to unambiguous precision, using the same rule of evolutionary computation by continous recursive disambiguation of ambiguity into meaning: agreement (or not): “stable relations”

    Ergo language is just an extension of the same rules that all the rest of the universe operates by – because thats how our neurons operate, because that’s how molecules operate – etc.

    The “grammars”, from unambiuous (math) to ambiguous(deception) consists of paradigms (permissible dimensions), vocabulary, and syntax for communication by some measurment wiether precise, imprecise, or associative, or misleading.

    Natural Law = The science, and logic of cooperation (non conflict) by the production of a universally commensurable value neutral paradigm, vocabulary, and logic of decidability.

    We use the term natural law because it completes the aristotelian project of the same name. And is the foundation behind the common, concurrent law of europeans and british and american constitutions in particular.

    We have merely ‘scienced’ that law, and plugged holes in that constitution by doing so.

    This completes the wilsonian synthesis of the unification of the sciences.

    So our work is quite important – on the scale of the Darwinian Revlution.

    And social media was one of the most useful research tools because we can ‘experiement’ with language and behavior cheaply and quickly by the collection of demonstrated (good) rather than reported (bad) behavior.

    Cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1673734153542549512