Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • ARE LESS CLANNISH (RACIST) THAN OTHER GROUPS – THATS JUST THE SCIENCE OF IT. —

    https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1023311716422049793WHITES ARE LESS CLANNISH (RACIST) THAN OTHER GROUPS – THATS JUST THE SCIENCE OF IT.

    —“Interesting thought from Kevin MacDonald that I haven’t pondered before – many high-performing whites so aspie that they feel nothing for their people?”— John Mark

    https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1023311716422049793

    Jayman and HBDChick both suggest that we developed lower clannishness, and the research supports it. The question is why. Either the value of human life in low population density (cold), or the cold’s influence on neoteny, or both.

    Since it does not appear in the siberians/alut/amerindians (they are super predators) but it does in the east asians who have even greater neoteny than we do (to their detriment – although they use nationalism and racism as a defense against the weakness).

    I suggest that it’s more likely the result of the mixture of pastoralism agrarianism metalworking, and winters, and the downward expansion of the middle class under manorialism.

    I also suggest whites have far greater agency than any others, which is a male genetic property. This is why we differ from east asians. We have greater agency despite our parallel neoteny.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 12:20:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN STRUCTURE

    https://www.wax-science.fr/wp-content/uploads/Sex-diff-connectome.pdfhttps://www.wax-science.fr/wp-content/uploads/Sex-diff-connectome.pdfSEX DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN STRUCTURE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 10:12:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN STRUCTURE

    https://www.wax-science.fr/wp-content/uploads/Sex-diff-connectome.pdfSEX DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN STRUCTURE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 10:12:00 UTC

  • EVIDENCE – GREATER GENDER EQUALITY MEANS GREATER SPECIALIZATION (DIVERGENCE), NO

    http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-sitehttp://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-siteMORE EVIDENCE – GREATER GENDER EQUALITY MEANS GREATER SPECIALIZATION (DIVERGENCE), NOT CONVERGENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 16:36:00 UTC

  • EVIDENCE – GREATER GENDER EQUALITY MEANS GREATER SPECIALIZATION (DIVERGENCE), NO

    http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-siteMORE EVIDENCE – GREATER GENDER EQUALITY MEANS GREATER SPECIALIZATION (DIVERGENCE), NOT CONVERGENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 16:36:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REMINDER: WHEN YOU ASK ME TO REVIEW WORK I WI

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REMINDER: WHEN YOU ASK ME TO REVIEW WORK I WILL DO SO – BUT YOU COST ME TIME. HENCE DON’T GIVE ME POSTMODERN JUNK.

    Review of a Bolivian Paper on the Alt Right.

    (ouch. remember that if you ask me to review academic work I will do my job. And if you are giving me postmodern drivel I’m gonna be very unkind in my analysis)

    0) First, I can improve on the understanding of the manifesto section a bit. However I am extremely critical if not hostile to the method of argument you are using because it contains nothing testable and as far as I can tell is just postmodern critique. So I won’t comment on it.

    1) The correct framing would be that the current generation of thinkers has adopted the marxist techniques (ridicule, shaming, rallying) simply by being exposed to them for decades.

    2) The movement was made possible by a)end of socialism, b) genetics, c) cog sci (d)immigration.

    3) the movement is merely a cyclical return to nationalism in the face of immigration – first Hispanic since hispanics have one to one replacement of whites, but secondly and more emphatically, muslim immigration which we perceive as even more hostile than jewish.

    4) Trump is an ally of the alt right simply because he is pursuing a strategy of nationalism and the restoration of the balance of powers instead of the single superpower of America that is too expensive for Americans to continue paying for.

    5) the alt right is possible because the internet allows people who are naturally apolitical to mirror the propaganda strategy of the marxists who are highly political. So the economics of collaboration have been reversed from favoring the left to the right.

    6) closing down stormfront and others merely drove the movement to use symbolic language, private message boards, video and podcasts, and made it possible for the right leadership to charge money for content. It backfired.

    7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page 50 because (a)you do not put forth a testable argument and then demonstrate how you defend it, and (b)you then engage in opinion measurement (intellectual gossip) rather than any form of measurement.

    8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature (its all they have to measure) but not in social science where it is nothing more than formally outlined gossip.

    9) I am sorry if this offends, but you have clearly been taught that this form of argument is acceptable academic work. It isn’t.

    https://www.academia.edu/36845752/El_esquema_ideol%C3%B3gico_de_la_derecha_alternativa

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:35:40 UTC

  • 8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature but not i

    8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature but not in social science where it is nothing more than formally outlined gossip.
    9) I am sorry if this offends, but you have been taught that this form of argument is acceptable academic work. It isn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:29:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024044260880986113

    Reply addressees: @Aremazu19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

    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/1024025534467121153

  • 7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page

    7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page 50 because (a)you do not put forth a testable argument and then demonstrate how you defend it, and (b)you then engage in opinion measurement (intellectual gossip) rather than any form of measurement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:26:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024043701985787904

    Reply addressees: @Aremazu19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

    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/1024025534467121153

  • Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces…

    It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence. Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism). My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle. I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”. But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse. The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging. That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.

  • Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces…

    It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence. Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism). My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle. I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”. But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse. The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging. That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.