Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • I cannot believe you spam my feed with “Impose God On Everyone!!!”. Sorry but th

    I cannot believe you spam my feed with “Impose God On Everyone!!!”. Sorry but that’s not scientific, it’s not calculable, and it’s contrary to the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 20:39:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999389444447854594

    Reply addressees: @MinimumSt8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999385186692452352

    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/999385186692452352

  • Pilpul and Critique vs Science and Law. Semitic Grammar (Excuses), vs European G

    Pilpul and Critique vs Science and Law.
    Semitic Grammar (Excuses), vs European Grammar (Warranty)
    Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 20:18:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999384071968120833

  • CAN A SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY EXIST? (only if it is demarcated from therapy) —“D

    CAN A SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY EXIST?

    (only if it is demarcated from therapy)

    —“Do you think there can be any valid or empirical discipline called “psychology”?”—-Gearóid Walsh

    Great Question.

    At present I undrestand psychology (as a science) as the study of cognitive biases and limits, in the perception and cognition of information.

    At present I understand it is possible to integrate what we call psychology into the rest of the sciences using Acquisitionism which removes the authoritarian, monopoly, conformist, and feminine bias of pseudoscientific psychology from the discipline, producing a value neutral language of self interest. (Just as I see Propertarianism replacing social science and therefore integrating it fully into the rest of the sciences.) Acquisitionism is far more explanatory and fruitful than ‘conformity’ to an arbitrary norm.

    I do not see psychology holding only dominion over therapy (counseling, self help). I see that as the responsibility of stoicism (self authoring). And that such a field will make use of ‘reformed’ psychology.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:25:00 UTC

  • Pilpul and Critique vs Science and Law. Semitic Grammar (Excuses), vs European G

    Pilpul and Critique vs Science and Law.

    Semitic Grammar (Excuses), vs European Grammar (Warranty)

    Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:18:00 UTC

  • WHY IS (WAS) PSYCHOLOGY A PSEUDOSCIENCE —“You said Psychology is not a science

    WHY IS (WAS) PSYCHOLOGY A PSEUDOSCIENCE

    —“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson

    PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE)

    (a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’),

    (b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement

    (c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm:

    (d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm.

    (e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.)

    SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE )

    (a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”.

    (b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire.

    (c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic))

    (d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes.

    (e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits.

    (f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:01:00 UTC

  • In other words the Cosmopolitan project has been a catastrophe, and Europeans no

    In other words the Cosmopolitan project has been a catastrophe, and Europeans no longer drink Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong flavored Cool Aide. That century of pseudoscience is over. Finally. Now we have to end Postmodernism….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 01:46:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999104177912590336

    Reply addressees: @nytopinion @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998890257377583104

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nytopinion

    What went wrong with the “European project”? The euro, definitely, @PaulKrugman says. But the real undoing was the loss of prestige of a European elite committed to democratic values. https://t.co/0EySxwqOfE

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998890257377583104

  • “WHY ISN”T MARXISM TAUGHT OUTSIDE OF PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE”— Um. BECAUSE I

    —“WHY ISN”T MARXISM TAUGHT OUTSIDE OF PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE”—

    Um. BECAUSE ITS FALSE (Actually it’s pseudoscientific nonsense). In fact, it’s the subject of ridicule in economics precisely because it is false (pseudoscientific nonsense).

    It’s false on the premises:

    1) Value is subjective and marginal, and determined at the point of sale. period.

    2) Value is created by the use of incentives to produce a voluntary organization of innovation, estimation, speculation, calculation, production, distribution, and trade. You can forcibly reorganize physical materials (labor) but you cannot forcibly reorganize talent(humans), or the capital of humans, in competition with other humans. THEREFORE the value is not in labor but in organization.

    Labor is, as history has demonstrated, relatively worthless, and contributes very little to the entire process. Instead, laborers (the lower classes) are the principle beneficiaries of the vast discount in costs of consumer goods, services, and information. While for the middle and upper classes the only difference is consumption that produces signaling which assists them in the ‘dance of trust’ required for the collective risk necessary to fund speculative investment, production distribution and trade. Labor has no multiplier.

    3) The lower classes were not oppressed, but domesticated through the use of organized violence, manorialism, and religion to cull sufficient numbers from the population that only those not a drag on the rest of humanity remained.

    Those groups that successfully culled their underclasses through prosecution (killing), manorialism (starvation), urbanization (plague), and warfare (hunting of other humans), today have the highest standards of living.

    The economic reality is that each person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive. Ergo, the wealth of nations is determined by the degree one can shrink it’s underclass.

    The entire marxist canon is nonsense.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-22 10:14:00 UTC

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • —“Why Isn”t Marxism Taught Outside of Philosophy and Literature”—

    Um. BECAUSE ITS FALSE (Actually it’s pseudoscientific nonsense). In fact, it’s the subject of ridicule in economics precisely because it is false (pseudoscientific nonsense). It’s false on the premises: 1) Value is subjective and marginal, and determined at the point of sale. period. 2) Value is created by the use of incentives to produce a voluntary organization of innovation, estimation, speculation, calculation, production, distribution, and trade. You can forcibly reorganize physical materials (labor) but you cannot forcibly reorganize talent(humans), or the capital of humans, in competition with other humans. THEREFORE the value is not in labor but in organization. Labor is, as history has demonstrated, relatively worthless, and contributes very little to the entire process. Instead, laborers (the lower classes) are the principle beneficiaries of the vast discount in costs of consumer goods, services, and information. While for the middle and upper classes the only difference is consumption that produces signaling which assists them in the ‘dance of trust’ required for the collective risk necessary to fund speculative investment, production distribution and trade. Labor has no multiplier. 3) The lower classes were not oppressed, but domesticated through the use of organized violence, manorialism, and religion to cull sufficient numbers from the population that only those not a drag on the rest of humanity remained. Those groups that successfully culled their underclasses through prosecution (killing), manorialism (starvation), urbanization (plague), and warfare (hunting of other humans), today have the highest standards of living. The economic reality is that each person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is productive. Ergo, the wealth of nations is determined by the degree one can shrink it’s underclass. The entire marxist canon is nonsense.
    May 22, 2018 10:14am