Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • “Last summer, scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that male s

    —“Last summer, scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that male sperm counts had fallen by almost 60 per cent in 40 years. In what was the largest study of its kind, they analysed data from 43,000 men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, taking in 185 studies from 1973 to 2011. Its lead author, Dr Hagai Levine, decreed the result an ‘urgent wake-up call’.”—

  • “Last summer, scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that male s

    —“Last summer, scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that male sperm counts had fallen by almost 60 per cent in 40 years. In what was the largest study of its kind, they analysed data from 43,000 men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, taking in 185 studies from 1973 to 2011. Its lead author, Dr Hagai Levine, decreed the result an ‘urgent wake-up call’.”—

  • “There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström (genius)

    —“There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström (genius)

  • “There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström (genius)

    —“There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström (genius)

  • “There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström (genius)

    —“There is no God but Faust, and Darwin is his prophet.”— Simon Ström

    (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-24 09:46:00 UTC

  • 2 – If we have a discussion with a series of questions to discuss first, that’s

    2 – If we have a discussion with a series of questions to discuss first, that’s ok.But for insula(libertarian justificationism), Tom(rationalism/justification) and doolittle(science and law) it would be difficult to say anything meaningful until we had some sort of text xchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 15:14:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955458672251035649

    Reply addressees: @Rewwgh @InsulaQui @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955417881172471808

    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/955417881172471808

  • 1 – Generally, debates are a waste of time – in general, people are sufficiently

    1 – Generally, debates are a waste of time – in general, people are sufficiently rational but insufficiently scientific, which is the purpose of pilpul->theology->rationality – to avoid it. I don’t know Insula’s abilities, Tom is probably sophisticated enough. I don’t know.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 15:11:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955458019176968192

    Reply addressees: @Rewwgh @InsulaQui @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955417881172471808

    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/955417881172471808

  • Who Is Your Favorite Economist, And Why? My Top 5 Are Thomas Piketty, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, And Richard Thaller.

    —-”Who is your favorite economist and why?”—-

    You know, I have spent the better part of 25 years trying to understand what is wrong with Economics, and I think I have done so.

    And from that understanding, I would say certainly the most IMPORTANT economist was Hayek, principally because he understood the central problem of economics is providing information necessary for indirect cooperation, AND because he understood that all economics is a byproduct of the natural law of torts (property). Which is why later in life, he (as I have), devoted himself to improving understanding of the law (natural law of tort) as the institution by which we solve cooperation(contract) and information(truth) problems, since what we call economics is just the consequence of the law and a very simple technology we call money, that like numbers is so elegant precisely because they are so simple.

    Other than Hayek, I respect Friedman for his efforts at attempting to produce collective commons through market means (vouchers etc). The economists I respect today are very few and far between, because there are NONE that I know of that measure changes in ALL capital rather than cherry picking, and in particular cherry picking consumption.

    I’m probably a fairly good scholar of Mises, in understanding his terrible failure. But that he failed just as bridgman and brouwer did and to some degree hayek, because he didn’t understand that he had discovered operationalism in economics, not a ‘science’ – thereby making a fool of himself as an idealogue. I tend to find everything of value in Simmel, although I use most of Mises’ definitions in my work because as an operationalist his are most accurate.

    I read pretty much everything that comes out in economics. I follow Tyler Cowen because I have similar interests in social science, and I follow Scott Sumner because he sees things I don’t.

    I am curious how long it will take the mainstream to understand that you get what you measure and they’re measuring the wrong thing, and if they measured the right thing it would end the left forever.

    It’s not science if you’re cherry picking. And the entire discipline is built on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-is-your-favorite-economist-and-why-My-top-5-are-Thomas-Piketty-Ludwig-von-Mises-Friedrich-Hayek-John-Maynard-Keynes-and-Richard-Thaller

  • What Percent Of The Population Of The World Have An Iq Below 100 And Vice Versa?

    THESE ANSWERS ARE NOT QUITE RIGHT. LET’S SEE IF WE CAN IMPROVE THEM:

    We use IQ for two different measures, WITHIN a population, and ACROSS populations.

    The best measure that I know of is to use what we today call 105, which represents approximately the IQ where an individual can repair a machine, or learn by reading instructions, rather than instruction and repetition. (IQ roughly measures the rate of learning, or rather the information requires in order for one to identify constant relations (patterns) of increasing numbers(density) of constant relations(causes)).

    General knowledge will allow you to make more use of your IQ, but it will not improve your neural ability to identify existing and potential constant relations (patterns), with ever decreasing quantity and quality of information.

    If we took the east asian population that is the worlds most homogenous ethnic group that is the world’s most pedomorphically advanced genetic group, that has done the most to kill off its underclasses, (Han/Korean/Japanese) then they would have a distribution of 100.

    If we take any other group we would have a distribution of 100. But when we compare groups to one another some groups decline and others rise. Right? So relative to the UK, Hong Kong has approximately half a standard deviation in IQ (106–108) advantage (at least in non-verbal) IQ. From conversations I’ve had with Lynn, it certainly appears that in anglodom we have lost at least that many IQ points in the past 150 years through asymmetric reproduction in anglo civilization, and as much as 12 points.

    Now, we can then recalculate 100 by the median of the new larger group, OR, we can recalculate each group to a prior demonstrated performance of a 100 individual.

    So we can describe a rolling distribution or we can describe distributions in relation to a fixed capacity.

    So it’s not really true that the world IQ average is 100. As far as I know, the world average IQ relative to the anchor of 100(UK/ENG), is in the 90’s and is getting lower every day due to asymmetric reproduction (dysgenia).

    Sorry but this subject is abused for the purposes of propaganda all the time. IQ matters. Eery point of median IQ lost in population has a tremendous cost, because langauge, norms, and institutions must exist for the median.

    As a rule of thumb. Every person under 95 is six times as costly as the productivity of every person over 105. Ergo the most benefit that any people can provide is actually not education or employment but reduction of the reproduction of the underclasses. And by underclasses the hard number is under 105.

    Uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable for a reason. They deprive us of presumed discounts.

    https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-the-population-of-the-world-have-an-IQ-below-100-and-vice-versa

  • Who Is Your Favorite Economist, And Why? My Top 5 Are Thomas Piketty, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, And Richard Thaller.

    —-”Who is your favorite economist and why?”—-

    You know, I have spent the better part of 25 years trying to understand what is wrong with Economics, and I think I have done so.

    And from that understanding, I would say certainly the most IMPORTANT economist was Hayek, principally because he understood the central problem of economics is providing information necessary for indirect cooperation, AND because he understood that all economics is a byproduct of the natural law of torts (property). Which is why later in life, he (as I have), devoted himself to improving understanding of the law (natural law of tort) as the institution by which we solve cooperation(contract) and information(truth) problems, since what we call economics is just the consequence of the law and a very simple technology we call money, that like numbers is so elegant precisely because they are so simple.

    Other than Hayek, I respect Friedman for his efforts at attempting to produce collective commons through market means (vouchers etc). The economists I respect today are very few and far between, because there are NONE that I know of that measure changes in ALL capital rather than cherry picking, and in particular cherry picking consumption.

    I’m probably a fairly good scholar of Mises, in understanding his terrible failure. But that he failed just as bridgman and brouwer did and to some degree hayek, because he didn’t understand that he had discovered operationalism in economics, not a ‘science’ – thereby making a fool of himself as an idealogue. I tend to find everything of value in Simmel, although I use most of Mises’ definitions in my work because as an operationalist his are most accurate.

    I read pretty much everything that comes out in economics. I follow Tyler Cowen because I have similar interests in social science, and I follow Scott Sumner because he sees things I don’t.

    I am curious how long it will take the mainstream to understand that you get what you measure and they’re measuring the wrong thing, and if they measured the right thing it would end the left forever.

    It’s not science if you’re cherry picking. And the entire discipline is built on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-is-your-favorite-economist-and-why-My-top-5-are-Thomas-Piketty-Ludwig-von-Mises-Friedrich-Hayek-John-Maynard-Keynes-and-Richard-Thaller