Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking

    Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • A political conservative is an empiricist. The left absolutely hates that we hav

    A political conservative is an empiricist. The left absolutely hates that we have enough empirical evidence now to disprove political correctness, and postmodernism, feminism, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, boazian anthropology the same way we disproved marxism. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 07:01:00 UTC

  • Is Racism The Ideology Of The Idiots?

    I thought race realism was just science. And that lying about it is simply a postmodern pseudoscientific religion.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-racism-the-ideology-of-the-idiots

  • Is Racism The Ideology Of The Idiots?

    I thought race realism was just science. And that lying about it is simply a postmodern pseudoscientific religion.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-racism-the-ideology-of-the-idiots

  • What Is The Basis Of Civilization, Language, Science, Religion, Race, A Mixture Or Other Circumstances, Such As A Specific Political Organization, Etc.?

    —”What is the basis of civilization, language, science, religion, race, a mixture or other circumstances, such as a specific political organization, etc.?”—-

    THE BEST ANSWER

    The answer is deceptively simple.

    (a) We are born with one resource to spend: TIME, and by early adulthood, we must produce more than we expend over a three week period, or we will die.

    (b) We are able to produce only so many calories in that time. And, alone, barely enough to survive as a gatherer.

    (c) We are however, capable of cooperation.

    (d) The returns on cooperation are not additive but multiplicative – on the order a power of five to ten per person added to the division of labor. (Really. its that much).

    (e) All our biological abilities: language, reason; our habitual abilities: manners, norms, and traditions; our institutions: money, law, banking, politics, religion, and even war, assist us in cooperating in every larger numbers.

    (f) and through that vast system of heartless, mindless, communication, cooperation, we produce and transform infinitely more calories than we could on our own.

    (g) for this reason, we have only one form of wealth, time, and we are not wealthier than cave men. We have only made everything infinitely cheaper in the only currency we have to spend when we are born: time.

    (h) however, we are all born rational actors, and act morally (do not lie, cheat, steal, or free ride) and immorally (lie, cheat, steal, and free ride) as is in our best self interest.

    (i) And the velocity and scale of cooperation is dependent upon truth telling, adhering to promise and contract, and incentives for both reward and punishment if we fail to speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, adhere to promise and contract, and follow only those incentives that impose no costs upon the investments(costs) of others.

    (j) Science (Demonstrated determinism of the physical world), Economics (Demonstrated human Behavior) and Tort (Demonstrated human Conflict) are the only languages of truth that we know of.

    (k) Humans evolved language to ‘deceive’, negotiate, and speak ‘morally’, not to speak truthfully, scientifically, economically, or legally. And humans evolved to cheat where they have the opportunity, and continue to do so.

    (l) So the primary difficulty in history is creating language, habits, and institutions, that assist us in truthful, voluntary, reciprocally beneficial, cooperation while suppressing untruthful, involuntary, irreciprocal impositions.

    In the end, as inhuman as it may seem, we are all just calculating opportunities to work together to pursue the highest return at the lowest cost in the shortest time with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk. We are calculating, and the ‘equals sign’ in that vast set of calculations is when we cooperate.

    We work together to increase the returns on time.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basis-of-civilization-language-science-religion-race-a-mixture-or-other-circumstances-such-as-a-specific-political-organization-etc

  • What Is The Basis Of Civilization, Language, Science, Religion, Race, A Mixture Or Other Circumstances, Such As A Specific Political Organization, Etc.?

    —”What is the basis of civilization, language, science, religion, race, a mixture or other circumstances, such as a specific political organization, etc.?”—-

    THE BEST ANSWER

    The answer is deceptively simple.

    (a) We are born with one resource to spend: TIME, and by early adulthood, we must produce more than we expend over a three week period, or we will die.

    (b) We are able to produce only so many calories in that time. And, alone, barely enough to survive as a gatherer.

    (c) We are however, capable of cooperation.

    (d) The returns on cooperation are not additive but multiplicative – on the order a power of five to ten per person added to the division of labor. (Really. its that much).

    (e) All our biological abilities: language, reason; our habitual abilities: manners, norms, and traditions; our institutions: money, law, banking, politics, religion, and even war, assist us in cooperating in every larger numbers.

    (f) and through that vast system of heartless, mindless, communication, cooperation, we produce and transform infinitely more calories than we could on our own.

    (g) for this reason, we have only one form of wealth, time, and we are not wealthier than cave men. We have only made everything infinitely cheaper in the only currency we have to spend when we are born: time.

    (h) however, we are all born rational actors, and act morally (do not lie, cheat, steal, or free ride) and immorally (lie, cheat, steal, and free ride) as is in our best self interest.

    (i) And the velocity and scale of cooperation is dependent upon truth telling, adhering to promise and contract, and incentives for both reward and punishment if we fail to speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, adhere to promise and contract, and follow only those incentives that impose no costs upon the investments(costs) of others.

    (j) Science (Demonstrated determinism of the physical world), Economics (Demonstrated human Behavior) and Tort (Demonstrated human Conflict) are the only languages of truth that we know of.

    (k) Humans evolved language to ‘deceive’, negotiate, and speak ‘morally’, not to speak truthfully, scientifically, economically, or legally. And humans evolved to cheat where they have the opportunity, and continue to do so.

    (l) So the primary difficulty in history is creating language, habits, and institutions, that assist us in truthful, voluntary, reciprocally beneficial, cooperation while suppressing untruthful, involuntary, irreciprocal impositions.

    In the end, as inhuman as it may seem, we are all just calculating opportunities to work together to pursue the highest return at the lowest cost in the shortest time with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk. We are calculating, and the ‘equals sign’ in that vast set of calculations is when we cooperate.

    We work together to increase the returns on time.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basis-of-civilization-language-science-religion-race-a-mixture-or-other-circumstances-such-as-a-specific-political-organization-etc

  • Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): Where we are right now is still skewed by

    Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness):

    Where we are right now is still skewed by the delusion that the Left will eventually find a way to accommodate itself to the findings of science, rather than seeking ever more ruthlessly to criminalize them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 21:28:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): Where we are right now is still skewed by

    Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): Where we are right now is still skewed by the delusion that the Left will eventually find a way to accommodate itself to the findings of science, rather than seeking ever more ruthlessly to criminalize them.

  • Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): Where we are right now is still skewed by

    Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): Where we are right now is still skewed by the delusion that the Left will eventually find a way to accommodate itself to the findings of science, rather than seeking ever more ruthlessly to criminalize them.

  • >**Hello.** I’m analytic philosopher. This is Part 3 of my walkthru of Chris’ CT

    >**Hello.** I’m analytic philosopher. This is Part 3 of my walkthru of Chris’ CTMU paper. The Body.

    >Chris’ text in italic, mine in normal font.

    I’ve worked through the remainder of the paper. And as usual, it doesn’t warrant further paragraph by paragraph analysis. It just took me a bit to get my arms around what he was trying to say.

    I can reduce it quite simply to this.

    1. Chris is using a very … private language … by pulling from a host of analogies (a super-geek common failing) to say something both true and relatively obvious, that can be stated in quite simple terms.

    2. This kind of behavior comes from identifying patterns across many bodies of work, without adopting the rigor (limits) of those disciplines he draws from. I’m sympathetic.

    3. Technically speaking, this is a work of academic … narrative… or perhaps poetry. It’s not technically pseudoscientific, because it’s not false. I’m not sure he makes any pseudoscientific claims at all. I see … liberties with language and logic. But, still the paper stated in pseudoscientific and pseudo rational prose – and bordering on supernatural in cases. There is a vast difference between analogy, accuracy, and necessity. So I understand the critics response.

    I’m probably one of the most skilled people living – at least across disciplines if not within them – and I can take this apart and determine that he’s not full of it. I think this is an honest representation of the mind of an autist, in the grammar and semantics of an autist.

    4. There is however nothing calculable here, only ‘reasonable’. Nothing certain. Nothing Proven (although we do not ‘prove’ science, since laws are forever contingent.) There is nothing stated operationally and therefore causally. What we have is a work of EXPLANATION by analogy stated with examples from math, logic, and science

    5. I’m not sure if he’s making an anthropomorphic argument for narrative purposes or because he wants to imply it. I almost wrote him off immediately. There are at least three points of view he could be making: that there is a first mover. That there is no difference between our reasoning and the reasoning of the universe. Or that it’s a convenient means of drawing analogy.

    6. And there is nothing original here other than the matter of the narration of the topic. I mean, science fiction authors said this in the 40’s and 50’s.

    7. That does not discount – in the least – **that it is not FALSE**. All the pseudoscientific costumery of the French Theatre aside, the underlying narrative is correct. We learn truths from the fictions of tolstoy and shakespeare. We can learn truths from the mind of an autist (I am one also). It’s just that the claims are obvious. Or at least obvious to me.

    8. Not sure I am excited to weigh in on this but people asked me to, and it’s my job to debunk nonsense. And I’m pleasantly surprised that while it’s written a bit nonsensically, it’s not nonsense. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 21:05:00 UTC