Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • ASPIE-NESS (biology) “Some researchers have argued that ASDs are not primarily c

    ASPIE-NESS

    (biology)

    “Some researchers have argued that ASDs are not primarily caused by genes, but also by environmental factors. The theory is that a person is born with a vulnerability to an ASD, but the ASD develops only if that person is exposed to a specific environmental trigger.”

    Some suggested environmental triggers include:

    1) the mother having a viral or bacterial infection during pregnancy.

    There is evidence to support the first three factors listed above.

    Women exposed to a rubella infection during pregnancy are estimated to have a 7% risk of giving birth to a child with an ASD.

    (I had rubella and whooping cough before age 4.)

    2) The mother smoking during pregnancy

    Women who smoke daily throughout early pregnancy are 40% more likely to give birth to a child with an ASD.

    (My mother smoked during pregnancy.)

    3) The age of the father”

    “New fathers who are older than 40 are estimated to be six times more likely to father a child with an ASD than fathers under 40. This is possibly because a man’s genetic material is more at risk of developing mutations as he gets older.”

    (the behavior runs in my family, but my father was 25. All of my kids have the behavior too.)

    ( – from N.I.H.)

    OTHERS

    4) There is some relationship between gut bacteria and brain development that we don’t understand. Some of us seem to be deficient in it.

    5) I am still suspicious of the salts of glutamate in western diets given that we know they’re neurotoxic.

    OBSERVATION

    6) It is absolutely CRIMINAL to put girls and boys in the same classrooms at the same age and expect the same behavior and it causes damage to male brain development.

    REFERENCES

    The article summary below can be translated and interpreted as: it takes a lot longer to develop a male brain, possibly because in-utero male development is achieved by delaying or impeding the development of amygdalar and hippocampal regions. Over the first few years of life this delta is seen in female early maturity and male later maturity. IN this sense, the construction of ‘male’, which is what ‘aspieness’ is an exaggeration of, is accomplished not by DIFFERENT structures, but by the emergent difference of a brain the develops at a different STAGE in development.

    1) “Knowledge of amygdalar and hippocampal development as they pertain to sex differences and laterality would help to understand not only brain development but also the relationship between brain volume and brain functions. However, few studies investigated development of these two regions, especially during infancy. The purpose of this study was to examine typical volumetric trajectories of amygdala and hippocampus from infancy to early adulthood by predicting sexual dimorphism and laterality. We performed a cross-sectional morphometric MRI study of amygdalar and hippocampal growth from 1 month to 25 years old, using 109 healthy individuals. The findings indicated significant non-linear age-related volume changes, especially during the first few years of life, in both the amygdala and hippocampus regardless of sex. The peak ages of amygdalar and hippocampal volumes came at the timing of preadolescence (9–11 years old). The female amygdala reached its peak age about one year and a half earlier than the male amygdala did. In addition, its rate of growth change decreased earlier in the females. Furthermore, both females and males displayed rightward laterality in the hippocampus, but only the males in the amygdala. The robust growth of the amygdala and hippocampus during infancy highlight the importance of this period for neural and functional development. The sex differences and laterality during development of these two regions suggest that sex-related factors such as sex hormones and functional laterality might affect brain development.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-17 09:50:00 UTC

  • SEA CHANGE We have seen, since 1990, the slow accumulation of scientific evidenc

    SEA CHANGE

    We have seen, since 1990, the slow accumulation of scientific evidence that undermines the progressive fantasy. Overturning environment, equality, diversity, and returning to particularism, tribalism, and breeding.

    A few months ago The left’s intellectual leadership openly started discussing the impossibility of their project. A lament. They cannot overcome the majority moral objection to free riding.

    Since 2000 we have seen the slow development of a reactionary language. And a reactionary philosophy that incrementally gains momentum.

    Since 2010 we have seen the rapid accumulation of mainstream intellectual work, that while immaturely domain specific, follows the trend of overturning the progressive dogma originating in our universities as an alternative to the failure of socialism in economics and marxism in cultural morality, and therefore politics.

    I was one of the early movers in libertarianism, correcting the failure of Rothbardian ethics to find purchase in the public conscience by implementing what we have learned in science over this period as the basis for propertarian ethics. But others seek various forms of justification by multiple yet unsuccessful means.

    We are all participants in this transition. But it is difficult or impossible to know whether we are the greeks looking back at the end of their greatness or the english looking forward to their accidental empire.

    Each academic revels in his own innovation. His horse-blinders help delude him. Obscuring the fact that we all sense the same change but have not yet come to consensus on it:

    The end of the enlightenment project, the end of the marxist project, the end of the progressive project, the end of european dominance, and the end of democracy as a credible political model at scale.

    The end of the dominance of our world view in world affairs. A world view that never was very useful. Our success was science, technology, accounting and credit. Not our political system. Our political system was a temporary luxury made possible by our technological advancement over other societies – most importantly the african, ottoman, and american indian. An advantage we have mitigated by our civil, world war.

    Whether we achieve anything with this knowledge is open to question. History offers encouraging and discouraging examples.

    More later.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-15 16:47:00 UTC

  • All emergent phenomenon are not necessarily good

    All emergent phenomenon are not necessarily good.

    http://scienceblog.com/67277/teachers-more-likely-to-have-progressive-speech-and-language-disorders/

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-15 09:57:00 UTC

  • ON REFERENCING DATA You know, I love empirical data. Really good data is pretty

    ON REFERENCING DATA

    You know, I love empirical data. Really good data is pretty specific. You can know what went into it. And if you collect lots of BITS of really good data, then you can learn a lot from it.

    But most government data about an economy is incredibly loaded. I’m pretty good at getting through it (although, not like, my hero Karl Smith who is on the other side of the political fence.) That data has been manipulated, contrived, and god knows what else. As an index it’s relatively valuable in pointing out general directions. But unless you know a lot about the individuals that constitute the source of that data, It’s pretty hard to say that data has much meaning.

    And they can’t really show you that underlying data, or collect it, because doing so would justify and be used by different groups for mutual criticism.

    That might be true.

    But at least it would be honest.

    THe thing is, that if you’re trying to solve political conflict by creating growth then obfuscation is pretty useful.

    But if you’re trying to solve for a solution to political conflict when growth isn’t available to you, or when political and moral conflict provides greater incentive than economic growth, you NEED those underlying numbers, because they tell you want you might be able to DO now that growth is not available to lubricate the friction between groups with disharmonious interests.

    It matters that the postwar era is over. We no longer can think we’re special. We’re not. We were special only because the rest of the world had either committed economic suicide or adopted communism and was in the process of committing economic suicide.

    WIthout that temporary advantage we can’t create the same growth in the bottom of the population that masked their competing interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 05:00:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE MEETS ACTION “I .. would not defend [the] statement that we should prefe

    SCIENCE MEETS ACTION

    “I .. would not defend [the] statement that we should prefer for the basis of action the best-tested theory. What we should prefer rather is the best-tested proposal for action.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf

    Another fortune cookie from Ken Hopf.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 07:34:00 UTC

  • GLOBAL COOLING THRU 2030 DUE TO NATURAL SUN CYCLE. I don’t like to participate i

    GLOBAL COOLING THRU 2030 DUE TO NATURAL SUN CYCLE.

    I don’t like to participate in this debate much (Even though I’ve lost a couple of hundred thousand dollars investing in the climate scare.) I’d rather wait until I see the evidence. It bothered me that the INCENTIVES were problematic. It bothered me that it was used as a political tool. But being bothered isn’t evidence one way or another.

    But it’s pretty clear that while we’re putting chemistry into the atmosphere, that the sun, not us, is the primary determinant of climate. We’re heading into an ice age. And from that perspective, perhaps CO2 will help keep us warmer? 🙂

    QUOTES:

    “Premeditated science” is a major culprit.” But the press is also culpable. “The main reason they were able to get away with what they’ve gotten away with is that a majority of the mainstream media were complicit in what (the IPCC and other scientists) were doing,”

    The report hasn’t been released yet, because if they release the commentary before the report, and the report disagrees with the commentary, it won’t matter because the politicians and public won’t read the report, just the commentary.

    “This is where the Founding Fathers have been corrupted because they believed the media would be the watchdogs, the gatekeepers. The mainstream media have failed completely.”

    ACTUALLY

    Its in the economic incentive of the press to lie, underreport, overreport and mislead. The only way free press has any meaning is if you can’t charge money for your reporting. We don’t need the press. Boggers roll up ideas better than does the press, along multiple ideological lines. The press has lost it’s pulpit and that’s great. Because the pulpit sold marxism and proletarianism to the masses as a virtue. THe press made vice into virtue.

    Burn them at the stake? Well. Virtually maybe. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 06:45:00 UTC

  • METHODOLOGICAL PERSONALITIES: STES (Statistics) not STEM (Mathematics) (Science,

    METHODOLOGICAL PERSONALITIES: STES (Statistics) not STEM (Mathematics)

    (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics vs Statistics)

    Programmers, engineers, physicists, statisticians, economists. We specialize in instrumentation. ‘That which we cannot sense’. And I think for that reason we tend to apply constant discount to sense, perception and intuition. Our work corresponds to, and depends upon, and is tested by, reality.

    Teachers, Professors, Mathematicians, Philosophers, Political Scientists, Sociologists, Psychologists, Biologists, physicians, and most scientists. Seem to incorporate idealism, utopianism, and a lot of other cognitive biases into their works.

    We ‘practitioners’ are paid for our commercial applications, and must warrant, with our careers, our outputs.

    While most others, are insulated from their errors and unaccountable for their statements, decisions and actions.

    What I don’t understand is that physicists are in our camp, and doctors in the other camp. And therefore there is something to be learned from that observation.

    I suspect that physics is the most advanced discipline, and its better at curing cognitive biases than any other discipline. In fact, we could argue that’s the purpose of physics.

    Anyway. That we are, even very bright people, trapped in our methodological biases is endlessly fascinating.

    I tend to like the ‘engineer’ spectrum. But we are constantly persecuted by the ‘talker’ community that is unaccountable for it’s actions and whose outputs are untestable.

    A fact which I find an endlessly humorous attempt to maintain status in the face of overwhelming evidence that we’re actually leading intellectual progress. Not them.

    Humans are fascinating creatures.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 06:08:00 UTC

  • PRAXEOLOGY REQUIRES SCIENCE AND EMPIRICISM (From Elsewhere) This is going to be

    http://keirmartland.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/empiricism-versus-praxeology/NO. PRAXEOLOGY REQUIRES SCIENCE AND EMPIRICISM

    (From Elsewhere)

    This is going to be one of those necessary intellectual battles that I just don’t want to have. Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Hoppian argumentation.

    They’re all half right. That’s a lot better than anyone else has done. But it’s only half right. Praxeology is incomplete and backwards, Rothbardian ethics are incomplete, and Hoppian argumentation is a symptom, not a cause.

    I’d rather innovate on institutions, or criticize the opposition. But without correcting where we’ve been, I can’t argue for where we must go.

    =====REPLY TO POST====

    Science is necessary to compensate for our cognitive biases, cognitive limitations, an the limits of our perception. We need instrumentation, measures and numbers for the same reason we need money, prices and numbers. We cannot think without them. Because we cannot think about what we cannot reduce to analogy to experience.

    Praxeology is only a test. We can test what we can sense. With science, can test what we can reduce to analogy to sensation. And given that our biases and limitations are what define us as human, because we have them in common, we can test incentives produced by those experiences, whether sense perception, or analogies to experience, which we call measurements. That is what praxeology tells us.

    But what we can DEDUCE from praxeology is limited. And evidence has proven that to be true.

    To say that humans will respond to incentives produced by any given policy is true. To say that the multitude of interweaving externalities is deducible from those incentives is not.

    I don’t really desire to correct praxeology or rothbardian ethics, but we must if we are to mature libertarian philosophy.

    http://keirmartland.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/empiricism-versus-praxeology

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 05:08:00 UTC

  • STATISTICS: SORRY BUT THE MYTH OF GENETIC DISTANCE IS FALSE. Probably too techni

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/10/loci-number-and-group-difference.htmlDAMNED STATISTICS: SORRY BUT THE MYTH OF GENETIC DISTANCE IS FALSE.

    Probably too technical for the FB audience but here is a paper on, and discussion about, how the ‘lie’ that two people within a group are more diverse than people across groups is an intentional deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-05 10:27:00 UTC

  • (REPOST) THE HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTS: Expressive, Sentimental, Moral, Historical,

    (REPOST) THE HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTS:

    Expressive, Sentimental, Moral, Historical, Scientific, Economic, Ratio-Scientific.

    I developed this list in order to classify the structure of different political arguments, in the hope that could increase awareness of what makes stronger and weaker arguments, in my ongoing attempt to give conservatives a ratio-scientific means of conducting aristocratic egalitarian arguments.

    EXCERPT:

    I. DEGREES OF POLITICAL ARGUMENT

    ——————————————————–

    Curt Doolittle’s “Degrees Of Political Argument”*1, from least to most substantive: *1[capitalismv3.com 2011]

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine.

    4) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

    5) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

    6) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

    7) RATIO-SCIENTIFIC (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections.

    —–

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-05 02:11:00 UTC