Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • IS SOCIOLOGY LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE? (I love answering quest

    IS SOCIOLOGY LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE?

    (I love answering questions like this.)

    Others have described the phenomenon imprecisely. I will have to try do better until someone does better than I:

    1) Sociology relies on surveys which are almost always false, because of natural properties innate in human psychology and cognitive processes. Sociology relies upon experiments, the conditions of which have greater affect on the answers provided than the natural environment in which teh behavior would be demonstrated. So in effect, ANY TEST that you issue will bias towards collectivist results, even if people will ACT upon individual incentives in the actual circumstance. This is pretty obvious really.

    2) Economics instead, relies upon demonstrated actions independent of tests. This is why economics has become the primary social science: we measure demonstrated actions rather than what people state they would do.

    3) Behavioral psychology tries to reduce the problem of sociological testing by proving the indvalidity of social surveys and tests. The only valuable survey information appears to be voting records, which if detailed enough, like economic data, demonstrate what people actually do rather than what they say they will do in any given circumstance.

    4) Sociology seems to attract people who are disproportionately subject to various collectivist biases, and the related cognitive biases. (Google ‘Common economic errors’, ‘Common Cognitive Biases’, “Common Social Cognitive Biases’.) We must remember, that the farther down the IQ scale you are, the more you must rely on the opinions, thoughts, and interpretations of otherse for your information. Every 15 points of IQ is about one standard deviation. That means people cannot really talk to each other easily across 15 points of difference and cannot even grasp each other’s world views or contexts, or implied causal relations at 30 points. THe predominance of science is improving this by repeated exposure

    5) The output of these surveys and experiments produces biased and therefore false information and conclusions, but the people who conduct them have both a subconscious bias, a preferential interest, and a career interest, and a political interest in believing and promoting the false outputs. There is a market for this false information available in public intellectuals, politicians and organizers. This false information is used for political purposes, under the pretense of academic neutrality, and empirically supported truth – none of which are true either.

    The public cannot understand this, the teachers use it because teachers are from the bottom 15% of graduating classes in intelligence, self select for the nurture bias, which is the source of left wing moral specialization, and must try to form homogeneity of interests among pupils with diverse backgrounds, and require justification for their actions. This is conversely why they cannot teach history or art history any longer, because this would require value judgements that distributed status signals to different members of a group that they seek to treat as homogenous family in order to control the room.

    Statistically speaking, in any university department sociologists will have the lowest IQ distribution of any of the major disciplines, economists, mathematicians and medical doctors the highest distribution. (Michigan study).

    For these reasons, the discipline of sociology is in fact, an unscientific tool of propaganda created, maintained, and used by the lowest IQ distribution in academia as a means of attepting to justify the failed communist, socialist, and now postmodernist ideology that seeks to compete against the natural sorting of people opportuntiy, income and political power behind those groups, families, and individuals with demonstrated meritocratic superiority in the market for goods, services, and military defense.

    Harsh words.

    True words.

    The conservatives are correct.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-12 05:27:00 UTC

  • Is Sociology Leftist Propaganda Masquerading As Science?

    THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER

    Others have described the phenomenon imprecisely. I will have to try do better until someone does better than I:

    1) Sociology relies on surveys which are almost always false, because of natural properties  innate in human psychology and cognitive processes.   Sociology relies upon experiments, the conditions of which have greater affect on the answers provided than the natural environment in which teh behavior would be demonstrated. So in effect, ANY TEST that you issue will bias towards collectivist results, even if people will ACT upon individual incentives in the actual circumstance. This is pretty obvious really. 

    2) Economics instead, relies upon demonstrated actions independent of tests. This is why economics has become the primary social science: we measure demonstrated actions rather than what people state they would do.

    3) Behavioral psychology tries to reduce the problem of sociological testing by proving the indvalidity of social surveys and tests.  The only valuable survey information appears to be voting records, which if detailed enough, like economic data, demonstrate what people actually do rather than what they say they will do in any given circumstance.

    4) Sociology seems to attract people who are disproportionately subject to various collectivist biases, and the related cognitive biases. (Google ‘Common economic errors’, ‘Common Cognitive Biases’, “Common Social Cognitive Biases’.)   We must remember, that the farther down the IQ scale you are, the more you must rely on the opinions, thoughts, and interpretations of otherse for your information.  Every 15 points of IQ is about one standard deviation.  That means people cannot really talk to each other easily across 15 points of difference and cannot even grasp each other’s world views or contexts, or implied causal relations at 30 points. THe predominance of science is improving this by repeated exposure

    5)  The output of these surveys and experiments produces biased and therefore false information and conclusions, but the people who conduct them have both a subconscious bias, a preferential interest, and a career interest, and a political interest in believing and promoting the false outputs.  There is a market for this false information available in public intellectuals, politicians and organizers. This false information is used for political purposes, under the pretense of academic neutrality, and empirically supported truth – none of which are true either.

    The public cannot understand this, the teachers use it because teachers are from the bottom 15% of graduating classes in intelligence, self select for the nurture bias, which is the source of left wing moral specialization, and must try to form homogeneity of interests among pupils with diverse backgrounds, and require justification for their actions. This is conversely why they cannot teach history or art history any longer, because this would require value judgements that distributed status signals to different members of a group that they seek to treat as  homogenous family in order to control the room.

    Statistically speaking, in any university department sociologists will have the lowest IQ distribution of any of the major disciplines, economists, mathematicians and medical doctors the highest distribution.  (Michigan study).

    For these reasons, the discipline of sociology is in fact, an unscientific tool of propaganda created, maintained, and  used by the lowest IQ distribution in academia as a means of attepting to justify the failed communist, socialist, and now postmodernist ideology that seeks to compete against the natural sorting of people opportuntiy, income and political power behind those groups, families, and individuals with demonstrated meritocratic superiority in the market for goods, services, and military defense.


    Harsh words.
    True words.
    The conservatives are correct.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-sociology-leftist-propaganda-masquerading-as-science

  • ECONOMIC FALLACY #4: SCIENTISTS AREN’T NEUTRAL SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICS ARE ADVO

    ECONOMIC FALLACY #4: SCIENTISTS AREN’T NEUTRAL

    SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICS ARE ADVOCATES OF EXTREMES, THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL JUDGES

    No need to explain this. The process of competition between ideas in the pursuit of status in the scientific community tends, over time, to produce relatively truthful results. But scientists cannot make the claim for neutrality, or that as individuals they even follow the scientific method. It is the market for status signals that produces the outcome, not the ethics of any particular scientist. In fact, it certainly looks like most grad students are vastly incompetent, most professors are not much better, and only the top one percent of people in any discipline are even close to accurate about anything that they publish. And those that are, are accurate because they are synthesists, of everyone’s work not advocates of their own.

    Science is not what scientists claim it to be. Economists are as bad or worse.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 03:15:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTATIVE SCIENCE I just construct arguments. It’s just like science. You co

    ARGUMENTATIVE SCIENCE

    I just construct arguments. It’s just like science. You compose an experiment. You run a test. You observe the results. You ask others to corroborate or refute your findings. You are never sure that your argument is ever right. You can only struggle to eliminate every known possibility that it is wrong. The only way to get better is to run a lot of experiments, and create a lot of arguments. And I create a lot of arguments. And get a little better with each one.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-06 10:59:00 UTC

  • MYTH OF CANCER AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    http://slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/03/cancer_cluster_in_toms_river_new_jersey_the_link_to_a_superfund_site_is.htmlTHE MYTH OF CANCER AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-21 01:24:00 UTC

  • “YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE, EXPRESSING ITSELF AS A HUMAN, FOR A LITTLE WHILE” Humans:

    “YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE, EXPRESSING ITSELF AS A HUMAN, FOR A LITTLE WHILE”

    Humans: the universe’s fascinating, and possibly unique experiment.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-11 01:42:00 UTC

  • Welcome A New Member To The Dark Enlightenment.

    To Ethan Walters: Re: http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/ [W]elcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlightenment). History, Economics and Anthropology have addressed this issue for decades: RICHARD DUCHESENE: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization MARIjA GIMBUTAS: (Everything she has written) SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. KAREN ARMSTRONG: The Great Transformation (Or See the reading list at: propertarianism.com/menu/reading-list/) We’ve learned that our enlightenment view of humanity is flawed. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power from the landed aristocracy and the church, by the emerging middle class of northern european merchants. That political change may have been necessary in order to create the industrial society that we live in. However, the aristocratic view of man and mankind was accurate. And our ‘enlightened’ view of the perfect natural man if only ‘set free’ is simply an error. Man is an animal that must be trained to participate in one society of another. Our ‘progressive’ view of humanity is flawed as well. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power by women and the working classes. The ‘progressive view’ was put forth by Marx and Freud. But as Friedrich Hayek said, the trend in 20th century political ideology, which was the product of Marx and Freud, will eventually be seen as a new era of mysticism – with no basis in fact. In fact, counter-to-fact. And that will mirror the warnings of most of the great historians: Toynbee, Gibbon, Braudel, Spengler, Quigley, Durant, Burnham, McNeil, Keegan. That we are unique and unique for circumstantial reasons, and that all of science and reason are the product of our uniqueness. It has only been since the progressive ideology has become received wisdom due to the ‘revisionist history’ put forth by the last generation of academics, and then followed by the collapse of western economic uniqueness, that we have begun to see scientists, and a new generation of academics begin to undermine that ideological view of man. Welcome to the “Dark Enlightenment”: We are unequal and Western Civ is Unique and impossible to replicate. Western civ is the product of individualistic aristocratic egalitarianism caused by indo european battle tactics learned as pastoral radiers. Objectivity, debate and science, and the unique western solution to the problems of politics and market are the product of the need to obtain consent from other peers, rather than obey a chosen leader. Then, the church created individual property rights, and created the universalism which led to the high trust society when it tried to break up the noble families, outlawed cousin marriage, and gave women property rights. Western high trust is a produced within the Hanjal line and the Lotharingian kingdom at the bottom, and the english and scandinavians at the top. Manorialism: or the ownership of land, and the need for men to demonstrate their conformity and reliability, as well as participate in military when needed, in order to gain access to land, created the protestant ethic. It encourage the working classes to adopt the ethics of the nobility. Chivalry provided a means for men regardless of land-holding to demonstrate their socials status through service -which is a unique means of status achievement we thing of as ‘heroism’ that no other society has in such abstract, non-familial terms. The need to ‘keep the east at bay’ using the germans, and therefore preserving german militarism was a intentional choice of the catholic countries. The western high trust society is the product of this aristocratic egalitarian individualism. Culture is a set of property definitions, property rights, relying upon myths, traditions and rituals to propagate those rights. It is a set of rules for sending status signals. Status signals are those things that we imitate because they give us better access to mates and opportunities. Property definitions vary from the individual to the commons on one axis, and administration of it from the individual to the state on the other. Cultures matter. Our culture matters most. Cultures are not equal, and ours was (not is) unique. Northern European (protestant) Americans (at least to some degree) carry this ancient aristocratic tradition with them today. It isn’t well understood that the anglo-celtic and german populations were about equal in america until the progressive strategy to take over ‘white’ america through immigration was put in place in the 60’s. (But that’s why American english speech is flatter than UK english – it’s merged with the flatter german tonal structure.) Americans did not have an ‘aristocracy’ or a landed church to rebel against. There was no opportunity like in europe to create a popular “US vs Them”. We retained our distaste for government, where the europeans saw themselves as taking over the government from the aristocracy and church. Instead, it became feminists and the lower classes against white protestant male culture. This is one of the reasons why other cultures think our male-female relations are ‘businesslike’ rather than intimate and affectionate. And quite contrary to the revisionist progressive historians, it was not luck that made we westerners successful in our ‘great divergence’. The west was a poorer, less numerous people on the edge of the bronze age who used technology, cooperation, speed and strategy to give their inferior numbers the advantage against an east that was always more brutal, totalitarian, numerous and wealthy. Americans have the lock on the world’s speculative capital, because we are the people least likely to abuse it through various schemes of privatization. In abstract terms, we own the stock market. and the Brits own the Bond market. The brits lend and the americans risk. You can trust an english speaker or one of the varieties of german speaker with your money. But you pretty much can’t trust anyone else in the world. And that is a cultural value that runs back 4500 years. We westerners apologize for our conquest and colonialism, but we have spent the past five hundred years dragging humanity out of ignorance, mysticism, totalitarianism and dirt-scratching crushing poverty, hunger and disease. We should not feel guilty for it. We should instead, require others thank us for it. For while we did it sloppily at times, we did it none the less. (In essence, that’s the Dark Enlightenment philosophy.)

  • METAPHYSICS I am pretty convinced that all the evidence available to us today co

    METAPHYSICS

    I am pretty convinced that all the evidence available to us today confirms that we experience the material universe correspondingly.

    That our perception can be extended to both micro and macro scales through devices.

    That our perception of causal relations can be extended through recording information at micro, normal, and macro scales and then replaying these recordings at higher speed so that patterns emerge within our visible perceptions.

    That our perception of such causal relations is limited by the very small number of axis of causality we can cognitively identify.

    That our ability to improve this process of causal analysis is limited by our current concept of mathematics.

    That our deductive capabilities are jaundiced by our various cognitive biases.

    That our particular human preferences limit our ability to reason clearly.

    That the variation in human ability and rationality limit our collective accomplishment.

    And that superior intelligence, memory, and perception would only increase the rate at which we comprehend these relations

    That superior distributions of knowledge and intelligence would further improve that rate.

    And that different biases and preferences would do little more than impede that understanding in different ways.

    But there is little if any evidence that the vast metaphysical and epistemological distraction enthralling the philosophical profession has produced insight or value.

    Humans must act. All else is entertainment.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-26 05:58:00 UTC

  • Ethan Walters: Welcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlighten

    http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

    Ethan Walters:

    Welcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlightenment).

    History, Economics and Anthropology have addressed this issue for decades:

    RICHARD DUCHESENE: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

    MARIjA GIMBUTAS: (Everything she has written)

    SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress.

    KAREN ARMSTRONG: The Great Transformation

    (Or See the reading list at: propertarianism.com/menu/reading-list/)

    We’ve learned that our enlightenment view of humanity is flawed. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power from the landed aristocracy and the church, by the emerging middle class of northern european merchants.

    That political change may have been necessary in order to create the industrial society that we live in. However, the aristocratic view of man and mankind was accurate. And our ‘enlightened’ view of the perfect natural man if only ‘set free’ is simply an error. Man is an animal that must be trained to participate in one society of another.

    Our ‘progressive’ view of humanity is flawed as well. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power by women and the working classes. The ‘progressive view’ was put forth by Marx and Freud.

    But as Friedrich Hayek said, the trend in 20th century political ideology, which was the product of Marx and Freud, will eventually be seen as a new era of mysticism – with no basis in fact. In fact, counter-to-fact.

    And that will mirror the warnings of most of the great historians: Toynbee, Gibbon, Braudel, Spengler, Quigley, Durant, Burnham, McNeil, Keegan. That we are unique and unique for circumstantial reasons, and that all of science and reason are the product of our uniqueness.

    It has only been since the progressive ideology has become received wisdom due to the ‘revisionist history’ put forth by the last generation of academics, and then followed by the collapse of western economic uniqueness, that we have begun to see scientists, and a new generation of academics begin to undermine that ideological view of man.

    Welcome to the “Dark Enlightenment”: We are unequal and Western Civ is Unique and impossible to replicate.

    Western civ is the product of individualistic aristocratic egalitarianism caused by indo european battle tactics learned as pastoral radiers. Objectivity, debate and science, and the unique western solution to the problems of politics and market are the product of the need to obtain consent from other peers, rather than obey a chosen leader.

    Then, the church created individual property rights, and created the universalism which led to the high trust society when it tried to break up the noble families, outlawed cousin marriage, and gave women property rights. Western high trust is a produced within the Hanjal line and the Lotharingian kingdom at the bottom, and the english and scandinavians at the top.

    Manorialism: or the ownership of land, and the need for men to demonstrate their conformity and reliability, as well as participate in military when needed, in order to gain access to land, created the protestant ethic. It encourage the working classes to adopt the ethics of the nobility.

    Chivalry provided a means for men regardless of land-holding to demonstrate their socials status through service -which is a unique means of status achievement we thing of as ‘heroism’ that no other society has in such abstract, non-familial terms.

    The need to ‘keep the east at bay’ using the germans, and therefore preserving german militarism was a intentional choice of the catholic countries. The western high trust society is the product of this aristocratic egalitarian individualism.

    Culture is a set of property definitions, property rights, relying upon myths, traditions and rituals to propagate those rights. It is a set of rules for sending status signals. Status signals are those things that we imitate because they give us better access to mates and opportunities. Property definitions vary from the individual to the commons on one axis, and administration of it from the individual to the state on the other. Cultures matter. Our culture matters most. Cultures are not equal, and ours was (not is) unique.

    Northern European (protestant) Americans (at least to some degree) carry this ancient aristocratic tradition with them today. It isn’t well understood that the anglo-celtic and german populations were about equal in america until the progressive strategy to take over ‘white’ america through immigration was put in place in the 60’s. (But that’s why American english speech is flatter than UK english – it’s merged with the flatter german tonal structure.)

    Americans did not have an ‘aristocracy’ or a landed church to rebel against. There was no opportunity like in europe to create a popular “US vs Them”. We retained our distaste for government, where the europeans saw themselves as taking over the government from the aristocracy and church. Instead, it became feminists and the lower classes against white protestant male culture. This is one of the reasons why other cultures think our male-female relations are ‘businesslike’ rather than intimate and affectionate.

    And quite contrary to the revisionist progressive historians, it was not luck that made we westerners successful in our ‘great divergence’. The west was a poorer, less numerous people on the edge of the bronze age who used technology, cooperation, speed and strategy to give their inferior numbers the advantage against an east that was always more brutal, totalitarian, numerous and wealthy.

    Americans have the lock on the world’s speculative capital, because we are the people least likely to abuse it through various schemes of privatization. In abstract terms, we own the stock market. and the Brits own the Bond market. The brits lend and the americans risk. You can trust an english speaker or one of the varieties of german speaker with your money. But you pretty much can’t trust anyone else in the world. And that is a cultural value that runs back 4500 years.

    We westerners apologize for our conquest and colonialism, but we have spent the past five hundred years dragging humanity out of ignorance, mysticism, totalitarianism and dirt-scratching crushing poverty, hunger and disease. We should not feel guilty for it. We should instead, require others thank us for it. For while we did it sloppily at times, we did it none the less.

    (In essence, that’s the Dark Enlightenment philosophy.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-26 03:19:00 UTC

  • MUCH MEDICINE?

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-medicine-in-half/TOO MUCH MEDICINE?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-18 16:15:00 UTC