Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Sorry Emma, There Is Never A Reason To Trust Your Own Thoughts

    —“If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”– Emma Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts? I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful. Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment. Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas. Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak. Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in every day life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary). Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity. People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence. So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means. So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds. That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

  • Sorry Emma, There Is Never A Reason To Trust Your Own Thoughts

    —“If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”– Emma Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts? I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful. Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment. Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas. Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak. Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in every day life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary). Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity. People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence. So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means. So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds. That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

  • EMMA, THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO TRUST YOUR OWN THOUGHTS —“If you have an IQ l

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-have-an-IQ-lower-than-130-can-you-trust-your-own-thoughts/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=097f7732&srid=u4QvSORRY EMMA, THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO TRUST YOUR OWN THOUGHTS

    —“If you have an IQ lower than 130, can you trust your own thoughts?”– Emma

    Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?

    I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.

    Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.

    Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.

    Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.

    Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in every day life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).

    Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.

    People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.

    So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.

    So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.

    That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.Updated Mar 18, 2018, 6:55 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 18:55:00 UTC

  • Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith

    Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:34:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975410091569680385

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975058733133778944

    IN REPLY TO:

    @sapinker

    I’m often compared to Peterson–Canadian psychologist, Harvard prof, P in-C, takes evolution seriously–but our styles and philosophies couldn’t be more different. We’ll explore them in a dialogue at some point soon.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975058733133778944

  • The result of truth and sovereignty: the only possible conflict resolution is re

    The result of truth and sovereignty: the only possible conflict resolution is reciprocity, and the result is markets in all aspects of life. And markets calculate and adapt constantly and minimize the rents that can prevent adaptation that stultified the rest of the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:27:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975408268850946049

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975407514475954176

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker If you understand this single principle you will understand what separated the west from the rest: the sovereignty of individual men (warriors) in a kin group, who compete against others by the use of empirical truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975407514475954176

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker If you understand this single principle you will understand what separated the west from the rest: the sovereignty of individual men (warriors) in a kin group, who compete against others by the use of empirical truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975407514475954176

  • How Do We Teach Morality If We Disagree What Is Moral?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong. There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity. The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above. The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments. The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so). It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy. That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

  • How Do We Teach Morality If We Disagree What Is Moral?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong. There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity. The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above. The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments. The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so). It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy. That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

  • HOW DO WE TEACH MORALITY IF WE DISAGREE WHAT IS MORAL? Because if we disagree, t

    HOW DO WE TEACH MORALITY IF WE DISAGREE WHAT IS MORAL?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong.

    There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity.

    The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above.

    The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments.

    The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so).

    It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy.

    That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:25:00 UTC

  • the payment of the tax of status by all for the truth regardless of its impact o

    … the payment of the tax of status by all for the truth regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy.

    FAILURE TO TOLERATE LOSS OF YOUR STATUS (SELF OR OTHERWISE) IN EXCHANGE FOR TRUTH EQUATES TO FAILING TO PAY THE ONLY IMPORTANT TAX WE PAY.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:16:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975405652620259329

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975405324415963137

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker One cannot have the fruits of western civlization’s continuously evolutionary markets in all aspects of life (associative, cooperative, reproductive, productive, commons, political, and military), without the CAUSE of those markets: ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975405324415963137

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker One cannot have the fruits of western civlization’s continuously evolutionary markets in all aspects of life (associative, cooperative, reproductive, productive, commons, political, and military), without the CAUSE of those markets: ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975405324415963137

  • The west survived the Abrahamic Dark Age by restoring that central property of a

    The west survived the Abrahamic Dark Age by restoring that central property of ancient western indo european law: The Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy. Status defense isn’t a virtue, IT’S A CRIME.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:03:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975402275375116294

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975401720451878913

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker I’ll repeat this in case it’s lost **The West developed faster than the rest in both ancient and modern worlds, because we speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy.** That is the Secret of the West.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975401720451878913

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker I’ll repeat this in case it’s lost **The West developed faster than the rest in both ancient and modern worlds, because we speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of its impact on the dominance (status) hierarchy.** That is the Secret of the West.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975401720451878913