Theme: Truth

  • How Did The Stereotype Of An Asian Originate?

    No one likes the truth, but the evidence is, that stereotypes are often, if not nearly always true, and reflect exaggerations of observed behavior common to a group.  However, like racism, attributing to the individual, observations of the class, is illogical.  We evolved this behavior because it necessary for our survival in many ways.  So while stereotypes may in fact be nearly universally true,  the properties of individuals may in fact represent aggregate representations of a class. But the aggregate representations of a class are not necessarily applicable to an individual. 

    My job isn’t to tell people comforting myths, but to tell the truth using empirical evidence, incentives, operational necessities, and evolutionary demands. 
     
    So unfortunately, stereotypes evolve because they reflect generalized exaggerated  observations of demonstrated behaviors.

    (Just as asians criticize us white folk on a regular basis for our behaviors – and noses.)

    https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-stereotype-of-an-Asian-originate

  • Skye Stewart You made me think. Why does reading a novel ‘work’? Aside from the

    Skye Stewart

    You made me think.

    Why does reading a novel ‘work’? Aside from the truth or falsehood, good or bad measurement, why do we learn from reading narratives?

    Now, I am trying to eliminate deception in matters of public political speech – at least that kind of deception that was introduced in the 19th century by Marx, Boaz, Cantor and Freud, but expanded by Keynes and nearly the entire discipline of academic philosophy, psychology, and sociology.

    But I don’t really attack mythology and religion. And I am perfectly happy with ‘rule of thumb’ science. It doesn’t appear to matter whether something is precise, scientific, and causally explicable if it empirically produces positive ends. It matters if something produces negative ends, is immoral (imposes costs).

    So when I say that I am OK with imprecise IQ tests, personality tests, and moral tests, that is because the test data is not the output that is in question. It’s whether the individuals now possess a non-subjective means of categorization and comprehension.

    In philosophical terms, it’s epistemelogically justificationary if I were to demand a high standard of good things. When the purpose is critical instead: to demand a high standard in order to advocate bad things.

    Thanks for provoking thoughts.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-14 05:33:00 UTC

  • JUSTIFIABILITY IS A MORAL CONSTRAINT, NOT AN EPISTEMIC ONE – BUT MORAL JUSTIFICA

    JUSTIFIABILITY IS A MORAL CONSTRAINT, NOT AN EPISTEMIC ONE – BUT MORAL JUSTIFICATION IS NOT FALLACIOUS.

    Even scientific arguments must be morally justifiable. (Really!)

    Compare: Morally justifiable vs rationally justifiable vs truthfully justifiable.

    1) Statements can be justified morally. That is where we got the concept of justification from.

    2) Rational statements cannot be justified, only internal consistency can be demonstrated.

    3) Truthful statements cannot be justified, only warrantied. If we warranty our statements to truthfulness then we are justified in speaking them.

    But the degree of parsimonious correspondence (truth), and therefor the epistemological quality – the quality of the theory – can never be justified.

    It is this combination of morally justifiability and parsimonious correspondence that we conflate in the discussion of truth, and that is why volumes of parchment , paper, bytes, radio waves and speech have been wasted in a tragically simple error.

    Thus endeth the lesson. πŸ˜‰

    Justifiability still matters. But it’s justifiability in the warranty of the argument, not justifiabitly in the truth of it.

    (Almost two years I’ve spent on this damned problem. In April it will be two years! Argh.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-11 03:25:00 UTC

  • TRUTHFUL VS MEANINGFUL AND THE SOLUTION TO POLITICS OF THE WEST Plenty of meanin

    TRUTHFUL VS MEANINGFUL AND THE SOLUTION TO POLITICS OF THE WEST

    Plenty of meaningfully true things can be said “Untruthfully”. (Unscientifically.)

    But that’s not the point.

    It’s that very few untrue things can be said “Truthfully”. ( By Truthfully, I mean, scientifically, and including Propertarianism’s operationalism and morality).

    Philosophers, Scholars, intellectuals, pundits, journalists, reporters, and the common man, all emphasize the truth content of their utterances, but not the means by which they make those utterances.

    Science the language of truthful speech. Or rather, the language of truthful speech is science.

    And that is because truthfulness requires we warranty our communications against imagination, error, bias and deceit.

    Science evolves our knowledge because of truthfulness.

    And while truth content may be found in many places, the problem the listener has, is that it is costly and error prone to separate potential truth content, from imagination, error, bias and deception.

    And worse, individuals load, frame, and overload us to bypass our ability to defend against imagination, error, bias and deception.

    So we must give individuals a counter-incentive, against imagination, error, bias, and deception, to speak truthfully – by raising the cost of speaking untruthfully.

    By punishing untruthful speech. Not untrue speech but untruthful speech.

    So why can’t law, government, politics and public speech evolve because of truthfulness as well?

    It can.

    *The informational commons*

    Distribute shares in the informational commons. Privatize everything. Create universal standing.

    Propertarianism.

    The attack on the west has been conducted by sophisticated lying: repetition, pseudoscience, rationalism, and postmodernism, the same way it was conducted by sophisticated lying the first time: christianity.

    Why should we tolerate people who lie? Why do we forgo violence, and cooperate, if we are to be lied to? Isn’t it irrational to cooperate with someone unless they are both non-violent, non-theiving, non-conspiratorial and truthful?

    We don’t need to tolerate liars, or cooperate with liars. And it’s harmful – its a violation of the rational incentives to cooperate, and by cooperating abandoning violence.

    We can abandon cooperation for all those who speak untruthfully, and return to violence.

    If someone speaks untruthfully, they abandon all implicit and explicit agreements to cooperate. And having broken that contract, you, we – all of us – are no longer bound to refrain from violence.

    So, unbound from our agreement to refrain from violence, let us use our wealth of violence.

    Speak truthfully or die.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-09 01:09:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE, WE DON’T NEED TO, AND YOU’RE IMMORAL IF YOU TRY TO. (

    YOU CAN’T CONVINCE PEOPLE, WE DON’T NEED TO, AND YOU’RE IMMORAL IF YOU TRY TO. (CONVINCE THEM OF ANYTHING THEY SHOULD PREFER, RATHER THAN STATE THAT WHICH WE PREFER, AND THEY MUST GRANT US OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES.)

    (from elsewhere)

    Yeah… I agree that you can’t persuade people. but that’s mostly because of the investment cost: the fact that the intuitionistic searching we do (that which we cannot observe) determines the subjective probability (possibility) of answers. And I suspect some of our learning isn’t open to re-weighting (what we call metaphysical value judgements), because all consequential development is dependent upon those pre-rational, pre-cognitive, unobservable, weights.

    I am never going to convince a person highly invested in ‘meaning’, highly invested in ‘rationalism’, or highly invested in ‘postmodern construction of social reality’ any more than I am going to convince their precursors: metaphorical and historical analogists, or mystics and magians, or even those few cultures who never developed any post-experiential thought such as mythic history (and yes they do exist.)

    Furthermore, I’m not going to convince someone like Wilber (Nor do I feel the need to ) to adopt the level of scientific argument I’m working on, because his inquiry is into the personal and experiential, just as mine is in the political and INEXPERIENTIAL. I want to prevent people from doing harm (law). People like him want to help people find happiness(religion).

    I cannot convince the feminine (submissive) bias in favor of buddhism, to switch to the male (dominance) bias in favor of stoicism, even though both are only concerned with mindfulness, and happiness achieved through mindfulness. The difference between them being buddhist discipline in escapism, and stoic action in reality. Any more than I can convince a hedonist to prefer either, or scientific ascetic like myself to do either.

    We cannot convince others.

    And the only reason we even think of it, is so that we can form alliances in order to obtain power by means of gossip and ostracism, or authority, law and violence, or to encourage consumption for the purpose of profiting from it.

    We don’t need ideals and monopolies. We are not only unequal, but very different – different casts, that perform different functions in the inter-temporal division of reproductive labor.

    There is only one ‘law’ that must be observed for all of us to have the possibility of happiness, and that law is the prohibition on parasitism, without which violence is our only rational recourse.

    And propertarianism is the only logical means of providing decideablity between individuals in a heterogeneous polity of heterogeneous interests, working in our self interest, through nothing but signals and information, in a voluntary order of cooperation toward one end: the persistence of our genes, and the persistence of man.

    A monopolist of preferences, whether socialist conservative, or libertarian, is a tyrant. It doesn’t matter which point in the spectrum you advocate. Monopoly in political systems requires the elimination of choice.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 06:25:00 UTC

  • REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims 1) In the choice between meanin

    REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims

    1) In the choice between meaningful and logically consistent, meaningful fails.

    2) In the choice between logically consistent and externally correspondent, logical consistency errs.

    3) In the choice between externally correspondent and operationally possible, external correspondence errs.

    4) I the choice between operationally possible and objectively moral, operationally possible errs.

    5) In the choice between objectively moral, and competitive necessity, objectively moral fails.

    6) In the choice between competitive necessity and kin selection, competitive necessity fails.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 00:34:00 UTC

  • ****BELIEF = JUSTIFICATION**** You may not know what you justify. But your mind

    ****BELIEF = JUSTIFICATION****

    You may not know what you justify.

    But your mind forces you to justify it.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 12:36:00 UTC

  • REPEAT AFTER ME: The Warranty of Truthfulness 1) Internally Consistent – meaning

    REPEAT AFTER ME: The Warranty of Truthfulness

    1) Internally Consistent – meaning “logical”

    2) Externally Correspondent – meaning “observably predictive”

    3) Voluntarily transferred – meaning “ethical and moral”

    4) Parsimoniously Stated – meaning “the limits are defined”

    5) Operationally Defined – meaning “existentially possible”

    6) Thoroughly Falsified – meaning you have tried to demonstrate these statements are false, and failed.

    If you cannot demonstrate these, then you cannot warranty your statement is free of imaginary content, error, bias, obscurity, misrepresentation, and deceit.

    REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims

    1) In the choice between meaningful and logically consistent, meaningful fails.

    2) In the choice between logically consistent and externally correspondent, logical consistency errs.

    3) In the choice between externally correspondent and operationally possible, external correspondence errs.

    4) I the choice between operationally possible and objectively moral, operationally possible errs.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 06:36:00 UTC

  • GOING OUR OWN WAY: THE WAY OF WESTERN MAN: TRUTH AND COMMONS. NATIONALISM, TRADI

    GOING OUR OWN WAY: THE WAY OF WESTERN MAN: TRUTH AND COMMONS.

    NATIONALISM, TRADITIONALISM are one thing. RULE OF LAW is another, and TRUTH TELLING is yet another. Putin wants to expand Nationalism and Traditionalism using propaganda because they produce power, but he does not want Rule of law, or Truth Telling, because they constraint, limit, and in most cases, eliminate power.

    Power is necessary in Russia, because like China – who must keep oppressing it’s conquered territories – Russia is a military empire. That’s because Russians have no ‘Cutlure’. There is nothing at all ethnically or culturally “Rus” in Russia. Russia is not of the clan Rus (Scandinavian) but of Muscovites, who spend long periods under despotic Mongolian rule, looked to the south to the byzantines and arabs for inspiration, and whose invading peoples brought with them Asiatic concepts of the evil in man – not greek concepts of man’s perfection and potential to sit among the gods. Russia (Muscovia) is a Mongolian and Tatar State steeped in Steppe culture that blends orthodox christianity and islamic Familialism, with Chinese deception.

    With some work Peter the Great tried to move the Russian empire into Europa, and without Germany’s aggression at England’s seduction, might have completed the transition. But the largely Jewish postwar uprising that we call the Russian revolution, returned Russia to despotism, with Asiatic Lenin and Stalin joining Asian Mao as the greatest murderers in human history.

    Thanks to the church, the Russian concept of interpersonal ethical action, is identical to the western. But the Russian concept of moral, cannot even IMAGINE the western man’s moral intuitions, nor his faith in one’s fellow man. It is unimaginable to a Russian that Western man acts primarily out of moral habit – moral tradition, and altruistic punishment[1] of those who do not observe it. Primarily because we have been both wealthy enough to afford to act morally, and because we were successfully able to use law and the church to enforce morality by punishment by law, by ostracization by the church, and by starvation by deprivation of access to land necessary for sustenance and survival.

    The Russian does not pay for commons. He does not pay to punish. He does not pay to reward. He does nothing that is not in his direct interest. And he expects all others to do the same. He cannot imagine a world where we take as little as possible to one another and contribute as much to the commons as we can – unknowingly.

    This is why authoritarian governments are necessary: commons are not voluntarily constructed, because all fear that any such contributions will be privatized by individuals, or corruption by the state. It is challenging enough to create a civic order such that we produce ethical man. But it is extremely expensive to create moral man – the man who neither externalizes costs into the commons, nor avoids paying for the commons, and instead, constantly contributes to the commons.

    Western man is moral man taken to the logical extreme. This is why motivating the western man to neoconservative war is easy – by invoking and appealing to our instinct of altruistic punishment . Motivating the Russian to war, requires creating the feeling that he is under threat. He does not fight for moral reasons. he fights to steal, or to prevent stealing, but he does not fight for the common good.

    This is the opposite of western man. Western man produces commons. It is our competitive advantage: truth telling, monuments, parks, civic architecture, civic organizations, arts, chivalry, the jury, and consensual government are commons unique to western man.

    Yes, we are full of own folly – we still feel, as true Burkeian evangelism, that we must save the world from ignorance, mysticism, poverty, familialism, hierarchy and tyranny. And we cannot grasp, that like our light skin, hair, and eyes, our moral intuitions are recessive, and preserved only through biological and cultural selection and inbreeding.

    Current emerging evidence suggests it is in no small part genetic. And that it emerged somewhere in the north of the North Sea – Baltic Region. That it emerged less than 20k years ago. And that it is a recessive trait, like intelligence, only sustained, and protected from regression against them mean by inbreeding.

    Russians cannot imagine that western man operates by altruistic punishment – of paying high personal cost to build what he sees as the voluntary civic order. Even if we are unaware that our genetics and culture are a unique, fragile and vulnerable outlier possible only in and around the north sea, and that not only can the reset of the world NOT make use of our model, but that it is antithetical to them to conceive of a world in which we all contribute to the commons, rather than seek to contribute as little as possible and take as much as we can.

    Russia(Muscovia)[2] and the West can both have Nationalism (advancing the interests of the extended family and tribe), and we can both have Traditionalism (the family as the central unit of society), but unless we wish to descend into Russo-Jewish brutality and Asiatic deception, we in the west must retain what separates us from the rest: truth telling, rule of law, the jury, and the civic society.

    We already have had enough of Russo-jewish influence for one century in this world, and the Russian-sponsored Frankfurt school’s damage to our society through pseudoscientific propaganda remains with us like an intellectual cancer, destroying our people and our culture.

    Love your people first. Defend the west from what the Russo-Jewish empire have done to us already with Marxism, Communism, socialist, postmodernism, progressivism. Russia is not a model.

    Instead, raise arms, steel yourself for heady violence, and get into the streets, and start a revolution – for you and yours. Defend the west from the tyranny of the east. WE have done it for almost 5000 years, and now is not the time to surrender.

    The best revolution is the one with the greatest volume of heady murder. A lot of killing is needed. A lot of killing must be done. And if we kill enough of them, then we will restore the west.

    Deeds not words.

    Cry havoc.

    Curt Doolittle

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    [1] “Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. “

    [2] The only “Rus” are in Ukraine. Kiev was the founding city of the Rus (Scandinavian) peoples who created it as a trading post – largely for slave trading – with byzantium. The Mongols destroyed it and teh Muscovites tried to gain their narrative history by adopting the Rus history of Kiev as their own. This is Russia’s problem. They have no history to be proud of. No culture to be proud of. No civic mythos, and no common people to rally. They are a set of conquered peoples, despotic peoples ruled by despots in Moscow. The head of the Muscovite empire, won by brutality, held by brutality, and now expanding through postmodern lies and brutality.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-04 07:05:00 UTC

  • The Purpose of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ.

    [T]he data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books – but the right books at your level of experience.

    Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity.

    However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.

    So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.

    The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas. 

    But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.

    LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:
     β€“ Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions  
     β€“ Moral arguments <- normative arguments
     β€“ Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)
     β€“ Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)
     β€“ Scientific (Empirical) Arguments <- specialists in causal relations
     β€“ Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations
     β€“ Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments
     β€“ Constructivist Explanations <- description of reality

    It gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.

    If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.

    SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?

    You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.

    But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.

    At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.

    Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev