Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Hmm.. I block on: …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It

    Hmm.. I block on:

    …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
    …2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
    …3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated competence” Which you’d classify as indefensibility and conspiracy.
    …4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.

    And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism.

    Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

    It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

    Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

    Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
    The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634681084414767106

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634602000590446592

  • Hmm.. I block on: …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It

    Hmm.. I block on:

    …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
    …2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
    …3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated competence” Which you’d classify as indefensibility and conspiracy.
    …4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.

    And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism.

    Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

    It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

    Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

    Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
    The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @monitoringbias

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634681084272148480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634602000590446592

  • RT @kontherad1: @curtdoolittle It is. We exhibit sigma qualities. The issue with

    RT @kontherad1: @curtdoolittle It is. We exhibit sigma qualities. The issue with our being “well socialized” is that we will speak the trut…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 18:24:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634621351334932482

  • TRUTH LEADS TO LOVE While anyone who works in my discipline long enough is force

    TRUTH LEADS TO LOVE
    While anyone who works in my discipline long enough is forced to slay every sacred cow, cherished myth, and sacred taboo with exceptionless intellectual honesty, resulting in bouts of disappointment, the end result is a deep love of mankind – the miracle that…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:42:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634323981787357185

  • Is it? Every subject is less difficult as the information available increases. ;

    Is it?
    Every subject is less difficult as the information available increases.
    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:22:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634318774076600320

    Reply addressees: @miner49er236

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634318264061812746

  • (worth repeaging) CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM Try this:

    (worth repeaging)
    CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM

    Try this:
    1) All syllogistic (verbal, set) logic is either tautological or contingent upon premises.
    2) All axiomatic logic is contingent upon axioms.
    3) All operational logic from first principles is not contingent – it’s either constructible or not: surviving falsification or not.

    See?
    Everythign we state in P-law is constructed from first principles in operational prose.
    We don’t necessarily need to know something is true.
    But we can pretty securely say it’s false.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634314951807442944

  • (worth repeaging) CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM Try this:

    (worth repeaging)
    CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM

    Try this:
    1) All syllogistic (verbal, set) logic is either tautological or contingent upon premises.
    2) All axiomatic logic is contingent upon axioms.
    3) All operational logic from first principles is not contingent – it’s either constructible or not: surviving falsification or not.

    See?
    Everythign we state in P-law is constructed from first principles in operational prose.
    We don’t necessarily need to know something is true.
    But we can pretty securely say it’s false.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634314951920611351

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

    THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
    Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
    The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
    Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
    In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
    The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
    What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

    For example:
    All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
    Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
    Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
    Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
    Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
    Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
    Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

    How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

    While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

    In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

    Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

    That’s how it’s done.

    And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @RVAwonk

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723101102080

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

    THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
    Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
    The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
    Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
    In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
    The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
    What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

    For example:
    All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
    Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
    Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
    Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
    Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
    Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
    Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

    How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

    While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

    In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

    Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

    That’s how it’s done.

    And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723415674880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897

  • Even as someone who uses discipline specific terms, I would never use the term ‘

    Even as someone who uses discipline specific terms, I would never use the term ‘anecdata’, inserious conversation. But.. its true, and its humorous, and it’s infinitely useful in … ridicule. 😉 https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1634136658156089344