Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • (Repost from 2021) THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH (behavioral science

    (Repost from 2021)
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
    (behavioral science via social media: the endless supply of test subjects and zero cost of experimentation.)

    1) The reason I generated so much hate, and was framed as someone with hate, is the result of my exhaustive application of the scientific method. Why? Popper. “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Critical Rationalism: research the greatest returns.

    2) What falsehoods contain the greatest opportunity because they provide the greatest source of ignorance: The SACRED and the CONVENTIONAL and the TABOO. So I used exhaustive adversarial falsification of the sacred, conventional, and taboo.

    3) The internet provided a new research opportunity that before was impossible to afford. However, using the internet like using any other method of surveys, relies on self-reporting. Self-reporting is always biased and false. So how do we get people to speak truthfully? Conflict.

    4) So I developed King Of The Hill Games to generate conflict. I would assert statements that would bait people into conflict. And I’d attack the same sacred, convention, or taboo from multiple angles multiple times. This caused moral panic and attracted large numbers of people.

    5) The secret is to ‘exhaust the conversation’ because it is only just before people give up. When they are exhausted. When they are desperate, but still in moral panic, they expose their most reductive -most truthful – intuitions.

    6) The method you use to exhaust their dishonesty, particularly with those in moral panic, who then use GSRRM to disapprove, shame, ad hom, lie, evade, and deny, is to reflect their insult, and then restate the central argument. It’s painfully time-consuming. That’s why it’s hard.

    7) This strategy was extremely successful even among people who understood what I was doing. It also makes people hate you like they (can) hate therapists and (do) prosecutors.

    8) So in one’s search for truth it’s a brutally unpleasant method of circumventing the sacred, conventional, and taboo, in order to discover the first principles that cause us to avoid inquiry into the sacred, conventional, and the taboo. The abyss in the mirror gazes back.

    9) However, as we can see, by eliminating these sources of ignorance, we discover those first principles, that allow us to see what had henceforth been obscured. And in doing so discover how to solve the great problems of the day.

    10) It’s painful. It makes people hate you. It makes people avoid you. But in the end, if you deliver them from evil, by that work, you can often be tolerated if not quite forgiven. 😉

    At least sometimes. 😉

    -Curt Doolittle
    -The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:33:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634276183360655384

  • (Repost from 2021) THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH (behavioral science

    (Repost from 2021)
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
    (behavioral science via social media: the endless supply of test subjects and zero cost of experimentation.)

    1) The reason I generated so much hate, and was framed as someone with hate, is the result of my exhaustive application of the scientific method. Why? Popper. “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Critical Rationalism: research the greatest returns.

    2) What falsehoods contain the greatest opportunity because they provide the greatest source of ignorance: The SACRED and the CONVENTIONAL and the TABOO. So I used exhaustive adversarial falsification of the sacred, conventional, and taboo.

    3) The internet provided a new research opportunity that before was impossible to afford. However, using the internet like using any other method of surveys, relies on self-reporting. Self-reporting is always biased and false. So how do we get people to speak truthfully? Conflict.

    4) So I developed King Of The Hill Games to generate conflict. I would assert statements that would bait people into conflict. And I’d attack the same sacred, convention, or taboo from multiple angles multiple times. This caused moral panic and attracted large numbers of people.

    5) The secret is to ‘exhaust the conversation’ because it is only just before people give up. When they are exhausted. When they are desperate, but still in moral panic, they expose their most reductive -most truthful – intuitions.

    6) The method you use to exhaust their dishonesty, particularly with those in moral panic, who then use GSRRM to disapprove, shame, ad hom, lie, evade, and deny, is to reflect their insult, and then restate the central argument. It’s painfully time-consuming. That’s why it’s hard.

    7) This strategy was extremely successful even among people who understood what I was doing. It also makes people hate you like they (can) hate therapists and (do) prosecutors.

    8) So in one’s search for truth it’s a brutally unpleasant method of circumventing the sacred, conventional, and taboo, in order to discover the first principles that cause us to avoid inquiry into the sacred, conventional, and the taboo. The abyss in the mirror gazes back.

    9) However, as we can see, by eliminating these sources of ignorance, we discover those first principles, that allow us to see what had henceforth been obscured. And in doing so discover how to solve the great problems of the day.

    10) It’s painful. It makes people hate you. It makes people avoid you. But in the end, if you deliver them from evil, by that work, you can often be tolerated if not quite forgiven. 😉

    At least sometimes. 😉

    -Curt Doolittle
    -The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:33:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634276183108997124

  • Replied. Long-form. Truthfully. Politely

    Replied. Long-form. Truthfully. Politely.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 18:22:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634258425105227787

    Reply addressees: @RobOU812Rob

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634251122310361089

  • You know. You’d think that over a lifetime of working on the spectrum of behavio

    You know. You’d think that over a lifetime of working on the spectrum of behavioral sciences, that I would become numb to uncomfortable truths. But… call me stubborn (or ridiculous), uncomfortable truths like “Recession is the process by which capital is returned to its…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 14:53:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634205965829414912

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634193804419801089

  • If you can’t handle the the truth then you’re a liability to the natural law of

    If you can’t handle the the truth then you’re a liability to the natural law of self-determination by sovereignty and reciprocity, the rule of law by that natural law, the common discovered law, and concurrent democracy. Sorry. You’re failing the test of fitness.

    (PS: See how I… https://twitter.com/notBilly/status/1633897220490805248

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 02:59:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634026194801754114

  • (I enjoy it as long as it’s playful or commuicative and not substitute for argum

    (I enjoy it as long as it’s playful or commuicative and not substitute for argument. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 02:45:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634022607182876673

    Reply addressees: @kontherad1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634020551164579840

  • TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA? (easy answer that applie

    TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA?
    (easy answer that applies to every civilization)

    1) The principle difference between civilizations is the degree of trust: meaning the trustworthiness of each individual in personal, private, social, economic, and political life.. Russia is a low-trust civilization. China is a lower-trust civilization. India is an even lower-trust civilization. The middle east (MENA) is a much much lower-trust civilization. Sub Saharan Africa is a trustless civilization. The Japanese, South Koreans, and the Europeans (mostly northern Europeans) are the only high-trust civilizations.

    2) Russia is a low trust civ. Duggin is looking for a justification for Russian imperial authoritarianism that is necessary for a low-trust population to maintain a geographic extreme of eleven time zones, when there is no means of political, social, economic, and cultural, competition against competitors. In other words, (just like Canadians virtue signal over Americans) Russians need a means of excusing their untrustworthiness and not developing trustworthiness.

    3) Those civilizations that experimented with communism and socialism ‘blew the window’ of modernizing, where they hade but a century to seize their share of incentives to create a majority middle-class society, before market differences between civilizations eliminated any chance of an advantage. Now they have built up consumption, but they have no capital to use to transform, and no market means of transformation. So most will choose like Dugin to double down on ideology religion or authority to compensate. Some others will knuckle under (India) and develop quickly. Others more slowly.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 02:15:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634015030545899529

  • TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA? (easy answer that applie

    TRUST: WHY DOES DUGIN SEEK A NEW PHILOSOPHY FOR RUSSIA?
    (easy answer that applies to every civilization)

    1) The principle difference between civilizations is the degree of trust: meaning the trustworthiness of each individual in personal, private, social, economic, and political life.. Russia is a low-trust civilization. China is a lower-trust civilization. India is an even lower-trust civilization. The middle east (MENA) is a much much lower-trust civilization. Sub Saharan Africa is a trustless civilization. The Japanese, South Koreans, and the Europeans (mostly northern Europeans) are the only high-trust civilizations.

    2) Russia is a low trust civ. Duggin is looking for a justification for Russian imperial authoritarianism that is necessary for a low-trust population to maintain a geographic extreme of eleven time zones, when there is no means of political, social, economic, and cultural, competition against competitors. In other words, (just like Canadians virtue signal over Americans) Russians need a means of excusing their untrustworthiness and not developing trustworthiness.

    3) Those civilizations that experimented with communism and socialism ‘blew the window’ of modernizing, where they hade but a century to seize their share of incentives to create a majority middle-class society, before market differences between civilizations eliminated any chance of an advantage. Now they have built up consumption, but they have no capital to use to transform, and no market means of transformation. So most will choose like Dugin to double down on ideology religion or authority to compensate. Some others will knuckle under (India) and develop quickly. Others more slowly.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 02:15:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634015030441123840

  • It’s not about whether I like it. 😉 It’s about whether it’s false. Compare natu

    It’s not about whether I like it. 😉
    It’s about whether it’s false.
    Compare natural philosophy with literary philosophy.
    We get rousseau, kant, hegel, heidegger, and marx, derrida, … why? Because it’s all fantasy literature. None of it is other than analogy. And most all of hit has been harmful. math, physical science, cognitive science, economics, law, evolutionary law. It’s not that complicated.

    I mean between plato’s contribution to the dark ages, rousseau’s proto-marxism in an attempt to repace the catholic church with a secular theology, Kant’s desperate attempt to replace religoius law with secular theology. Hegel’s desperate wish to restore the simplicity of teh agrarian past as a secular theology, and marx’s contribution to the present dark age, and Heidegger’s attempt to invert noun and verb… well, isn’t that enough “cope” by pseudoscience and sophistsriy for all eternity? Isn’t that enough?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 01:28:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634003342660628481

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633982016516505602

  • It’s not about whether I like it. 😉 It’s about whether it’s false. Compare natu

    It’s not about whether I like it. 😉
    It’s about whether it’s false.
    Compare natural philosophy with literary philosophy.
    We get rousseau, kant, hegel, heidegger, and marx, derrida, … why? Because it’s all fantasy literature. None of it is other than analogy. And most all of hit has been harmful. math, physical science, cognitive science, economics, law, evolutionary law. It’s not that complicated.

    I mean between plato’s contribution to the dark ages, rousseau’s proto-marxism in an attempt to repace the catholic church with a secular theology, Kant’s desperate attempt to replace religoius law with secular theology. Hegel’s desperate wish to restore the simplicity of teh agrarian past as a secular theology, and marx’s contribution to the present dark age, and Heidegger’s attempt to invert noun and verb… well, isn’t that enough “cope” by pseudoscience and sophistsriy for all eternity? Isn’t that enough?

    Reply addressees: @Esoteric_Dago @demosphachtes @CharlesL1902 @KetaIDFBabe

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 01:28:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634003342555856896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633982016516505602