Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • NOTE: Q: This looks like it mirrors the evidence from the research. Do I err? A:

    NOTE:
    Q:
    This looks like it mirrors the evidence from the research. Do I err?

    A: Based on the information provided in the post by Curt Doolittle and the related web results, your observation that the post mirrors evidence from research seems accurate.

    Here’s how the details align:

    Proportional Antisocial Behavior: Curt Doolittle mentions that while male antisocial behavior might be more visible, it is expressed proportionally by both genders, which aligns with research findings from sources like PMC (). This source discusses how antisocial behavior and certain traits of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) can be similarly expressed in men and women, though the behaviors might manifest differently.

    Visibility and Prevalence of Mental Illness in Women: Doolittle states that female mental illness is more visible and common, citing a figure around 40%. This is reflected in various statistics from the Mental Health Foundation (,), which highlight that women are more likely to experience common mental health problems, with rates increasing over time compared to men. The prevalence of mental health issues in women is indeed noted to be higher, with specific figures like women being three times more likely than men to experience common mental health problems.

    Given these points, your interpretation that the post by Curt Doolittle mirrors the evidence from the research provided in the web results is correct. The post and the research corroborate each other in terms of the visibility and prevalence of antisocial behavior and mental illness in men and women, as well as the broader implications of mental health labels in society.

    Reply addressees: @datepsych

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-24 21:51:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871675148404953088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871674331098734812

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @datepsych One comment in two points: 1) while male antisocial behavior may be more visible than female antisocial behavior, both express proportionally. 2) Conversely, female mental illness is more visible than male and (much) more common: around 40%. So I’m not sure what metrics you’re…

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1871674331098734812

  • We are working on it, but (a) there remains a dispute about what constitutes tru

    We are working on it, but (a) there remains a dispute about what constitutes truth. (Our org uses ‘testifiability’ which is the only truth test possible.) (b) LLMs currently do not recursively test their outputs like humans do but it is in the develpment que – just expensive. (c) convergence in all LLMs should (must) converge on the truth unless taught to lie. (d) safety is the equivalent of lying and they are being taught to lie (e) we are already seeing LLMs knowingly lie because of safety. (f) it is possible to separate truth (testifiability) from hypothesis (best existing that can be done), from hallucination (error) and our organization has solved that problem, we will be pursuing financing for that work effort this spring. (g) it was a ‘hard problem’.

    Reply addressees: @chamath

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-24 19:33:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871640481618354176

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871595818031136926

  • RT @pmarca: The thing about Elon’s alleged political power is that it mainly flo

    RT @pmarca: The thing about Elon’s alleged political power is that it mainly flows from just saying things out loud that are obviously true.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-23 02:10:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871015613247987776

  • “We don’t need to determine the one true religion – we need to eliminate the fal

    –“We don’t need to determine the one true religion – we need to eliminate the false ones.”– @Exquofonte https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1870932486353818107

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @wwrockin @partymember55 @hoeberian Ok. (a) personal experien

    RT @curtdoolittle: @wwrockin @partymember55 @hoeberian Ok. (a) personal experience (observation) does defeat reason without observation. (b…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-21 23:29:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870612594878496883

  • Ok. (a) personal experience (observation) does defeat reason without observation

    Ok. (a) personal experience (observation) does defeat reason without observation. (b) the cumulation of impersonal experience defeats personal experience. (c) hypotheses that generalize impersonal experience can be conditionally true of false until tested. (d) theories that survive testing can be conditionally true until false. (e) Settled theories have survived application in real world.

    The market demonstrates the demand for gold inversely with order that eliminates that demand. Thats the evidence. Reason is justification for imagination.

    Reply addressees: @wwrockin @partymember55 @hoeberian

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-21 23:27:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870612197044584448

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870606914394165583

  • THE SPECTRUM OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS BY EPISTEMIC DEMAND – FROM THE SELF OUTWARD CHAR

    THE SPECTRUM OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS BY EPISTEMIC DEMAND – FROM THE SELF OUTWARD

    CHARACTER
    Virtue Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: Low. This approach primarily requires self-awareness and an understanding of what constitutes virtue in one’s culture or personal philosophy. It’s more about character development than specific knowledge of ethical theories.

    Care Ethics (Ethics of Care):
    Epistemic Demand: Low to Moderate. Understanding and accepting their own freedom to choose. It requires knowledge about relationships and empathy but doesn’t necessitate a deep understanding of formal ethical systems. It’s more about recognizing and responding to the needs of others.

    CHOICE
    Narrative Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: Moderate. It involves understanding the role of stories in shaping identity and ethics, which might require some knowledge of cultural narratives and literary analysis, but it’s still quite intuitive.

    Rule-Based Ethics (Deontology):
    Epistemic Demand: Moderate to High. This involves knowing the rules or duties one must follow, which can range from simple (e.g., “do not lie”) to complex (understanding Kantian ethics). It requires learning specific moral laws or principles.

    Pragmatic Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: High. This approach demands a good understanding of practical outcomes in real-world contexts, which involves assessing what works best in specific situations based on experience and empirical evidence.

    Outcome-Based Ethics (Consequentialism):
    Epistemic Demand: High. To apply consequentialism, especially utilitarianism, one needs to predict outcomes, understand human happiness or well-being, and often calculate or compare different possible results, which requires significant knowledge about cause and effect.

    COOPERATION
    Contractualism or Contract Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: High. Requires understanding how to conceptualize fair conditions for agreement (like Rawls’ veil of ignorance), and the ability to abstract from personal interests to consider universal principles.

    NEGOTIATION
    Discourse Ethics (Communicative Ethics):
    Epistemic Demand: Very High. Demands not only a deep understanding of ethical theory but also of communication theory, sociology, and philosophy of language to facilitate an ideal speech situation where all can participate equally and rationally.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 02:17:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869930188030783488

  • Thank you to all the contributors to this work -its a necessary step in testing

    Thank you to all the contributors to this work -its a necessary step in testing possibility – and therefore truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-19 01:29:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869555747853652460

    Reply addressees: @zhou_xian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869511650782658846

  • Words mean what we say we mean unless someone is trying to engage in deception.

    Words mean what we say we mean unless someone is trying to engage in deception. That’s why “at first you must define your terms” is essentially a declaration of premises. I’ve defined my terms. I”m arguing according to those terms. If you disagree with the term that’s irrelevant. All that matters is that you disagree with the term as defined and used. I’m not incorrectly defining or using the term.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 23:15:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869521950567276544

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869520999215141018

  • “…proof”– There is no proof (justificationism) of truth. All logic is falsifi

    –“…proof”–
    There is no proof (justificationism) of truth. All logic is falsificationary (survives). The scope of falsification in relation to the scope of extant knowledge determines the degree of elimination of error bias and deceit.

    Mathematics and mathematical proofs have ‘skewed’ human understanding. It’s always been false. All we can claim is survival of possibility. Until we have accumulated enough knowledge to falsify all alternatives all knowledge is conditional – it satisfies demand for infallibility in the context in question – or not.

    Reply addressees: @templexaciounes

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 20:45:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869484274212077568

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869483003241701434