Theme: Truth

  • You’re probably new. In the future, not just with me, but with any public intell

    You’re probably new. In the future, not just with me, but with any public intellectual, you might consider seeking to understand what I’m saying rather than presume what I’m saying given the limits of your current knowledge.
    The average time it takes to vaguely understand what I’m talking about appears to be six months.
    In this case I’m saying that the organization of the brain is biased in favor of the strategy of the sexes, and that the distribution of these biases is just that, a distribution.
    So we can have effeminate male and masculine female cognition regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, we can have effeminate male and masculine female cognition and sexual orientation. Human development is not mechanistic but probabilistic, and subject to failure by noisy interference from the environment.
    The problem at present is that for some reason or some combination of reasons we are seeing an increase in failure of dimorphic development that we have not seen in previous ages.
    There are many theories as to why, but given that development continues through 25 or so, and given that development is probabilistic and fragile, it is possible that the number of stressors in the environment of all kinds, both physical and social and psychological are such that developmental failure is increasing.
    Which is only a social problem, because as a genetic problem it is self correcting by the eradication of their reproduction.

    Affections.
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @strimoff @AshaLogos


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-14 22:19:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757892375114919936

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757886422168780959

  • (a) agree with you (b) I don’t expect others to understand but I have to make th

    (a) agree with you (b) I don’t expect others to understand but I have to make the case without doing so or I’m effectively contradicting myself. (c) if I can make the case without doing so and THEN rely on pragmatism that’s possible (d) and that is what ‘we’ (brad and I at least)…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-14 19:38:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757851720216944951

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757851328314028334

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: TESTIMONY Free speech ought be framed as the freedom to truthf

    RT @ThruTheHayes: TESTIMONY

    Free speech ought be framed as the freedom to truthfully testify. The idea behind the amendment was not for on…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-14 18:19:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757832008871358593

  • “Is belief in the truth fundamentally predicated upon God?”– @Whatifalthist THE

    –“Is belief in the truth fundamentally predicated upon God?”– @Whatifalthist

    THE CORRECT ANSWER:
    1) The term ‘truth’ refers to testimony – it can only refer to testimony. And testimony sufficient for the provision of decidability. And as such, decidability sufficient for the marginal difference in the production of desired outcomes and the reduction of failure or harms in the context in question. Ideal truth refers to that testimony we would give if possessed of perfect and complete knowledge of the context in question. (All truth and therefore decidability consist of a competition between supply of information vs demand to avoid risk).

    2) All people need a means of disambiguating, categorizing, and evaluating the universe sufficient for successful understanding, prediction, choice, and action – and that demand increases as the population, division of labor, class structure emerges, and diversity from travel and trade increase – because they require commensurable systems of conceptual measurement in order to suppress neuroticism (insecurity, fear), cooperate, and cooperate in networks of increasing complexity, without causing retaliation and retaliation cycles, which inhibit that cooperation at best and at worst cause conflict and war.

    3) Given the hierarchy of accessible systems of measurement from the imitative to the anthropomorphic to the theological, to philosophical, to empirical, to scientific, to operational, the lowest common denominator available to all humans independent of their varying capacity for reason, is anthropomorphism. Conversely, the less intuitive and the more rational, the less available to humans.

    4) In addition, the less trust a people have of one another, and the more diverse and alienating the population for those within it, the greater the difficulty in converting the submission to authority necessary for suppression of self interest and deferring gratification and contribution to the commons from parent to elders, to headmen, or their abstractions in institutions.

    5) As such between (a) the need for a framework of understanding sufficient for action, among others in populations at scale, (b) the necessity of suppressing neuroticism (c) facilitating the development of trust necessary for cooperation (d) the spectrum of ability ad competency where the anthropomorphic is the most simplistic (e) and utility of the abstraction to an ideal anthropomorphic entity to overcome local absence of trust in one another. (f) then it is logical we should develop religions (disciplines of intuition) with more anthropomorphism among lower trust peoples, and less anthropomorphism among higher trust peoples. (g) And the resistance to surpassing the use of abstract deities (god, gods) and restoring say, natural religion of hero, ancestor, and nature ‘debt recognition and appreciation’ (worship, submission to the pack response), or graduating to say, stoicism-epicureanism, or graduating further to say, natural law and man as gods in the making, is persistent as long as the distribution of ability-inability, agency-submission, and empathizing-systematizing, division is below a threshold where a majority can naturally form norms traditions values, rituals, narratives, and institutions that favor higher trust methods of achieving mindfulness, standards of measure, and the trust and cooperation that results.

    6) As such, in lieu of aggressive eugenics, the production of an intuition in a population within a normal distribution requires greater investment and training as we attempt to evolve from the easily intuitionistic and anthropomorphic to the necessity of understanding that which requires accumulation of knowledge of others, the world, and the universe. (hence why stoicism-epicureanism failed to propagate to the lower classes leaving room for christianity (a religion of women, slaves, and the lower classes)).

    7) As such, to answer the question provoking this response, god as a proxy (substitute) for decidability is necessary as long as: (a) our population is only sufficiently competent for such a paradigm of measurement and decidability (b) our population lacks the trust necessary for greater directness of debt recognition’ (worship), and (c) our knowledge of the universe is sufficient to provide decidability on the one hand and the suppression of false alternatives (marxism-to-woke) on the other.

    This is the most complete and correct answer you will find. And your response to this answer will tell you more about your trust in others than what is possible for the production of the intuition of trust and cooperation in a population. πŸ˜‰

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-13 15:24:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757425459489300480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757285085903028400

  • WHEN SEEKING CONSPIRACIES DO THIS FIRST: You know that I love you right? I mean,

    WHEN SEEKING CONSPIRACIES DO THIS FIRST:
    You know that I love you right? I mean, you should by now. Because I support you often on your journey into your potential.
    So, from that same affection, please take this advice, that you should exhaust all ‘conspiracy of common interest’ from ‘conspiracy of intent’. Conspiracy of intent does exist. More often than any of us could have imagined in previous decades. But whenever you’re looking at any organization public or private, then follow the money so to speak, by trying to understand the interests of the investors, owners, execs, top 10% of the talent, the need to keep the other 90% productive, and what kind of people seek employment in those organizations, and what customers, regions, and locations and classes are they from. In other words even Conspiracies of Intent are only expressions ‘not’-conspiracies of common interest.
    It is very hard to hold a conspiracy of intent together because it is in too many people’s interest to expose it and benefit from doing do. Yet it is very easy to hold a (not) conspiracy of common interest together for the opposite reason.
    In other words,’ Think BIgger’. That’s the central problem with conservative thinking. It’s thinking small.

    Reply addressees: @FlashGorgone


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-08 17:31:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755645642527969280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755625061220856205

  • RT @NoahRevoy: @Sargon_of_Akkad The only group on the right that is making a gro

    RT @NoahRevoy: @Sargon_of_Akkad The only group on the right that is making a grown-up, coherent, logical, consistent, and truthful case wit…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-08 14:12:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755595471794364922

  • If the weirder is the “truthier”, as appears the case, that’s fine. πŸ˜‰

    If the weirder is the “truthier”, as appears the case, that’s fine. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-07 09:28:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755161711693209819

    Reply addressees: @NickmhTw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1755158863391961476

  • I can, without any difficulty at all, cross the boundaries between empiricist, r

    I can, without any difficulty at all, cross the boundaries between empiricist, rationalist, and mystic. The presumption that I am limited is a fools projection of his own inadequacies. I can, with ease speak in any paradigm. That I choose the scientific and beyond the scientific the operational, is merely an affectation of the necessity of providing the decidability necessary to solve the conflict of our age.
    And quite honestly I am quite comfortable in each domain of competency – even if I seek to drive mankind to the more precise I am equally fluent in the less.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-06 22:21:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754993660985266176

  • WHY WE USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE, BUT THE LEFT DOESN’T AND … CAN’T. Operational

    WHY WE USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE, BUT THE LEFT DOESN’T AND … CAN’T.
    Operational prose that avoids the verb “to be” in its various forms (is, are, was, were, etc.) and constructs complete sentences can significantly reduce the occurrence of vague, ambiguous, and evasive language.

    This style of writing emphasizes action, clarity, and directness, impacting the use of weasel words, passive voice, and other evasive strategies in several ways:

    Reduces Weasel Words and Vagueness: By focusing on concrete actions rather than abstract states of being, operational prose makes it harder to use weasel words that lack specificity. Statements must be tied to specific actions, actors, and outcomes, which naturally demands more precision and clarity.

    Eliminates Passive Voice: Without the verb “to be,” the passive construction becomes nearly impossible to use. This forces the writer to specify the subject performing an action, thereby increasing accountability and transparency in the prose.

    Limits Hedging and Ambiguity: Operational prose, by its nature, requires that statements be tied to clear and verifiable actions or outcomes. This makes it more difficult to hedge or be ambiguous, as each sentence must convey a specific action or result that can be measured or observed.

    Discourages Nominalizations: Operational prose encourages the use of active verbs, reducing the tendency to turn verbs into nouns (nominalizations), which often make sentences more abstract and less clear.

    Focuses on Specific Actions Over Generalizations: By emphasizing actions over states, operational prose avoids broad, untestable claims, focusing instead on specific, demonstrable activities or achievements.

    Minimizes Jargon and Bureaucratese: While not directly tied to the exclusion of the verb “to be,” operational prose’s emphasis on clarity and action can also help minimize the use of unnecessary jargon and bureaucratese, which often obscure meaning.

    Operational prose encourages a more direct, action-oriented style of writing that is inherently clearer and more specific. This style naturally mitigates the use of linguistic strategies designed to obscure, evade, or inflate, promoting instead a form of communication that is more straightforward and easier to verify or challenge.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-05 23:07:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754642923881115648

  • Jeffrey, (a) it is a truth not a lie. (b) you are and your entire culture, and t

    Jeffrey,
    (a) it is a truth not a lie.
    (b) you are and your entire culture, and the entire civilization from which you and your culture came, are the single people on earth who institutionalized lying as your means of organizing: feminine > jewish > abrahamic-sequence > marxist-sequence. So it’s not ever, ever, ever, anything other than duplicity for you to criticize others for lying, when the rest of the world is waiting for you to not lie – just once.

    Reply addressees: @jeffreymlevy @TheStormRedux


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-04 18:22:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754208721515757568

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754198672215072874