Theme: Truth

  • not only is it embarrassing but he’s polluting the informational commons, and id

    not only is it embarrassing but he’s polluting the informational commons, and idiots will run with this nonsense, polluting half our adult conversations with more relativism,


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-28 00:03:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078441276901593089

    Reply addressees: @primalpoly @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076865816631472128


    IN REPLY TO:

    @gmiller

    @nntaleb Nassim, I have huge respect for you, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about wrt intelligence. You should stop and read more. This is embarrassing. Seriously.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076865816631472128

  • But likewise, just as it has taken you many years to migrate from the positivist

    But likewise, just as it has taken you many years to migrate from the positivist search for mathematical discovery of units of informational prediction, to the demand for warranty of due diligence (falsification), you too are vulnerable to innumeracy, pseudoscience, ‘literature’.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-27 20:33:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078388408278499329

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076845397795065856


    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    “IQ” THREAD

    “IQ” measures an inferior form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects, meant to select paper shufflers, obedient IYIs.

    1- When someone asks you a question in REAL LIFE, you focus first on “WHY is he asking me that?”, which slows down. (Fat Tony vs Dr John)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076845397795065856

  • dear overconfident young man. words mean what we define them to mean, that is wh

    dear overconfident young man.

    words mean what we define them to mean, that is why definitions evolve with our knowledge.

    i have to convert terms and phrases, sentences and arguments into operational language, and deconflate terms into series in order to increase precision and prohibit error, bias, and deceit. Ergo, words mean what i define them to mean. Reforming language is part of what we do here in our pursuit of defeating the lies of the left.

    re: a term such as natural law. search my site for ‘a short course in natural law’ for definitions and explanations.

    I use the internet for market testing not peer review. You arent the peer review because you lack sufficient knowledge to function as a peer, or a reviewer. at best you are a market test of the difficulty of educating the ignorant and lazy, who demand spoon feeding in fast food rather than engaging in educational discourse. yet i am at present investing my time in attempting to educate you anyway. because i understand the folly of young men, but also that such folly can be put to good use if correctly directed.

    i dont make claims i am infallible, only that i limit myself to claims upon which i have performed the scientific method of due diligence against ignorance error bias, fictionalism, and deceit. as such it is extremely difficult to err. and i have applied this technique in many fields so i have accumulated an inventory of claims i can make with high confidence. otherwise i say i dont know, or the question is undecidable, or my presumption not having performed due diligence, is that this set of options is possible.

    i teach men by playing king if the hill games, and rewarding those that succeed with feedback and additional investment in their progress. the internet is a locker room and i teach men in mens fashion: dominance play.

    i am nothing like this in person. this is my job and it is how i have learned to do my job by managing, teaching, negotiating with, and persuading people over decades.

    i have written about each of these topics dozens of times.

    yet you walk into my virtual classroom and presume you are a font of intelligence, wit, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue, and have no idea what goes on or why, nor basic knowledge of the subjects spoken of, when in fact you are just another young man taught by too many women and postmodernists to have conviction despite your ignorance.

    i teach many such foolish young men. and those who have the intellectual honesty to admit their error are the ones i invest in.

    things are not what they seem on first blush. first blush is nothing but a measure of you ignorance of the context.

    cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-22 22:44:00 UTC

  • Dear Overconfident Young Men

    Dear Overconfident Young Man. [W]ords mean what we define them to mean, that is why definitions evolve with our knowledge. I have to convert terms and phrases, sentences and arguments into operational language, and deconflate terms into series in order to increase precision and prohibit error, bias, and deceit. Ergo, words mean what I define them to mean. Reforming language is part of what we do here in our pursuit of defeating the lies of the left. re: A term such as natural law. Search my site for ‘a short course in natural law‘ for definitions and explanations. I use the internet for market testing, not peer review. You aren’t the peer review because you lack sufficient knowledge to function as a peer, or a reviewer. at best you are a market test of the difficulty of educating the ignorant and lazy, who demand spoon-feeding in fast food rather than engaging in educational discourse. yet i am at present investing my time in attempting to educate you anyway. because i understand the folly of young men, but also that such folly can be put to good use if correctly directed. I don’t make claims I am infallible, only that I limit myself to claims upon which I have performed the scientific method of due diligence against ignorance error bias, fictionalism, and deceit. As such it is extremely difficult to err. and I have applied this technique in many fields so I have accumulated an inventory of claims I can make with high confidence. Otherwise I say I don’t know, or the question is undecidable, or my presumption not having performed due diligence, is that this set of options is possible. I teach men by playing King if The Hill Games, and rewarding those that succeed with feedback and additional investment in their progress. The internet is a locker room and I teach men in men’s fashion: dominance play. I am nothing like this in person. This is my job and it is how I have learned to do my job by managing, teaching, negotiating with, and persuading people over decades. I have written about each of these topics dozens of times. Yet you walk into my virtual classroom and presume you are a font of intelligence, wit, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue, and have no idea what goes on or why, nor basic knowledge of the subjects spoken of, when in fact you are just another young man taught by too many women and postmodernists to have conviction despite your ignorance. I teach many such foolish young men. and those who have the intellectual honesty to admit their error are the ones I invest in. Things are not what they seem on first blush. First blush is nothing but a measure of your ignorance of the context. cheers.

  • Dear Overconfident Young Men

    Dear Overconfident Young Man. [W]ords mean what we define them to mean, that is why definitions evolve with our knowledge. I have to convert terms and phrases, sentences and arguments into operational language, and deconflate terms into series in order to increase precision and prohibit error, bias, and deceit. Ergo, words mean what I define them to mean. Reforming language is part of what we do here in our pursuit of defeating the lies of the left. re: A term such as natural law. Search my site for ‘a short course in natural law‘ for definitions and explanations. I use the internet for market testing, not peer review. You aren’t the peer review because you lack sufficient knowledge to function as a peer, or a reviewer. at best you are a market test of the difficulty of educating the ignorant and lazy, who demand spoon-feeding in fast food rather than engaging in educational discourse. yet i am at present investing my time in attempting to educate you anyway. because i understand the folly of young men, but also that such folly can be put to good use if correctly directed. I don’t make claims I am infallible, only that I limit myself to claims upon which I have performed the scientific method of due diligence against ignorance error bias, fictionalism, and deceit. As such it is extremely difficult to err. and I have applied this technique in many fields so I have accumulated an inventory of claims I can make with high confidence. Otherwise I say I don’t know, or the question is undecidable, or my presumption not having performed due diligence, is that this set of options is possible. I teach men by playing King if The Hill Games, and rewarding those that succeed with feedback and additional investment in their progress. The internet is a locker room and I teach men in men’s fashion: dominance play. I am nothing like this in person. This is my job and it is how I have learned to do my job by managing, teaching, negotiating with, and persuading people over decades. I have written about each of these topics dozens of times. Yet you walk into my virtual classroom and presume you are a font of intelligence, wit, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue, and have no idea what goes on or why, nor basic knowledge of the subjects spoken of, when in fact you are just another young man taught by too many women and postmodernists to have conviction despite your ignorance. I teach many such foolish young men. and those who have the intellectual honesty to admit their error are the ones I invest in. Things are not what they seem on first blush. First blush is nothing but a measure of your ignorance of the context. cheers.

  • (Revised Intro To Propertarianism) THE NATURAL LAW PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL

    (Revised Intro To Propertarianism)

    THE NATURAL LAW

    PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL LAW

    AS PHYSICS IS TO THE LAWS OF NATURE

    But what are we more precisely referring to when we use the term “Propertarianism”?

    1) The completion of the scientific method and its application to social science.

    The completion of the scientific method is the core achievement of the work, and in retrospect it explains the reason for the rise of social pseudoscience from Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Mainstream Economics, The Frankfurt School, The Success in circumventing the Constitution, the libertarianism of Rothbard/Rand, and the Neoconservatism of Strauss. The Postmodernists and the rise of postmodernism in the academy. And the Feminists, and the feminization of markets, the workplace, norms, educations, and institutions, and the infantilization of the population as a consequence.

    2) The Natural Law of Human Cooperation

    However we focus our application of the completed scientific method on Economics, Ethics, Law Politics, and Group Evolutionary Strategy, and we use demonstrated property in its totality as a unit of measure – in not only economic, but ethical, moral, legal, and political commensurability. So the word ‘propertarianism’ refers to the use of demonstrated interests, and the defense of those interests, as a unit of measure providing commensurability, and the test of reciprocity as truth or falsehood, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, and legal or illegal. And in fact, this is how all law is constructed today in one way or another, and to one degree or another.

    So, the correct name for the work we call ‘propertarianism’ would be The Natural Law.

    We just can’t use it because the term has been so loaded throughout history, on the one hand, and because it’s not an identifiable ‘brand’ on the other.

    So the simple version is:

    Laws of Nature = The Physical Sciences.

    Natural Law = The Social Sciences.

    Sorry but it’s a paradigm shift that we just have to pay the cost of learning.

    3) A Set of Related and Dependent Ideas

    We use the ‘brand name’ Propertarianism to refer collectively to three different sets of ideas:

    – Methodology: The Natural Law including restatements of metaphysics, psychology, sociology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy (the cooperation, competition, and conflict of civilizations).

    – Application: The Use of the Natural Law to Produce Constitutions, and therefore Societies, Nations, and Civilizations, in Accordance with Natural Law.

    – Explanation: The reason for the disproportionate contribution an success of the west in the ancient and modern worlds. And The history of the cycles of conflict between western(european) and eastern(asian) masculine civilizations against and central(semitic) feminine civilizations.

    Counsel: Given that we are now in the post subsistence-agrarian era, we are wealthy enough to express our genetic differences, and as such are entering into political conflict between the ancient female herd reproductive strategy and civilizations, and the male pack reproductive strategy and civilizations. It appears we can no longer compromise, and neither interest can be pursued without some sort of oppression or genocide. So we can no longer assume we will create a one-world-government and a uniformity among peoples, but instead, we must separate, prospert, and speciate according to our genetic interests, and our differences in moral intuition because of those interests. As such the constitutions we recommend, are those that facilitate ‘letting a thousand nations bloom’ and returning to the speciation that we were in the process of achieving prior to both the anglo conquest of the world by sea, and the gradual transformation of our means of production from hunter-gathering and speciation, to agrarianism and unification. The future is very different from that under which the majority of our history was written down.

    It is often challenging to understand which of these things we are discussing in at any given moment even if they are independent, because we use them in concert in most of our discussions. The reason is that we tend to be working on Counsel, because we already understand Methodology, Application, and Explanation.

    Summary: Only europeans could invent The Laws of Nature and the Natural Laws – but EVERY people can use them to prosper. And to some degree, our future prosperity, is dependent upon doing so.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-22 09:28:00 UTC

  • So what are the limits on social construction? In other words, while the science

    So what are the limits on social construction? In other words, while the science says it’s not true except in language not in action, then what political actions can we take under ga? what do the authors recommend this means?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-21 14:57:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076129608364425218

    Reply addressees: @Dick71224996 @justecar @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @torinmccabe @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076128743402266624


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076128743402266624

  • What does that have to do with my question and criticism. So what does that mean

    What does that have to do with my question and criticism. So what does that mean we can construct and teach? Anything we want to? Anything WHO chooses to? Regardless of correspondence with reality? At what consequence?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-21 14:47:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076127059506855936

    Reply addressees: @Dick71224996 @justecar @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @torinmccabe @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076126286349623296


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076126286349623296

  • Like I said, continental philosophy is simply an counter-revolution against angl

    Like I said, continental philosophy is simply an counter-revolution against anglo empiricism, attempting a secular language of the church, and was, and remains, both unsuccessful at providing perpetuation and defense against marxism, postmodern, feminism, and the pseudosciences.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-21 14:42:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076125818781396992

    Reply addressees: @Dick71224996 @justecar @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @torinmccabe @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076125196409483264


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076125196409483264

  • Is that the point? Or is it that we do not socially construct reality, only meth

    Is that the point? Or is it that we do not socially construct reality, only methods of decision making in reality. Or worse, is the point that you can then justify supernaturalism, platonism, authoritarianism? People don’t live in fantasy worlds. They just argue lies in them.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-21 14:39:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076125025109970944

    Reply addressees: @Dick71224996 @justecar @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @torinmccabe @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076123779384803328


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076123779384803328