Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • It’s because they feel more vulnerable. Our ability to admit we are wrong is a c

    It’s because they feel more vulnerable. Our ability to admit we are wrong is a combination of our vulnerability and the degree to which we have over invested in falsehoods in order to create self and other illusions of status and ability. Since both men and women do the latter, the sensitivity to vulnerability is what causes greater resistance to admit error in women. The problem for men is making women feel safe enough, or finding women that feel safe of their own accord.

  • DOGMATISM ISN’T IN ITSELF A CRITICISM. Dogmatism isn’t a criticism. One can be d

    DOGMATISM ISN’T IN ITSELF A CRITICISM.

    Dogmatism isn’t a criticism. One can be dogmatic about the truth, theft, parasitism or predation – and there isn’t any criticism one can levy at that. One can be dogmatic about (a) a stated preference (b) a hypothetical good (c) an arbitrary definition, conclusion, narrative, or theory. The question is only whether one is dogmatic about a truth and theft or the arbitrary and utilitarian.

    DOGMA: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

    Well, sorry, but truth and theft are natural laws just as every other law of nature. It’s not a matter of opinion. The fact that one STATES these laws does not mean they are imposed by authority, or are arbitrary, but that they simply incontrovertibly exist.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 13:39:00 UTC

  • “Every time we put truth into practice we ruin someone else’s business model.”–

    —“Every time we put truth into practice we ruin someone else’s business model.”— John Mark

    (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 13:23:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004715486381314048

  • I don’t know why that would be true. It’s sacrificing LIES and FALSEHOODS as a m

    I don’t know why that would be true. It’s sacrificing LIES and FALSEHOODS as a means of group cohesion. And if one must rely on such lies then what does that say about the group’s evolutionary strategy other than that it’s a group that needs to be exterminated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 12:10:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004697057326747649

    Reply addressees: @klivanophoros

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004524461331230720

    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/1004524461331230720

  • “Every time we put truth into practice we ruin someone else’s business model.”–

    —“Every time we put truth into practice we ruin someone else’s business model.”— John Mark

    (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 09:23:00 UTC

  • “Truth seeking is a competitive advantage.”—Dan T Eggmn (It is for the able…

    —“Truth seeking is a competitive advantage.”—Dan T Eggmn

    (It is for the able….)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 00:39:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004523258325229568

  • “Truth seeking is a competitive advantage.”—Dan T Eggmn (It is for the able…

    —“Truth seeking is a competitive advantage.”—Dan T Eggmn

    (It is for the able….)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 20:39:00 UTC

  • “Most people don’t seek truth. They seek to feel better. It has taken me many ye

    —“Most people don’t seek truth. They seek to feel better. It has taken me many years and some painful lessons to learn this. Think how many enemies we (the Real (scientific) Right) have – people who react emotionally and instinctively against us because we speak truth (or as close as we have been able to get to it) on various topics: the whole Left, the Swamp, all religions. Against these odds we must win. And we will.”—John Mark

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 20:17:00 UTC

  • HOW TO STUDY ANY SUBJECT Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts o

    HOW TO STUDY ANY SUBJECT

    Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit….

    You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references.

    Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’.

    Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting.

    Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it.

    My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books.

    Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics.

    Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning.

    What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters.

    By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form.

    (Rant off.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 20:04:00 UTC

  • How to Study Any Subject

    Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit…. You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references. Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’. Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting. Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it. My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books. Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics. Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning. What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters. By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form. (Rant off.)