What You Do With “Smart” Matters A Lot

You can invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very narrow concepts, or invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very broad concepts.

There are THREE reasons why we produce many very smart people in narrow niches, and very few very smart people in broad concepts.

1) First, the return on narrow specializations is cheaper and quicker, and the return on broad specializations is very expensive and takes much, much, longer – if any returns exist at all. It’s very difficult to produce a Toynbee or a Durant.

2) Second, our education and our economies are organized to produce craftsmen for the industrial era – specialists, made possible and necessary by the entry of proles into the labor force, made possible by the harnessing of hydrocarbons.

3) Third, our education system no longer produces aristocratic learning for aristocrats who must govern. Even our aristocratic universities (religious schools) teach the religion of the proles (equality, democracy, pseudoscience, and deception). Instead of teaching politics, ethics, morality, finance and law, so that we may rationally organize our production and rationally adjudicate our differences, with the least risk, loss, and friction in both production and adjudication.

So I am daily saddened by the tragedy of the many very smart people I meet who fail to produce their potential, and the many proles who fail by attempting to exceed their capabilities and capacities – due to the false promises of their priesthood.

The only choice one has is independent study: to read. By reading ‘know thyself’. By knowing thyself (relative to the abilities of others) to find a niche to profit from, and to gain wisdom to understand the broader arena of human affairs.

It is very easy to choose between that which is good to read, and that which is not: read the works of aristocracy. They are scientific in that they were empirical. They are the only equals man has made.

See “The Importance of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ”.
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-purpose-of-being-well…/

BECAUSE YOUR PRIESTHOOD: YOU ACADEMICS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS AND TEACHERS FAILED YOU – and they failed you in pursuit of selfish money and power.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/tdFgy

Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

(second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section)

We both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store.

Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations.

We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation.

The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations.

Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man.

As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism.

We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return.

The discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech).

This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms.

Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/P3QIP

Information Systems for the Persistence of Man

SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

(profound) (worth repeating)

Our logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/4nuSK

Saturate The Environment with Truthfulness and People Will Act Truthfully

(By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon)

We learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.)

We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAD?
– Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully.
– Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously.
– Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively.
– Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently.

Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment..

– Education was the first means of public broadcasting.
– Reading was the next, but it was voluntary.
– Radio was next and could be done without effort.
– Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless.
– Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes.

Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods?

We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth.

And as such we:
– Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully.
– Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily.
– Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently.
– Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly.
– Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly.
– Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise.

So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.”

Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental.

The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev, Ukraine.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/nUlGB

A Short Course on Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

(promoted to post) (very good outline)

The Truth – as in the most parsimonious description we can possibly make, cannot know, even if we speak it. Truthfulness on the other hand, we can know.

LIMITS: TRUTHFUL ENOUGH FOR THE CONSEQUENCES
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/…/21/a-hierarchy-of-truths/

DEFINITIONS OF TRUTHFULNESS
http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/

DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR THE WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/due-diligence-necessary-f…/

THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-end-of-history-the-tr…/

FUKUYAMA DIDN”T UNDERSTAND
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/13/fukuyama-didnt-underst…/

SCIENCE IS A MORAL DISCIPLINE IN WHICH WE WARRANTY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF OUR SPEECH.
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/science-is-a-moral-discip…/

If scientists can warranty the truthfulness of their work, there is no reason the rest of us cannot do so.

PHILOSOPHY MORALITY LAW AND SCIENCE CAN BE (AND SHOULD BE) IDENTICAL PROPOSITIONS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/philosophy-morality-scien…/

WE DISCOVERED TRUTH TELLING – WE DISCOVERED TRUTH.
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-discovered-truth-telli…/

CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/cultural-variants-of-trut…/

THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA AND THE RESTORATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-cure-for-propaganda-a…/

ITS EXPENSIVE, YES. THE COST OF ELMINATING PSEUDOSCIENCE IN ECONOMICS
http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/04/the-cost-of-eliminating-pseudoscience-in-economics/

WE JUST LEARN WHAT WORKS: TRUTH IN DEFENSE OF THE COMMONS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-never-know-anything-we…/

THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE AND CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-only-means-of-elimina…/

LIBERTY IS LIKE TRUTH: THERE IS ALWAYS MORE OF IT TO BE FOUND
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/…/14/liberty-is-like-truth/

SEE ALSO

My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One
http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/06/my-criticism-of-david-miller-is-a-very-limited-one/

Reforming Libertarian Ethics
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/reforming-libertarian-ethics/

Curt Doolittle
Testimonialism and Propertarianism
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/oYFWh

Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights. 

In writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.

Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.

But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/zhLRS

Writing: Use of Proper Case

Look. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.).

Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader.

Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text, and to skip what he knows, and find what he doesn’t.

The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice.

And good type handling is just good indexing.

So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology.

Sorry. That’s how it is.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/k9Qzo

Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs.  (And a note on painful births :) )

A proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible.

Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism.

Moreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know,

Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization.

If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars.

The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy.

Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable.

I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete).

So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law.  And we can convert all commons to property.  And under universal standing, protect that property.

And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.  And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism.  We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda.

Fukuyama was wrong.

The end of history is the truthful civilization.

And we are going to birth it.

And I hope that birth is painful.  :)

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/g70zK

Q&A: Why Do People Hold Increasingly Radical Positions?

Why do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology?

Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary.

Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly.

People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies.

You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/l4gfY

Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From?

“Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog

Really great question.  And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions.  We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth.

So, it comes from:
(1) Indo-European Heroism;  (Uniqueness of the west)
(2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;
(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”. 

Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital.

We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours.

We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India.

That’s your answer.

As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/8ofFZ