An exposition of the underlying genetic struggle which animates the conflict (which we perceive as political) between the Left and the Right, explaining the hypocrisy of the Left and the purpose of traditionalist institutions such as monogamy/marriage and limited government.
RadishMag on Free Speech, excellent analysis of the hypocrisy of the Left. I recommend all his articles.
https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/free-speech/
Poseidon Awoke: Realist 
[…] Left vs Right: Root Conflict […]
LikeLike
@ Butch
OT:
Do you have a way to contact Curt to get the data (or have a link yourself?) referred to in this comment?
“***I ORGANIZED BY CLASSES BY ARGUMENT STRUCTURE***
The fact that you are a prisoner of the monopoly-model of hierarchy is not my problem. My problem is categorizing argumentative models. ‘Cause that’s what I do. 😉
But if you look at the data, I’m sorry, the argument method corresponds pretty accurately to every ten points of IQ. So yeah, Sorry. That’s the data.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Different T: You can always search his timeline on Facebook, and friend/follow. He’s open to questions.
Here are some links for you:
https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/15/strategies-not-steady-states/
https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/19/realities-of-iq-in-business/
LikeLike
None of those have mention of data, nor does anything Curt has written on the subject.
Curt claims to speak Truth by looking at meaningful scientific study, correct?
He responds to criticism by claiming in the above to have meaningful data related to IQ and argument and so is speaking Truth, correct?
Where is it?
LikeLike
Have you asked Curt? I told you how to do that.
LikeLike
What exactly is your criticism? Do you have some evidence or criticism of a specific claim which you think is false? What do you think he has said is false, and why?
LikeLike
” I told you how to do that.”
Don’t have any of that.
“Do you have some evidence or criticism of a specific claim which you think is false?”
Dunno. The lack of any presentation of “the data” certainly weighs heavy considering the person who brought it up (specifically as a claim to the authority of empirical science) claims to “speak the Truth.”
LikeLike
So, no specific criticisms of claims.
LikeLike
Doolittle says:
“It’s that these methods (*non-scienctific*) are far harder to cleans of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.”
Criticism: By suggesting that he has access to some meaningful data set that shows his classification is correct, but never disclosing this data; Doolittle’s statement appears as an appeal to “trust him,” the opposite of his supposed “scientific” method.
So, no data presented. So, no meaningful data presented. So, no meaningful data which supports Doolittle’s claims presented.
LikeLike
To show which classification is correct?
LikeLike
“But if you look at the data, I’m sorry, the argument method corresponds pretty accurately to every ten points of IQ. So yeah, Sorry. That’s the data”
His heading was “New Right Classes (division along spectrum of IQ)”
LikeLike
Do you think such meaningful data which supports Doolittle’s claims exists?
LikeLike
State the exact claim for which you expect data. What specifically are you asking?
LikeLike
Requested: The data which Doolittle references in the claim:
“But if you look at the data, I’m sorry, the argument method corresponds pretty accurately to every ten points of IQ. So yeah, Sorry. That’s the data.”
LOL.
LikeLike
This is very reminiscent of the master vs. slave dichotomy and the resulting two moralities discussed by Nietzsche. The right is obviously faction of the master, the domesticator, and the left that of the slave. Perhaps these two moralities are, as you would seem to imply, the result of intuitive genetic self-interest .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. You get it.
LikeLiked by 1 person