Sociology, (Class, IQ) · Uncategorized

Racialism?

—“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?—

(choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.)

I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare.

Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history.

It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.

Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race.

And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups.

So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand.

The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.

Sociology, (Class, IQ) · Uncategorized

The Diseconomies of Scale

—“At what point do diseconomies of organizational scale kick in or is this a flawed frame?”—Lee Tucker

That is the entire question as far as I am concerned.
If we take an empirical look, the scale increases with available information systems, and the homogeneity of the population.

But in simple terms, a city = a market, and a market must serve a demographic and a demographic must exploit a niche in the regional or world market.

So as far as I can tell there is some ratio between population, density, iq, and homogeneity, institutiona means of distributing/collecting information necessary for decidablity, and relative productivity (purchasing power) that should tell us the optimum size.

the value of scale kicked in with gunpowder and the high cost of total war. (napoleon). HOwever, with nuclear weapons, that value disappears, so as far as I can tell, 5-10M, and that is up from what looks like 2-3M in the last century, simply because of the complexity of goods and services produced, and longer lifetimes (in other words more people does not translate to more people productiely employe) . So population can increase without affecting the systems of production.

Conversely, lets look at competition: a bigger city with more assets can endure shocks over longer periods of economic reorganization, by spending down those assets.

Sociology, (Class, IQ) · Uncategorized

The Functions of the Classes

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLASSES
(propertarian class theory)

——UPPER——-
TOOL OF COERCION: FORCE – MILITARY, LAW, SHERIFF

1) UPPER – PRODUCTION OF ORDER (SOVEREIGNTY)
Rule Economyt (Aristocracy Profit from the Organization of Labor+K)

——MIDDLE——-
TOOL OF COERCION – REMUNERATION – ORGANIZATION, DISTRIBUTION AND TRADE

2) UPPER MIDDLE – ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (LIBERTY)
Capitalism ( Organization of Labor+Knowledge )

3) MIDDLE – ORGANIZATION OF TRANSFORMATION (FREEDOM)
Market Economy ( Voluntarily Organized Labor+K)

4) LOWER MIDDLE (working) TRANSFORMATION (PARTICIPATION)
Mixed Economy ( Voluntary + Involuntarily Organized Labor+K)

——LOWER——-
TOOL OF COERCION: GOSSIP (RESISTANCE) – PRODUCTION, DIST. AND TRADE

5) LOWER (working) LABOR (PARTICIPATION)
Command Economy ( Lower – Involuntarily Organized Labor+K)

6) DEPENDENT – PRODUCTION OF GENERATIONS (POS. FREEDOM)
Dependent Economy (Dependents – Redistributions from Labor+K)

#NewRight

Sociology, (Class, IQ) · Uncategorized

Using Horizontal and Vertical Classes

—“Curt, I’d like to ask about your break down of class. It seems based on IQ and income level is that a correct assessment?”—

Um… well, I use genetic, social, occupational, and economic classes – even though they overlap a great deal as horizontal classes.

And I use the three specializations in means of coercion as vertical classes.

But since there is such a high correlation between genetic classes and all other horizontal classes, unless I say otherwise, I am generally referring to genetic classes.

And genetic class refers to a portfolio of fitnesses that include IQ as well as personality, morphology, and health.

So with that qualification, I think I would say that just as IQ a high predictor in life, it is not the only predictor. But for purpose of general argument it is as good a rule of thumb as any other.

Curt Doolittle

Education · Sociology, (Class, IQ) · Uncategorized

Levels of Education

CALCULATION (PREDICTION) 140

Physics and Econometrics (applied mathematics) (ORGANIZATION OF ENTROPY)

BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING (ORGANIZATION OF GROWTH) 130
Chemistry, Biology, Medicine,

ENGINEERING (CONSTRUCTION) 120
computer science (language), electronic engineering ( fields ), mechanical engineering (power), public engineering (mass, scale and distance), structural engineering (forces of nature)

COMPUTATION (MEASUREMENT) 110
Law, Finance, Accounting,

ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (ORGANIZATION) 105
Business and Marketing
Criminal Justice
Primary Education.

TRADES
(best learned by doing)

ORGANIZATION OF REPRODUCTION (PARENTING)
(best learned by doing)

 

Definitions · Sociology, (Class, IQ) · Uncategorized

Smartness vs Genius

There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.

I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.

Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.

This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.

Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.

Definitions · Sociology, (Class, IQ)

Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”

—“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella

The common definition is:
—“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”—

I would use:

***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”***

Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it.

THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS
The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive.

We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified.

The British and American Class Models

British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states)

British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money)
For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation.

British Elite – American Upper Middle Class
(in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.)
Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class.

British Established middle class – American Middle Class
Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26]

British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class
The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27]

British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class
New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27]

British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class
The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27]

British Emergent service sector – American lower working class
The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27]

British Precariat – American upper proletarian class
The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers.

British ???? – American Lower proletarian class
British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class.

PROPERTARIANISM

However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion:
1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics.
2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war
3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury.

The Four Middle Classes Criteria

1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable)

2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions)

3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business)

4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner)

To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations).

So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in.

American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically.

SUMMARY
the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits.

Cheers