Yeah agreed. This isn't going to go anywhere, the dogpile doesn't help but no one seems to know what's being debated anymore. It's not really JR's fault, who got sucked into giving his opinion on things without necessarily wanting to get into a multi page debate about them. That said, he has started a couple of small fires, run off and then come back and blamed everyone else for the flaming mess.Tempy wrote:I don't think JR had bad intentions but It feels like the discussion is impossible because what's being argued over is - at least as far as I can comprehend - the right to agree that there is a genetic element to intelligence without the connotations of racism that brings, because that has to be acknowledged in order to combat its use by the political right. It's a ghost of a concept, caveats begetting caveats. All I can glean from the rebuttal post is what is *not* being discussed, which is The Bell Curve, but I am at a loss as to what *is* being discussed other than that absence followed by everyone (myself guitly too) chipping in. Honestly at this point I think it's beyond salvaging in this thread, and the only constructive way forward is a proper back and forth between two sides, with an actual premise to argue over, and time for people to research instead of people giving their reckons on either side. He says, giving a reckon. Anyway I only posted this because I always find myself more inclined to read these things when there's debates on here. I don't want to see a popcorn.gif pile on myself, I see little merit in that. There is entirely a kernel of truth in the idea that the stuff the right trots out should be engaged with in some capacity as that is the idea that underpins most of the youtube stuff that I watch. I just don't think the rolling nature of this thread has made that possible in any decent way.
nick_md wrote:I think it was me referring to Chomsky re. the Crimea annexation which started this mess off. Sorry about that!
JRPC wrote:Facewon wrote:This is good: https://www.alternet.org/books/what-happened-when-sam-harris-tried-and-failed-embarrass-noam-chomsky Also this: http://www.critical-theory.com/sam-harris-awkwardly-debates-with-noam-chomsky/ For an abridged summary. I could quote within quote within quote, but this isn't the God thread circa 2010.
Wow Face, we are just on different planets when it comes to what we're considering worthwhile reading here.
This is just trash journalism. If you think either of those articles are worth taking any notice of at all then it's no wonder you're confused about this.
First paragraph from one of those posts:
Sam Harris, the New Atheist philosopher who, with his colleagues, managed to artfully package trendy atheism with old-school Islamophobic bigotry is now trying to publicly debate anarchist intellectual Noam Chomsky.
Seriously!? That you could bring yourself to read beyond this point, let alone to take any word of it as meaningful in any way is genuinely beyond me.
Did I catch you posting something from Salon the other day?
JRPC wrote:Maybe for Child or whoever else is intersted. There was a mroe recent Harris podast with genetic researcher Siddhartha Mukherjee, who is critical of Murray in his most recent book The Gene. The second half of the podcast goes back into the whole Murray affair.. Podcast
afgavinstan wrote:Yeah I watched one of his vids one time and now I get recommended stuff from places I'm kinda not with. Dunno where he lies on the Cool Guy-Dumpster Fire scale.
Brooks wrote:Current Affairs/Baffler/Jacobin are such a fixture in my media diet now I'm starting to become suspicious they aren't hardcore enough.Facewon wrote:Meanwhile, was alerted to this bit of gold. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve Jordan peterson take down. Which may poison the well if anyone was planning on saying he's great, but it's too entertaining not to share. Pocket tells me its a 54 minute read. The gist can be gotten in under 10 for the time poor.
Facewon wrote:Brooks wrote:Current Affairs/Baffler/Jacobin are such a fixture in my media diet now I'm starting to become suspicious they aren't hardcore enough.Facewon wrote:Meanwhile, was alerted to this bit of gold. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve Jordan peterson take down. Which may poison the well if anyone was planning on saying he's great, but it's too entertaining not to share. Pocket tells me its a 54 minute read. The gist can be gotten in under 10 for the time poor.
Just did a one year sub to current affairs. That's some writing I can get down with. Now, if none of them could grope their co-workers, that'd be just dandy.
Word Salad wrote:Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others.
hunk wrote:Last post on this and my personal take on IQ:
IQ is a reflection of the state of knowledge needed to function in our society.
IQ balloons with every generation because of an information feedback loop between society and our brains.
The more scientifically knowledgable (schooled?) a society the more our brains adapt to encompass that knowledge.
Also, society itsself has grown to encompass a complex global world, one our brain has to adapt to.
Is there a ceiling to the knowledge our brains can encompass? Lord knows.
This interactive feedback loop also extends to SES and IQ. To assume IQ only effects SES in a causitive manner is shortsighted and to me seems like an out of date last century eugenic concept. And that is one of the main reasons the Bell Curve and Harris' stamp of approval annoys me.
To me IQ represents a certain cognitive potential.
A person won't actually benefit from it per se if he/she has good genes, you have to have your environment on your side.
Being born into a high enough SES so you're healthy in your physical and mental development is essential. Not being a war/ghetto child suffering ptsd at the age of 4 certainly helps. For a person to reach his or her full IQ potential a certain economic and social stability is mandatory.
It's no coincidence almost all the great thinkers and scientists of the renaissance were nobles or wealthy people.
Yeah, you could say they had great genes and therefore they were noble and rich and thus rose to the top of their discipline.
But one could also argue they could reach their IQ potential because they were born wealthy, healthy, in safety and comfort and thus were free to pursue and explore academics as a hobby to reach their full potential. Perhaps both arguments are right and one does not exclude the other.
US history of social and racial inequality is well documented by now. When climbing the SES ladder, racial bias is a problem with a skewed preference to white. This makes racial comparisons between populations inherently problematic something Murray also happily bypasses.
No, he prefers superior genetics as an explanation even if he has no actual evidence of 'genetic' iq variation between human races.
Above arguments won't stop populists/alt right from citing the bell curve. A simplistic interpretation is preferred as it validates their superiority and prefered policies. It's an interpretation that can easily be communicated to their voterbase to identify with.
And so weaponised political science keeps being regurgitated to the masses who happily gobble it all up.
Because, who doesn't like to feel special because of his/her genes?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!