the neoliberal vision of the future

[SpineyNorman]

Did you actually find anything wrong with my statement? I don't pretend to know how to rule the world, but obviously all statists DO believe that they are much much better than the free, peaceful market to structure reality. If *I* am narcissistic, what then would you say about the people who think they know better than EVERYONE and wants to be dictators and central planners?

I dunno. Who here has claimed, or even intimated, that they wanted to be "dictators" or "central planners"? Then again we all know that you like to build up strawmen to knock down, don't we?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quite the contrary. I am very well aware of my limitations, and I frequently criticize modern left intellectuals for having an inflated self-image (i.e.a form of narcissism). I am really, really smart, but I'm fully aware that there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the world that have a much higher IQ than me.

IQ is irrelevant.

It's a culturally-loaded measurement of memory and problem-solving ability. It doesn't measure "intelligence".

Also I don't pretend to be an expert. I know very well that in most areas I do not have the kind of expertise that true experts have. Typically to become an expert in a field you need to be very smart and spend 10-20 years of your life intensively working with the material to truly excel. In fact, the very fact that I am a liberal implies a humbleness in terms of my own abilities.

He said, engaging in another tedious bout of false humility.

I don't to pretend to be an expert which if given political power can plan all of society better than everyone else. No, it's the fascist plan economists who believe that they are smart and knowledgable enough for such a task. On the contrary, as an adherent of market economy I recognize that the market, consisting of the thinking, planning, negotiation and adapting of millions of individuals far exceeds the knowledge and ability of a single person. Again, it is the left intellectuals and statist politicians who believe that their intellect exceeds the combined power of millions of the ables people in the world. THAT's narcissism.

I do however have ONE area that I consistently seem to be better at the vast majority of people in the world. I'm the exact opposite of a specialist, namely a generalist. A specialist is someone who knows a lot about very little, whereas a generalist is someone who knows a little about a lot. I don't know enough in every field to excel as an expert, but I do typically rise to the level of understanding where I can make assessments of the various theories in the fields. I use my extensive generalist knowledge to cross-fertilize, i.e. to bring knowledge from one field to another and thereby possibly nudge that field in a new direction that it otherwise would not have taken. Let me give a few examples of the generalist contributions I have made:

from studying climate science and plant physiology I know that plants really, really don't like low levels of CO2 and that during the ice ages the CO2 levels are really, really low. As a consequence the ice ages were dominated by deserts and semi-deserts. The previous ice age ended some 12.000 years ago.

Then I combine this with knowledge I have gained from studying human evolution. I know that the evidence from skull sizes indicates that the intelligence modern man was fully developed some 30.000 years ago, yet agriculture did not develop until a little more than 10.000 years ago. I combine these facts and end up with the conclusion that high CO2-level due to the end of the ice age enabled the emergence of agriculture. Prior to this plants simply did not grow sufficiently productively to sustain an agricultural lifestyle. This is a discovery that only a generalist could have made, someone with knowledge from two very separate areas of expterise.

So, these contributions you've made, which journals published them? Were your contributions peer-reviewed?

In addition to cross-fertilization a generalist is able to make observations from many different fields and then GENERALIZE. (Hence, the appropriately named term "generalist") It has become second nature to me to look to other areas and data when abstracting new concepts. Example: what is the appropriate definition of "social"? Well, a sociologist would restrict his scrutiny to humans alone, whereas I turn to biology. I look at all the various species that are termed "social" and then look for common distinguishing factors. When appropriately generalized sociality may be defined as "peaceful coexistence." That is the ONLY distinct thing that social animals have in common. Once this definition of sociality has been nailed it then can be used to fertilize and improve the understanding of human sociality.

Actually, a sociologist doesn't necessarily restrict their scrutiny to humans, but to societies. One of the advantages of the social sciences is that they're ontologically and epistemologically-amenable to cross-disciplinary work. Theories of human social behaviour can be (and have been) drawn from observations of the behaviour of other species, and vice versa.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well, IQ is not the same as knowledge. It's perfectly possible to be very smart and have very little knowledge, although the two are typically highly correlated. But with your comment you have at least shown that you do not have knowledge about the concept of intelligence.

It's down to my low IQ.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes, you will find elements of violence in social species, but it's rare. The norm is peaceful coexistence. You cannot simply ignore that for long stretches of time thousands of individuals live together non-violently, and that it is THIS behavior that has given rise to the term "social," not matricide or civil war. If bees didn't live peacefully together most of the time they wouldn't have been called a social species. Social species are studied in wonder precisely because they apparently suspend the "law of the jungle" which is considered to be the norm of nature.

Yep that would be the reason.

Louis MacNeice

 

[onarchy]

Is he a fan of "The Bell Curve" by any chance?

Well, I'm not sure "fan" is the right word, but I value the book "The Bell Curve" yes, and I do acknowledge that IQ is a valid biological concept and that there are statistical differences between races (a race can be defined as a mildly inbred group of people and is defined by their common ancestry. E.g. whites are people with mostly ancestors living in Europe ~40.000 years ago, blacks are people with mostly ancestors living in Africa ~90.000 years ago etc.). Acknowledging biological reality, however, is NOT the same as being a racist. As a liberal I am anti-collectivistic, and therefore obviously anti-racist. I don't judge people by the color of their skin.

My primary reason for studying this topic is because it strongly relates to the differences between right-wing socialists and left-wing socialists. (if you want to caricature it: Nazis vs Commies) Left-wing socialists believe that all humans are equal mentally. IQ is a social construct, they claim, and the mind is infinitely moldable and smartness is learnt. (This is the archetype leftwing position) BUT it is a fact that there are great social differences in the world. Some are rich, some are poor. Since all people are equal in abilities and IQ is a myth then there must be EXTERNAL causes to these observed social differences. And so capitalism is identified as the great culprit. It is capitalism that causes social differences.

Right-wing socialists (Nazis being the extreme version) accept that people are born with different abilities and that there may be biological racial differences. They just don't like it. They want everyone to be equal and hence the deviants will have to go. In Nazi Germany this meant extermination of the disabled and the mentally handicapped. This was an extreme version of social equalization, right-wing style. The more moderate version of this is not to actually kill the disabled or the intelligent, but to try to make the differences between them invisible in society. You're not supposed to see that someone is smarter than someone else, and this is done by redistribution of wealth. Money is taken from the wealthy smart ones and given to the poor not so smart so as to disguise the fact that there are differences. Similarly in school the able students are held back and the slow students are given extra resources so as to exterminate social deviants at an early age. This could be called Nazism with a human face.

Notice that the moderate left socialists and the moderate right socialists pursue the exact same policies but for different reasons. Left-wing socialists also want redistribution of wealth, not to hide the deviants but because they don't believe in the deviants and that differences in wealth is caused by an injustice. Left wing socialists also want to give more resources to the slow students and hold the smart ones back, because they believe that people are smart because they have rich parents that are able to educate their children better, and so being smarter is a sign of a social injustice and that's why the lefties want to exterminate the smart and disabled. The moderate left does not actually kill anyone, but exterminates the deviants from public view by redistribution. The left doesn't believe they are covering up biological differences. The left believes it is undoing an injustice caused by the wicked capitalism.


Now, as a liberal I am interested in biological differences in IQ because if IQ differences are largely biological and hereditary and IQ is at the same time very important in wealth creation then I can PROVE that the Marxist conception of economics is false. Lefties observe social differences and claim that it is CAUSED by capitalism because we're all born equal in ability. But what if that's not true? What if we're born EXTREMELY different in abilities and that these differences in ability tend to reflect themselves in the form of social inequality? What then? Well, if that's true then we should expect to see EXTREME differences in wealth in capitalist societies, but we don't. There are differences, some even quite large, but nowhere near what we would expect if the left's conception of capitalism is correct. (their view is that capitalism AMPLIFIES differences, and generates a positive wealth feedback: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.) In fact, even if capitalism was entirely NEUTRAL with respect to creating social differences (i.e. zero amplification) then the observed differences in wealth are still too small. So the only scientific conclusion to draw is that capitalism does not amplify social differences, it dampens them. Capitalism is an equalizer. It is dominated by negative wealth feedbacks. What is this negative feedback? Competition. Competition between the able forces them to undercut some of the value their intelligence has provided for them. Competition causes redistribution of wealth from the able to the less able. It causes a race to the middle.

 

[stethoscope]

Who's really closer to fascism, onan?

 

[butchersapron]

Should've stuck with it Christian, there's obv loads there.

 

[SpineyNorman]

My amusement is once again morphing into stomach churning disgust.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Well, I'm not sure "fan" is the right word, but I value the book "The Bell Curve" yes

*searches the net for a quadruple facepalm image*

 

[invisibleplanet]

My amusement is once again morphing into stomach churning disgust.

Indeed. I'm already there ...

 

[audiotech]

Lefties observe social differences and claim that it is CAUSED by capitalism because we're all born equal in ability.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program

Leftists don't believe that all are "born equal". That's a bourgeois concept, promoted by godbotherers and liberals.

The reality now is not "difference", but rather a vast chasm of inequality.

 

[invisibleplanet]

He's equating poverty with lack of intellect, and wealth with intelligence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, you will find elements of violence in social species, but it's rare. The norm is peaceful coexistence. You cannot simply ignore that for long stretches of time thousands of individuals live together non-violently, and that it is THIS behavior that has given rise to the term "social," not matricide or civil war. If bees didn't live peacefully together most of the time they wouldn't have been called a social species. Social species are studied in wonder precisely because they apparently suspend the "law of the jungle" which is considered to be the norm of nature.

Oh fuck off. You know nothing of biology, certainly nothing of evolution. Don't even pretend that you do, ffs. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, I'm not sure "fan" is the right word, but I value the book "The Bell Curve" yes,

So you don't understand how the flaws in its methodology mean that its conclusions are entirely worthless, then?


Again, you embarrass yourself.

I've changed my mind, btw. I don't want to hear your batshit theory of the ether. I'll just tell you in advance that you are wrong, and that you don't understand anything about physics.

 

[onarchy]

My amusement is once again morphing into stomach churning disgust.

That's not an argument, you know. I forgot to mention that the reason the left is so afraid of the concept of IQ is because if it is generally accepted that IQ has a strong biological component, then it follows on its heels that there are significant biologically based statistical differences in IQ. (And I *do* emphasize *statistical*) Lefties have drawn the general conclusion that humans can't handle such knowledge of statistical differences, because it leads to racism, which in turn leads to Nazism which leads to the Holocaust. So to lefties the mere mention of IQ being biologically based brings images in their head of Nazi extermination camps. They think that this is the inevitable outcome. In other words, essentially they believe that Nazism is the only alternative to the left wing equality ideology. That's why you're stomach is churning in disgust. You think that acknowledging a biological basis for IQ automatically renders people into racists, bigots and nazis.

I guess that sort of makes sense for a collectivist. A collectivist is used to thinking in terms of groups and he cannot imagine not thinking in groups, i.e. thinking in terms of the individual. But I assure you that it IS perfectly possible to not think in terms of collectives, even if you acknowledge IQ as a biological concept. That's what individualism is all about. There IS a biologically aware alternative to Nazism, namely liberalism. Equipped with our knowledge of human nature and of the equalizing effects of capitalism we get a very different conception of what a liberal society looks like. The left's vision of liberalism is of social darwinism, a race to the bottom and dog eat dog competition, which to them is only an apologetic version of Nazism. Rather than building a special concentration camp for the disabled, all of society becomes such a concentration camp, where the weak starves to death under the banner of freedom.

The liberal vision of liberalism is quite different. (And now I'm actually coming with information that is highly relevant to the named topic of this thread) In a liberal society there is peaceful competition which leads to a race to the middle, social equalization. There will still be differences but they will be dampened by capitalism. The liberal society is SOCIAL, i.e. dominated by peaceful coexistence, not the law of the jungle. Also, research shows that it is a happier society and research also shows that happier people give more to charity and care about their fellow men. Therefore those that are unfortunate in life will have lots of help from kind people to look forward to. Now, THAT's the liberal vision of the future, based entirely on facts and scientific evidence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'll give it two more days before it finally gets itself banned.

 

[onarchy]

He's equating poverty with lack of intellect, and wealth with intelligence.

IQ is the single most important factor that predicts wealth and poverty. It's certainly not the only one. The people of North-Korea are biologically about the same in ability on average as the people of South-Korea, yet North-Korea is dirt poor and South-Korea is wealthy. The difference is not due to IQ but due to an unintelligent political system in North-Korea. So I am NOT equating poverty with lack of intellect and wealth with intelligence, but statistically it is a factor you cannot ignore.

 

[frogwoman]

Of course it is.

a generalist is someone who knows a little about a lot

In your case, that is obvious.

 

[onarchy]

Leftists don't believe that all are "born equal". That's a bourgeois concept, promoted by godbotherers and liberals.

So when someone on this board just dismissed IQ as a social construct with no biological basis, that was just a coincidence then?

The reality now is not "difference", but rather a vast chasm of inequality.

Inequality in what sense?

 

[frogwoman]

IQ is the single most important factor that predicts wealth and poverty. It's certainly not the only one. The people of North-Korea are biologically about the same in ability on average as the people of South-Korea, yet North-Korea is dirt poor and South-Korea is wealthy. The difference is not due to IQ but due to an unintelligent political system in North-Korea. So I am NOT equating poverty with lack of intellect and wealth with intelligence, but statistically it is a factor you cannot ignore.

How much do you earn, onan? It can't be very much, if what you're saying is true. Unless of course it's the result of an unintelligent political system.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

All that 'Bell Curve' stuff is another favourite hobby horse of several of the key sponsors of wingnut welfare, just like climate change contrarianism and parroting Jonah Goldberg's shite.

 

[onarchy]

Oh fuck off. You know nothing of biology, certainly nothing of evolution. Don't even pretend that you do, ffs. You're embarrassing yourself.

Your reaction is typical of leftists. In fact, it is textbook. In an earlier post I described in detailed exactly how leftists react to claims of biological differences in IQ and why. You're following the pattern perfectly. You're locked in the leftist conception of the world where there are only two alternatives: commies or nazis. If you're not a commie (or a moderate version thereof) you're a nazi. I on the other hand have a THIRD position (liberal) which is very different from both commie and nazi (and any of the shades of gray in between).

 

[audiotech]

The intensified exploitation and enslavement of workers to the state (Nazism) has nothing to do with either public or common ownership, nor the co-operative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your reaction is typical of leftists. In fact, it is textbook. In an earlier post I described in detailed exactly how leftists react to claims of biological differences in IQ and why. You're following the pattern perfectly. You're locked in the leftist conception of the world where there are only two alternatives: commies or nazis. If you're not a commie (or a moderate version thereof) you're a nazi. I on the other hand have a THIRD position (liberal) which is very different from both commie and nazi (and any of the shades of gray in between).

We're talking about biology here, you stupid cunt, and specifically evolutionary biology, which is something I know a lot more about than you.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Now just fuck off, you nasty, thick, racist cunt.

 

[Blagsta]

IQ is the single most important factor that predicts wealth and poverty.

You'll have to back that up.

 

[frogwoman]

Your reaction is typical of leftists. In fact, it is textbook. In an earlier post I described in detailed exactly how leftists react to claims of biological differences in IQ and why. You're following the pattern perfectly. You're locked in the leftist conception of the world where there are only two alternatives: commies or nazis. If you're not a commie (or a moderate version thereof) you're a nazi. I on the other hand have a THIRD position (liberal) which is very different from both commie and nazi (and any of the shades of gray in between).

A third position?

"your reaction is typical of leftists"

Your reaction is typical of sociopaths.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, I'm not sure "fan" is the right word, but I value the book "The Bell Curve" yes, and I do acknowledge that IQ is a valid biological concept and that there are statistical differences between races (a race can be defined as a mildly inbred group of people and is defined by their common ancestry. E.g. whites are people with mostly ancestors living in Europe ~40.000 years ago, blacks are people with mostly ancestors living in Africa ~90.000 years ago etc.). Acknowledging biological reality, however, is NOT the same as being a racist. As a liberal I am anti-collectivistic, and therefore obviously anti-racist. I don't judge people by the color of their skin.

Is that so, me old fruit? Thanks for confirming some of my worst suspicions. Bravo. <slow hand claps>

 

[frogwoman]

Your reaction is typical of leftists. In fact, it is textbook. In an earlier post I described in detailed exactly how leftists react to claims of biological differences in IQ and why. You're following the pattern perfectly. You're locked in the leftist conception of the world where there are only two alternatives: commies or nazis. If you're not a commie (or a moderate version thereof) you're a nazi. I on the other hand have a THIRD position (liberal) which is very different from both commie and nazi (and any of the shades of gray in between).

A third position, in between communism and capitalism. Or in this case, "commie and nazi" (which i thought, according to you, were the same thing).

 

[nino_savatte]

Your reaction is typical of leftists. In fact, it is textbook. In an earlier post I described in detailed exactly how leftists react to claims of biological differences in IQ and why. You're following the pattern perfectly. You're locked in the leftist conception of the world where there are only two alternatives: commies or nazis. If you're not a commie (or a moderate version thereof) you're a nazi. I on the other hand have a THIRD position (liberal) which is very different from both commie and nazi (and any of the shades of gray in between).

Third position, eh? Do one.

 

[nino_savatte]

This cunt is a proper narcissist.