the neoliberal vision of the future

[WorkersUnite]

Individualism is quite a big philosophical error.

Lies.

 

[stethoscope]

Can we get trade descriptions onto 'WorkersUnite's username please?

 

[phildwyer]

what phil (I think) is argueing is that the dominant ideology of capitalism lends itself rather well to "debates" around race, IQ, intelligence, etc.

The main ideological effect of capitalism is the objectification of the subject. Indeed capital is an objectified representation of subjective activity. As a result of this ideological effect, people will perceive and experience human beings as purely physical entities. With the results that you now see fully revealed before you in the person of Onarchy.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Lies.

So WU where do you stand on:

1. Gas chambers;
2. Racial differences in intelligence;
3. Child porn.

Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you believe that the physical structure of the brain produces ideas (as mainstream scientists do), then why wouldn't you believe that differences in the physical structure of the brain lead to different levels of "intelligence" (as Onarchy does)? His ideas are implicit in the "scientific" approach per se.

That differences in the physical workings of the brain lead to different levels of 'intelligence' is entirely uncontroversial. It is demonstrably true – all you need to do is to look at how brain damage can affect our cognitive abilities to see that. That's not the problem with what onarchy is saying and this post leads me to suspect that you don't really understand the problem with what he's saying.

 

[frogwoman]

The main ideological effect of capitalism is the objectification of the subject. Indeed capital is an objectified representation of subjective activity. As a result of this ideological effect, people will perceive and experience human beings as purely physical entities. With the results that you now see fully revealed before you in the person of Onarchy.

It forces people to be inhuman.

 

[TruXta]

The main ideological effect of capitalism is the objectification of the subject. Indeed capital is an objectified representation of subjective activity. As a result of this ideological effect, people will perceive and experience human beings as purely physical entities. With the results that you now see fully revealed before you in the person of Onarchy.

I see you either hasn't read or didn't understand any of what M. Mauss was on about.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The main ideological effect of capitalism is the objectification of the subject. Indeed capital is an objectified representation of subjective activity. As a result of this ideological effect, people will perceive and experience human beings as purely physical entities. With the results that you now see fully revealed before you in the person of Onarchy.

I don't agree with this at all. I would contend pretty much the opposite – that in today's interconnected world, more people recognise the shared humanity of strangers today than has ever been the case. I recognise you as a being in the same way that I am a being. I recognise that you have a subjective experience of the world just as I do. That's not the problem here.

 

[Dillinger4]

I don't agree with this at all. I would contend pretty much the opposite – that in today's interconnected world, more people recognise the shared humanity of strangers today than has ever been the case. I recognise you as a being in the same way that I am a being. I recognise that you have a subjective experience of the world just as I do. That's not the problem here.

Not sure I agree.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't agree with this at all. I would contend pretty much the opposite – that in today's interconnected world, more people recognise the shared humanity of strangers today than has ever been the case. I recognise you as a being in the same way that I am a being. I recognise that you have a subjective experience of the world just as I do. That's not the problem here.

You might.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure I agree.

There was a debate in the Spanish court soon after the conquest of the Americas between the priest Bartolome de las Casas and various representatives of the conquistadors. The debate concerned whether or not the people they had found in the Americas were human. Of course, Hitler attempted a similar dehumanisation of the 'other', and people still do it today, but I would most certainly contend that more people today recognise their shared humanity with all other humans on the planet than ever before in history.

 

[frogwoman]

We forget how advanced some of our ancestors were and in so doing do both them and us a disservice imo.

what about the bristol dockers etc who led the mass campaign to stop slavery in the 18th century?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We forget how advanced some of our ancestors were and in so doing do both them and us a disservice imo.

what about the bristol dockers etc who led the mass campaign to stop slavery in the 18th century?

What about them? What about de las Casas?

 

[Blagsta]

Lies.

Nice refutation there.

 

[frogwoman]

the debate may be framed in different terms today but the content is still the same. there's basically little difference in the thinking behind someone like say tomas de torquemada and the thinking of hitler. these people are always going to exist.

 

[WorkersUnite]

Louis MacNeice,

I stand for individualism, not collectivism.

What do you stand on?

1. Basket full of eggs
2. Wombat females
3. Nike shoes

 

[sihhi]

I actually agree with phil's last post. His science may well be crap but there are a lot of fairly well respected scientists who follow the same reasoning and largely dismiss any possibility of environmental factors in traits like intelligence etc. In some cases like that of charles murrray they've become reasonably influential and mainstream.

"science" isn't always all its cracked up to be.

onarchy is simply following Charles Murray. Charles Murray has never been a scientist. He's been a political scientist, researcher for right-wing research institutes/think tanks and commentator.
Richard Herrnstein the co-author was the animal lab experimental psychologist.

phildwyer's point is either meaningless. How can anyone worship science?
or magnificently trite: 'some scientists are far-right'.

 

[phildwyer]

That differences in the physical workings of the brain lead to different levels of 'intelligence' is entirely uncontroversial. It is demonstrably true – all you need to do is to look at how brain damage can affect our cognitive abilities to see that.

It is also demonstrably true that ideas determine the physical structure of the brain. The influence between ideas and matter is mutual, or dialectical. But the scientific impulse (admittedly not always fully followed by scientists) is to see this influence as unidirectional and undialectical, and to claim that the physical structure of the brain determines ideas but not vice versa. This is the impulse that has led Onarchy into the absurdities he displays here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't agree. So-called 'scientific racism' is today entirely discredited. While ideas of 'progress' are rightly criticised for many reasons, science in one area of human endeavour in which progress is possible.

 

[WorkersUnite]

It forces people to be inhuman.

So you mean that humans are inherently inhuman?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is a popularization of what is generally known about intelligence in the research community. There have been made several surveys among IQ researchers on their position, and the majority of them think that a) intelligence is a real biological concept with a significant heritable component...

At which point we return to the old argument of how much is down to nature, and how much is down to nurture. Theories are all very well, but if, after long years of such theories being tested, and no evidence substantive enough to establish the claim one way or the other is found, then Occam's razor would indicate one of two things:

1) That intelligence isn't heritable (whether the potential is heritable is another question entirely), or

2) That the wrong questions are being asked, the wrong avenues explored.

and b) some of the differences in the measured IQ between races is of biological origin. Here is a statement that was released to the media by 52 mainstream IQ researchers during the Bell Curve controversy:

http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2008.02.11.Mainstream_scientists_on_race.htm

Very nice. A shame half the signatories are dead, that you haven't noticed that the signatories emphasised that the statement was merely a consensus among those 52 academics that signed the statement, not a representation of consensus opinion across academe, and that they're not "52 mainstream IQ researchers". They're "experts in intelligence and allied fields" (my emphasis), some of whose work (Plomin, for example) is only tangentially-related to the matter under discussion.

By the way, just to put that in perspective for you, there were around 5,000 potential signatories whose academic status would have rendered them potential signatories.

There is in fact surprisingly little controversy within the IQ research community. Most of the criticism and controversy arises from non-experts outside the field (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, loads of sociologists etc.).

Another misrepresentation. The debate isn't experts .vs non-experts, it's been between those who are biological determinists, and those who aren't, within and without the field of studies on intelligence.

This may be a sign that there is something wrong with the entire IQ research field, or it may mean that the non-experts actually don't know more than the experts, but just don't like the implications.

You're never far from a conspiracy theory of "socialists" against right-thinking folks, are you?

That's not true. IQ is equally predictive of mental performance regardless of culture...

No, it isn't. Even the letter you linked to doesn't say that. The only "culture" accounted for is "American culture" as a whole, not for cultures of "race", geography and class.

...and mental chronometry predicts IQ equally good regardless of race and culture.

You're aware of what a prediction is, aren't you? It's an informed guess drawn from inferences and/or data that conforms to a model.
In other words, don't treat it like truth until it is proven, or you may have egg on your face.

a) intelligence is a physiological property of the brain that can be measured and quantified accurately. Currently only by proxies, but in the future IQ tests will likely be replaced entirely by primitive cognitive tasks (mental reaction tests), and measurements of the brain (ph-Value, brain size etc.). b) as a largely heritable and physiological property there exists biologically based differences in intelligence between both individuals and groups of individuals.

So you've claimed, but as usual, no substantiation for the claims.

By the way, if intelligence is a physiological property of the brain, then how is it that people with perfectly-developed brains can have little intellectual development? Either your language or your premise is incorrect. Intelligence does not inhere in the physiology of the brain, but rather certain cognitive functions can be mapped to parts of the brain's structure - a different thing entirely.

...In the program we see sociologists and sex researchers who claim that sexual preference has NOTHING to do with biology, that IQ is a myth, that all differences between the sexes is PURELY social in origin.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask_(TV-program)

What does this have to do with anything? You're constructing your argument around the polemicised work of a comedian now?

Ah, yes, socialists obviously accept that environmental factors such as nutrition can alter cognitive development, and that of course birth defects such as Down's syndrome can cause mental dysfunction. HOWEVER, socialists think that for healthy humans there is ZERO heritability... I know that this is true because this is the mainstream position among sociologists.

1) As usual, your attribution of opinions to socialists is incorrect.

2) There is no "mainstream position" in sociology that represents the view you've attributed to sociologists. In fact, anyone dumb enough to think that there are "mainstream positions" in sociology either don't know or don't understand the discipline. There is no unitary epistemology or methodology. The discipline is investigative. It goes where the evidence takes it. The only "mainstream position" in sociology is that everyone disagrees with everyone else.

Still, I understand how it suits the mythos you've constructed to believe such obvious crap.

Oh, no, absolutely not. Cf. the TV-program "Brainwash" ("Hjernevask") that exposes that left wing sociologists really do believe this.

Again, a television programme made by a comedian. That's just full of value, isn't it?

Well, you yourself are regurgitating the exact same archetype in your response to me, see below.




Check.



Check.

See? You DO have exactly the position that I claimed intellectual socialists have. So let me ask you a question. How do you KNOW we are all the same biologically? Do you have any evidence for that? Before you answer let me inform you that all dog races are also virtually genetically identical. There is less gentically that distinguishes a poodle from a wolf than what distinguishes an African from a Chinese. Did you know that?

By all means produce evidence to substantiate your claim that at the genetic level there is less difference between a poodle and a wolf than between "an African and a Chinese".

I'm quite confidant that I know what (if you bother to answer) you'll refer to, and if you do, I'll point out the mistake you've made.

Do you think that there are no biological differences between a poodle and a wolf? Do you think that all dog races are of equal mental ability? Sure, they are artificially bred, but unless you're a creationist you'll recognize that artificial breeding is just evolution in fast forward motion.

Artificial breeding, i.e. breeding to bring out specific traits, is anything but "evolution in fast forward motion", unless you exist in a world where each couple are matched before mating. Sir Francis Galton encouraged what you call "artificial breeding" precisely because it took man outside of evloution, and set his biological destiny firmly within his own hands

Really, get a clue about the subjects you discourse upon. You might not look quite such a dunce.

UNLESS there are special schools for the able. (i.e. people of similar high ability are gathered in the same classes or schools) In Norway such schools are illegal. Special schools are allowed for the disabled but the law explicitly states that it is not allowed for the able. That is what socialism means in practice.

Ah, poor you. Here we have "special schools for the able". Guess what? They still find that without one-on-one teaching, learning speed is reduced to that of the slowest "able child".

It's nothing to do with socialism.

IQ is a practical attempt to measure intelligence. Intelligence can be defined as cognitive speed and energy. That is, the intelligent can think *faster* than others, and he also can hold more information in his short and medium term memory, partially due to a higher energy level and partially due to faster refresh rate. As a consequence the intelligent is able to process and search information for patterns faster than the less intelligent. IQ tests are designed as order (a distinct solution) hidden within noise. Easy tasks have little noise and therefore requires little cognitive speed and energy. Hard IQ problems have a lot of noise and require much faster and more energetic cognitive abilities.




I think Arthur Jensen said it quite right. The 20th century was dominated by a zeitgeist that severely hampered IQ research. (Basically socialists who for ideological reasons wanted to exterminate the IQ concept) Therefore you find that some of the best research on intelligence was conducted quite early, e.g. by Francis Galton. Galton proposed that intelligence was mental speed that could be measured by mental chronometry. Basically he was right, but the fog of the 20th century zeitgeist removed that line of thinking from the research until quite recently. Today the field is returning to its roots and there is now loads of evidence that support the chronometric theory and this is starting to establish itself as the leading theory of intelligence.

No, it's a rising field that is securing funding because...can you guess...?

Because it appeals to those in government (those people you call socialists) and their friends in business.

Are you absolutely sure that it is not the other way around?

Uh-huh.

 

[Blagsta]

So you mean that humans are inherently inhuman?

I'm still waiting for that refutation and those references.

 

[phildwyer]

phildwyer's point is either meaningless. How can anyone worship science?

By conceiving it as the only means to objective truth. This conception is naturally rife among scientists, but it is also widely accepted among people who know nothing of science.

 

[WorkersUnite]

I'm still waiting for that refutation and those references.

What references? What about you trying to refute all of Onarchy's references or try to come with some decent evidence of collectivism and fascism being the best?

 

[sihhi]

It is also demonstrably true that ideas determine the physical structure of the brain. The influence between ideas and matter is mutual, or dialectical. But the scientific impulse (admittedly not always fully followed by scientists) is to see this influence as unidirectional and undialectical, and to claim that the physical structure of the brain determines ideas but not vice versa. This is the impulse that has led Onarchy into the absurdities he displays here.

No, onarchy being a fairly rich and well-feted Norweigan libertarian looking for any excuse to keep up libertarain ideas have led him into his absurdities.

 

[Blagsta]

What references?

The ones I asked you for 3 days ago.

What about you trying to refute all of Onarchy's references or try to come with some decent evidence of collectivism and fascism being the best?

What the fuck are you on about? Are you drunk?

 

[phildwyer]

No, onarchy being a fairly rich and well-feted Norweigan libertarian looking for any excuse to keep up libertarain ideas have led him into his absurdities.

A vast and growing number of people think as he does. It must be in the Zeitgeist.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is also demonstrably true that ideas determine the physical structure of the brain. The influence between ideas and matter is mutual, or dialectical. But the scientific impulse (admittedly not always fully followed by scientists) is to see this influence as unidirectional and undialectical, and to claim that the physical structure of the brain determines ideas but not vice versa. This is the impulse that has led Onarchy into the absurdities he displays here.

I think you are half-right here. You are right when you say that it is incorrect to say that 'the brain determines ideas'. But I would disagree with your conceptualisation of this. We are our brains/bodies. The physical manifestation of the idea in the brain is the idea. I know you disagree with this, but there it is.

 

[stethoscope]

WorkersUnite is a crony/follower of Onar's blog, Blagsta, so don't expect much.

 

[Blagsta]

WorkersUnite is a crony/follower of Onar's blog... so don't expect much.

I know, I'm just giving him enough rope...