the neoliberal vision of the future

[phildwyer]

Glad you sorted that out using your incontrovertible arguments then. By the by: Mauss? Heard of him?

The only Mauss you could discuss is Mickey.

 

[onarchy]

Except the bits that disprove g I take it.

Now, that reference was in fact one of the more interesting ones I've seen. I like the fact that it is making a statistical argument against methodology, but it doesn't disprove 'g' and it certainly doesn't disprove intelligence as a concept. It just puts forth an argument that the modern methodology for inducing g does not constitute a definitive proof since there are other non-g ways of describing the same data.

The fact of the matter is still that if I meet someone who is very good at mathematics then I am absolutely not shocked if it turns out that he is very knowledgable in very many areas and that he is a good musician, and perhaps also has a very good sense of humor and also is a good writer. Oh, and BTW, he has a very high score on IQ tests. Why? Because this kind of thing happens all the time. Someone who is very good in one cognitively demanding area is by extraordinary coincidence also very often good in a whole host of different areas that are deemed cognitively demanding. Everyone knows these kinds of people (there are many of them on this forum) and we would call such a person intelligent. And there you go. What I just described is the basis of g: high correlation between many different kinds of cognitive tasks. It's not more magical than that. Intelligence has been conceptualized and recognized by humans in all cultures all over the world for thousands of years. It could all be a "myth," but overwhelmingly likely not. People recognize smartness as a trait precisely due to the fact that it is a trait that manifests in many different areas.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm talking about drug companies funding research (espcially in mental health) that leads to their drugs being seen as necessary for example ...

Hmm you might have a point. What scientific discipline are we talking about here? Biochemistry or psychology?

 

[sihhi]

I'm talking about drug companies funding research (espcially in mental health) that leads to their drugs being seen as necessary for example ... just basically what type of research is able to get funding from governments, businesses etc (and what therefore comes to public attention).

Sure, but everyone sane would accept there is better, more solid science (Bad Science by Ben Goldacre) vs. flimsier, less grounded science.

What research is done, and what is done with research are political and social questions.

 

[Blagsta]

It's worse than that, imo. The reasoning goes llke this:

Poor people are poor because they are stupid. Black people are poor, therefore they are stupid.

In a way, dwyer is right that onan's racism is a logical extension of his economics (but not for the reasons that dwyer states). If free market capitalism is the fairest way of running a society, then there must be other explanations for inequality. Ergo "Poor people are poor because they are stupid, black people are poor therefore they are stupid."

 

[TruXta]

The only Mauss you could discuss is Mickey.

That's the only Mauss you know of it seems. Enough said.

 

[frogwoman]

Sure, but everyone sane would accept there is better, more solid science (Bad Science by Ben Goldacre) vs. flimsier, less grounded science.

What research is done, and what is done with research are political and social questions.

Oh, sure. That's kind of what I'm getting at here though. It's often the flimsier less grounded science that ends up becoming influential though (for example the "brain gyms" described in goldacre's book)

 

[TruXta]

Now, that reference was in fact one of the more interesting ones I've seen. I like the fact that it is making a statistical argument against methodology, but it doesn't disprove 'g' and it certainly doesn't disprove intelligence as a concept. It just puts forth an argument that the modern methodology for inducing g does not constitute a definitive proof since there are other non-g ways of describing the same data.

Yes, disproving g is exactly what it does, and in so doing it also disproves a g-like reading of intelligence as a scientific concept. I don't think you understood the piece, if indeed you actually read it.

 

[phildwyer]

That's the only Mauss you know of it seems. Enough said.

Sorry, the opportunity was too good to miss. I do know Mauss. What is his relevance to this discussion?

 

[nino_savatte]

Aah, so you think it's ok to have left-wing thought police that brands people as racists based on the *suspicion* that they are racist? That's a proper methodology in socialist-land?

You presume too much. Now try and deal with the point instead of using your hackneyed tactics of deflection and circular reasoning.

 

[TruXta]

Sorry, the opportunity was too good to miss. I do know Mauss. What is his relevance to this discussion?

The relevance is that inquiries into gift economies debunk your harebrained idea that quantifying behaviour is inherently inhuman/dehumanising and tied to capitalism. Tit-for-tat and so on.

 

[onarchy]

It's worse than that, imo. The reasoning goes llke this:

Poor people are poor because they are stupid. Black people are poor, therefore they are stupid.

That is NOT my reasoning. That's just vicious slander. I start by inducing the concept of intelligence from observation and find that the evidence overwhelmingly tells me that intelligence has something to do with the brain and that this something is heritable. There are many lines of reasoning to support this, including the evolutionary argument that humans have a big brain that makes up 20% of our energy consumption at rest. Evolutionary theory dictates that any organ that uses THAT much energy must be really, really, really important to our survival. What else other than intelligence could it be that we need such a big brain for?

Once you have establised that the brain is in fact the cause of intelligence and that this is largely a heritable trait of the brain, and that there are heritable individual differences in this trait, then it follows logically from this that there could also exist group differences in intelligence, just like there exists group differences in height, eye color and skin color. Then by reviewing the evidence from physiological development, IQ tests and brain size one can conclude that there are statistical differences between races.

 

[invisibleplanet]

The only thing I suggested is that IF Neanderthals could interbreed with homo sapiens, then there is no reason other races couldn't have interbred as well.

Species, not races: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Genus_Homo

All we know about Homo Erectus suggests it had smaller brains than modern humans, and Neanderthals, well, they were exterminated by homo sapiens.

Please provide a citation for your claim that Neanderthals were exterminated by early modern humans (Homo sapiens, i.e. Cro Magnon). Thanks in advance.

One should think that if they [Neanderthals] were superior in intelligence that they would be able to keep themselves alive.

For example, if you or early modern humans (Cro Magnon) or Neanderthals catch a viral disease and die, does it then follow that we should assume that you (et al) are less superior in intelligence than the viral disease that killed you? Or does this mean that viral diseases are more intelligent than Homo Sapiens, because viral diseases are capable of exterminating Homo Sapiens?

 

[SpineyNorman]

And how did we get onto the subject of intelligence again Onarchy? Because you needed it to justify your position - the position that "businessmen" and "wealth creators" (lol) are rich because they're more intelligent.

 

[frogwoman]

Species, not races.

bit of a telling slip, that.

 

[SpineyNorman]

In a way, dwyer is right that onan's racism is a logical extension of his economics (but not for the reasons that dwyer states). If free market capitalism is the fairest way of running a society, then there must be other explanations for inequality. Ergo "Poor people are poor because they are stupid, black people are poor therefore they are stupid."

He is willing to concede that sometimes there poverty is a result of secret socialism too though. How kind.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is nothing in science that says that there cannot be differences in intelligence between different races. (I'll set aside the scientific problems with the category 'race' for now.) It just so happens that science shows pretty damn conclusively that there isn't.

Actually, what you are really trying to do is to establish a correlation between skin colour and intelligence. The only way you can do that plausibly is by hypothesising that the selection pressure that led to pale skin also led to greater intelligence. You aren't completely intellectually dishonest in this sense as you will go down the roads your logic takes you down, however unlikely or absurd those roads may be.

Don't be surprised, however, when people laugh at you, swear at you, or punch you in the face for doing so. A question: Do you think your 'predictable winters made people smarter' hypothesis bears more than even a second's thought? I'm reluctant to engage with you on this point, but how is a predictable winter any more of a selection driver for smartness than a predictable dry season?

 

[DotCommunist]

there was something interesting about possible co-existence between neanderthal and hom sap for a few centuries on the iberian peninsular- I can't remember the article dammit. Google is throwing up loads of related stuff..

 

[phildwyer]

The relevance is that inquiries into gift economies debunk your harebrained idea that quantifying behaviour is inherently inhuman/dehumanising and tied to capitalism. Tit-for-tat and so on.

I don't see how a gift economy quantifies human activity.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It might support unscientific conclusions but that doesn't mean that it's not science. I'm not saying that science is worthless but it's not some perfect thing immune from the rest of society's pressures and the dominant ideology of the time will influence what's "scientific" in all sorts of ways - the type of research that gets funded, even the assumptions that the scientists have in their heads, etc.

Definitely. But Phil seems to think that it's science that is causing us to think in this way, science has somehow generated capitalist hegemony. I'd say it's the other way around - they system itself encourages us to think of ourselves as isolated beings, and if that's the case then social causes go out of the window (I think Hobsbawm talks about this in Age of Revolution, in the chapter on secular ideology). When you add to that the corporate/political funding of junk science you have a dangerous mixture.

But for me economics/politics shape ideology more than ideology shapes economics/politics.

 

[TruXta]

I don't see how a gift economy quantifies human activity.

Really? Tit for tat does involve counting you know.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Lovely middle Palaeolithic feather-thing
our brother Neanderthal has going on there ...

 

[frogwoman]

Definitely. But Phil seems to think that it's science that is causing us to think in this way, science has somehow generated capitalist hegemony. I'd say it's the other way around - they system itself encourages us to think of ourselves as isolated beings, and if that's the case then social causes go out of the window (I think Hobsbawm talks about this in Age of Revolution, in the chapter on secular ideology). When you add to that the corporate/political funding of junk science you have a dangerous mixture.

But for me economics/politics shape ideology more than ideology shapes economics/politics.

Yep.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Depends what you mean. It is popularization of ideas that are common currency among some scientists. Is he saying anything that Dawkins and his ilk wouldn't subscribe to?

Whilst I can't stand Dawkins I don't think this is true at all. In fact he made this video in response to people like Onarchy misrepresenting evolution to suit their political agenda:


[video=google;-3494530275568693212]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212#[/video]

 

[invisibleplanet]

there was something interesting about possible co-existence between neanderthal and hom sap for a few centuries on the iberian peninsular- I can't remember the article dammit. Google is throwing up loads of related stuff..

It's all up in the air right now. We have barely any evidence for early Modern Humans in Europe during the Middle Old Stone Age (Middle Palaeolithic), let alone evidence that Early Modern Humans co-existed alongside Neanderthal Heidelbergensis during this transition between the Middle Palaeolithic (Middle Old Stone Age) and the Upper Palaeolithic (Upper Old Stone Age) .

Most recently, a crouched inhumation from Combe Capelle in France was radiocarbon dated to the Mesolithic (Epipalaeolithc - the end of the Palaeolithic or end of the Old Stone Age, the transition period between the Old Stone Age and the New Stone Age or Neolithic, dated to c. 7575 BCE).

It was previously thought (on dodgy stratigraphy alone c.1909 CE) to have dated to the Middle Old Stone Age>Upper Old Stone Age transition at around 30,000 years ago and had been used to claim co-existence between the two groups of humans (Early Modern Human and Neanderthal).

Quite simply, as a general rule of thumb, the more recent research is the better research. Any older interpretations of archaeological evidence from before the middle of the twentieth century should be treated with great care. These older interpretations are more likely to be flawed in some way, but of course they are still of interest in terms of the history of the discipline itself and of the development of human thought in general.

http://www.pasthorizons.com/index.php/archives/03/2011/combe-capelle-burial-is-not-30000-years-old

 

[diptera]

Have you seen ANY statement about my evaluation of ANY individual which is racist? Can you point to ANY political view of mine that is even remotely racist? If not, do you think it is reasonable to brand me as a racist based on something that if YOU were the one doing it you wouldn't call yourself a racist?

Finally found your Ubuntu-post.
wwwDOTblogging.no/blog.php/onarki/post/20566

It's not just racist, it also shows how ignorant you are.

I'm such a noob that I'm not allowed to post real links yet ...

 

[invisibleplanet]

Can you post a translation of it all here, diptera. Thanks.

 

[diptera]

Here you go. The best that Google Translate can manage:

Ubuntu
Posted by: onarki , 01 March 2008. 1:10 p.m.
theme: Society> Politics , Culture> Philosophy , Religion> Livssyn Keywords: socialism, Nazism ubuntu
It is no understatement to say that Africa (with some honorable exceptions) is the closest you'll dystopia - hell on earth. In a frighteningly large number of African countries, there is enormous poverty and destitution, war, raw violence, corruption, crime, laziness and shockingly irrational superstition.

It is tempting to blame the low average IQ in Africa (under 70), and at first glance this seems like a plausible explanation. Low IQ is correlated with higher crime and poverty around the world, both at the national level and at individual level. But on closer inspection we see that this is an overly simple explanation.

I would particularly highlight the Caribbean island of Barbados, where 90% of the population is black. According to The World Factbook Barbados has a GDP per capita comparable to Portugal, that is a relatively wealthy country by African standards. The country is, according to the Heritage 21 freest country in the world (freer than both Norway and Sweden), and crime in the country is very low , in line with Japan. This includes violent crime, sexovergrep and corruption. In short, Barbados is one of the most civilized countries in the world.

Yet that is the average IQ in Barbados is relatively low, 78 Barbados is therefore an obvious proof that there is no necessary correlation between low IQ and poverty / crime. Barbados also demonstrates powerfully that Africans are not doomed to be poor, violent, corrupt, lazy and irrational.

It is not the African race, or their IQ is nothing wrong with. The problem seems to be the African culture. There is something about Africa that makes the place looks more like a madhouse and the penal colony than anything we associate with civilization.

So what is African culture? Africa is a vast continent with many different cultures and people, but to the extent there is a culture that bind Africans together, it is ubuntu. Ubuntu is an African philosophy that often summed up in the Zulu proverb umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu: a person is a person through other persons.

In Ubuntu, the individual that is nothing, it does not exist independently of other people. So there is a collectivist philosophy, and in practice gives the result in that there is no real private property rights. Will there be a stranger on a visit to stem Mon expected to give him food and clothing and shelter, even if they themselves are poor and starving. If you have a two cows, while the neighbors have no Mon is expected to give up the one. Mon jobs in the city and make money Mon expected to hand over their money to all their relatives at home who do not work before you even helping themselves to their own pay.

In short, Ubuntu is African socialism. The prevalence of ubuntu throughout Africa bear witness to that philosophy is very old, tens of thousands of years. As African socialists himself says it: "Africa has always been socialist."

It is also worth noting that Africans often very loyal tribe. Ubuntu is basically everyone, but especially for their tribe. These include one of the reasons why corruption is so widespread in Africa. The idea that someone who works in the state will receive money and not give them to his own tribe goes strongly against tribal Ubuntu.

Strains corresponding to the nations of Europe and European-language equivalent tribal ubuntu, therefore, an African variant of National Socialism - Nazism. Africa can therefore be summarized as a socialist, perhaps especially the national socialist.

The African Nazism may explain why it has always been so much genocide and ethnically motivated violence in Africa. Rwanda was an extreme case, but we have recently seen a rather grotesque example of this in Kenya. Africa is the continent that is experiencing the most frequent and genocide, and it is interesting to see that all big genocide in modern times in the rest of the world can be linked to socialism, Nazism and Islamic fascism.

Although Europe seems to have learned a lesson about saying "lebensraum" page 2 World War II, the expansive fascist forces again started to move on. Recently saw the independent state of Liechtenstein to be violated in the most serious of Germany just in the form of overt government espionage against a bank in Lichtenstein, obviously in conflict with Lichtenstein's independence. This is as close to a declaration of war it is possible to get in today's Europe.

European socialists have seriously argued that Liechtenstein should be annexed by France or the Benelux countries to put an end to tax refugee problem. And the OECD countries work together intensively to try to boycott the low-tax countries to prevent "tax leakage." Of course this is very far from genocide, but testify that the fascists in Europe has gained new confidence, resulting in imperialism and invasion of other independent states.

Capitalism fosters independence, prosperity, employment and entrepreneurship. Socialism punishes the other hand, gifted, industrious and law abiding and reward the ability of poor, criminals, and lazy. In all socialist and social democratic countries, we see a dystopian trend in terms of brain drain to the freer countries (and thus in the long term declining national IQ), rising crime, increasing laziness, growing corruption, increasing violence, increasing leeching and increasing irrationality.

A fascinating question is thus: is Africa is the drive? Is today's African misery, low IQ, crime, genocide, laziness and irrationality the final result of tens of thousands of years of African socialism and Nazism? It is an alluring thought. It gives us in this case a rather gloomy future vision of what we have in store here in the West.

 

[frogwoman]

he is bonkers.

 

[frogwoman]

ubuntu is just some geek thing anyway.