In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 12 2017 00:10 Kickboxer wrote: It's specifically the social sciences that have gone to shit, hand-in-hand with the prevalent "cool" stance to identify with if you're an intelligent and also clueless adolescent.
You can't corrupt math or physics for obvious reasons, and clinical psychology is pretty close in verifiable accuracy (as in actually reliably helping people, i.e. producing demonstrable results in the real world). So I would consider him a scientist, definitely, and his "enemies" the bullshitters.
There's even a clip where he's debating a social sciences professor who, verbatim, states there are no biological differences between men and women . That is word-for-word literally what he says, and someone like that is ratified to teach in academia? I think that's a pretty fucking serious problem.
What is the problem? As I've shown he makes countless statements that show a complete lack of understanding on the subjects he's discussing, yet I don't think he should be banned from teaching. I still don't understand how exactly the social sciences have been corrupted, beyond the cultural Marxism conspiracy (which for a lot of people is analogous to the Jews).
The political division in social sciences between left and right is roughly 17:1 amongst the professors. For every 17 professors who vote on the left, there's one who votes on the right. In 1996, this was 2:1. That's how it has been 'corrupted'. There are probably many explanations for this, but no matter the explanations, the result is that those 17 on the left are now confirming each other's political biases and are no longer being challenged in their political views, and through things like teaching the students and social media these views have spread like a wildfire -- largely unchallenged by intellectual thought.
Jonathan Haidt gives a great presentation of how this has influenced American politics, and how it ties in with social justice, and even gives some hints of explaining the rise of the alt-right due to this. You can ignore the reality of this, or maybe say that it is justified because the alt-right denies science, but I think it's problematic considering the nature of the American left-right divide (which absolutely ties in with - and I hate to say it because of the inevitable backlash - identity politics).
Watch the videos. I've replaced three of the short podcast-videos in my previous post with one cohesive presentation he gave at Harvard, so there's just two up there now. I can't sum it up properly, nor will I be able to convince you with my interpretations because - amongst other things - I'd undoubtedly leave out stuff that will just end up making you and people like Plansix go "that's racist" or "that's sexist".
People who were on the right 20 years ago are now on the left. The spectrum has moved and left people behind.
OK, well, then there's not a problem, is there? That completely nullifies everything I've said. Did you read beyond that one part of that sentence that you're referencing? Watch the video before commenting again.
On August 12 2017 00:59 WolfintheSheep wrote: Honest(-ish) question here, why are so many of US discussions so wrapped up in idolatry? Like, somehow these sociology topics, or business, or economics, or even science arguments all seem to revolve around throwing around some "significant" names.
And, while it could just be me not noticing, very few of them seem to have any significance outside of the US.
My guess would be it's intertwined with the rise of social media (even this forum!) as a mechanism to interact politically. If you want to tweet something, it needs to be a video. If it's a video, there's someone talking. If you want to reference the video in a tweet/digestable post, you just say the person's name and maybe the title. Sharing their views links you in a way where you don't want those views to be wrong or attacked, and in the future you default to their views as well.
I guess they don't spread internationally because people would 1) rather watch people talk in their own language and 2) there are probably similar names out there others can use. Many of them also specialize heavily into one domain which may not apply outside the U.S. (there may be equivalent anti-immigration names in the EU which I have never heard of, for example).
The idols in question have a big vested interest in this because it can become tremendously profitable, especially since outraged clicks from the opposing side get them even more publicity and money. So they form networks and link themselves to one another, whether directly or indirectly.
On August 12 2017 00:59 WolfintheSheep wrote: Honest(-ish) question here, why are so many of US discussions so wrapped up in idolatry? Like, somehow these sociology topics, or business, or economics, or even science arguments all seem to revolve around throwing around some "significant" names.
And, while it could just be me not noticing, very few of them seem to have any significance outside of the US.
The arguments from the left come at several angles and you want linkable counter-arguments that include the disingenuous "isn't your argument racist? Isn't it anti-science? Isn't it not born out in practice? Can't we just dismiss it out of hand without consideration?" Haidt and the neutral academics as well as the more contentious Petersons out there have standing and the eloquence to take down what simply isn't true.
I'd expect less of a need if the mainstream left and some elements of the right engaged the arguments head-on, contrasted even with some of yours like "governing means actually passing bills lol." Just a thought, honest-ish.
On August 12 2017 01:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You have to understand the amount of media the US consumes. From there, it isn't hard to understand how idolatry plays a big part in a lot of people's views on the topics you bring up.
I was thinking it couldn't be that much more, but apparently it's like 25% higher than Canadian consumption (self-reported numbers, but still).
On August 12 2017 00:59 WolfintheSheep wrote: Honest(-ish) question here, why are so many of US discussions so wrapped up in idolatry? Like, somehow these sociology topics, or business, or economics, or even science arguments all seem to revolve around throwing around some "significant" names.
And, while it could just be me not noticing, very few of them seem to have any significance outside of the US.
It is a recent thing, from my experience. Political discussions were not so closing linked to specific individuals back in the 2000s. I think the rise of youtube and social media had assisted in elevating people that would have had a hard time reaching so many without those platforms. But I don’t know why it is so prevalent in US politics and not in others.
a_flayer: for someone who claims to want an honest discussion on topics, you sure do like to pin people that might disagree with you into the corner and limit the words they are allowed to use.
No, you would be right to use those words if you did not see the full explanation. The thing that concerns me is that any attempt on my part to sum up would be akin to saying blacks are more violent without taking into account socioeconomic statuses, leaving you to dismiss the views presented by Haidt. Watch the videos when you have the time or even just listen to them as a podcast.
On August 11 2017 23:52 Nebuchad wrote: Kickboxer, is there some part of you that is bothered by the fact that you expressed outrage at the idea that people would argue against a Harvard professor and call him a pseudo-intellectual, and at the exact same time you're telling us that academics are systematically corrupted by this great cultural marxist conspiracy and that's why they always seem to come out against the far right on subjects?
In other words, you find it really unbecoming that people would dare to speak against an academic in the middle of this argument where you're speaking against academics?
One thing that should matter is the quality of the methodology used in the research. Are you familiar with the term autoethnobiography? As far as I can tell, certain quarters of the social sciences is filled with 'research' that amounts to journaling one's personal experiences. (autobiography + ethnicicty aka intersectional 'lived experience' recordings). At most it's duo-autoethnobiography... there research composed of themselves and a friend! It's not just STEM > all, which I wouldn't find very appealing as I came from the Humanities. But that bad research is being promulgated and good evidence based research is being replaced by subjective experience (which, I guess would make a lot of sense from a post-modern perspective) but doesn't lead to very good social science.
Incidently to the other- he's become controversial in the last year or so, but he was highly cited prior to this whole thing and it wasn't because his research was particularly controversial. He's just stood up in the last year to say, hey wait a minutes, that's not want current psychological studies demonstrate at all (or at least the ones that don't rely upon autoethnobiography.)
On August 12 2017 01:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You have to understand the amount of media the US consumes. From there, it isn't hard to understand how idolatry plays a big part in a lot of people's views on the topics you bring up.
I was thinking it couldn't be that much more, but apparently it's like 25% higher than Canadian consumption (self-reported numbers, but still).
It is also the form of our political news. We have cultivated a industry of news as entertainment, which celebrity figures delivering political discourse for entertainment. The rise of the youtube cultural critic just seems natural when that is the main source of news in the country.
On August 12 2017 00:10 Kickboxer wrote: It's specifically the social sciences that have gone to shit, hand-in-hand with the prevalent "cool" stance to identify with if you're an intelligent and also clueless adolescent.
You can't corrupt math or physics for obvious reasons, and clinical psychology is pretty close in verifiable accuracy (as in actually reliably helping people, i.e. producing demonstrable results in the real world). So I would consider him a scientist, definitely, and his "enemies" the bullshitters.
There's even a clip where he's debating a social sciences professor who, verbatim, states there are no biological differences between men and women . That is word-for-word literally what he says, and someone like that is ratified to teach in academia? I think that's a pretty fucking serious problem.
we discussed this already kickboxer, peterson hasnt even read derrida and i doubt hes read Marx. he picked up the pocket book for dummies on deconstruction and trots out words like "phallogocentrism" to dupe others who also have never read derrida.
derrida had great respect for the "classics," and was basically a philologist, like nietzsche before him. do you remember what Socrates was charged with and why he drank hemlock?
On August 12 2017 00:59 WolfintheSheep wrote: Honest(-ish) question here, why are so many of US discussions so wrapped up in idolatry? Like, somehow these sociology topics, or business, or economics, or even science arguments all seem to revolve around throwing around some "significant" names.
And, while it could just be me not noticing, very few of them seem to have any significance outside of the US.
My guess would be it's intertwined with the rise of social media (even this forum!) as a mechanism to interact politically. If you want to tweet something, it needs to be a video. If it's a video, there's someone talking. If you want to reference the video in a tweet/digestable post, you just say the person's name and maybe the title. Sharing their views links you in a way where you don't want those views to be wrong or attacked, and in the future you default to their views as well.
I guess they don't spread internationally because people would 1) rather watch people talk in their own language and 2) there are probably similar names out there others can use.
The idols in question have a big vested interest in this because it can become tremendously profitable, especially since outraged clicks from the opposing side get them even more publicity and money. So they form networks and link themselves to one another, whether directly or indirectly.
Well, that's the thing though...like, in discussions with Canadians, I rarely here arguments posed through some celebrity's name. Ditto for places like Australia or the UK. And granted, my exposure to those discussions are much lower than those for the US, it just...doesn't seem to happen at all.
On August 12 2017 00:59 WolfintheSheep wrote: Honest(-ish) question here, why are so many of US discussions so wrapped up in idolatry? Like, somehow these sociology topics, or business, or economics, or even science arguments all seem to revolve around throwing around some "significant" names.
And, while it could just be me not noticing, very few of them seem to have any significance outside of the US.
The arguments from the left come at several angles and you want linkable counter-arguments that include the disingenuous "isn't your argument racist? Isn't it anti-science? Isn't it not born out in practice? Can't we just dismiss it out of hand without consideration?" Haidt and the neutral academics as well as the more contentious Petersons out there have standing and the eloquence to take down what simply isn't true.
I'd expect less of a need if the mainstream left and some elements of the right engaged the arguments head-on, contrasted even with some of yours like "governing means actually passing bills lol." Just a thought, honest-ish.
Ah yes, and here is Danglars to make this a Right-Left issue.
The "left" does it just as much, from what I can see.
On August 12 2017 00:59 WolfintheSheep wrote: Honest(-ish) question here, why are so many of US discussions so wrapped up in idolatry? Like, somehow these sociology topics, or business, or economics, or even science arguments all seem to revolve around throwing around some "significant" names.
And, while it could just be me not noticing, very few of them seem to have any significance outside of the US.
My guess would be it's intertwined with the rise of social media (even this forum!) as a mechanism to interact politically. If you want to tweet something, it needs to be a video. If it's a video, there's someone talking. If you want to reference the video in a tweet/digestable post, you just say the person's name and maybe the title. Sharing their views links you in a way where you don't want those views to be wrong or attacked, and in the future you default to their views as well.
I guess they don't spread internationally because people would 1) rather watch people talk in their own language and 2) there are probably similar names out there others can use.
The idols in question have a big vested interest in this because it can become tremendously profitable, especially since outraged clicks from the opposing side get them even more publicity and money. So they form networks and link themselves to one another, whether directly or indirectly.
Well, that's the thing though...like, in discussions with Canadians, I rarely here arguments posed through some celebrity's name. Ditto for places like Australia or the UK. And granted, my exposure to those discussions are much lower than those for the US, it just...doesn't seem to happen at all.
Interesting. Maybe the former or current British colonies are just not as far along in the celebritization of discourse (trademark pending) as the United States. Seems like a question only social scientists could answer. Research, ho!
On August 12 2017 00:10 Kickboxer wrote: It's specifically the social sciences that have gone to shit, hand-in-hand with the prevalent "cool" stance to identify with if you're an intelligent and also clueless adolescent.
You can't corrupt math or physics for obvious reasons, and clinical psychology is pretty close in verifiable accuracy (as in actually reliably helping people, i.e. producing demonstrable results in the real world). So I would consider him a scientist, definitely, and his "enemies" the bullshitters.
There's even a clip where he's debating a social sciences professor who, verbatim, states there are no biological differences between men and women . That is word-for-word literally what he says, and someone like that is ratified to teach in academia? I think that's a pretty fucking serious problem.
What is the problem? As I've shown he makes countless statements that show a complete lack of understanding on the subjects he's discussing, yet I don't think he should be banned from teaching. I still don't understand how exactly the social sciences have been corrupted, beyond the cultural Marxism conspiracy (which for a lot of people is analogous to the Jews).
The political division in social sciences between left and right is roughly 17:1 amongst the professors. For every 17 professors who vote on the left, there's one who votes on the right. In 1996, this was 2:1. That's how it has been 'corrupted'. There are probably many explanations for this, but no matter the explanations, the result is that those 17 on the left are now confirming each other's political biases and are no longer being challenged in their political views, and through things like teaching the students and social media these views have spread like a wildfire -- largely unchallenged by intellectual thought.
It doesn't follow from your demonstration that they are now "largely unchallenged by intellectual thought". First, on its face: you do not require two people to be of different sides on the political spectrum in order for them to have an intellectual argument. Second, because one of the possible explanations for that change in political division could be that the movement from the american right in the direction of the far right has caused less and less academicians to be inclined to identify with the rightwing. It would follow worldwide trends too: you'll find extremely few far right professors in Europe and you'll find a lot that are european rightwing. If that's the case, the arguments that were made against the 2 in the 2:1 scenario are still being made, they're just made by people who are part of the 17.
Perhaps that's not the case, I don't know. Just pointing out that you haven't demonstrated your conclusion. In the case of the US specifically, I think I can make a pretty good argument that a close divide between today republican and today liberal professors wouldn't be the sign of a healthy universitarian system. One of those parties is decidedly anti-science, anti-intellectualism, uses evidently dishonest arguments on a regular basis and promptly ignores facts when they don't suit them while at the same time having the gall to proclaim themselves on the side of facts over feelings. I find it shameful, and I don't find that "neutrality" or "somewhat equal representation" is a good response in the face of those attitudes. It would not seem natural to me that a good percentage of university professors would be attracted to a party that so often wanders in those territories.
On August 12 2017 00:10 Kickboxer wrote: It's specifically the social sciences that have gone to shit, hand-in-hand with the prevalent "cool" stance to identify with if you're an intelligent and also clueless adolescent.
You can't corrupt math or physics for obvious reasons, and clinical psychology is pretty close in verifiable accuracy (as in actually reliably helping people, i.e. producing demonstrable results in the real world). So I would consider him a scientist, definitely, and his "enemies" the bullshitters.
There's even a clip where he's debating a social sciences professor who, verbatim, states there are no biological differences between men and women . That is word-for-word literally what he says, and someone like that is ratified to teach in academia? I think that's a pretty fucking serious problem.
What is the problem? As I've shown he makes countless statements that show a complete lack of understanding on the subjects he's discussing, yet I don't think he should be banned from teaching. I still don't understand how exactly the social sciences have been corrupted, beyond the cultural Marxism conspiracy (which for a lot of people is analogous to the Jews).
The political division in social sciences between left and right is roughly 17:1 amongst the professors. For every 17 professors who vote on the left, there's one who votes on the right. In 1996, this was 2:1. That's how it has been 'corrupted'. There are probably many explanations for this, but no matter the explanations, the result is that those 17 on the left are now confirming each other's political biases and are no longer being challenged in their political views, and through things like teaching the students and social media these views have spread like a wildfire -- largely unchallenged by intellectual thought.
It doesn't follow from your demonstration that they are now "largely unchallenged by intellectual thought". First, on its face: you do not require two people to be of different sides on the political spectrum in order for them to have an intellectual argument. Second, because one of the possible explanations for that change in political division could be that the movement from the american right in the direction of the far right has caused less and less academicians to be inclined to identify with the rightwing. It would follow worldwide trends too: you'll find extremely few far right professors in Europe and you'll find a lot that are european rightwing. If that's the case, the arguments that were made against the 2 in the 2:1 scenario are still being made, they're just made by people who are part of the 17.
Perhaps that's not the case, I don't know. Just pointing out that you haven't demonstrated your conclusion. In the case of the US specifically, I think I can make a pretty good argument that a close divide between today republican and today liberal professors wouldn't be the sign of a healthy universitarian system. One of those parties is decidedly anti-science, anti-intellectualism, uses evidently dishonest arguments on a regular basis and promptly ignores facts when they don't suit them while at the same time having the gall to proclaim themselves on the side of facts over feelings. I find it shameful, and I don't find that "neutrality" or "somewhat equal representation" is a good response in the face of those attitudes. It would not seem natural to me that a good percentage of university professors would be attracted to a party that so often wanders in those territories.
I told you, watch the video if you want to see how I came to the conclusion. Can you at least agree with the concept that having a bunch of stupid unintellectual people on the right constitutes a major problem for American politics? I mean... It's not a good thing, regardless of how they actually got there, yes? Especially now that the stupidest of them all is in power?
Eh the military is overly Republican by Party registration. I'm sure if you looked at other fields you'd find similar disparities. Is every field that is overwhelmingly leaning towards 1 political party corrupted or just social sciences?
On August 12 2017 00:10 Kickboxer wrote: It's specifically the social sciences that have gone to shit, hand-in-hand with the prevalent "cool" stance to identify with if you're an intelligent and also clueless adolescent.
You can't corrupt math or physics for obvious reasons, and clinical psychology is pretty close in verifiable accuracy (as in actually reliably helping people, i.e. producing demonstrable results in the real world). So I would consider him a scientist, definitely, and his "enemies" the bullshitters.
There's even a clip where he's debating a social sciences professor who, verbatim, states there are no biological differences between men and women . That is word-for-word literally what he says, and someone like that is ratified to teach in academia? I think that's a pretty fucking serious problem.
What is the problem? As I've shown he makes countless statements that show a complete lack of understanding on the subjects he's discussing, yet I don't think he should be banned from teaching. I still don't understand how exactly the social sciences have been corrupted, beyond the cultural Marxism conspiracy (which for a lot of people is analogous to the Jews).
The political division in social sciences between left and right is roughly 17:1 amongst the professors. For every 17 professors who vote on the left, there's one who votes on the right. In 1996, this was 2:1. That's how it has been 'corrupted'. There are probably many explanations for this, but no matter the explanations, the result is that those 17 on the left are now confirming each other's political biases and are no longer being challenged in their political views, and through things like teaching the students and social media these views have spread like a wildfire -- largely unchallenged by intellectual thought.
It doesn't follow from your demonstration that they are now "largely unchallenged by intellectual thought". First, on its face: you do not require two people to be of different sides on the political spectrum in order for them to have an intellectual argument. Second, because one of the possible explanations for that change in political division could be that the movement from the american right in the direction of the far right has caused less and less academicians to be inclined to identify with the rightwing. It would follow worldwide trends too: you'll find extremely few far right professors in Europe and you'll find a lot that are european rightwing. If that's the case, the arguments that were made against the 2 in the 2:1 scenario are still being made, they're just made by people who are part of the 17.
Perhaps that's not the case, I don't know. Just pointing out that you haven't demonstrated your conclusion. In the case of the US specifically, I think I can make a pretty good argument that a close divide between today republican and today liberal professors wouldn't be the sign of a healthy universitarian system. One of those parties is decidedly anti-science, anti-intellectualism, uses evidently dishonest arguments on a regular basis and promptly ignores facts when they don't suit them while at the same time having the gall to proclaim themselves on the side of facts over feelings. I find it shameful, and I don't find that "neutrality" or "somewhat equal representation" is a good response in the face of those attitudes. It would not seem natural to me that a good percentage of university professors would be attracted to a party that so often wanders in those territories.
I told you, watch the video if you want to see how I came to the conclusion. Can you at least agree with the concept that having a bunch of stupid unintellectual people on the right constitutes a major problem for American politics? I mean... It's not a good thing, regardless of how they actually got there, yes? Especially now that the stupidest of them all is in power?
Of course I agree. I'm not sure what made you think I didn't. If I could influence american politics in one way, it would be to move their center to a more logical place. So that you could decide to vote between someone like Sanders and someone like Clinton every election, instead of someone like Clinton and someone like Trump. A bunch of people in this very forum would suddenly be rightwingers, and I would argue against them instead of with them, as it should be.
On August 12 2017 01:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Eh the military is overly Republican by Party registration. I'm sure if you looked at other fields you'd find similar disparities. Is every field that is overwhelmingly leaning towards 1 political party corrupted or just social sciences?
Other fields are less so, but still left-leaning (11:1). Only economics has some semblance of balance (5:1).
On August 12 2017 01:25 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Eh the military is overly Republican by Party registration. I'm sure if you looked at other fields you'd find similar disparities. Is every field that is overwhelmingly leaning towards 1 political party corrupted or just social sciences?
I think its interesting that the argument political representation is only really applied high academia. Political parties normally court the votes and backing of specific professions, like contractors, union worker, teachers or police. But higher academia is not part courting process. Which is interesting, since primary education is not subjected to this ideological assessment in the form of ratios.
Edit: is there a transcript of that 90 minute video?
I don't have time to watch the full video and all I was curious about was if this argument applies to all fields or only acadamia and if only acadamia why? I don't care want to get into the nature of the argument so much as to just know whether it's being selectively applied.
eh.they have Business writers who need to write about something. And the market is reacting to it although it's been restrained so far. seems okay to me and it's not like they put a headline like "How will war in Korea affect your plans for a vacation in Asia" or anything. It is the Wall street journal so it's business focused. And it's not like there saying exactly what the stock market will do if there's some sort of military conflict just looking at how the complications and possibilities reflect the stock market which again is kind of their job.
Major political and geographical events tend to move the stock market.
EPT
