|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
Canada11279 Posts
On August 11 2017 22:08 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:54 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On August 11 2017 03:42 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job. Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering. For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.) Peterson is the pseudo-intellectual flag a lot of the alt right like to wave. I actually just wrote to the BusinessInsider on this issue... I doubt they'll read it. There is a fundamental difference between being popular with a certain group and it is not the same thing as belonging to the group. While he didn't shy away from their frog memes, I have yet to see him identify as an alt-righter and in fact, I believe he has expressed some concern over certain elements of the alt-right. (Certainly, he doesn't buy into the identitarian wing of the alt-right... though that might be the whole of it. And he is adamantly against the Jew-hating wing of the alt-right.) Also, in what sense is he a pseudo-intellectual? In his field of psychology, he is highly cited, which cannot be said for the field as a whole, 80% are not cited at all. (It's one thing to 'publish or perish', it's another thing if people actually read what you published- which is why number of citations has some bearing on his scholarship or lack therof.) l I understand that he's respected in psychology, but when it comes to the philosophical side of his content he essentially just makes stuff up. it is his conflation of fields like postmodernism with Marxism (they are distinctly opposed) as well as with various SJW movements that is intellectually dishonest and misleading. A lot of what he says on these topics are designed to make an audience that already dislikes SJWs feel like they have some sort of intellectual justification for it. Take, for example, his claim that 20% of professors in the USA are Marxist. This could well be true, but it shouldn't actually be alarming in any way as it's a completely legitimate academic position to hold. He links it in with the campus culture that denies speakers the chance to speak though, and suddenly we're in to the postmodernist conspiracy propagated through colleges and universities through the United States. He is a complete bullshit merchant.
So it is fair to say that he claims that post-modernism is neo-Marxism, but doesn't support that claim. I don't think he's really evidenced that except to say the first thinkers of post-modernism were Marxist. This is one part that I wanted to dig down a bit more because I don't like such strong assertions that are not supported (I wish at some point, you would lay out this argument clearly.) However, one thing I stumbled upon is a two part lecture on postmodernism by Stephen Hicks. He also claims that post-modernism comes from Marxist thinkers- so Derrida, Foucault, those guys were Marxists. However, he proposes the following claim and hypothesis. Marxism's major claims were demonstrated to be false by the mid 21st Century. But not just not true, but the very opposite of what Marxism claimed would happen was happening: rather than less and less people becoming wealthy and more and more people dropping into poverty, a greater number of people were becoming wealthy and the standard of living for everyone was increasing by leaps and bounds in the West.
Therefore, he suggests if one holds to ideology (and he intimates that there is a religious element to Marxism- it has it's own eschatology, a heaven on earth) and the facts of the idealogy do not come true, you have two options. One is to switch idealogies (what you believed was false and so believe something else) or Two is to deny the facts... or in post-modernism's case undermine the very idea that we can know facts.
It's an interesting theory- I don't know if anyone has thoughts on it. I now have his post-modern book on my e-reader, so I want to see if his argument holds up.
However, where Peterson came into play was regarding Damore, which was directly related to personality studies in psychology... and that is exactly in field. So that's why I would question the pseudo-intellectual claim in this instance. I can see not liking a lot of his post-modern rhetoric. ...on the Marxist front, now that I've read volume I of Gulag Archipelago, I think I understand why he has such a great concern for Marxism- little turns of phrases he uses, I see in Gulag- and while perhaps he overstates the problem in North America, there are certain echoes of 'right think' that perhaps parallel modern rhetoric... however, currently we do lack a major buy in to a particular idealogy that could actualize such sweeping changes to our society.
|
On August 12 2017 01:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
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.
Well, as I said, there is only some semblance of equality in the fields of economics. Which is interesting, don't you think? Considering there also just happens to be some semblance of a consensus on economics in politics (according to Hillary, at least, who said almost literally that to the people at Goldman Sachs).
|
On August 12 2017 01:52 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 22:08 kollin wrote:On August 11 2017 04:54 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On August 11 2017 03:42 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job. Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering. For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.) Peterson is the pseudo-intellectual flag a lot of the alt right like to wave. I actually just wrote to the BusinessInsider on this issue... I doubt they'll read it. There is a fundamental difference between being popular with a certain group and it is not the same thing as belonging to the group. While he didn't shy away from their frog memes, I have yet to see him identify as an alt-righter and in fact, I believe he has expressed some concern over certain elements of the alt-right. (Certainly, he doesn't buy into the identitarian wing of the alt-right... though that might be the whole of it. And he is adamantly against the Jew-hating wing of the alt-right.) Also, in what sense is he a pseudo-intellectual? In his field of psychology, he is highly cited, which cannot be said for the field as a whole, 80% are not cited at all. (It's one thing to 'publish or perish', it's another thing if people actually read what you published- which is why number of citations has some bearing on his scholarship or lack therof.) l I understand that he's respected in psychology, but when it comes to the philosophical side of his content he essentially just makes stuff up. it is his conflation of fields like postmodernism with Marxism (they are distinctly opposed) as well as with various SJW movements that is intellectually dishonest and misleading. A lot of what he says on these topics are designed to make an audience that already dislikes SJWs feel like they have some sort of intellectual justification for it. Take, for example, his claim that 20% of professors in the USA are Marxist. This could well be true, but it shouldn't actually be alarming in any way as it's a completely legitimate academic position to hold. He links it in with the campus culture that denies speakers the chance to speak though, and suddenly we're in to the postmodernist conspiracy propagated through colleges and universities through the United States. He is a complete bullshit merchant. So it is fair to say that he claims that post-modernism is neo-Marxism, but doesn't support that claim. I don't think he's really evidenced that except to say the first thinkers of post-modernism were Marxist. This is one part that I wanted to dig down a bit more because I don't like such strong assertions that are not supported (I wish at some point, you would lay out this argument clearly.) However, one thing I stumbled upon is a two part lecture on postmodernism by Stephen Hicks. He also claims that post-modernism comes from Marxist thinkers- so Derrida, Foucault, those guys were Marxists. However, he proposes the following claim and hypothesis. Marxism's major claims were demonstrated to be false by the mid 21st Century. But not just not true, but the very opposite of what Marxism claimed would happen was happening: rather than less and less people becoming wealthy and more and more people dropping into poverty, a greater number of people were becoming wealthy and the standard of living for everyone was increasing by leaps and bounds in the West. Therefore, he suggests if one holds to ideology (and he intimates that there is a religious element to Marxism- it has it's own eschatology, a heaven on earth) and the facts of the idealogy do not come true, you have two options. One is to switch idealogies (what you believed was false and so believe something else) or Two is to deny the facts... or in post-modernism's case undermine the very idea that we can know facts. It's an interesting theory- I don't know if anyone has thoughts on it. I now have his post-modern book on my e-reader, so I want to see if his argument holds up.
Foucault dismissed Marxism out of hand, Marxism isn't "post-modernist", people like Peterson just throw those words around as vague slurs.
|
Canada11279 Posts
Well there's a lot of ways to look at the claim. Marxism is postmodernism is not the same thing as postmodernism is Marxist. The first is obviously not true- Marxism developed well before (in Modernism?), but I don't think that was ever claimed, the second is possible as an extention of the idealogy, or perhaps one laid the groundwork for the other- I think this is Peterson's claim (or perhaps neo-Marxist), but what is also possible is that postmodernism came from Marxism... maybe as a disillusionment of Marxism (which admittedly is not the same thing), although to some extent as a self-contradictory extension of Marxism and perhaps Modernism- Hick's claim. (Hick seemed to like pointing out the contradictions in post-modernist claims.)
But maybe he's mistaken on that front.
The main reason he was brought up was due to psychological studies with males and females- that's his field. To some extent, his views on politics are irrelevant to that and more a way of dismissing his expertise in his field by focusing on where he isn't necessarily an expert. The relevance is somewhat connected in that the post-modernism is the causal explanation for why he thinks the social sciences are so bad methodologically. But one doesn't have to dig too deep to find evidence of a problem- autoethnobiographies all over the place. Why autoethnobiographies are considered valid research is another thing, but he's right about pointing that there is a methodology problem, even if he hasn't properly nailed down the reason for the problem.
|
You might say that people teaching in college moved towards the left because the right is so out of touch with educated people, but I think that's far too simple. Colleges have always been left leaning, but only recently did they spiral out of control towards the sociological left. I think that there are many factors that are in play here that feed into each other.
It's to do with social media, bubbles, education, politics, and the interaction between all things and probably many more that I can't name off the top of my head as they exist in society. This includes all the videos of black people being brutalized by police, this includes the likes of Milo. It is a vast network of action-reaction in the culture war. It's 4chan. Memes. Everything you can possibly think of that involves humans and social interaction. Colleges have clearly played a huge part in it over the past 20 years.
Part of the reason why people in social sciences moved towards the left is because of - and again, I hate using the word because it gets a backlash - identity politics. Identity politics prescribes social change to accommodate for certain identities. Those identities that are left out of this change will naturally flock to the opposing side.
To suggest that professors moved towards the political left because the political left is the only good way to look at the problems is not the right approach. It's certainly true now, because of the polarization, but if there had been a wider array of right-leaning researchers in the social sciences over the past 20 years they could have given their perspective and views, and provided the political right with properly understood, scientifically backed views on society. And also possible right-wing solutions to these issues. And if those existed, educated people who view these issues as important wouldn't be flocking to the left, thereby draining the political right of any intellectual thought on social issues and allowing extremists pseudo intellectuals to lead the charge in that field instead.
It will be very difficult to unweave the web that has been spun in the way that it has been. Everyone continues to blame each other, unable to look at the other side with any sort of honesty. Even when people with reasonably backed views show up, they are immediately dismissed by the other side because of the extreme level of polarization. Hopefully we can agree that is exactly what happened here in this very thread with that Google Memo guy.
|
The term "Post-Modernism" (and "Post-Structuralism," to a lesser extent) can cogently refer to and/or implicate the works/thoughts of, in no particular order, through recollection of works I have read, and by list that is no means exhaustive: Roland Barthes, George S. Trow, Jean Baudrillard, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, Gilles Deleuze, Paul Ricoeur (my personal favorite theorist), Jaques Derrida, Thomas Pynchon, Haruki Murakami, William Gaddis, Don DeLillo, Jean Francois Lyotard, David Foster Wallace, Samuel Beckett, Jurgen Habermas, Tom Stoppard, Junot Diaz, bell hooks, W.G. Sebald, Michel Houellebecq, Alain Badiou, Bruno Latour, Fredric Jameson, Umberto Eco, Salmon Rushdie, and of course dozens more. It is important to note that many of the preceding authors would balk at being considered "post-modern," yet each contributes something in a manner that fits enough to warrant the label.
Naturally, such a conclusion begs the enormous question as to what exactly post-modernism is, and that is indeed the stuff of the problems inherent to criticism a la Stephen Hicks. The point of the preceding list is that anyone who labels their target "post-modernism" better spend a lot of time narrowing their focus and honing in on exactly what they're trying to criticize; otherwise, one might as well feel their martial skill truly vindicated when they hit a piñata, blindfold notwithstanding. Western academia is literally full to the brim with people who read, criticize, and incorporate the thoughts of folks on that list, so while it'd be accurate to label them all "post-modernists," that label is rather unhelpful without some qualification, especially given how much conflict and disagreement exists among folks supposedly belonging to the same Marxist team.
Pomo Marxism and its related schools of thought are most definitely a component of "post-modernism" and can be critiqued as such; however, the same can be said for Pomo Marxists who think the other Pomo Marxists are terribly stupid, disgruntled media theorists upset that folks keep looking at that fucking TV instead of reading their New Yorker column, crazed playwrights hellbent on destroying theatrical convention through excruciating, prolonged expose, and multicultural authors looking to relay a tale of their upbringing through pastiche national and local history. Accordingly, one ought be very wary of folks who want to sit them down and say, "So here's the problem with liberal postmodern education....blah blah blah.....everyone in the ivory tower thinks alike and that's bad!"
(I left Gianni Vattimo off the list because fuck that guy  )
|
On August 12 2017 01:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 01:00 a_flayer wrote:On August 12 2017 00:14 kollin wrote: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.
I don't think that this explanation is consistent at all with the landscape in 2017 though. If there was a 2:1 split in 1996 and a rightward spectrum shift caused the ratio to become 17:1 in favor of the Left, you'd expect that many social science academics (former right-wingers) would be today's center left. In reality, today's social science academics are one of the furthest left group in American society.
From another angle, the most recognizable leftward social cause in the 1990s was gay marriage. However, contrary to your explanation, America has actually moved left on social issues--gay marriage is mostly accepted nowadays (certainly compared to the 90s). With those victories, the Left has moved further... well left on social issues because the ground they were on has become more or less the center. Modern feminism, microagressions, increasing scrutiny on politically incorrect speech (actively trying to avoid trigger words here, not sure if it's working), etc
There's definitely been a growth in the popularity of the "Far Right" in the past few years, but the positions they're taking (basically anti-feminism, anti-PC, anti-gay marriage) are more holding their ground in response to a leftward shift then any shift to the right.
I don't believe you were referring to a leftward shift in the spectrum, as that would leave more academics on the right (unless my mind is broken atm).
|
On August 12 2017 02:29 a_flayer wrote:
You might say that people teaching in college moved towards the left because the right is so out of touch with educated people, but I think that's far too simple. Colleges have always been left leaning, but only recently did they spiral out of control towards the sociological left. I think that there are many factors that are in play here that feed into each other.
It's to do with social media, bubbles, education, politics, and the interaction between all things and probably many more that I can't name off the top of my head as they exist in society. This includes all the videos of black people being brutalized by police, this includes the likes of Milo. It is a vast network of action-reaction in the culture war. It's 4chan. Memes. Everything you can possibly think of that involves humans and social interaction. Colleges have clearly played a huge part in it over the past 20 years.
To suggest that professors moved towards the political left because the political left is the only good way to look at the problems is not the right approach. It's certainly true now, because of the polarization, but if there had been a wider array of right-leaning researchers in the social sciences over the past 20 years they could have given their perspective and views, and provided the political right with properly understood, scientifically backed views on society. And also possible right-wing solutions to these issues. And if those existed, educated people who view these issues as important wouldn't be flocking to the left, thereby draining the political right of any intellectual thought on social issues.
I think Haidt also said that the right doesn't want social change in society (which is obviously correct), and that schools are geared towards change, which is part of why social sciences go towards the left. But that still leaves us with the problem. So... solutions to this? I think they need to be found somehow, but I don't have the answers.
I mean, even people in this thread have constantly called sociology a liberal fluff degree, so it's not really shocking why people who are "right-leaning" would not want to pursue such an education or career.
Liberal arts, social sciences, etc. are generally seen as part of the problem.
|
The idea that the fight over same-sex marriage is over doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Folks are still fighting the holding throughout the South and Midwest.
A case being debated by the Texas Supreme Court could restrict the ability of married same-sex couples to access spousal benefits as part of a campaign by far-right extremists to overturn the 2015 federal ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Last week the state’s highest court heard arguments in Pidgeon v. Turner, a case filed on behalf of two Houston residents, Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks. These two complainants argue that the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing marriage between same sex couples doesn’t extend to the provision of benefits like health insurance. The suit was originally filed against the city of Houston, which allowed LGBT city employees to place their same-sex spouses on their insurance plans following the 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Annise Parker, then the mayor of Houston, had decided that if the federal government couldn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, neither could the city and she championed legislation to secure that right. But the complainants filed suit against Houston, arguing that the state’s constitutional ban on marriage between same-sex partners, which had been voted on by referendum in 2005, should supercede the Supreme Court’s decision.
“A state court’s ultimate obligation is to the Constitution, not to the jargon and innovations created by Supreme Court justices,” lawyers representing Pidgeon and Hicks claimed in court filings, adding, “Obergefell may require states to license and recognize same-sex marriages, but that does not require states to give taxpayer subsidies to same-sex couples — any more than Roe v. Wade requires states to subsidize abortions or abortion providers.”
In September the Texas Supreme Court had initially declined in a 8-1 decision to hear the case The only dissenter, Justice John Devine, argued that insurance benefits should be exclusively offered to opposite-sex couples because theirs are “the only marital [relationships] where children are raised by their biological parents.” In January, however, the court reversed its decision following months of lobbying efforts by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed an amicus brief urging the bench to reconsider.
If the Texas Supreme Court had already turned down the case, why would it agree to take it up just months later? The court “caved to political pressure, ” Chuck Smith, the CEO of Equality Texas, claimed.
“The Texas Supreme Court got it right the first time when they were asked to hear this case and turned it down,” Smith argued. “The reason they’re hearing it now is plain politics — pure and simple. Our Supreme Court justices in the state of Texas are elected. They’re elected by party.”
Source
|
On August 12 2017 01:52 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 22:08 kollin wrote:On August 11 2017 04:54 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On August 11 2017 03:42 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job. Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering. For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.) Peterson is the pseudo-intellectual flag a lot of the alt right like to wave. I actually just wrote to the BusinessInsider on this issue... I doubt they'll read it. There is a fundamental difference between being popular with a certain group and it is not the same thing as belonging to the group. While he didn't shy away from their frog memes, I have yet to see him identify as an alt-righter and in fact, I believe he has expressed some concern over certain elements of the alt-right. (Certainly, he doesn't buy into the identitarian wing of the alt-right... though that might be the whole of it. And he is adamantly against the Jew-hating wing of the alt-right.) Also, in what sense is he a pseudo-intellectual? In his field of psychology, he is highly cited, which cannot be said for the field as a whole, 80% are not cited at all. (It's one thing to 'publish or perish', it's another thing if people actually read what you published- which is why number of citations has some bearing on his scholarship or lack therof.) l I understand that he's respected in psychology, but when it comes to the philosophical side of his content he essentially just makes stuff up. it is his conflation of fields like postmodernism with Marxism (they are distinctly opposed) as well as with various SJW movements that is intellectually dishonest and misleading. A lot of what he says on these topics are designed to make an audience that already dislikes SJWs feel like they have some sort of intellectual justification for it. Take, for example, his claim that 20% of professors in the USA are Marxist. This could well be true, but it shouldn't actually be alarming in any way as it's a completely legitimate academic position to hold. He links it in with the campus culture that denies speakers the chance to speak though, and suddenly we're in to the postmodernist conspiracy propagated through colleges and universities through the United States. He is a complete bullshit merchant. So it is fair to say that he claims that post-modernism is neo-Marxism, but doesn't support that claim. I don't think he's really evidenced that except to say the first thinkers of post-modernism were Marxist. This is one part that I wanted to dig down a bit more because I don't like such strong assertions that are not supported (I wish at some point, you would lay out this argument clearly.) However, one thing I stumbled upon is a two part lecture on postmodernism by Stephen Hicks. He also claims that post-modernism comes from Marxist thinkers- so Derrida, Foucault, those guys were Marxists. However, he proposes the following claim and hypothesis. Marxism's major claims were demonstrated to be false by the mid 21st Century. But not just not true, but the very opposite of what Marxism claimed would happen was happening: rather than less and less people becoming wealthy and more and more people dropping into poverty, a greater number of people were becoming wealthy and the standard of living for everyone was increasing by leaps and bounds in the West. Therefore, he suggests if one holds to ideology (and he intimates that there is a religious element to Marxism- it has it's own eschatology, a heaven on earth) and the facts of the idealogy do not come true, you have two options. One is to switch idealogies (what you believed was false and so believe something else) or Two is to deny the facts... or in post-modernism's case undermine the very idea that we can know facts. It's an interesting theory- I don't know if anyone has thoughts on it. I now have his post-modern book on my e-reader, so I want to see if his argument holds up. However, where Peterson came into play was regarding Damore, which was directly related to personality studies in psychology... and that is exactly in field. So that's why I would question the pseudo-intellectual claim in this instance. I can see not liking a lot of his post-modern rhetoric. ...on the Marxist front, now that I've read volume I of Gulag Archipelago, I think I understand why he has such a great concern for Marxism- little turns of phrases he uses, I see in Gulag- and while perhaps he overstates the problem in North America, there are certain echoes of 'right think' that perhaps parallel modern rhetoric... however, currently we do lack a major buy in to a particular idealogy that could actualize such sweeping changes to our society.
Stephen Hicks likes to dabble in Randian Objectivism and is the head of a center for "entrepreneurism" so I don't think you should bother reading him for insights into Marx. His thesis, if you restate it correctly, that Marxists in the 60s and 70s were dismayed that people were "getting richer" is dumb for at least two reasons 1) thats not contrary to what Marx says; he had great respect for capital's ability to generate material wealth and 2) post-modernism has very little to do with "denying the facts" and even less to do with denying the facts in order to validate some non-existent Marxian dogma.
May '68 of course influenced almost all of the early "post-modern" thinkers (most were French after all), but it was always in complicated ways. But if you want to understand "post-modernism" (a term btw that practically none of the seminal "post-modernists" self-identified as; for all the easy classification that goes on in discussions amongst people who have never even read the people they are discussing, most philosophers and intellectuald are loathe to brand themselves as this or that) you'd first have to understand "modernity."
|
Marxism developed before most of modern psychology and finding out what motivates men. I wouldn't take The Communist Manifesto or Karl Marx's other writings as infallible sacred texts, along with the bible, as some people do. Maybe it's time to move on.
|
Canada11279 Posts
@Igne- sorry, I was trying to summarize. Capital should accumulate in fewer and fewer hands was closer to what he said. Whereas by the mid 21st Century, capital was gained, but appearing in more and more hands. That's more or less what he was saying.
Denying the facts... as in casting doubt objectivity in sciences- we should be open to alternative ways of knowing.
you'd first have to understand "modernity."
That's where he starts.
He also acknowledges the first thing when he sets out to define post-modernism is that
"the fairly standard rejoinder by post modernists at this point, they will object to the whole idea of defining postmodernism. This resistance is part of the philosophical package. Post modernists love plurality and ambiguity. They don't much like singularity and precision. The idea that there is a correct definition is suspiciously like part that of that Western realist objectivist package implying pigeonholing, dissecting, pinning things down, trying to sort out necessary and sufficient conditions like scientists do. Well, I say that's damn right, and I love it. Concepts mean what they mean that is the source of their power and the networks of concepts that make up post-modernism is no exception."
|
On August 12 2017 02:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 02:29 a_flayer wrote:
You might say that people teaching in college moved towards the left because the right is so out of touch with educated people, but I think that's far too simple. Colleges have always been left leaning, but only recently did they spiral out of control towards the sociological left. I think that there are many factors that are in play here that feed into each other.
It's to do with social media, bubbles, education, politics, and the interaction between all things and probably many more that I can't name off the top of my head as they exist in society. This includes all the videos of black people being brutalized by police, this includes the likes of Milo. It is a vast network of action-reaction in the culture war. It's 4chan. Memes. Everything you can possibly think of that involves humans and social interaction. Colleges have clearly played a huge part in it over the past 20 years.
To suggest that professors moved towards the political left because the political left is the only good way to look at the problems is not the right approach. It's certainly true now, because of the polarization, but if there had been a wider array of right-leaning researchers in the social sciences over the past 20 years they could have given their perspective and views, and provided the political right with properly understood, scientifically backed views on society. And also possible right-wing solutions to these issues. And if those existed, educated people who view these issues as important wouldn't be flocking to the left, thereby draining the political right of any intellectual thought on social issues.
I think Haidt also said that the right doesn't want social change in society (which is obviously correct), and that schools are geared towards change, which is part of why social sciences go towards the left. But that still leaves us with the problem. So... solutions to this? I think they need to be found somehow, but I don't have the answers. I mean, even people in this thread have constantly called sociology a liberal fluff degree, so it's not really shocking why people who are "right-leaning" would not want to pursue such an education or career. Liberal arts, social sciences, etc. are generally seen as part of the problem.
That isn’t new either. I remember going to college in the late 90s people quested questioning sociology as a science. Even child developmental studies had some strong detractors. The tension between the “hard(aka older) sciences” and the social sciences seems to have always existed. I don’t’ think it is a problem either. The same dynamic exists between different areas of study in history.
|
On August 12 2017 02:49 Falling wrote:
@Igne- sorry, I was trying to summarize. Capital should accumulate in fewer and fewer hands was closer to what he said. Whereas by the mid 21st Century, capital was gained, but appearing in more and more hands. That's more or less what he was saying.
Funny how the French strikers in '68 didn't see it that way.
|
How can you say that going from 2:1 in 1996 to 17:1 in 2017 is not evidence of a problem? It is the exact expression of the problem of polarization, and it all ties in with views on social justice, identity politics, etc.
I give up. I hope your country burns in a civil war.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 12 2017 02:49 Falling wrote:
@Igne- sorry, I was trying to summarize. Capital should accumulate in fewer and fewer hands was closer to what he said. Whereas by the mid 21st Century, capital was gained, but appearing in more and more hands. That's more or less what he was saying.
Denying the facts... as in casting doubt objectivity in sciences- we should be open to alternative ways of knowing.
I highly recommend Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge relative to the latter 
|
@Falling: is capital actually getting proportionally into more and more people's hands?
I'm not denying standard of living being higher. I'm talking about the absolute percentage of people who hold x% of the total capital versus the rest that hold y% of the capital. Then and now. Is it? What's the cut off?
For some reason I think that, not because we've constructed a quite reliable society for ourselves, which I'm happy to be a part of, there's an exuberant amount (like literally a hallucinatory amount) of resources unavailable to the general public. If you get a glimpse of the actual wealth the top whatever % of the population actually has, you just start to despair.
@a_flyer: look dude, pressing your political views on your students is highly unethical as it's an abuse of power situation in my opinion. I don't like it when professors do let their views trickle into their lectures for whatever reason they see fit. Ideologies and opinions should be formed on student's own accord. So on a superficial sense, the 17:1 or whatever ratio shouldn't be a problem. If in the political/social sciences, however, this does happen (and it seems like it does) that the professor spends time trying to "convert" their students with cherrypicked data to suit his views, then they should be expelled. Higher education is to let students distill their own view of the world. Fire the known ideologues, left and right (which conveniently frees up tenured blocked spots) and replace them with people willing to shed light on both sides of the story, if there both sides of the story need to be told (aka in political, social, law(???) courses).
|
On August 12 2017 02:56 a_flayer wrote:
How can you say that going from 2:1 in 1996 to 17:1 in 2017 is not evidence of a problem? It is the exact expression of the problem of polarization, and it all ties in with views on social justice, identity politics, etc.
Explain why it is a problem? There is still disagreement within the field of study. There views have not been reduced to a binary state. The only agreement cited so far is which side of the media driven political spectrum they identify as. There can be division within that spectrum. This thread shows there can be large divisions within the left.
|
On August 12 2017 02:49 Falling wrote:@Igne- sorry, I was trying to summarize. Capital should accumulate in fewer and fewer hands was closer to what he said. Whereas by the mid 21st Century, capital was gained, but appearing in more and more hands. That's more or less what he was saying. Denying the facts... as in casting doubt objectivity in sciences- we should be open to alternative ways of knowing. That's where he starts. He also acknowledges the first thing when he sets out to define post-modernism is that "the fairly standard rejoinder by post modernists at this point, they will object to the whole idea of defining postmodernism. This resistance is part of the philosophical package."
Why would someone who hates being labeled "post-modern," likely due at least in part to its use in target practice, attempt to define it?
|
On August 12 2017 01:41 Doodsmack wrote:Yes, and you voted for the guy making ad hoc nuclear war threats against North Korea.
And the part you didn't quote shows a guy wanting someone to shut up the chief diplomat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
