Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Well it doesn't explain anything historically, only individually and immediately. That is, time preference doesn't explain itself, and it is only demonstrable. One demonstrates a high or low (or medium?) time preference. We cannot, from that demonstration, tell why one has such a time preference.

My point is that racism does not explain time preference, but time preference does explain individual behaviors. If only blacks in America had HTP, or were the overwhelming group displaying HTP, then we might could pinpoint racism and/or slavery as a cause for such. But this isn't the case. The difference in ratios might point towards slavery as a factor, but not racism as a factor (if that makes sense).

I don't think you can separate slavery and racism. If a certain racial demographic exists today because of slavery, then it exists because of racism. You can't really distinguish the two.

 

[Dak]

I don't think you can separate slavery and racism. If a certain racial demographic exists today because of slavery, then it exists because of racism. You can't really distinguish the two.

I think you can, and I'm going to point towards pretty much any other ethnic minority that experiences/d racism (all of them in any given place and time), and look at how that turns out vs American blacks and slavery. Jews are the easy ones to single out due to their continued success/LTP behavior despite intense racism.

 

[Einherjar86]

You can have racism without slavery. But slavery as it manifested in the Transatlantic trade, the colonies, and the antebellum South, happened to be racist. I'm not saying that slavery as an institution and racism as an institution can never be separate; Roman slavery was based on nationality and imperialism, not race. I'm saying that the historical moment of slavery as it occurred in the Western world from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century was racist, and cannot be separated from race.

 

[Dak]

You can have racism without slavery. But slavery as it manifested in the Transatlantic trade, the colonies, and the antebellum South, happened to be racist. I'm not saying that slavery as an institution and racism as an institution can never be separate; Roman slavery was based on nationality and imperialism, not race. I'm saying that the historical moment of slavery as it occurred in the Western world from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century was racist, and cannot be separated from race.

The slavery was racist. But you can separate the effects of slavery versus racism - because we do see the absence of certain trends in the presence of even horrifically bloody racism that appear present post slavery.

 

[Einherjar86]

I find that second sentence confusing. Could you provide some examples to work with? What "trends" do you mean?

 

[Dak]

I find that second sentence confusing. Could you provide some examples to work with? What "trends" do you mean?

The ratio of HTP to LTP behavior and the behaviors that demonstrate those preferences.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, so are you saying that after the abolition of slavery there is an absence of certain types of behavior despite the lingering presence of racism? Thus, slavery was the more immediate cause of some of these behaviors, not racism. Is this accurate?

 

[Dak]

Um, yes to the second part, no to the first. The nature of slavery in the US destroyed connections with families, culture, etc., making LTP behavior extremely difficult and/or pointless. This perspective of LTP behavior as difficult, or more importantly, pointless, is difficult to recover from anyway. Even moreso when LTP behavior is identified as something important that differentiates one from the oppressor. In the presence of only racism, rather than slavery, other support and culture remain intact, if not strengthened. So that racism might be supporting the continuance of HTP behavior, this is accidental rather than causal. It merely strengthens or supports whatever the existing behavior is, and in this case, it is HTP behavior. To contrast: Jews have been virulently despised often throughout history, but without the destruction of the internal social support and culture, their LTP behavior persists and is even strengthened.

 

[Einherjar86]

Um, yes to the second part, no to the first. The nature of slavery in the US destroyed connections with families, culture, etc., making LTP behavior extremely difficult and/or pointless. This perspective of LTP behavior as difficult, or more importantly, pointless, is difficult to recover from anyway. Even moreso when LTP behavior is identified as something important that differentiates one from the oppressor. In the presence of only racism, rather than slavery, other support and culture remain intact, if not strengthened. So that racism might be supporting the continuance of HTP behavior, this is accidental rather than causal. It merely strengthens or supports whatever the existing behavior is, and in this case, it is HTP behavior. To contrast: Jews have been virulently despised often throughout history, but without the destruction of the internal social support and culture, their LTP behavior persists and is even strengthened.

I understand the contradistinction to anti-Semitism, and I agree that the behaviors we're discussing are contingent upon historical factors but not causally connected.

However, regardless of the alternative effects that racism-without-slavery can have, I'm simply still not convinced that the effects of slavery can be separated from racial factors given that the origin of these current conditions is a historically racist institution. If we're saying that a large percentage of blacks are poor and exhibit HTP tendencies, and that these conditions are a result of slavery, then we're saying that the problem is a racial one. If racism has no causal connection to specific behavioral traits, then it makes no sense to assume that racism-without-slavery will always have beneficial effects (as (oxy)moronic as that is), as you suggest with Judaism. Just to be clear, I don't think you're saying that; but even if anti-Semitism has had different effects for Jewish people, it doesn't mean that the structural effects of slavery can't still be racist.

 

[Dak]

I understand the contradistinction to anti-Semitism, and I agree that the behaviors we're discussing are contingent upon historical factors but not causally connected.

However, regardless of the alternative effects that racism-without-slavery can have, I'm simply still not convinced that the effects of slavery can be separated from racial factors given that the origin of these current conditions is a historically racist institution. If we're saying that a large percentage of blacks are poor and exhibit HTP tendencies, and that these conditions are a result of slavery, then we're saying that the problem is a racial one. If racism has no causal connection to specific behavioral traits, then it makes no sense to assume that racism-without-slavery will always have beneficial effects (as (oxy)moronic as that is), as you suggest with Judaism. Just to be clear, I don't think you're saying that; but even if anti-Semitism has had different effects for Jewish people, it doesn't mean that the structural effects of slavery can't still be racist.

I'm saying racism has pretty much the same effect regardless, as does the type of slavery practiced in colonial America. However, only one of those things specifically has a causal effect in adjusting ratios of LTP/HTP - and specifically in adjusting it only towards HTP. Racism alone merely cements existing behaviors - preventing adjustments.

That any form of slavery can be "justified" by racism has nothing to do with how it effects LTP/HTP behavior.

On a different note:

http://www.topmastersineducation.com/homeschooled/

Cool infographic. I didn't bother to chase down the sources, and given that some are from the HSLDA I'm sure someone will protest the veracity - but I doubt that the presented stats are very far from the truth. The two findings I think are most significant are that regardless of the mix of higher education in the parents (or complete absence thereof), or the amount of money spent on the education, the gains/losses in percentile performance is negligible.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have nothing against homeschooling, so I don't have any argument here. I personally feel that public schooling is a more necessary institution for parents that can't afford to stay home and teach their children; unfortunately, neither homeschooling nor public school really do a bang-up job at preparing their students for Ivy League education, if that's the goal/dream. Usually people who end up getting into those schools have parents who went, or they went to private/prep school. It's perfectly reasonable that the relative educational level is the same between homeschooling and public schooling.

I went to one of best high schools in my state (it's nationally ranked even), and I don't think a single person in my graduating class went to an Ivy League school. A lot of people ended up staying in my hometown and taking over family businesses or starting their own, which really demonstrates how strong the traditional liberalist mentality is even in regions with purportedly strong public school districts (in truth, public schooling does nothing to combat the vague ideology of individualism, despite runaway stories about how math problems are teaching collectivism and that sort of hogwash). If anything, public schooling simply teaches students how to conform easily to working citizenship, and I doubt if homeschooling is much different. After all, school is one of Althusser's ISAs (ideological state apparatuses).

 

[Dak]

I have nothing against homeschooling, so I don't have any argument here. I personally feel that public schooling is a more necessary institution for parents that can't afford to stay home and teach their children; unfortunately, neither homeschooling nor public school really do a bang-up job at preparing their students for Ivy League education, if that's the goal/dream. Usually people who end up getting into those schools have parents who went, or they went to private/prep school. It's perfectly reasonable that the relative educational level is the same between homeschooling and public schooling.

If going to Ivy League schools was the dream, I think a family that shot for that would have a better chance via HS rather than PS, but I don't know that many HS' have that as a goal.

However, the problem for both HS and PS, actual quality of education aside, is that one is not in the "right circles".

I went to one of best high schools in my state (it's nationally ranked even), and I don't think a single person in my graduating class went to an Ivy League school. A lot of people ended up staying in my hometown and taking over family businesses or starting their own, which really demonstrates how strong the traditional liberalist mentality is even in regions with purportedly strong public school districts (in truth, public schooling does nothing to combat the vague ideology of individualism, despite runaway stories about how math problems are teaching collectivism and that sort of hogwash).

It doesn't combat vague individualism. Tomorrow's worker drones must also be consumer drones which must constantly confirm their individuality through new possessions. It most certainly combats strong individualism.

If anything, public schooling simply teaches students how to conform easily to working citizenship, and I doubt if homeschooling is much different. After all, school is one of Althusser's ISAs (ideological state apparatuses).

Although I think any education essentially tries to prepare one for "working citizenship", what that - working citizenship - looks like is probably quite different depending on who you ask.

I went to look up Althusser, and scanning through a read found his definition of the State or RSA, in his words "in the Marxist tradition", to be pretty much in agreement with a Rothbardian view - if we but remove talk of bourgeoisie and proles.

 

[Einherjar86]

If going to Ivy League schools was the dream, I think a family that shot for that would have a better chance via HS rather than PS, but I don't know that many HS' have that as a goal.

However, the problem for both HS and PS, actual quality of education aside, is that one is not in the "right circles".

I agree with your second claim. As far as better chances go, at the most basic level it's impossible to say.

It doesn't combat vague individualism. Tomorrow's worker drones must also be consumer drones which must constantly confirm their individuality through new possessions. It most certainly combats strong individualism.

We should be careful, since we're introducing vague terms. I assume that by "strong" you mean the kind of individualism as argued for by philosophers you typically cite (I think I have a sufficiently accurate idea here).

Any ideal socialization process is going to combat strong individualism, and should; a privileged/biased reinforcement of strong individualism is not an educational imperative. Bear in mind, I'm targeting individualism here as a theoretical field, not as a method of practice. Education should provide space for individual growth and exploration, but it should not emphasize a myopic view of values that reinforce themselves. It should present conflicting perspectives.

Although I think any education essentially tries to prepare one for "working citizenship", what that - working citizenship - looks like is probably quite different depending on who you ask.

From the perspective of strong individualism, working citizen is likely a contradiction in terms, since free people ideally do what they choose to with their labor, while "citizen" implies that a person is a part of something larger toward which it bears a social responsibility.

 

[Dak]

We should be careful, since we're introducing vague terms. I assume that by "strong" you mean the kind of individualism as argued for by philosophers you typically cite (I think I have a sufficiently accurate idea here).

An easy generalization would be the "ideal enlightened subject". This does not preclude socialization at all, but it does change the perspective on the interaction. One comes together with others rather than being together with others.

From the perspective of strong individualism, working citizen is likely a contradiction in terms, since free people ideally do what they choose to with their labor, while "citizen" implies that a person is a part of something larger toward which it bears a social responsibility.

I see your point, but I'm not so sure these two cannot go together. By not engaging in anti-social behavior, regardless of the nature of my labor otherwise, I can be described as meeting my social responsibility.

 

[Einherjar86]

That all makes sense. "Enlightenment subject" gets into tricky areas though, since it can be (and has been in the past) very exclusionary.

 

[Dak]

That all makes sense. "Enlightenment subject" gets into tricky areas though, since it can be (and has been in the past) very exclusionary.

Yeah, I wouldn't press it into specifics. But the rational, independent, "selbstandig" individual.

 

[Dak]

Excuse me?

Someone doesn't do enough reading or thinking about the ramifications of destroying non-consumption based, historically and biologically rooted traditions.

Everything being open game to everyone creates a perfect scenario for Corporate Control, in both the "private" and "public" arena. The authors of works like this begin to understand the problem:

http://csrn.camden.rutgers.edu/newsletters/11-1/cole_crossley.htm

What we find troubling about this trend is that when discourses of consumption and women’s independence intersect, they do so in a manner that equates independent womanhood with consumption. The conflation of women’s independence and consumerism raises important questions about the shifting nature of feminism and feminist identities. The implications for this changing terrain of feminism are exhibited in many third wave feminists’ embrace of consumerism as both a choice and a source of women’s empowerment. This is a fundamental problem for feminism, since consumerism, as the cultural logic of capitalism, is the ideological and practical means to reproducing hegemonic domination of the exploitative and oppressive system global capitalism. Although feminist identities are multi-dimensional, nuanced, and often times individualist, consumption in a capitalist context is a fundamentally un-feminist thing. Because we are in a time period during which the relevance of U.S. feminism is continually contested and undermined, we feel such discourses and representations are significant, and warrant critical sociological attention.

Yet they mistakenly believe that this trend is somehow avoidable with more dialogue, when it is in fact a function of sociobiology, as it were. Humans have an intense desire to belong, and when we erase all sociotraditional means of belonging, something must take their place. Enter: Stuff. Or Populist Politics - which is always built on Stuff. Furthermore, as even genders are erased, there are finally zero limits to what one can consume - opening "infinite markets" for any product.

 

[Einherjar86]

But similar to what was said earlier, I'm not saying the hypothetical reactions I proposed above warrants censorship. All we can do is talk about it.

I agree with this, and I'll say more below.

I would totally upvote the shit out of this post.

Of course you would.

You do realize that this is nonsense, right? Overturning the patriarchy is one thing and something that I support, but this is a battle in the clouds.

I'm not sure I see why challenging gender expectations is so unrealistic.

Continue to support consumerist corporatism with your ideals.

What is the point of this accusation? Is your point that raising issues of feminism, as Addo suggests we should continue to do, merely perpetuates corporatist hegemony? Or are you saying that critical intellectual thought has been appropriated by, and assimilated into, corporatist culture?

What is the way out here?

 

[Dak]

What is the point of this accusation? Is your point that raising issues of feminism, as Addo suggests we should continue to do, merely perpetuates corporatist hegemony? Or are you saying that critical intellectual thought has been appropriated by, and assimilated into, corporatist culture?

What is the way out here?

See my prior post.

 

[Einherjar86]

I read it actually. I don't see how your "functions of sociobiology" support your argument. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that no matter what we do to rid ourselves of consumerist trends, new ones will simply appear. Even if all ideals are bound to be subsumed under a consumerist hegemonic system, why must we abandon them?