Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Well this exploded!

Ein sort of answered this already but I think there were two ways to answer the question I proposed. One to argue against our level of 'democracy' in America and one to (re)define what democracy is. I kinda just posted that link to get some discussion about a news show that is better than most, imo, and seems to have this kind of crap on it. Not sure if anyone else subscribes to the Breakingtheset youtube feed, but I do and it usually has some interesting things like Vice.

Yeah, that's why I wasn't upset without a direct response to the video. I mean you guys are way over my head most of the time and I was just bored and interested in hearing some other opinions about it.

Usually interested in debates, especially if I can kinda look like I know what i'm talking about.

I think it's a good and important question. To be honest, less than a year ago I was fed up with notions of democracy and political rationalizations in the name of democracy. It seemed to be an archaic institution that met with failure after failure. Hägglund's argument about democracy, by way of Derrida, illuminated a new way for me to think about democracy that explained why it kept meeting with failure after failure. And not for the purpose of salvaging democracy, but for the purpose of exposing a false consciousness of democracy itself; for Derrida, modern belief about democracy is rooted in a paradoxical belief about what democracy is.

Well, to begin with, I'm not caught up in some idea of his defending what it is I loathe, because he doesn't appear to be speaking of that thing. When Hoppe speaks of it, it is recognizable, but not when Derrida speaks of it. If (and I do mean if), the tortured explication of Derrida's meaning is in fact the same thing, then Derrida should have worked on that. However, I don't think so, because from what I can google on deconstructionism in general, and Derrida in particular, it/he shows no particular attachment to meaning. So I have no reason to accept that when Derrida uses any word, he means what I mean, because he doesn't accept that I mean anything(or even that he means anything?) - at least - he doesn't think that/mean that we mean what we mean when we attempt to mean meanings. So how can anyone claim to mean what Derrida means in his meanings? Derrida's meanings preclude meaning, that is, what is the meaning of his meaning, or more precisely, what does his meaning mean? Maybe more broadly, do his meanings have meaning?

Because Google is a great way to learn about these things. I know you don't have the time to read all the stuff I do, but don't mistakenly believe that you can get a good handle on it from a quick Google search.

Derrida has a profound attachment to meaning, perhaps the most profound attachment to meaning of any modern philosopher. It's easy to disregard him because he complicates what meaning is, and how it works. You just regurgitated the typical ignorant resistance to Derrida by those who simply don't have the time to think about what he writes.

I don't want to be get overly confrontational, but you're the one who's not saying anything useful in this conversation.

 

[Dak]

Bubbles aside, Google is at least as good a way to learn about things as any old biased professor. I have read Derrida on 9/11 (for instance). A lot of what he said [in the middle] made perfect sense, but his entry was masturbatory, and his conclusion facepalmy. That the ending and conclusion go together isn't surprising. He did seem to approach a candor that his "official writings" certainly aren't privy too.

On a different note, I did offer something useful, specially towards what rms was talking about on the outset.

 

[Einherjar86]

Bubbles aside, Google is at least as good a way to learn about things as any old biased professor.

You're an odd duck.

 

[Dak]

You're an odd duck.

I never claimed to be otherwise

But seriously. Most professors are older, and everyone is biased, so that label shouldn't be all that controversial. Given that I've lost count on how many times I've been instructed directly or indirectly to google something by a professor, it seems that even they also think it is quite useful. Not that that's a bad thing, the most we can hope for or need in most cases are mere "signposts" as it were, pointing the way.
I count myself fortunate to have had a handful of professors who have been more than that, but it isn't a majority.

In regards to political organization, all will fail at some point. Democracy has (at least) an additional problem that maybe other concepts don't have, and that is the lack of responsibility in any given voter (or representative in a rep. democracy). This immediately creates problems of moral hazard.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, everyone is biased. But I also know your personality, and I know that you like to jump on calling professors out. You're biased against professors, due to your skepticism of academia in general.

Finally, as I have said at least twice already, Derrida is critiquing democracy. It doesn't look like the thing you know because he's revealing something about it that has remained hidden, or obscured, due to the political obsession with democracy in the West. You seem to be levying a critique at him for attacking something that isn't democracy at all; but that's not the case. You have to start at the beginning and watch how he deconstructs democracy down into something that looks different.

 

[Dak]

Yes, everyone is biased. But I also know your personality, and I know that you like to jump on calling professors out. You're biased against professors, due to your skepticism of academia in general.

I'm biased in that I don't think that academia, particularly in terms of the educational end, is worthy of it's golden calf status. What I've heard and observed in the last 2+ years has "confirmed the bias". 10% of professors appear excellent, probably 80% are just there, and another 10% are horrible. Not that this is probably any different than other sort of organizational breakdown, but hardly anything else benefits from such an extreme halo effect.

Finally, as I have said at least twice already, Derrida is critiquing democracy. It doesn't look like the thing you know because he's revealing something about it that has remained hidden, or obscured, due to the political obsession with democracy in the West. You seem to be levying a critique at him for attacking something that isn't democracy at all; but that's not the case. You have to start at the beginning and watch how he deconstructs democracy down into something that looks different.

Well does he have anything specific on this, or is it buried amongst multiple disparate writings? I would ask for something concise but that wouldn't be a fair request .

On a different yet related note, I used Digg Reader for my RSS service, but also use it to keep tabs on the progressive zeitgeist in the form of the main Digg feed. Every one in a while I see something that has, or should have, the complete opposite of its intended effect:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L44aX-pUTGE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L44aX-pUTGE[/ame]

Ignoring the ridiculous equivocation of Voter ID requirements with a literacy test, the fact that supposed Harvard students are flummoxed by questions like "Write right from the left to the right" and "Write backwards forwards" "Print a word that looks the same whether it is forwards or backwards" leaves me wishing for the return of such tests - maybe in the course of, you know, education. I'm further horrified at the degradation of US education in general, and frightened by every person disappearing behind the red white and blue curtains.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm biased in that I don't think that academia, particularly in terms of the educational end, is worthy of it's golden calf status. What I've heard and observed in the last 2+ years has "confirmed the bias".

But you see the conflict inherent in this, right? Your observation cannot be separated from your bias. It isn't some means of pure calculation. We often can't even tell how our biases are operating, how they condition even the way in which we observe things around us. Your observations in no way confirm your biases to be true in any absolute sense. Even saying "my observations confirm my biases" is not only ambiguous (does it confirm that your biases are "true," or that you have biases?), but it is also contradictory: your observations are conditioned by your biases.

Ignoring the ridiculous equivocation of Voter ID requirements with a literacy test, the fact that supposed Harvard students are flummoxed by questions like "Write right from the left to the right" and "Write backwards forwards" "Print a word that looks the same whether it is forwards or backwards" leaves me wishing for the return of such tests - maybe in the course of, you know, education. I'm further horrified at the degradation of US education in general, and frightened by every person disappearing behind the red white and blue curtains.

I find it indescribably frustrating that you would view this as evidence of decreasing educational standards.

That test was not required for everyone; it was required for those who could not prove education past a fifth-grade level. Who specifically do you think could not prove this?

The test is not meant to prove any amount of literacy. It was meant to keep black people from voting. The test has nothing to do with literacy, and everything to do with voting. Why the fuck would anyone need to learn how to write backwards? It was specifically meant to target black people, many of whom could not prove education beyond the fifth grade, and to prevent them from voting.

Furthermore, the test is incredibly difficult whether you're educated or not. White people back then wouldn't have been able to do it either; white people today can't do it. This isn't because they aren't educated, but because the test is designed to fail people. Most whites would not even have been required to take the damn test. It is next to impossible.

 

[Dak]

But you see the conflict inherent in this, right? Your observation cannot be separated from your bias. It isn't some means of pure calculation. We often can't even tell how our biases are operating, how they condition even the way in which we observe things around us. Your observations in no way confirm your biases to be true in any absolute sense. Even saying "my observations confirm my biases" is not only ambiguous (does it confirm that your biases are "true," or that you have biases?), but it is also contradictory: your observations are conditioned by your biases.

I know, that particular comment was tongue in cheek. On the way to the conference yesterday the conversation in the van with a few of the fellow undergrads turned towards experience with professors who would have been better off phoning it in. Given that all conversation participants are reasonably competent and driven (all were presenting research, which accounted for around 30-40% of the total presentations at the conference, and less than 10% of reported attendees were presenting), impressions were pretty consistent. Maybe they all also had similar bias, but I have no reason to expect that.

I find it indescribably frustrating that you would view this as evidence of decreasing educational standards.

That test was not required for everyone; it was required for those who could not prove education past a fifth-grade level. Who specifically do you think could not prove this?

The test is not meant to prove any amount of literacy. It was meant to keep black people from voting. The test has nothing to do with literacy, and everything to do with voting. Why the fuck would anyone need to learn how to write backwards? It was specifically meant to target black people, many of whom could not prove education beyond the fifth grade, and to prevent them from voting.

Furthermore, the test is incredibly difficult whether you're educated or not. White people back then wouldn't have been able to do it either; white people today can't do it. This isn't because they aren't educated, but because the test is designed to fail people. Most whites would not even have been required to take the damn test. It is next to impossible.

I expect that more people could have passed it in 1964 than could today, but that obviously isn't provable. That most whites weren't required to also take the test is unfortunate, as one would need more than a 5th grade education (probably a BA in philosophy these days) to answer those sorts of questions. Being able (or unable) to do the simple logic required to know that the answer to "Write 'backwards' forwards" is "Backwards" (and furthermore, knowing how to spell such a common word) indicates ones ability to understand the sorts of complex issues that are decided via political processes. Calling it a "literacy" test is misleading though, because it is clearly a logic test.

I would like to see that entire test myself. I would imagine the most "egregious" questions were those shown on the video, which don't appear significantly difficult.

 

[Einherjar86]

It isn't a "test" in the first place. It isn't measuring anything. It was designed specifically to exclude an entire group of people.

Furthermore, even if you could manage to perform all the tasks accurately, it's unlikely that you could do so in under ten minutes. The questions require a bit of thought even for educated people: "Okay, so it wants... wait, 'backwards forwards'... oh, right 'backwards.'" Each question eats up time by forcing the taker to think for at least several seconds before carrying out the required task. And then, the taker can't make any mistakes while writing, or else would have to erase and begin again. It is in no way designed to test even logic.

 

[Dak]

It isn't a "test" in the first place. It isn't measuring anything. It was designed specifically to exclude an entire group of people.

It does measure (at least) logic ability; that that test wasn't specifically designed for the purpose of measuring anything doesn't change that. I'm not saying that the sociopolitical purpose behind the test was good, but that the difficulty of the test is not necessarily a problem.

Furthermore, even if you could manage to perform all the tasks accurately, it's unlikely that you could do so in under ten minutes. The questions require a bit of thought even for educated people: "Okay, so it wants... wait, 'backwards forwards'... oh, right 'backwards.'" Each question eats up time by forcing the taker to think for at least several seconds before carrying out the required task. And then, the taker can't make any mistakes while writing, or else would have to erase and begin again. It is in no way designed to test even logic.

It is possible that the time limit combined with the requirement of zero error is too extreme to be realistic; I would need to try it out to be sure. But to watch (what the general public would consider to be smart) people throw their hands up at the questions is pretty absurd. The entire focus of the little video is wrong. Quite obviously these people believe any restriction on voting is bad, that not voting is bad, that (when carried to logical conclusion) even the comatose should somehow have their "voice" heard. So why trot out this test for the show of crinkled faces and upthrown arms? Reveling in ones inabilities is disgusting and fails to make the point. If mere restriction of the vote is the issue, then why not point out that at least tests can be prepared for, and that no amount of preparation allows outright process dissent on the ballot or outside of the ballot, and severely restricts, beyond what any "ridiculous" test can do, anything outside of the two party paradigm. Despite the absence of tests, I cannot vote because of a lack of things to vote for that I accept. I cannot even directly affect anything by not voting. My voice is not heard. Too bad there's no test that would allow me access to take to fix that.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree that the focus of the video is wrong. Seeing as how no one's education, career, or lifestyle is on the line I can't say that watching students throw up their hands is all that offensive or frustrating.

Some of the questions might register a degree of logical capacity, but some of the questions are simply inane: write the word "Vote" upside-down, but in the right direction? This is not a task that relies on any logical capacity, it merely aims to trip up test-takers. Finally, getting one question wrong results in failure; there's thus no calculation of anybody's overall performance.

Even if you took the test and passed, it wouldn't change the historical fact that this test was never intended as a test, and was never used as such; so using it as evidence of educational decline is just absurd.

 

[Dak]

Some of the questions might register a degree of logical capacity, but some of the questions are simply inane: write the word "Vote" upside-down, but in the right direction? This is not a task that relies on any logical capacity, it merely aims to trip up test-takers. Finally, getting one question wrong results in failure; there's thus no calculation of anybody's overall performance.

This really is go way off down a different path, but the last sentence is very interesting, and certainly an opinion that seems to wax and wane in organizational estimation. Pass/Fail vs incremental grading. I know the Marine Corps has oscillated on this in terms of testing marksmanship, and having only experienced the incremental scoring process (the Marine Corps switched to incremental grading right before I joined and switched back to the pass/fail variant right after I got out) I'm not in a position to even give an anecdotal comparison opinion.

Even if you took the test and passed, it wouldn't change the historical fact that this test was never intended as a test, and was never used as such; so using it as evidence of educational decline is just absurd.

Of course it was never intended as a legitimate test, this imo is much more troubling than the fact that it existed - which is what troubles those in the video. However, I believe that the exasperation from Harvard students in 2014 would not be present in Harvard students in 1964.

 

[Einherjar86]

However, I believe that the exasperation from Harvard students in 2014 would not be present in Harvard students in 1964.

This (if it could be proven true) says less about their level of education, in my opinion, and more about the considerations of cultural propriety during that time.

 

[Dak]

This (if it could be proven true) says less about their level of education, in my opinion, and more about the considerations of cultural propriety during that time.

It cannot say something about cultural propriety without saying something about the education level. The two go together. The (what I believe to be intentional at some level of the bureaucracy) lack of focus on/the denigration of logic in education has led to a lack of it in general, which of course makes it unimportant in the general cultural context (it is unusual to expect what you don't have). Fantastic for the the power complex, whether it be "patriarchal" or of any other origination. Not so good for everyone else.

That your comment implicitly suggests that cultural propriety of today does not value, nor even seem to be aware of logic is certainly an indictment of the state of education today vs education (and culture) of yesteryears. My SJW, minority (former) philosophy professor thinks so probably more vociferously than I do, which is why we connected so well.

 

[Einherjar86]

It cannot say something about cultural propriety without saying something about the education level. The two go together.

By "propriety," I merely mean the instilling of expected social behavior via family values and early education. This has nothing to do with the privileging of exercising one's logical faculties (or lack thereof).

That your comment implicitly suggests that cultural propriety of today does not value, nor even seem to be aware of logic is certainly an indictment of the state of education today vs education (and culture) of yesteryears. My SJW, minority (former) philosophy professor thinks so probably more vociferously than I do, which is why we connected so well.

My comment on propriety had nothing to do with logic. You're going to have to explain that connection. I simply mean that students throwing their hands up in the air and acting indifferent might signal a shift in how children are taught to behave in a purely performative sense; this has nothing to do with privileging the material or not.

If anything, the education of "yesteryear" places less emphasis on logic than the education of today, as the education of today has even attacked the institutions of logic, undermining them via their own purportedly axiomatic premises. The educated today have a far more comprehensive view of global politics and cultural dynamics than the educated of 1964.

 

[Dak]

By "propriety," I merely mean the instilling of expected social behavior via family values and early education. This has nothing to do with the privileging of exercising one's logical faculties (or lack thereof).

My comment on propriety had nothing to do with logic. You're going to have to explain that connection. I simply mean that students throwing their hands up in the air and acting indifferent might signal a shift in how children are taught to behave in a purely performative sense; this has nothing to do with privileging the material or not.

Again, the two go together. "OMG it r difficult, wtf is this shit. Stoopid asshole teachers". Not like I haven't seen this response in classes. Being challenged is denigrated.

If anything, the education of "yesteryear" places less emphasis on logic than the education of today, as the education of today has even attacked the institutions of logic, undermining them via their own purportedly axiomatic premises. The educated today have a far more comprehensive view of global politics and cultural dynamics than the educated of 1964.

I'm no radical empiricist, but I would love to see some evidence to the effect of the latter claim. Certainly some cynicism is present in relation to the purported virtuosity of the claims and aims of typical US foreign policy, but it has little to do with logical operations. Secondly, pure lack of logical education can certainly be construed or presented as an "attack on the institutions of logic", and I know you're "no friend of logic", but I hold to the importance of being able to make sense of requests like "write backwards forwards", as I have seen what becomes of those who cannot.
While "what becomes" is certainly historically and culturally determined, it doesn't get any prettier when we destroy civilization to remove "logical privilege". Illogicists don't preform any better in the wild unless they happen to be gifted at physical violence - which serves them just as well in modernity with the right career choices fyi.

 

[Einherjar86]

Again, the two go together. "OMG it r difficult, wtf is this shit. Stoopid asshole teachers". Not like I haven't seen this response in classes. Being challenged is denigrated.

I'm no radical empiricist, but I would love to see some evidence to the effect of the latter claim. Certainly some cynicism is present in relation to the purported virtuosity of the claims and aims of typical US foreign policy, but it has little to do with logical operations. Secondly, pure lack of logical education can certainly be construed or presented as an "attack on the institutions of logic", and I know you're "no friend of logic", but I hold to the importance of being able to make sense of requests like "write backwards forwards", as I have seen what becomes of those who cannot.
While "what becomes" is certainly historically and culturally determined, it doesn't get any prettier when we destroy civilization to remove "logical privilege". Illogicists don't preform any better in the wild unless they happen to be gifted at physical violence - which serves them just as well in modernity with the right career choices fyi.

I think you're making more out of this than is there, man. These students weren't going "omg wtf stoopid asshole teachers." This exam had no stakes for them.

Furthermore, there's no educational factor to it; it's a losing game. If the test is legitimately rigged to fail students, then educated people would be able to figure that out. Insisting that they should behave calmly when taking it falls in line with a typical "respect your elders" line of thought, which isn't logical at all; it's ideological.

Basically nothing you're saying can be substantively backed by appealing to this video. It simply fails as evidence on multiple levels.

 

[Dak]

I think you're making more out of this than is there, man. These students weren't going "omg wtf stoopid asshole teachers." This exam had no stakes for them.

The wtf stupid asshole response wasn't aimed at the teachers, but my point was that this response happens a lot in classes, stakes irregardless. Being challenged, in any sort of way, often gets this sort of response - whether one is a student or in some position of authority.

Furthermore, there's no educational factor to it; it's a losing game. If the test is legitimately rigged to fail students, then educated people would be able to figure that out. Insisting that they should behave calmly when taking it falls in line with a typical "respect your elders" line of thought, which isn't logical at all; it's ideological.

Maybe the test is actually impossible, but I have no reason to believe that based on this video. Everything can ultimately be handwaved as having an ideological basis. Not shitting where you eat is based on an ideology that it's preferable to not get diseases and die early. Why? Because moar ideology. However, in this case, it doesn't have anything to do with "respecting your elders" - in fact the trend demonstrated by these students will evidence later in life as exactly that (if they can make it into some sort of "elder" position): "Look at this punk kid challenging me, the elder!".

My issue here is with people finding challenges something ludicrous, and again, reveling in inabilities, difficulties, etc. It certainly originated as a SWPL sort of thing, but it's becoming a more diversified phenomena, as indicated in the video.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm just going to let this dog lie. I teach undergraduates, and I specifically do not see this kind of reaction (I do get "mind blown" comments quite often in my class, which I accept with pride).

 

[Dak]

I'm just going to let this dog lie. I teach undergraduates, and I specifically do not see this kind of reaction (I do get "mind blown" comments quite often in my class, which I accept with pride).

What level is your typical class makeup/and is it primarily lit(etc) majors?

I don't see these types of responses in my upper level/major heavy classes. But your Freshman/Sophmore/non-major stuff certainly. I appreciate the sort of responses I get when even just talking with other students/teachers in philosophy classes, but that is with that minority of students who do like to be challenged generally.