Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Well I'm responding to you as much as I am the "meta" cultural environment. You and I are significant outliers, and carry along significant baggage in political or moral language at our disposal. I am also probably not as concise as I should be. When I said liberals and conservatives I did mean across the population, not merely academia.

I don't mean to persist in this argument, but I don't see myself as an outlier. I think that's a misconception perpetuated by the media.

But then, I also don't get to see how my colleagues are in the classes they teach. All I have to go off of are my professors, who are impressively and maturely reticent when it comes to current political issues.

I was just remembering that at one point we argued about meaning, and you were adamant (or so I interpreted) about the legitimacy of the interpretation of the reader, possibly at the expense at what was possibly or presumably meant by the writer. If that is the case, that would suggest that if only a select few "accurately" interpret core theoretical texts of contemporary liberal thought, then maybe there is a problem. Conservative writers do not seem to have nearly the same problem (the only issue would be cries from leftists of "fascist" or some form of "soulless". Not the same thing as being misunderstood by your own group). Maybe there's a problem in prose, rhetoric, or explicit or implicit content. Or maybe I'm way off base.

You're not off-base. The reader's position is important. My attitude toward this goes back to Roland Barthes's "The Death of the Author," which basically makes the argument that a text's meaning cannot be derived from its author's intention. But that doesn't mean that meaning derives entirely from a reader's response, or interpretation. Rather, readerly response can be seen as a reflection of more general/pervasive cultural attitudes. The "meaning" of nineteenth-century gothic texts, for instance, has to take into consideration the late-twentieth century poststructuralist readings of those texts.

That's what I meant. Meaning isn't simply a competition among various analyses, it's produced out of the very multiplicity of analyses. The more perceptive, organized, and researched the analysis (i.e. the more it takes into account the variety of responses to any given text) the more credible it is as a work of scholarship. In this case, individual readers' reactions are important, even lay readers; but they can't be as credible as someone who has studied the cultural history of a text, or texts.

Someone who has spent their career studying the works of Derrida and their reception, interpretation, etc. throughout the scholarly discourse obviously has a better grasp on the material than your average sophomore who thinks "The center is not the center" means "BURN IT DOWN."

By the way I put off my other plans for today and cracked The Righteous Mind, and I'm about 2/3s of the way through it. The TED talk was a super brief summary. I'm only mildly surprised to see a few NRx shibboleths present in very watered down and careful presentation - those relating to genetic evolution as it relates to behavior, and some mentions of things that appear in polemics on "The Cathedral"/western liberals. There's definitely a significant theme of "emergence", although that word specifically is not used much.

Cool, I'll be interested to hear how it is when you finish.

 

[Dak]

I don't mean to persist in this argument, but I don't see myself as an outlier. I think that's a misconception perpetuated by the media.

What I mean by outliers is that we are academia, at least indirectly, and +1-2SDs on the IQ curve (without taking an IQ test, everything I can read on guesstimations or proxies [such as my asvab and afoqt scoring] suggest 125-130ishIQ for myself. I have less info about you obviously but I'm guessing similar levels. It takes 130 to crack the second SD.) . We have the ability and education to read texts with a bit more detachedness and nuance in understanding. This has nothing to do with media.

You're not off-base. The reader's position is important. My attitude toward this goes back to Roland Barthes's "The Death of the Author," which basically makes the argument that a text's meaning cannot be derived from its author's intention. But that doesn't mean that meaning derives entirely from a reader's response, or interpretation. Rather, readerly response can be seen as a reflection of more general/pervasive cultural attitudes. The "meaning" of nineteenth-century gothic texts, for instance, has to take into consideration the late-twentieth century poststructuralist readings of those texts.

That's what I meant. Meaning isn't simply a competition among various analyses, it's produced out of the very multiplicity of analyses. The more perceptive, organized, and researched the analysis (i.e. the more it takes into account the variety of responses to any given text) the more credible it is as a work of scholarship. In this case, individual readers' reactions are important, even lay readers; but they can't be as credible as someone who has studied the cultural history of a text, or texts.

I'm not concerned with credibility here. That is an academic concern, something that occurs in darkened rooms over coffee or alcohol. I'm concerned about what happens when people consume what they can't handle (Conservative response warning).

Someone who has spent their career studying the works of Derrida and their reception, interpretation, etc. throughout the scholarly discourse obviously has a better grasp on the material than your average sophomore who thinks "The center is not the center" means "BURN IT DOWN."

Sure, but I believe that current science shows that the difference in grasp has more to do with ability than a simple difference in training levels/time with the material. Scott Alexander (slatestarcodex) has been hitting on this.I was not too long ago all about general cognitive equality and a rationalisitic approach. The current science has disabused me of this notion and as such of much of my anarchistic/libertarian/deontological preference. This is why I'm much more NRx leaning and very interested in Haidt et al's work.

Edit: or maybe this was my "pre-wiring" all along. I have read that the 125-130ish mark is the top-end range where people can still understand the general public response to things. That people past this simply can't relate at all; can't even sympathize (not empathize) what it might be like to not even grasp the fundamentals. I think our level is essentially "middlemanish" between true thought pioneers and the general population. This isn't any sort of disconciliatory truth to me. I've always considered myself more of a re-inventor than an inventor.

Cool, I'll be interested to hear how it is when you finish.

It's actually written as essentially 3 separate smaller books, so I finished the first two. I recommend it as a read just based on the first two. It wasn't revolutionary for me per se, with my existent "prewiring/rider leaning"+ psych major, but you don't have the same leaning I do nor do you have a psych background.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, but I believe that current science shows that the difference in grasp has more to do with ability than a simple difference in training levels/time with the material.

How does science test this? Those who spend an education's worth of time with dense theory tend to get a hold of it. The average person spends no more than a wikipedia page's worth of time. So how can we properly gauge the difference?

 

[Dak]

How does science test this? Those who spend an education's worth of time with dense theory tend to get a hold of it. The average person spends no more than a wikipedia page's worth of time. So how can we properly gauge the difference?

Test ability to grok dense theory? Reading comprehension and IQ (which are positively correlated).

 

[Einherjar86]

That's true. But then how do we explain those college undergrads involved in social activism? I don't know exact numbers, but I have a feeling that the average college undergraduate's IQ isn't so deflated that her reading comprehension is compromised...?

I would agree that significant differences exists between those with drastically different IQs, but I guess I'm hesitant to blame reading comprehension for the current practices/beliefs of social activism. Those who are uneducated and non-academic probably aren't even visiting the wikipedia pages for the kinds of theorists we're talking about, and those who have cause to (i.e. your average Humanities undergrad) most likely have the intelligence and supporting structures in place necessary to comprehend the material. So I think that more often it comes down to either complete unfamiliarity or an unwillingness to put in the time/effort to understand.

If the common college protester superimposes a set of progressivist values over theoretical materials and appeals to this as justification, I would be less inclined to blame reading comprehension than simple laziness.

 

[Dak]

That's true. But then how do we explain those college undergrads involved in social activism? I don't know exact numbers, but I have a feeling that the average college undergraduate's IQ isn't so deflated that her reading comprehension is compromised...?

Well to your prior point about the relatively small number of college undergraduates doing the sort of extreme political activism like those interviewed, it's obviously not a problem with the average undergraduate. The constant pushing of everyone towards post-secondary education, and the plethora of grants, loans, and scholarships, plus reduced academic standards (compared to what someone like me would find ideal), plus AA type programs, all work towards allowing people in that cannot function well in an academic environment for any number of reasons.

When someone is in an environment where they are overwhelmed, they can respond in a variety of ways. I saw a relatively normal looking kid become a shell of himself after 2-3 weeks of bootcamp: bedwetting, open sores, practically catatonic at certain times (obviously he was sent home). He was an outlier of course (no one else out of the ~60 of us was sent home for "failure to adapt"), and in an environment where although overwhelmed, everything was extremely controlled.

For someone of average intelligence and a substandard cultural background, being thrown into the high pressure/gentrified nature of academia + hearing language about oppression + being away from home/low supervision + any other number of other radical life changes, this could lead to other sorts of acting out. Self harm, protesting, vandalism, etc.

I would agree that significant differences exists between those with drastically different IQs, but I guess I'm hesitant to blame reading comprehension for the current practices/beliefs of social activism. Those who are uneducated and non-academic probably aren't even visiting the wikipedia pages for the kinds of theorists we're talking about, and those who have cause to (i.e. your average Humanities undergrad) most likely have the intelligence and supporting structures in place necessary to comprehend the material. So I think that more often it comes down to either complete unfamiliarity or an unwillingness to put in the time/effort to understand.

If the common college protester superimposes a set of progressivist values over theoretical materials and appeals to this as justification, I would be less inclined to blame reading comprehension than simple laziness.

Well you asked how science tests this. I listed the two most relevant tests I could think of. Unfortunately the kind of specific tests one would need to run to sort of answer these questions would probably never get funding.

I also think you're a "victim" of the Dunning-Kruger effect on this, as are many intelligent people (including myself until hearing about it/experiences in the last few years). Even if reading comprehension isn't an issue (that is, one can read the words and understand the literal definitions), this doesn't mean one can fully grasp theories. Studies are somewhat limited, but there is some evidence that general intelligence/IQ cannot be thought of as existing on a smooth continuum. Rather it is more stair-stepped, and that there may be certain thresholds required, (or maybe certain genes switched on or whatever), for a person to be able to understand or perform at "the next level". As far as I've been able to determine, an IQ of 120 is a supported threshold. After that, differences are almost entirely about hard work/study/etc. 120 is also firmly +1SD on the distribution curve, with only ~20% of the population holding that IQ or higher. Recent percentages of 18-24 year olds in the US enrolled in some sort of post-secondary education was ~40%. That's large difference.

As far as laziness or unwillingness go, it's hard in many cases to tease apart incompetence and indolence. A complete or at least general lack of interest in serious/certain topics is a sign of the inability to actually deal in them satisfactorily (of course this isn't some sort of foolproof test).

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a good response. And I think you're right that in many cases it's a mistake to totally separate "incompetence and indolence," as you say. They probably inform one another to a significant degree.

 

[Dak]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/28/book-review-age-of-em/

Super long read (typical for SA), but the subject matter is right up your alley (futuristic book review). The final section might even allow for a tl;dr summary:

VI.

I guess what really bothers me about Hanson’s pooh-poohing of AI is him calling it “a comic book plot”. To me, it’s Hanson’s scenario that seems science-fiction-ish.

I say this not as a generic insult but as a pointer at a specific category of errors. In Star Wars, the Rebellion had all of these beautiful hyperspace-capable starfighters that could shoot laser beams and explore galaxies – and they still had human pilots. 1977 thought the pangalactic future would still be using people to pilot its military aircraft; in reality, even 2016 is moving away from this.

Science fiction books have to tell interesting stories, and interesting stories are about humans or human-like entities. We can enjoy stories about aliens or robots as long as those aliens and robots are still approximately human-sized, human-shaped, human-intelligence, and doing human-type things. A Star Wars in which all of the X-Wings were combat drones wouldn’t have done anything for us. So when I accuse something of being science-fiction-ish, I mean bending over backwards – and ignoring the evidence – in order to give basically human-shaped beings a central role.

This is my critique of Robin. As weird as the Age of Em is, it makes sure never to be weird in ways that warp the fundamental humanity of its participants. Ems might be copied and pasted like so many .JPGs, but they still fall in love, form clans, and go on vacations.

In contrast, I expect that we’ll get some kind of AI that will be totally inhuman and much harder to write sympathetic stories about. If we get ems after all, I expect them to be lobotomized and drugged until they become effectively inhuman, cogs in the Ascended Economy that would no more fall in love than an automobile would eat hay and whinny. Robin’s interest in keeping his protagonists relatable makes his book fascinating, engaging, and probably wrong.

I almost said “and probably less horrible than we should actually expect”, but I’m not sure that’s true. With a certain amount of horror-suppressing, the Ascended Economy can be written off as morally neutral – either having no conscious thought, or stably wireheaded. All of Robin’s points about how normal non-uploaded humans should be able to survive an Ascended Economy at least for a while seem accurate. So morally valuable actors might continue to exist in weird Amish-style enclaves, living a post-scarcity lifestyle off the proceeds of their investments, while all the while the Ascended Economy buzzes around them, doing weird inhuman things that encroach upon them not at all. This seems slightly worse than a Friendly AI scenario, but much better than we have any right to expect of the future.

I highly recommend Age of Em as a fantastically fun read and a great introduction to these concepts. It’s engaging, readable, and weird. I just don’t know if it’s weird enough.

 

[Dak]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/29/boys-books-earnings-adults

Blank slate based study finding:

Men brought up in households with less than a shelf of books earned only 5% more as a result of the extra year’s education, compared with 21% more for those who had access to a lot of books. And those that had access to books were more likely to move to the better-earning opportunities in cities than those without books.

The men’s first job was also much more likely to be a white-collar job.

The economists offer a number of theories for the results. “Perhaps books matter because they encourage children to read more and reading can have positive effects on school performance. Alternatively, a home filled with books indicates advantageous socio-economic conditions.”

The number of books in a child’s home can effectively predict their cognitive test scores. This may indicate a home that encourages cognitive and socio-emotional skills, which are important for economic success in life.

More likely scenario: The kind of people who kept books in the house were more intelligent, thusly valuing books, and had more intelligent children. I think my parents had 5-6 bookshelves crammed full of books (unfortunately only 1 of those wasn't religious/James Birch Society stuff, but that 1 was chock full of classic fiction and philosophy texts), and we had a separate bookshelf of children/YA books in my/brothers room. Unfortunately we were never introduced to the philosophy stuff, only the classic fiction.

 

[rms]

Study finds that growing up wealthy has a correlation with staying wealthy

 

[Dak]

I didn't grow up rich but probably am an outlier. My mom stayed home and my dad wouldn't pursue a real career because he kept trying to become a pastor.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/28/book-review-age-of-em/

Super long read (typical for SA), but the subject matter is right up your alley (futuristic book review). The final section might even allow for a tl;dr summary:

Sounds very cool.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've been spending time with Land's The Thirst For Annihilation lately, and I have to say that it's a stellar piece of philosophical writing. I realize he's disowned most of it, but to be honest I think we can detect a lot of his current philosophy in it. It's ostensibly a study (in the loosest sense of the word) of Georges Bataille, but contains what I think is a more important undercurrent (or subtext) of post-Kantian thought. In short, Land positions Kant at a crucial explosion-point in the history of Western thought, particularly Enlightenment thought.

The following passage seems rather tangential and inconsequential in passing, but I think it actually sums up a major aspect of the book: that the concept of death occupies a space in the history of Western thought that illuminates how it constructs itself epistemologically.

With Kant death finds its theoretical formulation and utilitarian frame as a quasi-objectivity correlative to capital, and noumenon is its name. The effective flotation of this term in philosophy coincided with the emergence of a social order built upon a profound rationalization of excess, or rigorous circumscription of voluptuous lethality. Once enlightenment rationalism begins its dominion ever fewer corpses are left hanging around in public places with each passing year, ever fewer skulls are used as paperweights, and ever fewer paupers perish undisturbed on the streets. Even the graveyards are rationalized and tidied up. It is not surprising, therefore, that with Kant thanatology undergoes the most massive reconstruction in its history. The clerical vultures are purged, or marginalized. Death is no longer to be culturally circulated, injecting a transcendent reference into production, and ensuring superterrestrial interests their rights. Instead death is privatized, withdrawn into interiority, to flicker at the edge of the contract as a narcissistic anxiety without public accreditation. Compared to the immortal soul of capital the death of the individual becomes an empirical triviality, a mere re-allocation of stock.

How we treat death says a hell of a lot about how we think of ourselves as subjects, and this line captures a major detail of this phenomenon. I feel like we can correlate this with a Lutheran model of religious authority. In many ways, Lutheranism and capitalism (as a sociohistorical shift that occurs with the displacement of landed wealth by moveable property) go hand in hand, and society's treatment of death reflects this association. Ever since The Cloud of Unknowing, death has been an epistemological space that both necessitates the existence of a god and renders that existence eternally necessarily inaccessible. Kant puts a new twist on death by re-imagining it (implicitly) as a justification for individual, private interest par excellence. This translates onto transcendental subjectivity: i.e. we all die, but because our deaths are our own, we are all justified in pursuing our own interests. Land's comment suggests that the way death is treated in society as a collectively experienced phenomenon reflects its newly-discovered individualist consequences.

I think this is a great quote, mainly because I find death to a fascinating concept in critical theory - what it stands for, and what it tells us about societal/cultural organization.

 

[Dak]

I find this an interesting line of thought. It does seem that death has become almost entirely sterilized and nearly forgotten at this point. Paradoxically, at the same time that the ranks of the elderly, as a proportion of the population across the developed world, are swelling, they are at the same time completely marginalized in terms of culture. The "hip" ages tap out at 40, the "Viagra/plan for retirement" ages cap out at 60. Of course this is all in terms of corporate marketing - which is pretty much driving culture as far as I can see.

Things are moving too fast for many of the elderly to have any relevant input, and even for the ones who do, the youth are no longer inclined to listen, you know, cause earbuds and grandma ain't hip yo. So when the elderly finally die it's a chance for some inheritancial gimmedats if any is left, and an omg wtf do we have to go spend all this fucking time at the funeral home and church, goddddd. At least I can play games on my iphone!

While some of this stuff may be protestant descended (taking the moldbuggian/landian cultural cladistics with a measure of seriousness), I don't see this at all as "religious". In Christianity, death is simultaneously a time of sorrow for the loss of the family/community, as well as a time of rejoicing for the deceased have merely gone to a better place, which all the saved ones will also eventually go to to join them. (I recommend the 16hp song "Wayfaring Stranger" for a perfect picture of this).

I think we are in a way already in this "accelerated economy" that SA spoke of, hearkening to Land. The current level of atomization, which is really caused simply by the necessity of human movement to chase capital, is rendering any sort of longstanding community nearly impossible. it's not that we can't connect, it's that we are rarely going to get too close to anyone because everyone keeps having to move, or we assume that they will (and are usually right). There's a reason I know much more about people on this forum than any of my neighbors in the amount of time that I've been on this board: I keep changing neighbors/they keep changing. Why invest that effort? While this is completely rational, that this is the situation does create a problem for a social animal such as we are.

 

[Einherjar86]

I find this an interesting line of thought. It does seem that death has become almost entirely sterilized and nearly forgotten at this point. Paradoxically, at the same time that the ranks of the elderly, as a proportion of the population across the developed world, are swelling, they are at the same time completely marginalized in terms of culture. The "hip" ages tap out at 40, the "Viagra/plan for retirement" ages cap out at 60. Of course this is all in terms of corporate marketing - which is pretty much driving culture as far as I can see.

Tom McCarthy would agree. His most recent novel, Satin Island, is about a "corporate anthropologist" that tries to write a "great report" about our cultural era.

Things are moving too fast for many of the elderly to have any relevant input, and even for the ones who do, the youth are no longer inclined to listen, you know, cause earbuds and grandma ain't hip yo. So when the elderly finally die it's a chance for some inheritancial gimmedats if any is left, and an omg wtf do we have to go spend all this fucking time at the funeral home and church, goddddd. At least I can play games on my iphone!

While some of this stuff may be protestant descended (taking the moldbuggian/landian cultural cladistics with a measure of seriousness), I don't see this at all as "religious". In Christianity, death is simultaneously a time of sorrow for the loss of the family/community, as well as a time of rejoicing for the deceased have merely gone to a better place, which all the saved ones will also eventually go to to join them. (I recommend the 16hp song "Wayfaring Stranger" for a perfect picture of this).

I think we are in a way already in this "accelerated economy" that SA spoke of, hearkening to Land. The current level of atomization, which is really caused simply by the necessity of human movement to chase capital, is rendering any sort of longstanding community nearly impossible. it's not that we can't connect, it's that we are rarely going to get too close to anyone because everyone keeps having to move, or we assume that they will (and are usually right). There's a reason I know much more about people on this forum than any of my neighbors in the amount of time that I've been on this board: I keep changing neighbors/they keep changing. Why invest that effort? While this is completely rational, that this is the situation does create a problem for a social animal such as we are.

These are all more sociological symptoms, but important nonetheless. There's a reason why death occupies such a canonical space in literature of the twentieth century, especially in postwar fiction.

Also, I love "Wayfaring Stranger." They actually didn't write that song, it's an old traditional folk piece (I think...).

 

[Dak]

Also, I love "Wayfaring Stranger." They actually didn't write that song, it's an old traditional folk piece (I think...).

Ah, you are correct.

 

[Dak]

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

Contra that "Em" book.

 

[Dak]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret

Well I-be-daggone. The petrodollar wasn't simply a "conspiracy theory".

 

[Dak]

Finished The Righteous Mind. I recommend it but then of course I would .

 

[Dak]

@Ein: Another correlation with that IQ/college problem stat of ~50% of students potentially not smart enough. Over 50% of post secondary respondents on a mental health related survey reported significant issues (stress, anxiety, etc iirc). Can't pull it up atm to see the details, but I'm not surprised.