Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Hot damn, you should be happy Pat:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart

In other words, our IQs may have risen, but this hasn’t made us any wiser. “Reading literature and reading history is the only thing that’s going to capitalise on the IQ gains of the 20th Century and make them politically relevant.” You may or may not agree, but Flynn is not the only person with this concern: as William Poundstone shows in his latest book Head In The Clouds, everyday ignorance is influencing the way we make decisions in many areas of our lives.

Of course I think the greatest weight is on history, not lit. But I also read all the great lit stuff as a young teen. I don't remember much in terms of details, but it had to have had at least subtle effects.

 

[Baroque]

People just need to be well rounded and educate themselves outside of school. Be a stem major but read philosophy, play music,... have hobbies. History.. idk we can learn some from the past but we cannot change it. Literature, sure that's a form of art, but in some ways the same as watching an opera. Art consumption doesn't have to be literature specifically. The author seems to think literature is somehow a higher form of art and I completely disagree.

 

[Baroque]

I would also call into question the validity of this claim that IQ scores have risen. By design at least the mean and standard deviation IQ scores remain the same. If average IQ scores have risen that is a problem with the test that must be corrected.

Additionally, people in the past took a different IQ test than people in the present.

People are clearly more educated now, but education levels should not necessarily be reflected in IQ scores. At different education levels, people take different tests. Again this suggests a the possibility of a problem with the test as a fair measure of intelligence. I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but you know, I'd trust the IQ test people are already on that.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hot damn, you should be happy Pat:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160929-our-iqs-have-never-been-higher-but-it-hasnt-made-us-smart

Of course I think the greatest weight is on history, not lit. But I also read all the great lit stuff as a young teen. I don't remember much in terms of details, but it had to have had at least subtle effects.

Well, it's my opinion that reading literature is reading history. Obviously there is an aesthetic appreciation to reading fiction, poetry, drama, etc., but for me the most important aspect of literature isn't its aesthetic value. I'm a firm believer in methodologies such as New Historicism, the Marxian political unconscious, deconstruction, et al - none of which have much to say about aesthetic theory.

So, for me, literature reveals a lot about history and cultural ideology. That's where I see the most value in literary study.

But I just have to make a comment on Flynn's distaste for millennials, which strikes me as a really hip thing to hate right now. He says that millennials don't read enough history or literature... but does he seriously think that the generations before us read more history or literature? That's where he loses me. If anything, millennials have more exposure to history via the internet, even if it's a considerably warped vision of history. As far as previous generations go, I don't think our parents or grandparents read an overwhelmingly greater amount of historical scholarship.

People just need to be well rounded and educate themselves outside of school. Be a stem major but read philosophy, play music,... have hobbies. History.. idk we can learn some from the past but we cannot change it. Literature, sure that's a form of art, but in some ways the same as watching an opera. Art consumption doesn't have to be literature specifically. The author seems to think literature is somehow a higher form of art and I completely disagree.

I don't think literature is a "higher" form of art either, but I do think that reading a book is very different than watching an opera. That isn't to make a value judgment one way or another, but we consume different kinds of art/media in distinct ways that affect how we perceive them and how we interpret their meaning. Form communicates as much as content.

 

[Dak]

I would also call into question the validity of this claim that IQ scores have risen. By design at least the mean and standard deviation IQ scores remain the same. If average IQ scores have risen that is a problem with the test that must be corrected.

Additionally, people in the past took a different IQ test than people in the present.

People are clearly more educated now, but education levels should not necessarily be reflected in IQ scores. At different education levels, people take different tests. Again this suggests a the possibility of a problem with the test as a fair measure of intelligence. I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but you know, I'd trust the IQ test people are already on that.

I was under the impression that the tests were adjusted to keep the mean at 100, and/or the statistical operations were done to adjust the mean. If these operations/changes are done in the interest of shifting the curve up, you could say "IQs keep rising".

The explanation for rising scores that I have seen is that IQ is, generally, a better estimator of the ability to think abstractly. Education is increasingly in terms of the abstract supposedly, and so people are performing better on the IQ tests. it doesn't necessarily mean that there have been any improvements in critical thinking skills, etc.

Well, it's my opinion that reading literature is reading history. Obviously there is an aesthetic appreciation to reading fiction, poetry, drama, etc., but for me the most important aspect of literature isn't its aesthetic value. I'm a firm believer in methodologies such as New Historicism, the Marxian political unconscious, deconstruction, et al - none of which have much to say about aesthetic theory.

So, for me, literature reveals a lot about history and cultural ideology. That's where I see the most value in literary study.

Well it's a part of history.

But I just have to make a comment on Flynn's distaste for millennials, which strikes me as a really hip thing to hate right now. He says that millennials don't read enough history or literature... but does he seriously think that the generations before us read more history or literature? That's where he loses me. If anything, millennials have more exposure to history via the internet, even if it's a considerably warped vision of history. As far as previous generations go, I don't think our parents or grandparents read an overwhelmingly greater amount of historical scholarship.

I think it's possible that generations in the US possibly read more history than currently. Of course we have an unprecedented amount of access to pretty much everything via the internet, but that doesn't mean it's being used in quality ways. I see so many people caught up in "immediatism" or something, which supports the "viral" videos etc, or THIS ELECTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE EVER, or THE WORLD HANGS IN THE BALANCE, etc kind of thinking. Even amongst grad students there's quite a bit of this. Our connection to history almost appears to be somewhat severed by the internet. History grows hazier with every new tweet.

I don't think literature is a "higher" form of art either, but I do think that reading a book is very different than watching an opera. That isn't to make a value judgment one way or another, but we consume different kinds of art/media in distinct ways that affect how we perceive them and how we interpret their meaning. Form communicates as much as content.

The book is always better than the movie.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well [literature is] a part of history.

So are history books.

I think it's possible that generations in the US possibly read more history than currently. Of course we have an unprecedented amount of access to pretty much everything via the internet, but that doesn't mean it's being used in quality ways. I see so many people caught up in "immediatism" or something, which supports the "viral" videos etc, or THIS ELECTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE EVER, or THE WORLD HANGS IN THE BALANCE, etc kind of thinking. Even amongst grad students there's quite a bit of this. Our connection to history almost appears to be somewhat severed by the internet. History grows hazier with every new tweet.

Sure, it's possible; but "immediatism" is rampant among older generations as well. There was actually a book published recently that talks about this, Inventing the Future by Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek. They refer to this immediacy as "folk politics."

Those older generations may not be as entwined in the internet lifestyle, but they're no closer to history because of this, even having experienced more of it. Our heavily mediated relationship to history is arguably far less localized than our grandparents'.

The book is always better than the movie.

Except for No Country For Old Men, I agree.

 

[Dak]

Sure, it's possible; but "immediatism" is rampant among older generations as well. There was actually a book published recently that talks about this, Inventing the Future by Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek. They refer to this immediacy as "folk politics."

Those older generations may not be as entwined in the internet lifestyle, but they're no closer to history because of this, even having experienced more of it. Our heavily mediated relationship to history is arguably far less localized than our grandparents'.

Well in terms of how widespread it is, I'd imagine the majority has always only had the attention spans limited to the present. But what constitutes the present has been reduced, or at least appears to have been reduced, from maybe a couple of years to a couple of weeks. More people with college degrees = a slightly more "cosmopolitan" group of people, but I don't know that that has actually proven beneficial in any measurable way.

 

[Einherjar86]

It may not have, and I'm not trying to say that Flynn is incorrect in his assessment of millennials; I just don't think he's accurate in contrasting millennials with, for instance, baby boomers with regard to their respective knowledge of history.

 

[Dak]

It may not have, and I'm not trying to say that Flynn is incorrect in his assessment of millennials; I just don't think he's accurate in contrasting millennials with, for instance, baby boomers with regard to their respective knowledge of history.

Yeah that's probably not all that fair, since the knowledge of history by Boomers is probably limited to those events in their lifetime rather than finding out about things prior. "Waddya mean you don't know the date JFK was shot????" is in a form that can be replicated going back infinitely: "Waddya mean you don't know the date WWI ended??" etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

Doubtless there are exceptions, just as there are for the millennials that Flynn is talking about.

 

[Dak]

@Einherjar86

Maybe you have some insight as to how this blogger I was made aware of can imagine themselves to be "Contrarian". I can't find anything in the blog that runs contrary to anything on a commercial news and opinion site outside of maybe Breitbart. The writing is of a slightly higher quality, and maybe a bit more polemical, but it isn't "contrarian".

https://thecontrarianblogger.com/

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe it's contrarian because people read it and say "This isn't contrarian" - and he says "No, it's contrarian."

Also, his "Welcome" page is as annoying as shit.

 

[Dak]

Maybe it's contrarian because people read it and say "This isn't contrarian" - and he says "No, it's contrarian."

Also, his "Welcome" page is as annoying as shit.

The wall of text or the smarmy tone? It's got a false Lockian "just trying to clear some things up" humility on top of this clueless conception of center-left liberalism as a contrarian position amongst well read "netizens" and their respective preferred media outlets. It's kind of an amazing combination really.

 

[Einherjar86]

Tone.

It is an interesting combination. I'd compare it to FOX News's strategy of claiming underdog status, when in fact it's the most-watched cable news station and represents the viewing tendencies of very large percentage of Americans (FOX also purports to clear things up - "fair and balanced," after all). The Great Contrarian's emphasis on his own contrariness is itself a rhetorical strategy.

Ultimately, he doth protest too much. In today's public sphere, it's really hard to develop an honestly contrarian position since the internet and social media almost instantly appropriates any and every potentially radical perspective; so claiming a nonconformist position places more burden on the claimer to demonstrate said nonconformity. In some cases, like Outside In, these demonstrations hold water, and so the host doesn't need to rely on rhetorical posturing. Then there are the Great Contrarians, who rely heavily on rhetorical posturing.

 

[Dak]

Tone.

It is an interesting combination. I'd compare it to FOX News's strategy of claiming underdog status, when in fact it's the most-watched cable news station and represents the viewing tendencies of very large percentage of Americans (FOX also purports to clear things up - "fair and balanced," after all). The Great Contrarian's emphasis on his own contrariness is itself a rhetorical strategy.

Ultimately, he doth protest too much. In today's public sphere, it's really hard to develop an honestly contrarian position since the internet and social media almost instantly appropriates any and every potentially radical perspective; so claiming a nonconformist position places more burden on the claimer to demonstrate said nonconformity. In some cases, like Outside In, these demonstrations hold water, and so the host doesn't need to rely on rhetorical posturing. Then there are the Great Contrarians, who rely heavily on rhetorical posturing.

Seems like a pretty accurate assessment and analogy (although Fox doesn't match the combined viewing of all the left-leaning media. They just have a "rightwing" monopoly). I was thinking of Land and some similar bloggers as a comparison. SSC is also more contrarian than this blogger, and yet SSC projects as being "reasonable and centered", even when being relatively radical in if nothing else, willing to tolerate considering a position held by "deplorables", etc.

 

[Dak]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/return-europe-s-nation-states

Interesting shift in perspective.

 

[Einherjar86]

Seems interesting. Unfortunately, I only get the first couple paragraphs...

Came across this earlier today. Somehow, it feels right - like I've been waiting for it. I've definitely had similar impressions of Derrida's work (i.e. as it lines up with neuroscience), but was excited to see Bakker finally tackle it. He's not alone in his disenchantment of the French tradition, but I really appreciate his resistance to the typical bullshit American pragmatist take, which doesn't even bother to treat the material at the level of content.

Bakker also makes a crucial point that many critics often fail to realize when reading Derrida: namely, that Derrida isn't interested in epistemology, as Foucault is, but in ontology, despite his enormous influence on constructivist and linguistic theories.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/derrida-as-neurophenomenologist/

One way to put Derrida’s point is that there is always some occluded context, always some integral part of the background, driving phenomenology. From an Anglo-American, pragmatic viewpoint, his point is obvious, yet abstrusely and extravagantly made: Nothing is given, least of all meaning and experience. What Derrida is doing, however, is making this point within the phenomenological idiom, ‘reproducing’ it, as he says in the quote. The phenomenology itself reveals its discursive impossibility. His argument is ontological, not epistemic, and so requires speculative commitments regarding what is, rather than critical commitments regarding what can be known. Derrida is providing what might be called a ‘hyper-phenomenology,’ or even better, what David Roden terms dark phenomenology, showing how the apparently originary, self-sustaining, character of experience is a product of its derivative nature. The keyhole of the phenomenological attitude only appears theoretically decisive, discursively sufficient, because experience possesses horizons without a far side, meta-horizons—limits that cannot appear as such, and so appears otherwise, as something unlimited. Apodictic.

 

[Dak]

Seems interesting. Unfortunately, I only get the first couple paragraphs...

Consciously or not, the European politicians advocating open borders have failed to prioritize their own citizens over foreigners. These leaders’ intentions may be noble, but if a state fails to limit its protection to a particular group of people—its nationals—its government risks losing legitimacy. Indeed, the main measure of a country’s success is how well it can secure its people and borders from external threats, be they hostile neighbors, terrorism, or mass migration. On this score, the EU and its proponents are failing. And voters have noticed. The British people issued a strong rebuke to the bloc in June when they voted to leave the EU by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, ignoring warnings from the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England, and the United Kingdom’s Treasury that doing so would wreak economic disaster. In France, according to a recent Pew survey, 61 percent of the population holds unfavorable views of the EU; in Greece, 71 percent of the population shares these views.

Back when Europe faced no pressing security threats—as was the case for most of the last two decades—EU members could afford to pursue more high-minded objectives, such as dissolving borders within the union. Now that dangers have returned, however, and the EU has shown that it is incapable of dealing with them, Europe’s national leaders must fulfill their most basic duty: defending their own.

This is from the middle, it's too long to be quoting the whole thing. I can't believe I'm reading it in a CFR publication.

Came across this earlier today. Somehow, it feels right - like I've been waiting for it. I've definitely had similar impressions of Derrida's work (i.e. as it lines up with neuroscience), but was excited to see Bakker finally tackle it. He's not alone in his disenchantment of the French tradition, but I really appreciate his resistance to the typical bullshit American pragmatist take, which doesn't even bother to treat the material at the level of content.

Bakker also makes a crucial point that many critics often fail to realize when reading Derrida: namely, that Derrida isn't interested in epistemology, as Foucault is, but in ontology, despite his enormous influence on constructivist and linguistic theories.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/derrida-as-neurophenomenologist/

I'm afraid I don't understand the significance here, you might need to parse it a bit for me.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is from the middle, it's too long to be quoting the whole thing. I can't believe I'm reading it in a CFR publication.

Ah, thanks.

Reading about its history, it seems like it's entertained a host of right-wing contributors, including Fukuyama. It is kind of ironic though to find this position being promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations.

I'm afraid I don't understand the significance here, you might need to parse it a bit for me.

There are a few things, some more significant than others.

First, most Western philosophy criticized Derrida when he first came onto the scene. He was famously criticized by American philosophers in the 1960s when he delivered a now-canonical lecture titled "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." At that time, American philosophy was dominated by pragmatism, and they saw Derrida's remarks as unnecessarily obscurantist (a fair criticism), but also as not really saying anything new or revealing. As Bakker suggests, to pragmatists Derrida's point was "obvious": "Nothing is given, least of all meaning and experience." And this is true, Wittgenstein already made basically the same argument far more convincingly in his Investigations, if not in a roundabout way in the conclusion of the Tractatus (from 1922).

Bakker's point, and what I appreciate his post for, is his perceptiveness regarding the language in which Derrida makes his argument. As Bakker says, Derrida makes his point "within the phenomenological idiom" - he's "reproducing" the phenomenological argument in order to expose its internal contradictions from within. At the time Derrida was coming onto the scene, phenomenology was still a ragingly popular philosophical model, namely because Martin Heidegger was still alive and had published the monumental Being and Time in the 1920s. There are still plenty of phenomenologists today, albeit mostly across the Channel; but phenomenology also manifests in disciplines beyond philosophy - even in the rudiments of thought itself. Bakker has a problem with the phenomenological method, so Derrida's work has value for him.

For Bakker, phenomenology embodies something very literal about what he's calling the "horizons" of thought, or the methodological oversight of "keyhole neglect." These are material issues for current neuro-scientific inquiries (neuropsychology, neurophysiology, neurophenomenology, etc.), and Bakker is suggesting that Derrida's theory of "the trace" and other deconstructionist concepts can help us identify and understand these issues when they crop up.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

More people with college degrees = a slightly more "cosmopolitan" group of people, but I don't know that that has actually proven beneficial in any measurable way.

Here's your proof:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...tion-level-sharply-divides-clinton-trump-race

"Clinton wins the college-educated segment by 25 percentage points, 59 percent to 34 percent. ... That’s vastly different from what was recorded in the 2012 presidential election, where exit polling showed 47 percent of voters were college graduates. In that contest, President Barack Obama only narrowly beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney among college graduates, 50 percent to 48 percent."