Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

More than a bit, I'd say.

 

[rms]

https://knowridge.com/2018/03/12800...grating-comet-setting-off-global-firestorms/#

 

[rms]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ce-class-white-and-black-men.html?mtrref=t.co

@Dak , it's got your favorite stat

 

[Dak]

A result of the tri-forces of victim culture, welfare culture, and the drug war.

 

[Einherjar86]

Pretty good review, sums up some of my objections to Pinker.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/enlightenment-how-pinkers-tutelary-natures/

And here we encounter the paradox that Enlightenment Now never considers, even though Pinker presupposes it continually. The challenge for us today is to construct an informational environment that mitigates the problems arising out of our previous environmental constructions. The ‘bugs’ in human nature that need to be fixed were once ancestral features. What has rendered these adaptations ‘buggy’ is nothing other than the ‘march of progress.’ A central premise of Enlightenment Now is that human cognitive ecology, the complex formed by our capacities and our environments, has fallen out of whack in this way or that, cuing us to apply atavistic modes of problem-solving out of school. The paradox is that the very bugs Pinker thinks only the Enlightenment can solve are the very bugs the Enlightenment has created.

What Nietzsche and Adorno glimpsed, each in their own murky way, was a recursive flaw in Enlightenment logic, the way the rationalization of everything meant the rationalization of rationalization, and how this has to short-circuit human meaning. Both saw the problem in the implementation, in the physiology of thought and community, not in the abstract. So where Pinker seeks to “to restate the ideals of the Enlightenment in the language and concepts of the 21st century” (5), we can likewise restate Nietzsche and Adorno’s critiques of the Enlightenment in Pinker’s own biological idiom.

The problem with the Enlightenment is a cognitive ecological problem. The technical (rational and technological) remediation of our cognitive ecologies transforms those ecologies, generating the need for further technical remediation. Our technical cognitive ecologies are thus drifting ever further from our ancestral cognitive ecologies. Human sociocognition and metacognition in particular are radically heuristic, and as such dependent on countless environmental invariants. Before even considering more, smarter intervention as a solution to the ambient consequences of prior interventions, the big question has to be how far—and how fast—can humanity go? At what point (or what velocity) does a recognizably human cognitive ecology cease to exist?

 

[Dak]

Pretty good review, sums up some of my objections to Pinker.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/enlightenment-how-pinkers-tutelary-natures/

Good piece. I liked this bit (but of course):

As it stands, I’m with Nietzsche and Adorno. All things are not equal… and we would see this clearly, I think, were it not for the intentional obscurities comprising humanism. Far from the latest, greatest hope that Pinker makes it out to be, I fear humanism constitutes yet another nexus of traditional intuitions that must be overcome. The last stand of ancestral authority.

And most of the information after (too cluttery to quote half an article):

Just what are these pertinent facts? First, there is a profound distinction between natural or causal cognition, and intentional cognition. Developmental research shows that infants begin exhibiting distinct physical versus psychological cognitive capacities within the first year of life.

 

[Einherjar86]

You like the bit in which he agrees with Adorno???

 

[Dak]

You like the bit in which he agrees with Adorno???

I didn't see anything after that which could be described as critical theory. It was a rather basic neuroscience perspective but with some philosophical jargon thrown in.

 

[Einherjar86]

Indeed. Turns out Adorno was more on point than even he likely realized.

 

[Dak]

Bakker's latest really hammered the point home.

Edit: Didn't realize Bakker had a ABD PhD. I don't know how people fall into that. I can't afford to not finish my future dissertation. Earnings difference would be like 50k+ per year + retirement benefits.

 

[Einherjar86]

Bakker's latest really hammered the point home.

FINISH HIM.

Edit: Didn't realize Bakker had a ABD PhD. I don't know how people fall into that. I can't afford to not finish my future dissertation. Earnings difference would be like 50k+ per year + retirement benefits.

If I recall, he became pretty disillusioned with academia. Personally, I think he realized he could write about the same ideas in a fantasy series and make a comparable amount of money (he's under contract and his series is mentioned alongside Malazan and ASOIAF). And it would reach a wider audience.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a really interesting discussion going on in the comments of Peter Watts's most recent blog post (which he's since amended a couple times, noting when he does so):

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=7917

I'm not going to quote any sections because there are a lot of comments, but it's an interesting debate. Made some points about the history of vaccinations that I wasn't aware of.

 

[Dak]

I've read some research on herd immunity and the methodology looks kind of shit. It appears that vaccines for stuff like polio might be worth it to get people through to adulthood, but overall vaccines appear oversold.

I haven't gotten the flu shot since getting out of the military and haven't had the flu until this year, after the kids exposed me to it for like a week and a half, and it's only the second time they have had it.

Edit: To Watts thesis, I'm much more concerned with MRSA type stuff than a killer flu. If theres a major pandemic I expect it will be more due to compromised immune systems through shitty lifestyles and fast transmission through porous global transit vectors than whether or not we vaccine.

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't get a flu shot this year either, and I didn't catch it. Got a nasty case of norovirus just after New Year's though, knocked me out for about twenty-four hours.

I was mostly interested in the suggestion that vaccines have never really been that effective. But I also think Watts is right that, at this point, it's smarter to keep vaccinating than not. Obviously if select individuals choose not to vaccinate then it won't make a huge difference; but if everyone simultaneously chose to not vaccinate, the consequences would be severe. That won't stave off the next "rolling pandemic" though, as Watts puts it.

 

[Dak]

I was mostly interested in the suggestion that vaccines have never really been that effective. But I also think Watts is right that, at this point, it's smarter to keep vaccinating than not.

From a standpoint of "we aren't sure, so let's err on the side of caution", it makes sense to continue to vaccinate. Plus, again, not all vaccines are created equal. Some probably work much better than others for any number of potential reasons, and getting nuanced on the public policy level is usually a nonstarter (again, for a variety of reasons). Although I haven't done intense research on the subject, reading some actual research on herd immunity and looking the the correlations between vaccinations and disease rates vs wealth/hygiene changes and disease rates leaves me doubting the vaccine success story generally speaking (although maybe not specifically speaking).

While avoiding things like Scarlet Fever or Polio are good because of the extreme risks (blindness, paralysis), avoiding most temporary illness, particularly without lifestyle considerations, is a conceit of our times.

 

[Einherjar86]

While avoiding things like Scarlet Fever or Polio are good because of the extreme risks (blindness, paralysis), avoiding most temporary illness, particularly without lifestyle considerations, is a conceit of our times.

I feel like flu vaccinations (for example) are more important for very young and very old people; but for most people our age, they probably aren't necessary.

And I do agree that lifestyle considerations are important, although I'm sympathetic to people for whom healthy lifestyles aren't an affordable option. That said, I think there's something to be said for doing 30 minutes of cardio and strength workouts four times a week.

 

[Dak]

I feel like flu vaccinations (for example) are more important for very young and very old people; but for most people our age, they probably aren't necessary.

I'm mixed on this. Best I'll admit is they probably don't hurt anyway. Unfortunately the military and medical facilities require them so I'll be getting them regardless. Wah wah.

And I do agree that lifestyle considerations are important, although I'm sympathetic to people for whom healthy lifestyles aren't an affordable option. That said, I think there's something to be said for doing 30 minutes of cardio and strength workouts four times a week.

Yeah, the main issues we have are the people who work hard but eat like shit, and the people who sit all day and eat like shit. Even with exercise most people consume a bunch of shitty food. I don't buy the cost issue because eating healthy is cheaper $ wise, but it is not convenient. Some people are worked to the bone with 2 jobs etc so I get not wanting to meal prep or whatever. But there are still better options than McDs on both counts. I get a little worked up about this stuff but it happens when you keep seeing people under the age of 50 or even 40 with ischemic heart failure.

 

[Dak]

I think Bakker is killing it right now. I have no objections but rather an ovation at this point.

Edit: I should provide a qualifier: Thinking on these things simply isn't available to something like 99.5% of people.

 

[Einherjar86]

Really good stuff. He's been harping on this for a while, but he's definitely honed his ideas and writing style.

Of course it's true that most people don't have the time/energy to consider these ideas (or the time to train themselves to think/read about them), but I don't think the upshot of such work should be personal gains at individual levels. The social value of this kind of writing is only applicable on scales that exceed individual usefulness and livelihood. The idea that philosophical writing resembling Bakker's should speak to the folk-psychological and everyday common-sense ruminations of the average person is one reason for the suspicion toward academic writing. That said, I don't think it needs to be the concern of philosophers to justify their intellectual interests (although it is a concern of academia's communications and public outreach departments).

 

[rms]

What's the bakker stuff in reference too?

You guys up to date on Harris v Klein?