If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

fwiw I did attend a public school up until halfway through 6th grade. My homeschooling looks like it was better than yours, although there were parallels. My science textbooks were Creationist though tbh they weren't bad outside of maybe the biology book, basically standard freshman college science with the obligatory, "And to think those kooky evolutionists thought it all happened by chance!" at the end of each chapter. My parents didn't care much about anything that wasn't math or science, however. Math exams were the only real exams I took during my homeschooling (I think not by coincidence calculus 1 was my worst class in college, whereas I did pretty well on the calc 2 material that I had never been exposed to before). Though my dad did make a strong effort to teach us all deductive reasoning and symbolic logic our first years of homeschooling, and since he's an electrical/computer engineer (AND, OR, NOR gates galore) he was plenty qualified to do so. My siblings and I all did pretty well as a result, far better off than we would have likely been at a public school.

But I think there's going to be a natural bias in that we both presumably had conservative upbringings which shaped our ideologies to at least some extent. Kids homeschooled by hippies may end up more left-wing or pomo or whatever. I think Einherjar's particular brand of reasoning is rare in any political corner; the average Dem will still authoritatively state that solution X is needed for problem Y because of Z. Tell working-class Joe that he can't really know if the brown-colored meat puck he's flipping exists, and he's going to vote Republican.

You've listed four examples of society working through the process of determining acceptable speech.

You're assuming that my supposed vision of thought policing is the end-all be-all of what should be said; but that's not the case. Such a practice can only ever be a process. From our perspective, we have language that is acceptable and language that isn't. The point is that total freedom of expression provides no direction whatsoever. Speech always needs to be in conversation with social reactions. There's no end result. It can only evolve.

Yes, I'm choosing not to respond to your other comments. But as you said, I don't think anything can be proven.

HBB likes facts, and facts are great. But they're not absolute truths, and that's something a few people here can afford to learn. "Proving" something means identifying its metaphysical constancy. Unfortunately, everything that we consider "proof" rests upon values that are culturally or historically contingent. That's not to deny a physical reality, but only that the meaning of physical reality doesn't reside in that reality itself.

I'd be fine with this perspective if you didn't use the inability to know things in order to justify social policy for the expressed purpose of knowing a vision for a better society. I think most scientists acknowledge that we can't know to have proven anything with 100% certainty, instead we just disprove the null and gradually refine our theories with the knowledge we've accrued. That doesn't mean that we knowingly perform actions without attempting to know as much as we can about the potential consequences of said actions.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd be fine with this perspective if you didn't use the inability to know things in order to justify social policy for the expressed purpose of knowing a vision for a better society. I think most scientists acknowledge that we can't know to have proven anything with 100% certainty, instead we just disprove the null and gradually refine our theories with the knowledge we've accrued. That doesn't mean that we knowingly perform actions without attempting to know as much as we can about the potential consequences of said actions.

I hope that's not what I'm doing.

I haven't said that physical reality doesn't exist, but only that the values we attribute to physical reality have no metaphysical origin in the physical world. They're our interpretations of what happens around us. So when Dak and I disagree over what the primary reason behind, say, African American poverty and criminal behavior is, we're debating competing interpretations--not any provable reality. That crime and poverty are rampant in African American communities isn't debatable, but the reasons for this are both debatable and unprovable.

For the topic at hand, I'm saying that the value of free speech has no origin in the physical world, and so assuming that individual free speech is de facto better than regulated speech is the imposition of a value--not the discovery or promotion of an a priori truth. That there possibly exists no society in history that fell into decay due to excessive free speech is certainly evidence that free speech is good; but it's also evidence that speech has always been appropriately (socially) regulated. Alternatively, there have definitely been cases throughout history in which regulation had unwanted consequences; but it's also probably true that countless instances of social regulation are happening all the time and flying under the radar because they have no (or minimal) disruptive consequences.

As most social scientists will admit, the prospect of disproving complex social functions is more difficult than disproving phenomena in a controlled laboratory setting. Often, when complex social functions are working, we remain blind to how they're working, and how effectively they're working. Ascertaining their existence and functionality often requires some degree of speculation (although all the best scientists have ultimately resorted to speculation). This isn't to say we can't know anything, but only that the argument has to be about the interpretation of observations, not merely whether certain things have been observed.

Hannity is a joke, but he's no worse than Maddow et al, whose name is never uttered as contributing to the problem. Hannity is "virtually" calling for mass killings. No, he's not. He's just the less masculine Coulter or Maddow.

I'm going to go ahead and say that Hannity is worse than Maddow. You disagree then you disagree.

And somehow I outperform 90+ percent of students. I waited until my 20s to be physically active and I outperform 90% of adults in that way too (cardio-wise anyway). The Bismarckian system is completely outdated by more than 3 generations and yet we get hit with statements like "y u guys no like facts"? No, they aren't "absolute", but something you could learn is that absolutes aren't necessary for significant, persistent effects.

I love facts, but I don't think they're transparent. Let's debate about the facts. That's what's at issue here. As I said above, interpretations matter as much as the facts themselves. When people demand "proof," that means they want absolutes. They want facts whose persistence within reality is unchanging and has an unchanging meaning. That's what I have a problem with.

edit: Aeon just published a piece that's relevant to what I'm saying. And the Sherlock Holmes quote gets right to the heart of it: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court

 

[Dak]

As most social scientists will admit, the prospect of disproving complex social functions is more difficult than disproving phenomena in a controlled laboratory setting. Often, when complex social functions are working, we remain blind to how they're working, and how effectively they're working. Ascertaining their existence and functionality often requires some degree of speculation (although all the best scientists have ultimately resorted to speculation). This isn't to say we can't know anything, but only that the argument has to be about the interpretation of observations, not merely whether certain things have been observed.

I agree with this, and this is a strong argument for conservatism in many aspects, but most especially socially and fiscally.

I love facts, but I don't think they're transparent. Let's debate about the facts. That's what's at issue here. As I said above, interpretations matter as much as the facts themselves. When people demand "proof," that means they want absolutes. They want facts whose persistence within reality is unchanging and has an unchanging meaning. That's what I have a problem with.

edit: Aeon just published a piece that's relevant to what I'm saying. And the Sherlock Holmes quote gets right to the heart of it: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court

Good article, but I'm not quite certain how directly it applies to things here. It's not a novel observation to me that our observational capabilities are directed. Philosophy long ago shot down passive reception of sensory input, before science confirmed we do not simply "receive". This is also undergirding the claims to problems in the liberal arts by Haidt et al.; there's such a heavy liberal presence that the research and education can't help but be skewed. I like the phrase, which I is militaryish-originating, which refers to "facts on the ground". While this refers to material/physical aspects as opposed to theoretical truths, it is also time/place/etc contingent. The facts on the ground can change moment to moment. But that doesn't change their factual status at the time of discussion.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree with this, and this is a strong argument for conservatism in many aspects, but most especially socially and fiscally.

I interpret it differently.

Good article, but I'm not quite certain how directly it applies to things here. It's not a novel observation to me that our observational capabilities are directed. Philosophy long ago shot down passive reception of sensory input, before science confirmed we do not simply "receive". This is also undergirding the claims to problems in the liberal arts by Haidt et al.; there's such a heavy liberal presence that the research and education can't help but be skewed. I like the phrase, which I is militaryish-originating, which refers to "facts on the ground". While this refers to material/physical aspects as opposed to theoretical truths, it is also time/place/etc contingent. The facts on the ground can change moment to moment. But that doesn't change their factual status at the time of discussion.

I didn't mean to imply that it was new, only that it complemented this discussion insofar as the author is saying that facts aren't obvious by nature. They're obvious depending on context, and context means the imposition of values on our observations.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

I had an interesting conversation about gender expectations.

Basically, the argument persisted because my friend believed that most violence is a byproduct of toxic masculinity (I disagree with this but I'll elaborate my side later). In addition, the world would be better if there were no gender roles because they have really harmful psychological effects on men.

My gripe on this is that one's culture shapes gender stereotypes, and America has many different cultures and even the definition of "traditional gender roles" has changed over the years. Within any institution there are roles. Roles do help with power distribution. However, most gender roles are cultural and don't necessarily serve specific partner pairs, but maybe cultural institutions. I don't think gender roles are necessary because there isn't a gender attribute that's attributed to one gender. Also, I do see that there are issues with imposing gender roles, but I believe that gender roles could be used a in practical sense (depending on what society or culture you come from) to maintain discipline. In my own experience, I really don't see the effects of gender roles. I live in a Westernized society in which I can choose what type of relationships I want to have with other people, and I am not alone in this. I mean to say most violence is a byproduct of toxic masculinity... is a stretch. Are men more stifled? Maybe. Is it easier for a woman to get into "all men circles", to be into sports, or display aggressive behavior? I don't really know. None of this is taboo in the culture or reality I live in. If I think about the flip-side, can men easily get into "all women circles" and display "feminine" qualities? I don't really see the problem. There are men makeup artists, hairstylists, and men who have friends that are predominantly female. I know being frustrated can lead to people lashing out, but I'm having a hard time to attributing all that frustration to toxic masculinity and unable to fulfill expectations set by gender roles (and if you live in America or any Westernized country... these roles really don't exist or they exist very arbitrarily in so much as the company you keep, really).


I suppose I'm rather ignorant to the whole "gender debate" because I just don't feel as though it's really that important in modern society. Things like wealth, peer and family relationships, lack of resources, inequality, and government corruption all seem like greater causes of violence to me than toxic masculinity and gender roles.

/endrant

 

[Dak]

Violence is typically a tool of last resort. There are subcultures that promote it as a first line option. When you get someone of low intelligence and higher T, in a subculture pushing it as a first line option, it becomes both a last and first resort (people with low intelligence with low community support don't have many options). There's a reason that low intelligence males ages late teens-early 30s commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime. The military and police also skim off the intelligence top in that demographic for a portion of the enlistees.

 

[The Ozzman]

The military and police also skim off the intelligence top in that demographic for a portion of the enlistees.

Don't people get denied admission to be police officers for being too intelligent though?

Things like wealth, peer and family relationships, lack of resources, inequality, and government corruption all seem like greater causes of violence to me than toxic masculinity and gender roles.

I agree, but inequality in and of itself is really ambiguous. It needs more context given the fact that people aren't created equal.

 

[Dak]

Don't people get denied admission to be police officers for being too intelligent though?

I'm talking about the top of the lower end. Like ~90-100.

 

[rms]

Unless that intelligence skews social skills it wouldn't affect their entry at all

 

[The Ozzman]

Unless that intelligence skews social skills it wouldn't affect their entry at all

Explain how this would work

 

[rms]

there's separate tests/sections for what I would consider intelligence, problem solving/factoids/writing etc and social experience/interaction/what you would do

unless you consider all of this 'intelligence' ?

 

[The Ozzman]

intelligence, problem solving/factoids/writing

All raw or general intelligence to me

social experience/interaction/what you would do

Critical reasoning/social intelligence, so a different form of it but somewhat related

 

[Dak]

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cercor/bhy109/4996558

One more article in the slew showing sex differences can't be changed with cosmetic surgery. The question is, are we actually determining where the differences lie in TG persons before throwing hormones and plastic surgeons at them?

 

[Dak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ffcabeff946_story.html?utm_term=.88e60738b2db

Democrats trusted more on immigration, Trump trusted more on border security. I think this kind of bores right through the rhetoric on either side.

 

[rms]

don't get the controversy on this one

 

[Dak]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618300060

“In both countries, higher ability predicts left-wing social and right-wing economic views.”

 

[HamburgerBoy]

don't get the controversy on this one

Yeah that one was a textbook good shoot. Clearly turned around and went straight for his gun.

 

[rms]

welp, another can 'o worms

 

[Dak]

I was quite young when I saw Forrest Gump. I didn’t know who Gary Sinise was then (sorry, Gary) and for the first time IN MY LIFE, I saw another human being whose body looked like mine, a double above-the-knee amputee (don’t get me started on the fact that he was a man — lack of female perspective is a separate letter altogether). Then I found out that Gary was able-bodied, wearing long green socks on his lower legs, and they erased them out of the film. And in that instant, I felt erased too.

Sounds like someone needs therapy, not pampering their pettiness.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Individuals with disabilities make up almost 20% of the world’s population. We are the largest minority and the “most marginalized group in Hollywood,” according to a 2017 study conducted by Fox, CBS and the Ruderman Family Foundation (an organization I know you are aware of and engaging with now). The study found that in last year’s TV season, less than 2% of characters were written to have a disability and of THOSE characters, 95% of the roles were filled with able-bodied actors.

Pretty sure that 20% figure includes mental illness and that there's no shortage of that in Hollywood. Not sure how being a depressed pedophile qualifies one to play a below-the-knee amputee though.