The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

I don't know that I believe that "stronger" means "taking it in the tail." Stronger could actually mean not taking it in the tail. I don't understand why anyone is absolutely positioned on any spectrum, or what the point of that comment is. I think that Berkeley teaching the military about warfare is precisely why the military doesn't socialize eighteen-year-olds (and that's a good thing). After all, the intel agents that got Bin Laden were college-educated smartypants.

Yes, stronger means not taking it in the tail, that's what he was saying, and the point is that all this posturing about "speaking truth to power" by ensconced, elite, liberal academia and their downstream puppets is self-delusion. Berkeley doesn't actually teach the military about war as far as I know, the reference to intersectionality should have shown that was sarcasm. War is taught to the military by the military.

Tangential but relatedly: CIA agents didn't *get* bin Laden. They found him. Physically and cognitively advanced, highly trained, and militarily socialized military personnel *got* him. You couldn't take just any schlub from a college campus and make him/her a member of DEVGRU. Those schlubs can, however, skip a bunch of classes and get high every day and get a piece of paper that says they paid a lot of money for 4-6 years to some fancy place with a sports team or and maybe some underpaid smart people toiling away in sterile white rooms.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, stronger means not taking it in the tail, that's what he was saying, and the point is that all this posturing about "speaking truth to power" by ensconced, elite, liberal academia and their downstream puppets is self-delusion. Berkeley doesn't actually teach the military about war as far as I know, the reference to intersectionality should have shown that was sarcasm. War is taught to the military by the military.

Well, he's not a great writer, so I'm not surprised it didn't come across.

Tangential but relatedly: CIA agents didn't *get* bin Laden. They found him. Physically and cognitively advanced, highly trained, and militarily socialized military personnel *got* him. You couldn't take just any schlub from a college campus and make him/her a member of DEVGRU. Those schlubs can, however, skip a bunch of classes and get high every day and get a piece of paper that says they paid a lot of money for 4-6 years to some fancy place with a sports team or and maybe some underpaid smart people toiling away in sterile white rooms.

"Cognitively advanced," ha.

 

[Dak]

Well, he's not a great writer, so I'm not surprised it didn't come across.

I thought it was painfully obvious, considering the source anyway. It was, of course, a snippet of a much longer conversation. Maybe I should have copy/pasted the rest.

"Cognitively advanced," ha.

You can't even apply for special forces without, as far as I can estimate based on rough equivalencies, performing at least +1SD (IQ and/or the tests themselves) on qualifying entrance exams. Of course that's a minimum, and there are limited slots so performing better is in your interest. even the minimum ~+1SD on the normal distribution places you in the 80th+ percentiles. I don't think it's a stretch to refer to the top 20% as cognitively advanced. When you factor in that the officers in special forces also have college education and in some cases graduate degrees, it seems fitting.

 

[Einherjar86]

Scoring well on tests doesn't make one cognitively advanced, which to me entails more than what these kinds of tests are interested in measuring.

I wouldn't deny that plenty of special ops grunts are smart, but that doesn't make them more cognitively advanced than a CIA consultant, since the grunts probably wouldn't have known how to "find" Bin Laden (aside from breaking down doors and kicking in teeth).

 

[Draehl]

Where do you folks stand on the relationship between preferences/opinions vs. ego?

I've been accused in the past of being egotistical for being so generally particular in my preference- music, food, women, cars, alcohol, whatever the topic may be- but would argue it comes from an unavoidable inflexibility developed from introversion (spending more time observing, judging and developing acute opinions) rather than from any sense of entitlement or measure against the self in any way. If one could be a disembodied spirit and through observations alone develop opinions and preferences, but never able to interact with them, could you legitimately link that to ego?

 

[arg]

interchangeability of thought?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

formulation of a change of discern?

 

[Einherjar86]

If one could be a disembodied spirit and through observations alone develop opinions and preferences, but never able to interact with them, could you legitimately link that to ego?

I think that simply the logic of observation implies an egoic structure. To speak of observation, even the most expansive kind of observation, necessarily implies an unobserved space (i.e. that of the observing subject or instrument). In other words, observation is always embodied, although maybe not in a human body.

I think that once you reach a point of genuine disembodiment, or dispersion, then you're no longer talking about observation; but I'm not sure exactly what we would be talking about. It would be an entirely different kind of information processing.

 

[Dak]

Scoring well on tests doesn't make one cognitively advanced, which to me entails more than what these kinds of tests are interested in measuring.

GT scores measure word knowledge and paragraph comprehension. Verbal performance correlates very closely with overall measures of intelligence, even when overall measures include many nonverbal tasks. I suspect what you have in mind are people more inclined to infinitely turn on nuance, which I would argue would tend to have more to do with personality profile and depth of training in a given field rather than differences in "raw" capability. In fact, I doubt the special forces would want operatives that would be inclined to infinitely turn on nuance, as turning on nuance involves hesitation, and hesitation can get you killed in the wrong situation.

I wouldn't deny that plenty of special ops grunts are smart, but that doesn't make them more cognitively advanced than a CIA consultant, since the grunts probably wouldn't have known how to "find" Bin Laden (aside from breaking down doors and kicking in teeth).

Because that's not what they are trained to do. You also can't call them "grunts". Someone can enlist as main line infantry (actual grunts) with testing waivers - that is, they didn't make the barest of bare minimums for general military service, and if the Army or Marines are hurting for bodies badly enough, they can get a waiver. Ignoring average people who simply don't test well, now we're talking about people at -1SD on the normal distribution - or people somewhere in between the bottom 20% and bottom 30%. These people get stuck doing a lot of "grunt" work.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're right about the grunt thing, I take that back, That's my anti-military prejudice leaking through.

My objection originates with what I see as a harmful and unproductive distinction between the kinds of personalities in education and the kind in the military, which goes back to Yarvin's comment. Not that there isn't a distinction, mind you, but that having military personnel run the country would be somehow better than having educators run it.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that neither military personnel nor educators run the country.

 

[Dak]

My objection originates with what I see as a harmful and unproductive distinction between the kinds of personalities in education and the kind in the military, which goes back to Yarvin's comment. Not that there isn't a distinction, mind you, but that having military personnel run the country would be somehow better than having educators run it.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that neither military personnel nor educators run the country.

Yeah I don't think either is a good option, but I think Yarvin's point is about where the "true" privilege lies (even if he admittedly doesn't do a very good job of keeping his point simple and direct). While I have problems with draft/forced conscription, it's not entirely without merit. Certainly no worse than the current cultural pressure to take on a bunch of debt for an increasingly devalued and somewhat imo historically subpar postsecondary education experience.

 

[Einherjar86]

Certainly no worse than the current cultural pressure to take on a bunch of debt for an increasingly devalued and somewhat imo historically subpar postsecondary education experience.

Yeah this is a concern. Not sure I buy the "certainly no worse" comment, but... I do admit the increasing irrelevance of post-secondary education. This needs to be addressed. A lot of scholars are attempting to do now, especially after Trump's election, but it's difficult to do so from within the institution.

 

[Dak]

A lot of scholars are attempting to do now, especially after Trump's election, but it's difficult to do so from within the institution.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. I don't see Trump's election or position as having anything to do with the irrelevance, or how scholars are attempting to revalue education.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure how you'll feel about this, but there has been a palpable shift in the classroom atmosphere over the past year or so. There is an increasing tendency for certain students to resist faculty not over the legitimacy of arguments being made in the classroom, but over the credibility of the instructor herself. It's never happened to me, and the reports are overwhelmingly from women--basically, suggestions from student comments that their position as instructor doesn't grant them an advantageous perspective on the material. Or, in other words, that any student's opinion is as equally appropriate as the instructor's.

Trump's presidential campaign and election has been wind in the sails for this kind of attitude. So faculty have taken to holding department meetings and such to discuss how best to interact with such students, and how to seriously consider their resistance without giving in to it. I've been thinking a lot about this, even though I haven't directly experienced it. There's a legitimate notion about these days that we're nearing the end of education, and it's not necessarily due to the student loan bubble (although that's also a concern): it's due to an increasing hostility toward, and distrust of, educators. Obviously I agree that there are inept and/or overly political instructors, but the general attitude is disconcerting.

 

[Baroque]

The nice thing is in math, it's often black and white. if they think they're right, you can either prove them wrong, or prove them right and thank them and move on.

 

[Einherjar86]

Haha, that would be nice. Yeah, it would be nice if you could teach literature by demonstrating a proof.

One of the most atrocious misunderstandings in the humanities is the hokey idea that somehow art, literature, etc. means what its audience thinks it means, or how they experience it. I heard a grade school teacher taking a troop of kids on a field trip through an art museum, and asked them what they thought about a certain painting (we were in the modernist wing, I can't remember who the painting was by, but it was probably a Picasso or Matisse or something). Several of them said different, totally asinine things, and the teacher said "See, this is what's great about art--it means what you want it to mean!"

It made me cringe: a) no it fucking doesn't, and b) grade school students' brains shouldn't be polluted with this kind of nonsense. At that age, teach them to exercise their totally unique and genius creativity, and then burst their fucking bubble when they get to college. Art isn't personal, it's historical, and its meaning is historical (although that doesn't mean it's singular).

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure how you'll feel about this, but there has been a palpable shift in the classroom atmosphere over the past year or so. There is an increasing tendency for certain students to resist faculty not over the legitimacy of arguments being made in the classroom, but over the credibility of the instructor herself. It's never happened to me, and the reports are overwhelmingly from women--basically, suggestions from student comments that their position as instructor doesn't grant them an advantageous perspective on the material. Or, in other words, that any student's opinion is as equally appropriate as the instructor's.

Trump's presidential campaign and election has been wind in the sails for this kind of attitude. So faculty have taken to holding department meetings and such to discuss how best to interact with such students, and how to seriously consider their resistance without giving in to it. I've been thinking a lot about this, even though I haven't directly experienced it. There's a legitimate notion about these days that we're nearing the end of education, and it's not necessarily due to the student loan bubble (although that's also a concern): it's due to an increasing hostility toward, and distrust of, educators. Obviously I agree that there are inept and/or overly political instructors, but the general attitude is disconcerting.

What I meant was that getting a bachelor's degree in many fields requires what appears to be little more than breathing, and that having a degree is no longer a signifier of very much other than that it's so easy to obtain that suspicion must be cast on anyone *without* one.

Haha, that would be nice. Yeah, it would be nice if you could teach literature by demonstrating a proof.

One of the most atrocious misunderstandings in the humanities is the hokey idea that somehow art, literature, etc. means what its audience thinks it means, or how they experience it. I heard a grade school teacher taking a troop of kids on a field trip through an art museum, and asked them what they thought about a certain painting (we were in the modernist wing, I can't remember who the painting was by, but it was probably a Picasso or Matisse or something). Several of them said different, totally asinine things, and the teacher said "See, this is what's great about art--it means what you want it to mean!"

It made me cringe: a) no it fucking doesn't, and b) grade school students' brains shouldn't be polluted with this kind of nonsense. At that age, teach them to exercise their totally unique and genius creativity, and then burst their fucking bubble when they get to college. Art isn't personal, it's historical, and its meaning is historical (although that doesn't mean it's singular).

I don't see how claiming meaning is historical is significantly different than claiming it's personal. There's just a barrier to entry to who gets to make such personal claims of meaning (which is couched in terms like "historical" rather than personal). At least honest psychology admits that "clinical judgment" is still innately personal, no matter how well educated.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see how claiming meaning is historical is significantly different than claiming it's personal. There's just a barrier to entry to who gets to make such personal claims of meaning (which is couched in terms like "historical" rather than personal). At least honest psychology admits that "clinical judgment" is still innately personal, no matter how well educated.

Are you suggesting that, at the risk of oversimplifying, "historical" meaning is simply the result of the elite scholars agreeing upon whatever pieces of art/literature they personally prefer?

The process of how art becomes historically meaningful is nothing like this, for the record.

 

[EternalMetal]

Haha, that would be nice. Yeah, it would be nice if you could teach literature by demonstrating a proof.

One of the most atrocious misunderstandings in the humanities is the hokey idea that somehow art, literature, etc. means what its audience thinks it means, or how they experience it. I heard a grade school teacher taking a troop of kids on a field trip through an art museum, and asked them what they thought about a certain painting (we were in the modernist wing, I can't remember who the painting was by, but it was probably a Picasso or Matisse or something). Several of them said different, totally asinine things, and the teacher said "See, this is what's great about art--it means what you want it to mean!"

It made me cringe: a) no it fucking doesn't, and b) grade school students' brains shouldn't be polluted with this kind of nonsense. At that age, teach them to exercise their totally unique and genius creativity, and then burst their fucking bubble when they get to college. Art isn't personal, it's historical, and its meaning is historical (although that doesn't mean it's singular).

I think this is the root of the problem. I remember back when I was going through grade school and would analyze literature, the 'correct' analysis was the authors perspective. I know that this is a simplification of the exercise, but the main goal of such analysis was to at least grasp an understanding of what the original authors message or viewpoint was. Only later in high school did my teachers challenge us to critically and personally assess these viewpoints (which can only be relevant if you can grasp their contextual meaning). I think that the critical assessment nowadays is happening too early in education, and that children are raised to think too much for themselves and not about what others are thinking.

This line of thinking spreads towards the criticism of professors, but so does the prevalence of the internet. People no longer need to go to school to become educated about various subjects, because the internet has a wealth of information on pretty much everything. Professors are held to a higher standard these days because information is cheap. And who needs the knowledge of a professor you fundamentally disagree with, right?

 

[Dak]

Are you suggesting that, at the risk of oversimplifying, "historical" meaning is simply the result of the elite scholars agreeing upon whatever pieces of art/literature they personally prefer?

The process of how art becomes historically meaningful is nothing like this, for the record.

But that is the ultimate determinate is it not? No one else gets to determine the accepted process (even if they "participate" in it) nor the outcome.