Perhaps there is a need for a social justice warriors thread. http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/04/10/dl-on-the-faculty-dl-update-on-the-email-chain/
I know I'm late here...but do you know what "supply side" economics are????? Cuz it ain't the same thing as capitalism.
I'd add one more: The basic premise of leftist politics--that a class-based approach is a winning electoral strategy--is flawed. It's one thing to lean left on economic matters; it's quite another to assume that framing politics in left-wing terms will lead to a winning electoral coalition.
I think it will work if we on the left can more openly assert our moral superiority on these grounds We're not doing that enough, yet.
We are the 99%. If you could, in theory, get people to understand that the Right's fundamental economic principle is wealth redistribution from the 99% to the 1%, you'd have a political winner. (In theory. Obviously guns and fetuses are way more important for much of the Republican Party. But I think we can all agree that those things are basically shiny objects to distract people from the theft.)
Work has picked up for me, so I need to use all of my valuable posting time on footy. But at some point, I will rejoin the conversation and respond to the points made.
See, I don't buy the "moral superiority" argument. I favor increased public/state involvement in the economy and a generally top-down redistribution of income, but I no longer subscribe to the notion that purely economic, class-based leftist policies are morally superior to other options. Actually--my real concern is that I've recognized that there's nothing inherently liberal or progressive about them in and of themselves. Reactionary, unfree regimes can pursue leftist economic policies without contradiction. That's what I'm getting at--certain segments of the orthodox Left not only believe that primarily class-based, economic leftist politics have a much bigger natural constituency than I think they do, they also believe that pursuing such politics will inevitably lead to--or naturally facilitate--socially and culturally liberal/progressive policies and interests. I no longer believe that, which is why I'm more and more inclined to stop identifying with "the Left" even when I share many of the same policy goals and values. EDIT: As noted below, I completely ignored the obvious sarcasm. The perils of posting at the tail end of a lunch break...
I don't buy that. I don't believe there is a "99%" out there. I mean--yes, on paper, of course there is. But as a meaningful electoral cohort, you need the vast majority of Americans to politically define themselves primarily if not solely AS "the 99%" and that's something which I think is never going to happen. Here's the deal--so much Left-wing politicking is based on the premise that there's a natural progressive/leftist majority out there that just needs the "right" message/campaign/candidate/party to rally around, and then--voila!--there's your natural, unbeatable leftist majority. Yet, somehow, it never happens. Most of the time, activists and true believers on the Left assume it's because the flagbearers and party functionaries and so on don't act in good faith, or are compromised, or even corrupted, or whatever. The DNC "rigged" the primaries. Whatever. There's been some pushback against Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas" from pollsters and others who've realized something that neither Frank nor much of the political Left has realized--people don't all define their "interests"--even their economic interests--the way we think they should or in ways which might seem obvious to others. As time goes by, I'm more and more inclined to see the specter of conservative, rural whites voting for oligarchs who promise to really stick it to immigrants to be a feature, not a bug, of their political identity. They know EXACTLY what their "interests" are and they frankly don't care if it doesn't make sense to us.
Sorry--I know you well enough that under normal circumstances I would have easily caught the sarcasm. Posting in a hurry (when I should be working as my lunch break is now officially over!).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html Not that any conservative here will bother to read what scientists - actual scientists - think about IQ, but it turns out nobody who matters when it comes to measuring intelligence uses IQ any more.
LOL, I will pause to comment on this: "Their landmark study was based on the results of an online intelligence test which was launched by the Daily Telegraph and New Scientist two years ago, and attracted more than 110,000 responses." Yes, how scientific. An on-line test. IQ is highly predictive of life outcomes. For example, a person with a 130 IQ is highly likely to do better in life than a person with an 85 IQ--even controlling for education. Nothing is certain, of course--that 130 IQ person might kill you, and that 85 IQ person might be an amazing carpenter with a great work ethic. But to say these numbers mean nothing in large population is to live in a liberal wonderland. This evidence is much more accurately predictive than say, the models that exist for effects of global warming.
I should have said "a significant portion of the left," but see two posts above, and many people who have argued that throughout this thread.
This post is so ********ing stupid. IQ is a subjective test developed 100 years ago. It's a flawed test. Science has rejected it in favor of other evaluative tools. If you have concerns with the online test (which, by the way, can be scientific as long as it follows the scientific method), try this one. From 1987. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-17534-001 Here's a critique of the IQ test from the 1970s. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662 Here's a discussion of the evolution of intelligence tests over the past century. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx That's the American Psychological Association, by the way. Oh, here's this discussion of studies that show that IQ test-takers perform better when they receive a monetary reward. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure How does a financial reward increase intelligence, exactly? Go the ******** away, prion.
@Jazzy Altidore I speak only for myself, but perhaps you should talk about intelligence rather than IQ. The problem with IQ is that by definition, it reduces each person down to a single number. And I'll say one other thing...if scientists were able to come up with a test that could produce a single number, I, personally, believe it's possible that different races would have different scores. But the variation between the "dumbest" and "smartest" races would be (and this is just me guessing) on the order of 1% at most. A number far, far smaller than the differences within races, rendering its use for neo-eugenics nil. Or to put it another way...I'd love love love to see data comparing the IQ scores of rich black kids to poor white kids. That would shut up you neo-eugenicists.
Okay, so I guess my strawman was actually correct, because now in fact you are denying that IQ matters. But no matter how sad it makes the social Marxists, IQ measures something important about intelligence. No-one denies that it varies from test to test. That is not controversial. And I never said that it was the only thing that matters about a person. But the fact that it makes you uncomfortable to reduce a person to a single number does not change the fact that is highly predictive. Speaking about racial differences in IQ is a much more complex and controversial subject, but I'm now focused on the uncontroversial points.
No-one argues that IQ is perfectly precise, or that variance exists from test to test, or that motivation can affect how hard a person can perform, or that improvement is to an extent possible with preparation. But why does this make you so emotional? Cherry-picking criticisms does not change the weight of scientific authority--just like cherry picking criticism of climate deniers. Here's a brand new article about a discovery of over 50 genes connected with intelligence, as measured by IQ. http://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-genes-discovered-scientists-iq-clever-inherited-613348 There's still much to learn. Much like height, we know it is largely genetic, but we haven't discovered close to every gene. But we are making progress. “For these 52 genes we won’t be able to increase intelligence,” she says. “The heritability of IQ is 80 percent, so it’s still a long road before we find all the genes. And even if we find them there might still be environmental interactions, or gene interactions that we haven’t really investigated but that might be important. So I wonder if we’ll ever be able to do this in mice or humans."
It looked for awhile like Charles Murray, whose book The Bell Curve had, shall we say, several neo-eugenic overtones, was coming around to that position. Not so, alas, given what he said on his Sam Harris broadcast that, I think, got this theme started in this thread. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ray-still-convinced-whites-are-smarter-blacks But in keeping with this theme, Middlebury students who disrupted a Murray presentation, will be disciplined for being morons. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-bell-curve.html?_r=0 The college, in Middlebury, Vt., issued a statement on Tuesday describing sanctions against 67 students “ranging from probation to official college discipline, which places a permanent record in the student’s file.” The statement did not disclose how many students received the harsher punishment, but said, “Some graduate schools and employers require individuals to disclose official discipline in their applications.” None of the students were suspended or expelled. A college spokesman, Bill Burger, said the statement was intentionally vague because of concerns that releasing details would identify individual students, violating federal laws aimed at protecting student privacy. A few more points I think are interesting, and probably worthy of the Education thread... Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury, said he believed that while the penalties might satisfy some members of the faculty and the community, others would say the college was in a difficult position of having to investigate and impose sanctions by the time some students graduated. More broadly, he said the episode reflected an institutional failure in the way students are taught at Middlebury. “They don’t understand the value of free speech at a college and what free speech really means,” Mr. Dickinson said. “I think some people are going to say we should be looking more broadly at the institution and whether we taught these students properly.”
Absolutely not true that his book has "neo-eugenic" overtones. In fact the purpose of the book was to explore the effects the variances in IQ have on modern society. 2 of 19 chapters did explore differences in racial iq. The entire controversy of his book stems from the statement that he think it is likely that racial differences in IQ stem from some combination of genetics and environment. Nowhere does he make any sort of advocacy or even suggestion for eugenics.
Where's the strawman now? Some guy is literally fuming and cursing because I dared to link some of the latest research on IQ and genetics.
It depends on what you mean by "intelligence." Here's what is confusing me. Sometimes you seem to believe that "intelligence" is one's genetic predisposition/potential to be "smart." (Whatever you want "smart" to mean.) And sometimes you seem to believe that "intelligence" is one's actual, realized "smartness." The latter is going to be very culturally dependent, and it's going to be very dependent on environment. To be honest, I'm not sure you even understand the difference in your own mind.