 | Response to Qtronman I don't have an issue with your claim that individuals must be taken on their own merit, I even said to judge them solely upon what group they belong to is the fallacy of composition. I asserted that this data on IQ is relevant to the debate with cultural Marxism. I do agree with your point that they claim to be scientific, but their method is not, and that is where the data is important. First on to some points you made. We do have elements of a meritocracy, but social networking is also important, and also government influence through affirmative action programs. So it is not solely meritocratic, and I said that. I guess from the perspective of political society, we have government influence through affirmative action, and from the perspective of civil society, we have a culture with a high focus on networking. I will define some terms now. Society is a grouping of people; political society structures relationships through force and coercion, whereas civil society does so through voluntary relationships. This should not be read as political society being bad and civil society being good. Randian Objectivism influences society if that means a random person likes the philosophy of Rand, that is not what I meant. Cultural Marxism dominates academia, and its ideas are now part of our society through the political dimension through affirmative action policies and hate crimes, and through culture by most people dogmatically adhering to multiculturalism. Also, Randian objectivism is seen as pop philosophy by academia, it is considered unworthy of discussion, and its ideas have been the basis of no laws, nor does it affect our culture strongly. This in no way determines its veracity or lack thereof, but it does determine its influence. Also, this is relevant in that people will focus on popular ideologies. Atheists in this culture deal with the Judeo-Christian notion of god, and not that of the Brahman of Vedanta, because of what is popular in this society. I do agree that philosophy should not make a priori scientific claims, and that Cultural Marxism does do that. Facts are synthetic a priori truths and must be validated through experience, for Cultural Marxists, facts about environmental and genetic influence are a priori true. I think this is due to Cultural Marxists being influenced by Marx who was influenced by Hegel, who was influenced by Kant, also there are many steps in between. Basically the economic or cultural aspects of Marxism are just the inflated synthetic a priori categories through which everything gets interpreted. I do think Kant went in right direction, but I think Hegel and Marx blew it up ridiculously. If you want to discuss this in another discussion, I would be glad to do it, but lets keep one stasis for the discussion, and that will be the relevance of IQ data to critique cultural Marxism. I never said people were not judged upon their merit, I said not solely upon merit. Think of it like this, in a high IQ profession it is a necessary condition that someone has a high IQ, but it is not necessarily a sufficient condition. It is not "a so what", because these ideas of cultural Marxism permeate our society, and free speech is being threatened by political correctness, it is considered social justice to expropriate jobs from whites to give them to blacks. The goal for them is to get to equal representation in all fields no matter who gets trampled upon to get there. This was in reference to Cultural Marxists. I don't have to prove that someone with an IQ of 85 is genetically determined to commit crimes. Besides intelligence, there are also other psychological factors in play, like the degree of anti-social behavior, level of conscientiousness, etc.. Also, mentally retarded people do not fall in between 80 -90, and that is where most the prison population lies, so they would not commit more crimes than blacks. I just stated the high correlation. I have read studies that blacks are more prone to anti-social behavior, they are less conscientious, and they do have an average IQ that lies in between 80 -90, which is where the bulk of the prison population lie. This was just asserting a correlation; don't infer what I did not imply. These psychological characteristics along with intelligence are a function of genes and environment (psychological disposition = f(Genes, Environment), so I do take into consideration many factors. Youtube would not allow more text in the description box, I will find a place to put my text fro mnow on |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
