The tantrums I see are in the responses from those who weren’t a part of the protest planning.

Are they though? They’re well organized with proper permits, law enforcement is notified ahead of time. Security procedures put into place for the safety of self and other. Signs are made. People bring food and water.

The tantrums I see are in the responses from those who weren’t a part of the protest planning. They’re surprised by the seemingly ‘sudden’ protests and get upset and complain about them.

====

The right’s had 25+ years of Rush Limbaugh. That even trumps Fox + Brietbart.

The right has had a long dark ages of anti-intellectualism that it’s only just crawling out from underneath. How many decades of “family values”? A descent into pro-creationism? Conservatism has been pseudo for a long time. Even what we see now as “the right” behaves more like the “right’s version” of SJW activism.

====

Man, that shit goes back to “Age of Reason” shit.

====

Eh, are we getting into nature/nurture shit. It’s both. Done

====

Eugenics was embraced by the scientific left for some time. The logical positivists loved that shit. But then some national socialist party somewhere liked it too, and spoiled it for the fruit fly 1930s scientists

====

Only post-Skinner. Even then, it was slow going

—–

I like a lot of Skinner (methodology + results, but _not_ his ethics. Man, he sucked in that dept)

====

“The Universe is Mathematics” guy is another newer example of that. They’re fun but I try to take what’s good and leave the crackpot aside.

====

I don’t pay much mind to WW2 shit when I can help it. Some people seem stuck there, like its some unfulfilled glory hole… glory days… whatever. Never understood the appeal.

====

Heard the name, but no interest in learning more. I had a fascination with Mengale as a kid but that’s as far as I ever went with WW2 interest.

 

I liked the movie with the Dr. Strangelove guy. Mostly the “yee-haw” guy at the end. Don’t know the other names. If it’s “mad scientist” types, I go with more of the friendly “curiosity shoppe” owner type personalities. But I’ve been a Doctor Who fan since I was 8, so that should tell you all you need to know about that.

====

I have family that were geneticists in the 1930s. One of them signed the Declaration of Eugenics in 1939. They were trying to show it was still salvageable despite the negative vibes coming from Germany at the time. Too late though. Funding got drastically cut on their fruit fly stuff. Honestly amazed at the DNA stuff in the 1950s ever happened ’cause it smelled of Eugenics and they were trying to distance themselves from that even then, at least officially – and funding wise.

====

Wasn’t that so much at all. It was the idea of controlling outcomes in a lab.

====

The right feared it because it meant we’d lose our heredities and could become like clones, all the same, outside of God’s Providence, etc.

=====

Eh, I dunno. Left seems to like science. Center does too as does the moderate right. Religious right’s not keen on it, neither is the far-all-natural left, who are two sides of the same coin.

=—–

Most of the lefties I know are the Dawkins loving types. I try to dissuade them from Dawkins and lean them a little more towards Pigliucci.

====

atheist/agnostic rights were extremely rare once, although they’re getting a little more in number.

====

Point is, science has been firmly on the left for 100+ years. I’m not anti-religion but I’m generally a fan of the sciences, although I could spend plenty of time complaining about the fundamental failings of the sciences and that of education.

====

Sure it is. Just look at the culture of the sciences and how they function. The whole way they go about things is leftist.

=====

“Let’s check each other’s work, k?”

“None of us are absolutely right ’cause maybe someone else will be righter than us”

Yes, people on the right flip out and demand banning stem cell research, etc.

—-
No idea. I think they’d love the idea of “choose your own baby”. Custom hair color. Everybody’s an individual, sculpt your own kid just the way you like. I think they’d be all for it.

=====

Oh are you on that singular issue? IQ inheritance vs learned? Possibly racial divisions of IQ passing down heredity lines? Did I generalize for nothing here?

-=====

Ok, let’s toss the other shit aside then. It sounds like you’re focus is on a) Education system VS b) intelligence is innate and cannot be modified.

Something like that?

=====

The goal of education is to form a baseline of general intelligence. It doesn’t foster exceptionalism nor does it help those who don’t conform to its methods of teaching.

====

I dunno: the right used to be ignorant about social justice and now we have the so-called “alt-right” which is all-SJW in nature, previously only found on the left.

====

My alma mater noticed it in the early 00s. The first “white pride” groups started showing up on campus, using the arguments of the university left to support a more right-white perspective. I’d say education worked.

 

===

If education *didn’t* work, there’d be no intellectuals on the right. The old-school conservatives left the playing field by the early 1990s, with the Rush Limbaughs taking over the minds of the right.

They inhabit Congress at present.

=====

I have far higher expectations for education than you could possibly imagine, but it’s unlikely I’ll live to see it.

=====

Eugenics of a form is already here Robert. It’s not called that. It’s not science fiction. It went through the back door, environmentally but it’s here already.

People are living longer. Having fewer babies in every nation. The babies they have are surviving. Genetic strains among humans are improving.

That future you want is around us already, if that’s what you want.

====

That’s sociological phenomenon, economic factors, family dispositions. The fallacy of that study is this romantic notion that Icelanders have that they have a genetic purity that therefore makes all conclusions about populations genetic in nature.

====

I’ll be laughing about that “education gene” thing for days to come. Can’t believe they printed that with a straight face.

====

Right in the top section, says what I was saying:
“Shows that genetic influence is not the same as genetic determinism and that the environment matters at least as much as genes”

Genetic determinism, just like “blank slate” shit, just goes down unnecessary rabbit holes.

====

Rabbit hole. Windmill chasing. Pursue if you wish, but it’ll be considered crackpot for decades to come.

=====

 

Complete disregard for environment is as bad as “it’s only environment”.

====

People are born with inherent strengths and weaknesses. That’s nothing revolutionary. But then you have environmental factors that can mitigate issues and enhance strengths.

=====

Your tone. Your approach. Your style. Art of rhetoric.

====

Eugenics isn’t inherently offensive. We’re already doing it, just not calling it that. “Nature vs nature” isn’t inherently offensive. It’s common knowledge.

What knowledge are you trying convey that’s inherently offensive?

====

It’s ’cause it reads as “You’ve committed a sin in the religion of argumentative logic” and has a religious quality to it. Nobody likes being called a sinner.

====

I was raised Methodist. Very liberal, leftist “do good social shit” group. They never talked about sin. Not even hell. No devil involved.

Yet they got their point across. How? Style.

====


Point is: first rule of public speaking? Know your audience. If you don’t know your audience, you are an ineffective communicator with that audience.

—–

“Wouldn’t that be awesome?” is an alternative to fear coercion. Both have their place and their audiences.

=====

 

Want to know the most effective fear-based marketing campaign?

“Raise your hands if you’re Sure”.

====

Fucking genius. Several generations of people in Western countries won’t raise their actual ARMS up because of that shit. Decades of influence over human behavior.

======

We’re already in augmented cognition times.

=====

Like TV before it, newspapers before that, gossip before that, and any of our minds at 4am on a Saturday night without sleep.

=====

Excess certainty. Discomfort with ambiguity.

=====

Aristotle’s excluded middle’s influence upon Western Civilization.

====

Trade routes included knowledge trading. There’s not a corner of the planet that wasn’t somehow influence by Aristotle’s excluded middle in the past 2500 years.

=====

They hardly exist anymore. World Bank has touched upon every country in its efforts to eliminate extreme poverty.

====

That’s National Geographic BS. Sells magazines and gets ppl watching their shows. *How* do we know about them at all? Contact. Do-gooders follow always.

====

Not erase but mitigate somewhat, sure. I’d have to look into Indian mental health / depression to compare but then there’s other factors that can lead into 4AM saturday night depression besides, “my life isn’t what it should be in the Platonic realm I imagine!”

====

[and yeah I swapped to plato – forgot to blast him too]

====

People deal with plural logics all the time though. Holding contradictions in our heads is an everyday part of life, and the source of many a soap opera and reality TV show.

====

Ah, you’re a binary boy. k. The source of paradoxes is the excluded middle. Give me a paradox and I’ll solve it. You also won’t like my answers.

=====

[I *could* use the extended cognition of Google but I’m too lazy to use that part of my extended brain]

===

gosh, memory. I’ll try to rely on my own for a change… “How can a barber shave himself?” something like that?

====

I forget how it goes, but one of the answers is to hire another barber.

=====

The “if and only if” assumption in the logic puzzle is the issue.

====

Yeah, excluded middle is the problem there. Also, it’s a fiction which is another issue with it. “if and only if” is another issue with it.

====

Logic puzzles (thought experiments) are logically flawed at the start as when you look around, they don’t exist in reality. They’re puzzles Games. 5 year olds can answer them correctly, even when they don’t know the rules. _especially_ if they don’t know the rules.

=====

Example: If you want to break an unbreakable password, you can hire a team of mathematicians or find the person whose password it is, kidnap their family ’til they give it to you. Or give up and do something else. All solutions.

=====

“This game is stupid and boring!” and scrolls away to do something else. They’re not wrong.

=====

How do I answer it?
” (Source: Challenging False Logic Puzzles by Norman D. Willis)”
Track down the source, find the answer key.

=—-

I’m fundamentally a pragmatist, although not exclusively so.
Studying how metaphors work and influence people (for better or worse) has been a more pragmatic use of my time.

I see logic as a subset of rhetoric. Metaphors are another thing in the family of rhetoric. They’re used to convince people of truths.

—–

serialize? I’d consider it a re-mapping with extensions and exclusions.

====

Logical truths are logical truths within the system of logic itself. It’s closed world.

=====

It’s useful but it’s only useful within its own domain.
Outside of its own domain, remapped (as metaphor) onto other domains, its usefulness may or may not extend further.

=====

Who needs the convincing that something is truth?

====

Show me where it doesn’t circle back to humans (even if through the product of humans) and I’ll listen.

====

Rhetoric isn’t always convincing. Communication is more of an art form than anything.

====

There’s other ways to convince. Shame. That’s a form of rhetoric. Making fun of someone’s mother, their background, their political leaning. That’s all use of rhetorical devices.

=====

Logic is a subset of rhetoric because it’s used by people for people to convince them of things. Doesn’t mean it’s always effective but it’s useful.

When I say “rhetoric” i don’t mean the modern usage where it’s considered a negative. Rather, in the way they used it in the University of Cosntantiple (Byzantium) as the highest form of education. Mother/father (whatever) of all the other.

——

Beyond rhetoric (meta) you have narratives in general. Beyond narratives you have mythology. I don’t think much comes before mythology. It’s something like that. Might have the hierarchy a little off here.

====

I’d say in your mythology, logic underpins the universe. The narrative is that there are objective truths which can be ascertained by a process of logical deduction (or induction) and in communication, dialectic is the proper methodology for rhetoric. Within rhetoric, is the system of logic you’re using, complete with “these are fallacies and these are truth values”.

======

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 2 = twelve

Leave a Reply