Democracy Heaven that is. Part of democracy is having a faith in the people. Mesi is the people isn’t he? Yes. So maybe I’m just an elitist. An intellectual snob who has no right to be especially since I don’t teach at Harvard, and can’t really get a handle on Slavoj Zizek. Or so I’ve been told.
Maybe this is the way democracy such as it is in America should be. Pick an electable body, train him to toe the line and hope he doesn’t step too far out of the box, over the line, beyond the pale. Eventually he will be able to find the bathroom in Albany by himself with any luck. Maybe it’s the best we can hope for. No, sorry, I’m drifting into sarcasm. I’ll try again.
I’ve never met Joe Mesi let alone have talked to him. Maybe the school of hard knocks does inculcate wisdom. Maybe he has a high IQ. But given IQ theory is mostly myth if not mere ideology, that doesn’t work for me either. The question is ‘Should I not have faith in the process given I trust in democracy?’
And the answer is “No, I don’t think so.” Surely democratic conflict does not guarantee truth. Even moreso democratic conflict without good educational grounding most surely does not guarantee truth nor ethically solid recommendable action. So given our educational system does not educate for even minimally competent let alone creative and critical democratic participation, I should not be required to have faith in the process as it stands. And by the way that doesn’t make me a traitorous American. It makes me an authentic American.
Joe Mesi is a symptom, neither a solution nor the real problem.
As Aristotle pointed out the probable truth of practical political discourse and action is not the apodictic truth of scientific inquiry. Maybe the rationality of power is reasonable, media distortion, dirty tricks, institutional disinformation, educational ideology notwithstanding. If reason is seeking first what is in our interest, especially as community(forget about humanity), possibly consciousness of what is in our interest will soon show itself, such that even Joe Mesi can grasp it. Then we won’t need to worry about the arrival of the rationality of the graduate school seminar in politics, which like Godot never arrives.
That is, possibly “greed” does work as the Michael Douglas character opined in the film, Wall Street. But it may just be that we are not greedy enough. We have not been clear and courageous enough to really “desire” what we really do desire. And as such we cannot know what is in our interests, argue for it nor fight for it. Possibly as Nietzsche maintained, we require another 100 years of nihilism to work it out. Let the struggle continue (and hope we survive, yes?). Maybe this is democracy, even if it is based on a mixed martial arts militarized model.
Maybe I am in democracy Heaven.
11 comments:
Sorry Larry IQ is not a myth at all. It is only considered a myth due to the fact that certain minorities score far lower than whites(who infact are world wide a distinct minority) and other minorities.
Think about if the difference in discussion of the subject if everyone performed at apporximately the same level and environmental causes could explain the rest? There would be no myth.
When you have large adoption studies in but which two black identical twin babies are adopted by two different families in different incomes, religions, colors, ect but as they enter post adolescence(when inheritance is thought to be 80-100%) they have essentially the same tested IQ how can you dissent?
The myth is egalitarianism.
No, Anon., “IQ” is not literally a myth. But to treat it as if IQ research necessarily leads to the conclusion that all which is significant in learning and teaching is determined by the natural fact of IQ is to mystify any valid conclusions that can be drawn from such research. Given a basal level at which we can assume a person is capable of learning all that needs to be learned to participate intellectually and politically in the public arena, there is no justification to deny adequate environmental conditions to assure such learning takes place. Granted there is a level of intelligence determined organically below which participation in the symbolic world is not possible. But above that level it is an egregious assault on the principle of educational opportunity to exclude anyone on the basis of deductions that follow from IQ theory which stratifies intelligence and tracks students accordingly.
Moreover I believe there is also evidence which shows that twins raised in the same environment show differing “IQs.” Also, not all separated twins in differing environments end up with the same IQ.
Lastly I’m not interested in performance on formal IQ tests as a measure of intelligence. I’m interested in promoting a notion of intelligence which nurtures a competence in real human affairs. Someone with an IQ of 180 doesn’t interest me if society leads him to a life of narcissistic self-aggrandizement. I’m interested in performance in the world even if that “world” is the world of philosophical theory, avant-garde art or some other seemingly “individualistic” endeavor. We are first social beings and should have our intelligence directed toward competence and performance in that arena. See Dr. James Lawler's book, "IQ, Heretibility and Racism."
Sorry Larry your the drawing a conclusion of racism which is not a position being advocated. This is exactly what I find interesting by people. It is not acceptable for a person to draw conclusions which might in some way reflect negatively upon "minorities" becuase that would be either stereotyping or "racism" but it is in fact acceptable to do the reverse and stereotype anyone who does this as racist.
Exactly the subjective position I would unfortunately expect. As for the exact IQ that is not the position I hold. It is only as people age and approach their 20's that IQ inheritance becomes almost an absolute with an 80-100% inheritance rate barring of course brain trauma, extreme malnutrition ect. This is why programs such as head start, no child left behind can seemingly be successful in the early stages of a person's life yet as they grow it's success withers completely.
Did you know that studies have been done which show that two people with approximately the same level of mental retardation and IQ of say 65 between an african american and a japanese american in almost every case the african american will perform at a much higher functional level? The reason is that for the japanese child to have an IQ so far below the mean average for japanese he would display traits of profound mental retardation whereas the african child would perform higher to the fact 65 is not incredibly lower than their average IQ of 85?
I personally have witnessed this many times before. As a matter of fact in earlier days the determinant of mental retardation was 85 until it was realized that they would have to redefine it due to the fact that if they held it at 85, approximately 55% of african americans would have to be considered moderately mentally retarded! That is not opinion Larry.
Whites are not to be held as an example of superiority though as you presupppose I would. Whites as an average score lower than both specific Jews and asians also. It really has nothing to do with emotional response nor racism, it has more than anything else a sanitized reaction to facts as they present themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it is proved beyond a doubt that Japanese have evolved with a higher IQ than the average Jew would I care? Not very much at all.
Anon,
I’m not accusing you of subjective racism. I am taking into account the historical attribution of lack of intelligence to certain races because of low “test scores.” So, yes, I am suspicious of the way you bring up the argument. Since at least 1969, when Arthur Jensen, Berkeley Educational Psychologist, wrote “IQ and How to Boost Achievement in the Schools,” in Harvard Educational Review, the IQ research has often been misused.
I do however consider your conclusions and, even without seeing it, the research regarding the ineffectiveness of Head Start as objectively racist. There is research showing that the average white child born into a middle class literate family has a larger vocabulary than the adult black born into "poverty." In short I believe that the proper nurture is the basis of further achievement. This doesn’t mean that nurture must not continue. It must but that’s the nature of learning not to mention life.
So the conclusions are racist? Science is therefore racist if it does not bow to the sensitivity of certain groups of people? Does the factual content warrant itself or shoud it be stifled for fear of offending another group of people?
Did you know that the tests in which the scoring gaps are largest are those in which contain no cultural information nor language other than the most basic and deal specifically with shapes and sizes of objects?
Why are the studies racist? Because you wrongly advance with the unfounded preconception that all human groups are inherently the same in levels of intelligence. How about differentiation in athletics? Would you deny also specialization through evolution in regard to that fact as well? This is absolutely ridiculous.
Why do liberals agree with evolution to the degree that it disproves fundamentalist christians yet absolutely fall off the train when moving further into the theory with inheritance and racial groups? It's incredibly humorous and transparently obvious the bias which shows forth.
Humans differ from gorillas approximately 2-3% in their genetics but look at the results of those 2-3%. Human groups differ approximately 1% in their genetic makeup but look at the difference in terms of technological progress by continent and even within mulitracial societies. It is so absolutely obvious to any who are honest with their lying eyes.
Anon: The inferences are racist, not the objective conclusions of the research. The question is what the research will come to mean educationally and politically. What inferences do you draw? What applications of the research is there to the human condition? If none, then what’s the point of the research?
You presume that we can have an intelligence test that can be “culturally neutral.” Does that mean that culturally neutral intelligence applies only to culturally neutral experience in the world? Or, does it mean that there exists an “intelligence” that has nothing to do with the intelligence that applies to the cultural world? What could THAT possibly mean?
Moreover as I recall the research done by Dr. Lawler that I referred you to, the deviation or spread of “IQ” scores across differing populations did not indicate a significant difference with respect to highest scores achieved in a group; and, I may be wrong here, but I don’t thing the average scores between different racial groups was statistically significantly different. Sorry for the memory gap here. I haven’t had time to go back and check the research from that work which was done shortly after the Jensen research came out in the early 70’s.
Also, are you saying that the percentage difference between racial groups is sufficiently significant to determine anything regarding their essential humanity? [I'll try to do more on this later. Gotta’ go out. But I have to say I really appreciate your critique. I wish you would declare who you are.]
Anon: The inferences are racist, not the objective conclusions of the research. The question is what the research will come to mean educationally and politically. What inferences do you draw? What applications of the research is there to the human condition? If none, then what’s the point of the research?
You presume that we can have an intelligence test that can be “culturally neutral.” Does that mean that culturally neutral intelligence applies only to culturally neutral experience in the world? Or, does it mean that there exists an “intelligence” that has nothing to do with the intelligence that applies to the cultural world? What could THAT possibly mean?
Moreover as I recall the research done by Dr. Lawler that I referred you to, the deviation or spread of “IQ” scores across differing populations did not indicate a significant difference with respect to highest scores achieved in a group; and, I may be wrong here, but I don’t thing the average scores between different racial groups was statistically significantly different. Sorry for the memory gap here. I haven’t had time to go back and check the research from that work which was done shortly after the Jensen research came out in the early 70’s.
Also, are you saying that the percentage difference between racial groups is sufficiently significant to determine anything regarding their essential humanity? [I'll try to do more on this later. Gotta’ go out. But I have to say I really appreciate your critique. I wish you would declare who you are.]
Anon: The inferences are racist, not the objective conclusions of the research. The question is what the research will come to mean educationally and politically. What inferences do you draw? What applications of the research is there to the human condition? If none, then what’s the point of the research?
You presume that we can have an intelligence test that can be “culturally neutral.” Does that mean that culturally neutral intelligence applies only to culturally neutral experience in the world? Or, does it mean that there exists an “intelligence” that has nothing to do with the intelligence that applies to the cultural world? What could THAT possibly mean?
Moreover as I recall the research done by Dr. Lawler that I referred you to, the deviation or spread of “IQ” scores across differing populations did not indicate a significant difference with respect to highest scores achieved in a group; and, I may be wrong here, but I don’t thing the average scores between different racial groups was statistically significantly different. Sorry for the memory gap here. I haven’t had time to go back and check the research from that work which was done shortly after the Jensen research came out in the early 70’s.
Also, are you saying that the percentage difference between racial groups is sufficiently significant to determine anything regarding their essential humanity? [I'll try to do more on this later. Gotta’ go out. But I have to say I really appreciate your critique. I wish you would declare who you are.]
Not at all am I attempting to erode their humanity nor their essential worth but rather project a fact which does in fact have ramifications upon the society at large.
There are incredibly accurate projections of crime and violence in general correlating with IQ. Actually there are negative effects upon the lives of anyone with a "below average" IQ.
To study IQ is actually a study of humanity's ability to adapt to different situations and produce fruitful responses to calamity and creativity.
There is a professor who has written books about this. I haven't read them yet but I think his name is Philippe Rushton...I am not certain.
Also the idea of this line of study having no societal impact is absurd. Why should science take into account the political sensitivities of the perpetually sensitive and tight fisted?
Imagine if scientists absolved themselves from the factual data regarding evolution, or creation in general because it offended fundamentalist Christians! Unheard of particularly because there is no overwhelming emotional conditioning that scientists must undergo prior to engaging in this study as is such with relation to racial studies.
How many scientists must have their dignity, careers, and reputation destroyed for reporting factual information? Do you believe that as soon as this information is widely accepted that the populace will then quickly elect another Adolf Hitler and begin the final solution of blacks?
It's all really just a ridiculous fraud perpetrated by those whom obviously cannot grasp reality when the matte of racial differences is broached.
I am in fact then an asian supremicist by all accounts if this information belies a belief in supremacy! Down with the white man for he has ruled for far too long! Just kidding.
Do you remember a few semesters ago when there was an attack at a local college I believe Niagara County Community College when a white female was brutally attacked in the liberal arts wing by a black unnamed female? The white girl was beaten from behind, raked against the wall, left bloody and bruised, and after the assault the black girl held her by the hair and said "I just want you to see what I look like white girl..."
I checked and there was one article in a local paper and it was merely refered to as a "racially motivated attack" not registered as a hate crime! Two days later a swatstika was found on a synogague apparently as a prank. There bold letters exclaiming "Hate crime" on every local paper.
Funny isn't it? The James Byrd dragging crime in the 90's remember that? We were forced to witness contrived tears, foriegn dignitaries, hate crime legislation, Bill Clinton sobbing uncontrollably ect. Just two weeks later an even more gruesome dragging death which involved a white being killed occured...it recieved no coverage at all. Racist society? You bet, just not exactly the way we are told.
That is actually quite typical today. Hispanics are listed only as victim's of hate crimes but when perpetrators they are listed as caucasian! Keep that in mind when taking into account the unnending racially based conflict in any city where blacks and hispanics reside.
ps...who am I anyways? Guess my first name Larry.
Post a Comment