tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post1199013579526275456..comments2024-03-08T19:49:06.001-05:00Comments on No Bad Memes: The importance of free education and reforming general educationLeaving Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-589327776688834232013-01-29T22:43:11.877-05:002013-01-29T22:43:11.877-05:00In short: Everyone should be required to learn a l...In short: Everyone should be required to learn a language and dress themselves, but not everyone should be required to attempt to become a skilled musician. Is music fun to learn? Absolutely. Should you be able to learn it in a well-managed, studious environment? Absolutely. Should there be room for you to teach your professor(s) and fellow classmates new techniques or styles of music -- and possibly even have them incorporated into future curricula? <i>Absolutely.</i>Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-19248020376313048432013-01-29T21:44:17.277-05:002013-01-29T21:44:17.277-05:00This blog's flailing efficacy combined with a ...This blog's flailing efficacy combined with a looming redundancy has put a halt to future posts, for the most part, but as I'm going through older posts, I'm occasionally finding the need to clarify a few things.<br /><br />To the above anonymous commenter, the section of this post aimed at compulsory education was developed after careful consideration of what the lowest common denominator is among humans when it comes to skill sets and mentation; the intent was to promote compulsory education which is neither superfluous to a sentience-sympathetic value system nor too technically demanding for all potential human genotypes.<br /><br />Analogously, all people (within reason, anyway) are capable of driving a car, but piloting a private jet or winning races with a sports car, while by no means <i>excluded</i> in my model of a future society, are not things that everyone is truly capable of. To put it simply, just because a course is not required does not mean that you cannot pursue it, anyway; learn all that you want about literature, art, or outdated philosophical systems. Knowledge itself never hurts anything, and with the above-mentioned meta-philosophy in place to curtail or preempt poorly calculated decisions or poorly implemented or otherwise misused knowledge, risk would be greatly reduced as it is.<br /><br />Plus, in the above, money-free model, you'd have:<br /><br />1. A greater choice of professors, "schools," and courses; you could take courses on Internet memes or obscure new genres of music -- or create your own<br /><br />2. No extrinsic motivation, and thus, a greater correlation between chosen courses and passion for said courses<br /><br />3. More granularity and customizability of material, leading to every single one of your concerns being addressed by someone, even if they do so from a remote location on the other side of the world<br /><br />4. Encouragement of your personal input while downplaying your need to memorize arbitrary "facts"; for example, stipulating that a person needs to know the exact speed limit laws of each state in the Union before he or she can earn a driver's license is purely arbitrary and has nothing to do with his or her ability to parallel park<br /><br />Come on. I'm on your side!Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-26531959141906440302011-11-03T16:27:01.761-04:002011-11-03T16:27:01.761-04:00You should have just said "I support getting ...You should have just said "I support getting rid of all the fun classes and teaching all the children we won't have because procreation is WRONG my bullshit armchair internet philosophy"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-62125194786367200992011-11-02T10:30:08.160-04:002011-11-02T10:30:08.160-04:00You should have just said "let's get rid ...You should have just said "let's get rid of all the fun classes and teach all the children we won't have because procreation is WRONG how to fix a computer and to believe my stupid armchair nerd philosophy"<br /><br />It would have been simpler.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-21810434874083611182011-05-14T19:24:04.263-04:002011-05-14T19:24:04.263-04:00"I like the blog so far, but it could be impr..."I like the blog so far, but it could be improved with some outreach efforts. Right now you're mostly talking to yourself."<br /><br />Agreed. I'm not a salesman, though, so this part has always been lost on me.<br /><br />"You might want to look into discussing your ideas in forums which might have more people receptive to them. Transhumanists, eugenists, antinatalists, and other people who reject appeals to nature come to mind."<br /><br />I've considered it -- and I do leave a comment on a YouTube video or two from time to time. The problem seems to be a lack of quality communities coupled with my lack of tolerance for concepts like transhumanism; once you start playing according to someone's arbitrary conditions, you become restricted in the scope of debate.<br /><br />But if you have anything in mind, feel free to provide some links. I used to frequent a number of atheist, primitivist, and nihilist forums, but haven't really looked into anything lately.<br /><br />"I agree with most (not all) of your basic assumptions about nature and society, and you're a nice change from the self-righteous fools of all stripes I find on most other forums and blogs. There are not enough shared assumptions about rationality, so people just end up shouting at each other 99% of the time. It's pretty depressing, so I hope this blog attracts more attention. :)"<br /><br />Well, my little poll thing jumped from 11 votes to 23 in the last couple of weeks out of nowhere and Google is telling me that my views are going up a good bit, so unless they're all from bots, something must be happening. I don't think it's nearly enough, though, which is why I'm interested in building the system that Tim Cooijmans and I were discussing in another comments section here.<br /><br />So, yes, I am actually looking into community building and finding new avenues for promotion at the moment. I don't expect much and have little faith in my species, though, so we'll see.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-22379638101788766552011-05-14T17:08:22.407-04:002011-05-14T17:08:22.407-04:00Link from Elizabeth's original post, since I&#...Link from Elizabeth's original post, since I'm too lazy to figure out whether she did it with HTML or not (and perhaps it's worth noting individually):<br /><br />http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/02/12/are-we-rational-animals-part-2/Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-87260631733235974282011-05-14T17:06:42.045-04:002011-05-14T17:06:42.045-04:00Originally posted by Anonymous on 4/20/11
If you ...<b>Originally posted by Anonymous on 4/20/11</b><br /><br /><i>If you meant to talk about people who use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially, why not, you know, say "people who use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially"? Moreover, being able to express oneself sexually with the freedom accorded to men and not face social ostracism or blame in case you get raped seems like a rather tangible, and not merely symbolic, benefit. I haven’t actually seen any feminists advocate that we should have a custom and expectation of female promiscuity; maybe you have. If that’s the case, it wasn’t clear from your original post that that is whom you meant. What I have seen feminists advocate is that women who wish to be promiscuous be allowed to do so without it being assumed that it’s okay to rape them, or that they are morally deficient somehow (whereas men are judged by much more lenient standards). If you think such advocates are necessarily motivated by selfish considerations, you are wrong. If you think this issue is trifling, you must not have researched it much or given it much thought. Not having to worry about such things is part of the privilege this culture accords you as a man. That’s why it’s crucial to not underestimate your connection with Western culture: you may be a culture drone in ways you don‘t even realize. You seem to think the slut stigma is a non-issue compared to people’s wasting time and resources on expendable entertainment, but at least people want to do that (and those who are currently starving would do the same, if they could). No one wants to be raped because they are seen as a free-for-all due to their sexual or sartorial choices. But I suppose you think Western women should be eternally grateful to enlightened individuals such as yourself who allow us to wear pants without being jailed or flogged, which still happens in some places. Clearly, asking for more is just shameless self-indulgence. Re: it was a joke. It wasn’t funny. Why not make a joke about how separate drinking fountains for black people were merely a symbolic standard, and getting rid of them was a waste of time? And, of course, you still haven’t shown how advocating slutification makes one unable to also advocate other things, even if one does it for selfish reasons. Do you write this blog from your own computer? Why not sell it and donate the proceeds to Oxfam or some such organization? It would probably make more of an impact than writing a blog, realistically (though I‘ve come to the conclusion that feeding starving people without limiting their fertility leads to the increase of starving people). But we sometimes choose to do things that make life more bearable for us personally. You seem to have some kind of idiosyncratic virtue ethics about eschewing happiness and pleasure (in which your personal preferences are conveniently given privileged status). You have not provided convincing evidence that the rest of us should adopt your virtue ethics or, more importantly, that it is even possible for everyone to do so.</i>Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-27518438320930649242011-05-14T17:06:05.347-04:002011-05-14T17:06:05.347-04:00Originally posted by Elizabeth on 4/10/11
Re: bas...<b>Originally posted by Elizabeth on 4/10/11</b><br /><br /><i>Re: basic logical ability, point taken. We need more longitudinal studies about early logic education. You might find this page useful for biases that show little correlation with general intelligence as measured by IQ. I like the blog so far, but it could be improved with some outreach efforts. Right now you're mostly talking to yourself. You might want to look into discussing your ideas in forums which might have more people receptive to them. Transhumanists, eugenists, antinatalists, and other people who reject appeals to nature come to mind. Case in point, one of your comments on Sister Y's antinatalist blog attracted me here. I agree with most (not all) of your basic assumptions about nature and society, and you're a nice change from the self-righteous fools of all stripes I find on most other forums and blogs. There are not enough shared assumptions about rationality, so people just end up shouting at each other 99% of the time. It's pretty depressing, so I hope this blog attracts more attention. :)</i>Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-16329101272294152142011-04-24T14:58:59.438-04:002011-04-24T14:58:59.438-04:00Actually, one more follow-up: "and I've c...Actually, one more follow-up: "and I've clarified that I was only attacking those in favor of the point rather than all feminists" should really be separated into two statements:<br /><br />1. I attack ideas that seem bad to me<br /><br />2. If someone is emotionally invested in the ideas, I might playfully poke fun at this, but I won't include it in a formal argument, research paper, etc. It will also usually be obviously a joke, and will never end in termination of contact, shunning, passive aggression, etc.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-22750333533417330462011-04-24T14:53:05.925-04:002011-04-24T14:53:05.925-04:00Try saving all of your comments in Notepad or anot...Try saving all of your comments in Notepad or another word processor before responding here. If one of them keeps disappearing, email it to me, and I'll post it with proper quotations and credit.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-72736341270894355242011-04-24T14:52:59.981-04:002011-04-24T14:52:59.981-04:00"You should really lay off using false dichot..."You should really lay off using false dichotomies."<br /><br />Example? What I stated was that you <i>could</i> be coming at this from a personal perspective, because that's how this often works, and I haven't seen any objections from you yet regarding other topics. That's one side of the dichotomy, if there is one, but I really don't know what the other would be, or what you're getting at.<br /><br />"Since advocating slutification!=getting riled up over very small criticisms"<br /><br />It doesn't, but that wasn't the statement. What I was attempting to say was that the joke was aimed at people who are foolish enough to get riled up over very small criticisms <i>of a particular mindset.</i> If you take issue with a minor jab at the notion that sexual liberty is going to save humanity, then it makes sense that you also believe that sexual liberty is going to save humanity. However, because you could have other reasons for commenting -- i.e. ones other than "getting riled up" -- then the statement <i>could</i> apply to you, but it doesn't have to, depending on what your explanation is.<br /><br />"Way to demonstrate how unbiased and impartial you are by resorting to ad hominems and making false assumptions based on stereotypes."<br /><br />1. Using <i>ad hominems</i> against hypothetical people does no harm. Even if the criticism applied to you personally, that doesn't mean that it was <i>directed</i> at you. After all, the odds of your being the <i>only</i> person to whom the criticism applies are very small, and this isn't an email or personal message; it's a public blog post intended to be read by everyone. Again, however, I never claimed that the joke applied to you -- just that this was a possibility, given your reaction.<br /><br />2. There's a difference between "resorting" to <i>ad hominems</i> and using them as supplements irrelevant to the content of your actual argument. But again, given that all I said was that it's "foolish" for anyone, regardless of who they are (you, me, or someone else) to get riled up over a criticism of what I'd consider to be a childish worldview, I wouldn't classify the statement as an <i>ad hominem.</i> If this statement targets you in some way, it does so incidentally.<br /><br />"I criticized the content of your post, yet you chose to insinuate that my comment should not be taken seriously (while promising to act “as though” I meant well)"<br /><br />I don't know if you meant well! I assume nothing in life, so why would I make an exception in this case? I replied after determining the default response for the scenario, which was the same as if you had meant well in your reply -- because I had to reply some way, and replying in the opposite way would have been more damaging while being equally uninformed. Do you mind if I act as though you mean well when I reply to you -- in the absence of information one way or the other?<br /><br />Anyway, let's not get bogged down in meta-conversation (that is, unless you think there's further reason to).<br /><br />"And FYI, accusing women of being humorless and foolish is a textbook example of marginalizing and dismissing their concerns."<br /><br />Not sure what this is referring to. If you feel like I'm making this accusation, perhaps you're being a bit too defensive (notice here, though, that I'm not accusing you of being defensive, either -- merely asking a question)? I don't know what would make you infer that I'm being condescending to women; when I see something that I think is bad for humanity, I out it, and when I think it's absurd, I may do so playfully. Not that it matters, but I have more female friends than male friends, and find most male dispositions disagreeable and incompatible.<br /><br />So if you're not for the point that I was criticizing, and I've clarified that I was only attacking those in favor of the point rather than all feminists, what do you have issue with in my post? I hope there's something else there aside from emotion.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-87190744653431360002011-04-21T14:29:34.068-04:002011-04-21T14:29:34.068-04:00I'm not sure why my other comment keeps disapp...I'm not sure why my other comment keeps disappearing, but whatevs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-39968802047059234922011-04-20T20:02:32.217-04:002011-04-20T20:02:32.217-04:00If you meant to talk about people who use symbols ...If you meant to talk about people who use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially, why not, you know, say "people who use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially"? Moreover, being able to express oneself sexually with the freedom accorded to men and not face social ostracism or blame in case you get raped seems like a rather tangible, and not merely symbolic, benefit.<br /><br />I haven’t actually seen any feminists advocate that we should have a custom and expectation of female promiscuity; maybe you have. If that’s the case, it wasn’t clear from your original post that that is whom you meant. What I have seen feminists advocate is that women who wish to be promiscuous be allowed to do so without it being assumed that it’s okay to rape them, or that they are morally deficient somehow (whereas men are judged by much more lenient standards). If you think such advocates are necessarily motivated by selfish considerations, you are wrong. If you think this issue is trifling, you must not have researched it much or given it much thought. Not having to worry about such things is part of the privilege this culture accords you as a man. That’s why it’s crucial to not underestimate your connection with Western culture: you may be a culture drone in ways you don‘t even realize. You seem to think the slut stigma is a non-issue compared to people’s wasting time and resources on expendable entertainment, but at least people want to do that (and those who are currently starving would do the same, if they could). No one wants to be raped because they are seen as a free-for-all due to their sexual or sartorial choices. But I suppose you think Western women should be eternally grateful to enlightened individuals such as yourself who allow us to wear pants without being jailed or flogged, which still happens in some places. Clearly, asking for more is just shameless self-indulgence. <br /><br />Re: it was a joke. It wasn’t funny. Why not make a joke about how separate drinking fountains for black people were merely a symbolic standard, and getting rid of them was a waste of time? <br /><br />And, of course, you still haven’t shown how advocating slutification makes one unable to also advocate other things, even if one does it for selfish reasons. Do you write this blog from your own computer? Why not sell it and donate the proceeds to Oxfam or some such organization? It would probably make more of an impact than writing a blog, realistically (though I‘ve come to the conclusion that feeding starving people without limiting their fertility leads to the increase of starving people). But we sometimes choose to do things that make life more bearable for us personally. You seem to have some kind of idiosyncratic virtue ethics about eschewing happiness and pleasure (in which your personal preferences are conveniently given privileged status). You have not provided convincing evidence that the rest of us should adopt your virtue ethics or, more importantly, that it is even possible for everyone to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-62324687189025198362011-04-20T19:59:46.699-04:002011-04-20T19:59:46.699-04:00I do happen to be female and am pretty gender-conf...I do happen to be female and am pretty gender-conforming (mostly for habitual and practical reasons), but I regard my femaleness as an accidental property, and gender and sex as social constructions. Evidently, pretty much everyone else disagrees with me, so being a feminist is a way to acknowledge and address the way society treats the group of people they have arbitrarily designated as “women”. It does not preclude concern for beings society does not designate as women. You should really lay off using false dichotomies. And, though it’s not any of your business, I do comment about the treatment of groups such as trans people or children, and I am neither (though I used to be a child, obviously). Though I am female, I prefer monogamy, so while I would derive some satisfaction from women being accorded the same sexual freedom as men, I would be mostly harmed by such a development because I find the existence of promiscuity distressing and personally threatening. I have learned to overcome my prejudice against people who do not share my (idiosyncratic) values. I suggest you do the same, especially since you seem to care about overcoming prejudice a great deal. <br /><br /><i>it was a joke aimed at people who are foolish enough to get riled up over very small criticisms of their rather selfish solutions</i><br /><br />Since advocating slutification!=getting riled up over very small criticisms, I assume this is now a personal attack on me. Way to demonstrate how unbiased and impartial you are by resorting to <i>ad hominems</i> and making false assumptions based on stereotypes. I criticized the <i>content</i> of your post, yet you chose to insinuate that my comment should not be taken seriously (while promising to act “as though” I meant well). And FYI, accusing women of being humorless and foolish is a textbook example of marginalizing and dismissing their concerns.<br /><br />This kind of behavior really hurts your credibility as a person who supposedly wants to do something about algorithmic decision-making and model building, which is a shame since you have some really interesting thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-59381649392357232322011-04-20T19:57:47.426-04:002011-04-20T19:57:47.426-04:00If you meant to talk about people who use symbols ...If you meant to talk about people who use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially, why not, you know, say "people who use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially"? Moreover, being able to express oneself sexually with the freedom accorded to men and not face social ostracism or blame in case you get raped seems like a rather tangible, and not merely symbolic, benefit.<br /><br />I haven’t actually seen any feminists advocate that we should have a custom and expectation of female promiscuity; maybe you have. If that’s the case, it wasn’t clear from your original post that that is whom you meant. What I have seen feminists advocate is that women who wish to be promiscuous be allowed to do so without it being assumed that it’s okay to rape them, or that they are morally deficient somehow (whereas men are judged by much more lenient standards). If you think such advocates are necessarily motivated by selfish considerations, you are wrong. If you think this issue is trifling, you must not have researched it much or given it much thought. Not having to worry about such things is part of the privilege this culture accords you as a man. That’s why it’s crucial to not underestimate your connection with Western culture: you may be a culture drone in ways you don‘t even realize. You seem to think the slut stigma is a non-issue compared to people’s wasting time and resources on expendable entertainment, but at least people want to do that (and those who are currently starving would do the same, if they could). No one wants to be raped because they are seen as a free-for-all due to their sexual or sartorial choices. If women's sexual freedom somehow became the new status quo, that would be a good thing, if only because the status quo bias and propinquity effect would lead to people treating women who do not conform to the "madonna" stereotype less viciously than before, which would reduce suffering.<br /><br />Re: it was a joke. It wasn’t funny. Why not make a joke about how separate drinking fountains for black people were merely a symbolic standard, and getting rid of them was a waste of time? <br /><br />And, of course, you still haven’t shown how advocating slutification makes one unable to also advocate other things, even if one does it for selfish reasons. Do you write this blog from your own computer? Why not sell it and donate the proceeds to Oxfam or some such organization? It would probably make more of an impact than writing a blog, realistically (though I‘ve come to the conclusion that feeding starving people without limiting their fertility leads to the increase of starving people). But we sometimes choose to do things that make life more bearable for us personally. You seem to have some kind of idiosyncratic virtue ethics about eschewing happiness and pleasure (in which your personal preferences are conveniently given privileged status). You have not provided convincing evidence that the rest of us should adopt your virtue ethics or, more importantly, that it is even possible for everyone to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-22779156031231923532011-04-17T18:28:34.287-04:002011-04-17T18:28:34.287-04:00On the "your culture" line, your critici...On the "your culture" line, your criticism seems like a nitpick; I'm not sure what makes the legitimacy of my characterization so crucial. My only guess is that you're trying to throw in everything you can in order to inflate your point, which is borderline red herring-ish, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and act as though you meant well in my reply.<br /><br />I suppose I do "belong" to Western culture, in a sense, even if I don't adhere to its customs beyond practical necessity -- but again, it was a joke aimed at people who are foolish enough to get riled up over very small criticisms of their rather selfish solutions, and certainly not "feminists" as a whole. In any case, I do see some merit in distancing oneself from culture in language in order to make the point that many people are culture drones.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-76522003112801055012011-04-17T18:16:32.026-04:002011-04-17T18:16:32.026-04:00I used quotes because the people to whom I was [jo...I used quotes because the people to whom I was [jokingly] referring don't have any interest in realizing gender equality whatsoever; they're predominantly interested in themselves, and will do whatever it takes to pursue this interest. This makes them no different from anyone else -- male or female -- who, for example, advocates "freedom of religion" when their kid is forced to say a prayer in school, but otherwise has no interest in the concept of freedom for anyone else anywhere on Earth.<br /><br />Honestly, how much good is it doing the world for women to do away with meaningless cultural norms like being "ladylike" if such "triumphs" are not only blatantly negligent with respect to all other types of people on the planet (both male and female) and their desires, but also seek to replace one short-sighted custom with another? Pursuit of pleasure and ego gratification have nothing to do with making the world a better place, and there are bigger things to worry about -- like starvation, apathy, or wasting huge amounts of time and resources on expendable entertainment and doing useless jobs.<br /><br />...and it was a joke.<br /><br />Some further points:<br /><br />1. Anyone who defines or labels him- or herself as a "feminist" is contriving unnecessary personal limitations, which are usually founded on a bias. If I had to pick an "ism" for myself, it'd be "feelingsist," or "sensationsist."<br /><br />2. The joke referred not to feminists, but to feminists "who advocate the slutification of your culture".<br /><br />3. The joke was that humans tend to use symbols in the place of empirical observation where it benefits them socially. One example of this is when a commercial contains smiling people, which is symbolic of the quality of the product; another is when a college gives people A's just to get funding, or provides "excellent humanities" courses which have nothing to do with functional work or training; another still is when women cross their legs in order to convey that they are not delinquents. None of these examples of symbolic gesture has anything to do with whether the product actually works, the college actually trains people to improve society, or the women are pleasant company; it just so happens that my example is more broad than the example used by "feminists," and their solutions are often kind of frivolous.<br /><br />It might have sounded condescending, but unless you consider yourself a person who promotes frivolous sexual exchanges as a symbol of personal freedom and liberation, you really shouldn't have to worry!<br /><br />4. Yeah, I'm a guy, but what I find more interesting is the prospect of your being female. I'll not assume one way or the other, but I always find it curious when people get indignant about things simply because they define themselves by them or in some way associate themselves with them. I, for instance, am not black, but I think about the plight of Africans very frequently, and am just as likely to get upset when someone says something disparaging about them without good reason as I am when someone makes a similar generalization that has to do with me personally.<br /><br />If you are indeed a female, I'll leave you with this question: Would you leave a similar comment on a post joking about something totally unrelated to yourself, such as obesity, racism, or Christianity (you could be overweight, black, or Christian; I have no idea if you are or not, but you get the point)?Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-64513381960682222732011-04-17T09:18:52.218-04:002011-04-17T09:18:52.218-04:00I've been enjoying your post, as always. But t...I've been enjoying your post, as always. But then I read the following:<br /><br /><i>So all you feminists out there who advocate the slutification of your culture as a means to "realizing gender equality" or some such silliness, drop your personal predilection for the one symbolic standard that hurts your cause and start promoting free education -- for the betterment of all!</i><br /><br />Ah, feminists and their silly efforts to "scare quote"realize gender equality"scare quote". I think someone needs to take his (it's <i>his</i>, isn't it?) own advice and try to spot his prejudices and biases. And perhaps provide some empirical support for the assertion that advocating gender equality in sexual expression somehow gets in the way of advocating free education.<br /><br />And what's with "your culture"? Have you seceded from the culture of patriarchy that makes advocating gender equality necessary? I somehow doubt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-62163609675367083532011-04-10T19:39:29.924-04:002011-04-10T19:39:29.924-04:00Re: basic logical ability, point taken. We need m...Re: basic logical ability, point taken. We need more longitudinal studies about early logic education.<br /><br />You might find <a href="http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/02/12/are-we-rational-animals-part-2/" rel="nofollow">this page</a> useful for biases that show little correlation with general intelligence as measured by IQ.<br /><br />I like the blog so far, but it could be improved with some outreach efforts. Right now you're mostly talking to yourself. You might want to look into discussing your ideas in forums which might have more people receptive to them. Transhumanists, eugenists, antinatalists, and other people who reject appeals to nature come to mind.<br /><br />Case in point, one of your comments on Sister Y's antinatalist blog attracted me here. I agree with most (not all) of your basic assumptions about nature and society, and you're a nice change from the self-righteous fools of all stripes I find on most other forums and blogs. There are not enough shared assumptions about rationality, so people just end up shouting at each other 99% of the time. It's pretty depressing, so I hope this blog attracts more attention. :)Elizabethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-2591067126237847772011-04-09T23:30:18.462-04:002011-04-09T23:30:18.462-04:00I'm glad that you're interested enough in ...I'm glad that you're interested enough in this blog to comment and critique it. I wish there were more of you here, or more blogs with similar content and analysis.<br /><br />With that said, though, I'm curious about something: What do you think of the blog so far? I know that you've mentioned enjoying it in the past, but I'd like to know what, specifically, makes it something that you read. Did you find it via another blog with similar content? What are your most important philosophical and social positions? I promise that I won't make any assumptions about your level of competency based on which ideas you find most attractive; I'm just curious about where you're coming from and what your goals are.<br /><br />Feel free to:<br /><br />1. Not respond<br /><br />2. Email me any time for any reason<br /><br />3. Respond in this comments section, even though it has nothing to do with the topic. It won't get in the way of anyone else's conversation or create any mess, so I don't see why not.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-64523399674374871872011-04-09T23:22:56.728-04:002011-04-09T23:22:56.728-04:001. We've never really implemented a system tha...1. We've never really implemented a system that teaches people how to critically analyze data and information from a young age, so it's somewhat difficult to know with certainty how hard it is for people with varying genetic makeups to grasp various logical processes.<br /><br />2. However, I don't find the most critical aspects of logic to be much more difficult than basic arithmetic, and we have evidence that arithmetic is easy to grasp at a young age for most humans. By inference, I'd imagine that logic and meta-logic would be relatively easy to grasp for most humans -- so long as distractions, disparate cultural influences, and other hindrances didn't present themselves to the subjects in question over a prolonged period of time. While some logical problems are complex, I would only expect the general population to understand the simpler and more wide-reaching and important ones.<br /><br />For example, realizing that it probably isn't a good idea to look down on someone for laughing a certain way is still not entirely grasped by the current world population; this needs to be remedied. Meanwhile, knowing how to properly weigh the cost and benefits of various solutions to the problem of a damaged spaceship, or how to actually repair the ship isn't something that everyone should need to know.<br /><br />3. I don't have any problems with testing or tracking whatsoever and never claimed otherwise. On the contrary, these things are vital to the success of a future civilization.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-8431404251311216092011-04-06T14:31:47.366-04:002011-04-06T14:31:47.366-04:00Not everyone has equal capacity to grasp, retain a...Not everyone has equal capacity to grasp, retain and apply what they've studied (even elementary things like basic logic), so you have to allow for some kind of tracking or ability testing.Elizabethnoreply@blogger.com