MY PURPOSE IS TO TEACH…
My purpose here is to teach. If you give me an opportunity I will seize it. But if I throw the ball back to you, and you drop it, I’ll pick it up and carry it across the finish line.
The problem is, if you can’t make an operational argument then either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re not making a persuasive argument.
Doin’ my job. Teaching.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 14:01:00 UTC
—“What I always tell people who cite more “educational achievement” among liberals, besides what this article said about how universities are really indoctrination centers, is that there is a repolarization at the top that mirrors the 50/50 split amongst the general population.
Intelligence is a predictor of leftist leanings until you hit the the top one or two percent. “They don’t know what they don’t know” is basically another way of saying “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
They get to the point of questioning preconceived notions, realizing they’re not wholly rational, but not even scratching the surface of why we developed those instincts to begin with.”– Brian McQuiston
“…Not questioning why we developed those instincts to begin with…” or why a central tenet of western and eastern civilization is the warning by Icarus against hubris. Why? It counters (a) that idealism and reason can somehow compete with a market for demonstrated results, and (b) that we are unequal in every possible way and that markets are the only means of calculating coincidences of wants and needs, and (c) that because of “b”, many people are dead weight or deleterious to the group as a whole.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-08 07:48:00 UTC
@DavidAFrench Excellent piece in NR. But FWIW: The virtue of the familial meritocracy is that the individuals possess traits OTHER than intelligence: the intuitions, ethics and traditions of intergenerational Family, Industry, and Class. We chose the WRONG MEASURE of “potential”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 19:34:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004808913152245760
By DAVID FRENCH
Over the weekend, David Brooks wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times asking why America’s educated, meritocratic elite has failed in a number of key respects. After all, as Brooks puts it, we discarded a narrow old-boys club for a far more open system that’s intentionally designed to find and elevate Americans based on their abilities, regardless of race, class, or creed:
We replaced a system based on birth with a fairer system based on talent. We opened up the universities and the workplace to Jews, women and minorities. University attendance surged, creating the most educated generation in history. We created a new boomer ethos, which was egalitarian (bluejeans everywhere!), socially conscious (recycling!) and deeply committed to ending bigotry.
You’d think all this would have made the U.S. the best governed nation in history. Instead, inequality rose. Faith in institutions plummeted. Social trust declined. The federal government became dysfunctional and society bitterly divided.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 15:40:00 UTC
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/american-educated-elite-not-educated-not-elite/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/american-educated-elite-not-educated-not-elite/A MUST READ BY FRENCH
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 15:38:00 UTC
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/american-educated-elite-not-educated-not-elite/A MUST READ BY FRENCH
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 15:38:00 UTC
—“More training, less teaching.”—Sean Casey
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 23:35:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004507111068495873
HOW TO STUDY ANY SUBJECT
Some idiot on Quora counter-signaling one of my posts on ethnicity, by demanding sources. You know, I don’t put sources for a lot of things because it requires a second copy-paste, and google image search or text search will always find it. (and maybe subconsciously i like to bait these assholes.) As usual, it’s a diagram and quotes from Nature. Which is pretty much the top of the scientific stack. and… Fuck. Do people think I make this shit up? Fucking read something other than stupid shit….
You know how easy getting a grasp of anything is? You find a subject. You search wiki and read the articles and copy the references.
Now you search for those references. you read reviews of published papers that were published later, and you read reviews of books on amazon. You read the reviews of all related books suggested by amazon. You make a list of names, and terms, and key-phrases. You repeat this process until ‘I cant find anything that isn’t a duplicate of something someone else said’.
Once you’ve done that pick the best book, and read it’s table of contents. Try figure out which chapter makes the argument rather than prepares for it or explains it. Scan that chapter. then read it. Then if you think there is more to learn read more until there isn’t. Check the back of the book’s glossary and bibliography. Just scan them for things you either don’t know or sound interesting.
Pick another book. Do the same. Most of the time BOOKS CAN BE REDUCED TO A SET OF KEY PAPERS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY. If not, they can be reduced to a central thesis, and the rest of the book is just DEFENSE of it.
My opinion on research is not to put a lot of stock in any defense, but to put stock tin the competition of books and papers that compete with one another on the topic. So I recommend using the cheapness of the internet to survey a subject and then get into the books.
Most of the time I work by finding an author that has created a novel insight and then reading the papers in his bibliography. It may seem like a lot is published but the truth is very few books in any year are of substance at the level of group evolutionary strategy and politics.
Once you are ‘current’ with the state of knowledge you just literally follow the top blogs, and read the relatively few papers that have any meaning.
What you find is that all the discipilnes duplicate effort on what you would consider awfully obvious matters.
By contrast, what most people do is the other way around: try to find one book and they get ‘hooked by the authors frame.’ and then they’re anchored. Start with an overview of the ‘market for ideas’. This isn’t the middle ages. Nearly every book more than a year old is available for free somewhere somehow. In fact, we have just about everything worth reading already in our library in digital form.
(Rant off.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 20:04:00 UTC
One of the cures for “IQ Shredding” is to follow the postwar german example, of limiting housing in cities to those for families. So that the benefits of low cost of commons (density) are only available to those who produce generations. This is a very simple alternative. In other words, today, large organizations can use stock market capital, to bring young people to cities, profit from them, at the expense of IQ by way of reproductive rates. When, as whites and jews have shown us, the objective must always be to do the opposite: distribute reproduction upwards. Combined with one-child policy for the underclasses this will work by a means regularly unconscionable to libertines: redistribution of opportunity costs to those that pay the costs of intergenerational reproduction.
One of the cures for “IQ Shredding” is to follow the postwar german example, of limiting housing in cities to those for families. So that the benefits of low cost of commons (density) are only available to those who produce generations. This is a very simple alternative. In other words, today, large organizations can use stock market capital, to bring young people to cities, profit from them, at the expense of IQ by way of reproductive rates. When, as whites and jews have shown us, the objective must always be to do the opposite: distribute reproduction upwards. Combined with one-child policy for the underclasses this will work by a means regularly unconscionable to libertines: redistribution of opportunity costs to those that pay the costs of intergenerational reproduction.