Theme: Education

  • THE PERSISTENCE OF MARXISM —“The persistence of Marxism in the West is a funct

    THE PERSISTENCE OF MARXISM

    —“The persistence of Marxism in the West is a function of its persistence in academe. Without that, it would wither and die. Why does it persistent in academe? Because Marxism satisfies three deep cognitive wants for academics:

    (1) It is a complex theoretical system. There is nothing that establishes one’s bona fides as a Very Clever Person more than mastering a complex theoretical system: the denser and more jargon-heavy the prose, the better. And Marx’s writings have plenty of dense, jargon-heavy prose.

    (2) It is a system of grand intent. If one lives the life of the mind, then the grander one’s intellectual projects, the grander one’s cognitive sense of self: Marxism not only “explains” human history and society, it “reveals” the final end point of human and social transformation. What could be grander than such a project?

    (3) It completely de-legitimises commerce. Under Marxism, the only legitimate economic role is to supply labour. All commerce is de-legitimised and all those engaged in it—including all those people who have far more wealth and organisational significance than academics—are de-legitimised, reduced to “exploiters” who are but immoral dust beneath the heels of academics in no way “polluted” by vulgar commerce.”—

    Michael Philip


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-19 06:28:00 UTC

  • Do you know why most professors don’t participate in the blogosphere, even if th

    Do you know why most professors don’t participate in the blogosphere, even if they publish ideas in the blogosphere?

    ‘Cause unless you’re engaging in advocacy, particularly political advocacy, and particularly dishonest advocacy (krugman, delong, thoma) it is not worth your time.

    Worse, once you realize that (a) almost all online participants are engaging in a search for confirmation bias, and (b) that almost all humans are incapable of more than sentimental expression, or moral argument, and are permanently prohibited from ratio-scientific reasoning by hard limits to their abilities, and (c) that the deeper the knowledge you possess on any given subject, the more you contradict intuitive arguments -even within your discipline – meaning that

    So you basically can participate online as publisher, or a teacher, or as an advocate; but it’s pretty hard to participate as a persuader – debater. Because almost no one is capable of conducting a debate – either because of limited ability or limited knowledge or both.

    The value of the internet to average people, is not so much one of learning the new, but in their own error reduction within their own cognitive biases. And the rate at which we can reduce errors within our own cognitive biases.

    This does not help us to develop agreement on any form of moral universalims. What it does, however, eventually, is give us an opportunity for proposing compromises across cognitive and moral biases – our reproductive strategies – so that it is easier to obtain consensus across a smaller set of errors within the same distribution of biases.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-17 05:56:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/07/creative-writing-killing-western-literature-nobel-judge-horace-engdahl


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 01:52:00 UTC

  • REACTIONARY BOOKS – SOON ONLINE I’ve found a fellow who has done the work of col

    REACTIONARY BOOKS – SOON ONLINE

    I’ve found a fellow who has done the work of collecting all the Reactionary Authors into downloadable form. I’ve copied them. Now I’m going to bind Mencius’s works into that list as well.

    And put it on my web site, linked to google docs.

    Now, I am not one of those folk. I consider them ‘pre-propertarians’: using rhetoric rather than science. But capturing all of their works is useful. Plus, not everyone is capable of analytic argument, and sentimental, moral, psychological, historical, and allegorical argument are good enough. If we can get people to focus on truth telling, voluntary exchange, and propertarian ethics, then that is enough. They can remember and use these older authors, without having to resort to the formal logic of propertarian arguments.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-11 11:15:00 UTC

  • “GENDER DIFFERENCES” READING LIST THE ANATOMY OF LOVE by Fisher WHY WE LOVE by F

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449908976THE “GENDER DIFFERENCES” READING LIST

    THE ANATOMY OF LOVE by Fisher

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449908976

    WHY WE LOVE by Fisher

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805077960

    A NATURAL HISTORY OF LOVE by Ackerman

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679761837/

    THE ART OF LOVE by Ovid

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375761179/

    THE RED QUEEN by Ridley

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060556579/

    DEMONIC MALES by Petersen

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395877431

    THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE by Baron-Cohen

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046500556X/

    FEMINISM AND FREEDOM (its genetic) by Levin

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887381251/

    WHY MEN RULE by Goldberg

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812692373/

    THE INEVITABILITY OF PATRIARCHY

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688001750/


    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 15:59:00 UTC

  • Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil | TIME

    Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil | TIME http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 16:28:00 UTC

  • Answer by @curtdoolittle to Can professors at universities teach and have opinio

    Answer by @curtdoolittle to Can professors at universities teach and have opinions that are very much contrary to th… http://qr.ae/Zjtct


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 14:02:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/515864092662583296

  • BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND While you will hear objections to this, they are the e

    http://t.co/pTQV28O0q3THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND

    While you will hear objections to this, they are the exception not the rule. All university departments hold biases and suppress competing ideas, and the careers of the members of the department depend upon upholding those biases, because of the incentives to publish, and the authoritarian hierarchy of the university. Universities remain vestiges of the church – which invented the university. And for good reason: grad students make cheap slave labor.

    So, there is very little practical difference between the practice of ideology and the practice of academic research in this regard. In practice, ideas die with their originators and sponsors, not when they are successfully attacked. The incentive to over-invest in a paradigm to retain one’s position is too high. This is why students must choose departments based upon what the department members publish.

    Sowell’s recommended “fix” is to financially and organizationally separate research departments (that do not serve the interests of students whatsoever) from teaching departments (whose only concern is the students) but the administration (serving neither the students or the researchers) is currently consuming all the vast investment americans are making in educations (that have questionable return, and in some cases negative return.) Realistically if undergrad students paid teaching professors, not researchers, for their education, and we regulated administration and capital acquisition to 20% of fees, education would be absurdly inexpensive, and students would leave with little debt. We could then ask grad students and phd students and the government to bear the costs of research, rather than the undergrads. And we would shrink the administration back to it’s necessary and sufficient size. (Financially, academia now has absorbed all the costs originally saved by eliminating the church. For all intents and purposes, we have merely replaced academia and church with academia. In fact, I am pretty confident that academia is far more expensive than the post-enlightenment church was in every form of capital consumption.)

    But the university system is not designed for students and their careers, it is designed to provide economic rents to researchers and administrators, by selling faulty products to students, that in any other industry would be open to class action lawsuits for fraudulent representation, and possible only because of inflationary pressure on by the government, in the same way that the government created inflationary pressure on the housing industry leading to the 2008 crash.

    See Sowell’s work and Caplan’s work. Caplan is always someone you must be skeptical of nearly everything he says, so his his empirical work is what you can appreciate, but you must ignore all his conclusions. (Sort of like reading Marx.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 10:46:00 UTC

  • having ignorant, liberal education twits write bot-like questions that do nothin

    http://www.quora.com/How-can-I-know-how-people-view-me-as-a-person/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1Stop having ignorant, liberal education twits write bot-like questions that do nothing more than persist postmodern pseudoscience? Learn something empirical ok?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 09:42:00 UTC

  • Can Professors At Universities Teach And Have Opinions That Are Very Much Contrary To The Scientific Community At Large?

    THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND

    All university departments hold biases, and the careers of the members of the department depend upon upholding those biases, because of the incentives to publish, and the authoritarian hierarchy of the university and departments that was inherited from the church – which invented the university.  There is very little practical difference between the practice of ideology and the practice of academic research in this regard. In practice, ideas die with their originators and sponsors, not when they are disproved. The investment is too high. The incentive to over-invest in a paradigm to retain one’s position is too high.  This is why students must choose departments based upon what the department members publish.

    Sowell’s recommended “fix” is to financially and organizationally separate research departments (that do not serve the interests of students whatsoever) from teaching departments (whose only concern is the students) but the administration (serving neither the students or the researchers) is currently consuming all the vast investment americans are making in educations (that have questionable return, and in some cases negative return.)  Realistically if undergrad students paid teaching professors, not researchers, for their education, and we regulated administration and capital acquisition to 20% of fees, education would be absurdly inexpensive, and students would leave with little debt.  We could then ask grad students and phd students and the government to bear the costs of research, rather than the undergrads. And we would shrink the administration back to it’s necessary and sufficient size.  (Financially, academia now has absorbed all the costs originally saved by eliminating the church.  For all intents and purposes, we have merely replaced academia and church with academia. In fact, I am pretty confident that academia is far more expensive than the post-enlightenment church was in every form of capital consumption.)

    But the university system is not designed for students and their careers, it is designed to provide economic rents to researchers and administrators, by selling faulty products to students,  that in any other industry would be open to class action lawsuits for fraudulent representation, and possible only because of inflationary pressure on by the government, in the same way that the government created inflationary pressure on the housing industry leading to the 2008 crash.

    See Sowell’s work and Caplan’s work.  Caplan is always someone you must be skeptical of nearly everything he says, so his his empirical work is what you can appreciate, but you must ignore all his conclusions. (Sort of like reading Marx.)

    https://www.quora.com/Can-professors-at-universities-teach-and-have-opinions-that-are-very-much-contrary-to-the-scientific-community-at-large