Highly-Educated Americans Are By Far The Most Closed-Minded; Gallup

[Drareg]

Correct, but even that duality is being challenged by epigentics altering estrogens in our environment etc, and biology can proof that. The Y chromosome is slowly disappearing
One point of postmodernism is that facts are cultural constructs. This is a perfect example actually. Long established meta narratives such as gender are being challenged by our kafkaesque late capitalist reality.
Lots of peoples do not understand pm, or simply hate it for ideological reasons (conservative—> jordan peterson non sense etc).

The cultural construct narrative is a misunderstanding or intentional manipulation of quantum physics, our observations may be of consciousness but they are general to all humans, a triangle is perceived as a triangle even if it’s constructed by consciousness and has no independent existence of mind, it’s form outside words is still "experienced" as a triangle. A penis outside the word is still experienced as a penis.
10 prisms in a row in sunlight project a rainbow of colors, their structure is similar and light flowing through creates a similar "general” output.

Temporary forms like humans present within reality do change however the observation of a penis is just that, it’s a form within reality that is temporal, it is a penis, if in the future we developed the capacity to morph the penis into a vagina it can then be called a vagina, both temporal forms with a capacity for change, the change is one thing we as humans still don’t full grasp. The names applied to these concepts like man and woman is language for indicting general forms within a temporal process.

Ambiguous genitalia has a name to denote the general form, hermaphrodite. Having your penis amputated by design or by accident doesn’t create a vagina, amputee is the word applied to describe the form.

Altering estrogens in humans does not cause the broader general form of a penis to regress into a vagina, when fish change sex they do it completely and therefore can be classed as whatever sex denotes the current form.

The language of biology can be considered a cultural construct, the general observable forms of experienced perception in process can not, we have a limited capacity within this reality to change it, I as human cannot fly in my naked form unaided therefore I don’t fit the form for the culturally constructed word "bird",this isn’t a cultural construct but an experienced process of reality.
The word bird applied to an ostrich can in some cases highlight the limits of language or the evolution of meaning within language and words over time, a birds form encompasses more than just flight.

The temporal process that maintains the generality of form is more complex than one appendage of the body, there is also an underlying coherency which creates beauty and symmetry necessary for attraction and procreation, we don’t fully comprehend this but it’s effect outside of language is evident, this is an uncomfortable reality for some to accept.

 

[Recoen]

The cultural construct narrative is a misunderstanding or intentional manipulation of quantum physics, our observations may be of consciousness but they are general to all humans, a triangle is perceived as a triangle even if it’s constructed by consciousness and has no independent existence of mind, it’s form outside words is still "experienced" as a triangle. A penis outside the word is still experienced as a penis.
10 prisms in a row in sunlight project a rainbow of colors, their structure is similar and light flowing through creates a similar "general” output.

Temporary forms like humans present within reality do change however the observation of a penis is just that, it’s a form within reality that is temporal, it is a penis, if in the future we developed the capacity to morph the penis into a vagina it can then be called a vagina, both temporal forms with a capacity for change, the change is one thing we as humans still don’t full grasp. The names applied to these concepts like man and woman is language for indicting general forms within a temporal process.

Ambiguous genitalia has a name to denote the general form, hermaphrodite. Having your penis amputated by design or by accident doesn’t create a vagina, amputee is the word applied to describe the form.

Altering estrogens in humans does not cause the broader general form of a penis to regress into a vagina, when fish change sex they do it completely and therefore can be classed as whatever sex denotes the current form.

The language of biology can be considered a cultural construct, the general observable forms of experienced perception in process can not, we have a limited capacity within this reality to change it, I as human cannot fly in my naked form unaided therefore I don’t fit the form for the culturally constructed word "bird",this isn’t a cultural construct but an experienced process of reality.
The word bird applied to an ostrich can in some cases highlight the limits of language or the evolution of meaning within language and words over time, a birds form encompasses more than just flight.

The temporal process that maintains the generality of form is more complex than one appendage of the body, there is also an underlying coherency which creates beauty and symmetry necessary for attraction and procreation, we don’t fully comprehend this but it’s effect outside of language is evident, this is an uncomfortable reality for some to accept.

This is also assuming the theory of quantum mechanics is correct- so far experiment follows its predictions. However, like all theory it just takes one good, repeatable experiment that takes it down. Also, just because a theory matches experiment, that doesn’t mean it’s the “most correct” one.

 

[yerrag]

do not seem to be able to grasp that races are fluid.

Why are you talking about race now. Stick to the subject.

Ever heard of evolution? We evolved from mammals without any sex chromosomes, got some in the course of millions of years, and will likely lose them again over the course of the next million of years. Nature does not care that we have established a category called human to call ourselves. Everything is fluid, it just takes millions of years to have effect.

Is this what they taught you? That everything is fluid and because of this everything is an illusion and a construct? They fed you a lot of stuff, didn't they?

Also, how often has your processor read out a 2? Correct, 0 times. It’s binary. Gender is not binary. It’s close to it statistically at the moment, but it’s just not, even if you would like it to be.

A penis says you're more male than female. A vagina says you're more female than male. A penis says you can't have a baby, and a vagina says you have a pretty good chance. Unless you consider yourself a hydra.

You can be a male but be more effeminate. You can be male but be more masculine.

You're making a construct, not me.

What I do not get about your point, considering you are on this forum, is that you do not seem to acknowledge the effect of our environment (that is becoming increasingly cultural and less natural) on our bodies.

My point on estrogenic toxicity seems to be failing to find its mark in your well-educated head.

I am using an artificial construct to explain gender, which you deem to be completely nature? Well yes, thats the whole argument

You're using an artificial construct to deny there are very significant anatomical differences between male and female, and pretend they don't matter.

 

[Ableton]

Why are you talking about race now. Stick to the subject.


Is this what they taught you? That everything is fluid and because of this everything is an illusion and a construct? They fed you a lot of stuff, didn't they?


A penis says you're more male than female. A vagina says you're more female than male. A penis says you can't have a baby, and a vagina says you have a pretty good chance. Unless you consider yourself a hydra.

You can be a male but be more effeminate. You can be male but be more masculine.

You're making a construct, not me.


My point on estrogenic toxicity seems to be failing to find its mark in your well-educated head.


You're using an artificial construct to deny there are very significant anatomical differences between male and female, and pretend they don't matter.

this response is so ideological that I can barely be bothered to answer.

"they". keep watching yt videos on "postmodern neomarxist frankfurt school professors" lmao. nice education you are getting there. Did they feed you a lot of this stuff on YT? Shapiro and Peterson?

evolution is not an artificial construct. you are using category after category and just assume those categories are stable because we use them like that, when the reality is different.

I have never said that the concept of men and women does not make sense. I do not have blue hair or think we should get toilets for a third gender everywhere because it's not practical given that 99%+ are perfectly happy going to a mens or womens toilet.

idgaf about peoples feeling in this either. i am just trying to have an intellectual discussion. you seem to think that I care about this from an ethical standpoint. but I don't.

 

[yerrag]

Evolution is not an artificial construct. you are using category after category and just assume those categories are stable because we use them like that, when the reality is different.

Who ever said it is?

idgaf about peoples feeling in this either. i am just trying to have an intellectual discussion. you seem to think that I care about this from an ethical standpoint. but I don't.

You are conflating context. You lump across time lines and say because we evolved from forms that are sexless in a more primitive state, it proves your point that the current evolutionary state of the binary nature of biological sex is irrelevant, even though this has been the state it's been for millenia. That it may change and would evolve into a more fluid form is merely a possibility, but you consider that more in the realm of probability.

I'd say it's more likely we develop wings and dispense with the need for aircraft for air transport.

 

[opson123]

It's hilarious yerrag is the one who posted this.

 

[yerrag]

It's hilarious yerrag is the one who posted this.

Oh hi, you're back. Missed you with your ever equally hilarious trite one liners.

 

[Drareg]

This is also assuming the theory of quantum mechanics is correct- so far experiment follows its predictions. However, like all theory it just takes one good, repeatable experiment that takes it down. Also, just because a theory matches experiment, that doesn’t mean it’s the “most correct” one.

The overall gist is pretty accurate as it stands even amongst differing interpretations.

 

[PxD]

well the whole experiment and setup is a cultural construct revealing that objective reality (which only makes sense in a culturally established knowledge system). So idk what your point is. Biology is still a cultural construct. No culture = no knowledge about nature (even before written language some forms of oral culture had to be established to pass on knowledge). This is hardly debatable imo

My point is that the processes of nature exist regardless of what culture is or isn’t around to observe them. There are many examples of scientific discoveries having been made independently by different cultures at different times in different parts of the world. Just because a particular culture labels its observations in a particular way does not mean the observation itself is artificially constructed.

Correct, but even that duality is being challenged by epigentics altering estrogens in our environment etc, and biology can proof that. The Y chromosome is slowly disappearing
One point of postmodernism is that facts are cultural constructs. This is a perfect example actually. Long established meta narratives such as gender are being challenged by our kafkaesque late capitalist reality.
Lots of peoples do not understand pm, or simply hate it for ideological reasons (conservative—> jordan peterson non sense etc).

Jordan Peterson had a quote that would be fitting here. I’m paraphrasing, but it’s something like “There is nothing as stupid as an intellectual gone bad. They can rationalize themselves into all kinds absurdities.” That’s a pretty good description of PM. “Lots of peoples” are smarter than you think. They understand implicitly that the central teaching of PM is nihilistic in character - everything is relative, what you value isn’t real, etc. It offends them not because they don’t understand it, but because they understand it immediately as an attack on their identity. It’s almost as if it was invented to critique Western civilization into nothingness as a back-door way of destroying it. Oh wait...never mind.

And so here we are, listening to arguments that male/female is a “narrative”, men can have periods too, and 2+2=5.

 

[yerrag]

My point is that the processes of nature exist regardless of what culture is or isn’t around to observe them. There are many examples of scientific discoveries having been made independently by different cultures at different times in different parts of the world. Just because a particular culture labels its observations in a particular way does not mean the observation itself is artificially constructed.



Jordan Peterson had a quote that would be fitting here. I’m paraphrasing, but it’s something like “There is nothing as stupid as an intellectual gone bad. They can rationalize themselves into all kinds absurdities.” That’s a pretty good description of PM. “Lots of peoples” are smarter than you think. They understand implicitly that the central teaching of PM is nihilistic in character - everything is relative, what you value isn’t real, etc. It offends them not because they don’t understand it, but because they understand it immediately as an attack on their identity. It’s almost as if it was invented to critique Western civilization into nothingness as a back-door way of destroying it. Oh wait...never mind.

And so here we are, listening to arguments that male/female is a “narrative”, men can have periods too, and 2+2=5.

But this is exactly the point of this thread. Ableton very well embodies what higher education has become.

 

[bk_]

I’m not surprised at all. The university has become the bastion of academic inbreeding where a mix of autism, intellectual pride (arrogance), and academic inbreeding conflate in the ivory towers of the professors. Students learn to write essays that please their dumb professor and work their way through the dumb institution until they themselves become a dumb institutionalized professor.

Institutionalized “education” by the Rockefellers, the Frankfurt school, and the cultural Marxists have a lot to do with this narrow-minded stupidity of the “highly educated”... or should I say highly indoctrinated!

 

[Ableton]

My point is that the processes of nature exist regardless of what culture is or isn’t around to observe them. There are many examples of scientific discoveries having been made independently by different cultures at different times in different parts of the world. Just because a particular culture labels its observations in a particular way does not mean the observation itself is artificially constructed.

I agree with you, but there is an observation and making sense of an observation. Part of why ancient civilizations are so fascinating to us is precisely that they used different methods than we did, and still came to conclusions.

Jordan Peterson had a quote that would be fitting here. I’m paraphrasing, but it’s something like “There is nothing as stupid as an intellectual gone bad. They can rationalize themselves into all kinds absurdities.” That’s a pretty good description of PM. “Lots of peoples” are smarter than you think. They understand implicitly that the central teaching of PM is nihilistic in character - everything is relative, what you value isn’t real, etc. It offends them not because they don’t understand it, but because they understand it immediately as an attack on their identity. It’s almost as if it was invented to critique Western civilization into nothingness as a back-door way of destroying it. Oh wait...never mind.

the problem with JP is that he does in fact not understand PM, at all. He makes it this relativist thing which it is simply not. Derrida's claim was that one should engage in a dialogue to subvert their presumptuous tendencies as our opinions are a hierarchal amalgamation of binary responses and privileges. His point was not to avoid dialogue but to understand that the objective truth, if there is such a thing, is more likely found between two opposing opinions than two very similar ones. It's kind of ironic IMO that JP has an almost cult-like following, that seemingly educates themselves on the topic through JP videos and thats it, as if they wanted to question enlightenment rationality like postmodernists do (obviously they are just lazy drones in a technological age like most of us are). At least the average blue haired antifa girl protesting for a third gender toilet will likely have actually read 1 or 2 texts of postmodern thinkers, unlike the typical JP follower - evident by the fact that according to them, all PM thinkers are the same. if you like youtube videos, give yourself a dose of zizek vs jp – this annihilation might motivate you to dive into the sources JP is critiquing.

the conspiratorial "PM was invented" to destroy western civilization is a laughable argument. The people claiming this will simultaneously claim that modernity has led us to were we are right now (the good, and the bad), and rightfully so. If you think some french philosophers are the reason you have to worry about your physical health here you are deluded. Where we are right now (lots of comfort, little freedom, destruction of our planet, technological ubiquity, lack of purpose, shitty (but enough) food; you continue the list) is ultimately a consequence of modernity (globalization, science, capitalism and to a much lesser degree things like colonialism which is what you probably think every postmodernist should be mentioning first) and has NOTHING to do with commonly misunderstood ivory towers at universities. You can keep playing your own identity politics (as in: your identity) in your head by worrying about third genders and what not, but ultimately, the little vague list above is what you should be worrying about. PM is NOT relativism. Saying PM is relativism is relativist.

 

[rei]

high level of education either teaches you to bend according to what the system expects, or sadly often makes you go insane as you necessarily sooner or later see through the facade, no matter how carefully constructed.

Closed mindedness is something a fake puts up as self-preservation barrier. This can go as far as denying something in front of them because they just don't want to entertain that path of thought.

 

[Luann]

I guess Q-anon got banned from facebook (for what??) Meanwhile Costolo is either banned or laying low after offering "video commentary" for the deaths of capitalists on Twitter. probably not the right thread for this but oh well

 

[Ableton]

I guess Q-anon got banned from facebook (for what??) Meanwhile Costolo is either banned or laying low after offering "video commentary" for the deaths of capitalists on Twitter. probably not the right thread for this but oh well

as someone who believes in conspiracy theories to some extent myself, there is a reason why you would censor stuff that pushes them even if they are wrong. As long as people believe in conspiracy theories, that has consequences, whether they are true or not. If some1 puts a conspiracy theory about your personal life out there, and that person is lying, you still have consequences.
Very hot topic, but what I will say is that the internet started out with this hyperdemocratic, egalitarian promise. We are only beginning to realize that unlimited participation, however, isn’t necessarily good and is in fact a danger to „democracy“ (which is bad if you like our system and good if you don’t). On top of that add big techs surveillance capitalism that has appropriated most of the internet usage and you will have a difficult time making sense of it, because the technology is the ideological opposite of its appropriation. In some sense what happens on the internet is adding plasticity to system processes that happen in the real world anyway and of course to the mindsets of the general public

 

[Luann]

you make some good points @Ableton

 

[Peatness]

View: https://twitter.com/akheriaty/status/1487234399171067906

 

[Grapelander]

We are trained in the Prussian education model: memorize and follow orders. John Taylor Gatto
Do we really need school? I don't mean education, just forced schooling six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years.
Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what?

Don't hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn't, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever "graduated" from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren't looked upon as children at all.

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3 ) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education's
mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds
numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling's true purpose.

We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence:
. . . Nothing could be further from The truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States ... and that is its aim everywhere else.

His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia.
And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern. The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it.

William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann's "Seventh Annual Report" to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington's aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German-speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws.

But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens-all in order to render the populace "manageable."

Alexander Inglis's 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which "one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary." Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table.
Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of
mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrate into a dangerous whole. Inglis breaks down the purpose-the actual purpose-of modern schooling into six basic functions:
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority.
2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible.
3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role.
4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits-and not one step further.
5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races."
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers.