Main Page Contact Register Log In


I mean the claims that civilisation is inextricably linked to strong hierarchies of dominance; that the drive to dominance is itself good and admirable and manly and not anything near an impulse that one must resist - as long as it is superior-on-inferior; that it is in the best interests of society for women to have an inferior status to men and to be confined to the house, that they have a sort of "false consciousness" in regard to their own interests, that they have inherent childlike traits that make them not worth taking seriously; that the degree of patriarchal structure is the measure by which to evaluate the wholesomeness of the family and by extension the health of society; that the masses never know their best interests; the bleak picture of modernity and its future in general.

These are the things for which I cannot imagine any purely rational foundation, untainted by an emotional propensity to believe them. I can understand IQ studies and their politically correct suppression. I can understand a historical analysis of the relative merits of democracy vs. monarchy. I get the idea that the elites are more liberal than liberal non-elites would like to admit. But if objectivity would compel me to believe claims like in the above paragraph, I'd probably turn to depression and alcoholism; I gave them my best, most objective try and they still wouldn't stick. I cannot relate to the empathy baseline of someone who would celebrate such beliefs.

Now I wouldn't quite go that far. I mean the standard LW utopia more-or-less has humans becoming second class citizens to superhuman AI's and nobody seems too bothered by this.


I came to LessWrong for its overall smart members rather than its futurism, so I'm the wrong LessWronger to address about this. I think that doesn't create the same kind of moral dissonance because, in absolute terms, nobody would view humans as any stupider than they already are known to be... the world would just accustom to new heights of intelligence. Depending on what sub-currents of the far-right or alt-right we are talking about, there are people that uphold the idea of minorities, or women, or poor people, as suddenly too dumb for calculus (for instance) - despite ample past evidence to the contrary. It's the difference between creating wealth inequality by creating wealth, or creating wealth inequality by burning some people's stuff.






I can understand IQ studies and their politically correct suppression.

(..)

Depending on what sub-currents of the far-right or alt-right we are talking about, there are people that uphold the idea of minorities, or women, or poor people, as suddenly too dumb for calculus (for instance)


Do you see the implicit contradiction between the above statements? It seems while you're willing to accept IQ differences you're not willing to accept their implications. For example do you have a problem with the idea that some people have IQ's so low they're probably never going to understand calculus or simply with this property correlates with other properties like race and gender.

By the way I don't think you realize how high a bar "smart enough for calculus" is. For example the German education system acknowledges this fact and gears those people toward blue collar jobs.

> despite ample past evidence to the contrary.

Really, care to present some of this "ample evidence". Because it's remarkably hard to find women, and especially African-decent, scientists who aren't dancing bears.

> It's the difference between creating wealth inequality by creating wealth, or creating wealth inequality by burning some people's stuff.

What do you mean by this? After all, What is true is already so.

Now I'm not sure to what extent all the central claim about civilization being inextricably linked to strong hierarchies of dominance is true, but your attitude reminds me of the stereotypical attitude of theists towards the possibility that atheism is correct.
60%
VoiceOfRa
stars0
Replies (0)