You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I beg your pardon, I never promised you a thorn free Rose garden.
Interesting post.
Is there any reason you see that anarchists would want to have a social system?
I have zero problems in recognizing empirical objectivity as we see in science.
The problems I think we will have on this topic vary between social objectivity and empirical objectivity, and each should be parsed clearly.
What is your understanding of what IQ is empirically linked to?
I agree that ideology that assumes an anti-authoritarian realm, doesn't escape the reality of being within an authoritarian realm. This is somewhat a problem that is often ignored.
(Note, when i use the term science here it is in the empirical sense, and not at all related to the social science sense.)
Intelligence. The ability to problem solve.
(not intellect. Most definitely not to be confused with intellect!!!!)
I don't think IQ testing is perfect - but it's by far the best (only) tool we have for the job at the moment...
It is the only 'empirical' measurement we have..
Seen as probably over 70% genetic - if not more - and then there are other environmental factors.
I see nutrition as being the number 1 contributor ' to maximizing your intelligence potential'.
You wont see many high IQ groups that have lead or other heavy metals in their drinking water.
You will see IQ's rise in groups from previously under nourished, to then receiving full nutrition.
Whether that causes increased IQ's, or actualizes 'resident' IQ, is still not clear.
In my pinion, it's both, but inter generational.
A genetically inherited IQ - but genes can be changed in a generation - due to nutrition, for example - and then the next generation's IQ's can be increased because of that.
(I'm no expert on IQ, btw )
'to problem solve'
Is it safe to assume that is what you are looking for in the parameter of IQ?
I think there are other parameters involved in problem solving. Specifically incentive and motivation.
For example there could be a high IQ population that have neither incentive or motivation because they have all there needs met and solving problem 'X' would have no value.
So that leads back to solving problem 'X' having subjective value to the person trying to solve it.
I agree with most of the nutritional part of your position. The genetic position varies considerably, because genetics vary considerably.
Incentive and motivation are not correlated with IQ, as such.
You can have lazy IQ people do far less in life than industrious lower IQ people. Absolutely.
I agree, totally.
...but in the same environment with equal motivations, the higher IQ group would generally fare better than the lower IQ group.
(excluding environmental specifics of course which could greatly favor either group)
The main topic I think is 'to problem solve'. Do you agree, or disagree that IQ is only one parameter in that topic?
Do you think more problems (in quantity, not quality) are solved by people below 110 than above 110?
(I agree with the same environment same motivation, that the higher IQ would generally fair better)
I think it the most quantifiable one.
Do you think more problems (in quantity, not quality) are solved by people below 110 than above 110?
...that's a good question.
Because the bell curve distribution, you'd have to say 'below'... (pretty sure, actually)
The 'quality' ones are fewer but have more impact (per problem, if that makes sense)
I would propose incentive or motivation to be the most quantifiable, for if these aren't present then the problem doesn't get solved. The measure is solved or unsolved and can be applied to every problem.
I'm glad you see that on the curve distribution. Many problems are solved by people below 110. What if those problems where only solved by people with an IQ over 160? You can see the issue there?
The quality problem solutions, when it creates wide spread positive results, do have a bigger impact. Completely agree there.
Of course a impact whether it be 'good or bad' is somewhat a problem until it can be proven to be empirically 'good', and if science doesn't have an answer for that then it remains a problem of epistemology. That leads to a bigger problem of 'social systems' in that no one person owns social objectivity. The aggregate consensus doesn't appear to align well.
I would propose incentive or motivation to be the most quantifiable.
How? seriously?
The metric is:
did it get solved?
Yes or No
(the parameter being there was enough motivation/incentive to solve the problem)
Sorry , I missed that part of your comment.
Systems happen, even if not intended.
Social creatures have social systems. (even non sentient ones)
As sentient, it seem logical to create social system through some kind of thought process. (wether it's good or not isn't the point).
Anarchy as a non system , if you will - can only work if the world suddenly loses all it's psychopaths and sociopaths (4% of any given social group), plus othes that don't fit into that personality type category - but do want to control to some degree.
It's a fantastic vision, that will last about as long as it takes for the next group of warrior minded folk to invade your village...
People lived with very few and limited social constructs for millenia. The family is more a biological construct than a social construct. (you can't choose the family you are born into)
Tribe was probably the one most people identify, then religion. At inception the social constructs only had limited effects on autonomy, as any particular individual could eventually find a circumstance to defect.
Anarchy may not be a social system as much as a individual system. It requires exchange between individuals. That requires recognizing and interfacing with another persons value system.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are a problem. In a socialist model it appears enforcement is a hired task. The fact that enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time leads to enforcement showing up after a conflict.
A socialist will give up their authority to the enforcement construct. There is no reason for a non-socialist to give that authority to a enforcement construct. A anarchist can develop defense/security as a individual construct. Admittedly this will lead to inconsistency in conflicts, but appears to be a pretty good crime deterrent. At least that is what we are seeing as a US statistic as more people become armed and take 'defense' as a individual construct.
Warriors have a hell of a time invading a village that has the ability to kill warriors.
A very good reply, sir!
I see no evidence of the autonomy of the village not being overtaken by a larger more aggressive enemy.
That is my whole premise about anarchism not being able to be the default system, and endure over time.
There is no time that I know of...hence history would dictate that as a way of life, it does not hold up to scrutiny.
I am not sure which frame of references here we are considering as historical.
Speaking in general terms and ways of life, ability based people who see weaponry, combat, geography as an individual construct have had more success in conflicts than armies made of lesser abilities with more social assumptions.
I think it is true that any village can be conquered, but then the next question is 'at what price?'
There is some historical context, when you see bandits or armies avoiding certain areas (or not engaging) on that basis.
....in context of history, early civilizations from the Sumerians onward, (nearly 3000 years), have all been authoritarian - and one that were not as organized, have been over run by the more organized, more authoritarian societies.
It is a dynamic that I see as forever repeating itself, hence my skepticism of the success of anarchy as a system.
There would be some examples of it enduring, by now..?
....true, but mostly the areas avoided are ones with bigger authoritarian societies...(exceptions do exist I realize that, but in the big picture...
If the exceptions do exist then they should be studied, yes?
It would have been ill advised to wear a Russian uniform near the village of Simo Häyhä.
What does a population of individuals with similar abilities have to fear?
The system I see most compatible with individual anarchy is a individualist republic. A republic not built as a social construct but more as a individual construct, one that recognizes individual sovereignty.
It is wise to be skeptical, as the ideas that are being brought forward are fairly new in a historical sense, and there is not much history that would be recorded of such occurrences in the past.
I am not sure if the conflict is forever, but I do see it being a problem for several more generations (unless technology some how speeds up the process).
...blockchain and the internet are two unquantifiables-it has nothing to compare against..