that old dude is educated but not intelligent!

>"So all these paintings are the result of genes?" I asked him.
>"Of course," he said curtly, ending the discussion.

What characterises these kind of exchanges ( and they happen all the time) is that 'everyskeptic' finds no creative pleasure or nourishment in the conversation. No appetite for a potentially fascinating exchange of views and where it might lead...

The discussion ends with everyskeptic repeating the mantra of a fixed belief, prisoner of an ego that can brook no alteration.

My dream would be to see some magic...an anecdote in which 'everyskeptic' is eased by love into a more open playful position, his ego defences dissolved, suddenly admitting the sheer unscientific basis of fixed belief, suddenly experiencing the joy of open possibilities and a more fluid future.

I would bet my bottom euro that when James Watson made his nobel prize winning contribution, he tasted some of that creative joy where anything is possible.

And through circumstance and change and the vicissitudes of life he was no longer in touch with it when he stood with Deepak in the Hermitage museum.

As the master chef teaches in 'Ratatouille', anyone can cook.

PS Perhaps Skeptisch is really James Watson...

But, of course, the element of relationship comes into the conversational form twixt you and Watson, Deepak. He would sense/project you were confrontational, as polite as I am sure you were.

The cold intellectual shield of a Watson covers a deprived and embarrassing emotional baby which is ever doing it's best to ego-sabotage and now, with this news, we see it.

Just some home-spin from me,
Ed.

I am reminded of what Carlos Constaneda's mentor told him in the book "A Separate Reality". Carlos expressed pity for a young Mexican boy, in that he would never get educated nor enjoy our taken for granted material comforts. The mentor yelled at Carlos, saying never ever think that way; implying the boy could grow up to be a self-realized master of self, and therefore of benefit to all mankind.
I am also reminded of Catechism class when I was in the 5th or 6th grade. The nun put on the blackboard something about "the whiter man's burden" (being Africans). I knew she was wrong at the time. I am curious as to how I knew she was wrong.

Excuse my typing. That's "white man's burden."

Francis Crick turned all spiritual after becoming famous.

I would guess, the only way to keep the balance,

in James' purview, was for him to hold steady with his materialistic sophistry.

In a fair and balanced approach, one side pairs off with another.

The bandwagon critics usually reinforce the publics outcry.

Constaneda got it right this time.

Ignorance is bliss.

Knowledge is power.

We are not born equal, but unto the eyes of God.

Or is that one eye?

Me2(-)sideways(o)2eM

Dr. Chopra:

Very well articulated! However, I think the reason why Watson said what he said has as much to do with the "missing links" in the evolution theory as with his lack of understanding of the very "gene" he designed for us.

Now, it cannot be debated that the nose (as other body parts) of different races change differently over the ages. So, how can brain escape that evolutionary change?

And every change in body part brings on a different capability or incapacity for that particular race. It is undeniable that the excellence of Kenyans (statistically, at least) in long distance running is higher than the Asians. So, should we - without challenge - accept that brain's changes would not have happened... or if they happened, they did not provide different capabilities to the possessors?

I think this line of thinking is very anti-PC but it is worth debating.

On the other hand, if we could put the definition and role of evolution and genes in proper perspective, then this debate may be obviated.

For example:

- is evolution necessarily a function of "Time"? How much time?
- is evolution in any direction permanent?
- are effects of evolution in any one generation reversible and then reversible again? or can you change your "genes" as you wish?

if a South Asian of 500 BC was looking at an European, he would have had the same conclusions about the White skinned as Watson has done of the Africans.

How wrong that Ram Prasad would have been :-)

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

If you trace back the trail, you will end up in Africa.

The unknown and strange instinctively sparks fear, not racism.

1. Yes. All the time.
2. No. It moves, I don't.
3. We don't have a say, as far as mutations are concerned, generally.
If I could change my genes, I'd need a bigger crotch.

Keith:

If competition was the ONLY thing that resulted in evolution (and by evolution, we are assuming that it is movement to "improvement" over the existing), then Watson maybe right! And the reason is pretty simple: The races that moved out of Africa had to devise better ways of survival. They had to use brains and nerves better in order to exist and adapt in newer way!

So, by logic, those who stayed put.... would not have had the same capability on adapting.. which in itself is a detriment to physical and, in time, evolution of brain - for man did not win over the nature by sheer brawn .. but brain!

Therefore, if competition is THE only deciding factor for mutations towards evolution to happen... then Watson is DEAD RIGHT!

Now, if you approach this discussion from the societal angle and the behavioral side.... as well as experiences of educators, one can say that it is nonsense!

The way evolution has been defined.... and approached... I am afraid Watson seems to be VERY RIGHT - looking at history of human existence...

Then who do you believe? The logical - dispassionate - conclusions (however politically incorrect) or evidence from social studies.

Cheers,
desh
drishtikone.com

Dear Deepak,

Excellent article. I only have a quarrel with one part of your post, "Human beings aren't automatons..."

Well perhaps they are not triggered by brain cells and genes, but they are triggered by mechanical habits and manipulated mechanically by leaders, spin doctors and the ruling elite of Brotherhoods using systems theory and repressive desublimation. Not to mention advertising.

Gurdjieff told us as much. Your role and that of anyone who has been awakened is to awaken others from their trance like state in which they are automatons. Sadly, that includes almost everyone.

Desh, perhaps in Asia they didn't have to run so far between villages.

Hello Desh!

Evolution does not assume progress, it assumes continuation, quite rightly.

So we can still call it 'good', or God, whatever.

Nature has ways of separating peoples.

Folks don't always have free-choices concerning their whereabouts.

Certain behaviors kept certain tribes alive.

Instincts have yet to be found in any genes or elsewhere.

The average life-span of a mammalian species is roughly 18,000,000 years.

The truth will win out in the long run, for sure.

No absolutes here. I never doubted James intellect,

I only question his intentions. Merry up! Keith

It's true, Gurdjieff didn't think much of the average man.

Steve

Watson is right. Many people criticize him to be just politically correct.

Genes or nature and nurture are complementary (like seed and its plant).

The story begins from nature, which then creates the complementary nurture, after which both go on creative, corresponding dialogue as one writer put it to finally reach complete correspondence and in the process annihililate each other leaving in its wake what ultimately houses them i.e., the Source.

As to Deepak's observations:

--First because of cycle-within-cycles there will be all sorts of people (poor and rich, more intelligent and less etc) in all races and this means in black and white as well. Yet there will be differences in the poverty and intelligence of the whites and the blacks. (Just consider two families, one really poor the other rich-turned-poor so to say. The povery of the first will mean that they may not be able to have clothes to wear, while the poverty of the second will mean that they will not be able to have good/costly clothes to wear.)

Second, poor and uneducated are so everywhere because they or their nature threw/created/brought the needed/complementary nurture for their further 'evolution' from where they presently were.

--Both nature and nurture, genes and environment/behavior affect each other in creative, corresponding way as already said in para 3 above and not only the latter.

--Yes, brain changes throughout life, but for 1. it is because we move in cycles within cycles throughout and for an other 2. this is the function of 'evolution'. But yet this change is within the parameteres set by one's nature and hence nurture.

Harb

"Ever heard of the word "scientific wisdom"?"

um, that's TWO words.

"the tendency of science is to narrow one's vision."

Did you notice how Science becomes Chopra's enemy when he attacks materialism. But it morphs into his friend when he supports his theories with pseudoscience!

Btw, Many aspects of Evolutionary psychology and difference in cognitive abilities based on skin color is 'pseudoscience' NOT science as Deepak Chopra is trying to convicne you folks!

Pity James Watson had to become his scapegoat this time around in his crusade against science.

Desh Kapoor writes:
"Then who do you believe? The logical - dispassionate - conclusions (however politically incorrect) or evidence from social studies."

Harb writes:
"Watson is right. Many people criticize him to be just politically correct."

Tom writes:
"Another good man apologizes for telling the truth."

I agree one hundred percent.

In todays PC world, you have to pretend, or at least say (in public) the opposite of what the evidence shows, and expert opinion believes, to be true. Tis the truth comrades.

sandy

This a particularly insightful article from an African, which everyone should read and appreciate:

I Agree with Dr Watson

Idang Alibi, Daily Trust (Abuja, Nigeria), October 25, 2007

A few days ago, the Nobel Laureate, Dr James Watson, made a remark that is now generating worldwide uproar, especially among the blacks.

He said what to me looks like a self-evident truth. He told The Sunday Times of London in an interview that in his humble opinion, black people are less intelligent than the White people.

Since then, some of us cannot hear anything else but the outrage of black people who feel demeaned by what Watson has said. So many people have called the man names. To be expected, some have said he is a racist. Some even wonder how a “foolish” man like Watson could have won the Nobel Prize. Even white people who, deep in their heart, agree with Watson want to be politically correct so they condemn the man.

Why are we blacks becoming so reactive, so sensitive to any remarks, no matter how well-meaning, about our failure as a race? Why are we becoming like the Jews who see every accusation as a manifestation of anti-Semitism? I do not know what constitutes intelligence. I leave that to our so-called scholars. But I do know that in terms of organising society for the benefit of the people living in it, we blacks have not shown any intelligence in that direction at all. I am so ashamed of this and sometimes feel that I ought to have belonged to another race.

Nigeria my dear country is a prime example of the inferiority of the black race when compared to other races. Let somebody please tell me whether it is a manifestation of intelligence if a people cannot organise a free, fair and credible election to choose who will lead them. Is it intelligence that we cannot provide simple pipe-borne water for the people? Our public school system has virtually collapsed. Is that a sign of intelligence? Our roads are impassable. In spite of the numerous sources that nature has made available to us to tap for energy to run our industries and homes, we have no steady supply of electricity. Yet electricity is the bedrock of industrialisation. When you agree with the school of Watson, some say you are incorrect because all these failures are a result of poor leadership. Why must it be us blacks who must always suffer poor leadership? Is that not a manifestation of unintelligence?

In the name of international trade, bilateral co-operation, globalisation and other subterfuges, the norm in the world today is for smart people to appropriate the wealth of other people for themselves and their countries. But more among the blacks than any other race, the practice is to steal from their own country and salt away to other people’s country. Is it intelligence that our leaders steal billions of naira and hide in other people’s country?

Anywhere in the world today where you have a concentration of black people among other races, the poorest, the least educated, the least achieving, and the most violent group among those races will be the blacks. When indices of underdevelopment are given, black people and countries are sure to occupy the bottom of the ladder. If we are intelligent, why do we not carry first when statistics of development are given?

Look at the African continent. South Africa is the most developed country because of the presence of whites there. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many of us but it exists nevertheless. If the whites had been driven away after independence, we would have seen a steady decline of that country.

In terms of natural endowment, Africa ought to be the richest of the continents but see the mess we have made of the potential for greatness which God in his infinite wisdom has bestowed upon us. We have proved totally incapable of harnessing the abundant natural resources to become great. Today, there is a renewed scramble for the wealth of Africa. China, our new “friend”, does not bother about the genocide against fellow blacks in the Sudan by the Arabs who control the affairs of that country. They say they do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of any country. All they want is the oil in Sudan to run their industries. Yet, we blacks have not seen the Chinese action as an affront to our sensitivities. Every race takes us for granted because we are so weak and so foolish, if you permit me to say it.

I am really pained by our gross underachievement as a race. Instead of regarding bitter truths expressed by the likes of Watson as a wake-up call for us to engage in sober reflection, we take to the expression of woolly sentiment. For me, this type of reaction is a further evidence of our unintelligence. A man of intelligence recognises genuine criticism against him and takes steps to improve himself in order to prove his critics wrong. But for us blacks, our reaction is to abuse the man who expresses worries about our backwardness.

Other races are deeply worried about us because we are a problem to the world. We suffer from the five Ds: disorderliness, debts, diseases, deaths and disasters. Our disorderliness affects others or else they won’t be too bothered about us. Many are afraid because our diseases could infect them. Polio has been eradicated all over the world yet it is still found in Nigeria here. When they give us money to help us eradicate it, our thieving officials will embezzle the money; the virus will spread and endanger the health of not only our people but other people as well.

Out of a shared sense of humanity, some cannot bear to see how we die in thousands almost every day from clearly preventable diseases and causes. For years now, our people die extremely painful but perfectly preventable deaths from buildings which collapse because they were poorly constructed. How can you tell me we are as intelligent as others when we set traps for ourselves in the name of houses and others do not do so? Some people are extremely frustrated about us. If they have a way of avoiding us, they will be too glad to do so because we are a problem.

As I write this, I do so with great pains in my heart because I know that God has given intelligence in equal measure to all his children irrespective of the colour of their skin. The problem with us black people is that we have refused to use our intelligence to organise ourselves socially and politically.

It should worry us that we do not invent things. We do not go to the moon. Our societies are not well-organised. We have the shortest lifespan of all the races. Something must be wrong with us. Why are we not like others? Our scholars will be quick to say that these are not the only ways of measuring intelligence. They will quote other scholars to adumbrate their point, but the fact remains that we are not showing intelligence. Others are showing it more than we’re doing. If they are not more intelligent than we are, let someone tell me how to put it. God himself must be frustrated with his black children. They must be an embarrassment to him. He has given us everything he has given to other of his children; why are his black children not manifesting their own gift?

A few years ago, the whites used to contemptuously call the Japanese “little Japs”. Today, the Japanese and other Asians have pulled themselves up by the bootstrap and have arrived. No one speaks of the Japanese or Asians with contempt anymore. When people like Watson speak about us in unedifying terms, we should take it as a challenge to prove them wrong by sitting down to plan how we can become world-beaters.

If our political leaders are the reason for our backwardness, we should resolve to get the kind of leaders who will be instrument for our rapid progress. I may not know how intelligence is measured but my limited knowledge of intelligence is that it can also be measured by the kind of leaders a people decide to have. If, for instance, our professors preside over the massive rigging of elections, it means that we do not have very intelligent professors. Such rigged elections will no doubt produce unintelligent leaders. Such unintelligent leaders will do stupid things which will prove that we are not as intelligent as other races. Do I sound confusing or intelligent?

I am ready for some of our ‘patriotic’ intellectuals who will write and abuse me for the ‘outrage’ I have expressed here but I stick to my guns: we lack intelligence and as stated in the Bible, anyone who lacks intelligence should cry unto God who is the custodian of wisdom to bestow some upon him. We should go on our knees today and ask God why we do not appear as intelligent as our other brothers. I am confident God will reveal to us what we must do, and urgently too, to change our terribly unflattering circumstances.

www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/10/i_agree_with_dr.php#

Friend_of_Skeptisch,

#34"Assuming you are correct, does such pretending help anyone in the long run?"

Just the opposite. To effectively deal with reality, you have to, as much as possible, deal with the true. If not, it is like trying to grapple with phantoms. Not only is it useless, it is counterproductive, as it usually exacerbates the situation and makes things worse.

Guys:

All those who think I am trying to say that Africans are - by genetics and evolution - inferior... that is not the track I was really taking.

My point is simple - the way we define Evolution.. Watson is right. But my question is the definition of Evolution itself!

Socially what we see is something different! I have seen that Africans who just arrived do better in the US than American Blacks in terms of education. (no statistical thing.. but my observation). So is that a race thing? NO. Is that an environment thing.. possibly!

Can one generation change? Go "up" or "Down" an evolution ladder? I would tend to think yes - if such a ladder exists! For I have never seen any race or society ever being on top for ever! From 1 AD to almost 1500 AD, Indian society had over 30% share of the world GDP.... but if you ever read the accounts of Indian coolies being transported by the Brits.. you would never come to believe that such people could ever be good enough. Take the Italians.. are they still at the top of Space program? well, once upon a time they were at the forefront of the oceans!

The point is NO race has ever shown complete and PERENNIAL superiority. So, race in my mind cannot be a valid variable. Not logically at least.

So, is the very idea of evolution flawed somewhere? Maybe.

Its clearly a deeper question than we would like to believe.

.... maybe there is a better reaction to all this than the smugness of Watson's remark to Dr. Chopra.... it would take humility and a lot of thought.... combining evidence and observations from multiple sources.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Hi dpk ji, the number of drinks which you have taken while reading my words and taking exactly the opposite meaning of what I said.

I said: "Watson is right. Many people criticize him to be just politically correct."

Meaning PEOPLE who criticize Watson do so just to be politically correct. You take it as meaning that Watson is being criticised because HE is politically correct.

So much for your soberness

Friend_of Skeptisch
(47)

"So why is it that PC seems to me to be winning..."

Whole books could be written about your questions. If you want to do a lot of online reading, VDARE.com is a tremendous anti-PC site. Go to the archives and it can tell you everything you would want to know on the subject.

The very first thing people need to do to battle PC is to know the truth. In today's world, you will get very little of it in the MSM (mainstream media).

Phil Rushton, the only other scientist who supports Watson?:

Race and Intelligence: Is There a Link?
Farai Chideya, NPR, October 23, 2007

DNA pioneer James Watson caused a furor recently after saying Africans were intellectually inferior to Westerners. Farai Chideya talks about why the conversation of race and intelligence persists with Phil Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario.

Like Watson, Rushton says people of African descent have a lower IQ and smaller brain size, which he says is “50 percent genetic and 50 percent cultural.”

Rushton is the head of the Pioneer Group [sic], an organization dedicated to the research of intelligence and racial differences.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15560405

*****

Race and Intelligence: Politicizing the Findings
Farai Chideya, NPR, October 23, 2007

What is a good measure of intelligence? And when does the study of intelligence become political? Farai Chideya continues the conversation with Bill Tucker, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University. He’s also the author of The Intelligence Controversy: A Guide to the Debates.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15560402&sc=emaf

Mother Superior is most excellent!

Superior in exactly what category?

White men can't jump, and so...

.

The intelligent are envious of the naturally athletic.

Athletes are envious of the rich and powerful.

The rich and powerful are envious of the intelligent.

.

I'm jealous of my cat, Faith.

She thinks I am God.

Is one of us right?

.

O King of the world,

Why hast Thou opened the floodgates once more?

Rainbows exemplify The Promise of continued diversity through adversity.

To you, O King, I pledge allegiance,

for I know Nothing, and pray but for strength.

Samson's hair would have been a nice gesture, though.

Amen.

In people like Watson the intelligence genes and the ignorance genes work in tandem.

In people like Watson the intelligence genes and the ignorance genes work in tandem.

Janet:

"
No he wouldn't have been. What if those European evolved more intelligence in a span of 1000 years ?

And Indians evolved some stupidity in just about that time?"

maybe you can start reading my words for a change?? I implied the same thing.. but you obviously never understood it.

You say the cognitive abilities maynot have changed much... but I was pointing to a machinery - a body part called brain. If the color of skin and other body part could change in 40,000 years, there is no reason why a brain that now (after moving out of Africa) had to do more complex calculations (of how to avoid danger) - would have remained at the same level as of those in Africa. Of course, now you are getting to another topic which you would hate - Intelligence vs Brain (or mind vs brain).

Again, I am saying our knowledge of these issues is NOT yet complete. You may throw out adjectives at others... but that is the least effective way to debate an issue or make your point!

Patricia:

"Wrong. It is a fallacy to eliminate environmental factors which could give 'superiority' to a race."

I used the words "PERENNIAL superiority".. How perennial has been ANY RACIAL superiority?? Chinese civilization and Indian civilization are over 5000 years old. If you were talking of the Western superiority - that is no more than 500 years old! Do you get the scale?? That was just one dynasty in these two societies!

If a "superiority" is NOT PERENNIAL and unquestionable.... then it is not superiority! It is a temporary adjustment of local people to environment! And that is what I meant. THAT the "better" results from a race are not forever... so they change! How could they once they were ingrained in the very code of the genes??

I imagine, Deepak, that you attribute more wisdom to Watson's abrupt ending to your conversation than to a lot of the picking and choosing here.

For Geinsteinod's's sake guys, I'd rather meet the person Deepak than cast lots for his garments.

I fear that your metaphorical 'hearing aids' have got a little waxed up.
I know.....I don't stand too much chance, either.

It all starts for each one of us in the womb....so what's your excuse? Take a look at the overall context of that coming together of *&&$"&()?, your parents. Are you so sure they made you perfect, or did they just pass the buck or should I say baton. I don't think they gave it to much scientific thought at the time and the wrangle of your indoctrination goes on from the first inrush of air and emotional outcry never to be fully assuaged before hurriedly swept under the lumpy carpet of homogenous schooling.
So round and round now I go and always come back to the primal scream which it suddenly occurs to me, is this thread, among others!

When we limit our thought to Nature vs. Nuture we are excluding other variables. A speck put under the microscope appears very grande indeed and fascinating to the exclusion of all else. I think this is what Mr.Chopra was implying when he mentioned the narrowing of scientific thought.
Understanding is the level where things are defined and delineated, while Wisdom is pure undifferentiated thought. - Sefir Yitzerah (Kabbalah)

Re. 57

Friend_of_Skeptisch:
"Why does one version or another of class warfare continue over and over? Apparently it is something about the basic nature of mankind."

I personally believe that that is part of human nature. Humans, as well as many other species, have a genetically based drive for status. We are never really satisfied with our "station" in life (ambition). There is always that itch for more. Evolutionary Psychology (sociobiology) is profoundly illuminating on this, and many other aspects of human nature.

This drive for status is harnessed by society as the engine of progress. It is one of the reasons that communism won't work, and why capitalism has been so successful.

This is a great thread. Deepak set off a quite intriguing, multifaceted discussion. Lot of stuff here.

Beginning with Deepak's post, there's many things to parse through there. I'll try to hit a couple so as not to be too long.

Deepak: "wisdom isn't the same as science".

Good point. As I said in the earlier thread about Watson, if a person excels in one specialty, it does not somehow automatically make them experts in other subjects. We can look to Watson perhaps to accurately describe DNA to us, but that doesn't make him a philosopher, nor does it qualify him as social scientist, or an anthropologist. Nuff said on that.

Deepak points out that if people could know that their baby might be gay, some would indeed opt to abort, and he points to the practice of female infanticide in India to buttress his point.

Gayness has not been proven to be genetic, so this might be a practical impossibility, but the point is well-taken.

Which brings the point that social conditioning can affect genetic evolution. If a society makes a religious decision that blue eyes indicate the presence of evil spirits in a child, the society might decide to kill all blue eyed infants. Eventually the gene would be eliminated from the population. Thus a social factor would have effected genetic evolution.

We do this all the time with animals and plants. We have bred up dozens of different types of dogs and physically shaped them through selective breeding, as well as plants, corn from teosinte being the obvious example among many. These were genetic results caused by cultural preferences.

Thus is the complexity of nature vs nurture. This can be endlessly argued. I used to play once a week in an Ethiopian club a couple of years ago, and had many conversations with the Ethiopians, who are black, about why they see themselves differently from West Africans, and especially from American Blacks.

The answer was always "slavery". "My ancestors were never enslaved by other Africans, nor were they ever enslaved by Europeans." This was seen as producing a profound basic difference in cultural self-definition. Ethiopians have always seen themselves as free people, whereas the consciousness of slavery with all its traumas, is implanted in every West African and Black American's cultural identity from birth.

I think what we see when one race doesn't do as well in education, or business success, as a whole demographic (there will always be individual exceptions), is more likely due to cultural self-definitions.

What result does it have to be taught from your birth that you are disadvantaged in every way in the white man's world? How much of your achievement will be affected by that belief?

Clearly it has been shown that beliefs and self-definitions can effect results in aptitude testing and school performance.

What hasn't been shown is that the gene for darker skin pigmentation causes someone to not be able to do math.

So I think cultural self-definitions are a big part of it. Someone like me, who is from a southern white cultural heritage, can easily point out examples among our own race of poor backward people who seem unable to become socially adjusted to today's society. These people aren't black, so what's the explanation?

What if a clan makes a philosophical decision that it's OK to marry your first cousins? Surely you will have socially driven physical changes in the population.

So that's the main point for now. There are others. As usual Deepak manages to get in references to many hot topics even in a single post. At least that leaves lots of room for discussions.

Very interesting post. I referenced it on my blog.
I thought readers here may be interested in the following link, providing some evidence for the idea that an organism's environment is connected in some way to changes in the genetic code.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060807154715.htm

Janet:

"Obviously "intelligence" or potential for intelligence(genetic advantage) of a group of population cannot be determined by a one-to-one relationship with "superiority" (wealth, power, military might etc..)"

I am NOT arguing that Intelligence is determined by superiority but in absence of doing IQ tests (which, again aint the best method of measuring overall intelligence), then what is another way to say one RACE is "intelligent" and other is not?

If intelligence is what man has used to subjugate others on the planet (which is THE most natural tendency of man over the ages), then one could use Superiority as one way to say that one race had it better than the others!

brain development should obviously manifest in different ways - some brains (in some environs) may evolve more on the left side and some more on the right side.... at least by SHEER biological/Evolutionary/genetic terms that could stand to reason.... but sociologically, I dont see one race has been supreme in arts for ever! or science for ever!

So, I am arguing, that sociology does not bear what evolutionary and genetic biology may point toward. Where is the disconnect??

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

I feel sorry for the Neanderthals! I think the Brights must have eaten most of them in hard times?
(Jung's 'Aryan bird of prey' goes back a long way)

******************************************************
"So why is it that PC seems to me to be winning..." Friend_of_Skeptisch

I think it is because the liberal media has a very big head start over conservatives. Conservatives may own the AM radio dial, but liberals control most cable and broadcast TV networks, newspapers and local news departments.

~Anne 52
******************************************************

No doubt that the socialist media still have a much bigger outlet and a much bigger audience than the conservative media. In fact, it strikes me that perhaps Americans live in two different virtual realities or parallel universes as a function of which media we mainly listen to (too lazy to restructure the sentence to avoid the preposition at the end of it). Class polarization.

If it is simply because the socialists had a head start, do you expect time to correct the problem, i.e., do you expect that conservative media will catch up and overtake?

What generated the ideologies of the MSM-socialists in the first place? Is academia the cause of that? Did academia have a headstart also? How did academia become socialistic? Are conservatives such as Horowitz catching up with academia or is academia/socialism still winning?

These are the kinds of questions that seem to be raised.

*************************************************************
"Why does one version or another of class warfare continue over and over? Apparently it is something about the basic nature of mankind."~ Friend_of_Skeptisch

I personally believe that that is part of human nature. Humans, as well as many other species, have a genetically based drive for status. We are never really satisfied with our "station" in life (ambition). There is always that itch for more. Evolutionary Psychology (sociobiology) is profoundly illuminating on this, and many other aspects of human nature.

This drive for status is harnessed by society as the engine of progress. It is one of the reasons that communism won't work, and why capitalism has been so successful.

~sandy 54
*************************************************************

Yep. I agree with almost all of this, esp. the last paragraph. And that perhaps makes it a two-edged sword.

I don't know that it has been definitively shown to be genetic in origin, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is so.

I wonder that you label the motivating factor "ambition." Suppose that, in humans, maybe even some other primates, one gave it the label "envy"?

Should one see the well-known (I think) phenomenon f "keeping up with the Jones's" as a manifestation of ambition or envy, or both? And how does the role of the feelings/beliefs of the radical egalitarians factor into the equation?

Sandy,

There are numerous factors that have caused Africans by in large to be in the position they are in. As an African American I can tell you personally that I do not feel that I am any less evolved or intelligent than any other human being on this planet.

This theory doesn't seem to hold much water in the face of all the intelligent Africans and African Americans that currently walk on our planet.

-A

Belonging to a farmer community, I used to go to our farm in my school holidays and help family members on various jobs there. One of the jobs was to look after the earthen water-courses used for irrigating the fields because they would begin leaking at any time from anywhere thus wasting precious water. Not very much experienced, when I will see a leakage I will try to plug it from the outside on which my father or any other member of the family would tell me to find the source of the leakage from the inside of the water-course where it will be very very small as compared to that at the outside and to plug it from there, this way it will be far more easy and permanent.

Similarly, there are two ways to see anything in the sphere of knowledge. One way is we see things from outside-in, as usually mainstream science does and the other way is we see things from inside-out as usually intutively inclined people including rare but generally path-breaking scientists like Einstein, Watson do. In the first we can collect huge data but really fail to arrive at a unfied, simple and true picture of anything. In the second we see things differently which generally go against the data led results.

Seen from outside-in evolution seems to be continuous, and explanable by Darwinian and Neo-Darwinians theories. Here huge datas can be collected of anything and everything but cannot be unified into a single comprehensive picture to arrive at the single, simple truth of anything. No wonder with such approach we see numerous major and minor races with all having all sorts of attributes in greater or smaller measure.

Seen from inside-out evolution seems to be and actually is driven by what now-a-days is called intelligent design but which is really a design born out of the universe itself or born out of the evolutionary scheme of things of the universe itself. Here the evolution - change over time - is discontinous, jumps to new paradigms at due intervals and gives a far better unfied picture. Here you find only four basic species/races/classes and all that down to four basic phases of even our individual lives, all thanks to one unified picture on the onset beginning to get divided into four main pictures thanks to one unfied force which is the source and reason of it all getting divided into four basic forces cycle-over-cycles-over cycles right up to the univrse as a whole on the up side and a grain of sand on the down side.

It is only from this later picture that we can find four basic races, all having their strengths according to the basic forces of which they are a product from the very base. Gravity will give race its physical strength (Africans?), electromagnetism will make race emotionally volatile (Mongloids?), strong force will give race its intellectual strenth (Jews?)and the last the weak force will give a race its intelligence or what is also called wisdom (Asians?). Of course because of cycle-within-cycles or cycles-over-cycles all races will have their physical, emotional, intellectual and intutitve quotas but on the whole the picture will be as explained above.

There was a recent PBS documentary on "epigenetics," showing scientifically that nature is vastly altered or expanded upon by nurture. Deepak & Watson would find common ground there.

Science is the intelligent gathering of info available to the senses. It is a great tool, but no substitute for wisdom, which is an intuitive understanding of values. Only through the expansive wisdom of the heart, or Love, can science help humanity achieve what is most worthwhile.

Deepak:" In the case of IQ, to take a specific example, the simplistic connection between genes and intelligence is flat wrong. "

Meaning that there is not a cause and effect relationship between any specific gene activation and IQ test scores.

He did not mean that there is no relation between genetic sequences and intelligence. Clearly there is. Humans are more intelligent than great apes, due to genetic differences.

So between species that line of reasoning works. However, the human genome in all humans is so nearly the same, that genetic differences cannot account for differences in intelligence (other than mutations, or instances where the fetus failed to develop properly, resulting in brain damage or incomplete development).

Remember also that race distinction based on skin color is not due to changes in the human genetic code. All humans have the genes for skin pigmentation to various degrees (just like brown eyed people all have the genetic code for blue eyes as well). And it has been shown that if you move a group of people from say, a northern or southern latitude to an equatorial latitude, over generations the same family will develop different skin pigmentation due to a response to the amount of (or lack of) sunlight.

In other words, no actual difference in the genetic code is needed to cause a change in skin color over many generations (such as thousands of years or longer).

Geneticists realize, therefore, that there is no genetic basis for the concept of different races of humanity.

There are differences in the activation of skin pigmentation as a response to the environment, but NO ACTUAL DEVIANCES IN THE GENETIC CODE.

In other words, the whole idea of "race" may, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, be a fallacy. The idea of "race" may be a social construct, having nothing to do with genetics.

Socially, it is backed up by cultural differences. Fair enough. I'm simply pointing out that it is not genetics causing the differences in the races.

Studies tracing individual genetic histories indicate that a LOT of mixing has been going on throughout the entire time humans have been on earth. In other words, the fact that you are white and live in Norway does not preclude the fact that you can easily have genetic code from black African ancestors. Studies so far indicate in all likelihood you in fact would have genetic ancestors from all over the world, all races, all longitudes and latitudes.

The idea that "it's all genes" is sort of like saying the earth is all molecules. From one viewpoint it is. Genes shape our physical forms, including the structures of our brains, and give us the capability to express ourselves according to our human nature.

However, this does NOT mean that Jimi Hendrix was genetically coded to write "Purple Haze" nor does it mean that any of Van Gogh's or Michaelangelo's work was predetermined by a sequence of their genetic code.

Genes may have given them the brains and the hands with opposable thumbs, but certainly there were a lot of other factors (not to mention inspiration) that contributed to the way they chose to express themselves as artists, some of it cultural, some of it individual responses to cultural conditionings, and viewpoints formed from personal experiences and opinions.

It certainly seems there are differences between cultures, and it is also true that some cultures have evolved in specific locales, resulting in the fact that a culture springs up inside an area where people share the same skin pigmentation activation levels.

But it is not the skin pigmentation levels that are causing the cultural differences.

I think this is the heart of the matter. For Watson to notice there are cultural differences between his Nothern European culture and the Black African cultures is certainly a fair observation.

For him to say that those cultural differences are caused by differences in the genetic code between Northern Europeans and Africans is not only a non-sequitor jump in logic, it is not supported by the studies that have been done on the human genetic code.

I find the comment above that describes the book Genes, Germs, and Steel very interesting, because it shows how the differences in cultures arose due to a wide variety of factors, without the need to introduce the idea of a difference in the human genetic code between the cultures, which the scientific evidence so far indicates does not exist.

SCIENCE vs. wisdom

WISDOM vs. science

2 peas in a pod where less is more.

Is it even possible to be 'wise' without scientific knowledge?

Proper method, proper observation, proper evaluation, rational and logical conclusion...

is that a wise man's way of 'doing' science?

or is that a scientist's way of 'doing' good science?

Wisdom is a BIG word! Well, it's bigger than it looks.

What is wise here is not always wise somewhere else.

WISE

See? Now the word looks even smaller. It's a quantum cut-off.

We do not know exactly what is WISE, or what could be called WISE, until...

we look into the Past, and make a justified conclusion.

Can we make a jump and say,

"Wisdom is action taken--based on one's knowledge of History." (?)

SUCCESS

It just so happens...that sometimes

losing is the wisest thing to do.

Have you ever been in love?

Were you wiser for it?

Or more confused than ever, like me?

Yogi-one: I'm trying to follow along here (I'm not very knowledgeable about genetics). I can see your point on how skin pigmentation is not solely controlled by your genes. But I'm puzzled by your leap from there to your hypothesis that the whole concept of race could be a social construct. What about the other aspects of race, like bone structure, eye shape, etc? Do those admit of non-genetic explanations too?

Interesting the alter ego has some 'real' questions about the genetics of human physiology (not the usual philosphical and theological mumbo jumbo!)

....

anyway...

science is just a tool...

and reason is inherent in wisdom....

Science and Wisdom is a holistic approach than than science vs. wisdom.

You know the cliche...science gave the nukes...

Hey Sandy!

Thanks for posting #29. It is about time.

Idang Alibi is to be commended for his show of courage.

Is wisdom a value or a virtue?

This man is risking his life for telling his truth!

Have you ever taken action

after first having had a hunch?

Action taken, that is, for no good reason.

Just for the hell of it.

Just because you had an itch. An urge.

And then, somewhere down the road, you by chance

come upon an opportunity which requires special skills.

And just by chance, those skills are the exact ones

you learned by following this urge in the first place.

Following an urge for no good reason ends in a happy conclusion. Wow!

Is that what we call intuition? Is it smart or wise

to goof around and experiment with your version of reality?

DISCOVERY

Seldom does it happen, but happen it does.

Re. 60
Friend_of_Deepak

I think that status trumps all. People are obviously envious of those with more things, but they are more envious of those higher up the status hierarchy. And generally, I think that status is more emotionally rewarding. I think it is positive recognition by one's peers that is the primary driver, vs the acquisition of things. But
they generally come paired.

"how does the role of the feelings/beliefs of the radical egalitarians factor into the equation?"

Well, those below will always try to drag down those above. One method is through egalitarian ideologies. Also, those above use egalitarian ideologies to cement their positions by 1) making it harder for those right below to acquire money and position so that they can not effectively challenge, and 2) to mollify the masses so that they are content with their station. The term Machiavellianism is relevant here.

***

Re. 61
atm4328

"There are numerous factors that have caused Africans by in large to be in the position they are in. As an African American I can tell you personally that I do not feel that I am any less evolved or intelligent than any other human being on this planet."

I agree, but the intelligence is somehow not equally manifested as an output, as you say; due to several reasons - among them could be cultural attitudes and human behaviors - more people who are inclined to lead than to follow?(A society can handle many born geniuses but many born leaders? just a thought) - these could have some genetic roots. To succeed as a society, people should work in a 'large group' with a common goal. In the global era, these factors should have lesser and lesser effects to enable nations and cultural minorities to realize their full potential of human intelligence. The potential is immense, much more than anything the world has seen at the peaks of any civilization so far.

***

Re. 64
Yogi-one

Brilliant post. You touch upon many crucial points pertaining to the debate.

Re. 69

Keith, you are welcome!

Idang Alibi article is certainly inspiring for a better future. He "agrees" with Watson's conclusion, but doesn't necessarily agree with his reasons for the continued failure of African societies, which he says is more to do with their inability to elect proper leaders than their ability to do math, or so to speak. He makes perfect sense from a Christian theological point of view in his article. I don't agree with his argument for South Africa's success though. He says it is due to white leaders. South Africa's economic success has many more complex environmental and historical reasons.

There is nothing inferior, superior or versus in the universe. All things serve one grand Scheme of Things. Just as bone, blood, muscle, nerve and even cancer cells do so in our individual case.

"There is nothing inferior, superior or versus in the universe. All things serve one grand Scheme of Things. Just as bone, blood, muscle, nerve and even cancer cells do so in our individual case."

Right on, Harb. It's just how we choose to see it and thus weaken the spark that lightens the 'dark matter' between us. Now, we can also adapt our customary vision to any bright sparks a-flying!

So, the paradox of superior vision. Help me out my friend!

My right hand is dominant and usually prime mover but works in perfect harmony with my left hand never stopping to make judgement or pull rank. That stuff comes from that stuff only when I am not brave enough to renounce it!

It is a common activity of people from a dominant race to find some innate flaws in the race that they subjugate, openly or otherwise. It makes the activity more acceptable and reasonable. When British empire was at its helm, many important thinkers back home spun theories of how the colonies were inhabited by barbarians and essentially inferior people. Totally disregarding their ancient civilisations, which predated that of Europe by thousands of years and were highly developed in several fields including astronomy, mathematics, philosophy medicine and surgery.
The point made by Desh Kapoor that over several thousand years of known history of human civilisation, the superiority of one race over the other has been ephemeral, is a very valid one. We are living in a small bubble of time. In the next few centuries the balance of power may shift completely and make this debate totally redundant.
The point made by yogi-one that performance is related to self definitions that individuals, cultures and societies make for themselves is very strong. It explains the new phenomenon of the rise of China and India as the new important players on international stage. They seem to be powered more by self belief than anything else.
Africa's time will come. Make no mistake. Then all the so called scientific theories (more opportunistic than anything else) will go flying out of the door.
We are all created with equal potential. Don't believe anyone who says otherwise.

Sandy, overall your post(#49) is interesting to me and seems to make some sense to me at first consideration. I need more time to think about it. 'Status' is not a concept that I think a lot about. Perhaps it is a concept somewhat more familiar to a sociologist than to many biologists.

You brought up the word "ambition" and seemed to consider it the drive to achieve status. Suppose it were suggested that thwarted ambition rather than ambition per se was a causal factor of the socialist mentality? Would you buy that? Does thwarted ambition cause envy?

Is thwarted ambition usually to be understood as being relative to one's goals and one's perceptions of oneself? Could those you describe as being higher up the status hierarchy still self-perceive themselves, perhaps unreasonably, as failures, i.e., could they self-perceive that their status goals have been thwarted, and be envious of those below them out of a sort of delusionally low self-perception?

Or could they believe that they are so superior (God-like) that they can gain status by making a sort of heaven on earth, and by forcing lesser beings to bend to their will to do so?

Is there any role of delusional thinking in this process? Of irrationality? Do you see any irrationality in the socialist mentality?

(more below, by line)

**************************************************

[#49 Sandy]:

I think that status trumps all. People are obviously envious of those with more things, but they are more envious of those higher up the status hierarchy. And generally, I think that status is more emotionally rewarding. I think it is positive recognition by one's peers that is the primary driver, vs the acquisition of things. But they generally come paired.

"how does the role of the feelings/beliefs of the radical egalitarians factor into the equation?"

Well, those below will always try to drag down those above. One method is through egalitarian ideologies. Also, those above use egalitarian ideologies to cement their positions by 1) making it harder for those right below to acquire money and position so that they can not effectively challenge,...
***************************************************

So, those above in the status hierarchy are deliberately/knowingly just using the ideas of radical egalitarianism as a tool of their ambition to maintain their superior status? Is this to say that they do *not really believe* in those ideas; they don't really believe that everyone is, or should be made, equal? It seems to me that many, indeed most, of them, in fact, do. I could be wrong about that.

It would also seem that the most competition for someone of high status would be from those of very similarly high status. In terms of money that might mean the super-rich trying to transfer money away from the less rich (close competition) to the very poor, or perhaps to those in the middle. But, it is not clear to me that a transfer from the merely rich, but NOT from the super-rich and powerful, to those of much lesser status (those who are much less competition) is what Democrats want to do or ever actually accomplish. It is also not clear that there is any practical way to achieve that. How does the government take away from the merely rich and not from the super rich? Or do you see the competition for status as coming most significantly from those of middle status, i.e., as the rich protecting their status by transferring from the middle and giving to the poor/lower class?

In terms of the transfer away of other assets (besides money) that might otherwise help their closest competition to catch them, I am not sure those of highest status could bring about a transfer of such things as education, or inborn talent/abilities, or powerful "connections" with others, away from their closest competitors.

Besides, is the government really made up, are the Democrats or socialists really made up, mainly of those of highest status? Most elected government officials and most Democrats are just useful idoits then?

***
"and 2) to molify the masses so that they are content with their station." [#49 sandy]
***

Here, I suppose affirmative action in education could be seen as an example of trying to transfer a factor other than money to mollify the masses. And especially, giving out grades that are undeserved to mollify some students, of merely pretending that they are getting a good education. And, I suppose there are many other examples of how to mollify the masses, which, perhaps, one could sum up as welfare.

But, if those of highest status are rationally doing this, don't they understand that when mollifying the masses they risk bringing down the whole system, themselves with it?

"The term Machiavellianism is relevant here."[#49 sandy]

Perhaps.

Does Machiavelianism strike you as perfectly rational? Again, what is the role of irrationality in all this? None?

[Anne #52]
********************
"do you expect that conservative media will catch up and overtake?"

There is abundant evidence that we are overtaking the MSM as we speak.
********************

(By "we" I suppose you mean the conservatives.)
I would like to believe that, but I am very skeptical.

*****
Read former National Review publisher Bill Rusher's book The Coming Battle for the Media.
*****

It probably would be interesting. Thanks.

****************
"What generated the ideologies of the MSM-socialists in the first place? Is academia the cause of that?"

Journalism Schools, like most higher educational institutions, remain liberal dominated.
*****************

Certainly seems to be true, yes.

*****
"How did academia become socialistic?"

Government funding and mandates.
*****

Hmm. The government helped to make academics into socialists? Isn't that a bit circular? The academics made the media into socialists, the media caused the government to be socialist, and the socialist government made the academics socialist???

********
Also, the theoretical world is the only environment where where socialism and Marxist-Leninism seem to work.
********

Interesting comment. Is that why academia itself is a tyrannical system? I always viewed it as a dictatorship but not necessarily a communist one. True though, that students are made nearly equal these days by giving out grades like water and dumbing down courses nearly to the lowest level of comprehension.

Friend_of_Deepak:
Re. 55

"'Status' is not a concept that I think a lot about. Perhaps it is a concept somewhat more familiar to a sociologist than to many biologists."

Concerning social species, it is an integral sociobiological concept.

"Suppose it were suggested that thwarted ambition rather than ambition per se was a causal factor of the socialist mentality? Would you buy that?"

It is A causal factor. But there is a fundamental ambition for status/power in and of itself, just like EVERY male chimpanzee craves to be the alpha, and all of the perks it brings. Social classes are simply a pecking order. In general, the higher the better.

"Could those you describe as being higher up the status hierarchy still self-perceive themselves, perhaps unreasonably, as failures"

Of course. It depends on where they started from and their status goals.

"i.e., could they self-perceive that their status goals have been thwarted, and be envious of those below them out of a sort of delusionally low self-perception?"

The delusional can come up with any type of craziness, but in general I would say not likely. They look down on those below them and envy those above.

"Or could they believe that they are so superior (God-like) that they can gain status by making a sort of heaven on earth, and by forcing lesser beings to bend to their will to do so?"

For sure. Power is one of the most intoxicating states one can be in. I'm sure most have heard the phrase DRUNK WITH POWER.

"Do you see any irrationality in the socialist mentality?"

Except for those near the top who use these ideologies to get and keep power, most hardcore socialists ARE delusional. Hence they strive to promote a system that has shown itself to be unworkable and a failure all over the world.

"So, those above in the status hierarchy are deliberately/knowingly just using the ideas of radical egalitarianism as a tool of their ambition to maintain their superior status?"

I would say most at the top do. It is a form of political manipulation. You don't get to the height of power without knowing how to manipulate those you need to. It would almost come as second nature.

"It would also seem that the most competition for someone of high status would be from those of very similarly high status. In terms of money that might mean the super-rich trying to transfer money away from the less rich (close competition) to the very poor, or perhaps to those in the middle."

That is how it is done.

"How does the government take away from the merely rich and not from the super rich?"

The super rich and connected, to a large degree, make the rules. They make sure it benefits themselves. Of course they also compete amongst themselves for power.

"Or do you see the competition for status as coming most significantly from those of middle status, i.e., as the rich protecting their status by transferring from the middle and giving to the poor/lower class?"

No, I would say the upper middle and newly rich.

"Most elected government officials and most Democrats are just useful idiots then?'

At the state and local level, probably. It changes drastically at the federal level, depending on how politically connected they are. The new game in town is world government. Many are trying to position themselves for, to them, the inevitable.

"if those of highest status are rationally doing this, don't they understand that when mollifying the masses they risk bringing down the whole system, themselves with it?"

I'm sure they think they can finesse it. Power brings arrogance, and arrogance can be conducive to making egregious errors in judgment.

"Does Machiavelianism strike you as perfectly rational? Again, what is the role of irrationality in all this? None?"

It is simply the studied ways of power... An attempt to take the irrational out of it.

Sandy,

Interesting position(s)(#57). You are a sociologist or sociobiologist yourself?

I will take more time to think about this and possibly respond more later. Just a comment or two now.

Based on your answers/positions/beliefs, should I conclude that, someone who is lower-middle-class (or at most somewhere in the middle class), not rich, not super-rich, and yet supports conservative positions, is ALSO just a useful idoit for those of highest status, because conservatives promote capitalism and that is what those of highest status *really* want? Those of highest status don't really want socialism? They do want capitalism? And conservatives support capitalism? And therefore conservatives are also, perhaps more, useful idoits to those of highest status than socialists?

Does that mean you are not a conservative? Or that you are of the highest status? Or that you are a useful idoit? It certainly sesm to make me a useful idoit.

More below in a comment to follow shortly.

*******************************
(Sandy's responses {Post #57} with my comments in quotes.)

"'Status' is not a concept that I think a lot about. Perhaps it is a concept somewhat more familiar to a sociologist than to many biologists."

Concerning social species, it is an integral sociobiological concept.

"Suppose it were suggested that thwarted ambition rather than ambition per se was a causal factor of the socialist mentality? Would you buy that?"

It is A causal factor. But there is a fundamental ambition for status/power in and of itself, just like EVERY male chimpanzee craves to be the alpha, and all of the perks it brings. Social classes are simply a pecking order. In general, the higher the better.
********************************

I can accept this, but you capitalized the "A" for a reason. You seem to be tacitly implying/accepting/admitting that there are other causal factors, and that seems evidently correct.

There are other innate factors/drives besides ambition (drive for status), and there are drives that tend to check ambition. One of the most obvious of the latter would seem to be fear. Does fear not act to check ambition? One thinks of those who claim to have "a fear of success." There must be many others, i.e., human behavior is multifactorial.

Further, you seem to be suggesting that the drive for status, ambition, is the most significant causal factor in the socialist mentality. Fear might lead to thwarted ambition. No? If I accept that ambition precedes thwarted ambition, should I also accept that ambition is more primal than fear?

**************************************************
"Could those you describe as being higher up the status hierarchy still self-perceive themselves, perhaps unreasonably, as failures"

Of course. It depends on where they started from and their status goals.

"i.e., could they self-perceive that their status goals have been thwarted, and be envious of those below them out of a sort of delusionally low self-perception?"

The delusional can come up with any type of craziness, but in general I would say not likely. They look down on those below them and envy those above.

"Or could they believe that they are so superior (God-like) that they can gain status by making a sort of heaven on earth, and by forcing lesser beings to bend to their will to do so?"

For sure. Power is one of the most intoxicating states one can be in. I'm sure most have heard the phrase DRUNK WITH POWER.
**************************************************

So, you consider this more likely than the possibility that those of higher status could *envy* those of lower status out of irrationality. In fact, you seem to consider this a real possibility, and yet you don't think that those "near the top" in status act irrationally when they promote socialism, as in your answer to the next question.

*******************************
"Do you see any irrationality in the socialist mentality?"

Except for those near the top who use these ideologies to get and keep power, most hardcore socialists ARE delusional. Hence they strive to promote a system that has shown itself to be unworkable and a failure all over the world.
*******************************

I agree that socialism has been an utter failure and yet many seem to want to keep trying it over and over. Again, some would consider that good evidence of irrationality. But, maybe a few, as you suggest, don't really want to have it succeed and aren't really trying it.

If those near the bottom are delusional for using socialism because it has never worked for them, and those at the top aren't delusional, they just pretend to believe in it and pretend to promote it as a tool to maintain their own status, does it seem to you that those at the top are doing an awfully poor job of just *pretending* to promote it? Do you think they are being careful not to try too hard? Does that apply to Soros? To Kennedy? Should I not be afraid that socialism in America will ever succeed because those of highest status won't really let it?

Are there any of *low* or "middle" status (class) who are not delusional and merely use the socialist ideology rationally to try to reach their own, perhaps more modest, status goals? Can a "rational" Machiavellianism, or something very much like it, be practiced by the lower and middle classes too by also merely *pretending* to believe in and to promote socialism in order to gain/be granted status by those of higher status who have the power/ability to raise the status of others in return for helping them to pretend? What is "brown-nosing"? Are some, in the lower-class, brown-noses who mollify the highest status individuals by pretending to be socialists for them in return for status granting, and are they therefore not useful idoits, and not delusional but rational strategists after all?

And again, those "near the top," who are not delusional: Suppose I offered you a name such as Teddy Kennedy. Is Teddy Kennedy "near the top"? Should I therefore conclude that he is rationally using an ideology (ala Machiavelli), to help him maintain a status, but he is aware that socialist ideology isn't correct? Does Teddy Kennedy merely come from a reasonably wealthy family or should I consider him one of the super-rich? Super-rich = "near the top"? If I suggested that Teddy is a radical egalitarian, and if I further suggested that radical egalitarianism is a delusional belief - am I right or wrong on each count?

**************************************************
"So, those above in the status hierarchy are deliberately/knowingly just using the ideas of radical egalitarianism as a tool of their ambition to maintain their superior status?"

I would say most at the top do. It is a form of political manipulation. You don't get to the height of power without knowing how to manipulate those you need to. It would almost come as second nature.

"It would also seem that the most competition for someone of high status would be from those of very similarly high status. In terms of money that might mean the super-rich trying to transfer money away from the less rich (close competition) to the very poor, or perhaps to those in the middle."

That is how it is done.
**************************************************

So, how does one fit someone like Teddy Kennedy into this scheme? Or Soros?

******************************
"How does the government take away from the merely rich and not from the super rich?"

The super rich and connected, to a large degree, make the rules. They make sure it benefits themselves. Of course they also compete amongst themselves for power.
******************************

But then, again, how do they make rules that benefit themselves *as individuals* but not their nearest competition?

***************************************************
"Or do you see the competition for status as coming most significantly from those of middle status, i.e., as the rich protecting their status by transferring from the middle and giving to the poor/lower class?"

No, I would say the upper middle and newly rich.

"Most elected government officials and most Democrats are just useful idiots then?'

At the state and local level, probably. It changes drastically at the federal level, depending on how politically connected they are. The new game in town is world government. Many are trying to position themselves for, to them, the inevitable.
***************************************************

World government is inevitable because those seeking the highest status want it? They are the ones in control, right? So, they are the ones making it inevitable? They all want to be president of the world? Is that why they want one world government?

*******************************
"if those of highest status are rationally doing this, don't they understand that when mollifying the masses they risk bringing down the whole system, themselves with it?"

I'm sure they think they can finesse it. Power brings arrogance, and arrogance can be conducive to making egregious errors in judgment.
*******************************

Such arrogance is still rational though?

**************************************************
"Does Machiavelianism strike you as perfectly rational? Again, what is the role of irrationality in all this? None?"

It is simply the studied ways of power... An attempt to take the irrational out of it.
**************************************************

Could it be irrational to believe that such an attempt to take the irrational out of gaining power could ever succeed?

No. I am not just playing games. I just think that all this is VERY complex.

Maybe so complex that Sisyphus really will be doomed for eternity.

Maybe Santayana should have said that man will inevitably be unable to understand the past and inevitably be doomed to repeat it.

F.of D. and Sandy:

Your conversation need not distract from the original intention of the author.

You two (or you) seem to be well-informed,

yet you choose to remain anonymous here at IB. Why is that?

Ambition makes you want to post,

yet Fear keeps you from gaining self-recognition?

Maybe you have already attained to a high social status.

Aye, that certainly must call for wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.

Otherwise, you might probably let us know who you really are.

.

When one has something to lose, fear causes one to take

a stance which secures ones special identity.

You are 'somebody', and this 'somebody' suffers because of this relation to a group.

.

If people were always rational, there would never have been

a story such as the good Samaritan, and charity would only be a vague concept.

The Buddha would have taken the Kingdom instead of leaving it.

Jesus was tempted to take the status, name and power that goes with being

the King Of The World, but what did he do and say instead?

Those at the bottom rung of the ladder have a pretty good view of those above.

They watch those who have gone on before, those who seem to have had a head start.

Although, if we were all created in the beginning as a thought of God,

then that wouldn't make any sense at all.

So why do people choose to stay at such a lowly station?

Why do wise men seek a babe instead of brown-nosing to an already made King?

Excuse me for butting in. I shall ready myself now

to be a grunt in a factory as per usual on a Monday morn.

Peace, Keith

We are all one being (period).
You can analyze to the point of separation.
Todd

Keith:

You can read about me in my profile page.

***

Friend_of_Deepak:

No, I am no pro. Just an eager student.

"Those of highest status don't really want socialism? They do want capitalism? And conservatives support capitalism?"

I would say that those at the top have learned from this century, and are not communists, but they are socialists (which gives them ample control) that want enough capitalism to keep things from grinding to a halt.

I am a conservative that wants everyone to know how the system works so that we can be an effective counter to their power quest, just as the constitution (or what’s left of it) was supposed to do in the USA.

I think that any fear they have is about a substantial portion of the general population discovering what their game is. Without the cover of darkness they lose much of their power.

What would those at the top envy about those at the bottom? They use them as weapons against the middle. They may pretend to be guardians of the poor, but in reality, have mostly contempt for them and just use them as tools.

"I agree that socialism has been an utter failure and yet many seem to want to keep trying it over and over."

Primarily the "useful idoits" from the middle.

"If those near the bottom are delusional for using socialism because it has never worked for them"

Oh it has worked for them. The uppers take from the middle and give it to the bottom. They then can 1) put on a false front of being caring, and 2) throttle their enemies at the same time.

"Should I not be afraid that socialism in America will ever succeed because those of highest status won't really let it?"

I would say that the highers would institute hardcore socialism (not communism) in a minute, but those that have to pay for it (the middle) don't want it and reject it whenever they get the chance.

"Can a "rational" Machiavellianism, or something very much like it, be practiced by the lower and middle classes too by also merely *pretending* to believe in and to promote socialism in order to gain/be granted status by those of higher status who have the power/ability to raise the status of others in return for helping them to pretend?"

Remember that IQ is well correlated with social class. Those at the bottom are too dumb and/or ignorant to know much about anything. Those in the middle are occupied with earning a living, and are ignorant of the ways of power. I am hoping that the internet can give them the necessary knowledge so that they can take back some of their power. They will need to if they are to counter those from above.

It is hard to tell about people like a Kennedy or a Soros. Are they in the power matrix, or are they primarily spear carriers? I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say the latter. The real players are usually not known nor do they want to be known.

"But then, again, how do they make rules that benefit themselves *as individuals* but not their nearest competition?"

Look it like a corporation. The corporation competes against others for hegemony, but the officers within the corporation compete with each other for power. The players at the top are the "world gov't" corporation.

"World government is inevitable because those seeking the highest status want it?"

I said I think that THEY think it is inevitable, but it isn't necessarily. They are positioning for it, but got a big surprise on the open-borders / amnesty vote a few months ago. Talk radio and the internet are helping the middle to educate itself and gain some power. Decades ago it would have passed without us even knowing about it, like the 1965 IMMIGRATION ACT. How will it turn out in the end? I don't know.

"Such arrogance is still rational though?"

Arrogance is gene based human/animal nature. Intellect/rationality must ride on top of this nature like a bull rider.

Sandy: Thanks for letting me know that you are one of a kind.

Not everyone plays it straight...you may have noticed.

Maybe F. of D. will act in like manner. I doubt it.

The totality of what you said above is very interesting.

In my state, 'talk radio' is aimed at the Republican sports fan.

Hannity, Rush, Prager, O'Reily, etc., are all I hear besides football.
Sometimes I listen in. It depends on my mood.
If it is already a sore one, they tend to make it worse.

I wish there was more balance in it, like that Carvelle(?) dude.

Anyways...thanks for the education! Cheers!

I find this discussion interesting. Just a personal interest on my part, and I doubt that many will read such long posts. Forgive the typos and the sentence structure below. I didn't take much time to proofread this and it IS getting too long, I know.

Keith, as you might have guessed, I am a friend of Deepak. I am your average Biologist from St. Peters, MO.
☺

Sandy, I am not clear about how you see all this. That is why you will likely find so many questions below, line by line:

Post#62, Sandy:
▫—————————————————————————————————►
No, I am no pro. Just an eager student.

"Those of highest status don't really want socialism? They do want capitalism? And conservatives support capitalism?"

I would say that those at the top have learned from this century,
◄—————————————————————————————————▫

You mean from the failure of communism or other forms of socialism in the 20th century?

▫——————————————►
and are not communists, but they are socialists (which gives them ample control) that want enough capitalism to keep things from grinding to a halt.
◄——————————————▫

I am having a problem understanding how one applies your beliefs to current political movements, domestic or world-wide.

You write, that they (those at the top) ARE socialists???? Do you mean rather, that *some* (not all) of those at the top just *pretend* to be socialists/radical egalitarians, using such pretense to gain power from and thereby to control the masses? I can see how the latter would help them to maintain status and control the masses UP TO A POINT ONLY. But I cannot see how those at the top would maintain their status if a true form of socialism really succeeded, unless they see maintainance of their high status as meaning that they become an El Duce, or Stalin, or Castro, or retain some very high position under such a dictator in a pseudosocialist system, such as all forms of socialism to date. Is that what you mean? In true socialism I cannot see how there would be much in the way of status for them. In true socialism I don't see much in the way of status for anyone.

And you write, "..enough capitalism to keep things from grinding to a halt"???? This seems to mean that you believe they don't want a very clear-cut or sincere form of socialism, since it would still involve some capitalism? Perhaps you feel that what they want should not becalled socialism then, and that they ARE NOT (true) socialists?

Are you thinking here of The Third Way, sometimes called "Third Way Socialism"? Is that what you see as a somewhat newer strategy of those at the top for maintaining status? They learned by the failures of communism and now have a synthesis of opposites
(capitalism and socialism) to try next?

Are you thinking that they want something like corporate statism/fascism? And do you equate corporate statism with "enough capitalism..."? Those of the highest status will be the heads of huge corporations that control the world?

Do you, in fact, think of those at the top NOW as being the heads of huge international corporations? Are you focusing on globalism here? Economic globalism? Governmental/one world globalism? Both? Are you thinking of MexAmeriCanada, the Amero, European socialism, the European Union, free trade agreements, etc.?

If so, do you see this as some sort of conspiracy? The super rich or powerful, those of highest status, banding together in a sort of super-corporation to control the rest of us and maintain their super-high status?

I hope you don't mean something like the Trilateral Commission, or Skull and Bones, or the neocons, etc. It's just that I wonder if you are advocating some type of conspiracy theory.

▫—————————————————————————————————►
I am a conservative that wants everyone to know how the system works so that we can be an effective counter to their power quest, just as the constitution (or what’s left of it) was supposed to do in the USA.
◄—————————————————————————————————▫

You seem to think that there is a strategy for maintainance of status on the part of those of highest status, similar to that of an aristocracy or a monarchy. And they are Machiavellian in nature. Is that correct?

▫——————————————►
I think that any fear they have is about a substantial portion of the general population discovering what their game is. Without the cover of darkness they lose much of their power.
◄——————————————▫

Forgive me, but this sounds a bit as if you see it as some sort of conspiracy. Has a drive for status produced a sort of class 'conspiracy' to rule, similar to an aristocracy?

▫—————————————————————————————————► What would those at the top envy about those at the bottom?
◄—————————————————————————————————▫
If those at the top were rational, then those of highest status would *not* envy those at the bottom, no. But, as you previously agreed, delusional or irrational thinking could produce this feeling. One has heard of the concept of a "limousine liberal," and of the idea that some of those of high wealth or status may become radical egalitarians out of guilt feelings. One *might* see Kennedy this way. Or one might see Edwards this way. {I don't actually; I think he has no guilt feelings at all} It is also possible, as far as I can tell, for altruism or even feelings of love in the form of compassion, to produce beliefs in radical egalitarianism, which may then lead to legitimate, not pretended, beliefs in socialism.

And this brings up a related point. Ambition ALONE seems unlikely to me to explain recurrent class warfare, or beliefs in radical egalitarianism, or beliefs in socialism. While I certainly can see ambition as an important consideration in an analysis of class warfare, I don't readily see it as the one and only consideration. If human nature itself is in some way responsible for recurrence of class warfare or for advocation of socialism, or for beliefs in radical egalitarianism, then I suspect one will have to take into account all the other innate aspects of human nature that might apply besides ambition. It seems to me that, in addition to fear, there is also guilt, irrationality, envy, and even love itself - all of which *might* be essential in one way or another to a theory of what causes radical egalitarian beliefs, or socialist ideology, or class warfare. Possibly many other aspects of human nature are involved also.

▫——————————————►
They use them as weapons against the middle. They may pretend to be guardians of the poor, but in reality, have mostly contempt for them and just use them as tools.
◄——————————————▫

Which seems to mean that they do not really believe in socialism. Why then do you write above that those at the top ARE socialists of some sort? You don't seem to mean that, at least not in the sense that they believe in socialism per se.

▫—————————————————————————————————►
"I agree that socialism has been an utter failure and yet many seem to want to keep trying it over and over."
Primarily the "useful idoits" from the middle.
◄—————————————————————————————————▫

This remark seems to be consistent with the idea that some in the middle might *really* believe in socialism, and it seems to me to reinforce the idea that you do not think that those at the top ARE socialists at all, at least not in the sense that they really believe in it.

In any case, who do you see as the useful idoits in the middle? Journalists? ACLU lawyers? Most humanities professors/academicians in liberal arts colleges and universities? Others? If the academy consists of so many useful idoits, then how does that gibe with IQ correlating with status?

▫——————————————►
"If those near the bottom are delusional for using socialism because it has never worked for them"
Oh it has worked for them. The uppers take from the middle and give it to the bottom. They then can 1) put on a false front of being caring, and 2) throttle their enemies at the same time.
◄——————————————▫

Again, this does not seem consistent with the statment above, that those of highest status, or those at the top ARE socialists.

▫—————————————————————————————————►
"Should I not be afraid that socialism in America will ever succeed because those of highest status won't really let it?"
I would say that the highers would institute hardcore socialism (not communism) in a minute,
◄—————————————————————————————————▫
Now you seem to be again saying that those at the top ARE socialists.

Do you mean that they would institute a sort of socialist system, (thereby eliminating most or all of a middle class, thereby mollifying the masses), leaving a core of capitalism to produce, and have themselves still on top somehow ruling the entire society? It sounds most to me like fascism, which I do accept as a form of socialism. Is that what you mean? Is The Third Way a form of fascism? But corporate statism isn't capitalism, so in what sense would there still be just enough capitalism to keep up production?

▫——————————————►
but those that have to pay for it (the middle) don't want it and reject it whenever they get the chance.
"Can a "rational" Machiavellianism, or something very much like it, be practiced by the lower and middle classes too by also merely *pretending* to believe in and to promote socialism in order to gain/be granted status by those of higher status who have the power/ability to raise the status of others in return for helping them to pretend?"
Remember that IQ is well correlated with social class. Those at the bottom are too dumb and/or ignorant to know much about anything. Those in the middle are occupied with earning a living, and are ignorant of the ways of power. I am hoping that the internet can give them the necessary knowledge so that they can take back some of their power. They will need to if they are to counter those from above.
◄——————————————▫
Hmm. I have heard something of that sentiment before, about the Internet becoming a better tool for widespread education than all the other outlets for education have been so far. I doubt it. Was radio? Was TV?

First of all the Internet is mostly becoming a garbage dump, not a school. Secondly, there is no way to ensure that a *large number* of those at the bottom or even those in the middle class will be exposed to muc of any "knowledge" or teaching on the Internet. Even those of the middle class, even if they have the ability to understand the ideas, and even if the ideas are correct, don't go to the Internet mainly seeking education. You can't force them to listen. Thirdly, you yourself characteized them as busy working.

▫—————————————————————————————————►
It is hard to tell about people like a Kennedy or a Soros. Are they in the power matrix, or are they primarily spear carriers? I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say the latter. The real players are usually not known nor do they want to be known.
◄—————————————————————————————————▫
This again sounds to me like you view the "players" as shady characters in some sort of conspiracy. Please tell me that isn't so.

▫——————————————►
"But then, again, how do they make rules that benefit themselves *as individuals* but not their nearest competition?"
Look it like a corporation. The corporation competes against others for hegemony, but the officers within the corporation compete with each other for power. The players at the top are the "world gov't" corporation.
◄——————————————▫
This makes me think again, as above, that you seem to see the (hard to see, or hard to define, or hard to recognize) highest status individuals as being those with the most corporate power, as perhaps the CEOs of international corporations? Including heads of media corporations as well?

▫—————————————————————————————————►
"World government is inevitable because those seeking the highest status want it?"
I said I think that THEY think it is inevitable,
◄—————————————————————————————————▫

But why would they think it is inevitable?

▫——————————————►
but it isn't necessarily. They are positioning for it, but got a big surprise on the open-borders / amnesty vote a few months ago. Talk radio and the internet are helping the middle to educate itself and gain some power. Decades ago it would have passed without us even knowing about it, like the 1965 IMMIGRATION ACT. How will it turn out in the end? I don't know.
◄——————————————▫

So, perhaps you could offer me a clearer characterization of those you think are on the top of this status hierarchy. Is Bush, because he seems to promote globalization, or CandiMexAmerica, one of those on top, or of the highest status, one who is manipulating the rest of us? Certainly, in some sense the President of the United States would seem to be of the very highest status. Is he part of a conspiracy of an aristocratic-like upper class? Is he just a spear-carrier? Or a useful idoit? Waht about Donald Rumsfeld? (sp?) Cheney? The neocon conspiracy theory that heavily relies on the old and tiresome demonization of Jews? The Clintons? Halliburton executives? Vincente Fox?

Would you say that you see class warfare as a three class struggle, unlike Marx who saw it as a two class struggle? What about other classes/groups? Is class identification always based on "