(Part 2) Top products from r/TrueReddit

> I think there's not enough writing out there taking a look at the totally understandable emotional reasons why people engage in identity politics.

You're looking for Jonathan Haidt. There's also a TED talk.

Haidt points out that there are six moral "receptors", similar to senses, and that conservatives experience all six, while liberals focus primarily experience only two.

Each of these moral receptors can be exploited. We are hard-wired to respond to these set-points and base our decisions on those gut feelings. We use our intellect (especially on Reddit!) to justify those emotional decisions, not to question them.

Liberals are not going to change their settings. However, they can become better at this game and learn to trigger the four missing receptors to better bring conservatives over to their pet causes.

For example, why don't conservatives respond to the statement: "Trump should release his taxes?" Liberals see this as an issue of fairness and pretty much only fairness - everyone else did it, it's good for the majority to have the information, why is this even a question?

Conservatives bring in a whole host of other moral flavors. They are loyal to Trump. They respect his authority. They believe fairness is about proportionality, so because Trump is rich, he must also be good (those with the most assets have earned a right to lead). All of these cross-currents prevent them from supporting something that is obviously beneficial to society.

Until liberal learn to trigger those switches, they will continue to lose elections. We are ultimately still monkeys.

>These are not false dichotomies I bring up, but genuine concerns about tradeoffs for implementing democratic processes at so many levels of a society

This is not the false dichotomy I mentioned; the problem was that the two options originally presented were the existing power relationships or a dystopian state controlling everything we do. But once you start to criticize specific details of one possible implementation of socialism, you are merely doing precisely what good socialist thinkers should do. Given some ideal, how should it be implemented? What are the inherent problems? How can we make this work? And you certainly have not given enough credit to socialist intellectuals who do consider these problems when you imply that there is one implementation of socialism and it is necessarily "a fairy tale". That is simply willful ignorance of an entire body of work stretching back centuries to the early days of capitalism.

You want to have a conversation about how socialism should work as a democratic alternative to authoritarian capitalism and find out more about what proposals have been made? Wonderful! My work is done.

>the greater the task or function of some institution, the larger the centralized body must be to orchestrate whatever task it must carry out; the greater the that this democratic, centralized body must be, the more people we need; the more people, the more statistics bear out the chance of differing opinions, differing levels of expertise, and susceptibility to corruption; then we have a slower, more inefficient operation.

You make a whole range of statements that imply things must necessarily be a certain way. Given how rare these truths are when discussing human societies, I would have to ask you to justify these claims with at least some good argument. "The greater the task or function of some institution, the larger the centralized body must be to orchestrate whatever task it must carry out"? What does "greater" even mean to begin with? Why should the importance of a task necessitate more centralized control? If greater tasks require more centralized control, why should these same tasks require more centralization when we switch to socialism? And so on and so on. None of these concerns seem valid to me; they seem to be disguised forms of fear of the unknown.

>These problems will arise; to pretend that this system is immune to problems of corruption and conflict, that it's some rosy paradise of a solution to governing a society is naive.

Nobody ever said socialism would have no problems that we'd need to solve. Again, you're misrepresenting the alternative to the current power structure instead of directly engaging with it. People who believe in revolutionary change to socialism must be "naive" because we're to scared to think about the implications of such fundamental social changes.

>But suppose we go throw with it. How deeply do you embed this democratic structure into company. Large companies admit nested hierarchical command structures. Do we elect someone at every level of management? That only magnifies the problems of democratic processes listed above, likely in some geometric fashion.

Worker cooperatives already exist and have a wealth of answers to these questions. The Mondragon corporation is an often-cited example of a pseudo-democratic institution operating within the prevailing capitalist system. Also, Richard Wolff has written and spoken about these issues extensively; to these concerns I would simply say "go and find out - engage with that conversation!"

>I'm not saying that we should ignore socialism entirely, but to swallow it wholesale is not practical.

Now these are the statements that imply a false dichotomy. What is it to "swallow socialism wholesale"? Socialism is not a single monolithic set of precepts about how society should work. Socialism is simply saying that the biggest problem you currently face is that private control of capital has created and raised a powerful monster that has simply purchased your "democratic" government and will now proceed to solidify its global power until regular people are left with lives that are barely worth living. And all of this was entirely predictable for people who are just willing to question the underlying social hierarchies instead of blindly accepting them! Socialism is a universe of possibilities that begin with one idea - nobody should rule. Surely that one single idea cannot present such an insurmountable difficulty for our digestive tracts.

This is my issue with Gladwell and Lehrer:

>In works of less than 500 pages, Gladwell and Lehrer attempt to enlighten the reader on How the World Works, What People are Really Like, and How Greatness Happens without getting into any of the technical details that would absolutely overwhelm the majority of the readers traipsing through airport book shop before grabbing their flight home.

They set out to achieve something that's nearly impossible and people are willing to suspend disbelief just because they don't want to expend the energy required to become truly informed on a given subject.

Also this:
>More than actionable insights, this kind of popular analysis gives the reader something far more immediately valuable – the feeling that they have a sophisticated view of the world.

I'm still reading the article, but I fell in love with the following sentence:
>America splits its valuable time between blowing an enormously obvious housing bubble, demanding Master’s degrees for entry-level positions, and badly managing the bloodbaths of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is an excellent article. If I may suggest a couple of anti-dotes to the Gladwell/Lehrer pop-science oversimplification, two books with excellent science and research on how we think, decide and react to stress are Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow and Choke, by Sian Beilock.

I didn't realize I had to do your homework for you. This was the top result of a google search for "shaker heights sociology study schools". When I saw this study last it was in article format but I am not surprised the author wrote a book about it.

Anyways, you are remembering the study incorrectly. It was a study of middle class black families in comparison to middle class whites within the same community. He found that the white parents were significantly more likely to preach the value of education and homework and hold their children responsible when they performed poorly academically, whereas the reverse was true with the black parents. They did little to reinforce the importance of school or homework and blamed the teachers/schools when their children did poorly. So yes, actually, it addresses this point directly.

Look, I do not care to "convert" you. I couldn't care less if you believe what I am saying. The link to the book is of zero help to you as you are not going to order it and read it and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to search for any evidence that is contrary to your claim (unless it is spoon fed to you), so what do you want? Shall I xerox the relevant pages of the article (assuming I ever find my copy) and mail them to you? Why is that my responsibility? I have told you that there is evidence to support my claim, I gave you a really good jumping off point, and you do not want to do any work. Fine. Again, I don't care. But do not make the mistake of assuming that your laziness or my apathy is reason enough to continue believing you are right about this.

In Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, he explains that a high IQ often does not translate into worldly success because greatness is based on a lot of luck.

They did a study where they followed around a bunch of exceptionally intelligent people, people who had IQs high enough to be considered geniuses. They were, in fact, outliers in terms of IQ.

But what did they discover? They found that most of them led average to above-average lives. These geniuses weren't bums by any means, but they weren't great either. They probably led ordinary lives making around $80,000/year or something.

Why? Why were these people with exceptionally high IQs enjoying the same success as people with normal IQs?

It's because of luck. Things didn't luck out for them. There are so many factors you can't control.

Comparing invasive species to GMO crops is a false equivalence. Also, your entire post rests on an outdated and bullshit view of the natural world as existing in this pristine state upon which modern man has recklessly trampled. I highly recommend reading the book 1491, which does a good job unraveling the thesis that 'nature=pristine, man's interference=bad'.

Also, we aren't talking about zebra mussels or rabbits in Australia, we're talking about domesticated crop species that are the result of thousands of years of breeding and cultivation, and generally don't thrive in the wild without human intervention. I'm not talking GMO, I'm talking your 'heirloom' varieties. Inserting a gene which codes for a vitamin A synthesis is nothing like releasing birds because we think they'd be pretty. The rice plant already grows in the Philippines. The fundamental biological method by which the plant grows and reproduces has not changed. If we accept farming as part of the natural tableau of the area, then we're changing nothing in the status quo, aside from providing more rounded nutrition to the population

Stephen Hawking is on point:


If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

A good read to begin to realize a new alternative:

Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work

I know for me growing up, I was constantly "not wanting to do something just because I [wasn't] interested." No amount of threatening, bribing, waiting, removing the opportunity was going to change that. It wasn't about the thing at all, it was about asserting power/control over my young life. I think especially as a "gifted" child this is especially psychically important.

As an adult, I've recently been reading The Now Habit and I was actually wondering how I would have received those ideas as a child (maybe especially personally funny to me since in elementary school I used to like reading any self-help/child-rearing books my parents had around the house anyway) or if you would be able to use the ideas to actually motivate an under-performing child.

It is sad to look back and wonder what you could have been done if you'd felt free to do it.

These books look cool! Thanks for sharing.

>I actually read about this some time back in two GREAT and well-researched novels called Power of the Dog and The Cartel.

>Actually I learned more about the drug war in those 2 novels than I've learned anywhere else.

http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/

Great read, excellent writer.

The Soviet Union and China were/are state capitalist countries. Capitalism is defined as an economic system where the capitalists (read non-producing workers) own all the value created by the laborers (read people who produce the physical product). In socialism and communism the labor force is more democratic in that the laborers directly own and distribute their profits.

Source:
Richard Wolff - Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608462471/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_HBHRBbGEVP6FD

Richard Wolff - Google Talk https://youtu.be/ynbgMKclWWc

Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism?wprov=sfla1

> But if the World Bank (and let's throw in the IMF and WTO as well, if you like) never existed, global poverty would be mostly unchanged. I'm open to being wrong about this, but I haven't even seen anyone lay out the argument that these institutions are primarily responsible for the persistence of global poverty.

Well, from a geostrategic point of view, the structural purpose of the World Bank and IMF - and debatably the entire Bretton Woods economic system - was to facilitate the continuation of traditional international power inequities in the post-World War II world. For American planners at the close of World War II, their country had leapfrogged over the declining European powers to become, by far, the most wealthy and powerful country on Earth. Invariably, they wanted to supplant those traditional European powers in their respective colonies and spheres of influence to become the dominant actor themselves, but - as the American political tradition has largely frowned upon overt imperialism - they needed to do it in a way that meshed with the liberal political culture of their society, as well as with their liberal propaganda about democracy and "free" markets. Herein lies the strategic purpose of the World Bank and IMF, at least in terms of their predatory relationship to the former European colonies (what we might today call "the 3rd world"). You can get pretty specific overviews of World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programs, as well as their strategic purpose, by reading Dilemmas of Domination by Walden Bello, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, and Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky.

I hope I've helped illuminate this issue a bit, but really, nobody here should be surprised to learn about how this works; this is very basic realpolitik.

EDIT: I should note that in recent decades, the process of globalization has ushered in a remarkably different economic and political order from that of the Bretton Woods system, but that's a rather different discussion.

Submission Statement

In essence this article is a book review of Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, but delves deeper into the themes discussed in the book. The article talks about the history of neoliberalism and draws some interesting parallels with it as a utopian concept as much as any left wing ideals of the post-war period.


Quite a long read, but insightful. First of a series on the site discussing neoliberalism.

Capitalism isn't undermining democracy a few extremely rich people are.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

Yeah, you can buy his book on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Secrets-Insiders-Chronicle-Chemical/dp/1432725661

Contains the formula.

This guy eats poultry and fish...the explanation he gives in his book for giving up mammal meal is really striking.

http://www.amazon.com/Am-Strange-Loop-Douglas-Hofstadter/dp/0465030793

I actually read about this some time back in two GREAT and well-researched novels called Power of the Dog and The Cartel. Actually I learned more about the drug war in those 2 novels than I've learned anywhere else.

This is pretty much the thesis of Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA about the history of mistakes and failures in the CIA. It's obviously biased against the intelligence community, but it makes some pretty damning claims.

Worthwhile reading on this topic

Knock yourself out, The Blank Slate. I don't remember which chapter, but obviously it's around the nurture-vs-nature parts.

Outliers talks about this as well

It's available for pre-order and scheduled for release in October.

Book is shipping in October, and you can pre-order it here.

She confirmed in the other thread that it's still on.

You should read the article author's book called thinking fast and slow.

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/

Reminds me a bit of Steven Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature. Worth a read for anyone interested in the role of governments and violence prevention.

I Am A Strange Loop

You can still buy the giant tub of generic blocks, plates, stick pieces, etc that the girl is holding in the photo. here

This sounds like a really short summary of The Now Habit by Neil Fiore. It's very much in the vein of a standard American self-help book, but contains many enlightening observations about how and why we procrastinate, and practical tips for avoiding the behaviour without getting bogged down with guilt about all the time we waste.

Attribution to the decline of violence isn't really strongly linked to capitalism, but it is linked to intra-national trade. There are also many, many other non-economic factors that contribute to the decline in violence. The humanitarian revolution, public education, the rights revolution, and other movements are purely social, and not economic in nature. A good book to read would be http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence-ebook/dp/B0052REUW0

Some examples that help cultivate (rightfully so IMHO) the idea that the Koch brothers are "evil"-

1-Koch Industries is one of the top 15 polluters in the U.S. [source] (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/bob-beckel/bob-beckel-koch-brothers-are-one-biggest-polluters/)

2-All the while they've given upwards of 100 million dollars to the climate denial effort. [source] (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/)

3-Koch Industries produces over 2 billion pounds of carcinogen formaldehyde and has actively worked to keep it from being classified as a carcinogen. [source] (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations)

4-They've been accused of attempting to steal 31 million dollars worth of crude oil from Native Americans and were the biggest oil and gas industry donors to the congressional committee with oversight of the hazardous Keystone pipeline. I don't think all that cash was to make sure things were kept safe and clean. [source] (https://newrepublic.com/article/120922/keystone-xl-senate-bill-amendments-influenced-koch-brothers)

5-Just this month they did their part to smear the benefits of electric cars. [source] (http://insideevs.com/koch-brothers-attack-electric-cars/)

6-This [video] (https://youtu.be/2mbJhjCbwo8) gives a decent idea of how they've gone about promoting the dismantling of public education.

I could go on but I've got shit to do. Keep in mind this is nothing compared to the decades long campaign they've run to siphon away more and more money and influence from the poor. If you really want to see a bigger picture, read [Dark Money, by Jane Mayer] (https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597).

You should read "Legacy of Ashes" if you want to be terrified by just how incompetent the CIA is and has been.

So, you have decided that direct quotes from Dr. Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down and the OPCW are worthless because you don't like the guy quoting them.

https://i.imgur.com/tgvPGo5.png

Further, you want the formula?

Here you go: https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Secrets-Insiders-Chronicle-Chemical/dp/1432725661

Contains the entire formula and costs 6 pounds on Kindle. But keep telling me that Russia is the only one that could do this because you miss the Cold War.

I think that what really happened with that gamergate shit (on meta-level) is that it split social constructivists on one side and geneticists/culturalists on the other in culture war. If you believe that any inequality in outcome is always result of oppression you will inevitably find lots and lots of oppression. If you believe inequality is result of cultural or genetic differences you'll find very little. You can also believe in something in between in which case you'll find something in between.

To continue with gaming as an example, if you look at gender disparity in gaming you can conclude one of two things: Either there is pervasive sexism that repels women from gaming. Or, most AAA games are designed to cater to hunting instincts of 16yr old males - thus sexism is the result of lopsided gender ratio, not the cause. (or, again, it is something in between)

Now, the geneticist side was seen as literally Hitler for a long time. And there is no doubt that it was endorsed by some literal Hitlers. But if you read Blank Slate by Steven Pinker (Harvard psychologist, not a neonazi) then it does seem that there is plenty of evidence that genes influence IQ and personality to a large degree. At least on individual level, he says nothing about differences between groups.

The evidence of genetic differences between groups is far more dubious and uncertain. It obviously doesn't help that the whole argument attracts some terrible people who misinterpret evidence to make differences seem much bigger than they probably are. (Although there are some seemingly convincing arguments for increased Ashkenazi Jews intelligence) Culturalist explanations are more convincing, however.

What I think annoys many people -- not all or even most of them Neonazi -- is that social constructivists are completely dominant in academia, and are thus in position to interpret every power differential as result of oppression.

On average, black Americans are poorer than white Americans. This was initially due to pre-Civil Rights Movement blatant racism and discrimination. After the Civil Rights Movement, blatant racism started to fade away, but our educational system has kept blacks from escaping from their poverty. Schools are funded by local taxes, so when the people are poorer, the schools aren't as good. The abundance of land and quality of roads has allowed the wealthy to geographically isolate themselves from the poor (usually black, but also white and Hispanic).

However, African American culture may also play a detrimental role, as addressed in this book by anthropologist John Ogbu.

A good compliment to this is Jonathon Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

Also, the article said:

> That’s exactly what Americans did after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. People began flying less and driving more. The result, estimated Gerd Gigerenzer, a German risk specialist, was that 1,595 more Americans died in road accidents during the 12 months after 9/11 than would have otherwise.

I don't think more people are driving merely because they are afraid of terrorism. I hate flying now because of all the stupid security theater we are now subject to. I much prefer to get in my car and drive versus going to the airport two hours early, get felt up, make sure all my bottles are tiny, etc. I have made several long car trips because I simply didn't want the hassle of flying.

Current historiography tries to make the civil war only about slavery. But it wasn't. Older historiography emphasized the different tribes coming over from England and their interactions e.g. Albion's Seed. Later historiography still has how the actual civil war was an irrational act brought on by hatred between groups e.g. Madness Rules the Hour

>Current historiography tries to make the civil war only about slavery.

That's because it's correct. Slavery was the single largest and most consistent political battle of the 50 years leading up to the civil war


>Older historiography emphasized the different tribes coming over from England and their interactions e.g. Albion's Seed. Later historiography still has how the actual civil war was an irrational act brought on by hatred between groups e.g. Madness Rules the Hour

Yes that's because historiography has advanced. Older historiography was also based on flawed ideas like Great Men theory and was by and large reductionist and not focused on empiricism. I'm not sure what argument you think you're making by saying "older historiography said thusly", yeah they did, and they were wrong.

Just like older anthropology was wrong in its usage of Tylor's view of primitive culture evolution

Just like older psychology was wrong in its focus on psychoanalysis.

These fields advance as time goes on and outdated ideas and unsophisticated methods of analysis are cast aside

You're not going to find any modern historical consensus in academia that the civil war was primarily caused by anything other than slavery.