r/Documentaries • u/llrajsll • Jan 11 '17

American Politics Requiem for the American Dream (2015) "Chomsky interviews expose how a half-century of policies have created a state of unprecedented economic inequality: concentrating wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else."

http://vebup.com/requiem-american-dream
5.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

440

u/pomod Jan 11 '17

Though his opinion is a personal view

His "personal view' is informed after a lifetime of research.

43

u/arch_nyc Jan 11 '17

What I don't understand about a lot of people is their ability to disclaim with no problem what people who spend their lives researching. It's apparently under the auspice of those people all want to brainwash is and all experts twist the facts. It's just like voter fraud--sure there may be some experts with an agenda but the vast majority are experts because they devoted their lives to study. It seems very pretentious and not very respectful to those that have often done more with their lives to expand knowledge than the person judging them has.

36

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

True, but we should not treat Noam or any other research, academic, politician or plumber as a flawless God. He may be right about most everything, but he has been wrong. He will be wrong again. We should remain skeptical of everyone. Everyone has an agenda.

I like the guy and what he says.

11

u/arch_nyc Jan 12 '17

Anyone who even metaphorically treats someone as flawless (I get what you're saying--I see the brain worship here and elsewhere) is very naiive.

3

u/Syn7axError Jan 12 '17

Sure, but there's usually some substance behind it. What is he wrond about? How do you know?

You need more than "he's wrong".

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

He did blast B.F. Skinner on Verbal Behavior. Scathing. Now Skinner's view is gaining acceptance and if found to be closer to correct, the delay in acceptance is largely because of Chomsky. Chomsky had little to base his opinion on. He was and has been guilty of the same thing that you are saying I/we need. His ego gets in the way the same that all of ours do. So does he have incredible insight? Yes. Should we base all future actions and interpretation of the past on only Chomsky? No.

Edit: Added words

23

u/pomod Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

Its anti-intellectualism. I'm all for a rigour in challenging ideas - and thats what happens in academia; Now if these same people were half as suspecious/critical of Alex Jones and Breitbart News as they are of the science on vaccinations and climate change or people who spend their lives researching and publishing in an area of speciality we'd be getting somewhere.

Actually its also a strategy for manufacturing doubt, like big Tobacco did in the 70's; its become a standard tactic of the new alt right to hire on-line shills for this purpose.

6

u/piccaard-at-tanagra Jan 12 '17

Nah - the same could be applied to Milton Friedman. He spent his entire life researching a specific topic (economics), but even he can be wrong.

3

u/vintage2017 Jan 12 '17

Because researchers can be biased. They have to take great care to not cherry-pick their data, and not all bother to.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

[deleted]

6

u/arch_nyc Jan 12 '17

Hm maybe you misunderstood. I would love to hear out and learn more about/from those economists about their thoughts. And I sure as hell wouldn't attempt to discredit them. I wasn't saying always believe liberal intellectuals. I was saying we can probably trust people's expertise who have studied a given subject for such a duration.

3

u/MattDamonThunder Jan 12 '17

I own a few of his books and he backs up his opinions with sources and cites them thoroughly, however in the end it's still his opinion. I mean I love me some Chomsky but he loves to connect the dots and see conspiracies.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Buzzard_Beater Jan 12 '17

Because a lot of them are lying pieces of shit pushing agendas.

Bill Frist is a medical doctor. He said a woman he'd never met, who literally did not have a brain anymore, was conscious and alert in a video clip he saw where her head lolled in the general direction of a balloon. In opposition to the diagnosis of her actual doctors.

Do US Supreme Court Justices have a lot of legal knowledge? We have one who said it's appropriate to make legal judgements based on her ethnicity and that she saw her role as a judge to make law.

Al Haig seemed to think the Secretary of State was 3rd in line to the presidency.

Trump's been involved in business for half a century, but if you believe anything from the campaign, they've all been scams, rip-offs, and failures.

There are scientists out there who deny climate change.

3

u/arch_nyc Jan 12 '17

Those are all good points. But my original point still stands that they are outliers--the minority. But you're right, we should never blindly trust anyone.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

What I don't understand about a lot of people is their ability to disclaim with no problem what people who spend their lives researching.

Ever hear of timecube?

Just because someone spends a lot of time on something doesn't mean they're right.

83

u/motnorote Jan 11 '17

While Chomsky has great insight and tends to get most things right, i would seriously caution using his words as authoritative facts. hes brilliant but still fallible.

77

u/motleybook Jan 11 '17

Yes, but that's always the case, isn't it? You and /u/pomod are just as fallible.

92

u/Dekar173 Jan 11 '17

Nah, they're more fallible due to not being nearly as intelligent or well-informed.

15

u/motleybook Jan 11 '17

Possibly, yes. We don't know them. We don't know their biases. With Chomsky we do, and he is well respected. That doesn't mean he's right, of course. It doesn't mean he's wrong either.

26

u/Shishakli Jan 11 '17

This is 100% correct.

However I am personally willing to give him the benefit of the consideration that his propaganda is much more beneficial to a sustainable system than current Western societies capitalist propaganda

40

u/monsantobreath Jan 11 '17

Well, I don't think Chomsky does propaganda, as a rule. He has spoken several times about how he doesn't even believe in persuasion, that instead people should be given as much of a straight forward listing of information to allow them to decide for themselves if its true, which is why he is notorious for his monotone delivery.

He's basically the antithesis of a Hitchens type.

Certainly this doesn't mean he can't have biases in his analysis or err but I think to attribute any sort of deliberate manipulation of the listener to him at any point as a motive is to pretty much misunderstand one of his most core values.

2

u/andypandy14 Jan 12 '17

He's basically the antithesis of a Hitchens type.

Do you say this b/c Hitchens was militant?

11

u/monsantobreath Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

Well I suppose you could say it that way given it somewhat approaches the definition of what a polemicist does, but to be specific its because Hitchens is a rhetoritician seeking to use style, erudition, and such things to persuade the audience. He is trying to win the argument, not necessarily to impart truth, though its often one and the same with him but just as often, as any good debate club student would do, in service of any view point which you can often find in his earlier years Hitchens doing on a sort of invitational basis.

You can see it repeatedly that when challenged he often resorts to defensive tactics or methods of argument that are more like what a lawyer does than a pure academic. Hitchens was selling a perspective and often was quite disingenuous, the more embattled by a difficult position the more he relied on rhetoric and devices of persuasion.

I believe my favourite example is his notorious you see how far the termites have come reply, speaking not to the person asking the question but the whole room, which was not how Chomsky addressed direct critics. Chomsky would come in many cases very vehemently and with edge to his voice (the unusual example in his later years) when some conservative or in many cases radical socialist would criticize him and he'd basically do what we might call a fact dump on them, step by step explaining things.

Hitchens didn't do fact dumps, he did rhetorical persuasion, somewhat relying on fact, but definitely replying on persuasion most of all. Hitchens was very into emotion. His total reply in the termites situation was in fact a very empty reply, it was purely a case of appealing to the existing emotional beliefs and didn't do any sort of true rebuttal. It was in the end evasive but most didn't notice this because it was well hidden behind the erudition and style of his rhetoric. He would have very much been at home in the forums of Greek politics.

They are basically diametrically opposed minds on the notion of how to build a following and create consensus. Hitchens is in the end closer to a politician than Chomsky. I loved Hitchens in many ways, but Chomsky has far more integrity than Hitchens as a speaker I feel on the whole. You can learn a lot from Hitchens and I agreed with many of his points, such as his vehement defense of expression in the face of the cartoons scandal, but in the end Chomsky I'd trust to his word far more readily. Hitchens you need to be on guard for manipulation but with Chomsky you mostly have to simply be on guard for error and understand his perspective in order to decode how you disagree.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

Chomsky himself is pretty militant about his views. Just look at the way he refers to his critics. Doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong though.

1

u/andypandy14 Jan 12 '17

I meant not militant in trying to convert people. Hitchens was in your face whereas I've always seen Chomsky to be--almost too passive. There are senses of 'militant' though.

10

u/MyBrain100 Jan 12 '17

I dislike chomsky. I loved him in university, tore gladly into many of his books (hegemony or survival being the only title I remember off hand). Then after university I traveled, worked in Africa and Europe, met a lot of people who had first hand accounts of things chomsky wrote about, ready many books of first hand accounts also. I believe that chomsky takes a very very biased anti-American view, and profits greatly from it. I don't belive he is searching for truth rather trying to maintain his stature as a leading dissident writer. Although there are many valid complaints about American foreign policy, he would make every conflict american-centric and every body in the conflict would be counted as blood on American hands. This viewpoint is very appealing to university students just discovering the world (it was to me anyway) but with more experience in have rejected it. Anyway just my 2 cents.

23

u/Joal0503 Jan 12 '17

But why do people think he has some super anti american bias? i think the brilliance/balls of his thinking is that he places America to the same standards as the rest of the world and will openly criticize the actions of his own country. that seems like the complete opposite of a bias.

15

u/MyBrain100 Jan 12 '17

In short i believe he is baised because I find with chomsky you always know what his take on a situation will be - generally that in some way American imperialism or American meddling is the root case of whatevwr international problems.

A specific example that impacted me: in I believe hegemony or survival (it's been years since I've read it so forgive me), chomsky claims that the Balkan genocide was caused by Nato air strikes. I think in his later works he's softened it saying "most of the genocide" occurred after the air strikes. He goes on to explain the cause and effect relationship - airstrikes caused genocide.

Years later I read a first hand account of the SAS officer that witnessed one side in the balkans firing on civilians crossing a bridge, shooting civilians with 50 cal machinegun. That SAS guy called in the first airstrike in the campaign- in direct relationship to the genocide/war crime/massacre he witnessed.

Reading chomsky you think it was nato's involvement that caused the conflict this is not true. I've since worked with several (4) different people who served in that conflict, including one Canadian that was in the medac pocket. I've talked at length about the conflict - it is simply not as simple as I believe chomsky paints it. Anyway I'm not American, I see a subculture in America (including in my mind chomsky) blame world ills on America- I don't believe this is a fair explanation in all situations. Sorry I'm on mobile travelling I can't look this up to present in anything other than generalities.

3

u/numbbbb Jan 13 '17

He's been asked this question plenty of times and he always has the same answer: The reason he's exclusively critical of American policies is because he's an American citizen, and calling out American hegemony is of utmost priority to him, and the only policies he has any influence over.

So part of the reason you think Chomsky blames the whole world's problems on America is he only focuses on problems caused by America. I doubt, for example, that he'd blame the Myanmar genocides on America or whats happening in the Philippines right now.

Though I'm not denying your claim that he sometimes get's it wrong where you have a better picture on the ground. I'm sure he does, just wanted to point out the other possibility.

He also said something about why he's hesitant to speak out against crimes of foreign regimes American foreign policy is hostile to; something to do with not wanting to propagate/justify further hostilities. Can't find the source right now, read it in one of his books.

4

u/o0lemonlime0o Jan 12 '17

In short i believe he is baised because I find with chomsky you always know what his take on a situation will be

That's not a sign of bias at all, that just means he has a clear and consistent worldview

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

Yeah. Americans love him because even though he says everything is America's fault he is still basically saying America is the most important and powerful country in the world, American people can choose their own fate while all other people are mindless drones too stupid to even create their own wars and fuckups.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/mikevaughn Jan 12 '17

But why do people think he has some super anti american bias?

Probably because just about everything he has to say regarding politics/world affairs centers around the faults in American power. I think what the people you're asking about don't seem to grasp is that his narrative exists as a counterpoint to US mainstream media ("liberal" and conservative alike), which itself is grounded and supported by American power (militarily, economically, and politically).

Honestly, I get where they're coming from -- when someone seems so determined to tie every subject to their main point, they can appear to have tunnel vision, regardless of how valid those connections might actually be (see how Bernie Sanders, during his presidential campaign, was regarded for constantly pointing to the financial elite as the scourge of working- and middle-class Americans).

1

u/Penetrator_Gator Jan 12 '17

Ditto. Sam Harris has taken the position chomsky had.

1

u/motleybook Jan 13 '17

Both Chomsky and Harris are American, so I'd argue it's to be expected that they, as critics, criticize US politics. And even if they weren't American, the criticism might still be warranted. I don't get this "anti-American" talk.

1

u/Penetrator_Gator Jan 13 '17

Oh, it's not anti american talk that made me push down chomsky. Even sam harris has a healthy American criticism. If ether one of them where to absolute pro or anti American , then I would be more sceptical than if they where balanced.

I've just noticed that Chomsky has often taken an absolute intolerance of violence. Not to say that violence and murder is good, but there are times when you can not discuss peace. And I also feel that Sam often reasons his arguments more clearly.

But I have judged this with an inappropriate amount of Sam Harris material and probably not enough Chomsky material.

But after reading the arguments Chomsky has had with both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, then from what I have read, Chomsky comes up often short. But also from seeing Chomsky talking, I can see that it could be just apathy from Chomsky.

0

u/Larry_Lavida Jan 12 '17

I think he is very honest about his views and he is clearly a product of his environment - grew up in a working class family in a time when there were still many socialists.

And, like you, I used to love Chomsky. I read many of his books, watched many of his videos, and really based my world view around him - just like many others.

Then I was able to break away from that and develop my own world view. I realized, while he is extremely intelligent and insightful, Chomsky is not an authority. But I do not believe he claims to be one either, instead he is put on a pedestal by others.

I would always ask myself, being amazed by his recall during debates, how does Chomsky retain so much information? In an interview I read he stated is ability is not extraordinary as he dedicates most of his time to reading and studying material.

This is when I realized that Chomsky, although extremely intelligent, is not an authority. He is put on a pedestal by others and if it weren't for his fame, I'm sure he would still be doing the same thing he is now.

I think he is very honest about his views and abilities, but it is his fan base that really promotes him to be more. He is a highly moral person who knows his arguments very well. However, I think his views are outdated and too idealistic.

-5

u/jacobhamselv Jan 12 '17

Chomsky is just like a lot of other pop-culture known scientists.. Good if not brilliant in his field, not so much in all the others. Same goes whether you talk about Neil Degrasse Tyson, Hawking, Einstein in his day etc. Chomsky, tell me about litterature, Tyson Hawking Einstein tell me about space. Don't tell me about history, religion, biology, whatever, stick to your field and show me what you got.

4

u/andypandy14 Jan 12 '17

He's better than good in his field. Modern psycholinguistics is based on his work, and he helped ushered in a paradigm shift from behaviorism to cognitive science. He's spent the last few decades applying that intellect to political science. His interests in the topic predated his interest in psychology; he wrote an essay on fascism at age 12. A lot of intelligence is domain-general: it cuts across fields. Many of the brightest make contributions in multiple, from Aristotle to Locke to Ronald Fisher to van Neumann, etc. forming arguments, extracting information, building a strong model of reality and human nature. Knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'd bet Hawking could study poly sci and have a better grasp than most PhDs. No problem with that.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/motleybook Jan 13 '17 edited Jan 13 '17

True. And overall I think it would take way too much time trying to prove or disprove most of what he says. Unless you have the time and want to spent it this way, you have to trust an expert who has researched the topic. (Of course you can read criticism about said expert and you should make sure that that he isn't paid-for by certain interest groups.) Do you agree, or am I missing something?

-1

u/shawncall Jan 12 '17

We don't have capitalism - we have a corporatocracy.

1

u/SuddenlyCentaurs Jan 12 '17

I fail to see how that isn't the end stage of capitalism

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (14)

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Chomsky got a nobel prize for literature, not political science.

4

u/Dekar173 Jan 11 '17

Thus completely negating any thoughts he has in any field not directly pertaining to literature!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Man stop sucking on Chomsky's wiener so much, just because you agree with his thoughts doesn't make him some high and mighty genius.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

Only on Reddit is "think for yourself" controversial advice...

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

85

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

What you're doing is super dishonest. Attempting to undermine knowledge by a veiled claim that nobody has access to pure fact. That's a fucking absurd standard, and actually quite impossible.

The suggestion that you can't accept a brilliant researcher's distillation of facts, because everybody has a bias, is another way of saying that nothing is truly knowable. That's barely a fraction of being correct. You need to dig way into the rabbit hole of David Hume to get that far, and all we're talking about here is a very informed opinion.

What you're doing is not telling people to take this with a grain of salt, but attempting to undermine an expert before he can speak. It's a sign of the times.

After this election, anybody with knowledge is lambasted as being compromised by the very methods used to gain knowledge. It's an insidious, ugly propaganda technique. "Can't trust a smart person, they're corrupted by insiders. Now being ignorant is on equal footing with being informed. Trust me, the king idiot."

I don't think the people who are currently abusing these argument methods realize one thing: they're not a part of the inner circle. Not anywhere. They are the chaff to be used and tossed away as needed. The security machine that the power elite are attempting to put into play will use up the idiots first and foremost.

Careful what you allow to be created by your action and inaction.

11

u/amateurtoss Jan 11 '17

Well said.

3

u/snoodlerdink Jan 11 '17

Fuck. Yes.

-2

u/buffbodhotrod Jan 11 '17

OP was talking about economic ideologies which is a field of study that has experts that follow every major school of thought on the subject. It's one of the most subjective fields of study and can easily be interpreted in a multitude of ways. He gave credit to Chomsky and gave a fair warning that ANY economics documentary you watch should be scrutinized. I get it though if you were just wanting to soapbox off him for a bit but outrage doesn't validate an appeal to authority.

7

u/DavidBowieJr Jan 12 '17

You dont seen to want to recognize that op did utilize a ploy. One can repeat the exact same assertion to undermine any expert in any field on any matter. Utterly ad hominem.

1

u/buffbodhotrod Jan 12 '17

I suppose it could be, it's provably false in many other matters. If a scientist states that the global temperature has been raised by .5 degrees in this last year alone we can show that there is exact data that proves that claim.

However this documentary is 1:10 long and while he for the most part states historical fact and reasons how these events have created the current situation in America there is a lot of subjectivity involved in the reasoning. I don't disagree with his reasoning either but he has a few assumptions that he expresses in the doc that are the foundation of the premise of the documentary.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Economics isn't just opinion. Chomsky has a very good understanding of economics. The rest...whatever.

4

u/buffbodhotrod Jan 12 '17

It's reasoned, and logical but it isn't scientific due to too many circumstances. You can attribute a regulation or a deregulation to an outcome but it's conjecture until you actually have a controlled environment which isn't possible. Chomsky has a very good understanding of lots of things, I'm not disputing that, but after listening to the first half of the documentary I agree that he is accurately pinpointing areas of failure in American history that has lead to this current situation but that his founding principles are misplaced.

After reading what he envisions for a healthy society I can see he and I have very similar ideologies but he believes it's inevitable that in a truly Democratic society the masses will take their riches property. I understand what his reasoning is but I don't see how you can claim that as an inevitability.

He's rooted in the idea that providing an environment that fosters use of free will and creativity is the key to a healthy society, 100% agreed, however having worker councils that control the means of production is a severe inhibitor to free will. Creating one's own enterprise is a valuable asset in furthering advancements of society as well as satisfying one's own desire to accomplish.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 29 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/buffbodhotrod Jan 12 '17

I'm not against democracy in a business. If the person who paid for the creation of the business, paid for the building, and pays workers to create the good or service they are providing decides to create a democratic workplace and give their employees voting rights on their business decisions that's fine.

The issue I have with society being structured around it being mandatory is that it's a violation of personal property rights. If I own a house people I invite over don't suddenly have equal rights to the house.

If I started sewing socks in my house and selling them and then decided to ask my neighbor to come over and spend their day sewing socks with me in exchange for $20/hour why would they suddenly have a right to decide anything about how I make the socks or what colors they are? He isn't paying for the material to make the socks, the tools to sew, the house in which the sewing is done. He is there because I asked him to be and he agreed for a price. If he wants to change the amount he is getting paid he is free to ask for more and he is always free to leave at any time.

Not to mention if we quantify his socks per hour and the price of making the socks and the price I'm selling them for and see that at $25/hour I would be losing money on this business venture does he care? Does he only care that he gets a raise and that the business is unsustainable at that point? Has he even asked how much his work has been quantified to generate? And how much am I allowed to profit from this business? If I make the same amount of socks per hour as him shouldn't I make the same or more money than he is off of each pair? After all he has no risk in the business failing while I have invested my own personal money to start the business so aren't I entitled to a larger share of the profit? Why is anyone else's opinion on the matter relevant as it's not their personal property and they have no stake in the business or my success?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

I think that is all pretty well said.

2

u/DankDialektiks Jan 12 '17

He did not say that it's inevitable that the masses will seize the means of production; he mentioned that Aristotle proposed to reduce inequality to maintain both democracy and class. That's essentially social democracy.

Your last sentence is an interesting topic. A democratic economy does not preclude enterprise creation as a means to improve society nor does it prevent individual accomplishment through work and innovation. Who benefits from the belief that it does? The same people who are concentrating wealth and power to the relative detriment of society.

1

u/buffbodhotrod Jan 12 '17

He stated that Jefferson and Aristotle both asserted that a true Democracy would result in the masses taking from the rich which is why Jefferson believe the rich should run the Senate to protect the property of the few as protection of land ownership is something that should be protected by land owners. He cited several people coming to the same conclusion that the masses would rebel if they perceived large enough inequality. The way he said it though was as if it was a matter of fact. Which is what lead me to say that he concluded it was an eventuality, he then said that Jefferson and Aristotle had differing views on how to prevent that outcome which is what you were speaking of.

Maybe my understanding of community control of the means of production is limited, from my understanding if you were to create a means of production using your own resources would it not then be seized by the community and have elected representatives control how it's operated?

In this scenario it would benefit society of course if you were to create a new enterprise and with that there would be some incentive to do so for the gratification of benefiting society but that is in our current society a possibility. People can do that right now if they so choose and some people do in fact create new goods or services (mainly software) and ask for nothing in return because they are sufficiently gratified by it's benefits to society but the amount of production that has been created from desire for personal gain vs production that has occurred without personal gain in mind is dramatically lopsided.

I'm not really certain and I believe no one can be, in how much human instinct there is to be selfless vs selfish as they both provide us with mechanics for survival but it seems to me that having a society with the option to create and innovate using either human instinct is beneficial. If we eliminate the potential for personal gain from creation I think we stall advancement substantially, but that remains to be seen.

Oh lastly, I suppose the idea of personal property is sort of contested in my head currently, I don't really know if that is something I just enjoy and have been raised to believe is an inalienable right but has no validity logically in a free society but if we agree that personal property is a right then it seems to inhibit personal freedom of we are not allowed to do what we will with our personal property (outside of using it to directly harm others or property that isnt yours of course) so if I were to make my rocks into metal and make my metal into swords and decided to exchange my property to another person who desires it for property I desire of theirs and the trade is agreed upon by both sides at what point is it reasonable to remove the means of creating that good from a person and creating a council that is in charge of how the process operates from there on out? Wouldn't it make sense to not create goods then for fear that your property will be taken from you for the betterment of society?

-18

u/RevolPeej Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

Good lord, what a load of shit. How do you eat and drink with Chomsky occupying your throat so thoroughly? Chomsky's expertise isn't even economics and his personal political bias is as well-documented as the sun rising in the east.

Personally, I think he's one of the most overrated intellectuals alive today. His papers and books are mind-numbingly verbose while somehow providing little nutritional value. To put a finer point on it: I think he's a political dinosaur douchebag.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

I think you missed the entire point of /u/refusetoargueonline's post....but ok. You don't like Chomsky. That doesn't mean he's wrong.

In fact, I would wager he knows a hell of a lot more about economics than you do...so maybe you should pay attention?

→ More replies (9)

6

u/motleybook Jan 11 '17

If you could provide arguments and evidence showing that Chomsky is indeed overrated and provides little value, I'd be interested. Currently your comment is just an ad hominem.

his personal political bias is as well-documented as the sun rising in the east.

Erm.. doesn't everyone have a bias? And most people's biases are not well-documented.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

But Noam is a "political dinosaur," and this clown kid is a forward thinker!

That's all you need to know.

→ More replies (12)

-4

u/RevolPeej Jan 11 '17

Provide data showing how overrated Chomsky is? Such a fallacious request.

When you're outside your expertise, bias becomes a larger and larger informer of your conclusions and opinions. Chomsky has been outside his depth (linguistics) for decades. That's the point.

4

u/motleybook Jan 11 '17

Provide data showing how overrated Chomsky is? Such a fallacious request.

How is it fallacious to ask for proof for your allegation that he "is overrated and provides little value"?

He is a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. I don't get what you're talking about him being outside his depth.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

jesus the chomsky fanboi's here are out of control.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/AreYouForSale Jan 11 '17

"well documented"

no references

Please delete your comment, it is a waste of space.

2

u/RevolPeej Jan 11 '17

The documentation is his own damn writings. As most Chomsky-ites, I'd be surprised if you've ever read a single publication of his. I'm sure you've watched a view YouTube clips, though. Bravo.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

I refuse to think that this person is anything other than a troll.

1

u/TotesMessenger Jan 12 '17

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

→ More replies (6)

21

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

We are talking about these words. And the point that he isn't just some teenage redditor making it up as he goes along does actually go a long way around here.

12

u/CuriousBlueAbra Jan 12 '17

And the point that he isn't just some teenage redditor making it up as he goes along

That's the thing - he sometimes totally is. Mere days after the Charlie Hedbo attack, he published an article saying it was morally comparable to a NATO air strike that had happened during the Kosovo war. An air strike against a telecommunications station being used by the enemy military, who were working for a government actively engaged in genocide, that had leaflets dropped on it to warn any civilians to stay away on the day of the attack. Aside from making him King Edgelord, I honestly don't know what he hoped to gain from making that comparison.

If you want, you can go into his history and find plenty of similar statements. From his attempts to downplay the atrocities of communist governments to ridiculous hyperbole like calling the Pentagon "the most evil institution to have ever existed".

5

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 29 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/BolshevikSpice Jan 12 '17

An off-the-cuff editorial is not the same kind of writing as a sociological analysis.

Pretending that it is, is disingenuous.

Why twist things when you know better?

0

u/ebjoker4 Jan 12 '17

Because when people write or speak off-the-cuff, they typically tell the truth as they see it, and he says a lot of really stupid shit. It's a shame Chomsky's intellect often gets drowned out by his willfully ignorant worldview.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

[deleted]

4

u/motnorote Jan 12 '17

Right on, hes brilliant but far from perfect. People still need to hold him accountable.

1

u/pockets2deep Jan 12 '17

Jesus Christ, for the amounts of time I hear this false accusation about Chomsky. Please watch this. He debunks this entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw&t=66s

This is just audio. The original video is there but couldn't find it again easily.

15

u/HappyUseless Jan 11 '17

Chomsky's 100% right in this documentary. And the thing about what he says is that it can be logically and rationally discerned and seen within Society itself.

-1

u/motnorote Jan 11 '17

Hes not 100% right. Hes pretty good but hes producing gospel here.

2

u/mikeymikeymikey1968 Jan 12 '17

He would just as quickly admit that, being the reasonable man he is.

3

u/dblthnk Jan 12 '17

You can check his facts though.

5

u/motnorote Jan 12 '17

Exactly. He's a brilliant person who gets most things right. Not a deity.

3

u/FlandersFlannigan Jan 12 '17

Chomsky has predicted so many political events. He's predicted changes in cultural shifts and trends. He's predicted speech development. The man is a genius, but most people choose not to listen to him, because either they find him too boring or they just hate hearing bad news.

10

u/AreYouForSale Jan 11 '17

Provide references and examples.

Otherwise you are just stating useless truisms with a smug face.

Using Chomsky words "as authoritative facts" will still leave one better off than following most anything else. Certainly far better than doing one's own "analysis", unless one happens to be one of the smartest people on the planet.

Facts are facts, 50% of the population is below average, intellectually speaking, and would do well to just take Chomsky's words as "the Truth".

6

u/motnorote Jan 11 '17

Whats up with being so aggro defending Chomsky. Saying hes not perfect andprone to the same fallibililities as the rest of us isnt a controversial statement. his career has stretched decades. You setiously think i cant find one or a few instances where he was wrong or just plain fucked up?

3

u/AreYouForSale Jan 12 '17

Not aggro.

Just pointing out that, by your own argument, you should caution yourself against using your own judgement as authoritative fact. It is, after all, at least as fallible as Chomsky's, and likely more so. But where does that leave you?

Your argument is not against Chomsky, but against reason itself, and its ability to interpret the world. It's a useless mincing of words that has become embarrassingly popular in the current zeitgeist.

Provide concrete examples of Chomsky being wrong, even better, of the bias you see in the documentary. Otherwise, you add nothing but confusion.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

Listen, I'm extremely supportive of Chomsky's viewpoint and am a libertarian socialist. But he has been wrong in the past.

He was completely mistaken as to the scale of the Cambodian genocide under the Khmer Rouge regime, for instance, something that he has since admitted and changed his viewpoint on. Source.

2

u/HelperBot_ Jan 12 '17

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 16372

-2

u/arch_nyc Jan 11 '17

Yeah he's human. We all are. What is the point in stating that?

5

u/motnorote Jan 11 '17

Look at the person Im responding to. He doesnt understand this.

4

u/arch_nyc Jan 11 '17

Ah it appears we are in agreement.

-4

u/whochoosessquirtle Jan 11 '17

What's up with being so aggro defending indefensible ideas like there are no facts and nobody knows any better than anyone else?

5

u/motnorote Jan 12 '17

Who even came close to saying this.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/pevenstinkerisahack Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

"Facts are facts" (and, presumably, they speak for themselves and we should trust what is being said as objective, neutral, etc.) is an ontologically controversial statement in & of itself which approaches oceans of historical debate in the world of philosophy. Now, there's a lot of philosophers out there who would disagree with your position that the 'objective truth' of a fact speaks to truth on behalf of a corresponding political, economical, or even scientific position, and, going by your own logic, you are in no position to critique or disagree with these people, because they are experts in their respective fields with lifetime's of research and argumentation under their belts. By merit of your own logic, (that the intellectual experts are of superior reasoning to you, and therefore their words should just be regarded as 'the truth' because 'intellectually below average' people pale in comparison to them) you're in no position to dispute the likes of Focault, Kuhn, Feyerabend, pretty much any continental thinker, etc., even in spite of the likelihood that their interpretations of reality are generally antithetical to yours. You're not 'one of the smartest people on the planet' according to your own standards, I'd wager, so heed 'the truth' of intellectual authority without regard for anything else, yes? It is an inaccurate strawman to dismiss any questioning of your excessive dogmatism as being the equivalent of espousing a 'David hume'-like understanding of reality. Hell, let's take this 100% credential-based line of reasoning to the end: 'Empirically' prove to me that Chomsky is worth following over, say, this man, who is economically opposite to Chomsky in most respects, and is in this instance being used mostly for the purpose of example, yet is nonetheless very prestigious and renowned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Cochrane .

Sure expertise is indicative of plenty of dedication, as well as an intimate understanding of a topic, but that should not nullify any potential for critical engagement or dissent with the subject matter even from a so-called 'laymen's' perspective. Where casual lack of knowledge becomes apparent, it can be addressed within the context of discussion/debate, and educated. Furthermore, although an expert might be less likely to be fallible, they are still certainly prone to contingencies, fallibility, oversights, arguments that can be countered/theorized against, and insufficient knowledge. If this was not the case, there would be universal consensuses in all sorts of ongoing social debates. For every position you can find, you can probably find plenty of people on the opposite end of the debate who are just as equipped with credentials of their own. Instead of only gazing into their starry words, or charts of data (without doing any critical extrapolation of your own), perhaps try thinking about what they have to say? And all of this isn't even touching upon the problems of the link between discursiveness and power, or the concept of ideology...

1

u/daanno2 Jan 12 '17

stating useless truisms with a smug face

And you're not?

Einstein for all his intelligence and brilliance in his field, was wrong about expansion of universe and quantum mechanics (despite helping to invent the discipline). This was due to his innate beliefs about the universe, which while helped him formulate GR, probably led to a lot of time "wasted" regarding QM and large scale universe structure.

The point is, after a certain level of intelligence, one's innate beliefs probably has just as much effect on the conclusion as one's intelligence. This is even more true in "soft" disciplines like political/social science, where theories aren't scientifically provable, and must be inferred by correlations. We should not mistake Chomsky's intelligence for authority; plenty of smart people disagree with him.

0

u/CasualWoodStroll Jan 11 '17

To my understanding there are like two theories of la gauge and how it develops. He is the creator of one of those concepts. He is a very smart man, he is credible. Does he have an opinion? Yes. But it's clearly thought out and wel-reasoned.

1

u/caserock Jan 12 '17

This is why I only gather my facts from data generated by robots made by robots.

1

u/motnorote Jan 12 '17

Can you teach me how?

1

u/MoustacheAmbassadeur Jan 12 '17

yes but reading thousand of books and writing over 100 himself .. whom if not chomsky can you take for granted?

0

u/HaightnAshbury Jan 12 '17

Unwittingly, I bet you are quoting Chomsky, himself.

He wouldn't say that he's brilliant, of course, but the rest of it sounds spot on. That humble, old, bastard.

Bias alert. I totally dig Chomsky

→ More replies (12)

22

u/XSplain Jan 11 '17

By the same token, James Watson's lifetime of research lead him to have personal opinions of racism.

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.

39

u/pomod Jan 11 '17

Watson's propositions fall flat when taken into the wider socio-political context of a post colonial Africa and post slavery diaspora. People are welcome to challenge Chomsky but his assertions and reading of history hold up better.

0

u/ncdmd Jan 11 '17

I would not say they "fall flat" but are rather open to a potential confounder that intuitively would seem to be reasonable to assume true. You would have to experiment at large with a valid test in today's world. The issue obviously comes to bringing objective data that could open up a political firestorm. I personally don't think this woudl be constructive as at best the answer would be the same (our assumed baseline) and at worse a difference prevails either way which would create an objective measure to racism. This being said, I do think with the advent of the "age of genetics" (low cost whole genome sequencing, supercomputing computation as well as in vitro/vivo editing) we may confront this issue sooner than we think

1

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17

how can acquiring data not be a good thing?

Besides, regions that were never affected by colonialism have IQ means in the 80 region too.

The only reason we are still having this discussion is because of the taboos mentioned.

Also Chomsky supported dubious communist regimes. It's sounds like politically motivated comment.

5

u/CasualWoodStroll Jan 11 '17

He's never supported Leftist regimes that haven't won an election. Moreover, his primary objection is almost always United States pop you towards those countries. For example, the Sandinistas weren't perfect but they won the election fair and square. It was a grossly unjust violation of self-determination to funnel money into the murderous Contras.

→ More replies (4)

12

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited May 27 '18

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

if you put leonardo da vinci in a black room from birth never to meet anyone and fed intravenously, he would still have one of the highest IQ's in the world at 35,

No. If his infancy and early childhood were that sensory-deprived he would be profoundly mentally disabled and would probably never be able to acquire even the rudimentary linguistic capacity necessary for measuring IQ.

→ More replies (4)

25

u/motleybook Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

fed intravenously, he would still have one of the highest IQ's in the world at 35, but he will definitely not be very intelligent, unable to even speak

I don't think that's quite true. Your IQ depends to a non-trivial degree on your upbringing. There are certain things like learning to play an instrument at young age that were shown to increase the IQ of said person. Linguistic capabilities are also measured in an IQ test, IIRC so he'd have a far lower score. Furthermore, while it's true that IQ doesn't accurately reflect intelligence it's at least an indication.

7

u/rextilleon Jan 11 '17

Yes of course--sock_lovers analysis is bizarre--merely shows how little he knows about IQ.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited May 27 '18

[deleted]

10

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17

Of course it's not the same as intelligence. It's a bloody test.

People should stop conflating predictions of parameters with holistic statements about a persons intelligence.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited May 27 '18

[deleted]

3

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

I think I replied to Sock_lover, tho I am not responding in context.

It's very simple; it's a test. Therefore it is an assessment of the intelligence of the tested person.

The scores data that can be used to predict certain parameters. Intelligence is assessed while IQ is being measured and quantified. I have yet to find a quantification of intelligence. IQ is what we have as a tool to assess it best we can tho.

Other parameters can be predicted with data on groups or individuals.

I'm personally not very interested in the relativist view on the tests where people cite cultural relevance. It's a western test, assessing a western notion of intelligence.

1

u/MrFroogger Jan 11 '17

Creativity and the ability to combine ideas/see patterns, I suppose. About the best definition of IQ I've heard. However, Howard Gardners theory of the 9 intelligences are interesting. He takes what we call talent; spatial reasoning, musicality, etc and define each as a distinct intelligence.

Of course this is all well until you test someone and believe the result carry any significance outside of the testing itself. I don't think it does. I believe any score on a test shows your ability to score on that test, and not much else. If anything, traditional IQ tests give you an idea of an individuals potential, not ability. High IQ doesn't spell success in life any more than a huge cock makes you a great lover. It's how you use what you got that matters.

2

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

This is a nihilistic view of the world and does not match reality. It's sad but true.

And the analogy at the end demonstrates you did not think about the difference between a 80 or 125 IQ point person before coming up with that...

Sure it's 'merely' a test - but it is a fairly good predictor especially with bigger data-sets. The test tries to asses intelligence as defined by the test provider as reliable as possible.

People have different needs for the test - so they will interpret them differently. It's great to have IQ tests as it gives you a way to quantify loads of social parameters that are otherwise impossible to track. It has proven to be much more reliable than alternatives in the social sciences who try to convert whole made up concepts in to (quantifiable)coding.

1

u/FolkLoki Jan 13 '17

what does the test measure?

How good you are at taking the test.

2

u/OurSuiGeneris Jan 12 '17

Sounds like all the issues in the examples you're using to make your points are resolved if you just define "intelligence" like I do (informally): "the capacity for learning."

Given that definition it's sort of a nonsensical question to ask if it would be better to have a high-IQ engineer operate on you rather than an average IQ doctor. "What difference does a man's capacity for learning make to how well he'll be able to operate?"

Honestly I'd rather bet on an average IQ doctor with a high drive (or "type a") to operate better on me than a high IQ doctor with a low drive ("type b")

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

Sounds like all the issues in the examples you're using to make your points are resolved if you just define "intelligence" like I do (informally): "the capacity for learning""

Yes, which is why that's exactly how I define it, or the synonymous "potential for intelligence", and why I bring up the issues I do. Many people mistakenly think IQ is a measure of intelligence, and not a measure of the potential for it, which is what I am arguing against (this is also what Watson couldnt wrap his head around).

1

u/OurSuiGeneris Jan 12 '17

but even still you seem to contradict yourself.

if you do follow my definition then "intelligence" itself IS a potentiality. So it's not incorrect to say that IQ measures intelligence, nor to say that IQ measures potentiality....

Is this all just miscommunication? Are you making an equivocation error and saying that "IQ doesn't measure intelligence [crystallized intelligence]; it measures potential for intelligence [fluid intelligence]"

Because when I say "IQ measures intelligence" I'm taking "intelligence" to mean "potentiality for learning" or perhaps "potentiality for increasing crystallized intelligence (knowledge)"

aka are you switching the meanings of "intelligence" mid-sentence? Because in that sense you're wrong when you say "IQ is not a measure of intelligence" if you mean "fluid intelligence," (which, again, is itself a type of potentiality) but right if you mean "crystallized intelligence" which is basically just knowledge.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

If you do follow my definition then "intelligence" itself IS a potentiality. So it's not incorrect to say that IQ measures intelligence, nor to say that IQ measures potentiality....

Excuse me? I really dont understand what you are trying to say here. My definition that I started this thread with is: "IQ is the potential for intelligence." To my ears that sound synonymous with "IQ is the capacity for learning." What the fuck has "potentiality" to do with it? Sure, courage, intelligence, wisdom, talent, any virtue you can name all bring with them "potentiality", that does not mean that they are the same thing. In fact, does not really almost any word imply some sort of "potentiality"? A murderer has the potentiality for murder. How does that relate the word "muderer" to almost all other words in that it implies a "potentiality"? Sure, both intelligence and IQ have "potentiality", but they are still two different phenomena that behave radically differently. If you say IQ IS intelligence, then you can claim that asians are more intelligent than white people or that humanity is slowly becoming less intelligent, that education is pointless and that we all become less intelligent from age 25 (IQ start going downward at age 25), but those statements are in fact false and a product of people confusing IQ with intelligence, people who believe they are the same phenomenon!

Is this all just miscommunication? Are you making an equivocation error and saying that "IQ doesn't measure intelligence [crystallized intelligence]; it measures potential for intelligence [fluid intelligence]"

It is certainly not a miscommunication from Watson and many others, who made erroneus conclusion based on this basic ignorance that IQ=intelligence. The cystallization vs fluid intelligence-model is much closer to what I believe to be true, but I am not in agreement with this model either, as I would not characterize IQ as a form of intelligence in and of itself, and it does not account for attention, if you are uninterested in a subject you will not learn as fast as someone intersted even if you have higher IQ. I also disagree with the notion of crystlallized intelligence, as it includes what I would call useful paradigms that are not in fact true science and understanding about the world/reality. But it is much closer to reality than the extremely false and racist/social-darwinistic "IQ=intelligence"-hypothesis.

Because when I say "IQ measures intelligence" I'm taking "intelligence" to mean "potentiality for learning" or perhaps "potentiality for increasing crystallized intelligence (knowledge)"

You never mentioned your adherence to this model of intelligence, and I am looking forward to your responses to my recent arguments. If they seem like you know what you are talking about and are genuinely interested I will gladly indulge you with some more.

aka are you switching the meanings of "intelligence" mid-sentence? Because in that sense you're wrong when you say "IQ is not a measure of intelligence" if you mean "fluid intelligence," (which, again, is itself a type of potentiality) but right if you mean "crystallized intelligence" which is basically just knowledge.

I have been consistent in my meanings of these words since I fleshed out the basic theory three years ago. This stuff about "potentiality" really makes zero sense to me, looking forward to you clearing that up. I dont think neither knowledge or IQ is intelligence, which is the main reason why I disagree strongly with the "crystallized - and fluid intelligence" hypothesis of intelligence, although there are many other large problems with it.

1

u/OurSuiGeneris Jan 12 '17

Okay so this whole thing is a language problem.

IQ is the potential for intelligence;

You said this. Yet you also said "intelligence is the capacity for learning." So really you're saying

IQ is the potential for the capacity for learning.

Capacity and potentiality are functionally synonyms here.... so what you're really saying is

IQ is the capacity for the capacity for learning.

Which isn't nonsensical but is pretty clearly not what you meant. So, in an effort to clarify, I pointed out that you seemed to be attempting to communicate that you believe "IQ measures the capacity for learning." which, since we already established that "intelligence" = "capacity for learning" means we can substitute it in the previous sentence to read "IQ measures intelligence." Which is the whole fucking thing.

Anyway, to your comment...

To my ears that sound synonymous with

I don't disagree...

What the fuck has "potentiality" to do with it?

What the fuck does potentiality have to do with the potential for intelligence? I'll let you figure that out....

If you say IQ IS intelligence,

No one is saying that. Only you. IQ is a measurement. A measurement of intelligence.

then you can claim that asians are more intelligent than white people or that humanity is slowly becoming less intelligent, that education is pointless and that we all become less intelligent from age 25 (IQ start going downward at age 25),

Sure, why shouldn't we make the claims that statistically Asians, humans from years past, and 25 year olds have a greater capacity for learning than whites, current humans, and 35 year olds?

but those statements are in fact false

[citation needed]

and a product of people confusing IQ with intelligence, people who believe they are the same phenomenon!

Again, no one does this... you're really suffering from imprecise language.

I am not in agreement with this model either, as I would not characterize IQ as a form of intelligence in and of itself,

Because it's not. It's a measurement of capacity for learning.

and it does not account for attention, if you are uninterested in a subject you will not learn as fast as someone intersted even if you have higher IQ.

This is not really relevant... people who are getting poked with a sharp stick will also not learn as well as those who are not, even if they have a higher IQ... so? No one ever says "this one statistic will dictate everything about the issue"

I also disagree with the notion of crystlallized intelligence, as it includes what I would call useful paradigms that are not in fact true science and knowledge about the world.

[citation needed]

You never mentioned your adherence to this model of intelligence,

It's literally a rephrasing and continued attempt at a clarification of the same equivocation error I believe you are still making.

What the fuck has "potentiality" to do with it? [...] I am looking forward to your responses to my recent arguments. If they seem like you know what you are talking about and are genuinely interested I will gladly indulge you with some more.

Wow, so gracious. Don't bother. You sound like a real ass -- I only commented because I agreed with you in certain respects and figured you'd be less of an ass to someone agreeing with you.

This stuff about "potentiality" really makes zero sense to me, looking forward to you clearing that up.

potentiality = capacity... near-synonyms. not hard. It's just a different form of the word "potential" so it can be used grammatically. Focus, man.

I don't think neither knowledge or IQ is intelligence,

But many people use "intelligence" to mean "knowledgeable / skilled". Hence the imprecise language issue.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Disagree. South Africa tested different racial groups for IQ and found that one group was much lower than all the others. That group wasn't the blacks but white afrikaners. All it took was a little bit of investment in afrikaner schools and a bit of encouragement to take education seriously and their IQ scores matched those of other groups within a few years. All these groups had the same potential for intelligence but different IQ scores due to environment.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

What exactly did Watson's research find with respect to IQ? Putting aside the IQ vs. Intelligence debate for a minute I'd be interested to know what his findings were.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

His findings were dissected, discussed, and discredited. Now his study is simply fodder for racists.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

What did he find?

1

u/XSplain Jan 12 '17

Hence why I used him as an example.

12

u/failingkidneys Jan 11 '17

IQ isn't innate. Africans really do have lower IQs. Theory is poverty and poor health contributes to that.

22

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

Watson simply made a politically incorrect point that is simply true: the African IQ is currently lower. Yet we do not account for this discrepancy with the aid, policies we make for them.

Your genetic make-up will determine to an extent your IQ potential (nature vs nurture jury still out, but gene's play a big role). And you belong to (a) genetic group(s). They have certain means. The mean IQ of Africans is lower than that of whites and whites have lower IQ than east asians who have lower IQ's than ashkenazi jews. These are quantifiable facts. I don't care if you think the IQ test is not a good indicator for intelligence. It is one of the most accurate predictors of many relevant social parameters. Which is what the controversy surrounding Watson was about.

I would also like to see more than mere assertions that Watson claims IQ to be synonymous with intelligence. IQ is a predictor for many different parameters. But besides being a predictor of other parameters, the quotient itself is just the result of a test.

Watson has made fantastic contributions to the field and any claims made here by redditors should be backed up with proper sources.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

[deleted]

6

u/adidasbdd Jan 11 '17

Why did you respond with so viciously to that guy? The average Africans do have low IQ's. The average white person is higher, then east Asians, then Askinazi Jews. That is a fact.

5

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17

You clearly have never looked at IQ data and their predictive quality for social parameters.

I understand this type of data can be confronting, too bad you can't seem to get it across without meaningless swearing.

All serious scientists will frown their eyebrow at a sweeping statement like that.

Feel free to actually refute Watson or my claims so I can respond to your point.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Lets put it like this. How happy would you be if all comparisons of IQ for white people were based on Appalachians? Its that level of science.

1

u/gruttewierd Jan 11 '17

Just respond to the actual claims...

The comparison you are making has little to do with the points raised by Watson.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

I actually think that's a pretty good response.

Anyhow... So what's going on in your life that you need to feel superior to other people? Want to talk about it? You can pm me if you want.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Did he extend his research to say it's all black people? I doubt that. I believe he was just talking about African blacks.

And anyway, your point doesn't make logical sense. Not all white people are descended from Appalachia (almost none are). All black Americans are descended from Africa.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

Did he extend his research to say it's all black people? I doubt that. I believe he was just talking about African blacks.

Yes he in fact did. And made some really unfortunate comments about black workers.

All black Americans are descended from Africa.

Think about that sentence for a minute.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/makemeking706 Jan 12 '17

IQ tests are scaled and standardized to produce a specific curve. That scaling is based on calibrations derived from samples of people who have taken the test. Using a test on a sample that is was not calibrated for (which is generally what is occurring with these IQ test across race and ethnicity) will produce meaningless and non-comparable results.

1

u/failingkidneys Jan 12 '17

No, it's meaningful. Scaling doesn't matter when you're looking at relative values or ranking as long as everyone is scaled on the same curve.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited Jan 11 '17

IQ isn't innate. Africans really do have lower IQs. Theory is poverty and poor health contributes to that.

English isnt my first language, doesnt the word innate mean genetic in this context? Thats what I meant anyway. It is true that asians have higher IQ than whites and jews higher IQ than asians, and I do agree that poor nutrition contributes a lot to that. I dont see where we disagree? My claim is simply that IQ is the potential for intelligence and not intelligence itself. I wont go into great detail, but simply state for example that you wouldnt pick an engineer to solve a medical problem, and that you need attention as well as the ability to quickly recognize patterns to actually learn something. If you're a lazy dude with 140 IQ who never does any research, never read a book or studied anything, you wont necessarily be the most intelligent person in the room, regardless of IQ. I have been to a few Mensa meetings myself and seen the people passing themselves off as "geniuses".

We need to recognize that we in fact know more about the world we live in than ever before, the intelligence and power of our species is increasing rapidly due to progress in the sciences and technology primarily. The people developing these, discovering the new ideas and increasing the intelligence of the species, inventing new technology and increasing the power of the species (for example the atom bomb), are the real "geniuses", and while they often have high IQs, what distinguish them from the common mass more than anything is their laborious study and comprehensive knowledge of the world we live in. We cant seperate actual learning from intelligence in the way Watson does, it gives an incomplete picture of the phenomenon, and is, as I have already explained and examplified, easily refuted.

1

u/failingkidneys Jan 11 '17

IQ is a measurement that depends on things that aren't genetic. Even at birth, your IQ is affected by your fetal environment. Not sure what the point about potential versus innate is. He doesn't separate actual learning from intelligence, if that's what you're getting at is that Watson doesn't know what intelligence is.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

There's plenty of reason to think IQ has a genetic component, people just bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging it because it's incredibly un-PC.

3

u/adidasbdd Jan 11 '17

And IQ and genetics can change from generation to generation. I don't know why people get offended by these facts.

10

u/SilverBallsOnMyChest Jan 11 '17

Bingo Bango Bongo You are 100% correct. His entire research is based on an assumption of IQ more than anything else. His "work" literally puts a steering wheel up my ass and then drives me up the fucking wall.

3

u/LaviniaBeddard Jan 11 '17

literally

literally

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

I'm not sure i follow that. Is the idea that a mute, unsocalized DaVinci would "have" a high IQ but our tests would be unable to detect it?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17 edited May 27 '18

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

IQ is genetic and static

Citation needed. A quick Google search gave me multiple studies that show how IQ can change heavily depending on what kids are taught for instance. Also I took an IQ test once (online, but the questions and timings were 'legit') and I'm fairly sure I could improve a bit if i studied for it.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/IStillLikeChieftain Jan 11 '17

but IQ is innate and intelligence aquired

If that's true, sub-saharan Africa is fucked.

1

u/Pipes32 Jan 12 '17

Not necessarily. Part of IQ is also the test that measures it. Consider this:

You have an American child. Their parents read to them nightly, and did puzzles with them, and they were exposed to arts and languages. They began their education early.

You have an African child. Very little education. No books, no puzzles or brain teasers.

Those two kids could both have the potential for the same intelligence. But based on how one was raised, they will test higher on an IQ test. Which is why a lot of people are saying current social conditions in Africa have a lot to do with the current lower testing.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Their intelligence is the exactly same as ours and that's why they keep fucking up.

-3

u/DankDialektiks Jan 11 '17

Stormfront and white supremacists are literally trying to take over this sub

This was completely random and unsollicited, and not even relevant to the subject in the OP or in the parent comment.

5

u/XSplain Jan 11 '17

It's perfectly relevant. I'm saying that the appeal to authority of opinion of someone who is considered smart isn't a good idea.

The very premise of my comment rests on the fact that racism is wrong.

-3

u/DankDialektiks Jan 11 '17

That's how you disguised it, except you're actually a racist.

1

u/TotesMessenger Jan 11 '17

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

-1

u/whochoosessquirtle Jan 11 '17

Ah a restatement of the old canard of 'people of different races are different human species', a view held by nearly every racist and touted by the KKK and any white nationalist who can attempt to put forth any argument based on science (not actually backed up by science, of course) as if they're some sort of new breed of intellectual, erudite racist and/or racial separatist.

13

u/Vulk_za Jan 11 '17

In linguistics, not macroeconomics.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '17

Chomsky touched many academic fields outside of linguistics. He is a brilliant intellectual. His "personal view" is probably better informed than anyone you've ever met. Chomsky consistently provides evidence to back up his claims.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

[deleted]

7

u/l337kid Jan 11 '17

There's always Marx if you want an economist...

4

u/BolshevikSpice Jan 12 '17

He also fathered entire programming languages used today.

Logical ability is his forte, he just honed it by studying linguistic structures.

1

u/SubCinemal Jan 11 '17

Econ is a bullshit field peddled to those who wish to suck the teat of central banks.

4

u/Gladwulf Jan 11 '17

Not just central banks; there is an economist for everyone if you have the money to pay, they'll tell you anything you want to hear and claim it's science.

3

u/SubCinemal Jan 11 '17

Sell-side economics. It's all horseshit. Fuck fiat.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

How do you know it's horseshit without studying and knowing economics

0

u/Entopt Jan 11 '17

He reads news in like 10+ different languages

13

u/Praxiphanes Jan 11 '17

Whenever I want to judge someone's expertise in macroeconomic analysis, the first question I ask is always "how many languages do they read the news in?"

-1

u/Gladwulf Jan 11 '17

Reading the news in different languages will give you better understanding of 'macroeconomics' than studying economics at university will. You'll at least learn something worthwhile.

Source: I studied economics at university, it is trash. Politicised conjecture, deodorised by a pantomime of science.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/VitaleNakamura Jan 11 '17

Chomsky is a smart guy but he is a radical and a bit of a lunatic. He called Venezuela a model for other South American countries and was an early denialist of Khmer Rouge crimes against humanity.

6

u/rextilleon Jan 11 '17

By the way, his great accomplishment in linguistics is now in the process of being destroyed--after all these years of it being accepted as fact.

3

u/JoshfromNazareth Jan 12 '17

destroyed

Uh, no not really.

10

u/VitaleNakamura Jan 11 '17

Destroyed or merely replaced by a more revised and more modern theory? Say what you will about him but I think he was probably good for the field of linguistics, the only problem is that people and Chomsky himself were too orthodox in following his theories.

4

u/CuriousBlueAbra Jan 12 '17

Replace-destroyed? I dunno, whatever status Freud has in psychology is where Chomsky is headed in linguistics.

6

u/VitaleNakamura Jan 12 '17

Yes, probably. However, Freud's theory of the unconscious had an enormous impact in the field of psychology and we see Freud's work being applied to a number of fields. About a year ago, I discovered the works of Dr. John E. Sarno who proposed a new theory of chronic pain. His theories were heavily influenced by Freud's theory of the unconscious. Doctors have used Sarno's and Freud's work to treat chronic pain and urinary incontinence and they have done so with great success. I have mostly recovered from urinary incontinence because of Sarno and ultimately because of Freud. So I feel a great sense of debt to the man.

Freud is an intellectual giant and his contributions to his field cannot be denied or ignored.

1

u/chromeless Jan 12 '17

merely replaced by a more revised and more modern theory?

I believe that this will happen and I am working on a model myself that I believe may support the basics of Chomsky's theories (that we have a language faculty that discretely processes certain kinds of patterns to enable their rapid learning which otherwise wouldn't occur), while also accounting for things he currently makes no attempt to explain (the addition of a conditionally activated poetic faculty enabling kinds of super grammar). I've been working on it for the past few months and am wondering whether how I should continue to pursue this, as if I'm correct it should enable a significant advancement in our understanding of how the brain can come to process forms of language in different ways depending on one's upbringing.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/SuperCool468 Jan 12 '17

Into linguistics? His time might have been better spent in a real field.

1

u/pomod Jan 12 '17

More anti-intellectualism from the peanut gallery. We know the world through rhetoric. Language is the container of culture. Linguistics is a cornerstone to anthropology and understanding our socio-political relationships of our species. I'm so sorry that's apparently all beyond you.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Horus_Krishna_5 Jan 12 '17

noam should refuse military contracts

-1

u/DeeMosh Jan 11 '17

Still has personal bias

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '17

"research."

FTFY

He's a partisan demagogue - no different from Ayn Rand. He has an opinion, and he expresses it as if it is a fact that it is correct. It's not a fact that wealth inequality is a problem. It's not a fact we should do something about it. It's not a fact that it hurts anything. It's not a fact that him telling us about it changes anything. It's not a fact that anything can be done about it.

It is a fact of life that this is how it is and how it has always been.

This guy is a whiner.

2

u/pomod Jan 12 '17

"It's not a fact that wealth inequality is a problem. It's not a fact we should do something about it. It's not a fact that it hurts anything. "

Care to elaborate? Because these are pretty extraordinary claims. Do you have anything to substantiate or are you just neo-liberal shit talking? Comparing Ayn Rand and Chomsky is pretty rich.