Cnulan said...
Science evolves by the successive rejection of falsified theories.Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power.
My approach has been to delineate specific observed behaviors and account for these via sundry measurable, verifiable mechanisms, or cohesive and testable theories that seek to explain the mechanism.
The overarching premise of dopamine hegemony is very simple. It begins with the concept of dopamine neuroeconomics;
The dopamine aspect relates to an addictions hypothesis - which is very much subject to falsification and is as universal as dopamine production and utilization in the human nervous system. There's a corollary aspect to dopaminergy that's so obvious that it's on a par with the statement that water is wet. Bottomline, catering to human desire manifested as habits of dopamine maximization is a simple and pavlovian mechanism for entrainment and control of human behaviour.
So that leaves us to consider the question of governance, entrainment and control - or hegemony;
hegemony describes the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group—referred to as a hegemon — acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force. It refers specifically to cultural and non-military dominance.
If we understand that governance is exercised via pavlovian style conditioning of desires, then it remains to identify a mechanism by which this is accomplished on a large scale. Such mechanisms have been available en masse since the early 20th century.
40 comments:
How original...
That shit has been around for ever. No ruling elite has ever been able to maintain sustained rule through violence alone.
You dopamine governance has an ancient name:
panem et circenses.
Appealing to the desires of the masses.
So all you are doing is reinventing the wheel.
Just as a wheel, bread and circuses, is a tool to maintain a System Of Dominance.
The question is who dominates and who is dominated and on what basis?
And Mike ... uh ... how 'original' ... how 'cutting edge' ... how nouveau ... is "The Global System of White Supremacy"?
But wait DV. When the last time you saw a commercial selling you some White Supremacy?
oh yeah, I forgot, MF spends the overwhelming majority of his ordinary waking state selling that shyte and he's got a couple more converts to the cause than Skip Sievert has to Technocracy.
rotflmbao....,
I'd like to see another instance where multiple levels of the hierarchical mechanisms by which corporatist entities scientifically govern humanity into a ditch have been compiled. If for no other reason than to compare notes. That is, after all, the purpose of the scientific endeavor.
Science evolves by the successive rejection of falsified theories.
Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power.
DV...
"And Mike ... uh ... how 'original' ... how 'cutting edge' ... how nouveau ... is "The Global System of White Supremacy"?
It isn't original at all.
Nulan...
"When the last time you saw a commercial selling you some White Supremacy?"
That's easy. Turn on the TV, watch BET, MTV, CBS, etc. You'll see it time after time after time after time. Watch the latest Gangsta Hip Hop video.
"Science evolves by the successive rejection of falsified theories.
Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power."
You can channel Popper all day long, Nulan, you still haven't come up with a rational falsifiable argument for your dopamine hegemony theory.
Remember my 50 institution challenge below. You up to it? Or you can't find 50? Shall I make it easier for you? 45?
As to you DV. Since you are now into falsifiable theories. Which one of yours is falsifiable?
Umm,
I'm going to have to ask. If what you've said translates to "the easiest way to govern is to give people what they want", why is this a bad thing? Isn't that the social contract theory of government? Are you making an argument for manufactured consent implicitly assuming some existing natural consent?
What gives mate?
WG
If what you've said translates to "the easiest way to govern is to give people what they want", why is this a bad thing? Isn't that the social contract theory of government? Are you making an argument for manufactured consent implicitly assuming some existing natural consent?
The position I'm exploring began in its seminal form here at Denmark Vesey last August. In a nutshell, responding to a post DV put up about sugar toxicity - it occurred to me the extent to which the introduction of mass quantities of sugar into Europe sourced in the "new world" (nascent addictions hypothesis)- roughly concurrent with the rise of corporate structure as a vehicle for limiting investment risk and transferring and sustaining wealth across generations - combined to produce a cascade of evolutionary effects across the formerly feudal system of european governance.
Basically an unprecedented system of "drug dealing" for lack of a better term took over and became the essential model for governance across the Trans-European Project.
Within that larger embedding governance scheme, we can easily observe the temporary ascendancy of race as a governance tool. Racism has it's very own dopaminergic mechanisms of maintenance and enforcement - which mechanisms I've also pointed out to those interested in genuinely understanding them.
Contrary to the feverish accusations that have been leveled at me of wanting to "let white racists off the hook" (as if such a "hook" existed outside the imagination of said accuser) my objective is to understand the system in which current governance is technically and methodologically embodied.
I view that as a necessary precursor to system changing.
btw WG,
If you ever wanted to examine a profound counterexemplary system of governance, i.e., one which was based on something radically opposed to "giving people what they want" you'd need go no further than feudal japanese culture which maintained zero population growth for centuries due to profound resource constraints.
Remember my 50 institution challenge below. You up to it? Or you can't find 50? Shall I make it easier for you? 45?
As I've said, Whites excel at commercialization. They are good at organizing and packaging natural phenomena into bite-size morsels fit for easy human consumption. It's the McDonald's phenomenom. How people can become a global institution hawking low-grade, greasy meat...is really a testament to White marketing skills.
So, of course they are going to own more commercial enterprises - that's their bag. Who first invented companies? I wouldn't be surprised if it was Whites..
Certainly, I believe they invented intellectual property rights, copyrights, patents, etc. Perhaps property rights too.
This stuff seems a given now - but long ago, many didn't think it was within Man's jurisdiction to own land or knowledge. The Native Americans sure didn't.
You can always cherry-pick one sector out of world affairs and claim that any group dominance in that sector alone proves global dominance. But while some sectors are definitely more influential in world affairs, they don't necessarily crossover into all other sectors.
Do Whites excel at commercialization? Yes.
Do Whites excel at everything else? Not necessarily so.
Nulan...
"Contrary to the feverish accusations that have been leveled at me of wanting to 'let white racists off the hook'..."
Accusation? No, Nulan, observation.
Nulan statement #1:
"white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species"
Note the term "error".
That is, the system of white racism is the result of an "honest mistake". That ain't letting white racists off the hook?
Let's continue.
Nulan statement #2:
"dopamine hegemony is an encompassing description of a governance system of which racist governance methods were a local and temporary aberration."
Note this:
"WERE a LOCAL and TEMPORARY ABERRATION"
In other words, Racism never was all that bad, being a localized (localized to where?)and temporary (like how long?) phenomenon ("aberration" - a mistake of sorts, a deviation from the actual intended course of busines ) and these days ("were") as a system it is dead.
Nulan statement #3:
"The reason Black folks are broke in the U.S. has more to do with Black flight and brain drain in the aftermath of the civil rights movement and the fair housing act. Black folks had an awful lot of hegemonically implanted pent-up demand for full participation in the dopaminergic consumerist society. Instead of political economic cohesion, and, preservation of a managerial and professional leadership class (by leader I mean direct, local role model and influence in the community - like a father is in the home) we became a minority that socio-politically centrifuged itself and spun out its densest and most valuable elements."
In other words, whatever predicament black people find themselves these days, is their own damn fault.
Meaning, Niggers are just too damn stupid to get their shit together.
Now THAT's something byrdeye would most certainly agree with.
While it would be tempting to agree with this Nulanisan scenario given that he himself is the poster boy for failed academic achievement and failed business endeavors, and the misleading bluster that usually comes with such failure, surveying reality I am loath to blame even Nulan for his inability to get his shit together.
Racism has likely much do do (pun intended) with his personal failures.
In any case, everything Nulan argues jibes cleanly with the notions byrdeye puts forward. Since even Nulan asserts that birdie is a white racist, and since Nulan de facto agrees with byrdeye...
...ergo, Nulan lets white racists off the hook.
Cnulan,
I mean are people arguing that heirarchical systems of tribal identity aren't built into the human system? If they are, well maybe they should read a book.
As I understand it, you're merely pointing out that the human response to a wide variety of "pleasurable" stimuli mirrors that of the response to drugs. Again I think thats a given.
On the japanese feudal point, I'd imagine that the experiment is not repeatable without the kind of proufound resource constraints that lower aggregate expectation.
Byrdseye,
On the marketing point. Look up "assuming the consequent", then get back to me.
^ It's not circular reasoning.
MF is upholding White commercial success as evidence of a GSWS.
I say it's more simply evidence of them...being good at business. They gotta be good at something, right?
Now, if he wants to criticize commercialization - fine. But being good at a certain avenue does not in itself make a "GSWS."
Just like Black domination of the NBA is not necessarily evidence of a "GSBS," is it?
Or East Asians and Jews having the highest average IQs and incomes in the US...necessarily evidence of a "GSAJS."
Or either of those evidence of a "GSWS."
=============================
Niggers are just too damn stupid to get their shit together.
Now THAT's something byrdeye would most certainly agree with.
Well, ghettos are r-game zones. And when you sow r-behavior, you reap r-results. Which are wholly-evident in ghettos. No daddies in sight, feral kids running loose everywhere, gangs, violent crimes, urban blight and no advanced industry.
That's why k-gamers (and even many r-gamers) get the hell outta there ASAP.
Fact is MF, these r-gamers are actually doing far better in this White "GSWS" welfare state...than they would be off on their own. See Liberia.
Really, how can you compare your results to other races when your input is wholly different? Forget about racism for a moment here. If 70% of Black babies are now born to single mamas - vs 30% for Whites - and even far less for East Asians...then how the hell can you remotely expect similar end results??? That is not only faulty logic but extremely unfair expectations.
Now, get that rate down to 30%, as well as normalizing other behaviorial variables...and then let's talk about the isolated effects of racism...
But to blame everything on external racism when the rest of your house is in shambles - is not only a cop-out, but denial that leads to unchecked worsening of all those problems.
PS - N.O. was a huge r-game zone, for example.
I know some people in the surrounding areas that took these r-game Katrina fugees in. They literally caused a crime tsunami and were even carjacking and shooting up cats in bookstores. This is despite being given free housing and assistance by these compassionate host cities for a year. It was insane - and is why k-gamers avoid living in r-game zones.
But as they say, it's the behavior that ultimately creates the zone, not vice-versa. Hence the saying, "you can take the nugga outta the hood, but you can't take the hood outta nugga."
("nugga" = "r-gamer" in scientific terms)
Can someone please shoot the bird?
Foie Gras anyone?
Did you write those posts in answer of my two simple questions yet, Byrdeye?
MF - Yup, ages ago...
But in short:
If you want K-game results, you need to play the K-game.
If you want r-game results, simply play the r-game.
Capiche?
Of course, do note that any changes could progressively take more than one generation... Things that took generations to create may not necessarily change overnight.
Otherwise, there's your answer in a nutshell. Not sure what's so complicated about it?
I guess you could always try Technocrappy too - but that's just more classic BS White marketing, IMO, lol.
In any case, everything Nulan argues jibes cleanly with the notions byrdeye puts forward. Since even Nulan asserts that birdie is a white racist, and since Nulan de facto agrees with byrdeye...
...then Nulan must also be a white racist by the associative property!
Egads!
Lol...see that's what happens whenever you stray from the truth into sidetrack agendas...you start creating your own logical logjams downstream.
Notice, I have not painted myself into a corner yet. The reason why is because I try to adhere to the truth, instead of overriding it with agendas.
Yo,
I just read that R-game theory and the underlying Rushton paper on the r-k matrix. I'll confess, I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
Man, fuzzy math is the single most detrimental factor in modern life. That study has more holes in it than brittney spears underwear. LMAO. I love it. Byrdeye, are you a crackpot? I'm starting to think you're a crackpot...
As I understand it, you're merely pointing out that the human response to a wide variety of "pleasurable" stimuli mirrors that of the response to drugs. Again I think thats a given.
Then leave it at that, we're done.
Can you find maybe 40 Nulan?
Ok, Nulan. 35? No?
Then leave it at that, we're done.
Yeah,
I guess my point is that I don't see a problem with that. And would like to understand how its problematic. Is this part of some overarching philosophy that says all external control is bad?
But yeah, at the outset I agree with your assesment of things.
30 Nulan. Can you identify at least 30 such institutions?
What happened? Cat got your typing fingers? Just 30.
I just read that R-game theory and the underlying Rushton paper on the r-k matrix. I'll confess, I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
Really, what exactly's so funny about it?
Well ignoring for the moment the clear calculation issues involved with using a quasi-population" instead of a stratafied random sample in calculation variance, standard deviation and rejection point. And also the fact that he said this which made me stop counting the points that increased his liklihood for statistical error and giggle like a school girl:
"Because of the unsystematic nature of the compilation, the relationships to
be reported occur despite measurement error."
And the fact that he says the following:
"As mentioned, the r–K continuum has been found to apply to differences within species as well as to those between species."
which should be a central point to making this gobeldy gook valid, but actually never mentioned it or cited to it prior to that statement in the article.
Lets assume the interspecies numbers that he cited aren't victims of his terribly constructed model. Lets say that that particular hypothesis is right. Without a study of intra-species deviation controlling for body weight and size, his assertions all have no basis.
Further, the null hypothesis is even stronger due to COMMONLY KNOWN scientific facts about the diversified functions of the brain. An analysis of weight assumes that all brains grow proportionally in the same manner. Otherwise someone with an average cerebral cortex and an extra large lymbic system would be considered genetically smarter by default, than someone with a larger cortex and much smaller lymbic system.
But yeah, basically aside from the numbers this study indicates that bigger people are smarter than smaller people, men are smarter than women, etc.
basically aside from the numbers this study indicates that bigger people are smarter than smaller people,
Not exactly - body size is essentially irrelevant here. It's based more on head size.
How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.
According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.
I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.
Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent.
-------------------------
men are smarter than women
Men average 4-8 IQ points higher than women.
-------------------------
Now, I'm not saying either of these correlations is set in stone or absolute. You may have to factor in neuron density and cerebral development with head size, etc. However, the point is, there ARE in fact some scientific statistical correlations here. Point blank.
So, you might want to start reading textbooks printed after 1995 and not published by zee "Elders of Zion." ;)
and that folks, in a nut's shell, is why byrdeye hadda go, hadda go, hadda go.....,
You're not going to address any of the sampling error points I brought up, any of the brain diversity points, you're just going to keep citing a closed universe of psuedo science substantiated by a psychology professor with a suspect grasp of numbers aren't you...
HA! I just read the elders of zion dig. You're becoming more and more of a hoot with each post.
String of random thoughts--
You do realize by implication your theory proves that Sperm whales are 4 times smarter than human beings. Brain 4 times heavier, in eutero gestation nearly twice as long (K-Type?).
Given that your model posits that IQ is an accurate measure of genetic intelligence, and that brain weight is has a direct positive relationship with IQ, assuming that brains haven't become proportionally heavier in every generation, what accounts for the Flynn effect? Or, in non garbled language, Flynn found that IQ has roughly doubled with each succesive generation, under your model shouldn't that correlate to an increase in brain weight ceteris paribus?
Ooooohhh, what about this as it relates to the R-type / K-type paradigm: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/science/06dumb.html?scp=4&sq=intelligence&st=nyt
Hey, listen. The funny thing you'll find about me is that I'm willing to be convinced of almost anything if the numbers are right and the logic is iron clad. Thing is, you gotta read outside your comfort zone to give any volume to your opinions. And also, as far a psuedo-science studies go I think this saying applies:
A datamine is a terrible thing to waste.
You do realize by implication your theory proves that Sperm whales are 4 times smarter than human beings. Brain 4 times heavier, in eutero gestation nearly twice as long (K-Type?).
Nope - note that I said there is a correlation between brain size and IQ...but that is not the full 1-to-1 correlation.
Brain size is a rudimentary indicator of the intelligence of a brain, though many other factors affect such intelligence. Higher ratios of brain to body mass may increase the amount of brain mass available for more complex cognitive tasks.[1] Allometric analysis indicates that mammalian brain sizes scale as approximately the 2/3 or 3/4 power of the body mass;[1] comparison of a particular animal's brain size with the expected brain size based on such allometric analysis provides an "encephalization quotient" (EQ) that can be used as another indication of the animal's intelligence.
Also, although full cetacean intelligence is hard to measure, they are generally currently ranked at least above elephants and sometimes above chimps.
Humans have the highest brain-to-body ratio but there is debate whether dolphins or the treeshrew have the highest non-human animal brain-to-body ratio.
Some research shows that dolphins do exceptionally well in this aspect indicating very high intelligence, even surpassing the intelligence level of a chimpanzee, which is generally believed to be the highest amongst non-human animals. Dolphins also seem capable of discriminating between numbers, which is a highly abstract ability. However, many scientists now tend to rank dolphins about the level of elephants in "intelligence" tests
Scientific research into self-awareness has suggested that bottlenose dolphins possess self-awareness.
-----------------
Ooooohhh, what about this as it relates to the R-type / K-type paradigm: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/science/06dumb.html?scp=4&sq=intelligence&st=nyt
Key conclusion here:
Dr. Kawecki suspects that each species evolves until it reaches an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of learning.
That said, K-gamers ARE a HUGE evolutionary investment and a high-risk strategy. High-quantity r-gamers like fungi, virus & bacteria were here long before multicellular organisms - and will probably survive long after we're gone. Nobody ever denied that.
brain weight is has a direct positive relationship with IQ, assuming that brains haven't become proportionally heavier in every generation, what accounts for the Flynn effect? Or, in non garbled language, Flynn found that IQ has roughly doubled with each succesive generation, under your model shouldn't that correlate to an increase in brain weight ceteris paribus?
Nope. Again, nobody has stated that there is a 1-to-1 correlation between brain weight and IQ. All the prevailing research shows is that genetic biological factors exert some % of influence, while environmental factors exert the rest.
Hence, there are plenty of environmental explanations that can help explain the Flynn effect - which is more a result of IQs on the lower end rising up than the whole bell curve shifting over. This is similar to human lifespans "increasing"...more as a result of reduced infant mortality than a raising of our biological limits of longevity.
Well ignoring for the moment the clear calculation issues involved with using a quasi-population" instead of a stratafied random sample in calculation variance, standard deviation and rejection point. And also the fact that he said this which made me stop counting the points that increased his liklihood for statistical error and giggle like a school girl:
"Because of the unsystematic nature of the compilation, the relationships to be reported occur despite measurement error."
Rushton picked 234 mammalian species. No, this wasn't a truly scientifically-random sampling of ALL SPECIES ON PLANET EARTH. Which would effectively be impossible.
But, it was casually "random" in a sense that he probably just used whatever available data he could get his hands on and was not necessarily pre-filtered in any relevantly-significant particular manner.
And it still all verified his thesis.
Besides, you cannot hold his research to a HIGHER STANDARD than the prevailing, ironclad, default liberal theory that "there are no biological differences between anyone"...based upon...what? A political, anti-classist proclamation in The Declaration of Independence where slave-owning Whites (who considered Blacks subhuman and 3/5* of a White man) declared that "All men are created equal?"
The funny thing you'll find about me is that I'm willing to be convinced of almost anything if the numbers are right and the logic is iron clad.
Oh really? So, Where's the REAL SCIENCE backing the position that we're all genetic clones with no appreciable biological differences in phenotype or behavior? You don't outright dismiss the r-K theory because it's proven wrong, you simply question its statistical backing. But, where are your stats proving your counterposition, which you have obviously already accepted? And on what scientifically-valid basis?
* 3/5 clause decreed that all slaves (men, women, and children) be counted for purposes of political representation and taxes on land and polls at 3/5 their total number. All free people (including men, women and children) were counted at their full number.
Birdeye,
Sincerely thanks for providing some clarity to your points. I'll take a look through respond a bit later.
WG
Byrdeye,
Its going to be increasingly difficult to argue with you or give your positions any credulity if you continue to only cite a closed universe of suspect studies.
"Hence, there are plenty of environmental explanations that can help explain the Flynn effect - which is more a result of IQs on the lower end rising up than the whole bell curve shifting over. This is similar to human lifespans "increasing"...more as a result of reduced infant mortality than a raising of our biological limits of longevity."
This is factually incorrect, while evidence does indicate that the a greater rise in lower end scores and a pooling around a higher mean, that by definition shifts the curve. What you mean to say, I'm assuming is that the far outliers haven't renormalized to any particular degree, but unless you assume that white or asian intelligence have some reverse chi square distribution then the mean moving still provides a powerful counterargument to your theory. Here is a real study: http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/Intelligence2005.pdf
As far as the stats go, this statement:
"But, it was casually "random" in a sense that he probably just used whatever available data he could get his hands on and was not necessarily pre-filtered in any relevantly-significant particular manner.
And it still all verified his thesis."
would be troubling in any study. Without being able to verify the randomized nature of his data we can't rule out a selection bias or any number of externalities that make his presumptions rebuttable. Whats key here is standard deviation, or degree of difference. Without being able to determine a statistically significant degree of difference we're left with an inference that there is some threshold size difference that produces a result, but how much bigger? This question becomes key when you try to translate this argument intraspecies given the logical assumption that the degree of deviation intraspecies shrinks versus that of interspecies.
Realistically thats the fatal flaw to his inference. Doesn't necessarily mean its not true, just indicates that this study doesn't prove it.
As far as genetic automotons or whatever, its well known that the races differ more genetically intra-race than inter-race although it is possible to identify a persons likely race by their genetics (again the question here is degree, i.e. how much difference is a difference and what characteristics we choose to weigh in our determinations). Again, here is a real study: http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Jorde-Wooding2004.pdf
Finally, (because i'm rambling) don't be so certain that your "g" is a fixed genetic factor. That notion is currently being challenged in current peer journals.
Again a real study: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0801268105v1
Post a Comment