Every time I see someone bring up "IQ scores" I feel the need to repeat: IQ scores were literally invented by eugenicists and they've always been biased towards privilege
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
As a child, I was run through a system that seemed extremely concerned that I was mentally deficient and incapable. As an adult, since hitting certain kinds of prominence, I've had a lot of people try to convince me that I'm a genius.
I shoot it down also because I fear that some day I might believe it, and I will also become an insufferable asshole, just like everyone else who thinks they're a genius
But I also know well enough, it's stubborn enthusiasm, privileged access, luck, not "genius"
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
The big difference for me is that there was a middle period where, when I was going to fail out of high school, when I was socially ostracized, when I was on the verge of suicide, I had a rare opportunity to get transferred to an alternative school, largely considered a "last resort" school, but where I learned to flourish and love learning and love myself. No homework, theoretically you only had to go for half a day, all students at their own pace.
I loved it so much I would often go all day
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
There is no "genius", only learning to love learning and doing, and having access to do so. The problem is that we teach children to loathe education and self-embetterment in all sorts of ways. And for adults, few are given opportunities or encouragement to be able to explore thoughtfully and contribute. Few people can grow into themselves.
We don't teach people to "learn to learn" enough, or to feel that they can love learning, or to give people a chance to *do things*.
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
Worse yet, with a world falling into despair, corporate technology systems are feeding into addiction cycles of our own internal feedback mechanisms.
When people have such little agency in their lives, of course they're just going to lean on the dopamine release lever.
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
Recently Paul Graham wrote that awful "wokeness" article. It's funny, because Paul Graham every now and then can say insightful things, but less and less so, and at one point he wrote something that was really on the nose but not very self aware: The Acceleration of Addictiveness https://paulgraham.com/addiction.html
The tl;dr is that everything is becoming more and more addictive: food, drinks, media, games, everything. There's a feedback cycle for it.
Well, he's right. But of course there's the irony...
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
The simple irony is that Paul Graham is an advocate for hypercapitalism; the very reason everything is becoming more addictive is... hypercapitalism. Companies are given the feedback cycle to make you more and more hooked on their systems because that's what makes them more profitable.
Where "capitalism" begins and ends in history I think is fuzzier than sometimes acknowledged but for me the dividing line is money becoming the *primary goal in society*. Hypercapitalism is the accelerated state.
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
Do you know what happens if a rat is given a lever where it can lean on it to invoke its pleasure center? It will lean on it until it dies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward#Strength_of_drive
(EDIT: see Rat Park later in thread)
Who should we blame for the rat leaning on the lever? Was it a moral failing of the rat? Clearly, upon realizing that *any* rat will lean on the lever until it dies, we realize it is the system that is set up that is to blame, not the rat.
How does this affect agency?
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
Who and what do you want to be? This is a matter of agency.
If I presented several potential futures for you, one where you made artwork, one where you solved scientific problems, one where you helped the less fortunate, and one where you leaned on a stimulation lever until you could do nothing else, which would you choose?
Agency is a thing that is grown and cultivated, but it is not possible in a system which is set up for failure. Who do we blame for the death of the rat against the lever?
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
On the one hand, it appears that the rat is choosing to lean against the lever of its own free will, but clearly that isn't true if every rat, provided with that initial stimulation, could no longer resist leaning on it until their death.
A fertile ground for agency to bloom must be grown, cultivated, and nurtured, like a garden. We must provide a system in which people can grow to be themselves.
-
replied to cwebber@social.coop last edited by
@cwebber sounds like you're probably already aware of it, but the Rat Park experiment really gets to the heart of this. It turns out if you keep rats in an idyllic enclosure that meets all of their natural sensory and social needs, not just the typical depressing bare essentials terrarium that provides a minimum of food, water, and shelter - they *don't* choose the pleasure lever until they die. They end up mostly ignoring it to live a nice fulfilling life with their friends instead.
-