/lit/ - Literature

oh!

>>3766567
>What seriously concerns me is that so many people would prefer scrolling over these things rather then reading and thinking.

People always opt for the simplest, most entertaining method.

Simplicity plus entertainment. All marketing depends on the two.

I don't see how this is /lit/ related at all, but I agree with the majority of what you say.

>>3766567
I'm not worried about people.
They never had the habit to think, let alone the education to do it.

What I'm worried is that with the increase democratization intellectuals with the ability to think decide to lower their work at that level.

>>3766580
this is practically the only board where we can discuss something like this. /pol/ was alright for a while, but they are pretty much pure racist ranting now.

>>3766582
so you're saying that people who would otherwise think for themselves are more likely to conform to the hive mind today?

>Have you ever heard of people saying that they think in memes?
I don't understand.

The term you're looking for is "Image Macro"

>>3766597
check this out, all I had to do was google "thinking in memes"

>>3766567
What your saying is probably right. But your implying that the picture is wrong, when statistically hardly anyone recovers without a faith of some sort. Call it what you will, but if you want to recover from depression, alcoholism or abuse, you believe in god or you're not going to make it.

>>3766610
I know, I found it on r/atheism.

>>3766586
>facts are racist

If you were actually on /pol/ for a while you would know racist is a codeword for anti-white

>>3766623
are you a self-admitted racist?

>>3766610
> if you want to recover from depression, alcoholism or abuse, you believe in god or you're not going to make it.

No.

>>3766609
Are you OP? If so, seems like you're defeating your own point. I'm more interested in what OP meant by that, as, if it is as I interpret it, it's incredibly hypocritical. I saw it as admitting the macro is presenting an opinion, not a fact, which would contradict the vibe of the OP.

>>3766593
Well I would not say hive mind. But intellectuals notoriously tend to serve those who pays them. And today they court the favor of the masses because that's where the money is.

stop talking to /pol/

report all /pol/ling

>>3766630
they can represent both facts and opinions, but their purpose is to spread ideas without making people think

>>3766609
Wow. That picture is so dreadfully unhumorous. It almost seems like a cry for help.

>>3766651
what do you expect? it's a may-may

>>3766610
>Call it what you will, but if you want to recover from depression, alcoholism or abuse, you believe in god or you're not going to make it.
Please don't project.

>>3766653

le sigh x(

>>3766642
Or, they could be intended as humorous preaching to the choir. Or a million other things. To claim you know the creator's intent is silly.

>>3766663
I never said I knew the creators intent, I'm just saying that these things are propaganda for the people by the people.

>>3766628
I recognize that there are biological differences between races and that some races contribute more to society than others.

>>3766669
>for the people by the people
What is this, I don't even.

>>3766674
Such as?

>>3766663
Some of them maybe, but most of them are meant to try and make the creators belief seem "obvious" by using out of context quotes or what seems to them like water-tight logic. If you actually asked them to elaborate, they're explanation would probably be filled with fallacies or just be completely incoherent.

>>3766678
there* lel

>>3766674
Fair enough, just so long as you don't judge people by their skin color. There is really no excuse for judging by skin today. Generalizing things is typical of a fool who thinks they can know everything.

>>3766674
>valuing people by their contribution to a society that rejects them
>valuing people by their contribution to society

Top lel. Don't you have a productivity meeting to go to?

>>3766678
That has more to do with idiocy than the medium itself.

>>3766678
But that's the thing: most people don't question them at all.

>>3766676
well intelligence for one

>>3766682
But I do judge people for their skin color. I see a black guy and think: "being an african american male, he is 8x as likely to perpetrate a violent criminal act on me than a white male" Is it racist to be informed?

>>3766690
Sure, but any non-idiot probably wouldn't use the medium in the first place. It's a substitute for actual reasoning.

>>3766694
I get what you mean. "If it seems right, it is right" is a common shared belief of the uneducated.

>>3766687
>no anon, you are society
>and then society was him

If we don't value people by their contribution to society, than what else do you value someone by?

>>3766699
"Intelligence" is not an easily-quantifiable trait, and it is not yet determined through physiological or genetic examination.

>>3766700
"Probably". I'm one of the few who is capable of using reason and evidence if prodded to do so, but I use the macro to open discourse and/or be mildly amusing.

>>3766707
Kill yourself.

>>3766707
Right, intelligence is the manifestation of multiple genes. It just happens that some races have more of these genes in their population than others

>>3766623
Nice unsourced chart you got there buddy.

>>3766708
Okay, let me livestream it for you.

>>3766713
Which genes?

>>3766703
You can value them by whatever you want to value them by, just don't expect others to go by the same standards. I personally value people by their integrity, modesty, sincerity, intelligence, and how interesting they are to me. Keep in mind, I value people on a personal level, rather than making sweeping generalizations of an entire population.

>>3766716
>>3766716

>Nice unsourced chart you got there buddy.

Why do you have an opinion upon an issue, if you aren't even aware of those most fundamental data concerning it?

Wait, why is this being discussed on /lit/?

>>3766729
Conveniently, you try to derail the subject when pressed for sources. Good to see racism is steeped in knowledge.

>>3766716
dam you're right i should delete that image

>>3766721
well we're not sure the function of >40% of all genes, plus epigenetic research is still in its infancy, so there's no way to say for certain every gene that contributes to intelligence. But there's just too much statistical significance to prove intelligence is related to race.

>>3766567
>Why aren't people as smart as me?

>>3766732
>SAT as a measure of intelligence
lelelelelelelelelel

>>3766738
That's not what's being discussed here and you know it.

>>3766721
>>3766721

This. I personally hold an agnostic view towards the issue of "race and intelligence", and I find it irrational to think otherwise.

Though, I think the validity of IQ, as a social science tool, has been well validated. The causality and specific qualities the tool measures is still up in the air.

It can be demonstrated that IQ yields strong correlations to individual behavior differences and social outcomes. This is not contested.

>>3766732
Correlation=/=causation. Those arguing that there isn't an inherent difference between the value of the races point to apparent differences as results of external conditions. Also, >>3766739
>>3766742
>>3766743

>>3766732
That chart doesn't account for poverty and quality of schools that the students are attending. Still does nothing to prove your claim that other races are less intelligent.

>>3766732
SAT depends a lot on economic factors. People that can afford prep schools and books and decent schools score higher. People that come from well educated families score higher.

So the only thing that it would prove is that some people are poorer than others.

>>3766694
You'll find it scales proportionately to the importance of the belief. Also to the value of the belief to the person.

For example, you'll find it very easy to use casual text and implications to deride a band that the recipient doesn't know anything about,
but it will be harder to change their belief about one they know about, and harder still to change their belief about one they like.

And what is true for music is true across the board, take political beliefs. If the person has no opinion about an issue they are more likely to be persuaded by a political image macro than if they hold a light opinion, and it has less effect if they have strong opinions.

I understand your concern about propaganda, but I think the problem is more closely related to the shifts in media paradigms than just the rise of image macros and memes. I'd worry more about false "news sites" and media echo chambers than the prevalence of memes.

Also, in regards to the pic, belief has little to do with depression, People who have depression are likely to have it whether they believe in a god or do not. Believing won't cure their depression, and not believing won't prevent them from being cured. Let's be rational.

>>3766742
http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Turkheimer%20psychological%20science.pdf

>The study results show that in the most impoverished families, hereditability [sic] of IQ is essentially zero, with [shared] environment accounting for almost 60 percent of the differences in IQ among individuals.
>The impact of [shared] environment declines as socioeconomic level improves, playing a nominal role in the most affluent families, for which virtually all variability in IQ is attributed to genes.

While being impoverished decreases your IQ (environment), when given equal opportunity, blacks will statistically perform worse than whites (genetic)

>>3766567
Image macros are structured the same way as jokes. The top line sets it up. The bottom line gives us the "punch." They don't necessarily have to be funny, but they're percussive little quips. They're easy to make, and the pictures provide memetic context.

Most people actively avoid thinking. It's not like their alternative to image macros is to read books. The macros have tremendous populist value.

>>3766752
IQ has nothing to do with SAT scores.

>>3766567
"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.

-Emily Dickinson

Poetry is best propaganda.

>>3766756
Of course it does. It's not a direct test for IQ, but designed in such a way that a higher IQ will lead to a better score. Also, SAT scores have always correlated with socioeconomic status later in life.

Read the wiki article on IQ heritibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>3766752
How can you determine that they have completely equal opportunity? By the very fact that people like you insist that they are genetically less intelligent, they're more likely to fall into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just because they're at the same socioeconomic level doesn't mean they have the same opportunities.

>>3766744
>>3766744

I take back my agreement with you.

You have an infantile degree of knowledge on this topic. The arguments you implied are a valid support of your position are laughable. "Family" contributions to intellectual development are a silly, rhetorical canard that is completely dismissed in any fields that research behavioral heritability. To support such an assertion is to reveal your crippling ignorance upon an issue you seem to care about.

Also, stop calling those who believe behavior is inherited "racist". As if their belief in heritability is founded upon a notion of racial pride and hatred of other groups, rather than a impersonal scientific assertion. You're the quality of individual who would publicly assault E.O. Wilson and Richard Hernstein. A reactionary thug lashing out against those who oppose his dogma. Respect your opposition and disagree with them based upon differing interpretation of shared knowledge.

>>3766762
I hate Emily Dickinson. Come to think of it, I can't think of any female poet I like.

>>3766765
>Of course it does

Can I get a source on that or are you talking out of your ass again?

>Also, SAT scores have always correlated with socioeconomic status later in life

Probably because the test itself correlates with socioeconomic status to begin with, plus certain scores are a requirement to get into decent universities.

All you're doing is proving that class mobility is a myth.

>>3766765
It has a fucking vocabulary test. No matter what's your IQ if you don't have books in the house because you are poor you are not gonna know what saturnine means.

>>3766774
I'm a reactionary thug? Okay, glad to see you're respecting your opposition.

>>3766781
>>3766781

I don't hold a rigidly hereditarian view on this issue, I just support civil debate and hate dogma.

And me denouncing you was a response to your ad hominem association to an empirical belief you presented here:

>>3766731

>>3766789
I don't think you actually know what an ad hominem is.

>>3766776

I can't believe i actually went out to find an article that proved SAT score is an indirect measure of IQ.
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQformula.htm

>>3766780
right but see >>3766752 because when given equal opportunity, blacks will still perform worse

>>3766789
>empirical
>belief
Pick one.

>>3766800
Why?

>>3766800
see>>3766767
Just because they managed to move into a white suburban neighborhood doesn't mean they had parents that valued education as much as they're neighbors.

The first time I took the SAT I got a 1750. I took it again years later when I decided to go to college and got a 2250. Any test that allows for that big of a gap in scores for the same person is flawed at measuring natural ability.

>>3766802
read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>3766806
had you actually read the study, you would have seen that the children were adopted

>>3766806
there*

Why does this keep happening?

>>3766813
*by white parents

>>3766802
>>3766802

>Pick one.

An interpretation of research data. Better?

>>3766809
>>3766809

This retard isn't me

>>3766812
WAIT WAIT NO DONT READ THIS

THEIR*

>>3766808
>>3766808

Mental age could be a factor, if the first test were done before adulthood. The SAT is normed for 17 year olds, I believe.

Crystallized intelligence increases dramatically until about 15, then increases substantially until about 18 or 19, before leveling off to minimal progress over time.

>>3766813
I'm using parents as merely an example that socioeconomic equality != true equality. Being a black kid adopted by a white family is just one of the many variables that could affect a child's performance.

Skin color is obviously inherited, why is it such a far-fetched concept that intelligence could also be inherited?

>>3766809
Or you could, you know, make your own point, and cite relevant information. Not even sure which anon you are. Join the glorious tripfag master race today!

>>3766817
I'm confused. Why would you refer to someone else for support, but call them a retard?

>>3766822
It isn't, but you still need sufficient evidence to back a claim.

>>3766822
>>3766822

If the individual largely inherits their unique perception of benefit and justice, a centralized authority cannot as easily change them for its own end.

The state-leftists and their herd of useful idiots are horrified by the idea that they cannot meld society into a mass skinner box. The individual, on a fundamental level, cannot be destroyed and converted into utility.

>>3766821
well then you leave me little room to argue to you, because according to you there could never be a study that proves my point.

One day, when we figure out what every gene does, and someone genotypes a large pool of whites and blacks, and it is found that whites have more genes that contribute to intelligence, will I finally be able to say: "I told you so"

>>3766832
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
evidence abounds

>>3766844
See >>3766832
In regards to your rhetorical question, the answer is "Yes".

Hey Caesar, regardless of whether intelligence is biologically inheritable or not, does racism not make sense, still?
It's obvious that people from different races have a (slightly) different variability in their physical characteristics that renders them superior for certain tasks.

>>3766865
>It's obvious
Evidence? But let's say you're right. My response is, who cares? Last I checked, ability exists on a spectrum. I view assumption of superiority based on race the same way I view affirmative action.

>>3766865
>>3766865

>Hey Caesar, regardless of whether intelligence is biologically inheritable or not, does racism not make sense, still?

I'd say you are right. Traits vary widely within an individual group, society demands competent individuals, not competent "group averages".

Peter Singer wrote a short article about this very issue. He proposed that egalitarian reactions to "race realism" were irrational, as they suggested unequal heritability of desirable traits between groups would suggest some groups were inferior from an ethical position. Equality of biological inheritance between races should not be the sole foundation of ethical egalitarianism.

You guys do realize that more than genes can be passed from one generation to the next, right?

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/11/03-0098-t1.htm

Meet Toxoplasma gondii--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii--or T. gondii, as the cool kids like to call it. Also known as the reason some pregnant women are scared of cats.

>>3766879
The evidence would be in comparative embryologic and genetic studies I suppose.
A simple example is that races with a pale skin are better at surviving skin cancer (the melanoma is easier to find and treat when it stands out).
Some populations are more at risk for certain diseases than others.

>My response is, who cares?
Policy-makers, insurance-dealers, physicians, sport team recruiters, police officers...

>I view assumption of superiority based on race the same way I view affirmative action.
It's just statistical analysis. Statistics in themselves don't hurt anyone.
Yet you can market ads for women under 50 years because you know the largest segment of the population that watches tv at a certain hour is women under 50, doesn't mean that every woman under 50 will watch it at that moment.
If you're a policy-maker and you know the majority of the population you deal with is a certain race, then you should take into account those averages. They already do, by the way.
It's not really saying someone is superior or inferior, it's just assessing the different abilities or characteristics as functions of race.

>>3766880
>Equality of biological inheritance between races should not be the sole foundation of ethical egalitarianism.
That's obvious.
Law-makers should start studying biology.

>>3766893
What's the relevance with the thread?

>>3766900
I believe there was some talk about the heritability of intelligence. These things are very complicated, and one of the complications is the potential effects of parasites, which is a very difficult thing to control for when research on much of this stuff is just starting to get interesting.

>>3766907
Oh. There's also epigenetics.
Nutrition and everything else being transmitted.
Parasites are just crazy stuff.

>>3766898
Statistics don't hurt anyone, but application can. This is why I mentioned affirmative action. For every black allowed into a prestigious university for their skin color, there is a white rejected for the same reason.

People are stupid

But not me though

news at 11

>>3766800
What do you hope to gain by propagating "blacks are inherently dumber than whites"? If you were able to convince everyone that this was true what action would you want to see come out of it? The information is irrelevant to everyone but those who are looking for the right data to verify their racist beliefs.