/edu/ - Education

>>26343
You ain't foolin me

Ive decided to stay in school

School is what you make of it. You have vast libraries and professors of all kinds at your finger tips. You can literally learn anything and it’s way easier at a college than anywhere else. In law school I had a photography show and just walked into the art school deans office to ask him questions. I walked into the music department to learn piano. You could go find books on jazz or Egyptology and there will be some autist on campus who loves that shit and would be willing to help you. If you’re gonna be a doctor, you’d get your profs to introduce you to some doctors you could shadow. You could study all the brain surgery books on file.


God I miss school.

>>26267
College (University) isn't about learning, it's about passing so you get credentials, moreso nowadays that information is freely available and that literacy and numeracy is considered bare minimum and not a privilege atleast in the 'first world', not to mention that university isn't about learning when you have to pay or take on debt, then you have to pressure of getting something other than knowledge out of it so you can recuperate your losses into something material that can be capitalised on. There is literally no reason to go to higher education than to blag yourself into a career in the hopes of escaping manual labour.

dunno where you're from but you kinda need credentials to start cutting people up, but you do get to start stitching people up from your first clinical year of med school

also if you want to make it a career, then good luck surgery is hell

>>25920
The two articles where you got your two screenshots from

>>25921
Pew Research Center:
<Highly educated adults – particularly those who have attended graduate school – are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values. And these differences have increased over the past two decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/

Variability Hypothesis:
<The variability hypothesis, also known as the greater male variability hypothesis, is the hypothesis that human males generally display greater variability in traits than human females do [including cognition].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

Supporting Article 1:
<In the majority of countries, male variability is higher than female variability in both reading and math.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1162573

Supporting Article 2:
<Males are more variable on most measures of quantitative and visuospatial ability, which necessarily results in more males at both high- and low-ability extremes
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

In addition to the raised points on autism score, big 5 personality traits have good correlations: low openness, mid-high conscientiousness (rule following), low agreeableness, generally low neuroticism = rightoid traits, opposite profile = leftist traits.

>>25923
Most people are also moderate in their personality, so don't fall into extremism

>>25913
Excellent thread worth bumping. I recently read this book to better understand the rightoid mindset.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Jonathan Haidt)
<A foundational text in moral psychology that explores the intuitive and emotional origins of political differences. Through his research, Haidt demonstrates that the right-wing moral compass relies on different foundations than the left-wing one. While liberal psychology emphasizes care and fairness, the conservative mind gives equal weight to in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and feelings of sanctity and purity.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11324722-the-righteous-mind

I don't know, man, there's lots of questionable assumptions here.

>status, reputation, and social capital
Very few people care about these. We are just captivated by the spectacle of those who do. Once people's material needs are met, most would just fuck off to do whatever they like to do.

>Abundance
Already here. Depends on who you ask but most leftist economists say that we'd only need about 30% of current productive forces to meet everyone's basic needs. It's not the lack of abundance that prevents doing that but the endless greed of a small minority.

>Capital accumulation
Isn't the point that by holding the means of survival hostage you can compel others to work for you? Why would you need to accumulate capital when robots do everything?

>AI-surveillance
AI surveillance only prevents organized resistance. If the rate of extermination becomes too high and people see their own extermination coming, more people will start doing terrorism and I'm not sure the system can survive that.

>>26290
You too are making assumptions

>>26290

>Very few people care about these.
Decommodified production doesnt magically erase human neurobiology. Its a well established fact that the human brain is structurally hardwired to seek social status.

>Abundance is already here.
You are confusing productive capacity with ecological limits. Yes we have enough factories and technology but what we dont have is infinite resources. The scarcity axis in this matrix isnt about whether we can manufacture enough stuff but instead its about the hard physical limits of this planet. This is why the socialist outcome requires strict rationing and centralized planning.

>Why would you need to accumulate capital when robots do everything?
This is the entire premise of rentism scenario. Even if the ruling class doesnt need your labor anymore they still wants to maintain their class position. They will enforce this artificial scarcity via patents and copyright. People wouldnt work in factories but would still have to pay rent in order to have access to basic needs.

>I'm not sure the system can survive terrorism
The system is literally engineered to survive this right now. The ruling class doesnt have to fear unorganized terrorism once they retreat into fortified enclaves guarded by autonomous drones while leaving the surplus population outside to live in slums. Gated communities but 9000x worse.

Flood

Ignore the problem or use it against them by trying to change their mind relying on books as your source of arguments. Keep them from working on theory, should not be hard and in any case being a dogmatic bitch is better than them not trying to do communism in the first place unless you have more than a hundred people in your group.

>>12984
great post, anon

I have no idea about the exact numbers or ratio but the Russian meatgrinder tactic is world famous plus Stalin executed his top military leaders.

You can see this tactic in Ukraine today with a complete disregard for Russian losses.

>>25698
You read none of this thread, did you?
>Stalin executed his top military leaders
Did you time travel here from 2012? What the fuck is this shite?

Between 1934 and 1939, the Red Army's command lost over than 56,000 people, 10,000 of them arrested. Another 14,000 were dismissed for drunkenness and 'moral degradation'; the rest were dismissed for other reasons – illness, disability, etc. In the same period, 6,600 of the officers previously dismissed were reinstated after further proceedings.

As for loss ratios see pic 1 rel

These sorts of brainless takes belong on /leftypol/, or ideally pol, and not /edu/. That being said, hopefully you learn a thing or two from this.

>>25794
Actually here's some more on the "officers"
To understand the scale of the purge, it's worth recalling that in 1937, Marshal Kliment Voroshilov said that, “the army had a total of 206,000 persons in the command structure”. The total size of the Red Army in 1937 was 1.5 million men at the time. Admittedly, poor training of the commanders of the Red Army was a problem in the 30s, but not one caused by repression but rather the rapid increase of men in the armed force. Already in 1939 the army had grown to 3.2 million men, and by January 1941 – to 4.2 million. By the beginning of the war the command staff amounted to nearly 440,000 officers and staff but training of officers is longer than of ordinary soldiers and thus it was out of proportion. The country was preparing for war, the army was growing, undergoing rearmament, and the training of officers came too late.
29% of Soviet military personnel had a higher education before the repressions. After them, the number became 38%. By 1941, the number had risen to 52%. Note that for the decade before the repressions, the number had remained stagnant at around 20-30%.

http://cas1961.livejournal.com/1204240.html

>''"Communism under Stalin has produced the most valiant fighting army in Europe. Communism under Stalin has provided us with examples of patriotism equal to the finest annals of history. Communism under Stalin has won the applause and admiration of all the Western nations. Communism under Stalin has produced the best generals in this war…
Political purges? Of course. But it is now clear that the men who were shot down would have betrayed Russia to her German enemy."'' Opportunity to Win War in 1942; A SECOND FRONT IN EUROPE TO AID RUSSIA, By LORD BEAVERBROOK, Britain's Lease-Lend Coordinator in Washington, Delivered before the Bureau of Advertising of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 23, 1942

>>7240
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgNqUtHJKzo

>>7241
https://leftypedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Act

>>24642
I'm definitely late in my response, but I hope this helps anyone who might be interested! These are the books which I found the most useful while I was studying Chemistry. There are also other books that you might like to read in this wiki: https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Chemistry_Textbook_Recommendations

GENERAL CHEMISTRY

-General Chemistry - Petrucci
-Chemical Principles. The quest for insight - Atkins

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

-Principles of Instrumental Analysis -Skoog

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY

-Physical Chemistry - Ira N. Levine
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Hated
Is it really "hated" or just ignored?
As for an economic reading list, there is a precise timeline of Marx's manuscripts. There are his writings from 1844-7: (i) Paris Notebooks (which are translated as the 1844 Manuscripts, along with Writings on Mill and Ricardo), (ii) Wage Labour and Capital, and (iii) Poverty of Philisophy - which is a response to Proudhon's own Critique. After this there is the Grundrisse, or the "Groundwork" of the Critique of Political Economy (1857-8). These notebooks effectively structure the motion of the next decade of writing: (i) "Zur Kritik" (1859), which is later configured into the first three chapters of Capital Vol. 1 (1867). After this are the (ii) Economic Manuscripts of 1861-3, or Theories of Surplus Value. There is then the (iii) Process of Production of Capital (1864), then the (iv) Economic Manuscripts of 1864-5, or Capital Vol. 3 - interestingly, this was written before the other volumes. After this is then (v) Value, Price and Profit (1865), which is a speech prepared by Marx for a meeting, and was only published posthomously, but acts as a useful summary of various ideas. After this comes (vi) Capital Vol. 1 (1867), which Marx was originally dissatisfied with, and so sought to revise various sections. He published the 1873 version with revisions in place. After this is (vii) Capital Vol. 2 (1885), which could not be published in Marx's lifetime due to its incompletion, but was worked on by Marx from around 1865-78 (in the Preface to Vol. 2, Engels explains that Marx's schedule and bad health led to limited additions to the manuscript, the last of which was given in 1878). Engels' editorialisation for Volume 2 and 3 (1885-94) were necessary - as well as an English translation for Capital Vol. 1 in 1886. Theories of Surplus Value was only published from Kautsky's efforts in 1910, and the Grundrisse was only published around 1940 - so, everything was published backwards. It should be noted that without the Soviet Union, we would lack many, many Marx texts. The 1844 Manuscripts were published in 1932, for example, so what we take for granted didn't used to be so. There are even still untranslated Marx writings.

So, here's the list of Marx's economic writings, for general interest:

• 1844 Manuscripts (1844)
  
• Comments on Mill/Ricardo (1844)
  
• Wage Labour and Capital (1847)
  
• Poverty of Philosophy (18

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.