/edu/ - Education

>>9734
Nah. This is more study related, and leftypol is full of trolls.

Anyone here with experience doing a phd in another country?
I miss being in university and I always sorta wanted to do a phd, but possibilities are pretty slim where I live (in my field, at least), so I am thinking about looking abroad. I am from Scandinavia and I studied Spanish at uni, so obviously it would also make sense to pursue a phd in a Spanish speaking country, I just don't know how or where to start..

>>3714
A bunch of specialized high school kids tried this in NYC as well and nothing happened
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/brooklyn-technical-high-school-students-stage-walkout-over-covid-concerns/ar-AASGsn4

Thoughts?

>>9498
just drop out en masse. fuck school

>>9442
I'm from flag related and want to study pedagogy in Estonia

>>9700
>Estonia
neoliberal hellhole where everything is privatised, surviving on capital injections from the West because Estonia is the "pilot program" and "exemplary post-Soviet country".

>>9577
The mexican and american economic institutions are not really that different. Could you provide a concrete example of this alleged difference? Regarding the degree of reinvestment, Marx talks about this.

>>9503
>I am reading it with my friends
I wish my friends would read books with me

>>9578
I know nothing about these shitholes, but I hope that these informations that I have found come handy;
We can start with this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law and this picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Countries_by_adherence_to_the_Rule_of_Law_%282017%E2%80%9318%29.png that for some reason does not occur in the english article. The picture says that Mexico adheres little to the Rule of Law, different from the USA. According to the Wikipedia articles, USA's HDI is .926, and Mexico's is .779. On the other hand, USA's GINI is 48.5 and Mexico's is 41.8.

>>9596
If you're talking about rule of law here, then perhaps we're not talking about economic institutions exclusively, but about political, economic, and political economic institutions and how they interact.

It is true that in Mexico there is little rule of law. But again, the reason this is so is intricately related to Mexico's history (civil war etc) and culture, Mexico's development in relation to the US (industry, neoliberal imposition, CIA shenanigans, etc), Mexico's role in American drug market and consumption.

So sure, if Mexican institutions weren't corrupt, they would be much better, but the reason they can't improve significantly is not mentioned. Marxism gives you the tools to analyze things in relation, whereas here you are looking at things in isolation. It's good to have an understanding of things in isolation, but you also need to re-integrate that understanding to the context. Which is what I feel is missing from the book's tools for analysis.

Apply the analysis of the book to China. China is doing an amazing job. How did China build and maintain good institutions? Why are China's institutions, despite corruption being more common, have a higher benefit than american institutions? How come America's infrastructure is crumbling while Mexico is improving its infrastructure?

What do you think?

Sorry for the delay, I am such a donkey.
>>9597
>Marxism gives you the tools to analyze things in relation, whereas here you are looking at things in isolation.
If I knew about the history of these countries I could use historical materialism. The few that I know is in Why Nations Fail, but maybe I can draw something;
Once I have learned that inequality is more evident in Bahia, Brazil because everything started there, (the tugas arrived in Bahia.) meaning that inequality stays like a "sickness."
Mexico had precious metals; the US, no. The colonialism system inventend by the spanish worked in Mexico; in the US, no. At the moment that the spanish could oblige the natives to work for them, they created a class system, where a minority dictate, and consequently establish the institutions, and a majority obeys. If the institutions are based on inequalities the country will be inequal, and the solution for this is establish new institutions?
But I could not think in why the US is inequal. It is because the government have little influence on the market?

>>9610
>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Yes that is the point, its not a thing.

>>9610
>It also seems you have no standard or basis for what a post-modernist really is. 'People calling them that' is beyond retarded
Yes, exactly. "Postmodernism" doesn't exist. Its cope for people who refuse to read. Adorno, Horkeimer and Marcuse founded the frankfurt school, and are generally accepted as the fathers of post modernism.

To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire. Post-Modernism means "rejects the anglo model". The idea that it is about grand narratives is a liberal perspective, like how liberals call communists "idealist" because "its just human nature" and "thats the way the world works". Its a reactionary defense of the grand narrative of Whig history and bourgeoisie progress.

Its tied up in the idea that WWII and fascism are directly outgrowths of capitalism and imperialism. The "modernist" model says that freedom and democracy defeated the fascists and America is number one because they are so good. Post-modernists reject this and their starting point is that "modernity" is a farce that is upheld by exploitation, that is pretty much their only commonality. That is why "post-modernists" are secret "cultural marxists", because they are "ideological" and cant accept the true "end of history". Saying that they reject grand narratives is people coping with their precise rejection of imperialist narratives.

Many of them are leftists and their criticism of Marxism-Leninism is an immanent critique of it that accepts its premises, its a type of critical support, not a rejection. Their goal is to integrate the scientific advances in the fields of social science, like psychology, advertising and propaganda, into the established theory of Marx and Lenin. This leads some of them to focus on particular parts that deal with their own subfields, and they adapt to that in a variety of ways depending on their individual education and politics. You can't really say "all post-modernists do X" because it is basically anyone who disagreed with American hegemony during the post war period and not a specific thing.


I think one should separate clearly between being a fellow traveler, and supporting the Soviet Union as a sovereign entity, and being a supporter of Stalinism as an interpretation of Marxism. Even Trotskyites, who derided the Soviet Union as a form of "state capitalism" nevertheless supported the socialist experiment there (which might have been reformed from inside). Frankfurt School theory was born in the revolutionary melee and had to at least give indications that it was on the side of the International and the world proletariat, even as it made biting criticisms of the state bureaucracy, authoritarianism and philosophical positivism.

>>9610
>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Different anon weighing in on this.
I think this is largely correct tho, even if it's formulated as a dumb logic-bro gotcha. I would leave out the word "grand" and stick with the unmodified "narrative" and call it good.
My experience debating postmodernists is that they can dismiss everything I say by declaring it as a narrative, so therefor i should be able to dismiss what they say as a narrative as well. You can't declare narrative competition but put yours beyond question. That would be idealist, because nobody would accept that premise. If you can feel my scorn in these words, it's because post-modern philosophy is read without taking the material conditions into account. There was a devaluation of soft sciences in the 50s 60s and 70s and a big prestige gain in hard sciences, this lead to petty academic disputes being encoded into the theoretical structure. If you have ever wondered about the strange language style in post modern philosophy, it's aping tech-bro slang from the 50s, who got way more funding than the sociology department.

>So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity
Marx's views on subjectivity are uncharacteristically idealist for good old Karl. He thought that there was a dialectic between objective and subjective, but that is wrong. Subjectivity is the result of people being subjected to class domination. It comes from people being subjects to royal fiefdoms or subjects in a bourgeois legal sense. The common sense understanding of subjectivity would be better framed as having a unique personal bias. Subjectivity is not personal, it's the imposition of a systemic bias, that makes people into subjects.

Objectivity is the attempt at removing all biases by various means like measurements like in science or the quest for universal truths in philosophy, it's not limited to eliminating only subjective biases from analysis.

>>9612
>To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire
No modernism was a revolt against the premodern remnants that was still prePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>9615
I still disagree with this aphorism for the reasons I stated above. Just as I disagree with that Anon's reply entirely. He also thinks Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse are postmodernists, when none of them are (let alone the FOUNDERS thereof), and are just Frankfurt continentals. He's deeply confused, possibly from /pol/.

Even if we take your 'narrative as narrative' deference from modification, this is still a problem, because it's denying the context from which post-modernism stakes the specificities of its rejection. Post-modernism, in its rejection of (grand) narrativity, is a kind of socio-phenomenally mediated ontological skepticism, which is itself contingent by way of the internal process of its mediation, and as such, it cannot be axiomatic* nor prescribed as an ultimate social end or absolute* (* *which is what is meant when speaking in reference of 'Grand Narratives'), since the ever-presence of its possibility of self negation subsists via its self-destabilizing processual temporality (and so, it, that is, the rejection itself, can therefore be dethroned and de-standardized, and it never realizes any kind of necessary standardization of itself, all without recourse to any axiomatic necessitation in its functionality).

Now, a grand narrative is a 'category' (all things are, in some reducible sense, categorical), in that (and insofar as) it belongs to 'being a category', but the concept of 'category' is not, in itself, a grand narrative. That is, the definition, or essence of what a category is, formally, is not 'grand narrative' (i.e a cat is an animal but the formal concept of all that is animal is not 'cat').

What's more, from your reply I can gleam that you're an analytic cockshott anglo kinda' guy, since your misinterpreting the usage of the word subjectivity. When I'm referring to subjectivity, in an idealist sense or not, I mean 'subjectivity' as a shorthand taken from the history of continental philosophy ranging from antiquity and beyond, to mean cogito or personal ontology; I'm not thinking of subjectivity as if it means the subjecting thereof. The imposition of any kind of systemic bias relates to the personal, this doesn't mean a wholesale negation of the existence of the personal, and there is an a priori 'personal', the foundational sense of interrelation to the world regardless of all else. Conversely, objectivPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>9618
(me)
*you're

>>9569
So you admit you've already read Linda Gottfriedson, yet simultaneously, originally, claimed not to know much about intelligence? lol

>>9574
>already
No, this thread was the first time I learned of her

>>9546
Ah! Die Kreativität der deutschen Sprache

>>9549
Since there was a misunderstanding of who posted what, my original question probably got branded as /pol/ trolling

however my question still remains:

how does dialectical materialism reject the concept that some people (not race) are more gifted than others in cognitive abilities?

>>9575
Linda Gottfriedson's writings aren't just about race

>>8151
Wtf, y Russia betray them?

>>8151
>"Whatever you do, don't make a coalition with the Social Democrats!" says Comintern
Infighting between leftist leading to millions of communist to be tortured and murdered.

>>8159
This. After Stalinization (if you'll pardon the term) it is well-known that the comintern went from a coordinating pole of internationalism to a cudgel of the USSR used against other CPs.

>>9281
Ah yes, it was for precisely this reason that the great comrade Stalin expressed approval for its dissolution

>>8522
but that's the point. if the strasserists were cultivated then it would have split the party and made Hitler's rise to power less likely.
>It's just meme politics
fair enough

>>9524
>the most intelligent people in society avoid professions that require very sophisticated mental labor altogether, and choose "boring" work
Interesting. Could you elaborate

>>9528
>Interesting. Could you elaborate
There isn't much to go on except for studies made that involved cognitive aptitude testing. The result: the people that scored unusually high (the top 5 percentile), had really mundane jobs like mailman or office clerk. None of them held positions like a high powered CEO nor did they have much of academic achievements. I wouldn't read to much into it, it's not very scientific, but it indicates that our societal institutions probably are hostile to intelligence and galaxy brained smarty pants avoid them.

>>9529
But didn't you just state that we can't measure intelligence?

>>9512
I'm in the same boat as you OP. I literally thought I was at the top of my class and doing well too, until I got back my final grades. Don't worry, we can learn from our mistakes.

This book is from an American college perspective, but I think even if you're not American the fundamentals should still be the same: "How to be a Straight A Student" by Cal Newport

Take some time to reflect on where you could've improved and make a strategy for next semester.

>>9518
It really comes down to this

>>9534
That book looks worth a read. Thanks and yeah I hope I can learn from my mistakes.

- Perhaps ask them elucidate their thoughts more clearly.
- Maybe use a syllogism to show their logic does not make sense.
- Or sumarize its flaws and incoherence in an adequately succinct way so that even the most braindead of morons can get it.

The End.

Wonder if anyone will actually make it all the way through.

>>6346
Very useful PDFs, thanks.naziNazi

Can this thread be merged into >>4337 please?
This thread has good resources and is already dying without any discussion. It would be a good addition to the thread above. Many thanks.

Thank you, I will have a look at them some time.

>>6346
>>6347
>>6348
>>6349
>>6350
>>6351
>>6352
>>6353
>>6354
>>6355
>>6356
>>6357
>Bengals fan
Lmao dropped

>>1237
You just wanted to make a topic about corona-chan didn't you, admit it.

>>1240
There is already a thread about that on /GET/ already and lets be honest. This is only but another example of what I am trying to tall about. Because during the internet age we have been making art of things like the ebola or now the corona virus. I wanted to have a discussion about why we personify these deadly dieases as we did throughout history.

>>1238
This might be the case, I wonder what makes us as humans feel more at ease being able to see the virus as a humanoid. I know from what happened in the mid 14th century with the black plague it drastically changed the world in those five years it lasted. Art changed showing the depiction of death, as a sort of comforting thing.

>>1242
Here's something for you; Apollo started out as such a personification

>>1237
It could be theoretically argued that the tendency to personify things extends outwards to all boundaries of human existence, as a sort of inevitable anthropocentrism which permeates all facets of our perception due to qualities which are inescapably ingrained in our consciousness: i.e. that a human recognizes their own humanity, as its species essence, is a rather unique feature, even though it might sound mundane. The symbolic realm arguably derives from this, and if said realm does indeed owe its origins to such a tendency, then it would make sense for it to always be 'textured' with the recurrence of specifically human imagery. Even animals, as we often depict them, are more or less projections of our own sense of mythos… representational metaphors–a fox, for example, is not 'just a fox', but is connotated as 'sneaky, mischievous, suave–an archetypal trickster', etc.
People will probably accuse me of coming off as overly Jungian, but I'm not really much of a subscriber to him, that is, outside of the base realization that there's probably some kind of innate anthropocentric lens which colors our figurative ideals of reality. So at any rate, I don't think the phenomenon spoken of here is so exclusive to death, although at the same time, I guess the 'coping theory' isn't mutually exclusive with what I'm saying either.

>>9470
*is so particular to death