/edu/ - Education

>>9539
Go become a reactionary, you're already well on your way.

>>9540
This is /edu/ not /leftypol/ you wrecker. Save your stupid one-liners for that place

>>9539
Von Neumann was a bona fide genius, I agree.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are people who are born with higher cognitive aptitudes, and also lower. I have no resesrch to back this up, but my experience has proven it enough for me.

Environmental factors are also important, and data does back it up too. There are a myriad of factors, from nutrition, to politics, to housing, to socializing, to parents, sports etc.

Hereditary genuis might be possible, I don't think its out of this world. But its obviously not the end all, be all.

It is also worth mentioning that intelligence or cognitive aptitude is not necessarily conducive to success under capitalism, in fact, the opposite might be true. Data, as well as my personal experience is suggestive of this.

There are also other "aptitudes", such as "entrepeneurialness" or "entrepreneur spirit". Dumb fucks with a shit ton of that frequently have successs.

Idk, my nuclear family isn't book smart. My grandfather was an engineer and so am I. His family on the mother side were all technicians in places were knowing how to mount a saddle was seen as more useful.

My grandmother was very artsy and my brother is very artsy. I am not artsy at all.

My father is kind of schizoid, and narcissistic. He died when we were very young. My other brother is schizoid and narcissistic.

There's definitely something there.

Hyperfocusing on intelligence as virtue is sus though.

Einstein referred to Von Neumann as just a think-animal iirc

His secret was having a very good memory. People today like to downplay the importance of memory because memorizing poems in school left them traumatized.

>>9543
What is a think animal?

>>9545
Denktier

>>9541
stop shitting it up with your dime a dozen reactionary whims, then

>>9547
Care to explain what was reactionary about OP in the first place? I feel like your the kind of people who likes to throw around those kind of words without any actual proof

>>9548
*you're
Besides, if you can't see what's reactionary about the idea of hereditarianism, then you don't know anything about the stakes of dialectical materialism to begin with. Dialectical materialism consists in the rejection of fixed naturalizations, among other ramifications and implications.
Go read Linda Gottfriedson, you'd be more at home with such analytic reifications. It's ironic that the OP detests Galton, yet supports the exact same notions which give rise to eugenics in the first place.

>>9549
>Dialectical Materialism
Nonsense that Stalin wrote to set up a new orthodoxy for the comintern to follow.
>Go read Linda Gottfriedson, you'd be more at home with such analytic reifications
Bla bla nobody cares. Tell me to read this author that is taboo in your canon is laughable
>It's ironic that the OP detests Galton, yet supports the exact same notions which give rise to eugenics in the first place
If you can prove that we are all born with the same mental capacities, then be my guest.

>>9550
Funny how quickly you go mask off when someone actually presses you /pol/

If dialectical materialism is nonsense, what are you doing on a marxist board lmfao

then you have this: "If you can prove that we are all born with the same mental capacities, then be my guest." which is the standard stormfront strawman response to anyone who, in a basic sense, contests the premise of hereditarianism lmao.

Also the point of the Linda Gottfriedson comments isn't that she's 'tabboo', it's that her line of thinking is yours. What is 'my canon', by the way? Marxism? K, so again, transparently speaking, you're here to spew standard hereditarian /pol/ shit. 'Bla bla bla' as the response to the 'ever-so-wordy-and-cmplex' statement that one of your own is one of your own, JFL.

>>9551
Incidentally further, what are your thoughts on race and iq, as well as the g factor, seeing as we're here?

>>9552
Also also, stalin isn't the one who came up with dialectical materialism JFL

>>9551
This is not a Marxist board.

>>9554
Leftypol is for leftists hailing from a marxist or anarchist tradition; outside of anarchism and marxism, there is very little 'leftism' in the radical sense of the term. Lastly, you didn't dispute any of the aforementioned labels, which indicates you are just some /pol/fag looking to stir up the same tired bait. You originally pressed me to explain how the premise was reactionary, then when I did, instead of acknowledging that it was reactionary, you pivoted into contending the specificities, which indicates all you've been wanting to do since the beginning is bait a 'debate' surrounding your hereditarian conviction. Problem is, you clearly aren't interested in being convinced, or in even opening in good faith/honest terms.

>>9539
It's nature and nurture, intelligence might have some hereditary factors, but a lot of it is life circumstances.

>>9549
>>9551
>then you have this: "If you can prove that we are all born with the same mental capacities, then be my guest." which is the standard stormfront strawman response to anyone who, in a basic sense, contests the premise of hereditarianism lmao.

Lets set the context:
Assume I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything besides the first few pages of the communist manifesto
I have no idea what dialectic is

I have this following question:
What is bad about having the belief that some people are gifted with more mental capacities than others?

>>9560
Ignoring everything else written, so I'll reciprocate your 'effort' and repeat: go read Linda Gottfredson and feel right at home. Nothing taboo about it, it's your exact line of enquiries answered.

>>9565
>go read Linda Gottfredson
I did, but my questions were not answered, because I never asked about the relation between race and intelligence

So again I'll say:
1- my original question has not been answered
2- What's with the smug and holier than thou attitude?

>>9555

Hi, I'm the poster of:
>>9548
>>9560
>>9568

However, I am not a poster of this:
>>9554

( continuation from the upper post)

I also did not post this:
>>9550

Poster of: >>9569

>>9549
>>hereditarianism
>an advocate of the theory that individual differences in human beings can be accounted for primarily on the basis of genetics.
Ok I get the definition now

>>Dialectical materialism consists in the rejection of fixed naturalizations, among other ramifications and implications.
How does dialectical materialism reject it specifically? what proof or logic does it have that refutes hereditarianism?

I know I might be attacking a strawman, but I'm not exactly an expert in arguing

Are you saying that everyone is equal in terms of cognitive power, and that differences in IQ are only the result of enviromental factors?

I'm not sure the idea of 'hereditary' is an implication of the "nature more than nurture" argument OP proposes.
I admittedly have no formal biological/psychological background, but I believe from my experience in-group variation and environmental factors far dominate the hereditary factors of (for lack of a better word) intelligence.

>>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