|
ikanreed posted:G is not the "genetic" factor of intelligence. It's the "general" factor of intelligence. It's supposed to describe the extent to which skills in one kind of task will transfer to a completely unrelated task. Ohhhh! Well, I must not have too much of it then. But the genetic component was what he was after. Neon Noodle posted:The ironic thing is that, folks like ARC don't view their beliefs as political in any way. They don't like it when art is "political." They want art to be about pretty maidens and heroic poses. They don't see that this, in itself, is a political viewpoint about the role of art in society and the acceptable political/social content of art. Wow. No wonder they have to go to special schools.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:The ARC really, REALLY wants people to know that Bouguereau was like the greatest painter ever to live. To ARC, the fact that Bouguerau was forgotten in favor of FRAUDS like PICASSO is a shameful conspiracy by people who want to destroy art itself. of course he doesn't know Picasso could photorealise like hell and did so before going off to be Picasso because that would involve knowing a loving thing Neon Noodle posted:The ironic thing is that, folks like ARC don't view their beliefs as political in any way. They don't like it when art is "political." They want art to be about pretty maidens and heroic poses. They don't see that this, in itself, is a political viewpoint about the role of art in society and the acceptable political/social content of art. I and half of Britain would delight right now in an ARC-style painting of Theresa May running through a vvheat field (with a double v), if one can be churned out in a week or so. Neon Noodle posted:Hitler was an artist. His vision was an aesthetic vision. Reaction (and neoreaction) IS AN AESTHETIC PHILOSOPHY. In my opinion, it's an aesthetic philosophy MORE than it is a political philosophy. sthetic philosophy and the other times this philosophy has reared its head. This is 100% what neoreaction is: an aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:I don't think Fred Ross is a Nazi, or even any sort of political reactionary. But I think he's painfully naive if he can't see the connection between his aesthetic philosophy and the other times this philosophy has reared its head. I'm not really comfortable with morally condemning people based on their aesthetic tastes, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'm not really comfortable with morally condemning people based on their aesthetic tastes, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
putrid aidsman posted:Well, Boris is listed as an ARC Living Master™. I am Dying™. It's not even that the good ideas are "ancient," since the ARC prefers the academic art of the 19th century to about ALL of art history. Like, how does Ancient Greek pottery or sculpture (which was often highly stylized) fit into their aesthetic? How about Hieronymous Bosch? Japanese prints??? DJHRDIEBTJROSHEHRKFFJSUWHFHDJ YOUR ART THEORY DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'm not really comfortable with morally condemning people based on their aesthetic tastes, to be honest. Unless it's anime, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'm not really comfortable with morally condemning people based on their aesthetic tastes, to be honest. There's a p. wide gulf between "I don't like this" and "This is bad and is leading to the downfall of civilization unless we do something." Like I'm not fond of Impressionism, but I haven't started a crusade against it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'm not really comfortable with morally condemning people based on their aesthetic tastes, to be honest. The central question of personal ethics is "what ought I to do?" In this case, the answer is "develop better taste in art." Inasmuch as they fail to do so, they deserve to be judged for their unethical behavior. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I'm not really comfortable with morally condemning people based on their aesthetic tastes, to be honest. And here we start getting into the age-old aestheticism versus instrumentalism debate. The argument of whether or not art should assume some sort of responsibility for its subject matter and the emotions it attempts to provoke towards said subject matter is not an especially resolved one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:And here we start getting into the age-old aestheticism versus instrumentalism debate. That's fascinating. I can intuitively see the consequentialist argument here, where you're morally responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. To be topical, if your art is a striking performance of Julius Caesar and someone sees it, is struck by it, and assassinates the president, a consequentialist would say that you bear some moral (though probably not legal) responsibility for that. But I doubt many consequentialist would argue the production staff of Taxi Driver bears any responsibility for John Hinckley Jr shooting Reagan, crazy obsessives falling outside the bounds of "reasonably foreseeable". The other side of it isn't intuitively obvious to me, though. What moral frameworks or arguments wouldn't assign moral culpability for the results of creating art?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Peel posted:(I remember meeting someone on the Internet a long time ago who held that the only criterion of artistic quality was photorealism. Bizarrely, or maybe not bizarrely, this was on a science fiction forum.) Was it Eric S. Raymond? Because that sounds like something he'd believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Don't forget that it's an article of faith among the right wing that the Soviet Union specifically funded and promoted "degenerate" art, philosophy, literature, academics, etc. to bring about the downfall of the United States. Like, this is a thing that proto-Alt Right people like Eric S. Raymond actually bring up any time the subject come up. "Oh, ___ wasn't a real thing that happened naturally due to societal forces, it was all a KGB plot to undermine democracy."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Recently I've heard from some tankies that conceptual/modern/whatever art was a CIA plot to undermine the working class and left-wing academia. Maybe they cooperated?eschaton posted:Was it Eric S. Raymond? Because that sounds like something he'd believe. Unfortunately not, unless he was posting under some rando pseudonym. I think they were right-wing but that's a convenient enough detail I don't really trust it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I guess you could construct a perversely consistent philosophy: 1. (visual) art is better the more realistic it looks, 2. nothing is more realistic than a photograph, 3. photographs have obsoleted all art other than fantasy illustration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Peel posted:I guess you could construct a perversely consistent philosophy: 1. (visual) art is better the more realistic it looks, 2. nothing is more realistic than a photograph, 3. photographs have obsoleted all art other than fantasy illustration. photoshop dragons into your photos for maximum realism and this maximum good
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Ohhhh I initially read that as "fashion illustration."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Peel posted:Recently I've heard from some tankies that conceptual/modern/whatever art was a CIA plot to undermine the working class and left-wing academia. Maybe they cooperated? That's one of those things that isn't totally false but is a couple degrees of separation from verifiable truth - the CIA is known to have funded groups that promoted certain kinds of art for propaganda reasons, but claims that the CIA directly created that art or that the people who created it were CIA assets are on much shakier ground. EDIT: Slime posted:photoshop dragons into your photos for maximum realism and this maximum good I think I've cracked it! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Also, according to Lyndon Larouche, the Beatles were a psyop by the Queen for global mind control. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Don't forget that it's an article of faith among the right wing that the Soviet Union specifically funded and promoted "degenerate" art, philosophy, literature, academics, etc. to bring about the downfall of the United States. Meanwhile it was actually the fuckin cia
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:Also, according to Lyndon Larouche, the Beatles were a psyop by the Queen for global mind control. This reminds me of one of my favorite conspiracy theories that this thread introduced me to: divabot posted:It's only tangentially DE (though I put in the /pol/ cultural Marxism conspiracy theory chart), but I wrote a piece on how Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School wrote all the Beatles' songs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Meanwhile it was actually the fuckin cia I suppose if the CIA did it, the KGB would try it too, and vice versa, whether it worked or not (eg, parapsychology). Though trying to undermine a culture through the spread of "degenerate" ideas seems rather un-Marxist (and in any case, the CIA funding of abstract art was meant as an attack on Socialist Realism and to associate democracy and capitalism with creativity, not to undermine Russian masculinity or anything like that.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Meanwhile it was actually the fuckin cia Both countries did stupid garbage like this and it was totally ineffective Anil Dasharez0ne posted:This reminds me of one of my favorite conspiracy theories that this thread introduced me to: You'd think Reactionaries would have at least some respect for (((Adorno))) given his penchant for calling jazz musicians cucks Theodor Adorno posted:The aim of jazz is the mechanical reproduction of a regressive moment, a castration symbolism. ‘Give up your masculinity, let yourself be castrated,’ the eunuchlike sound of the jazz band both mocks and proclaims, ‘and you will be rewarded, accepted into a fraternity which shares the mystery of impotence with you, a mystery revealed at the moment of the initiation rite. I guess he just has a (((certain quality about him))) that makes reactionaries not like him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Both countries did stupid garbage like this and it was totally ineffective I like to pretend that poo poo worked because it's funny as hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
That arc thing reminds me of the Exhibition of the Degenerate and the art Museum Hitler opened. There's a guy interviewed that said he went to both when he was young and found the "dignified" art to be almost pornographic. Those arc painting look like a lot of naked ladies too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Anil Dasharez0ne posted:That's one of those things that isn't totally false but is a couple degrees of separation from verifiable truth - the CIA is known to have funded groups that promoted certain kinds of art for propaganda reasons, but claims that the CIA directly created that art or that the people who created it were CIA assets are on much shakier ground. Ok that's cool, on reflection it's not really outlandish given they also researched psychic powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:That's fascinating. I can intuitively see the consequentialist argument here, where you're morally responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. To be topical, if your art is a striking performance of Julius Caesar and someone sees it, is struck by it, and assassinates the president, a consequentialist would say that you bear some moral (though probably not legal) responsibility for that. But I doubt many consequentialist would argue the production staff of Taxi Driver bears any responsibility for John Hinckley Jr shooting Reagan, crazy obsessives falling outside the bounds of "reasonably foreseeable". Aestheticism has had some powerful defenders - consider the foreword to The Picture of Dorian Grey for one of the most famous arguments in its favour. Essentially, the idea is that art's chief purpose is to beautify, not to instruct - it exists for its own sake, as something that elevates the human spirit, rather than as something with a mechanical purpose. 'Instrumentalist' is a very telling name - for them, art is an instrument in the vast mechanism of society, rather than something separate and spiritual. Another key argument for aestheticism is a profound sense of moral relativism, and in particular a suspicion and disdain for your own culture's moral standards (so you can see why folks like Wilde can be drawn to it). If you reject the morality of your society - for instance, because it denies you the moral right to exist - then morality can become far less of a concern in your art than technical excellence. Political stances may come and go, as per this reasoning, but we can all admire something that clearly took an assload of effort and talent to make. Art, in this regard, is a unifier. An aestheticist might point out the Easter Island statues - yes, the effort of making them basically destroyed the islanders' civilisation and the long-term habitability of the island, but goddamn, look at that stonework.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:An aestheticist might point out the Easter Island statues - yes, the effort of making them basically destroyed the islanders' civilisation and the long-term habitability of the island, but goddamn, look at that stonework. Yeah not so much
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Aestheticism has had some powerful defenders - consider the foreword to The Picture of Dorian Grey for one of the most famous arguments in its favour. Essentially, the idea is that art's chief purpose is to beautify, not to instruct - it exists for its own sake, as something that elevates the human spirit, rather than as something with a mechanical purpose. 'Instrumentalist' is a very telling name - for them, art is an instrument in the vast mechanism of society, rather than something separate and spiritual. Wilde was a deathbed convert to Catholicism (  ), as was fellow decadent Aubrey Beardsley. You can take the Irishman out of the extravagant homoerotic sadomasochism of the Church of Rome...etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:IIRC Eliezer was much less interested in which "races" were dumber, and more interested in evidence of g (that is, as i understand it, that intelligence has a genetic factor) and evidence that it's probably determined by many genes and not under that much selection pressure. This would mean that once we identify those genes and have good prenatal gene therapy, suddenly everyone with the money will be able to make their kid the next Von Neumann. And this will be a big societal change, so we should prepare for it by...joining polyamorous statistics cults? Not that I'm very knowledgeable about any of this but wouldn't the whole "the world's population has been getting smarter in general" and "smart people tend to have less kids" apply a pretty darn strong negative selective pressure against intelligence, assuming it were as genetic as he wants it to be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Don't forget that it's an article of faith among the right wing that the Soviet Union specifically funded and promoted "degenerate" art, philosophy, literature, academics, etc. to bring about the downfall of the United States. Wait didn't we literally do that in Germany specifically to show how great an awesome capitalism can make art or whatever and rub it in their faces? e: maybe I should read the posts that came below yours before immediately mashing post with my hot takes 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Don't forget that it's an article of faith among the right wing that the Soviet Union specifically funded and promoted "degenerate" art, philosophy, literature, academics, etc. to bring about the downfall of the United States. The Soviet Union was really big on realism and very much down on abstract art. Modern reactos and them would have gottn on swimmingly once they looked past their respective political propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:Wilde was a deathbed convert to Catholicism ( IIRC, weren't most deathbed conversions just so you could get a decent funeral?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
Munin posted:The Soviet Union was really big on realism and very much down on abstract art. Modern reactos and them would have gottn on swimmingly once they looked past their respective political propaganda. There was also a fair bit of communist propaganda about how the US / capitalism didn't give the slightest gently caress about the arts, since it didn't generate money. Which is true but US tried to say counter it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:IIRC Eliezer was much less interested in which "races" were dumber, and more interested in evidence of g (that is, as i understand it, that intelligence has a genetic factor) and evidence that it's probably determined by many genes and not under that much selection pressure. This would mean that once we identify those genes and have good prenatal gene therapy, suddenly everyone with the money will be able to make their kid the next Von Neumann. And this will be a big societal change, so we should prepare for it by...joining polyamorous statistics cults? that's not what psychometric g is, but you're right on the matter that that's what dumb rationalists think it is, or use it as in their common parlance. which is even more hilarious when they go on about the "genetic backing" of iq or g like rationalists do, and particularly scott does, and cite behaviour genetics and loving heritability studies, adoption studies etc. behaviour genetics is not even a subfield of genetics; it's a subfield of psychology, which should tell you exactly how much they can tell you about the molecular genetic underpinnings of any behavioural trait (i.e. nothing they're still several levels above scott, though, who's just a dumb psychiatrist, but i think we've gotten plenty into dumb scott is. moron doesn't even understand what heritability is, and what import it actually has (for relevant mental traits, near zilch i.e. iq) when it comes to what scott cares about, which is providing an empirical basis for his hereditist ideology. i could go on for hours on how dumb hereditism is, how meaningless heritability is, and the dumber side of it, like as you mention, the wishful thinking that heritability of iq is made up of many genes of additive effect (lol when you go so far as to talking about about selection effect) and that you can genetically engineer people with 200 iqs. though the fact that yudkowsky buys it is proof enough of its stupidity. and lmao especially at the whole ashkenazi intelligence thing, "natural history of ashkenazi intelligence" (thank greg cochran for that). though you're wrong in mentioning that it isn't controversial; it is, in that that there's no loving evidence whatsoever for a eugenic selection of higher iq amongst askhenazi, whole thing was pulled out of greg cochran's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
IQ is something pwople only care about if they have nothing going on in their lives
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:and lmao especially at the whole ashkenazi intelligence thing, "natural history of ashkenazi intelligence" (thank greg cochran for that). though you're wrong in mentioning that it isn't controversial; it is, in that that there's no loving evidence whatsoever for a eugenic selection of higher iq amongst askhenazi, whole thing was pulled out of greg cochran's rear end. Sorry, I was unclear: I meant that, I don't see that it'd be controversial if it was true. I've long since assumed the science was crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:IQ is something people only care about if they have nothing going on in their lives
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:It's a number you can wave around when your dick's too small. Well if you put all your points into INT you don't have enough points to put into DIC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:
I thought it was generally assumed that the reason ashkenazi jews do well on IQ tests is that as a liturgical tradition with a strong emphasis on argumentation and the written word there is a push towards scholarship. It seems very weird to me that someone would cite Cochran's garbage when that extremely obvious and likely explanation is just...right there. What I'm saying is that Scott's consistent bias towards genetic explanations and fixation on IQ is, at this point, obviously rooted in racism. No matter how loudly he denies it. Hate Fibration has a new favorite as of 22:48 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:40
|
|
