Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Kelhus, what you just posted is garbage anti-semitism that has very little to do with anything that Nietzsche actually wrote. (I understand that you were not purporting to endorse what was posted.)
Disregarding the rest, I have seen it posted enough that I assume it is true that Nietzsche did predict Jews would be assimilated into western liberal elite culture (or whatever term he used), and if it wasn't for the creation of Israel I think this is more or less what would have happened, and what has more or less happened outside of Israel.
One problem I have always had with the whole "Jews control the world" narrative, is that it presupposes liberal Jews are distinct from the rest of liberal society, which I just dont see any indication of this being the case. Take away the issue of Israel, and liberal Jews as a group seem to be generally indistinguishable in manner and beliefs from the rest of liberal elite western society to the point if they all disappeared I dont think anything would change at all.
This is a good article for anyone who is interested in the complex question of Nietzsche's relationship to antisemitism.
I am not a Nietzsche scholar. My lay opinion is that he wasn't particularly focused on predicting the future about anything.
Can confirm lots of this going on. Not so much discussion of Nietzsche's criticism of anti-semitism. -Here is a sample post of the type of discussions going on. Like I said, there is actually an entire "right wing" X niche dedicated to the discussion of Nietzsche, and the Roman Empire comes up a lot (which is why I started this tangent based on the Roman Empire talk).
Americans ( at least a large vocal slice of them) have been obsessed with the Roman Empire since the NeoCons proclaimed the USA the heir to it. LOL
That's really all it is.
I am not a Nietzsche scholar. My lay opinion is that he wasn't particularly focused on predicting the future about anything.
Right. As I wrote, he spent the last productive period of his life agonising over what he thought was the inevitable collapse of Western civilisation in a post-Christian world.
We were talking about creating a shitposter containment thread, which gradually morphed into a discussion of ancient Greece, then differences between male and female brains, now Nietzsche and antisemitism, and if you leave it a few more hours no doubt a discussion of how much he influenced Hitler and the Nazi movement.
So, Godwin's law in action.
And you have to be careful not to read his sister versions of his books/writings which are actually nazi
The Will to Power is a collection of a various notes that his sister compiled after his death. Everything else was published before his breakdown. She had nothing to do with the majority of his work.
As I like to say in team meetings, "look, now is not the time to point fingers or apportion blame, but YOU [pointing finger at colleague] are a massive ****ing problem".
You're not going to find a single study on that, because it is a diverse topic that exists in the crossover between biochemistry, molecular biology and neuroscience.
If you are interested in the topic you can start here, which describes the work of the Shah Labaratory of Nirao Shah, a professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and of Neurobiology at Stanford University. There is a a tab there for articles, which range from easy to grasp to very technical. There is also a tab for press articles, which should be very easy reads.
Shah represents somewhat of a break with what used the be the reigning view on sex differences in the brain, in that he has come to the conclusion that there are more such differences than previously held. So it should be a good starting point for those who live in fear of being led astray by virtue signalers and other cultural horrors.
That said, not much of this work has been carried over to explain complex human behaviors, because... well... it is complex. It can be fairly easy to explain why someone would run from a bear, but it is a lot more difficult to explain why some people like model trains.
You're not going to find a single study on that, because it is a diverse topic that exists in the crossover between biochemistry, molecular biology and neuroscience. If you are interested in the topic you can start here, which describes the work of the Shah Labaratory of Nirao Shah, a professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and of Neurobiology at Stanford University. Th
That comment was satire. I deleted it because it was too snarky, but I guess you were already responding.
That comment was satire. I deleted it because it was too snarky, but I guess you were already responding.
It was well deserved snark, so no worries.
That said, not much of this work has been carried over to explain complex human behaviors, because... well... it is complex. It can be fairly easy to explain why someone would run from a bear, but it is a lot more difficult to explain why some people like model trains.
I agree that it's not easy to zero in on which brain functions predict specific behaviors, but given that there is increasingly clear evidence that significant differences do exist between the brains of the sexes, it logically follows that those differences will affect behaviors, even if those behaviors are somewhat dependent on the cultures in question. Differences between the sexes can and often do vary from culture to culture, but differences, nonetheless, still emerge, and there has to be a reason that that occurs that precedes culture itself.
I agree that it's not easy to zero in on which brain functions predict specific behaviors, but given that there is increasingly clear evidence that significant differences do exist between the brains of the two sexes, it logically follows that those differences will affect behaviors, even if those behaviors are somewhat dependent on the cultures in question. Differences between
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the above comment says the same thing twice, just worded differently. Anyway, when it comes to this issue, I've never seen the argument that wiring is a result of behavioral differences, though I do think there's some back and forth there since I believe in free will.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the above comment says the same thing twice, just worded differently. Anyway, when it comes to this issue, I've never seen the argument that wiring is a result of behavioral differences, though I do think there's some back and forth there since I believe in free will.
I phrased my point rather inartfully, thereby failing to highlight the circularity. I'm saying that the conversation I see ITT is along these lines (paraphrasing, obviously):
Q: Why do men show more interest in the Romans more than women do?
A: Wiring.
Q: How do we know it's wiring?
A: Because the wiring is different and they're more interested in the Romans. What else would it be?
Q: Ok, but are we sure that men show more interest in the Romans than women do?
A: Yes, they're wired to, we've shown that already.
The causality is not bidirectional (behaviour causing wiring and wiring causing behaviour) but the reasoning is. It's more subtle than the toy exchange above, obviously. We "establish" that men show more interest in the Romans due to wiring, then we use wiring to explain differences in behaviour that has parallels with showing more interest in the Romans.
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
it's not circular because we observe TH SAME differences in behavior in wildly different cultures and across time which is how we know for a certainty it's not about time or culture
it's not circular because we observe TH SAME differences in behavior in wildly different cultures and across time which is how we know for a certainty it's not about time or culture
It's circular because we're assuming that A (a specific "male" behaviour) is caused by B ("male" wiring) then we're using B to explain A and C and D (other specific "male" behaviours), but our only evidence for B causing A is (some) correlation.
I'm actually playing devil's advocate here, I'm on the "wiring" side of the argument. I'm just calling out what I see as a logical fallacy.
it's not circular because we observe TH SAME differences in behavior in wildly different cultures and across time which is how we know for a certainty it's not about time or culture
The cultures are so far from independent.
It's circular because we're assuming that A (a specific "male" behaviour) is caused by B ("male" wiring) then we're using B to explain A and C and D (other specific "male" behaviours), but our only evidence for B causing A is (some) correlation. I'm actually playing devil's advocate here, I'm on the "wiring" side of the argument. I'm just calling out what I see as a logical fal
it's not "some correlation", it's the same happening everywhere you measure it
