Randoms of the day

HS: "NAM kills NAM, white racism blamed"

Sailer: "Thus, back in 2000, the NYT itself was “nativist.” It was expressing concern about “native-born workers”—exactly as if their welfare should be of more concern to Americans than the welfare of foreign lawbreakers!" Then something happened . . .

– A study finds that drinking makes you more conservative. The authors conclude, "these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases." Instead of "studying" this with data, they should have just gotten drunk with people. People get more conservative when they’re drunk because they stop pretending to believe bullshit (e.g. that everyone is equal).

On introverts (HT: Ferd)

Innovation is racist.


9 Responses to Randoms of the day

  1. Jacob says:

    The whole story on introverts annoyed me. Especially this quote:
    But nowadays many students sit in “pods” of desks with four or five students facing each other, and they work on countless group projects — even in subjects like math and creative writing.

    Kids who prefer to work by themselves don’t fit, and research by educational psychology professor Charles Meisgeier found that the majority of teachers believe the ideal student is an extrovert — even though introverts tend to get higher grades, according to psychologist Adrian Furnham.

    Isn’t this just schools forcing everyone to learn with methods that work best for the female brain?

    • Bill says:

      It’s more insidious than that, even. Group projects are often opportunities for teachers to engage in truly noxious propaganda. “Everyone has good ideas! Everyone has something to contribute! The best work comes from consensus!”

      The (tiny minority) of students who actually do have good ideas are put in the impossible position of trying, simultaneously, to get the group to adopt their good ideas while salving the wounds of the good-idea-free dimwits. This is a tightrope only the very most socially adept can walk. The coping strategies the less-than-ideally adept smarties adopt are not likely to be ideal.

      • josh says:

        Teachers are encouraged not to rely to much on “direct instruction” (the only kind of teaching that actually works), but to encourage a “student-centered learning environment” in order to “create life long learners”.

        Teachers go along with this because a) they are mostly women, and women love this kind of bullshit, b) they don’t particularly care and don’t want to rock the boat c) the kids are so entitled that they have no problem being extremely rude to a teacher who is just lecturing on the material and d) preparing lectures is hard work and you actually have to know what you are talking about.

      • Bill says:

        Josh, yes, I agree. Three of my children so far have been “taught” to read in public schools via the whole language method. In each case, they know how to read today because my wife and I (mostly my wife) taught them at home using phonics. Phonics is only one component of Direct Instruction, of course.

        Also, the two who have been “taught” multiplication have, thus far, never heard of the multiplication tables or been forced to memorize anything, at least by the public schools. Rather, we have had to teach them the multiplication tables. It is utterly maddening.

        And talking to their teachers is just depressing. I can’t come away hating them. Most of them just seem clueless. A few understand and do what they can, and, as you say, a few are just clock-punchers.

        Have you read the wikipedia entry for Direct Instruction? In the “Philosophical Critiques” section of that article is this sentence:

        Some critics of DI see it as . . . a “canned” or “teacher proof” curriculum deliverable via unskilled teachers

        This is a bug, not a feature?

    • lelnet says:

      “Isn’t this just schools forcing everyone to learn with methods that work best for the female brain?”

      Not really. They work pretty well for male extroverts too, and they suck pretty hard for female introverts.

  2. Bill says:

    People get more conservative when they’re drunk because they stop pretending to believe bullshit


  3. Matt says:

    *shrug* on the study. I have no idea what they mean by ‘conservative’ so I can’t judge if your interpretation is true. For all we know, they’re referring to attitudes on taxes and going to war with Muslim countries.

  4. M.G. says:

    Is innovation racist? A response.

  5. Lemniscate says:

    I think the conservative study fits in with the Homo Hypocritus idea promoted by Robin Hanson. Political correctness involves a web of leftist norms, and our higher cognitive functions make sure we don’t break these social norms in public and reap the consequences. Weaken these cognitive functions — perhaps also lowering inhibitions with alcohol — and it becomes harder to sustain the socially adaptive deceit.

    I know I’m more honest about my reactionary beliefs when I’m drunk, but I don’t actually become any more reactionary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: