5 ms·

> Do they? Where are you getting that from? It's either a tautology or follows logically take your pick, a system is a set of things working together as parts

> Do they? Where are you getting that from? It's either a tautology or follows logically take your pick, a system is a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. System integrity is the state of a system where it is performing its intended functions without being degraded or impaired by changes or disruptions in its internal or external environments. Systems that do not protect their integrity cease to exist or they change in unpredictable ways and become uncontrollable. > it was neither designed nor implemented as a way to 'protect the power structure'. It is designed by someone to figure out if someone else is worthy in a certain way. That in itself alludes to some sort of power structure. Also the conspiracy theory libel is a logical fallacy.

macspoofing 7y ago
>It's either a tautology or follows logically take your pick ... Systems that do not protect their integrity cease to exist or they change in unpredictable ways and become uncontrollable. OK, let's go with a tautology, in which case it is a meaningless red herring to your argument of power hierarchies. If every system protects its integrity (even those not based on these mythical power hierarchies), then it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to your argument. Truthfully however 'the System' you're referring to is ill defined. It could mean anything. >It is designed by someone to figure out if someone else is worthy in a certain way No. It was designed to identify children who are struggling in school. That was the original goal. That is not the same thing as 'figuring out if someone else is worthy', though I'm sure you can contort the language to fit this. It has since been used in a wide variety of contexts, all of which are varied and differ in the target of study and purpose of study. >That in itself alludes to some sort of power structure. No. It doesn't. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. >Also the conspiracy theory libel is a logical fallacy. You're demonstrating the same kind of - if all you have a is a hammer, everything is a nail - type of thinking. You've alluded to the fact that everything can be distilled down to some power hierarchy. That's a tell-tale sign you've come down the ideological rabbit hole. Here are other ideological cognitive crunches: - Libertarians see everything as a struggle between collectivism and individualism. - Communists see everything as a struggle between bourgeoisie and the proletariat. - Feminists see everything as a struggle against patriarchy. - Conspiracy theorists see everything as a struggle against the Illuminati (or some shadowy cabal) The world is complicated. Ideology helps to make sense of it by introducing useful abstractions ... but only to a point. As much as ideology helps, it can also be a crutch.
- devoply 7y ago
  Well the issue with our times are things become obfuscated to such an extent through various forms of rhetoric and public relations that you can not think about them in any way without it being easy for the power structure to dismiss them as conspiracy theories. In fact it's impossible to even identify the power structure in any liberal democracy because it's manifold and partially fluid, but that does not mean it does not exist. In human societies and in liberal democracies there are always power structures, those structures are not necessarily power structures of a certain ideology or a group because as you said ideologies are abstractions... and individual belief is always synthetic and syncretic ... however that does not mean that power structures don't exist. Where IQ is often used as a tool to identify "gifted" students, it's rhetorically written off as a tool to help those in need. > You've alluded to the fact that everything can be distilled down to some power hierarchy. That's a tell-tale sign you've come down the ideological rabbit hole. No I have not, you are guilty of the exact same sort of thinking you are accusing me of instead you are preferring the status quo narrative which is that it's all milk and honey which it is not. In the end we have systems that people use to govern and perhaps they have some tolerance and fluidity but that does not mean that as an abstraction they do not exist as a certain set of ideas that are carried by a set of individuals who seek to protect those ideas and the power structures that go with those ideas... because their power depends on the preservation of those ideas and those systems. IQ is a part of that equation in that you only let intelligent people in your country and then you school them to determine who useful they are you to your system and you only allow those who are intelligent enough and predictable enough to have power in your system. Thereby you protect your power and your ensure the integrity of your system.
- yawboakye 7y ago
  > No. It was designed to identify children who are struggling in school. That was the original goal. I think trying to debunk the current utility of IQ by invoking its original goal is almost a sleight of hand. Unfortunately it didn't stick to its original goal. IQ tests have been administered to people of all ages for all sorts of reasons. How much has it deviated from its original goal? And more importantly, how do we restore it?
  - 7y ago
papln 7y ago
You aren't logically wrong, but you are invoking the Strong Anthropic Principle very heavily, which is a rather poor rhetorical basis akin to to using Efficient Market Hypothesis to prove that it's impossible to find a $20 bill on the sidewalk.

macspoofing 7y ago

>It's either a tautology or follows logically take your pick ... Systems that do not protect their integrity cease to exist or they change in unpredictable ways and become uncontrollable. OK, let's go with a tautology, in which case it is a meaningless red herring to your argument of power hierarchies. If every system protects its integrity (even those not based on these mythical power hierarchies), then it doesn't really introduce anything interesting to your argument. Truthfully however 'the System' you're referring to is ill defined. It could mean anything. >It is designed by someone to figure out if someone else is worthy in a certain way No. It was designed to identify children who are struggling in school. That was the original goal. That is not the same thing as 'figuring out if someone else is worthy', though I'm sure you can contort the language to fit this. It has since been used in a wide variety of contexts, all of which are varied and differ in the target of study and purpose of study. >That in itself alludes to some sort of power structure. No. It doesn't. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. >Also the conspiracy theory libel is a logical fallacy. You're demonstrating the same kind of - if all you have a is a hammer, everything is a nail - type of thinking. You've alluded to the fact that everything can be distilled down to some power hierarchy. That's a tell-tale sign you've come down the ideological rabbit hole. Here are other ideological cognitive crunches: - Libertarians see everything as a struggle between collectivism and individualism. - Communists see everything as a struggle between bourgeoisie and the proletariat. - Feminists see everything as a struggle against patriarchy. - Conspiracy theorists see everything as a struggle against the Illuminati (or some shadowy cabal) The world is complicated. Ideology helps to make sense of it by introducing useful abstractions ... but only to a point. As much as ideology helps, it can also be a crutch.

devoply 7y ago
Well the issue with our times are things become obfuscated to such an extent through various forms of rhetoric and public relations that you can not think about them in any way without it being easy for the power structure to dismiss them as conspiracy theories. In fact it's impossible to even identify the power structure in any liberal democracy because it's manifold and partially fluid, but that does not mean it does not exist. In human societies and in liberal democracies there are always power structures, those structures are not necessarily power structures of a certain ideology or a group because as you said ideologies are abstractions... and individual belief is always synthetic and syncretic ... however that does not mean that power structures don't exist. Where IQ is often used as a tool to identify "gifted" students, it's rhetorically written off as a tool to help those in need. > You've alluded to the fact that everything can be distilled down to some power hierarchy. That's a tell-tale sign you've come down the ideological rabbit hole. No I have not, you are guilty of the exact same sort of thinking you are accusing me of instead you are preferring the status quo narrative which is that it's all milk and honey which it is not. In the end we have systems that people use to govern and perhaps they have some tolerance and fluidity but that does not mean that as an abstraction they do not exist as a certain set of ideas that are carried by a set of individuals who seek to protect those ideas and the power structures that go with those ideas... because their power depends on the preservation of those ideas and those systems. IQ is a part of that equation in that you only let intelligent people in your country and then you school them to determine who useful they are you to your system and you only allow those who are intelligent enough and predictable enough to have power in your system. Thereby you protect your power and your ensure the integrity of your system.
yawboakye 7y ago
> No. It was designed to identify children who are struggling in school. That was the original goal. I think trying to debunk the current utility of IQ by invoking its original goal is almost a sleight of hand. Unfortunately it didn't stick to its original goal. IQ tests have been administered to people of all ages for all sorts of reasons. How much has it deviated from its original goal? And more importantly, how do we restore it?
- 7y ago

papln 7y ago

You aren't logically wrong, but you are invoking the Strong Anthropic Principle very heavily, which is a rather poor rhetorical basis akin to to using Efficient Market Hypothesis to prove that it's impossible to find a $20 bill on the sidewalk.