Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

Everyone is genetically different to some extent. Biologists are interested in genetic variation. Racial phenotypic features such as different skin and eye colour account for very little genetic variation. Put in simple terms, Mr blonde-haired blue-eyed Klaus from Germany may be more genetically similar to Mr dark-skinned, brown-eyed Alfua living in Tanzania then another blonde-haired blue-eyed European person. People find this hard to accept because skin colour etc. is such a salient feature but really race is literally only skin deep.
Well if you take that argument to its extreme, you would invalidate all discussion of human variability. For example, if you know someone has sickle cell anaemia, there is a high probability that he has some black ancestors, or is himself black. There clearly are differences in the races, but equally clearly we are one species - we can interbreed without problems.

One problem with arguing from genes, is that humans and chimps famously share 98% of their DNA (however that is exactly defined). I think the "Third Way" people would argue that some genetic information may not be stored in the DNA (epigenetics being at least a hint in that direction, even though the tags fall off at some point).

I am not sure if you were making a partly political statement, but similar statements might figure in a political discussion about race. I am wary of mixing science and politics. The genetic make-up of a human being obviously has nothing to do with what rights/responsibilities he should be given - so genetics considerations should not be relevant to politics.

David
 
False.

Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.
The problem with that, is that if you take people from any racial group, their IQ's will range over a wide range, from mentally subnormal to genius level. Therefore if you were selecting someone for a job or a university place, or anything else, you would get far more information by actually measuring their IQ than by looking at their race!

David
 
Wow - this reminds me of the many discussions I had about 50 years ago at university when I decided to abandon Christianity. I don't mean this as a criticism of you, Jim, but to me those are weasel words.

In a strange way, Christian fundamentalists are more pure. They believe a set of things as being really true, while other people who call themselves "Christian", believe some muddle of ideas which is a vague compromise between modern science and Christianity. Such people tend to believe science far too much, because they want to hold on to some supposedly firm truths.

The real truth (at least as I see it) is that religions have built complicated myths and dogma around phenomena such as NDE's, while science has become extraordinarily authoritarian and inflexible in so many areas, and simply wants to brush phenomena such as NDE's to one side and make their own myths about 11-dimensional. reality, dark matter, etc.

David

But David, while I take your point that Christian Fundamentalists are "more pure" in one context they are nothing of the sort in another. A fundamentalist goes to the foundation of a system of thought. Christianity is arguably rooted in the Egyptian tradition if you accept the claims of Kuhn and others. At the very least it goes into a deeper 'pagan' esoteric and mystical tradition.

In this regard these 'fundamentalists' are merely ankle-deep - going only to Biblical sources, and not to the sources of the Bible content.

I want to restore the dignity of radical fundamentalism - as opposed to dogmatic extremism. A proper radical fundamentalist goes to the very roots and source of understanding. In a way this is what Michael Tsarion seeks to do. The extent to which he succeeds is something we can explore. I have read one of his books, and I am somewhat familiar with the sources he relies upon. I have issues, but I am sufficiently intrigued to read more.

I think the problem with both religion and science is that humans have a natural tendency to seek concrete knowledge that has immediate utility at a physical and psychical level - so the kind of uncertainty that is fundamental to a more mystical way of knowing is anathema most of the time. That's why mystics are tolerated but not usually honoured, unless they have been safely tortured and killed first.

I see religion as essentially an existential response to being in reality - from an animistic perspective (as the native human response) and handled in a communal sense, rather than as individuals. That response was/is entirely functional - hence the woo and the physical 'science' bits went together from the outset. The religion/science separation is a Christian invention - or maybe an anti-Christian one. The elements of religion we tend to think of as problematic are essentially practical magic.

With the advent of what we call civilisation we have larger more complex cultures and communities. Religion then fused theology and magic with astrology and mathematics, engineering and other 'sciences'. Of course more complex communities and ongoing innovation led to political involvement in what we call religion. Dogma and distortion were an assured consequence.

We need to remember that Christianity and Islam both started out as counteractions against established beliefs and traditions. Christianity was , essentially, a revolutionary movement against dogma and orthodoxy. In a way Jesus was a fundamentalist - trying to take spirituality back to a pure source. The essential teachings of Jesus are Egyptian in origin.
 
At around 19:30, Tsarion seems to be saying that "oligarchy" etymologically "pertains to the Druids". As far as I'm aware, however, oligos derives from the ancient Greek word meaning few. Hence an oligarchy is rule by the few, an oligopeptide is a peptide chain with only a few peptides (as opposed to a polypeptide where there are many), and so on. So is he saying that oligos derives from a Druid word before the ancient Greeks?

You have to read Gerald Massey to properly get Tsarion's POV here. Its obscure and the extent to which his ideas are accepted is problematic. Is he right? Given Massey is largely ignored there is no way of knowing. The fact that he is ignored tells us nothing, other than that he had ideas that discomforted conventional thought. He may have been deeply and radically insightful or thinking and writing complete bollocks. Personally I have no idea. I read enough of Massey to decide I didn't have the required interest or commitment to go further. Tsarion evidently did. All I can say is that I personally do not have confidence that Massey can be trusted - not because I think he is wrong, but because I do not know enough to have confidence he is right.
 
Races vary in important characteristics such as I.Q., propensity for violence, time preference, and criminality.

I know this sounds like a contradiction, but, in my opinion, these generalisations display a reductionist view worthy of Dennet or Dawkins. Why? Because they strip out contributing factors like income, nutrition, education, culture, pollution, mental-illness, history. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Unless I've misunderstood your point, of course.

In the spirit of your post, could you tell me why Christians are less intelligent than the rest of us?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750898
 
Laying race down as a marker of intelligence is reductionist. Taking a biological interpretation of the evidence is reductionist.

Studies also show that a belief in God correlates to a lower IQ, this is invalid for the same reasons as biological race as an IQ marker. But, imo, religion and biological race as markers of intelligence stand or fall together, you can't separate the two results. If you accept race as a marker of intelligence, you have to accept belief in God as one too.

EDIT: I'm not qualified to judge, but I don't assume the research to be good, either.
 
I know this sounds like a contradiction, but, in my opinion, these generalisations display a reductionist view worthy of Dennet or Dawkins. Why? Because they strip out contributing factors like income, nutrition, education, culture, pollution, mental-illness, history. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Unless I've misunderstood your point, of course.

In the spirit of your post, could you tell me why Christians are less intelligent than the rest of us?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750898

I think those attributes of race haven't been substantiated by contemporary research. In terms of why or whether Christians are "less intelligent" than others I'd like to offer the thought that this is also not substantiated by contemporary research.

As a long time deep observer of Christianity I see no evidence that acceptance of, or belief in, Christianity is a function of intelligence. Ditto materialism or atheism. People adopt and adapt belief systems to meet their personal needs, and they do so in a very pragmatic way. Intelligence has little to do with it. Mostly it is what we might call a psycho-spiritual factor.

I have encountered deeply intelligent people whose interpretation of Christianity is very mystical and something I can appreciate. And yet they feel no need to abandon the faith tradition, with its adherence to the very dogma they know is rubbish. I know people with an intellectual disability whose conception of their faith is deeply moving and, to me, utterly incomprehensible.

Beliefs and faiths meet real personal needs. And unless we are absolutely sure of our own position it is better to be generous in our assessments. What we need to understand is that the apparent 'rational' content of a belief is often symbolic. What can seem to be stupid can also be very wise - because the symbolism is what gives power.

For example my step father is a devotee of the AOG. I personally find his faith's values and attitudes repellant, and we have strained conversations when he brings up any religious subject (which is always). But he is personally committed to an 'imitation of Christ' in a way that can put him at odds with his own faith community. I admire that in him. I think he talks bollocks when he recites dogma and quotes the Bible at me. But I cannot fault his dedication to genuine spiritual fulfilment. Its just a pity he is sailing with what I think is a huge sea-anchor. But maybe thats's just my hubris braying like an idiot.

It is my understanding that 'race' confers no essential attributes of psyche. A book entitled The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man is a useful guide here, as is Broomfield's Other Ways of Knowing. I would be remiss if I did not include Peter McAllister's Manthropology.

In fact the notion that IQ tests are a useful guide to anything other than doing IQ tests was dispelled ages ago. That's disappointing to me, because I was always quite good at them.
 
But David, while I take your point that Christian Fundamentalists are "more pure" in one context they are nothing of the sort in another. A fundamentalist goes to the foundation of a system of thought. Christianity is arguably rooted in the Egyptian tradition if you accept the claims of Kuhn and others. At the very least it goes into a deeper 'pagan' esoteric and mystical tradition.
Maybe that misses my point a bit. Fundamentalist Christians know what they believe very clearly, whereas mild Christians (I was brought up in the Church of England) really don't. This came to a sort of crisis for me when I went to university because I was cornered (in a friendly sort of way) by a group of Christians who felt the need to insist that God could only forgive sins because Jesus had sacrificed himself on the cross - and put that bluntly it makes absolutely no sense at all. After a number of such discussions, and other considerations regarding the clash between my science studies and Christianity, plus the obvious fact that Christianity is only one of many religions, I left.

I am still non-religious, although my views have changed massively, in that I think phenomena such as NDE's give good evidence of a hidden realm to which we return after death. However, I don't believe that in a dogmatic, religious way (where believing is considered a virtue).

I think my real beef, is that the mild forms of Christianity and Islam never cut their ties completely from the harder versions, giving the hard version a chance to flourish again at a later date - as recent history has demonstrated in the case of Islam.

Skeptiko and related discussions replace religious adherence for me!

David
 
Laying race down as a marker of intelligence is reductionist. Taking a biological interpretation of the evidence is reductionist.

Studies also show that a belief in God correlates to a lower IQ, this is invalid for the same reasons as biological race as an IQ marker. But, imo, religion and biological race as markers of intelligence stand or fall together, you can't separate the two results. If you accept race as a marker of intelligence, you have to accept belief in God as one too.

EDIT: I'm not qualified to judge, but I don't assume the research to be good, either.

I'd love to know more about these studies. My reflex is to be suspect that they are ill-designed. But I take the point that they make as much sense as using race as a basis for assessing IQ.

Can I say, politely, that this idea is very old and, to my knowledge, has not been substantiated by any credible research. It is based on culturally based assumptions that do not meet contemporary standards for valid knowledge.

Also IQ is no longer accepted as the absolute indicator it once was. While IQ tests still measure something that is useful to know, they do not provide the level of certainty they once did. We now have the idea of EQ, which can be a way of rooting out the psychopaths who do well on IQ tests, but who are catastrophic in organisations.

I would argue that in terms of a head/heart balance, heart attributes are way better indicators of a decent human being. i think we way overrate head factors because this is a legacy of Victorian triumphalism and industrialism. The heart/empathic/intuitive attributes are what have enabled humans to survive and flourish this long. The invention of the intellect, in place of the soul, signalled the downward rush that brings us to where we are today - brought to crisis by intellect.

The people we think are not as smart as us didn't get us into the mess we are in. We are in this mess because of supposed intelligence, a disregard for moral responsibility and an inability to comprehend that we are part of a complex system - all the things that the 'stupid' and morally inadequate races managed to either 'get' or do no worse than we are doing.

Broomfield's Other Ways of Knowing is a gentle and wise corrective to this misperception.
 
@Mike Patterson

I agree completely with everything you said.

@Everyone

Also, I'm not always the most articulate fellow, so, just to clarify, I don't think Christians are dim.... I get a lot out of Christian mysticism, in fact.
 
Back
Top