A wild muddle
Very good article. I think it is a good way of looking at social activists as conservatives. They are conserving their idealized youth and moral purity, without a true religion to usher them along this path.
The more philosophy I have read, the more I have come to like David Hume. Him and Kant are in the same proximal zone of philosophers that give you a good way of looking at the world, for me.
This is a good argument towards the usefulness of virtue ethics. Living the happy life versus the admirable life is a good distinction.
This is incisive and I don't know what the reply back it is.
This is the third time Stephen Messenger has published something that made me rethink a lot of things. There may be other times, but I don't always look at the author. This is good shit.
This is a good intro article to twin studies.
IQ is significantly influenced by genetics, and that heritability increases with age—the correlation at age five is 0.22, at age seven it rises to 0.40, at age 10 to 0.54, and from 18 years of age into adulthood the heritability of intelligence approaches 0.80. In an article published in 2013, Bouchard called this phenomenon the Wilson-effect.
This is some damn good writing. I suspect not many people I know would come away from this with goose bumps. It does that for me.
This is a very well laid out article. Our morals are shifting, and it is hard for people. Assuming people are less moral than you makes you feel good.
I need to explore the idea of the foundations of morality. This is an interesting foundation. Social interaction being required and how people intuitively respond to certain interactions.
There’s a morality that emerges out of the necessity of social interaction.
This is a good conversation, combining Peterson with the (correct, I think) interpretation of postmodernism from Stephen Hicks. This might be a bit tough to get through as a primer on these topics, but I am going to read Dr. Hicks book after being exposed to how well he summarizes all of this.
Strongly written. It ends with pointing out the argument for affirmative action proving too much. The proves too much fallacy is my favorite.
Excellent writing. Call out racism and the perpetrators. Don't call out a whole demographic of people. It will backfire. Slurs upset people.
Very well written with lots of information I did not know. Makes a very compelling read.
Article is good but isn't asking the right question in my opinion. The discussion attached to it addresses the article and the questions it raises while also asking if it is asking the right question to begin with. Worth reading everything, even if it takes a while.
I usually don't like these kinds of articles, but this is well done.
Very interesting analysis.
I need to spend more time on hermeneutics.
As soon as I started reading this, I was thinking of Kant. Then he starts referencing Kant. And then he starts referencing Scruton referencing Kant, in a book that I think is an amazing summary of Kant and that makes it approachable. And I love it.
Good summary of the problem at hand in regards to the problem facing the majority of masculine people, woman and man included.
It is good to see the progressive academics wanting to open up the libel laws so Donald Trump can really go after the news media. Trump and the progressives are in the same mindset on this issue, and it is good to see them getting along so well.
I am learning to focus on questions. Questions influence what information we accept. That is the main point of this article along with the idea that people are focusing on one question to the exclusion of others, especially in research.
The new terms won't stick, but this answers my question on how these topics that are being referred to as postmodern don't actually fit that umbrella. There is no umbrella term for them, so postmodern was used.
I am fine with being more specific in my language so that all camps know what I am talking about.
I need to understand the metaphysics of postmodernism better, since the epistemology fairly evidently leads nowhere by design. I think the metaphysics lead to nihilism, which seems to be about right.
This seems anecdotally true to me. It also seems personally true. Very interesting.
Sometimes you have to shoot yourself in the foot to know that you don't make mistakes. This, of course, leads to you shooting your other foot and calling it science.
This is spot on as far as I can tell.
If only Aeon had comments and other ways to dissent so I could see if I am missing something of actual substance in this debate.
This leaking outside the university scares me. I don't believe I can pass this kind of a test. It also means the university is completely shut to me as a concept.
Beautiful summary and problem statement.
Definitely seems accurate to me based on my personal experiences.
Interesting. I might need to read this.
The ending is brutal and accurate. So accurate.
Damn, cryptocurrency needs to stay on proof of work.
Damn, cryptocurrency needs to get away from proof of work.
This is an interesting way of looking at the way people view the world. I am always interested in the questions people are asking, since it will change the answers they accept and how they interpret information.
This shows that the question being asked by many seeks answers that make no sense for people in a different context. The most interesting idea here to me (beyond the 3 cultures) is that colleges create this by having an administration that rewards victimhood.
Brutal and seemingly true.
Something is rotten, and people don't know what it is. They aren't wrong but they aren't right.
Yikes. These conclusions are rough. My views are not impacted by this information, but I am not a Marxist of any kind.
I finally decided to get A Righteous Mind. I need to start down this path, because I am having more and more trouble understanding anyone with politics. I suspect my brain doesn't work in one of these two camps. I can read philosophers on either side of this and understand them while at the same time not getting the motivations of politics today.