Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Emphasis did need to move away from IQ to emotional intelligence. Back in the '60s, '70s, '80s IQ was a big deal since the average person's emotional intelligence was actually pretty good. They spent a lot of time with others, went through more life experiences at earlier ages, had more empathy, were more likely to grow up in multi-generational households, didn't spend all their free time surfing the 'net, watching movies alone and playing video games. They were more likely to work in a city with a diverse group of individuals (factories, workshops, typing pools etc.), took transit to work and walked the streets daily. The work wasn't mostly out in the suburbs. Yes there was more racism and willful ignorance towards diversity but it was systemic and institutional rather than things people actively chose and latched their identities to.

 

As time spent alone increased (or time spent in reinforcing feedback loops) and people began to mature much more slowly there needed to be increased effort put into emotional intelligence. In fact a lot of people who previously had stronger EI saw theirs start to go down. An individual's IQ barely changes other than the fact that IQ is on a sliding scale so it takes a higher IQ to match the same IQ number from 40 years ago. The good news is that in contrast to IQ, EI is something that an individual can work on and improve.

 

Is this germane to the Political Correctness discussion? You bet your sweet bippy. People with higher EI are more empathetic and don't throw fits when these society changes (that mostly don't affect them directly, even) demand that they re-examine social issues. There wouldn't be so much hand-wringing about this if peoples' EIs were higher.

 

I always get cautious when I see sweeping "X was better in the old days" assertions like: "Back in the '60s, '70s, '80s IQ was a big deal since the average person's emotional intelligence was actually pretty good."  Was it really?  I'll grant that people didn't spend all their time surfing the 'net before there was a 'net.  But the rest?  This sounds more like "video games stunt your social growth" fearmongering.

 

Did people actually have more empathy in the '60s, '70s, '80s?

 

Were they actually even more likely to grow up in multi-generational households?  The nuclear-family revolution I think was pretty well entrenched by then.

 

They probably did use transit more often, but are you actually asserting that taking transit to work increases emotional intelligence?

 

ETA: Also, if you think that people with higher EI are more empathetic and are more accepting of social changes, and that "surfing the 'net, watching movies alone and playing video games" stunts the development of EI, and that people were more empathetic in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, then it would stand to reason that the generation that wasn't even born yet then and grew up on screens that would be the least empathetic out there.  Is that actually the case?  Do Millennial and GenZ people, who came of age in the '90s, '00s, and '10s show less empathy than the Boomers and GenXers who came of age in the '60s, '70s, and '80s?

 

Here's a politically incorrect observation: increased exposure to other people does not always make you empathize with them more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Emphasis did need to move away from IQ to emotional intelligence. Back in the '60s, '70s, '80s IQ was a big deal since the average person's emotional intelligence was actually pretty good. They spent a lot of time with others, went through more life experiences at earlier ages, had more empathy, were more likely to grow up in multi-generational households, didn't spend all their free time surfing the 'net, watching movies alone and playing video games. They were more likely to work in a city with a diverse group of individuals (factories, workshops, typing pools etc.), took transit to work and walked the streets daily. The work wasn't mostly out in the suburbs. Yes there was more racism and willful ignorance towards diversity but it was systemic and institutional rather than things people actively chose and latched their identities to.

 

As time spent alone increased (or time spent in reinforcing feedback loops) and people began to mature much more slowly there needed to be increased effort put into emotional intelligence. In fact a lot of people who previously had stronger EI saw theirs start to go down. An individual's IQ barely changes other than the fact that IQ is on a sliding scale so it takes a higher IQ to match the same IQ number from 40 years ago. The good news is that in contrast to IQ, EI is something that an individual can work on and improve.

 

Is this germane to the Political Correctness discussion? You bet your sweet bippy. People with higher EI are more empathetic and don't throw fits when these society changes (that mostly don't affect them directly, even) demand that they re-examine social issues. There wouldn't be so much hand-wringing about this if peoples' EIs were higher.

ALL OF THIS!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Emphasis did need to move away from IQ to emotional intelligence. Back in the '60s, '70s, '80s IQ was a big deal since the average person's emotional intelligence was actually pretty good. They spent a lot of time with others, went through more life experiences at earlier ages, had more empathy, were more likely to grow up in multi-generational households, didn't spend all their free time surfing the 'net, watching movies alone and playing video games. They were more likely to work in a city with a diverse group of individuals (factories, workshops, typing pools etc.), took transit to work and walked the streets daily. The work wasn't mostly out in the suburbs. Yes there was more racism and willful ignorance towards diversity but it was systemic and institutional rather than things people actively chose and latched their identities to.

 

As time spent alone increased (or time spent in reinforcing feedback loops) and people began to mature much more slowly there needed to be increased effort put into emotional intelligence. In fact a lot of people who previously had stronger EI saw theirs start to go down. An individual's IQ barely changes other than the fact that IQ is on a sliding scale so it takes a higher IQ to match the same IQ number from 40 years ago. The good news is that in contrast to IQ, EI is something that an individual can work on and improve.

 

Is this germane to the Political Correctness discussion? You bet your sweet bippy. People with higher EI are more empathetic and don't throw fits when these society changes (that mostly don't affect them directly, even) demand that they re-examine social issues. There wouldn't be so much hand-wringing about this if peoples' EIs were higher.

 

Emotional intelligence is to some degree an oxymoron.   It's based on changes, as you say, changes that are externally driven.   So the definition itself changes.

 

In the past it was emotional control that was taught, especially to men.   It was considered an important part of the maturation process.

A strong case can be made that this was healthier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I always get cautious when I see sweeping "X was better in the old days" assertions like: "Back in the '60s, '70s, '80s IQ was a big deal since the average person's emotional intelligence was actually pretty good."  Was it really?  I'll grant that people didn't spend all their time surfing the 'net before there was a 'net.  But the rest?  This sounds more like "video games stunt your social growth" fearmongering.

 

Did people actually have more empathy in the '60s, '70s, '80s?

 

Were they actually even more likely to grow up in multi-generational households?  The nuclear-family revolution I think was pretty well entrenched by then.

 

They probably did use transit more often, but are you actually asserting that taking transit to work increases emotional intelligence?

 

Very good summary.

IMO the whole EQ thing is largely an effort to deemphasize facts in favor of feelings.    It cannot be stressed enough how dangerous this is.

 

To a degree it's also an inevitable and understandable pushback by the "soft skills" people as the hard skills ones try to deemphasize such.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of research that states that IQ is not a very good measure of overall intelligence either. It is only a tool and is a measure of more than just intelligence. It is a measure of what you've been exposed to. In a sense, your IQ may say more about your socioeconomic status than it does about anything else. I say this as a person that was tested in grade school to have a "high IQ." On its own it is meaningless.  It needs to be analyzed along with other information.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "facts not feelings" crowd want to look just at plain facts.  But you often have to delve into more than just facts to obtain a clear picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, freefourur said:

There is a lot of research that states that IQ is not a very good measure of overall intelligence either. It is only a tool and is a measure of more than just intelligence. It is a measure of what you've been exposed to. In a sense, your IQ may say more about your socioeconomic status than it does about anything else. I say this as a person that was tested in grade school to have a "high IQ." On its own it is meaningless.  It needs to be analyzed along with other information.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "facts not feelings" crowd want to look just at plain facts.  But you often have to delve into more than just facts to obtain a clear picture. 

 

Facts need to be the basis, though.  Facts are repeatable.   Facts are the same for everyone.  Facts establish a baseline. While the IQ test certainly has its drawbacks, it's a more or less objective measure of one's ability to process information and reach conclusions.

 

Thinking without a baseline is like travelling without a map, compass, or now a GPS.   You may find some neat stuff, but you're unlikely to reach anything resembling an objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, E Rocc said:

 

Facts need to be the basis, though.  Facts are repeatable.   Facts are the same for everyone.  Facts establish a baseline. While the IQ test certainly has its drawbacks, it's a more or less objective measure of one's ability to process information and reach conclusions.

 

Thinking without a baseline is like travelling without a map, compass, or now a GPS.   You may find some neat stuff, but you're unlikely to reach anything resembling an objective.

IQ does not measure what you think it measures though. it has severe limitations on all forms of intelligence and problem solving ability. Furthermore, relying on IQs alone to make blanket statements about groups of people can't be done properly without knowing the factors that affect IQ scores. It is not as cut and dry as you assume.

 

A road map is an accurate representation of something that exists. even when using maps or GPS one may need skills and processing ability that go beyond what is just written on paper or on your GPS device. If your mental ability is strictly being able to follow the GPS you will sometimes get lost due to missing data. But using skills outside of just map reading will help more fully understand your route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Facts need to be the basis, though.  Facts are repeatable.   Facts are the same for everyone.  Facts establish a baseline. While the IQ test certainly has its drawbacks, it's a more or less objective measure of one's ability to process information and reach conclusions.

 

Thinking without a baseline is like travelling without a map, compass, or now a GPS.   You may find some neat stuff, but you're unlikely to reach anything resembling an objective.

 

Yes, but an IQ test is not a test of one's knowledge of "facts."  They are not subject-matter tests.  IQ tests primarily test pattern recognition, one of the core competencies of the human brain.  Testing this allows them to be language-neutral, so, for example, someone who is functionally illiterate could actually have a high IQ.  As could a Ph.D. in victimization and grievance studies whose primary real-world skills include getting others fired via Twitter-mobbing and evading student loan collection efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I always get cautious when I see sweeping "X was better in the old days" assertions like: "Back in the '60s, '70s, '80s IQ was a big deal since the average person's emotional intelligence was actually pretty good."  Was it really?  I'll grant that people didn't spend all their time surfing the 'net before there was a 'net.  But the rest?  This sounds more like "video games stunt your social growth" fearmongering.

 

Did people actually have more empathy in the '60s, '70s, '80s?

 

Were they actually even more likely to grow up in multi-generational households?  The nuclear-family revolution I think was pretty well entrenched by then.

 

They probably did use transit more often, but are you actually asserting that taking transit to work increases emotional intelligence?

 

ETA: Also, if you think that people with higher EI are more empathetic and are more accepting of social changes, and that "surfing the 'net, watching movies alone and playing video games" stunts the development of EI, and that people were more empathetic in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, then it would stand to reason that the generation that wasn't even born yet then and grew up on screens that would be the least empathetic out there.  Is that actually the case?  Do Millennial and GenZ people, who came of age in the '90s, '00s, and '10s show less empathy than the Boomers and GenXers who came of age in the '60s, '70s, and '80s?

 

Here's a politically incorrect observation: increased exposure to other people does not always make you empathize with them more.

 

I'm not just picking on video games here -- any dramatic increase in solo activity be it sewing, woodworking, messing with cars, binge-watching, crafts, poring over sports statistics etc. can decrease EI.

 

The drop in empathy since the mid-late 20th century is definitely a thing:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868310377395

https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/empathy-narcissism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/06/11/empathy-is-decline-this-country-new-book-describes-what-we-can-do-bring-it-back/

Our suburban experiment wasn't nearly as fully baked back then. The built environment of Columbus barely reached outside 270 even into the mid-'80s. The Balt-Wash-Philly-NYC megalopolis had far more countryside. The big "ethnic" neighborhoods in most major cities contained a much larger portion of the population and saw more intergenerational households than places like Lewis Center and Mason. And more people lived in the rural areas, which had more intergenerational households.

 

An yes, taking transit to work is going to help your EI better than sitting in a car alone for hours a week and road raging. Spending time with people different from you rather it be age, ethnicity, income level, hobbies and interests does help EI even if it's a quiet trip.

 

EI can and does change for people of all generations. And even though the Millennials are portrayed by marketing people as far more inclusive, there's a teeming underbelly of poorly-socialized isolated ones (especially among the males) that drive this Proud Boy-type business.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, freefourur said:

There is a lot of research that states that IQ is not a very good measure of overall intelligence either. It is only a tool and is a measure of more than just intelligence. It is a measure of what you've been exposed to. In a sense, your IQ may say more about your socioeconomic status than it does about anything else. I say this as a person that was tested in grade school to have a "high IQ." On its own it is meaningless.  It needs to be analyzed along with other information.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "facts not feelings" crowd want to look just at plain facts.  But you often have to delve into more than just facts to obtain a clear picture. 

 

I was tested repeatedly in both childhood and my teenage years and always came back with a "high IQ". All the adults would harp on it all the time and told me all these things that it was sure to do for me. I've actually been quite disappointed with it as compared to how it was portrayed to me since all it has really seemed to do for me was keep me out of trouble. "Lack of downside risk" as they say but with not that much upside. Partially I feel that once I got to college that lackadaisical attitude towards EI made my 20s and early 30s go worse than they should have. I couldn't figure out why at the time. People with far lower IQs but better EI zoomed past me in both public and private life during that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

 

I was tested repeatedly in both childhood and my teenage years and always came back with a "high IQ". All the adults would harp on it all the time and told me all these things that it was sure to do for me. I've actually been quite disappointed with it as compared to how it was portrayed to me since all it has really seemed to do for me was keep me out of trouble. "Lack of downside risk" as they say but with not that much upside. Partially I feel that once I got to college that lackadaisical attitude towards EI made my 20s and early 30s go worse than they should have. I couldn't figure out why at the time. People with far lower IQs but better EI zoomed past me in both public and private life during that time.

If IQ was an accurate measure of ability, you'd expect everyone with a high IQ to be successful and those with lower IQs to be failures. But that's actually not true at all. I remember seeing a study of people in high IQ societies and they run the gamut of occupations and relative success in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

And even though the Millennials are portrayed by marketing people as far more inclusive, there's a teeming underbelly of poorly-socialized isolated ones (especially among the males) that drive this Proud Boy-type business.

 

The Millennial generation, in my experience seem to be pretty well traveled as a whole. Nothing humbles you more that being totally out of you comfort zone, immersed in a foreign culture. That may be be their saving grace in the regard of EI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that is true for many, especially urban-dwelling ones, people aren't noticing what's going on with the mom's-basement-dwelling-ones since they aren't as visible and social. And there are a lot of them in the subdivisions and small towns. I just want people to be aware of them since that's from who much of this online vomit is coming from. They missed the Millennial train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a point but it's hard to gauge just how big that subset is. I guess we will find out in the not so distant future as the ruling generation becomes Millennial.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I've got a suspicion that you might not see most of them taking on legitimate positions in public life -- that's going to be left to the stereotypical, world-wise, properly-socialized Millennials -- but you might see them barking on Fox News later in life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, viscomi said:

The Millennial generation, in my experience seem to be pretty well traveled as a whole. Nothing humbles you more that being totally out of you comfort zone, immersed in a foreign culture. 

 

The politically correct crowd got to go on Semester at Sea.  The politically incorrect crowd worked on oil rigs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

^I've got a suspicion that you might not see most of them taking on legitimate positions in public life -- that's going to be left to the stereotypical, world-wise, properly-socialized Millennials -- but you might see them barking on Fox News later in life

 

Millenials are going to be the next great generation - just wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The politically correct crowd got to go on Semester at Sea.  The politically incorrect crowd worked on oil rigs.  

The politically correct crowd loves to crow about their fancy degrees in the social sciences from Random U and complain about the debt they went in to get many of those meaningless fancy degrees in the social sciences. But hey, they may not have money that the oil rig workers have, but golly be, they know Keats and Byron so they are therefore better somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But hey, they may not have money that the oil rig workers have

 

A lot of these people have parents (or grandparents) who pay for everything. 

 

The Semester At Sea guy I knew took a 16mm bolex movie camera with him, shot about 20 minutes of footage in 6 months, and kept reusing that footage to eek his way through film school without shooting anything new because when he was home he didn't have any ideas.  I just looked him up and...sure enough he now claims he's a "Brooklyn-based" artist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

A lot of these people have parents (or grandparents) who pay for everything. 

 

The Semester At Sea guy I knew took a 16mm bolex movie camera with him, shot about 20 minutes of footage in 6 months, and kept reusing that footage to eek his way through film school without shooting anything new because when he was home he didn't have any ideas.  I just looked him up and...sure enough he now claims he's a "Brooklyn-based" artist.  

I had a friend who did the semester at sea. Did not have many photos, pretty much described it as a giant orgy on a boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The politically correct crowd loves to crow about their fancy degrees in the social sciences from Random U and complain about the debt they went in to get many of those meaningless fancy degrees in the social sciences. But hey, they may not have money that the oil rig workers have, but golly be, they know Keats and Byron so they are therefore better somehow.

 

When you actually want to sell something though, (the most important thing a company does) you're going to beg for a Humanities major since they can sell things with stories. Then, depending on the organization, they become some of the highest-paid people at the company. Beaker can't or won't do it.

 

An over-emphasis on technical details for entry-level positions allows the salesmen at think tanks to get what they want out of those without sales technique knowledge and get them super worked up about resisting politeness and the right thing to do -- leading to culture war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The politically correct crowd loves to crow about their fancy degrees in the social sciences from Random U and complain about the debt they went in to get many of those meaningless fancy degrees in the social sciences. But hey, they may not have money that the oil rig workers have, but golly be, they know Keats and Byron so they are therefore better somehow.

This is such a canard.  I'm surprised you guys never get bored with this. Most statistics show that over time liberal arts degrees have the same prospects as stem degrees.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Humanities people can have a rough time financially until 35-40 but their later job opportunities don't have the pay ceiling that kicks in around the same age for the STEMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I had a friend who did the semester at sea. Did not have many photos, pretty much described it as a giant orgy on a boat. 

 

You reminded me of another aspect of the academic world - a lot of these guys who become stars in an academic field in their 30s or 40s get swarmed by the coeds when they give talks at conferences.  A small but rabid percentage of young women are absolutely obsessed with writers, artists, etc. Now, with Twitter, ordinary guys without any success in academia craft their online activity to attract women from that pool.  I'm sure that some percentage of the dudes down at the recent BLM protests were down there just for an excuse to talk to some girl they've had their eye on, and vice-verse.  

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Now, with Twitter, ordinary guys without any success in academia craft their online activity to attract women from that pool.

    

 

I know a guy that fits this to a T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't replacing the Christopher Columbus statue with Chef Boy-Ar-Dee only incite anger among chefs and Italians, who see the Boy-Ar-Dee products as an insult to Italian cuisine?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2020/07/idea-of-replacing-little-italys-christopher-columbus-statue-with-chef-boyardee-is-a-calculated-insult.html


There's nothing wrong with optimism, as long as you don't get your hopes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Wouldn't replacing the Christopher Columbus statue with Chef Boy-Ar-Dee only incite anger among chefs and Italians, who see the Boy-Ar-Dee products as an insult to Italian cuisine?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2020/07/idea-of-replacing-little-italys-christopher-columbus-statue-with-chef-boyardee-is-a-calculated-insult.html

 

I think he's being sarcastic, though Poe's Law applies.   So may the idea that small groups are allowed to decide things are "offensive" when they were never meant that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Wouldn't replacing the Christopher Columbus statue with Chef Boy-Ar-Dee only incite anger among chefs and Italians, who see the Boy-Ar-Dee products as an insult to Italian cuisine?

 

https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2020/07/idea-of-replacing-little-italys-christopher-columbus-statue-with-chef-boyardee-is-a-calculated-insult.html

Hector Bioirdi is a real person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...