They lay the ground work of all disciplines. And if philosophers were to criticise the ground work, or the "roots", of IQ (statistical psychology) that would be one thing. However just as a physicists opinion on black holes carries more weight than the opinion of a philosopher, the same goes for IQ.

>So you would generalize it: No type of (at least all PAST versions of) governance has ever "functioned properly"?

I would counter, of course they've functioned properly. States don't exist for the purpose of maximally benefitting their citizens. They exist to consolidate and manage power over a given area, it's resources, and it's people. Some states are more democratic, others less so, but in all cases, the "point" isn't long-term benefits or even necessarily anything for the common people at all. The decisions that matter within complex societies are largely made autonomously by the workings of policy and institutions, and when not sorted that way, they are made by a small number of people with disproportionate ability to exercise power, whether because they hold elected office or due to corruption, autarky, etc. I like Schmachtenberger's term "hyperactors" as a catch-all name for these people.

From the perspective of states, they have done their job just fine. It's just that no state that exists today has ever been formed legitimately intended to benefit it's citizens as much as possible in the long run accounting for externalities as much as possible. Some may insist otherwise in their national mythos, but I would hope no reasonable person takes that seriously.

The national interest supersedes the global and the human interest, by default. That's the ultimate puzzle here- the short-term favors making actions to benefit ones own group that have negative consequences for every group over a longer stretch of time. It's a collective marshmallow test, more or less.

To fix this, we need new structures, based on entirely different modes of social contract and understandings of power relations- something perhaps closer to how certain pre-Columbian societies worked may be a good place for inspiration. I don't know if we will succeed, but that doesn't really change the terms of the discussion, I think.

That doesn't mean that democracy isn't functioning properly, it means that people's haven't cared about climate change

Democratic countries may have established the systemic conditions for climate change, but is that because they were democratic? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with their geographic and economic circumstances.

If your standard for a properly functioning government is one that solves the most urgent problems in a society, then it's probably safe to say that there has never been a properly functioning government. Only varieties of better or worse.

Which other system would be capable of addressing the issue of climate change? Good question. Almost certainly one that has never existed before. It would be one that facilitates (or forces) coordinated action on a global scale, because carbon emissions are essentially a global collective action problem.

Next to practice effects and the Flynn effect it’s a fairly stable measure. Most people won’t go from a 130 to 80 if the test is reliable.

Edit: essentially, it’s the best thing we have, while knowing it’s far from perfect.

Agree with your first point. Not sure if I understand the rest correctly but if you're saying IQ is somehow stable over time, that's neither true for society as a whole nor for individuals.

[China's cumulative responsibility per capita is still rather small; only a recent "catching up" with the most destructive countries (who set the stage, and thus forced everyone to copy their wrong ways). E.g. pause this video here in 1999: https://youtube.com/watch?v=o-LQ8SJh0q4&t=3m15s and remember their population is X times bigger. All this is only a side issue though, the main fraction of additional CO2 in Earth's atmosphere now ... originated from "democratic" countries.]

Hmmm ... if all types of governance that have been tried are "not functioning properly" (as they failed to solve our most urgent problems) - then that includes democracy too - right?

> rooted in ...

Yes of course. But which other system than (whatever flavour of) POLITICS ... would be responsible to CHANGE THAT, in face of the apocalyptic prospects of business as usual?

So you would generalize it: No type of (at least all PAST versions of) governance has ever "functioned properly"?

It's bizarre (but telling) that so many philosophers are claiming non-philosophical questions as the answer to the query.

A lot of this seems to be around political philosophy as well, which while conveniently dramatic and clickbaity really needs us to resolve more fundamental problems of philosophy and ethics to advance on.

Still, with technology spreading information far and wide while lowering dramatically the barrier for entry into philosophical discussions, it's going to be a fascinating next few years for the discipline, both as it exists professionally and organically.

Psychology also knows it’s not a complete measure, and we don’t assume it is. It’s one operationalization of a very complex construct.

We do reject it as a complete measure of intelligence and see it as a measure to assess academic potential. It’s intelligence in our western school system yes, and it seems to be stable over time.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> I'm not trying to get $$$

Why not? What kind of an implementation are you aiming at that wouldn't benefit from $$$?

> I believe in collaboration instead.

They are not mutually exclusive....like not at all. In fact, the opposite is more often true (consider the website we are having this conversation on right now, which runs on money).

> Look at the open source movement. They produce far superior code to that of all the big corporations with budgets in the billions. Yes, some corporations hire teams of independent minded open source creators and exploit them IMO because they control the real gold: eyeballs and data.

True....but if one wants to reach a goal, which is (probabilistically) faster: hoping for talent, or buying talent?

> I want to work without being tied to $$. I want to find the first collaborators and roll on from there.

Money tends to tie/corrupt people, but it is not a necessity.

> :heart: > $

Exactly. But that does not render the value/power of money to be zero. Both variables could be extremely large numbers, with heart being a much bigger large number.

As a though experiment, imagine two scenarios:

a) You and me (as is) vs the world ("the powers that be")

b) You and me (with unrestricted access to $45B in capital) vs the world ("the powers that be")

If it was me, I'd choose option (b).

That will happen naturally as people who grew up breathing lead from leaded gasoline die https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA

I think it’s relevant. If you study psychology at university you might be taught what intelligence is and then think about how to measure it (a perfectly sensible question to ask).

If you study philosophy at university you’re much more likely to think about questions like “what is intelligence?”.

Along those lines, the philosopher doesn’t necessarily challenge whether or not an IQ test is a valid measure of what we commonly understand intelligence to be. They question whether the thing it measures is really a complete definition of intelligence (and they have a point IMO).

Maybe because Philosophy searches for the metaphysical presuppositions that stand at the roots of every discipline?

Whereas most psychologists don't. Not entirely sure why what philosophers think in that regard is relevant.

I am skeptical that action/inaction on climate change has much to do with mode of governance. For example, China has also contributed significantly to climate change with a completely different governing system. Russia and Saudi Arabia too.

Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.

[removed]

Democracy has never "functioned properly" for at least 50 years, as it hasn't solved its most urgent task - of preventing climate change. (E.g. 10 US presidents failed to act appropriately since being fully informed already 1965.)

Quite the opposite - the ecological catastrophe has been created and accelerated especially by the most "democratic" countries.

The death toll that the 20th century version of that non functioning political system is going to cause in the 21st and 22nd century... will beat all lethal ideologies of that horrible past century combined.

Thank goodness for Kastrup.

I'm getting a paywall.

[removed]

[deleted]