Nice quotes from Skinner.They go against my shallow impression of what he is known for (behaviourism,I think is what "sums up" his reputation)
The elite
- Thread starter birch
- Start date
Well reported - by whom? In what countries? According to what standard?
What constitutes 'marital conflict' in the first place? That sounds like a clash of two opposing forces, but in general domestic violence is more accurately characterized as a big bully beating on a small victim.
If you mean wife-beating was made illegal by many modern states, that's true; more recently, child-beating, too.
It's not coincidental; it's a result of women's growing economic power, brought about by technological advancement.
They'd never have been given the vote, or a seat in legislatures, without they already had control of sufficient wealth. Even so, they've had a long, hard struggle to get as much respect as they have - and don't kid yourself that this is equity or equality: at best, it's an uneasy tolerance, which is chafing a lot of men, who will reverse it any chance they get - and in some countries, have done so.
Who says they imagine any such thing? They've always tried to exert influence, but irrational backlash always tears down their best efforts.
A quick reply..A farcical misunderstanding.I wrote"marital", intending to write "martial".
On such misunderstandings,in these days of the Potus without a clue might hang the future of our civilization
EDIT: on review,I see the misunderstanding was mainly yours
I did write"martial",although it is an unusual way to use the world to mean"warlike"
"martial conflict" ="wars"(in my lexicography)
Last edited:
Quite right. I was rushed, on my way to lunch, and misread. Sorry.EDIT: on review,I see the misunderstanding was mainly yours
I did write"martial",although it is an unusual way to use the world to mean"warlike"
"martial conflict" ="wars"(in my lexicography)
All right. Fewer wars? But big ones, with lots of participants, spread over wide geography, and both military and civilian casualties, thanks to effective modern weaponry.
Fewer revolutions and civil wars than before the industrial one? I have trouble believing that.
How is the comparison measured? And by whom?
Even if it's true, to what extent is the improvement due to intellectual influence and how much to money?
Perhaps I overstated. It is well reported in the sense that I have heard it said often (and that it may have been stated as if it was uncontestable) but it is not necessarily true -I am not qualified to say.
Here is an alternative (counter) take in the Guardian newspaper
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
It was apparently Steven Pinker who brought up the idea,and presumably the statistics -in 2011
http://bookshop.theguardian.com/better-angels-of-our-nature.html
EDIT:the book was also reviewed in Scientific American at the time
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...gels-of-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined/
Last edited:
Ah, Pinker! Of course; I should have known that was the report that keeps going around and around.
That dear, superannuated innocent is a good example of the influence of intellectuals: wishful thinking; pass it on.
I love him to bits, but am more inclined to believe Chomsky.
'The developed world ' is itself a peculiar idea-construct. There is no boundary around the rich, industrial nations that sets them apart from another world of
uncontrolled primitive peoples. We have nicer clothes and nicer manners and nicer table-settings than the undeveloped world because it's more cost-effective
to buy a few dozen dictators than to conquer a few dozen countries. This way, if the natives don't like servicing our gluttony, they rise up against their own
rulers, not us - and we can sell guns to both the government and the rebels, maybe direct the outcome, then make a new deal with the winner.
What could be more peaceful?
That dear, superannuated innocent is a good example of the influence of intellectuals: wishful thinking; pass it on.
I love him to bits, but am more inclined to believe Chomsky.
'The developed world ' is itself a peculiar idea-construct. There is no boundary around the rich, industrial nations that sets them apart from another world of
uncontrolled primitive peoples. We have nicer clothes and nicer manners and nicer table-settings than the undeveloped world because it's more cost-effective
to buy a few dozen dictators than to conquer a few dozen countries. This way, if the natives don't like servicing our gluttony, they rise up against their own
rulers, not us - and we can sell guns to both the government and the rebels, maybe direct the outcome, then make a new deal with the winner.
What could be more peaceful?