I hope so, my friend. Personally, I have been extremely disappointed in Helen Joyce. Everything I have read by her takes the typical victim line, blaming men for oppressing women through trans. But I hope to be wrong. Maybe she's changed her tune recently; I haven't listened to the podcast yet.
Ya I know, I saw her on Benjamin Boyce when her book Trans came out, and she was explicitly saying "Don't blame the teachers"
But all of this is finally coming to a head, the tide has turned against social construction. A lot of stuff is related in various interesting ways, all the noise in artificial intelligence recently for example. ChatGPT is an LLM, a large language model, so that is an attempt to construct mind out of pure language. It has not worked because it can not work because there is inborn internal structure in the human mind.
So the questions are related philosophically, by which I mean fundamentally, because both are flavors of empiricism, philosophical empiricism, which claims that all knowledge is acquired through the senses. It's really the question of whether an information system, whether it be a brain or a computer, can learn in that way - and it simply can not. There must be internal structure.
I mean this has been the fundamental error of the 20th century. At the end of WWII there was real cryptographical analysis being done on computers, it was all very hush hush, only the cool kids - and the cool kids were blowing smoke up the butts of every general in the world, promising them AI super intelligent machines.
Human level AI has been '20 years away' since 1948. AI has been the real arms race, and the model was Skinnerian, behaviorist, social constructionist - no structure, blank slate, all information to be gained from the training data. Because this is how the mind worked, according to said cool kids.
Well when you have a huge focused effort like that it hogs up all the grant money, everything in every edu department suddenly gets funded IF and in many cases ONLY if it advances social construction, statistics on large datasets, algorithms.
well it's ridiculous and impossible and it just don't work. Intelligence is a property of organic chemistry, there, I said it. And the properties of such an intelligent chemical system are determined by it's structure.
Watch the podcast, or check out the clips Louise Perry posted on twitter, I am not claiming she came to Jesus, just that the two of them recognize, out loud, that social construction is dead.
i mean that's a huge step. The realization is spreading through all of the various feminist subcultures, it simply can not be denied - women are a natural phenomena, 'female' is not a developmental disorder caused by abuse, girls are not girls, nor are women women simply because men told them they were. So this is one foot in the door for acceptance of personal responsibility.
I made up an aphorism the other day 'People are like self pruning Bonsai trees, we make our choices and our choices make us' and that is the new model. We have intrinsic nature, we can train ourselves in many interesting ways, but only within the scope and limits of our biology.
I can understand a desire to cheer on any woman who bravely steps up to speak out against the nonsense that has originated from feminism, but Ms Joyce only wants to push back with her own selfserving motives against the feminism that she bases her own ism on. She tends to talk fast and eloquently which can make it a challenge to catch her most outrageous statements as when in the abovementioned Boyce interview she claimed that unlike in the UK, trans identifying individuals have 'no rights' in the USA. In yet another interview cum book promotion tourstop, she asserted that one injustice of putting transwomen into women's prisons was that women don't belong in prisons because their crimes are less violent and they are usually involved with committing crimes with men who are by default the worse criminals. Such gynocentric statements get interspersed in otherwise sane statements against the excesses of trans activism but she herself is just pushing for her own excesses to retake center stage in the feminist drama that she has linked her career to
this take is backwards, it's not that social construction is some weird thing made up by feminists, rather it's that feminism is some weird thing made up by social constructionists.
I'm not cheering on any woman I am cheering on the advancement of the ideas, even in, as I said somewhere else in this thread 'the darkest pits of feminism'
Oh and I think I may have gotten two podcasts mixed in my memory, a lot has been interesting lately. So the one I mentioned, maiden mother matriarch, Louise Perry and Helen Joyce do confront the 'realty denying nature of feminism' ideas like women being just as good as men at firefighting. But I think the call for male spaces was actually from Mary Harrington on 'Modern Wisdom' with Chris Williamson, another conversation around all the same kind of ideas around this change of paradigm
I hope so, my friend. Personally, I have been extremely disappointed in Helen Joyce. Everything I have read by her takes the typical victim line, blaming men for oppressing women through trans. But I hope to be wrong. Maybe she's changed her tune recently; I haven't listened to the podcast yet.
Ya I know, I saw her on Benjamin Boyce when her book Trans came out, and she was explicitly saying "Don't blame the teachers"
But all of this is finally coming to a head, the tide has turned against social construction. A lot of stuff is related in various interesting ways, all the noise in artificial intelligence recently for example. ChatGPT is an LLM, a large language model, so that is an attempt to construct mind out of pure language. It has not worked because it can not work because there is inborn internal structure in the human mind.
So the questions are related philosophically, by which I mean fundamentally, because both are flavors of empiricism, philosophical empiricism, which claims that all knowledge is acquired through the senses. It's really the question of whether an information system, whether it be a brain or a computer, can learn in that way - and it simply can not. There must be internal structure.
I mean this has been the fundamental error of the 20th century. At the end of WWII there was real cryptographical analysis being done on computers, it was all very hush hush, only the cool kids - and the cool kids were blowing smoke up the butts of every general in the world, promising them AI super intelligent machines.
Human level AI has been '20 years away' since 1948. AI has been the real arms race, and the model was Skinnerian, behaviorist, social constructionist - no structure, blank slate, all information to be gained from the training data. Because this is how the mind worked, according to said cool kids.
Well when you have a huge focused effort like that it hogs up all the grant money, everything in every edu department suddenly gets funded IF and in many cases ONLY if it advances social construction, statistics on large datasets, algorithms.
well it's ridiculous and impossible and it just don't work. Intelligence is a property of organic chemistry, there, I said it. And the properties of such an intelligent chemical system are determined by it's structure.
Watch the podcast, or check out the clips Louise Perry posted on twitter, I am not claiming she came to Jesus, just that the two of them recognize, out loud, that social construction is dead.
i mean that's a huge step. The realization is spreading through all of the various feminist subcultures, it simply can not be denied - women are a natural phenomena, 'female' is not a developmental disorder caused by abuse, girls are not girls, nor are women women simply because men told them they were. So this is one foot in the door for acceptance of personal responsibility.
I made up an aphorism the other day 'People are like self pruning Bonsai trees, we make our choices and our choices make us' and that is the new model. We have intrinsic nature, we can train ourselves in many interesting ways, but only within the scope and limits of our biology.
I can understand a desire to cheer on any woman who bravely steps up to speak out against the nonsense that has originated from feminism, but Ms Joyce only wants to push back with her own selfserving motives against the feminism that she bases her own ism on. She tends to talk fast and eloquently which can make it a challenge to catch her most outrageous statements as when in the abovementioned Boyce interview she claimed that unlike in the UK, trans identifying individuals have 'no rights' in the USA. In yet another interview cum book promotion tourstop, she asserted that one injustice of putting transwomen into women's prisons was that women don't belong in prisons because their crimes are less violent and they are usually involved with committing crimes with men who are by default the worse criminals. Such gynocentric statements get interspersed in otherwise sane statements against the excesses of trans activism but she herself is just pushing for her own excesses to retake center stage in the feminist drama that she has linked her career to
this take is backwards, it's not that social construction is some weird thing made up by feminists, rather it's that feminism is some weird thing made up by social constructionists.
I'm not cheering on any woman I am cheering on the advancement of the ideas, even in, as I said somewhere else in this thread 'the darkest pits of feminism'
Oh and I think I may have gotten two podcasts mixed in my memory, a lot has been interesting lately. So the one I mentioned, maiden mother matriarch, Louise Perry and Helen Joyce do confront the 'realty denying nature of feminism' ideas like women being just as good as men at firefighting. But I think the call for male spaces was actually from Mary Harrington on 'Modern Wisdom' with Chris Williamson, another conversation around all the same kind of ideas around this change of paradigm