"IQ is known to be highly predictive of socio-economic status, it also happens to be highly heritable."
What happens if we want to make better predictions than we can with IQ? Then we leave behind this old science of IQ and discover something more relevant to science in the 21st century. You can keep your old, antiquated model of predicting success to yourself.
@gunman806 Cause versus correlation my friend. It isnt enough to simply cite the numbers without considering the context. IQ doesn't occur in a vaccum- its part genes and part resource access (which doesnt imply a 50/50 split). At what point in one's life history can IQ be reliably measured? Only after exposure to sparse, moderate, or ample resources. Furthermore, your forgetting a host of social psychological variables. In short, your account is only a part of the picture.
@gunman806 I'm quite sure people who inherent massive sums of wealth, are lucky, or exploit poor and desperate people to make their fortunes, are the most intelligent among us.
Of course we live in a class society, the rich send their children to schools to learn to be artisans academics and leaders, labor sends our children to public schools where they are taught obedience and basic factory and cubicle knowledge.
The tragic flaw in your argument is that you seem to believe IQ tests are some kind of objective measuring rule that is free from relative cultural values. It isn't. IQ measures a persons ability to cope with and adapt to a particular set of cultural values, particularly tied to the values of Western "rationalism." Intelligence in this sense is no more neutral than the notion of "normal behavior" because it is always relative to a particular society. So what's firm about it?
Thank you for the interesting video. At the end, when you highlight the importance of "equality", I'm assuming you mean the equality of outcomes. Is that right? How would you measure that against the importance of "liberty"? Since our society can't be both free and equal, which of these competing values should be sacrificed? Thanks.
It's a fact that Darwinism have crept into other subjects to try and get some respectabilty. This pseudoscience must be stopped before it does anymore damage.
I hope you don't mind my correction, but Spencer did not apply Darwinian theory to society, he applied Lamarckian theory. Spencer's work predates Darwin.
- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
I'd love to debate this, but it's absolutely pointless...this is complete false science where there is absolutely zero evidence to back it up, and furthermore logical thinking points you in a different direction altogether!
Its funny how Darwin also said that "ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME SPECIES THUS HAVING THE SAME BRAIN CAPACITY AND ALMOST IDENTICAL GENES, THEY SIMPLY ADAPT TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS DUE TO EVOLUTION FROM NATURAL SELECTION" but the Europeans took the quote "THE FIRST HUMANS EVOLVED IN AFRICA" and automatically thought that they were superior because they left Africa.
Look up the article "What Darwin Didn't Mean: How Social Darwinism Fails Us". It concentrates on our economic system, but A LOT of it is relevant for our general society, culture, and even day-to-day relationships. SD is actually counterproductive in complex modern societies - which rely so much on trust, empathy, and integrity. No, worst than counterproductive--- SD is outright venomous for complex human societies. Yes, we're animals,BUT we TRANSCEND animals at the same time.
Your argument is a terrible straw-man fallacy... Social Darwinists don't think that people who were born in a poor family are intellectually inferior or less capable in anyway. They just think that since the human being survives through being productive, the people who make the most money in the free-market are the fittest members of society. Many of the so-called "robber barons" came from poor backgrounds and were able to make themselves rich through being productive and serving others.
@iagopseleme That is where Social Darwinism fails. Those who make more money aren't necessarily more productive or serving of humanity. An example would be the corporate masters of pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical companies take in billions, yet in order to keep raking in billions, a lot of that goes to suppressing the popularity of more permanent health solutions that can actually benefit in the longer run. Sure, they make a lot of money, but are they that productive?
True social darwanism! Most "darwanist" these days do not even know who herbert spencer is these days! Im making videos to change that, im here to educate people on what darwanism and elietism is.
@gunman806 It's worth noting, however, that the heritability of IQ declines with socio-economic status, although not significantly. This simply means that the relationship is bi-directional. A few "trans-class" adoption studies have been conducted in which children produced by lower class individuals were adopted into upper-middle and upper class families and tracked over a number of years. At the end-point of the study, the children obtained scores that were comparable to their peers.
@gunman806 (Peers meaning lower class children, they scored just over 90 points on average). The biological children of these families, in spite of sharing an identical familial environment with their adopted counter-parts, obtained scores that were significantly higher. This suggests that genetic factors are largely responsible for the variation in mean IQ between the lower class and the upper class.
@gunman806 By reducing the delivery of welfare and medical services to the lower class, one would expect mortality rates to rise among adults and children alike, thus decreasing the frequency of the genes responsible for their inferior intelligence. As I said, this isn't a terribly ethical thing to do, but it probably would be effective at increasing the mean IQ of the population as a whole.
Social Darwinism dosnt account for the frawd, corruption, illegal schemes, and people born with inharatance. so these are factors as well. Also consider this... take a pair of identical twins and put one in an affluent upbringing. next take the seccond and place him far away in the worst with bad upbringing.... compare after 30 years. One works at walmart, one is a commercial airline piolet.
ummm, what was he on about? i had it on silent as dumb asses annoy me.. case in point, THERE IS, NEVER WAS, AINT NO FUCK ALL ENTITY KNOWN AS god, it was a joke made up along time ago to keep savages in check... but retards still believe....which will prove sooooo embarrassing if americans really have a hot line to alien life.. lol
@knowlageispower1 People call it "social darwinism" but it has nothing to do with Darwin himself. The idea of the "Invisible Hand" came from Adam Smith. Darwin wasn't even born yet. Herbert Spencer worked for The Economist which was/still is owned by a famous banking family. What'd you except?
@radiohogan You're right, how many times today haven't poor people been accused of being "lazy dumb leeches" by rich republicans? Herbert spencer lives through the rps, and the coprorations that are today ruining american economy.
So what you're saying, is that the rich became rich not through any genetic predisposition but through theft and cronyism? Isn't there a third option? Isn't it possible that those who became rich did so neither through genetic fate nor through theft? I'm inclined to think that for the most part, those who became rich did so through hard work, through taking calculated risks, and through perseverence despite adversity. You seem to suggest that all success is cheated. Why?
If you watched the video, I gave you my source: "Social Darwinism In American Life" by America's premier historian, Columbia Professor Richard Hofstadter. About two years ago both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal did articles honoring Hofstadter on an anniversary of his passing. Professor Hofstadter spends time reviewing the genesis of the idea - Social Darwinism. Where it came from? Who promoted it and why?
To know about the extent of the theft, read "The Robber Barons."
As to your reference to "cheating and theft," I don't merely accuse the Robber Barons of the First Gilded Age & the Second Gilded Age (our time) of theft and cronyism; in addition, I accuse the Robber Barons of the intentional MASS MURDER of Labor - perhaps as many as Stalin murdered in Russia and the Ukraine. We, as a people need to get over this Post Infantile Hypnosis we have with the Gilded Age. The rich had fun. For the poor & working class, it was early death - at best.
The Social Darwinists (Robber Barons) mass murferecas many as Stalin.Almost all were white. The arsitocrats at the time of the French Revolution did not have fear until they saw the heads of fellow aristocrats high up on pikes in Paris. Czar Alerxander and his crowd did not have fear until they were dropped into a mineshaft.
Eventho i woudent mind to expierence a temporary collapse of a "darwinistic" society... Atleast then we would know how fuck up it actualy is... But nah, its better not even to try such disturbed alternative.
Social darwinism amuses me, in terms of literature... just like "transhumanism" is mythologicaly inspiring... But obviously it would turn civilization intoo shit... Natural selection is nothing BUT natural selection... we shoudent be searching our morality in nature, but rather reducing nature as much as possible, in other to shape our society... Nature its one of the most horrible sources for ethics..
I am having trouble understanding your riff. Social Darwinism = Capitalism, therefore we currently have Social Darwinism in terms of our belief system.
Social Darwinism has turned civilization to shit. Do we agree?
While natural selection exists in the animal world, it does not exist in the human sphere. The poor, in fact, are superior in terms of education and accomplishments.
You misquote me. I wrote the poor, when educated, win more prizes such as the Nobel Prize. The most Nobel Prize winners came from a college that provided free education for the poor as an experiment to test Social Darwinism.
Please read my Biography on YouTube. I came out of a working class neighborhood in upper Manhattan. Please don't personalize. It is not scientific. Please read "The Sociological Imagination" by C. Wright Mills>
people want to enter into contracts which give them more power through higher pay or contractual agreements, by selling natural resources and working in factories. Then, they want to blame the people with whom they entered into the agreements, as if they had no choice. But they did. They were free to work 4 hours a day if they wanted. No one stops them from developing their own system. You simply want to blame those you are afraid of by virtrue of their power by pandering to those without.
but in so doing, you're treating those people as inferior, because you give them absolutely no credit for being capable of making intelligent decisions or of forming respective societies. you are deeming them total impotent fools by virtue of your argument. did you realize this??
I can't help but think that a very high degree of opportunity in any society will result in the intelligent PROVING that social darwinism is correct... The intelligent and impetuous seize upon social mobility that equal chances provide, while the dull and lethargic remain at the bottom. Is that not a necessary truth over time? Doesn't opportunity and equal treatment CAUSE inequality?
Please don't assume "a high degree of opportunity" exists in America. If this is your assumption, what is your measure of opportunity?
Of course, amount of opportunity is different from the question of whether or not America is a meritocracy.
There was only one experiment to determine who was more intelligent and successful. One school provided free college education to anyone with an excellent high school average. Free schools guarantee equality of opportunity & more Nobel Prizes then others
Of course there's a high degree of opportunity in the U.S. compared to virtually any other place. By opportunity I mean the chance to apply whatever skills, talents or gifts one has. If that were not true, we wouldn't be a magnet for ambitious folks from every corner of the world. That's precisely the reason people love moving to the U.S.
You can't measure anything metaphysical or abstract concretely and objectively. So what? It doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
I've lived in other countries for periods of months.
In some cases third world countries are damaged by underhanded capitialists and war. However, to say third world poverty, in its enormous scale, is a direct cause of capitialists like yourself, is bizarre and way off the mark. You're slandering a class of which you are a part. Inaccurately. Why?
So, you cannot prove your thesis, nor can you quote any who have proven your assertion.
When I lived in Holland for 8 years, there were many immigrants there. Each year I lined up with 200 immigrants (the maximum allowed in any day) to have my visa approved. The Dutch invented capitalism and opportunities are far greater then in the USA.
All who live well in America (whether capitalist or socialist) are indebted to the Imperial/ Colonial system that robs the poor (in the US and the world).
Of course, I wasn't saying the U.S. is the only place with social mobility.
How could anyone literally prove anything that is not mathematical? I'm not sure.
You say that capitalism/imperialism/colonialism ROBS the poor. How? When China adopted capitalist policies in the 1970s, their poor became MUCH better off in absolute terms. The same scenario plays out anywhere a place jettisons undiluted marxism and opens up free markets to any extent. It's happened time and again. What's so cruel?
Both the sciences and social sciences use the scientific method to test a theory. You have a theory you do not know how to test. I would test or examine the following parameters, to test for opportunity:
1. Affordable housing.
2. Affordable mass transportation.
3. Universal health care.
4. Free public education through university.
Certainly, America fails miserably on my opportunity meter.
You really believe opening up free markets is bad for poor people? I can understand the position that you think the poor are deserving of more affordable things in life, but how can you honestly think that corporations in absolute terms harm the poor, when they accrue wealth for a nation? What would the poor have without corporations to build up some wealth? I believe Europe was poor and sad before mercantilism, free trade, industrialism... You must admit that?
2. Please offer some proof corporations create wealth in poor nations.
3. Without corporations the people would own the wealth.
4. Before industrialization most property was owned communally and people worked four hours a day.
You may be an Austrian School or Friedmanite free trader who has no empathy or concern for the poor, working class & lower middle class. Your concern is to increase the inequality of income & wealth distribution in all countries.
@radiohogan 3.Thats a truth with modifications: Without the corporations the wealth would be next to nothing. Workers cannot invest, invent and innovate - we need specialized people to do these things.
4.Maybe you are talking specifically about US now, but in a more wide perspective (Europe for example) the property was owned by a few landlords. Not by the community. And how would the people increase their wealth by working only 4 hours/day? Your points are a bit nostalgic and seem naive.
3. You insult, degrade and denude workers of all dignity. While you measure wealth by how many Robber Barons were created, I am interested in the lives of ordinary people. Certainly, they did not see the wealth they created. Please read "The Robber Barons" by Mathew Josephson.
4. I specifically said "before industrialization," as the time frame referred to. Prior to 500 years ago folks lived very well working 4 hours a day. My points are based on historical facts.
3. You have projected some seriously wrong ideas into my comment. I do not measure wealth by how many "Robber Barons" were created. The "historical facts" is that productivity increased in the IndRev, workers got more money to spend BECAUSE they worked together under some specialists who organized them. The process of invention, big investments and innovation simply do not happen in a community of farmers - otherwise we would have experienced greater standards of living earlier in history
4. If you go 500 years back most people were NOT living very well: we had the plagues,and most people had to work for their land owners without pay.That they worked 4hrs a day does is not something that i will argue since i dont have any statistics on this,but to say things were better then?During harvest one had to work ALL day to get done,and then one could perhaps relax, but there was tons of other work needing to be done, and if one wanted to get anywhere...No.you couldnt b/c of the nobility
hate that Im limited to 500 chars. in these responses. Does not give me the best opportunity to respond. But let me just finish off tonight saying this: I think you should be careful with your condescending speech towards all responders who comment on your view. We are not all fascist pigs without respect for workers just cause we dont totally agree with your personal ideology. Please, dont be so smug and condemn others and at the same time hail your own view as the ultimate truth. There is non.
And please dont answer peoples questions by telling them to read a book. That just puts you in an ivory tower. And remember that no book contains all answers to any questions.
The answer to your first question lies in "Bad Samaritans - The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by Cambridge Univerity Professor Ha-Joon Change.
Your assertion about life in China improving is incorrect. 75% of the Chinese people continue to live an medieval peasants. Under Capitalism these folks now have no health care or education. Workers in the cities live in abject poverty far from home without any social safety net.
Rather then opportunities, the key question is whether or not there is a meritocracy for the poor, working class & lower middle class to use as a ladder of opportunity. Sadly, there is not.
Lots of people will question Social Darwinism. Yet, the reality is that the further away your society moves away from Social Darwinism it increase the possibility of its rise.
To clarify this point; the more you will fight SD, the more you are promoting it into the future.
If you were to visit a regular High School where smarts kids are bashed and mediocrity is promoted. You are planting the seed, for the producers of tomorrow to have no heart for those whom burden society.
I say that when regular people are taxed into obliviance to pay for everyone else's mistakes, you will find a change in society.
This change will come in a form of Social Darwinism, where hard working people will be disgussed in how their hard earned money is stolen from them to give to the needy.
Needy => GM, bankers, druggies, crimnals, welfare, Social Security, teen mothers, handicapped, Octo Mom, Homeless, Illegal Imm ...
You will see working people rebel and say =let them starve.
If anyone really wants to learn about Social Darwinism read, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart
Thanks for the video. I had heard the term but never knew what it was about before. So how in the world does this idea being discredited have anything to do with the creationists claim that Darwin's Origin of Species was wrong? Social Darwinism doesn't seem like anything more than a bad analogy to biological evolution.
Hmmm, so people seem to equate cronie capitalism with natural selection... thinking that what we have is capitalism. So the ones at the top do not need to be excellent, simply chosen by the ones who were at the top beforehand. There is just so much confusion today.
When the sociologist, Herbert Spenser, wrote about social darwinism, it had nothing to do with crony capitalism. In his book "Social Darwinism in American Life," Richard Hofstadter, was not writing about crony capitalism.
You hve projected your beliefs onto Spenser & Hofstadter.
Eh, i just came to my own hypothesis, i only know spenser by name, and darwin by vague hearsay. That's why i'm trying to get a better grasp on the concept. Not sure what you meant by projecting, but if you mean that i've gotten the idea from him, i'd have to say that's impossible.
One problem I have with a lot of social darwinists is that they use it as an excuse for racism. But when you use social darwinism correctly people are, weak, such as people with mental disabilities, will die off, and thus, the human race will improve. We will be intelligent enough to rid the world of religion, which is the cause of all of the world's problems.
If you think people trying to devise spiritual belief systems that help to provide a person with a moral compass are the source of all problems, then just wait till total moral relativism of total scientific athiesm takes hold..... BTW I am also an athiest, but not so naive to believe religion is the root of all problems. Try looking at the global power elite instead. There's your real root. World-dominating control-freak predatory parasites.
Advocates of Social Darwinism must be having a difficult time with Obama as president, probably the best US president in recent history. On the other hand the rich and powerful often have had despicable individuals in their families.
Darwin emphasized the value of sympathy found among the human race (perhaps also among animal species) which contributes to the wellbeing of the human race as a whole. Darwinism is not about individual players but about teams.
for example..... say the first man to eat poison oak and died was witnessed by others. all they did was learn from his mistake and didn't eat poison oak from that point on. so yes it definitely involves people learning from each-other and working together!!
Jimbei, are you out of your mind? Richard Holdren, OBAMA-APPOINTED US "Science Czar" co-wrote the book "Ecoscience" (with former Bush advisor) which calls for compulsory forced abortions, steralization of the people unwillingly via the WATER SUPPLY, and having to get PERMISSION from the government to have a child...... Hows that for social darwinism/eugenic philosophy. Obama has also put taxpayer money into funding free abortions of black babies in Africa... What a "best" President!
Thank you so much for this video!!! I have been discussing this with my brother for a while now and I feel like you have read my mind. I didn't think anyone noticed the misconception that we have in America that says that poor=lazy and rich=hard working. It's completely false but so many people seem so eager to accept it.
Why do advocates of Social Darwinism fail to ignore the fact that it can't work if the system is not efficient? I believe corporations have killed the American dream.
mfentruck, corporations have destroyed the american dream because they are not operating under a "free market" or "capatilism" as they would have you beleive. Instead nearly every single corporation can be traced up a pyramid to a small handful of conglomerate corporate-empires.. This small handful is then deeply embedded within each other and our political system. It is what's called an OLIGARCHY. A monopoly owned by a small handful of cooperating businesses. They prevent any real competition.
Mike, my friend, you have no idea how pleasing it is to finally hear someone tackle the issue of Social Darwinism in America (and although you didn't mention it, throughout the world) and how it is still running rife.
Nowadays, many people who believe what you were outlining don't consider themselves to be Social Darwinists. Somehow, the goalposts have been moved on the 'dirty word' and it seems to be widely accepted that only Eugenicists are Social Darwinists.
That is a DISGUSTING justification for these oligarchies we call our governments, but it's just a joke with a poster boy like Bush.
Why is it our biggest national publishers here in Australia don't recognise our independent publishers and our new writer's awards? Cause they're too smart ay? Stick it!
Your anger hides your intent. What is your point? You may have not understood my video. I was being critical of Social Darwinism, as was Professor Hofstader in his book.
Please read Richard Hofstader's "Social Darwinism In American Thought 1860 - 1915." Professor Hofstader taught at Columbia University and is, in my opinion, America's preeminent historian.
youre wrong. the term "social darwinism" was not even coined until after spencer's death. herbert spencer's philosophy consisted of a social evolution towards a contractual society in which all interractions between human beings are voluntary. he was a classical liberal theorist.
Please search YouTube on RadioHogan to check out the other many videos I have made: Economcs 101 - Keynes v Friedman, Sociology 101, Psychology 101, etc.
As a pragmatist, I believe all categories of reality are both valid and equal. Please view my YouTube video entitled: Existentialism & Pragmatism.
Therefore, the categories of right & wrong are valid and equal.
As to power, knowledge is the greatest source of power. Therefore, according to your thesis those who know how to wield knowledge are the most powerful.
A good video I enjoyed it can I recommend a book for you 'Towards the Final Solution' by George L Mosse he's a jewish guy who analysed European racism and its roots. In writers like Gobineau and wagner very informative.
This has been flagged as spam show
@gunman806
"IQ is known to be highly predictive of socio-economic status, it also happens to be highly heritable."
What happens if we want to make better predictions than we can with IQ? Then we leave behind this old science of IQ and discover something more relevant to science in the 21st century. You can keep your old, antiquated model of predicting success to yourself.
kmarinas86 2 months ago
Comment removed
kmarinas86 2 months ago
Comment removed
kmarinas86 2 months ago
Regardless of any negative connotations associated with it, it social darwinism clearly exists and clearly describes much of the world.
elviscash56 2 months ago
The denigration of Second Generation Human Rights is Social Darwinism by definition.
Activeassholeonpills 2 months ago
@gunman806 Cause versus correlation my friend. It isnt enough to simply cite the numbers without considering the context. IQ doesn't occur in a vaccum- its part genes and part resource access (which doesnt imply a 50/50 split). At what point in one's life history can IQ be reliably measured? Only after exposure to sparse, moderate, or ample resources. Furthermore, your forgetting a host of social psychological variables. In short, your account is only a part of the picture.
prheusse 3 months ago in playlist SocioCultural Discussions
@gunman806 I'm quite sure people who inherent massive sums of wealth, are lucky, or exploit poor and desperate people to make their fortunes, are the most intelligent among us.
Of course we live in a class society, the rich send their children to schools to learn to be artisans academics and leaders, labor sends our children to public schools where they are taught obedience and basic factory and cubicle knowledge.
FreeTheWorker 3 months ago
@gunman806
The tragic flaw in your argument is that you seem to believe IQ tests are some kind of objective measuring rule that is free from relative cultural values. It isn't. IQ measures a persons ability to cope with and adapt to a particular set of cultural values, particularly tied to the values of Western "rationalism." Intelligence in this sense is no more neutral than the notion of "normal behavior" because it is always relative to a particular society. So what's firm about it?
featheon 6 months ago
Thank you for the interesting video. At the end, when you highlight the importance of "equality", I'm assuming you mean the equality of outcomes. Is that right? How would you measure that against the importance of "liberty"? Since our society can't be both free and equal, which of these competing values should be sacrificed? Thanks.
stuntbaby63 7 months ago
It's a fact that Darwinism have crept into other subjects to try and get some respectabilty. This pseudoscience must be stopped before it does anymore damage.
TheLogic1010 7 months ago
thanks to that dick spencer the farcists grew and therefore was the folt behind the second world war.
Troforso 8 months ago
ok ok i like this video better then the other two
KarlOSXO 8 months ago
I hope you don't mind my correction, but Spencer did not apply Darwinian theory to society, he applied Lamarckian theory. Spencer's work predates Darwin.
UncleFred34 9 months ago
- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
- John 3:16
Jacquelyn104 10 months ago
I'd love to debate this, but it's absolutely pointless...this is complete false science where there is absolutely zero evidence to back it up, and furthermore logical thinking points you in a different direction altogether!
munkyusm 10 months ago
A novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Its funny how Darwin also said that "ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME SPECIES THUS HAVING THE SAME BRAIN CAPACITY AND ALMOST IDENTICAL GENES, THEY SIMPLY ADAPT TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS DUE TO EVOLUTION FROM NATURAL SELECTION" but the Europeans took the quote "THE FIRST HUMANS EVOLVED IN AFRICA" and automatically thought that they were superior because they left Africa.
MrBubbles468 11 months ago
Look up the article "What Darwin Didn't Mean: How Social Darwinism Fails Us". It concentrates on our economic system, but A LOT of it is relevant for our general society, culture, and even day-to-day relationships. SD is actually counterproductive in complex modern societies - which rely so much on trust, empathy, and integrity. No, worst than counterproductive--- SD is outright venomous for complex human societies. Yes, we're animals,BUT we TRANSCEND animals at the same time.
filrabat 11 months ago
See my video in You Tube :"Dawkins a fanatical darwinist"
metacosmos 1 year ago
Your argument is a terrible straw-man fallacy... Social Darwinists don't think that people who were born in a poor family are intellectually inferior or less capable in anyway. They just think that since the human being survives through being productive, the people who make the most money in the free-market are the fittest members of society. Many of the so-called "robber barons" came from poor backgrounds and were able to make themselves rich through being productive and serving others.
iagopseleme 1 year ago
@iagopseleme That is where Social Darwinism fails. Those who make more money aren't necessarily more productive or serving of humanity. An example would be the corporate masters of pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical companies take in billions, yet in order to keep raking in billions, a lot of that goes to suppressing the popularity of more permanent health solutions that can actually benefit in the longer run. Sure, they make a lot of money, but are they that productive?
Nathan54AB 11 months ago
True social darwanism! Most "darwanist" these days do not even know who herbert spencer is these days! Im making videos to change that, im here to educate people on what darwanism and elietism is.
Darwanism101 1 year ago
Social Darwinism is global sustainability.
FloridaRaider 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
damn check out that milf in the background
88res 1 year ago
@gunman806
See my video "Pedagogy of the Oppressed Parts 1&2." I favor a class conflict paradigm in education.
radiohogan 1 year ago 2
@gunman806 It's worth noting, however, that the heritability of IQ declines with socio-economic status, although not significantly. This simply means that the relationship is bi-directional. A few "trans-class" adoption studies have been conducted in which children produced by lower class individuals were adopted into upper-middle and upper class families and tracked over a number of years. At the end-point of the study, the children obtained scores that were comparable to their peers.
gunman806 1 year ago
@gunman806 (Peers meaning lower class children, they scored just over 90 points on average). The biological children of these families, in spite of sharing an identical familial environment with their adopted counter-parts, obtained scores that were significantly higher. This suggests that genetic factors are largely responsible for the variation in mean IQ between the lower class and the upper class.
gunman806 1 year ago
@gunman806 By reducing the delivery of welfare and medical services to the lower class, one would expect mortality rates to rise among adults and children alike, thus decreasing the frequency of the genes responsible for their inferior intelligence. As I said, this isn't a terribly ethical thing to do, but it probably would be effective at increasing the mean IQ of the population as a whole.
gunman806 1 year ago
Thanks for this - it was very interesting.
miscpro 1 year ago
Social Darwinism dosnt account for the frawd, corruption, illegal schemes, and people born with inharatance. so these are factors as well. Also consider this... take a pair of identical twins and put one in an affluent upbringing. next take the seccond and place him far away in the worst with bad upbringing.... compare after 30 years. One works at walmart, one is a commercial airline piolet.
pizzasuits 1 year ago
@pizzasuits
You did not understand the video. Social Darwinism justifies all the examples you gace.
radiohogan 1 year ago
ummm, what was he on about? i had it on silent as dumb asses annoy me.. case in point, THERE IS, NEVER WAS, AINT NO FUCK ALL ENTITY KNOWN AS god, it was a joke made up along time ago to keep savages in check... but retards still believe....which will prove sooooo embarrassing if americans really have a hot line to alien life.. lol
knowlageispower1 1 year ago
@knowlageispower1 People call it "social darwinism" but it has nothing to do with Darwin himself. The idea of the "Invisible Hand" came from Adam Smith. Darwin wasn't even born yet. Herbert Spencer worked for The Economist which was/still is owned by a famous banking family. What'd you except?
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
Sir, Thank you very much for the video. I'm going to read SOCIAL DARWINISM now.
V/r
c130fonz 1 year ago
@c130fonz
"Social Darwinism In American Thought" by Richard Hofstadter.
radiohogan 1 year ago
@radiohogan You're right, how many times today haven't poor people been accused of being "lazy dumb leeches" by rich republicans? Herbert spencer lives through the rps, and the coprorations that are today ruining american economy.
Imhornydadcomeinside 4 months ago
Radio hogan, nicely and aptly put. (Responses and video).
aneduc8tor1 1 year ago
@aneduc8tor1
Thank you! All the Best / Mike
radiohogan 1 year ago
So what you're saying, is that the rich became rich not through any genetic predisposition but through theft and cronyism? Isn't there a third option? Isn't it possible that those who became rich did so neither through genetic fate nor through theft? I'm inclined to think that for the most part, those who became rich did so through hard work, through taking calculated risks, and through perseverence despite adversity. You seem to suggest that all success is cheated. Why?
koyunbaba73 1 year ago
@koyunbaba73
If you watched the video, I gave you my source: "Social Darwinism In American Life" by America's premier historian, Columbia Professor Richard Hofstadter. About two years ago both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal did articles honoring Hofstadter on an anniversary of his passing. Professor Hofstadter spends time reviewing the genesis of the idea - Social Darwinism. Where it came from? Who promoted it and why?
To know about the extent of the theft, read "The Robber Barons."
radiohogan 1 year ago
@koyunbaba73
As to your reference to "cheating and theft," I don't merely accuse the Robber Barons of the First Gilded Age & the Second Gilded Age (our time) of theft and cronyism; in addition, I accuse the Robber Barons of the intentional MASS MURDER of Labor - perhaps as many as Stalin murdered in Russia and the Ukraine. We, as a people need to get over this Post Infantile Hypnosis we have with the Gilded Age. The rich had fun. For the poor & working class, it was early death - at best.
radiohogan 1 year ago 4
I think Radiohogan is a pretty cool guy. He not get internet humor and doesn't afraid of anything.
vladimir2145 1 year ago
I think Social Darwianism is a pretty cool guy. He kills minorities and dosen't afraid of anything.
vladimir2145 1 year ago
@vladimir2145
The Social Darwinists (Robber Barons) mass murferecas many as Stalin.Almost all were white. The arsitocrats at the time of the French Revolution did not have fear until they saw the heads of fellow aristocrats high up on pikes in Paris. Czar Alerxander and his crowd did not have fear until they were dropped into a mineshaft.
radiohogan 1 year ago
Eventho i woudent mind to expierence a temporary collapse of a "darwinistic" society... Atleast then we would know how fuck up it actualy is... But nah, its better not even to try such disturbed alternative.
Deadleader555 2 years ago
Again, I am having trouble understanding your comment. What are you saying?
radiohogan 2 years ago
Social darwinism amuses me, in terms of literature... just like "transhumanism" is mythologicaly inspiring... But obviously it would turn civilization intoo shit... Natural selection is nothing BUT natural selection... we shoudent be searching our morality in nature, but rather reducing nature as much as possible, in other to shape our society... Nature its one of the most horrible sources for ethics..
Deadleader555 2 years ago
I am having trouble understanding your riff. Social Darwinism = Capitalism, therefore we currently have Social Darwinism in terms of our belief system.
Social Darwinism has turned civilization to shit. Do we agree?
While natural selection exists in the animal world, it does not exist in the human sphere. The poor, in fact, are superior in terms of education and accomplishments.
What is your rap about nature mean?
radiohogan 2 years ago
The poor are superior in terms of education? Are you sure? Have you ever bein poor in ur life? Did you know how is to live in a third world country?
Deadleader555 2 years ago
You misquote me. I wrote the poor, when educated, win more prizes such as the Nobel Prize. The most Nobel Prize winners came from a college that provided free education for the poor as an experiment to test Social Darwinism.
Please read my Biography on YouTube. I came out of a working class neighborhood in upper Manhattan. Please don't personalize. It is not scientific. Please read "The Sociological Imagination" by C. Wright Mills>
radiohogan 2 years ago
1:
people want to enter into contracts which give them more power through higher pay or contractual agreements, by selling natural resources and working in factories. Then, they want to blame the people with whom they entered into the agreements, as if they had no choice. But they did. They were free to work 4 hours a day if they wanted. No one stops them from developing their own system. You simply want to blame those you are afraid of by virtrue of their power by pandering to those without.
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
2:
but in so doing, you're treating those people as inferior, because you give them absolutely no credit for being capable of making intelligent decisions or of forming respective societies. you are deeming them total impotent fools by virtue of your argument. did you realize this??
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
We disagree.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I can't help but think that a very high degree of opportunity in any society will result in the intelligent PROVING that social darwinism is correct... The intelligent and impetuous seize upon social mobility that equal chances provide, while the dull and lethargic remain at the bottom. Is that not a necessary truth over time? Doesn't opportunity and equal treatment CAUSE inequality?
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
Please don't assume "a high degree of opportunity" exists in America. If this is your assumption, what is your measure of opportunity?
Of course, amount of opportunity is different from the question of whether or not America is a meritocracy.
There was only one experiment to determine who was more intelligent and successful. One school provided free college education to anyone with an excellent high school average. Free schools guarantee equality of opportunity & more Nobel Prizes then others
radiohogan 2 years ago
Of course there's a high degree of opportunity in the U.S. compared to virtually any other place. By opportunity I mean the chance to apply whatever skills, talents or gifts one has. If that were not true, we wouldn't be a magnet for ambitious folks from every corner of the world. That's precisely the reason people love moving to the U.S.
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
Your measurement of opportunity is not concrete & objective. There is no way to measure opportunity by your definition of opportunity.
Have you ever lived in foreign lands to judge opportunity?
People move to the US because the American Imperial war on the world has destroyed the immigrants homeland.
radiohogan 2 years ago
You can't measure anything metaphysical or abstract concretely and objectively. So what? It doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
I've lived in other countries for periods of months.
In some cases third world countries are damaged by underhanded capitialists and war. However, to say third world poverty, in its enormous scale, is a direct cause of capitialists like yourself, is bizarre and way off the mark. You're slandering a class of which you are a part. Inaccurately. Why?
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
I stated I lived in other countries since you asked. I don't think it is terribly relevant to anything I'm saying beyond that.
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
So, you cannot prove your thesis, nor can you quote any who have proven your assertion.
When I lived in Holland for 8 years, there were many immigrants there. Each year I lined up with 200 immigrants (the maximum allowed in any day) to have my visa approved. The Dutch invented capitalism and opportunities are far greater then in the USA.
All who live well in America (whether capitalist or socialist) are indebted to the Imperial/ Colonial system that robs the poor (in the US and the world).
radiohogan 2 years ago
Of course, I wasn't saying the U.S. is the only place with social mobility.
How could anyone literally prove anything that is not mathematical? I'm not sure.
You say that capitalism/imperialism/colonialism ROBS the poor. How? When China adopted capitalist policies in the 1970s, their poor became MUCH better off in absolute terms. The same scenario plays out anywhere a place jettisons undiluted marxism and opens up free markets to any extent. It's happened time and again. What's so cruel?
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
Part I:
Both the sciences and social sciences use the scientific method to test a theory. You have a theory you do not know how to test. I would test or examine the following parameters, to test for opportunity:
1. Affordable housing.
2. Affordable mass transportation.
3. Universal health care.
4. Free public education through university.
Certainly, America fails miserably on my opportunity meter.
See part II.
radiohogan 2 years ago
You really believe opening up free markets is bad for poor people? I can understand the position that you think the poor are deserving of more affordable things in life, but how can you honestly think that corporations in absolute terms harm the poor, when they accrue wealth for a nation? What would the poor have without corporations to build up some wealth? I believe Europe was poor and sad before mercantilism, free trade, industrialism... You must admit that?
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
Answers:
1. Yes
2. Please offer some proof corporations create wealth in poor nations.
3. Without corporations the people would own the wealth.
4. Before industrialization most property was owned communally and people worked four hours a day.
You may be an Austrian School or Friedmanite free trader who has no empathy or concern for the poor, working class & lower middle class. Your concern is to increase the inequality of income & wealth distribution in all countries.
radiohogan 2 years ago
@radiohogan 3.Thats a truth with modifications: Without the corporations the wealth would be next to nothing. Workers cannot invest, invent and innovate - we need specialized people to do these things.
4.Maybe you are talking specifically about US now, but in a more wide perspective (Europe for example) the property was owned by a few landlords. Not by the community. And how would the people increase their wealth by working only 4 hours/day? Your points are a bit nostalgic and seem naive.
DimmDevil 1 year ago
@DimmDevil
3. You insult, degrade and denude workers of all dignity. While you measure wealth by how many Robber Barons were created, I am interested in the lives of ordinary people. Certainly, they did not see the wealth they created. Please read "The Robber Barons" by Mathew Josephson.
4. I specifically said "before industrialization," as the time frame referred to. Prior to 500 years ago folks lived very well working 4 hours a day. My points are based on historical facts.
radiohogan 1 year ago
3. You have projected some seriously wrong ideas into my comment. I do not measure wealth by how many "Robber Barons" were created. The "historical facts" is that productivity increased in the IndRev, workers got more money to spend BECAUSE they worked together under some specialists who organized them. The process of invention, big investments and innovation simply do not happen in a community of farmers - otherwise we would have experienced greater standards of living earlier in history
DimmDevil 1 year ago
4. If you go 500 years back most people were NOT living very well: we had the plagues,and most people had to work for their land owners without pay.That they worked 4hrs a day does is not something that i will argue since i dont have any statistics on this,but to say things were better then?During harvest one had to work ALL day to get done,and then one could perhaps relax, but there was tons of other work needing to be done, and if one wanted to get anywhere...No.you couldnt b/c of the nobility
DimmDevil 1 year ago
hate that Im limited to 500 chars. in these responses. Does not give me the best opportunity to respond. But let me just finish off tonight saying this: I think you should be careful with your condescending speech towards all responders who comment on your view. We are not all fascist pigs without respect for workers just cause we dont totally agree with your personal ideology. Please, dont be so smug and condemn others and at the same time hail your own view as the ultimate truth. There is non.
DimmDevil 1 year ago
And please dont answer peoples questions by telling them to read a book. That just puts you in an ivory tower. And remember that no book contains all answers to any questions.
DimmDevil 1 year ago
The answer to your first question lies in "Bad Samaritans - The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by Cambridge Univerity Professor Ha-Joon Change.
Your assertion about life in China improving is incorrect. 75% of the Chinese people continue to live an medieval peasants. Under Capitalism these folks now have no health care or education. Workers in the cities live in abject poverty far from home without any social safety net.
Read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Rather then opportunities, the key question is whether or not there is a meritocracy for the poor, working class & lower middle class to use as a ladder of opportunity. Sadly, there is not.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Lots of people will question Social Darwinism. Yet, the reality is that the further away your society moves away from Social Darwinism it increase the possibility of its rise.
To clarify this point; the more you will fight SD, the more you are promoting it into the future.
If you were to visit a regular High School where smarts kids are bashed and mediocrity is promoted. You are planting the seed, for the producers of tomorrow to have no heart for those whom burden society.
geraldcaron 2 years ago
I didn't understand your comment.
radiohogan 2 years ago
I say that when regular people are taxed into obliviance to pay for everyone else's mistakes, you will find a change in society.
This change will come in a form of Social Darwinism, where hard working people will be disgussed in how their hard earned money is stolen from them to give to the needy.
Needy => GM, bankers, druggies, crimnals, welfare, Social Security, teen mothers, handicapped, Octo Mom, Homeless, Illegal Imm ...
You will see working people rebel and say =let them starve.
geraldcaron 2 years ago
If anyone really wants to learn about Social Darwinism read, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart
realitycheck1116 2 years ago
Thanks for the video. I had heard the term but never knew what it was about before. So how in the world does this idea being discredited have anything to do with the creationists claim that Darwin's Origin of Species was wrong? Social Darwinism doesn't seem like anything more than a bad analogy to biological evolution.
foxlake02 2 years ago
Nothing! One has nothing to do with the other.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Hmmm, so people seem to equate cronie capitalism with natural selection... thinking that what we have is capitalism. So the ones at the top do not need to be excellent, simply chosen by the ones who were at the top beforehand. There is just so much confusion today.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
When the sociologist, Herbert Spenser, wrote about social darwinism, it had nothing to do with crony capitalism. In his book "Social Darwinism in American Life," Richard Hofstadter, was not writing about crony capitalism.
You hve projected your beliefs onto Spenser & Hofstadter.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Eh, i just came to my own hypothesis, i only know spenser by name, and darwin by vague hearsay. That's why i'm trying to get a better grasp on the concept. Not sure what you meant by projecting, but if you mean that i've gotten the idea from him, i'd have to say that's impossible.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Read Hofstadter.
Psychological projection is when someone transfers their own views onto others.
radiohogan 2 years ago
One problem I have with a lot of social darwinists is that they use it as an excuse for racism. But when you use social darwinism correctly people are, weak, such as people with mental disabilities, will die off, and thus, the human race will improve. We will be intelligent enough to rid the world of religion, which is the cause of all of the world's problems.
TheAtheistVisionary 2 years ago
If you think people trying to devise spiritual belief systems that help to provide a person with a moral compass are the source of all problems, then just wait till total moral relativism of total scientific athiesm takes hold..... BTW I am also an athiest, but not so naive to believe religion is the root of all problems. Try looking at the global power elite instead. There's your real root. World-dominating control-freak predatory parasites.
ChankaLanka 2 years ago
Advocates of Social Darwinism must be having a difficult time with Obama as president, probably the best US president in recent history. On the other hand the rich and powerful often have had despicable individuals in their families.
Darwin emphasized the value of sympathy found among the human race (perhaps also among animal species) which contributes to the wellbeing of the human race as a whole. Darwinism is not about individual players but about teams.
1950jimbei 2 years ago
Hello 1950jimbei:
You may also wish to view: (1) Why the Middle Class Hates the Poor (2) Psychology 101 (3) The New Gilded Age, on the RadioHogan channel on YouTube.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
Hello 1950jimbei:
You may also wish to view: (1) Why the Middle Class Hates the Poor (2) Psychology 101 (3) The New Gilded Age, on the RadioHogan channel on YouTube.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
for example..... say the first man to eat poison oak and died was witnessed by others. all they did was learn from his mistake and didn't eat poison oak from that point on. so yes it definitely involves people learning from each-other and working together!!
darthpaul123 2 years ago
Jimbei, are you out of your mind? Richard Holdren, OBAMA-APPOINTED US "Science Czar" co-wrote the book "Ecoscience" (with former Bush advisor) which calls for compulsory forced abortions, steralization of the people unwillingly via the WATER SUPPLY, and having to get PERMISSION from the government to have a child...... Hows that for social darwinism/eugenic philosophy. Obama has also put taxpayer money into funding free abortions of black babies in Africa... What a "best" President!
ChankaLanka 2 years ago
Thank you so much for this video!!! I have been discussing this with my brother for a while now and I feel like you have read my mind. I didn't think anyone noticed the misconception that we have in America that says that poor=lazy and rich=hard working. It's completely false but so many people seem so eager to accept it.
Why do advocates of Social Darwinism fail to ignore the fact that it can't work if the system is not efficient? I believe corporations have killed the American dream.
mfentruck 2 years ago
Hello Mfentruck:
You may also wish to view: (1) Why the Middle Class Hates the Poor (2) Psychology 101 (3) The New Gilded Age, on the RadioHogan channel on YouTube.
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 2 years ago
mfentruck, corporations have destroyed the american dream because they are not operating under a "free market" or "capatilism" as they would have you beleive. Instead nearly every single corporation can be traced up a pyramid to a small handful of conglomerate corporate-empires.. This small handful is then deeply embedded within each other and our political system. It is what's called an OLIGARCHY. A monopoly owned by a small handful of cooperating businesses. They prevent any real competition.
ChankaLanka 2 years ago 4
Mike, my friend, you have no idea how pleasing it is to finally hear someone tackle the issue of Social Darwinism in America (and although you didn't mention it, throughout the world) and how it is still running rife.
Nowadays, many people who believe what you were outlining don't consider themselves to be Social Darwinists. Somehow, the goalposts have been moved on the 'dirty word' and it seems to be widely accepted that only Eugenicists are Social Darwinists.
Thanks for this video.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Loved this video. Favorited,
Svankmajer 3 years ago
That is a DISGUSTING justification for these oligarchies we call our governments, but it's just a joke with a poster boy like Bush.
Why is it our biggest national publishers here in Australia don't recognise our independent publishers and our new writer's awards? Cause they're too smart ay? Stick it!
LimblePwns 3 years ago
Your anger hides your intent. What is your point? You may have not understood my video. I was being critical of Social Darwinism, as was Professor Hofstader in his book.
Who should "Stick it?"
radiohogan 3 years ago
I realised you were being critical, I was responding to the idea. Who am I responding to? Many people I guess, take your pick...
LimblePwns 3 years ago
Please read Richard Hofstader's "Social Darwinism In American Thought 1860 - 1915." Professor Hofstader taught at Columbia University and is, in my opinion, America's preeminent historian.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Wouldn't Richard Hofstadter weep today? What I wouldn't give for Volume 2 of "The American Political Tradition."
getz011 3 years ago
Hello Getz011:
Please read Chalmers Johnson's book: "Nemesis."
All the Best / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago
youre wrong. the term "social darwinism" was not even coined until after spencer's death. herbert spencer's philosophy consisted of a social evolution towards a contractual society in which all interractions between human beings are voluntary. he was a classical liberal theorist.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
good video man, thanks for the "intellectual figure" - names you've layed down. I will check out the historian you acknowledged.
I suscribed your videos today, i hope you will enlighten me!
Live and Be Well
;):D
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
Please search YouTube on RadioHogan to check out the other many videos I have made: Economcs 101 - Keynes v Friedman, Sociology 101, Psychology 101, etc.
radiohogan 3 years ago
There is no "right" or "wrong", there is only power and those who wield it. Feel free to prove me wrong.
TheDrunkenDrow 3 years ago
As a pragmatist, I believe all categories of reality are both valid and equal. Please view my YouTube video entitled: Existentialism & Pragmatism.
Therefore, the categories of right & wrong are valid and equal.
As to power, knowledge is the greatest source of power. Therefore, according to your thesis those who know how to wield knowledge are the most powerful.
Live and Be Well
radiohogan 3 years ago
A good video I enjoyed it can I recommend a book for you 'Towards the Final Solution' by George L Mosse he's a jewish guy who analysed European racism and its roots. In writers like Gobineau and wagner very informative.
Kalydosos 3 years ago
I will have another video in a few days entitled: inequality & Cronyism that will elaborate on Social Darwinism.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Can you elaborate a little more on why you think social Darwinism is still prevalent today?
ArtMusicRepeat 3 years ago
Hello ArtMusicRepeat:
See my new video: The New Gilded Age for an elaboration of my point that Social Darwinism is worse today then in the 1870's through 1890's.
Live & Be Well / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago
Hello StinkInFishGuts:
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Live and Be Well / Mike Hogan
radiohogan 3 years ago
you are a good man. thanks for your time and thoughts.
stinkinfishguts 3 years ago
.... :)
Subfightr 3 years ago