The argument on IQ in socio-economic stratification and its relation to racial issues has important ramifications for our immediate intellectual environment. Generally, it is obvious that when one group is concentrated at a lower socio-economic stratum, a sub-culture evolves based on what are perceived as the strengths of the segregated group. This is one of the causes leading to a distinct black culture in the US that most recently manifests itself in the form of rap music and hip-hop culture. If John Cage is correct in saying that socio-economic status is determined by genetic factors--primarily innate intelligence--then we have to assume that rap music and hip-hop culture are simply the cultural manifestation of a less intelligent segment of the population. However, if he is wrong, then rap music and hip-hop culture can in some ways be interpreted as an expression of rebellion and an attempt to regain socioeconomic ground. As I said, however, this issue is more a part of our global intellectual environment than our immediate one. In our immediate environment, we should be deeply concerned by how the argument over innate intelligence versus environment relates to interboard relations. I feel that if we assess the issue incorrectly, great injustice will be done.
As in the case of race in the US, we find ourselves facing a stratification of hobbyists into two groups. Whether or not this is the result of genetic factors is a key question. I await John Cage's assessment of the issue, but I personally am not ready to accept that the primary factor determining board affiliation is genes or innate intelligence.
The subculture that we see forming has many parallels to black subculture. First, there is the presence of an exaggerated masculinity that cannot be fully explained as an attempt to compensate for "diversity of an intergalactic nature." This exaggerated masculinity leads members of the subculture not only to report sexual encounters of a business nature, but also private sexual encounters. In other cases, the compensatory factor causes individuals to claim unrealistic powers of sexual prowess, including six, seven or even eight male orgasms in one sexual encounter.
The imagery of the subculture also leads us to question whether the principal sentiment of the group is one of passive acceptance or rebellion. Some members choose cartoon figures of small naked boys as their personal icon. Others choose physically stunted males with green skin. In both cases however, the limited physical stature of the icon character is counteracted by an implied willingless to "get into mischief"--hence, rebel. The recent inclusion in a certain thread of male buttocks extended in preparation for penetration leads us to suspect however that the passive/active natures of members of the subculture are not fixed. My feeling is that the passive characteristic arises in conjunction with the feeling of being dominated, as is the case in chimpanzees and indeed other mammels. This would make such actions the result of social conditioning. John Cage, I suspect, will say that such passive invitations to copulation are the result of genetic charactertics and are therefore fixed.
The formation of a subculture within the hobbyist community is probably unavoidable based on the diversity of its members. However, if the subculture forms as the result of uneven social resources or exclusionary practices, then I feel that it is a dangerous phenomenon because it will inevitably lead to rebellion on the part of the group forming the subculture. For this reason, I feel that the role of genetics, if any, in determining board affiliation merits closer examination.
As in the case of race in the US, we find ourselves facing a stratification of hobbyists into two groups. Whether or not this is the result of genetic factors is a key question. I await John Cage's assessment of the issue, but I personally am not ready to accept that the primary factor determining board affiliation is genes or innate intelligence.
The subculture that we see forming has many parallels to black subculture. First, there is the presence of an exaggerated masculinity that cannot be fully explained as an attempt to compensate for "diversity of an intergalactic nature." This exaggerated masculinity leads members of the subculture not only to report sexual encounters of a business nature, but also private sexual encounters. In other cases, the compensatory factor causes individuals to claim unrealistic powers of sexual prowess, including six, seven or even eight male orgasms in one sexual encounter.
The imagery of the subculture also leads us to question whether the principal sentiment of the group is one of passive acceptance or rebellion. Some members choose cartoon figures of small naked boys as their personal icon. Others choose physically stunted males with green skin. In both cases however, the limited physical stature of the icon character is counteracted by an implied willingless to "get into mischief"--hence, rebel. The recent inclusion in a certain thread of male buttocks extended in preparation for penetration leads us to suspect however that the passive/active natures of members of the subculture are not fixed. My feeling is that the passive characteristic arises in conjunction with the feeling of being dominated, as is the case in chimpanzees and indeed other mammels. This would make such actions the result of social conditioning. John Cage, I suspect, will say that such passive invitations to copulation are the result of genetic charactertics and are therefore fixed.
The formation of a subculture within the hobbyist community is probably unavoidable based on the diversity of its members. However, if the subculture forms as the result of uneven social resources or exclusionary practices, then I feel that it is a dangerous phenomenon because it will inevitably lead to rebellion on the part of the group forming the subculture. For this reason, I feel that the role of genetics, if any, in determining board affiliation merits closer examination.
Last edited:
)
