Strucstar
Wild Horses
intelligence
There has been a recent proliferation of evidence from brain scientists suggesting that 'women', have a sum intelligence, superior to that of 'men'.
Now, does the acceptance and application of this knowledge, result in a degenerative / oppressive power relation. And would this relation necessarily be inefficient?
These queries always undermine the taxonomic principles upon which they are constructed. Are 'men' and 'women' irreducible ontologies? The answer is, no, and it is the same situation that we have with race.
Lets explore the current epistemological reality with the crude analogy of the job interview;
Candidate a) is understood by the interviewer to be a 'caucasian'. Candidate b) is understood to be a 'arab'. The interviewer has knowledge that arabs are more intelligent than caucasians. Candidate b)' subsequently gets the job.
It is possible that candidate a)'s intelligence was more suited to the tasks required by the employer. This would suggest that the system of racial signification is inefficient. But my point is that there is a imperative of efficiency that thrives in late capitalism. It would therefore be paradoxically inefficient to conduct a more objective, thorough screening process of every individual if the dominant knowledge indicated a greater probability of finding 'intelligence' amongst 'arabs'.
Ya get me?:slanted:
There has been a recent proliferation of evidence from brain scientists suggesting that 'women', have a sum intelligence, superior to that of 'men'.
Now, does the acceptance and application of this knowledge, result in a degenerative / oppressive power relation. And would this relation necessarily be inefficient?
These queries always undermine the taxonomic principles upon which they are constructed. Are 'men' and 'women' irreducible ontologies? The answer is, no, and it is the same situation that we have with race.
Lets explore the current epistemological reality with the crude analogy of the job interview;
Candidate a) is understood by the interviewer to be a 'caucasian'. Candidate b) is understood to be a 'arab'. The interviewer has knowledge that arabs are more intelligent than caucasians. Candidate b)' subsequently gets the job.
It is possible that candidate a)'s intelligence was more suited to the tasks required by the employer. This would suggest that the system of racial signification is inefficient. But my point is that there is a imperative of efficiency that thrives in late capitalism. It would therefore be paradoxically inefficient to conduct a more objective, thorough screening process of every individual if the dominant knowledge indicated a greater probability of finding 'intelligence' amongst 'arabs'.
Ya get me?:slanted: