Cannabis smokers 'risk lower IQ'

[Mailmonkey]

More classic hitchens, from a few weeks ago, he's rabid about weed

That is not because I have in any way ceased to believe that cannabis is a major menace and the most dangerous drug now loose in our society. I absolutely believe that to be true, and I am sure that it will eventually become the consensus

from here

 

[spudgun]

Class is very much in the mind. You could have 2 people living next door to each other, driving identical cars, and working in the same job, but they could be different classes. Many working class people are taught from a very early age this peverse mentality that they must accept authority in all it's guises to get on in life, while many middle class people are taught to question authority (and to question everything). One group is being raised to be workers, like their parents before them, and the other group is being raised to manage and take positions higher up the ladder.

I don't buy this at all. Since we're making sweeping generalisations, social conformity has traditionally been much more a hallmark of the middle classes, or, more particularly, the petit-bourgeoise.

It's always been about keeping up with the jones's, status-anxiety and trying to climb the greasy pole. They tend to buy into the system which screws them over a lot more, as opposed to putting up with it and making the best of it through direct conflict (less scope for this since the decline of unions and the pride that went with them).

Look at the distinction between the way the different groups reacted to the church when it was a dominant force, for example. Sincerely revered in the richer communities (more out of social observance than actual faith) - mocked and undermined in poorer communities.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I don't buy this at all. Since we're making sweeping generalisations, social conformity has traditionally been much more a hallmark of the middle classes, or, more particularly, the petit-bourgeoise.

It's always been about keeping up with the jones's, status-anxiety and trying to climb the greasy pole. They tend to buy into the system which screws them over a lot more, as opposed to putting up with it and making the best of it through direct conflict (less scope for this since the decline of unions and the pride that went with them).

Look at the distinction between the way the different groups reacted to the church when it was a dominant force, for example. Sincerely revered in the richer communities (more out of social observance than actual faith) - mocked and undermined in poorer communities.

I see a distinction between buying into the system and social conformity, and having a questioning attitude toward authority. There are status anxious individuals throughout society, although it can take the reverse effect in the lower classes - where they are anxious not to seem posh or middle class. Reverse snobbery if you will. This is why you get people like Alan Sugar saying he is working class, when he most certainly is not. Class does not begin and end at having a cockney accent. The middle class use the system, whereas the working class operates within the system. The middle class becomes the authority, becomes the system, while the working class continue generation after generation in a cycle of being confined by an externally created system. As soon as you start questioning authority, being your own boss, becoming a professional, and progressing, you become middle class.

Your perception almost seems clouded by the 'class' system in the US. Having studied history reasonably extensively, I haven't really seen any evidence for your viewpoint that religion was any more revered among the middle classes than the working classes.

What I am saying isn't just my pure conjecture, and I don't think it universally applies. But rather it is based on sociological studies into how different classes raise their children. Here is an example:

A study by Indiana University sociologist Jessica McCrory Calarco found that working-class and middle-class parents often take very deliberate -- but different -- approaches to helping their children with their school experiences.

Working-class parents, she found, coached their children on how to avoid problems, often through finding a solution on their own and by being polite and deferential to authority figures. Middle-class parents, on the other hand, were more likely to encourage their kids to ask questions or ask for help.

These self-advocacy skills taught by middle-class parents not only can help the children in school -- because these parents know that in educational settings teachers often expect and reward such behavior -- but they could help later in life in other institutional settings.

"Youth who do not learn to advocate for themselves might have more difficulty interacting with social service providers, financial service providers, legal authorities and other bureaucratic institutions," said Calarco, assistant professor in the Department of Sociology in IU's College of Arts and Sciences.

Calarco will discuss her research on Sunday during the American Sociological Association's annual meeting in Denver.

Her study focuses on the interaction between parents, children and teachers during the students' fourth- and fifth-grade years at a public elementary school. Her school observations took place at least twice a week, and then she interviewed the students and parents the summer following their fifth-grade year.

Conducted while Calarco was a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, the study is among the first to provide evidence that parents from different social classes teach their children different lessons about interacting with institutions. It also shows that parents help to perpetuate inequalities not only through what they do for their children, such as equipping them with different resources or opportunities, but also through what they teach children to do for themselves.

Calarco characterized both working-class and middle-class parents as "relentless" when it came to teaching their children important lessons. This sometimes even involved role-playing, when the middle-class parents wanted their children to solve their problem on their own -- but couldn't quite leave it to chance. She also found the students very receptive.

"Even very shy middle-class children learned to feel comfortable approaching teachers with questions, and recognized the benefits of doing so," she said. "Working-class children instead worried about making teachers mad or angry if they asked for help at the wrong time or in the wrong way, and also felt that others would judge them as incompetent or not smart if they asked for help. These differences, in turn, seem to stem not from differences in how teachers responded to students -- when working-class students did ask questions, teachers welcomed and readily addressed these requests -- but from differences in the skills, strategies and orientations that children learn from their parents at home."

Both strategies reenforce and confine social class groups into their relative positions in society.

 

[spudgun]

I'm not clouded by the US perspective, I was speaking from a British perspective, as the class system is a totally different kettle of fish over there. There's the cult of patriotism, for a start, "the American Dream", the biggest lie ever told.

If you've studied history extensively, do peasant's revolts ring a bell? Ever heard of The Diggers? Disrespect for authority is obviously going to be more prevalent amongst the disempowered.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'm not clouded by the US perspective, I was speaking from a British perspective, as the class system is a totally different kettle of fish over there. There's the cult of patriotism, for a start, "the American Dream", the biggest lie ever told.

If you've studied history extensively, do peasant's revolts ring a bell? Ever heard of The Diggers? Disrespect for authority is obviously going to be more prevalent amongst the disempowered.

I just listed a specific study which showed the different life strategies taught to children by their parents from a class perspective. Disrespect for authority and questioning authority are totally different things. Peasants revolts largely happened when we were in an agrarian society, rather than the much more stratafied society we find ourselves in now. They were largely triggered by a lack of food, or greater taxation. They weren't spontaneous on going things. Almost every revolution since the capitalist era began has had at it's helm a charismatic leader from the Middle Classes. Even the Diggers you mention were lead by someone I would consider to be firmly middle class. Plus, to reference history so far back is to kind of miss the point that humanity has progressed and society has greatly changed. There were no sociological studies performed back then for either of us to base a legitimate opinion on.

 

[spudgun]

Ok then - apart from a handful of aberrations, which demographic do you think made up the majority of the rioters last summer? Or the Toxteth / Brixton Riots. Who was the charismatic middle class agitator there? You can find study results which support nearly any rhetorical standpoint you want to adopt - it doesn't mean they necessarily make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Ok then - apart from a handful of aberrations, like Dave Gilmour's spawn, which demographic do you think made up the majority of the rioters last summer? Or the Toxteth / Brixton Riots. Who was the charismatic middle class agitator there? You can find study results which support nearly any rhetorical standpoint you want to adopt - it doesn't mean they necessarily make any sense whatsoever.

Find me a study which supports your point of view and I will gladly read it and adapt my view accordingly?

I don't see how the fact that the poor periodically riot shows that they have any less respect for authority than the middle classes. All it shows is that they aren't smart about the way they go about how they attack authority. What did they achieve via leaving authority over them unchecked for so long that it exploded like that? Nothing. What do the middle classes get through perpetually questioning authority rather than shying away from it til it takes enough shits on them to really set them off? They get higher positions in society, and they get things much more their own way. The working classes might not respect authority but they certainly go along with it for the most part, because that's what they're taught to do.

 

[spudgun]

So how exactly do the middle class 'challenge authority'? I think your rather elastic definition amounts now to nothing more than being successful within the strict parameters of the game.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

So how exactly do the middle class 'challenge authority'? I think your rather elastic definition amounts now to nothing more than being successful within the strict parameters of the game.

It is more to do with questioning authority (which is a challenge) over and over and over, wherever they find it questionable. There is not a tacit acceptance that others have authority over you even if you don't like it. It is rather a poor example, but it is the best one that comes to my mind; Think of how Louis in Malcolm in the Middle expects Malcolm to behave to survive. And then think of how Malcolm actually behaves and how it gets him further in life than following the rules would, even if he does pick up punishments along the way for his questioning and disobeying he gets much further than his parents. Louis tries to teach him over and over again to just accept and do what those 'above' him say to do, but it is being a questioner than leads you to become the person who people on the lower end of the social spectrum end up taking orders from. You cannot assume power when you accept power over you so readily. The working classes think they are never going to get to the top, so they get trained to be good workers because that is the tactic to a good life in the working classes.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

It's certainly true that fascist parties are traditionally led by the petit bourgeoisie. And the left in Britain has always been let down by middle class leadership.

 

[Mailmonkey]

Think of how Louis in Malcolm in the Middle expects Malcolm to behave to survive. And then think of how Malcolm actually behaves and how it gets him further in life

lol, case closed then.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

lol, case closed then.

Yeah I thought that was a novel approach too.

 

[spudgun]

It's certainly true that fascist parties are traditionally led by the petit bourgeoisie. And the left in Britain has always been let down by middle class leadership.

Yeh - it has been let down by middle class leadership, especially over the last 20-30 years. but it wasn't always thus.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

lol, case closed then.

I couldn't really think of a better example we would both be able to relate to I think the absurdity of the general plots in MITM is underpinned with a pretty spot on representation of the life and struggles of an ordinary working class family in America, and that's why it's such a good show.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

It's certainly true that fascist parties are traditionally led by the petit bourgeoisie. And the left in Britain has always been let down by middle class leadership.

Interestingly Bob Crowe still lives in a council house. He also cavorts at the races drinking champagne with his new pals I assume spending his 100k+ pay check, making him literally a champagne socialist. As you know i'm not a socialist, but I still don't like that kind of hypocrisy - even if it does undermine your movement substantially

 

[Mailmonkey]

I couldn't really think of a better example we would both be able to relate to I think the absurdity of the general plots in MITM is underpinned with a pretty spot on representation of the life and struggles of an ordinary working class family in America, and that's why it's such a good show.

It is a very good show, but very un-MSB of you to use that to illustrate a serious socio-political point. I want graphs! :D

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Yeh - it has been let down by middle class leadership, especially over the last 20-30 years. but it wasn't always thus.

I'm afraid it was. You have to go back to your peasants revolt, 650 years ago, when by definition there was no middle class, for a political issue where we haven't been sold out on.

 

[spudgun]

Bob crow is a bit of a knob - but the Council house thing is totally consistent with what he claims to stand for - before it was sold off, it didn't have so much of a negative stigma and you'd have people from totally different walks of life living together - the way it should be.

 

[spudgun]

I'm afraid it was. You have to go back to your peasants revolt, 650 years ago, when by definition there was no middle class, for a political issue where we haven't been sold out on.

The roots of 20thC leftism were hardly born out of middle class activism. Keir hardie, Bevan etc. weren't champagne socialists. Not that it bears any relation to the party as it stands today, but the labour movement was responsible for a lot we can still be proud of.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Bob crow is a bit of a knob - but the Council house thing is totally consistent with what he claims to stand for - before it was sold off, it didn't have so much of a negative stigma and you'd have people from totally different walks of life living together - the way it should be.

I believe the maxim of "each according to his need" should really underpin how the leader of one of the most powerful unions in the country should behave. He doesn't need a council house, and as such shouldn't be taking a council house that someone else might genuinely need. If he wants to make sure the working classes are gifted with his company then i'm sure he could easily buy more than a house a year on his salary.