if you are not your body, then having those factors be outside your control is less threatening to your identity
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @browserdotsys
That’s leaving out an important element- the social ways we categorize things about the body and mind. Both “intelligence” and “obesity” are bodily, but they are not /only/ bodily. We miss the mixed constitution of traits like those too often.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @opobjectives @browserdotsys
Cognitive performance is probably as bodily as athletic performance. And while nobody denies the importance of exercise for top athletes as well as genetics, many think that mental ability is not the result of exercise and talent, and instead of opportunity and encouragement.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @browserdotsys
Agreed that people who consider atheletic performance to have different roots than cognitive performance are doing it wrong. My point was largely that we should think about the whole bunch of factors- exercise, talent, community environment, training, etc. together.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
On top of that, it would probably be helpful to recognize that our ideas of what counts as athletic or cognitive performance (for example) are, themselves, social.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That could open up a range of good questions, like: how can we think of sport or play as intellectual activities? Or, How do activities that might traditionally be thought of as intellectual rely on similar practices to things like sport?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @opobjectives @browserdotsys
I suspect that you get confused by being unable to see these categories as purely descriptive instead of normative
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @browserdotsys
There’s plenty of room for questioning normativity in what I’m saying. That’s a strength of thinking about categories as social practices. That approach can help pull apart how and why categories like “obese” or “intellectually gifted” are normatively loaded.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
To get back to
@browserdotsys’ thoughts, someone could look at how genetics are used more often as an explanation in some situations but less often in others. And then we could ask why genetics would be accepted as an explanation for one kind of thing and not another.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
My hunch is that kind of investigation would likely show how using genetics as an explanation is, itself, subject to normative expectations.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
My point is that you cannot hope to think clearly as long as you care about what other people think.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @browserdotsys
On one way of speaking, sure. On another, we don’t think at all without other people, things, bodies, and world. Categories come from society and their meanings change through use.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.