Will reading political books make you more intelligent?

>>8987571
They will make you look smarter

>>8987571
Not if they're by fucking Noam Chomsky lol

>>8987583
this

the side effect is that they'll make you dumber

>>8987571
I haven't even read that book and I know the answer is jews.

File: drill.jpg (34KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x363px

>>8987593
>America does nothing wrong, Corporations are working with our best interests at heart, and Israel is defending itself by kicking people out of their homes and land sending Settlers in

>>8987607
>gee I don't know this guy's views but I'll just assume they're everything with which I disagree

>>8987571
From my experience, these and self help are like scratching the surface of philosophy. So its good, but you really shouldn't stay in this phase for your entire life.

File: anime.jpg (24KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x320px

>>8987571
>will reading heavily biased propaganda make you more intelligent
loving every laugh

File: centrist.jpg (33KB, 540x425px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 540x425px

>>8987651

I dont know about more intelligent
Expose you to new ideas? Challenge you to think critically? Make you aware of events going on the Corporate Media does not discuss?
Anyway if you're on a Chomsky kick I would recommend:
Inside the Company ~ Philip Agee
In Search of Enemies ~ John Stockwell
Deadly Deceit ~ Ralph McGehee
The Politics of Heroin ~ Alfred W. McCoy
The Crimes of Patriots ~ Jonathan Kwitny
Lost History ~ Robert Parry
Killing Hope ~ William Blum
The Phoenix Program ~ Douglas Valentine
Legacy of Ashes ~ Tim Weiner
Dirty Wars ~ Jeremy Scahill
Kill Chain ~ Andrew Cockburn

>>8987571
No.

also this >>8987601

>>8987607

>my simplifying reality and strawmanning those of a differing opinion I shall become wiser

>>8987571
If read in a critical manner, yes. But if you really want to become 'more intelligent,' then read the stuff political theory is based on: philosophy.

This is especially true in our contemporary world. Just like MacIntyre says, without any shared 'practice' or moral foundation/narrative, political discourse becomes marketing, aka persuasion, emotional manipulation, etc.

>>8987651
>if you disagree with me you're biased
>>8987613
>I don't know this guys views
he thinks Chomsky is wrong so there we go

>>8987681
if you're saying Chomsky is wrong those are the positions you are taking in opposition to him

File: 1473369821329.jpg (18KB, 350x420px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 350x420px

>>8987687
>everybody who thinks Chomsky is wrong thinks >>8987607

>>8987704
they do

>>8987693

I literally said nothing about Chomsky, you fucking retard. I said that >>8987607 is simplifying reality in his implications and strawmanning people he disagrees with

>"you probably believe that corporations are nice, well I am so enlightened that I know how EVIL they are"
>"you probably support the Jewish state, you must be an ignoramus that does not understand that they are LITERALLY FASCISTS"

Holy shit just because you have a retarded one-dimensional view of reality, that doesn't mean that other people who disagree with you have the opposite equally stupid one-dimensional understanding of reality. Get a grip.

But yes, as you asked, Chomsky is wrong about a lot of things, ironically both when it comes to language and politics even though he holds linguistic positions that are incongruent with his political stances.

File: shniff.gif (295KB, 500x276px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 500x276px

>>8987571

Please leave.

This is a Zizek/Foucault board.

>>8987714
you're saying my characterization of criticism of chomsky is wrong

>>8987571
is this book about jews?

>>8987728

Yes.

>>8987571
No, but they will inform you about the ideology of the author.

If you want to learn about actual national and international politics, then study economics. This will tell you why politicians actually do what they do, instead of what they tell the public.

File: Untitled2.png (192KB, 540x521px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 540x521px

>>8987665
Better version

>>8987742
ty

>>8987738
Any recs for starting to learn the "actual" stuff?

>>8987780
Well this might be a good place to start
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/

>>8987835
Thanks.

>>8987667
Thanks for the recs

I dislike the guy because he said our ministry wasn't diverse enough.

>>8987742
>>8987665
Anybody who isn't a liberal moderate has an IQ below 115. That's the cutoff; there is no higher. Every edgy fringe ideology in the history of capitalism is nothing but the resentful projections and fantasies of losers and failures who are too stupid to succeed in society.

>>8987571
Depends on what you mean by smarter. It probably won't help with mathematics or any sciences other then political science.

>>8988187
lol western canon btfo

>>8987571
The answer is yes if you read books you disagree with.

>>8987571
No, but they can make you appear so.

you will just make chomsky richer

>>8987571
Yes, sometimes, unless it's by Ayn Rand, then the opposite is true.

Only if they promote leftist perspectives. Liberalism and conservatism will just make you swallow stupid spooks and identity politics.

>>8987571
Chomsky is fucking meme. "waah America shit East dindu" every book

>>8989518
A mix of conservatist and liberal ideas is best. An entirely liberal society is detrimental to progress

>>8989518
third position is superior

>>8989633
This. Chomsky is a despicable and unapologetic pseud. He's worse than /lit/.