|
On November 08 2012 03:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
Quite a good illustration of how the nature vs nurture argument works on this forum. I have had history lectures where the question of "how many angels could dance on the point of a pin" was mocked, yet there is nothing in Medieval theology comparable to the stretches of science fiction we invent to satisfy our moral fantasies here. It's enough to coin a new slate of jargon under the general title of "opinionism," which I suppose is our substitute for what used to be called good works.
Not to sit on the fence, I'll just depart by saying that nurture is of course the ethically superior opinion. Unfortunately that secret is only known to ourselves, and the other few daydreamers who suffer from the same mass delirium.
For the rest of the world, it is utterly inconsequential by what -ology or -ism blacks are generally supposed to have traits X, Y, Z. As inconsequential anyhow, as why Cats are always charging furiously at nothing.
|
On November 08 2012 03:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field.
I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
|
On November 08 2012 08:31 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field. I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics.
Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race.
|
On November 08 2012 01:28 glabius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 01:24 Silvanel wrote:On November 08 2012 00:43 glabius wrote:
Holy shit. I'm tired of this stupid argument that Asians are the most intelligent, blacks are genetically dumb, etc. There is no conclusive evidence that any of this is true just based on genetics.
Its not stupid argument, its a fact that Asians on average score better than whites in IQ tests, and whites better than blacks. You can dispute it of course claiming, that the reasons for this are socio-economical differences or iq-tests bias, but this is still a fact and actually very good argument. Also there cant be any conclusive evidence that this fact is based solely on genetics simply because everyone is affacted by their cultural enviroment. You cant test IQ in cultural free enviroment, as everything is affacted by culture, using this fact as an argument against IQ tests is simply retared. Take me for example, i leave near a powerplant and loud noises from powerplant keep me awake at night, causing me to never having good sleep and contributing to my bad grades. Also my mother was smoking during my preganancy, it sure as hell did affact me, perhaps i should adjust my iq score multiplaying it by 1.1 . Also my genes are shitty, its not my fault and therefore i should adjust my results by further 1.1 . There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all. Yeah, they do score on average better on IQ tests? So fucking what? We should only give manual labor jobs to blacks, and the technical jobs to asians?
No, we shouldn't do that. We should give out jobs based on individual capacity. An Asian person isn't automatically smarter than a black person. But after we give out those jobs based on individual capacity, then we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there are more Asians than blacks with technical jobs.
These IQ tests have much more to do with environmental factors than innate ability.
100% certified bullshit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
the counter argument is, people that are brought up in an environment more fostering to their intelligence are more likely to have intelligent parents. Genetics and IQ is well established, so it's possible these very real correlations are simply caused by the underlying genetic factors.
|
On November 09 2012 05:47 Tewks44 wrote:the counter argument is, people that are brought up in an environment more fostering to their intelligence are more likely to have intelligent parents. Genetics and IQ is well established, so it's possible these very real correlations are simply caused by the underlying genetic factors.
To go from "within the realm of possibility" to the contextual meaning of "possible" in this sentence is an enormous leap of reasoning. The quantity of evidence for environmental influence on brain function of all kinds is staggering. Everything from environmental enrichment studies to sociology, from fishes to mice to humans, take your pick.
That's a huge chasm to leap over to say, "Blacks are just fucking stupid, there's nothing to be done."
|
On November 09 2012 01:32 glabius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 08:31 yandere991 wrote:On November 08 2012 03:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field. I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me. They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics. Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race.
When they are not qualified as the person that is passed over they are an inferior option.
What about access to sporting teams or is equal opportunity for all not applicable to all races.
The link you have posted have no explanatory power bar the 10% longer prison sentence terms. The 30% more likely to be incarcerated statistic could also likely be due to having 30% chance of comitting a crime.
|
A lot of people here seem to miss the point of affirmative action (and I did when I was younger).
1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological.
2. One of the primary sociological factors in the development of any child is their parents.
3. By using affirmative action today in colleges, you take today's youths and make them vastly better parents for tomorrow. They in turn will raise a better and brighter generation.
So the entire point of affirmative action is to attempt to course correct the sociological imbalances between the different races. Is it fair from the perspective of a white student who is just above the borderline for entry but passed up for a black student slightly below them? No.
I'm sorry life isn't fair for that person at that moment, but life is more often not fair for African Americans (this can be supported by data easily).
The whole strategy of "oppress a population of people for 150 years then when you can't oppress them any longer, just pretend they don't exist instead" doesn't work and is a form of bigotry on to itself.
On November 09 2012 07:08 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 01:32 glabius wrote:On November 08 2012 08:31 yandere991 wrote:On November 08 2012 03:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field. I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me. They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics. Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race. What about access to sporting teams or is equal opportunity for all not applicable to all races.
It should be applicable to all races in any academic situation. Sports is irrelevant to future socioeconomic status of the individuals in question here. That's a fairly bad analogy.
|
On November 09 2012 10:30 dcemuser wrote:
A lot of people here seem to miss the point of affirmative action (and I did when I was younger).
1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological.
2. One of the primary sociological factors in the development of any child is their parents.
3. By using affirmative action today in colleges, you take today's youths and make them vastly better parents for tomorrow. They in turn will raise a better and brighter generation.
So the entire point of affirmative action is to attempt to course correct the sociological imbalances between the different races. Is it fair from the perspective of a white student who is just above the borderline for entry but passed up for a black student slightly below them? No.
I'm sorry life isn't fair for that person at that moment, but life is more often not fair for African Americans (this can be supported by data easily).
The whole strategy of "oppress a population of people for 150 years then when you can't oppress them any longer, just pretend they don't exist instead" doesn't work and is a form of bigotry on to itself.
I think the big question is whether or not AA is actually effective in doing so. If your whole life has been shitty to the point you're dumb as a rock and then you're given an opportunity to go to college, can you really take advantage of it? I would argue that it makes more sense to just reform primary education given your early years make a huge difference later on rather than trying to fix it after things have gotten fucked up.
|
Only if Fisher had made it into the top 10% if his class..
|
On November 09 2012 10:30 dcemuser wrote:A lot of people here seem to miss the point of affirmative action (and I did when I was younger). 1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological. 2. One of the primary sociological factors in the development of any child is their parents. 3. By using affirmative action today in colleges, you take today's youths and make them vastly better parents for tomorrow. They in turn will raise a better and brighter generation. So the entire point of affirmative action is to attempt to course correct the sociological imbalances between the different races. Is it fair from the perspective of a white student who is just above the borderline for entry but passed up for a black student slightly below them? No. I'm sorry life isn't fair for that person at that moment, but life is more often not fair for African Americans (this can be supported by data easily). The whole strategy of "oppress a population of people for 150 years then when you can't oppress them any longer, just pretend they don't exist instead" doesn't work and is a form of bigotry on to itself. Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 07:08 yandere991 wrote:On November 09 2012 01:32 glabius wrote:On November 08 2012 08:31 yandere991 wrote:On November 08 2012 03:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote:On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote:
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important. No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field. I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me. They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics. Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race. What about access to sporting teams or is equal opportunity for all not applicable to all races. It should be applicable to all races in any academic situation. Sports is irrelevant to future socioeconomic status of the individuals in question here. That's a fairly bad analogy.
Why consider race then? Why not just consider a persons socioeconomic background? Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
|
Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
|
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others. Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field. Show nested quote +Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings? Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
I don't see the relevance of this. The black kid is not going into a job or uni interview in a hoodie so this is completely irrelevant. All races have stereotypes, if I crashed my car into a white dude's who do you most people will think is at fault? Doesn't mean I should get preferences in education and employment.
|
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others. Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field. Show nested quote +Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings? Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
|
Adoption studies have shown childhood environment to have almost no effect on intelligence. IQ of a child is related to their biological parents, and almost completely unaffected by environment.
I recommend watching Brainwash Episode Two so you can learn more. It is a television series which exposes bad science done in the name of egalitarianism. Jump to 16:55 to see an interview where Plomin discusses what I mentioned.
Hjernevask ("Brainwashing") - English - Part 2 - The Parental Effect
On November 09 2012 06:11 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 05:47 Tewks44 wrote:the counter argument is, people that are brought up in an environment more fostering to their intelligence are more likely to have intelligent parents. Genetics and IQ is well established, so it's possible these very real correlations are simply caused by the underlying genetic factors. To go from "within the realm of possibility" to the contextual meaning of "possible" in this sentence is an enormous leap of reasoning. The quantity of evidence for environmental influence on brain function of all kinds is staggering. Everything from environmental enrichment studies to sociology, from fishes to mice to humans, take your pick. That's a huge chasm to leap over to say, "Blacks are just fucking stupid, there's nothing to be done."
DNA markers associated with high versus low IQ: the IQ Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Project.
General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8024528
On November 09 2012 10:30 dcemuser wrote:
1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological.
I must admit I am a bit surprised anyone would make such an outrageously inaccurate claim. What you say is completely wrong. Sadly I have come to expect this level of ignorance from people who support racial discrimination against Asians and Whites.
Discoveries using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for a review). And there is more. The National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 53,000 children by Sarah Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter at birth significantly predicts head perimeter at 7 years — and head perimeter at seven years predicts IQ. It also shows that Asian children average a larger head perimeter at birth than do White children who average a larger head perimeter than do Black children.
Racial differences in brain size have been established using a variety of modern methods. Using endocranial volume, for example, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians averaged 1,415 cm3 , Europeans averaged 1,362 cm3, and Africans averaged 1,268 cm3 . Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets and found that Asian Americans averaged 1,416 cm3, European Americans 1,380 cm3, and African Americans 1,359 cm3. Finally, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (again see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for review).
As discussed in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) The Bell Curve, and Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, the heritability of intelligence is now well established from numerous adoption, twin, and family studies. Particularly noteworthy are the genetic contributions of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart. And most transracial adoption studies provide evidence for the heritability of racial differences in IQ. For instance, Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into white American and white Belgian homes were examined in studies by E.A. Clark and J. Hanisee, by M. Frydman and R. Lynn, and by M. Winick et al. Many had been hospitalized for malnutrition. But they went on to develop IQs ten or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. By contrast, the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study marked black/white differences emerged by age 17 even though the black children had been reared in white middle-class families (Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman, 1992).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5LjnFs.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LrSn3s.jpg)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
read the flynn effect. white cohorts show drastic iq increase by era. from that, you conclude either the environment, or the dna led to the effect. only one of which has changed significantly.
and next time don't keep this stuff saved up on your computer.
|
On November 09 2012 17:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others. Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field. Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings? Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege. That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
This. This is what pisses me off. We don't have flat tax rates, the more you earn the more tax you pay and that makes sense. You don't say "white people are more likely to be rich so we tax all white people slightly more" because that would be insanely stupid.
It's the same with AA. Although I personally believe when it comes to academics it should be based on test scores and nothing else if there is some kind of obligation from a public university to admit lesser qualified individuals purely because they are disadvantaged then, I guess, fine, but saying "most of the time that's a black person" and then giving them special treatment based on race is just wrong.
|
On November 09 2012 17:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others. Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field. Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings? Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege. That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
In a study published in 2003, sociologist Deirdre A. Royster compared black and white males who graduated from the same school with the same skills. In looking at their success with school-work transition and working experiences, she found that white graduates were more often employed in skilled trades, earned more, held higher status positions, received more promotions and experienced shorter periods of unemployment. Since all other factors were similar, the differences in employment experiences were attributed to race.
Discrimination based on wealth does solve most of the problems, but not all of them.
|
On November 09 2012 23:48 oneofthem wrote:
read the flynn effect. white cohorts show drastic iq increase by era. from that, you conclude either the environment, or the dna led to the effect. only one of which has changed significantly.
and next time don't keep this stuff saved up on your computer.
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2010). Editorial. The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Intelligence, 38, 213-219.
In this Editorial we correct the false claim that g loadings and inbreeding depression scores correlate with the secular gains in IQ. This claim has been used to render the logic of heritable g a "red herring" and an "absurdity" as an explanation of Black–White differences because secular gains are environmental in origin. In point of fact, while g loadings and inbreeding depression scores on the 11 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children correlate significantly positively with Black–White differences (0.61 and 0.48,Pb0.001), they correlate significantly negatively(or not at all) with the secular gains (meanr=-0.33,Pb0.001; and 0.13,ns, respectively). Moreover, heritabilities calculated from twins also correlate with the g loadings (r=0.99,Pb0.001 for the estimated true correlation), providing biological evidence for a true genetic g, as opposed to a mere statistical g.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm (direct link to pdf)
See also:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AhFs9s.jpg)
On November 11 2012 20:50 Dracid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 17:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others. Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field. Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings? Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege. That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilegeShow nested quote +In a study published in 2003, sociologist Deirdre A. Royster compared black and white males who graduated from the same school with the same skills. In looking at their success with school-work transition and working experiences, she found that white graduates were more often employed in skilled trades, earned more, held higher status positions, received more promotions and experienced shorter periods of unemployment. Since all other factors were similar, the differences in employment experiences were attributed to race. Discrimination based on wealth does solve most of the problems, but not all of them.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_myth_of_white_privilege.html
What supposed problems can only be solved by racial discrimination against Whites and Asians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
