|
The article you linked has no actual studies listed, and the author fails to realize that the concept of white privilege is applicable on a sociological scale, not an individual one. He makes a number of emotional appeals, but says really says nothing of substance. Hell, he outright says himself that you can't trust academia:
Put "white privilege" into a search engine and no small number of results will be for ".edu" URLs, which means that our mental institutions of higher learning are busy teaching "critical race theory" and ideas such as "Whites are taught not to recognize white privilege" and that, as this University of Dayton site informs, white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]"
If you think our universities can't be trusted to find truths about society, or that sociology isn't a science, then there's not much else to say is there?
|
@ReginaldRogers: It's funny that two of the pictures you use should raise a big question mark to your argument but apparently don't:
One shows blacks in America having average IQ of 93 and the other shows that people from so called "black countries" having an average of just below 70.
Do you seriously believe that this huge jump came from some biological effect (because of some mixed marriages or whatever)? Because it seems to be obvious that the nurture part plays a much bigger part in this. This makes sense as well since the IQ test was developed with a certain set of cognitive skills in mind that just might not be all that important in other societies (e.g. compare cramming Asian kids to kids from the countryside in Ghana).
Btw do you believe men to be inherently smarter than women based on brain size (probably you do but I just wanted to be sure)?
How do the studies you cite control for socioeconomic situations and do they try to control for institutional racism (that does not go away even after adoption), if so how?
|
On November 11 2012 22:02 Dracid wrote:The article you linked has no actual studies listed, and the author fails to realize that the concept of white privilege is applicable on a sociological scale, not an individual one. He makes a number of emotional appeals, but says really says nothing of substance. Hell, he outright says himself that you can't trust academia: Show nested quote +Put "white privilege" into a search engine and no small number of results will be for ".edu" URLs, which means that our mental institutions of higher learning are busy teaching "critical race theory" and ideas such as "Whites are taught not to recognize white privilege" and that, as this University of Dayton site informs, white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]" If you think our universities can't be trusted to find truths about society, or that sociology isn't a science, then there's not much else to say is there?
The article I linked makes a sound logical argument. So sound you were unable to refute a single point made. The "article" you linked is an absurd collection of anti-White ramblings with no coherent argument. Here is some more reading for you:
Disparate Impact Realism
Moreover, blacks lag behind whites in actual on-the-job performance, which indicates that employers are not unfairly excluding minorities from the workforce but rather bending over backwards to include them.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1795443
"White privilege" is a disgusting lie. White people are the most discriminated against and poorly treated race in modern Western nations. You yourself are here right now defending racial discrimination against Whites. You are a shining example of the callous disregard people have for the human rights of White people.
You also failed to answer: What supposed problems can only be solved by racial discrimination against Whites and Asians?
On November 11 2012 22:12 silynxer wrote:
@ReginaldRogers: It's funny that two of the pictures you use should raise a big question mark to your argument but apparently don't:
One shows blacks in America having average IQ of 93 and the other shows that people from so called "black countries" having an average of just below 70.
Do you seriously believe that this huge jump came from some biological effect (because of some mixed marriages or whatever)? Because it seems to be obvious that the nurture part plays a much bigger part in this. This makes sense as well since the IQ test was developed with a certain set of cognitive skills in mind that just might not be all that important in other societies (e.g. compare cramming Asian kids to kids from the countryside in Ghana).
Btw do you believe men to be inherently smarter than women based on brain size (probably you do but I just wanted to be sure)?
How do the studies you cite control for socioeconomic situations and do they try to control for institutional racism (that does not go away even after adoption), if so how?
One is a chart showing the average IQs of African blacks in their home countries. The other shows an averaged IQ of American black children in adopted families. There is no question mark when you understand the difference.
It is well known that American blacks have an average IQ ~85, one standard deviation below Whites. Their intelligence is above the IQ of African blacks--surprisingly, if you believe slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination somehow lowered the IQ of American blacks--partially due to improved environment and partially due to admixture with white DNA.
Furthermore you can see the children's IQs are all a fair bit above their racial average. Not all IQ scores are on exactly the same scale, and heritability of intelligence increases with age. Tested at 21 on the same scale as the Africans they would have approximately 85 IQ for Blacks and 100 for Whites.
Something interesting to note is the mixed black/white children score between the black and white children. This would be quite bizarre if the IQ difference were purely environmental. Mixed race children in the USA are culturally considered Black. Obama the first Black president is in fact mixed race himself. Of course it is readily explained and indeed quite obvious when viewed from the genetic perspective.
User was banned for this post.
|
I was under the impression that UT dropped there admission point to top 7%. Too many people from the top 10 percent were making up their college campus. Source: my highschool teacher, so it may not be correct.
|
Wait, I remember this topic coming up a while ago, and some racist prick was repeatedly making an argument that essentially boiled down to black people are intellectually inferior to white people and asians, backed up by pages and pages of disreputable sources and pseudoscience.
And that's basically your argument isn't it? I'd be surprised if you aren't the same prick as before, and hell if I'm going to waste any more time arguing with your fucked up world views.
|
Well, as someone who works on the subject (neurological research), there is a disparity in brain density from race to race...
Not everyone is the same, but we are in friggin 2012, I dont think any sort of afirmative action is necessary anymore.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
seems like a severe storm front blew this guy in.
|
Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor.
Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects.
It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability:
Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything.
You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
|
Professor-in-training here: I got a PhD a large state school (a great place, btw), and taught all the way through; now I'm a postdoctoral researcher at a small university on the east coast (full of the extremely wealthy), and have some experience with teaching and the students here.
The problem with affirmative action in college admissions, as applied quite often, is that a college spot isn't some goodie given out to the deserving, and by giving more of these goodies to blacks (or whoever) we can reverse historical impacts of racism.
Folks are admitted to college because the admissions board thinks that they are good enough to meet the academic standards of the university. The better the students, the better the courses can be; a first-year physics course at MIT is more rigorous than one at my large state school, which in turn is more rigorous than the snobby east coast place, just because as an instructor you do what you need to do for the students in front of you.
Admitting kids to the university for some reason other than academic merit means that we wind up with students in classes that hold everyone else back -- or that get left behind by instructors and flunk out. I've had these kids in my classes. In one case, someone from the astronomy department comes to me and says 'So, we've been wanting to give a scholarship to a member of XYZ minority ethnic group, but we couldn't find one that was anywhere near qualified. We finally found one, but it turns out he's not doing too well, and we've been getting various people to tutor him in his classes since we want this scholarship program for members of his group to succeed (and for us not to look like idiots). I'm the tutor for your class, and I've been a little worried since he's not showed me any of his grades. How is he doing?" I check, and the guy's not turned a thing in! So we have a little conference with the student's permission, and it turns out the student had barely done any work all semester, and had no clue about what was going on. (I hadn't picked up on this because I had my hands full with the students who were working hard and learning and always bashing down my office door and flooding my inbox with fantastic questions -- the TA was behind on grading, and we didn't have exams because of the nature of the course.)
I had another student from this guy's same ethnic group in a similar class. He wasn't there for any special reason based on his race; he was there because he convinced everyone he ought to be there, and was a great student.
In that same class I had a kid who was the son of a wealthy and well-connected guy who was the singularly dumbest kid I've ever encountered on a college classroom; there was no way he belonged there. So it goes both ways and isn't in any way a race thing (although it's often done for racial reasons, as here); admitting folks to university (or to programs within the university) for reasons other than merit is no fun for anyone. It's no fun for their instructors who have to figure out what to do with them; it's no fun for them as they get in over their heads, and either cheat (which happens way too often), flunk out (wasting their time), or get passed through by their instructors... and then get hired by someone after they graduate who realizes to their surprise that this guy they hired with a degree doesn't actually know anything.
If we want to throw money at closing the educational performance gap then the way to do it is to fix failing neighborhood schools -- I have some ideas about how to do that, having volunteered at both good and bad ghetto schools, but that's not the point -- so that on average the students of whatever racial group are more qualified to enter university. The way to do it is NOT to admit kids into university who shouldn't be there, and then give jobs to folks who aren't really qualified. That just further reinforces stereotypes of whatever the minority group is; I've been in work situations (at a NASA facility) where there are a bunch of folks of various "non-disadvantaged groups" around who are good at their jobs, and then there are the folks hired just to fill a racial-preference quota who everyone else just tries to shunt away to positions where they can play Minesweeper and not cause too much trouble.
|
Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term.
Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut
President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/110812-632759-obama-to-wield-bigger-disparate-impact-club.htm
|
On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote:
Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor.
Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects.
It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability:
Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything.
You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly.
Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important.
IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability.
If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological.
|
On November 13 2012 07:41 Huyugu wrote:Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term. Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences JuggernautPresident Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/110812-632759-obama-to-wield-bigger-disparate-impact-club.htm
what? So what are credit card companies suppose to do, calculate black people's credit scores differently than white people's? This is ridiculous.
|
On November 13 2012 08:50 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 07:41 Huyugu wrote:Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term. Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences JuggernautPresident Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/110812-632759-obama-to-wield-bigger-disparate-impact-club.htm what? So what are credit card companies suppose to do, calculate black people's credit scores differently than white people's? This is ridiculous.
Sounds like a new recipe for the next mortgage crisis.
That is fucking scary considering how many ways it could be implemented. On the other hand it will be interesting to see the NBA teams sued due to their physical requirements that shun Asians. Maybe if one racial group is less likely to pass the physical examination for the army we can sue them as well.
|
On November 13 2012 08:17 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote:
Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor.
Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects.
It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability:
Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything.
You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent. Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly. Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important. IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability. If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological.
First of all the cultural effects are very obvious at least if you believe the graphics of ReginaldRogers as I explained in the post above. A freaking 8 point gain just from being adopted into white middle class families, it does not get more obvious than that. Then there is also the fact that IQ averages have been steadily going up now, which can only be explained through culture in any meaningful way. This is no myth.
So the cultural effects are exceedingly obvious even if I don't offer any quantitative explanation for them (which is very common for all kinds of phenomena, see gravity) and while I agree that we are bad at explaining differences in groups, if your point of view is going to discriminate whole continents then you better have a water tight case (not meaning you but speaking hypothetical). You will note that I never tried to prove that there is no genetic component to intelligence and only showed that the alleged "proof" was insufficient.
Our cultural privilege in this is that we may define what intelligence means and apparently we went for a very narrow set of cognitive abilities, that are rarely used outside of our academic institutions (yay reductionism that can make you feel superior!). As an example, I remember faintly some IQ test I once did where you had to cross out all the O's or something in jumble of letters. I wonder why people who seldomly read might fare worse in this test! I can only hope that in international tests they account for these glaring biases.
Then there is the stuff that the whole test is on paper or something comparable like a computer, why oh why would people who are used from early age to these settings do better than kids who mainly help their family with the Yaks in Nepal? I'm quite certain that if you test people on cognitive skills they actually need, they will do generally better than people who don't need them. And I'm also quite certain that no matter how you live you need some cognitive skills but it might be that there is no good test for those skills with pen and paper.
It is not important that the test was invented by white people but that it was invented with the set of cognitive skills in mind that you need in our society which we then call intelligence (with the implication that anybody who doesn't have them is dumb).
[EDIT]: One little addition, I for one would be interested in some self referential measures like how good a person is at assessing his own biases because I think this is as close as we can come to a universal intelligence (but to make an interculturally comparable test looks again very difficult). It's quite an interesting field because there is stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect but then there are also effects where so called experts don't do better in predicting but are a great deal more sure about their predictions (the source can be found in Taleb's The Black Swan, which I unfortunately don't have flying around right now).
|
On November 13 2012 09:41 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 08:17 Romantic wrote:On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote:
Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor.
Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects.
It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability:
Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything.
You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent. Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly. Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important. IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability. If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological. First of all the cultural effects are very obvious at least if you believe the graphics of ReginaldRogers as I explained in the post above. A freaking 8 point gain just from being adopted into white middle class families, it does not get more obvious than that. Then there is also the fact that IQ averages have been steadily going up now, which can only be explained through culture in any meaningful way. This is no myth. So the cultural effects are exceedingly obvious even if I don't offer any quantitative explanation for them (which is very common for all kinds of phenomena, see gravity) and while I agree that we are bad at explaining differences in groups, if your point of view is going to discriminate whole continents then you better have a water tight case (not meaning you but speaking hypothetical). You will note that I never tried to prove that there is no genetic component to intelligence and only showed that the alleged "proof" was insufficient. Our cultural privilege in this is that we may define what intelligence means and apparently we went for a very narrow set of cognitive abilities, that are rarely used outside of our academic institutions (yay reductionism that can make you feel superior!). As an example, I remember faintly some IQ test I once did where you had to cross out all the O's or something in jumble of letters. I wonder why people who seldomly read might fare worse in this test! I can only hope that in international tests they account for these glaring biases. Then there is the stuff that the whole test is on paper or something comparable like a computer, why oh why would people who are used from early age to these settings do better than kids who mainly help their family with the Yaks in Nepal? I'm quite certain that if you test people on cognitive skills they actually need, they will do generally better than people who don't need them. And I'm also quite certain that no matter how you live you need some cognitive skills but it might be that there is no good test for those skills with pen and paper. It is not important that the test was invented by white people but that it was invented with the set of cognitive skills in mind that you need in our society which we then call intelligence (with the implication that anybody who doesn't have them is dumb). [EDIT]: One little addition, I for one would be interested in some self referential measures like how good a person is at assessing his own biases because I think this is as close as we can come to a universal intelligence (but to make an interculturally comparable test looks again very difficult). It's quite an interesting field because there is stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect but then there are also effects where so called experts don't do better in predicting but are a great deal more sure about their predictions (the source can be found in Taleb's The Black Swan, which I unfortunately don't have flying around right now).
please don't use your experience taking online IQ tests to make sweeping generalizations about IQ tests
intelligence is polygenic and highly heritable
SOURCE: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html
so it is possible to see a divergence of intelligence between two populations. disparate impact automatically assumes that there is a problem with the standardized test if there is a disparity between minorities.
interesting to note that when people use race to demonstrate differences, people love to use the "there is no such thing as race" excuse. however, when using race to give them an advantage with job quotas and affirmative action, minorities have no problem with stratifying themselves according to race.
|
I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
|
On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote:
I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
AA effects people every day. How are you suppose to know if you were effected by AA? Are you just going to call up every college that declined you and asked them if you would have been accepted if you were black? I know for a fact the University I'm attending would have given me a full ride if I was black, so in a sense AA is costing me thousands of dollars because of differences in how students are treated based purely on race. I can't stress enough, hundreds of thousands of people are effected by AA in some way.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you were black, and 80% of the country were black, the college would not be able to afford to provide you with scholarship.
on the other hand, if you were black (which means your parents and grandparents were black) you would probably be out in some ghetto right now.
i don't think race is the primary decider for grants.
|
On November 13 2012 11:58 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote:
I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me. AA effects people every day. How are you suppose to know if you were effected by AA? Are you just going to call up every college that declined you and asked them if you would have been accepted if you were black? I know for a fact the University I'm attending would have given me a full ride if I was black, so in a sense AA is costing me thousands of dollars because of differences in how students are treated based purely on race. I can't stress enough, hundreds of thousands of people are effected by AA in some way.
First off the if I was black life would be easier argument is stupid to use for a variety of reasons. Second hundreds of thousands is quite the number. There are probably not even hundreds of thousands of minority students across all of the colleges. So by pulling that gynormously huge number out of your ass am I to assume that you're saying every minority student is taking a spot away from a better qualified non-minority? Cause thats the only way it would make sense.
|
On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote:
I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
Same way how abuse of power or corruption annoys some people despite the fact that it generally didn't effect them directly. It's the principle.
If you were a college student applying for hundreds of graduate programs with each program attracting a few hundreds applicants chances are AA has effected you in some minute way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
