^ Sorry, that was definitely some trolling on my part. That said, the caste system is only officially dead and its not the only source of social stratification based on heredity in India or elsewhere.
Didn’t we have a thread on this once and it was clearly demonstrated to you that poor (primarily black and Hispanic) children *do* have plenty of government assistance for both food (i.e. free/reduced breakfast and lunch in addition to EBT) and daycare (generally provided free or very reduced at the municipal level). And yet, despite these “solutions”, blacks and Hispanics lag.
Given that this is the case and given that you want to sever the relationship between child and parent achievement, it seems that you are advocating pretty extreme measures. Either that, or you’re arguing in favor for social programs that already exist and are demonstrably ineffective at “equalizing” outcomes.
Then let’s take another look at the programs. Either you believe blacks are inherently dumb or there is a systemic issue at play. Or you are OK with hereditary based success. I want to sever parent/child linkages in success where parents are bringing kids down. I have never advocated a prohibition on parents providing resources for their kids success. Rather, I want a minimum level of education, a good minimum level, for everyone. And those top levels of education reserved for the best and brightest, not the most privledged and wealthy. If anything I think my view is more in line with the underlying principles of America than a system where heredity privledge carries the day.
My mother’s a teacher and i know for a fact the poor have a lot of support through gov’t programs. In the school system she teachers in, they have access to free meals (breakfast and lunch) and a bus that will bring them home after afterschool activities such as sports.
As for Geo’s argument, i think we all recognize his points. The education system does create a quasi caste system where the elite’s children have access to the best education and from this luxery, usually maintain such an elite status. And yet a true caste system has celings imposed, there are plenty of examples that prove this is not the case so we can all agree that argument is not valid.
Are there those who fall victim to the current system, sadly yes, and this is Geo’s arugment. I disagree with the tracking starting at 16, i still think that is too young for a person to be fully aware of how certain acts effect their future (i.e taking mediocre classes will most likely translate to medicre careers. The final question is, what is the solution. Imo, an unbiased standardized test should be mandated along considering actual performance in class, a la the current system.
Take another look at the programs? We’re talking food and daycare, not NASA and JPL. These programs have been around for decades and, if you’re measuring their success in terms of equalizing outcomes, these programs are obviously failures.
Yes, as a group, African Americans are demonstrably “dumber” than white Americans who are demonstrably “dumber” than Asian Americans. That is, if you determine intelligence by IQ score. It was very popular in the 1990s to explain away hereditery intelligence and the programs you describe were meant to equalize outcomes. But they failed. I’m not butthurt that I’m not a member of the highest IQ group (Asians) or the highest earning group (Asians). I also don’t think that there needs to be any programs targeting whites to raise their scores to parity with Asian Americans. Why should there be a program for blacks and Hispanics?
I think you don’t fundamentally understand the Principles upon which America was founded. It’s a compex story, but I assume you’re citing the inalienable right to the “Pursuit of Happiness”. It’s not “Happiness” (originally penned as “wealth”). It’s the “Pursuit of Happiness”. You’re not guaranteed success, nor are you guaranteed a social program to ensure your success. But you are guaranteed the right to try and you’re not guaranteed a titular position provided by government.
Yes, advanced education is increasingly important (but not necessary) to success. But there is nothing stopping a motivated young person from achieving it. It happens all the time.
There is a minimum level of education in the US - all kids are required to go to school, after all. In addition, there have been many attempts to standardize achievement measurement across US schools, for instance, in the form of standardized tests (like NAEP or “No Child Left Behind”). However, whenever a standardized achievement program is implemented, it faces opposition from people who believe one standard is not appropriate for all kids. While there is some merit to this point of view, it prevents students from being held to a uniform standard. The people who fail to meet the minimum standard do not want this, as it will force them to acknowledge their inability to meet the standard.
I am not sure I understand the “underlying principle of America”. Some white guys 250 years ago wrote some fluffy language on some scrolls. However, these same guys thought it was ok to own black people as property. So, I’m getting mixed messages here.
The standard that the US should hold itself to is the same as for other developed countries - providing a broad range of socioeconomic opportunities while providing a reasonable safety net for people who are unable to provide for themselves. We can debate all day about whether this safety net is adequate. Geo, the fact that you are Canadian biases you towards a larger safety net. US people as a whole have settled on the current equilibrium. There are a lot of things that I disagree with regarding US policies, but I accept that a large part of the US population defines current policies as some kind of reasonable compromise.
^ Do you think the majority of Americans are sufficiently educated to understand that? In other words, are they really OK with the system, or just ignorant of what’s there? And to inky: I don’t want to garuntee success. If you slack, you should fail. If you create tons of value, you should be wealthy. Wealth and standard of living should follow from your contribution to society. I don’t think we disagree there. What I disagree with is that most are getting an opportunity to pursue happiness. Or rather that your ability to pursue happiness is largely hereditary. One fundamental issue America (and others) was founded upon was folks being pissed that opportunity flowed primarily from social order and not hard work and ability. While America today is more opportunistic for the underclasses than 17th century Britain, it is increasingly becoming more hereditary again. That’s why I say this trend is un-American. In all, you can only take inequality and hereditary privledge so far in a democratic society before radicals start getting elected. Obama may even be an example of this, only moderated by Congress. If enough people feel they get a raw deal, then they’ll vote for change, which may be far less desirable than the Third Way type approach I’d advocate.
If US people ignorantly choose one system, that is their right. In fact, the whole basis of US society is that decisions should be based on majority, no matter how clever or stupid that decision is. Cheeseburgers make Americans fat. However, it would be completely un American to appoint a food czar that tells all Americans what to eat. To me, owning guns is the most stupid thing. However, if I could unilaterally ban guns, something that most Americans want, that would undermine the concept of the US, even if the outcome is better (fewer deaths, etc.).
I disagree that most Americans do not have the opportunity to pursue happiness. First of all, what is the proof that Americans are not happy? In fact, Pew pew polled that Americans are happier than UK, France, Italy, etc. Second, there are opportunities for everyone, but not everyone pursues those opportunities. Lack of opportunities is like in my home country where the #1 student (literally the best student in the country, based on tests) was denied scholarships based on race. In the US, everyone is free to do well, and many do, despite disadvantaged circumstances.
I think you’re completely confusing “heredity” and “meritocracy”. The US does not have a “hereditary” system and I don’t see any evidence that it is “becoming more hereditary”. Rather, the US is very meritocratic. And it just so happens that meritocracy rewards achievement and that achievement is strongly related to character (not just intelligence), which is instilled by parents.
This is nothing like a caste system or peerage where someone is born with state-granted titles and access to wealth and power based solely on heredity. Rather, it’s a meritocractic system whereby everyone can develop themselves as they see fit to pursue whatever it is they want to pursue.
The *real* problem is that the liberal intelligensia regularly sells this idea that society is keeping people down and they have no hope to make anything of themselves unless they were born into the 1%. That’s a heck of a lot more damaging to the will of a kid than another free meal can make up for.
^ Ohai: All fair points. That also brings danger with increasing inequity of opportunity. Eventually the poor get sick of being poor, and the election of Obama highlights that danger. While I support more social spending on kids, I view the left as increasingly dangerous when it comes to destroying incentives and alignment between contribution and results. But that left wing voice gets louder the more opportunity becomes more distant for the poor.
Ummmmm… No it isn’t.
Inky: The US ranks third lowest (by alot) in social mobility among the OECD (Economic Policy Reforms: Going for Growth, OECD, 2010). That’s not a meritocracy. Like I said, its not as bad as 17th century Britain either. The average Austrian or Canadian or Swede has half the correlation between parental income advantage and the income of their children. Why? One would expect the more meritorious an economy, there would be a lower persistence of income advantages.
The US is also incredibly genetically diverse. You’re going to have higher mobility in nations with a more homogenous population (like those you mention) because genetic consistency means that people are more similar and thus their efforts are more differentiating. The average African American’s IQ is something like 15 points lower than the average white American’s IQ, which is several points lower than the average Asian’s IQ. Naturally there are going to be natural genetic barriers between groups. But this isn’t to say that an intelligent, high-acheiving African American is less advantaged than a dumb, lazy white guy. The opposite is true because the system is highly meritocratic. Social mobility scores aren’t measuring that.
Where do cultural differences fit in to this binary world?
I think this would be an interesting point on its own. Where did you find the IQ stats per race?
…because IQ is purely determined by genetics. False.
For the amount that people on this forum throw around genetics while making an argument, you’d think that they would have taken a look at all the steps the science has taken since they took high school bio. Most here do not have a good understanding of genetics or what makes a gene hereditary.
There’s plenty of data and it’s well established. Here’s a reliable source:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
“Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT; N 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE; N 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings (N 0.5 million) and in the military (N 0.4 million). Because test scores are the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), these group differences have important societal outcomes (R. A. Gordon, 1997; Gottfredson, 1997).”
One standard deviation is defined as 15 points.
@brain_wash_your_face I’ve read the Bell Curve, but I haven’t read anything anything more recent. A cursory glance of the Heritability of IQ wikipedia page suggests that probably 50% or higher of IQ is heritable. This would suggest it would be strongly influenced by genetics. Is there some information that would contest this that I should read?
I can get back with some info tomorrow, but consider that if 50% of IQ is heritable that is not all that high. Also consider that it is not something you can put a raw percetage on, really. Environment factors affect the epigenetics (what genes are “expressed”, meaning turned on or off) and then consider how that environment could vary by race due to history. This is not over a long evolutionary time frame. The expression of genes can change dramatically within a generation or two. Therefore considering genetics (as opposed to epigenetics) as the principal cause of lower IQ when the environment different races have been exposed to growing up is so dramatically different is foolish.
Since the genome was sequenced this field is making great leaps and soon we will have a much better, albeit more complex, understanding of what drives a person’s ultimate genetic makeup.
As i type on my phone, in a bar, people are talking basketball. It’s not playoff time. I don’t care. Surprised purealpha hasn’t chimed in on this thread. Like most on this forum, I’m smarter than most. I never had help from my parents and i went to American public schools. Low and behold, i can rotate some pretty gnarly triple integrals in my head. Nature boys and girls. The only way there would have been equal outcomes with my classmates is if you forced me to have a lobotomy. Maybe we all should read The Bell Curve again…