‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 > 
 
   
 

Feminism…

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15209
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 April 2018 18:05
 
Jb8989 - 16 April 2018 01:08 PM
Libertarian - 16 April 2018 10:51 AM

“Pray tell? I think you might find that applying an idealistic natural selection schema to social systems theory is trickier than you think.”

I’m sure it will be very tricky. I think applying a “successful” version of affirmative action will be a lot trickier than that though and I’ve never heard of one that I thought would be best for people overall


“The class system sits on top of racism, no doubt. In America after Native American apartheid and before slavery, poor white immigrants landing in the northeast were the most oppressed people. Slavery changed that and now poor black, poor white and poor minorities are all screwed similarly in a lot of ways. The thing that you gotta understand about social systems is that whatever ones are in place by the time you get (t)here, are the one’s you’ll have to deal with. Regardless of whether they favor you or not, changing them is time consuming and multi-faceted. You’re also confalting need based programs with your ideas on affirmative action. Of course I think there are enough bright people in all races to fill quotas so that there doesn’t need to be rediculious retention rates setting people up for failure. Again, I think race should be ONE factor to consider, not that it should substantially overcompensate for someone otherwise hugely underqualified. Then it just becomes a matter of performance, and some of that is on the individual, some on the school and some on the trade.”

I think maybe I should elaborate. Sure class is a big factor but even if you don’t agree with the idea of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics surely you don’t deny that there is a genetic difference in IQ between people in general. There are a huge number of ways in which any individual can be disadvantaged or privileged. There are so many I don’t think I could fit them all into an encyclopedia. They come in many forms, biological, parental, social, political etc. The idea that you could somehow find a system that gives everyone a fair go seems beyond the pale to me. To me the logical solution is to not add more bias to the mix especially when that bias is designed to pick the person who isn’t the best.


“Does it even matter if we’re as a society moving toward a dominantly mixed race?”

This argument is equally good at opposing affirmative action as it is at opposing those who oppose affirmative action


“Do you have any evidence supporting prestigious university retention rates ruining minority lives who attended as part of a quota? If so, we may have a talking point. But I also think you’re conflating performace with IQ. Most jobs are skill based and learnable without a need for a superior IQ.”

Just think about this for a bit, it all logically flows. People who aren’t as smart don’t do as well at university and are more likely to drop out. Dropping out of a prestigious university is generally worse than succeeding in a university that is less good or getting a job. I’m not sure what part you actually disagree with to provide evidence on.
I didn’t expect to have to defend the position that smart people were better at things. Are you asking me to defend this position?


Just keep in mind that my claim is actually that you should have a strong and water tight argument to justify the position that you want to discriminate based on race.

You now just seem to be supporting discrimination against dumb people. Which I can assure you is already a big part of the existing system.

I could be convinced to favor discrimination against the clueless…, but they usually end up competing for a Darwin award in any case.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6151
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
17 April 2018 04:09
 
burt - 16 April 2018 06:05 PM
Jb8989 - 16 April 2018 01:08 PM
Libertarian - 16 April 2018 10:51 AM

“Pray tell? I think you might find that applying an idealistic natural selection schema to social systems theory is trickier than you think.”

I’m sure it will be very tricky. I think applying a “successful” version of affirmative action will be a lot trickier than that though and I’ve never heard of one that I thought would be best for people overall


“The class system sits on top of racism, no doubt. In America after Native American apartheid and before slavery, poor white immigrants landing in the northeast were the most oppressed people. Slavery changed that and now poor black, poor white and poor minorities are all screwed similarly in a lot of ways. The thing that you gotta understand about social systems is that whatever ones are in place by the time you get (t)here, are the one’s you’ll have to deal with. Regardless of whether they favor you or not, changing them is time consuming and multi-faceted. You’re also confalting need based programs with your ideas on affirmative action. Of course I think there are enough bright people in all races to fill quotas so that there doesn’t need to be rediculious retention rates setting people up for failure. Again, I think race should be ONE factor to consider, not that it should substantially overcompensate for someone otherwise hugely underqualified. Then it just becomes a matter of performance, and some of that is on the individual, some on the school and some on the trade.”

I think maybe I should elaborate. Sure class is a big factor but even if you don’t agree with the idea of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics surely you don’t deny that there is a genetic difference in IQ between people in general. There are a huge number of ways in which any individual can be disadvantaged or privileged. There are so many I don’t think I could fit them all into an encyclopedia. They come in many forms, biological, parental, social, political etc. The idea that you could somehow find a system that gives everyone a fair go seems beyond the pale to me. To me the logical solution is to not add more bias to the mix especially when that bias is designed to pick the person who isn’t the best.


“Does it even matter if we’re as a society moving toward a dominantly mixed race?”

This argument is equally good at opposing affirmative action as it is at opposing those who oppose affirmative action


“Do you have any evidence supporting prestigious university retention rates ruining minority lives who attended as part of a quota? If so, we may have a talking point. But I also think you’re conflating performace with IQ. Most jobs are skill based and learnable without a need for a superior IQ.”

Just think about this for a bit, it all logically flows. People who aren’t as smart don’t do as well at university and are more likely to drop out. Dropping out of a prestigious university is generally worse than succeeding in a university that is less good or getting a job. I’m not sure what part you actually disagree with to provide evidence on.
I didn’t expect to have to defend the position that smart people were better at things. Are you asking me to defend this position?


Just keep in mind that my claim is actually that you should have a strong and water tight argument to justify the position that you want to discriminate based on race.

You now just seem to be supporting discrimination against dumb people. Which I can assure you is already a big part of the existing system.

I could be convinced to favor discrimination against the clueless…, but they usually end up competing for a Darwin award in any case.

True, but without the delightfully clueless there’d be less funny stuff to laugh at. And who would I assign stuff to when I need to stall? Hahaha

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15209
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
17 April 2018 08:39
 
Jb8989 - 17 April 2018 04:09 AM
burt - 16 April 2018 06:05 PM
Jb8989 - 16 April 2018 01:08 PM
Libertarian - 16 April 2018 10:51 AM

“Pray tell? I think you might find that applying an idealistic natural selection schema to social systems theory is trickier than you think.”

I’m sure it will be very tricky. I think applying a “successful” version of affirmative action will be a lot trickier than that though and I’ve never heard of one that I thought would be best for people overall


“The class system sits on top of racism, no doubt. In America after Native American apartheid and before slavery, poor white immigrants landing in the northeast were the most oppressed people. Slavery changed that and now poor black, poor white and poor minorities are all screwed similarly in a lot of ways. The thing that you gotta understand about social systems is that whatever ones are in place by the time you get (t)here, are the one’s you’ll have to deal with. Regardless of whether they favor you or not, changing them is time consuming and multi-faceted. You’re also confalting need based programs with your ideas on affirmative action. Of course I think there are enough bright people in all races to fill quotas so that there doesn’t need to be rediculious retention rates setting people up for failure. Again, I think race should be ONE factor to consider, not that it should substantially overcompensate for someone otherwise hugely underqualified. Then it just becomes a matter of performance, and some of that is on the individual, some on the school and some on the trade.”

I think maybe I should elaborate. Sure class is a big factor but even if you don’t agree with the idea of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics surely you don’t deny that there is a genetic difference in IQ between people in general. There are a huge number of ways in which any individual can be disadvantaged or privileged. There are so many I don’t think I could fit them all into an encyclopedia. They come in many forms, biological, parental, social, political etc. The idea that you could somehow find a system that gives everyone a fair go seems beyond the pale to me. To me the logical solution is to not add more bias to the mix especially when that bias is designed to pick the person who isn’t the best.


“Does it even matter if we’re as a society moving toward a dominantly mixed race?”

This argument is equally good at opposing affirmative action as it is at opposing those who oppose affirmative action


“Do you have any evidence supporting prestigious university retention rates ruining minority lives who attended as part of a quota? If so, we may have a talking point. But I also think you’re conflating performace with IQ. Most jobs are skill based and learnable without a need for a superior IQ.”

Just think about this for a bit, it all logically flows. People who aren’t as smart don’t do as well at university and are more likely to drop out. Dropping out of a prestigious university is generally worse than succeeding in a university that is less good or getting a job. I’m not sure what part you actually disagree with to provide evidence on.
I didn’t expect to have to defend the position that smart people were better at things. Are you asking me to defend this position?


Just keep in mind that my claim is actually that you should have a strong and water tight argument to justify the position that you want to discriminate based on race.

You now just seem to be supporting discrimination against dumb people. Which I can assure you is already a big part of the existing system.

I could be convinced to favor discrimination against the clueless…, but they usually end up competing for a Darwin award in any case.

True, but without the delightfully clueless there’d be less funny stuff to laugh at. And who would I assign stuff to when I need to stall? Hahaha

True, didn’t know they kept you in a stall though.

 
Libertarian
 
Avatar
 
 
Libertarian
Total Posts:  221
Joined  26-03-2018
 
 
 
17 April 2018 09:09
 
Jb8989 - 16 April 2018 01:08 PM
Libertarian - 16 April 2018 10:51 AM

“Pray tell? I think you might find that applying an idealistic natural selection schema to social systems theory is trickier than you think.”

I’m sure it will be very tricky. I think applying a “successful” version of affirmative action will be a lot trickier than that though and I’ve never heard of one that I thought would be best for people overall


“The class system sits on top of racism, no doubt. In America after Native American apartheid and before slavery, poor white immigrants landing in the northeast were the most oppressed people. Slavery changed that and now poor black, poor white and poor minorities are all screwed similarly in a lot of ways. The thing that you gotta understand about social systems is that whatever ones are in place by the time you get (t)here, are the one’s you’ll have to deal with. Regardless of whether they favor you or not, changing them is time consuming and multi-faceted. You’re also confalting need based programs with your ideas on affirmative action. Of course I think there are enough bright people in all races to fill quotas so that there doesn’t need to be rediculious retention rates setting people up for failure. Again, I think race should be ONE factor to consider, not that it should substantially overcompensate for someone otherwise hugely underqualified. Then it just becomes a matter of performance, and some of that is on the individual, some on the school and some on the trade.”

I think maybe I should elaborate. Sure class is a big factor but even if you don’t agree with the idea of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics surely you don’t deny that there is a genetic difference in IQ between people in general. There are a huge number of ways in which any individual can be disadvantaged or privileged. There are so many I don’t think I could fit them all into an encyclopedia. They come in many forms, biological, parental, social, political etc. The idea that you could somehow find a system that gives everyone a fair go seems beyond the pale to me. To me the logical solution is to not add more bias to the mix especially when that bias is designed to pick the person who isn’t the best.


“Does it even matter if we’re as a society moving toward a dominantly mixed race?”

This argument is equally good at opposing affirmative action as it is at opposing those who oppose affirmative action


“Do you have any evidence supporting prestigious university retention rates ruining minority lives who attended as part of a quota? If so, we may have a talking point. But I also think you’re conflating performace with IQ. Most jobs are skill based and learnable without a need for a superior IQ.”

Just think about this for a bit, it all logically flows. People who aren’t as smart don’t do as well at university and are more likely to drop out. Dropping out of a prestigious university is generally worse than succeeding in a university that is less good or getting a job. I’m not sure what part you actually disagree with to provide evidence on.
I didn’t expect to have to defend the position that smart people were better at things. Are you asking me to defend this position?


Just keep in mind that my claim is actually that you should have a strong and water tight argument to justify the position that you want to discriminate based on race.

You now just seem to be supporting discrimination against dumb people. Which I can assure you is already a big part of the existing system.

Very close. Discriminating based on what value you can provide and in general intelligent people are better at creating value. Just give the job to the person that can do it the best.

Are you not in favor of capitalism?

I suppose I shouldn’t have expected completely rational debate but wow I can’t believe I’ve gotta defend positions like not making moral decisions based on what makes you feel good and that capitalism is actually a good thing.

[ Edited: 17 April 2018 09:15 by Libertarian]
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6151
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
17 April 2018 09:49
 
Libertarian - 17 April 2018 09:09 AM
Jb8989 - 16 April 2018 01:08 PM
Libertarian - 16 April 2018 10:51 AM

“Pray tell? I think you might find that applying an idealistic natural selection schema to social systems theory is trickier than you think.”

I’m sure it will be very tricky. I think applying a “successful” version of affirmative action will be a lot trickier than that though and I’ve never heard of one that I thought would be best for people overall


“The class system sits on top of racism, no doubt. In America after Native American apartheid and before slavery, poor white immigrants landing in the northeast were the most oppressed people. Slavery changed that and now poor black, poor white and poor minorities are all screwed similarly in a lot of ways. The thing that you gotta understand about social systems is that whatever ones are in place by the time you get (t)here, are the one’s you’ll have to deal with. Regardless of whether they favor you or not, changing them is time consuming and multi-faceted. You’re also confalting need based programs with your ideas on affirmative action. Of course I think there are enough bright people in all races to fill quotas so that there doesn’t need to be rediculious retention rates setting people up for failure. Again, I think race should be ONE factor to consider, not that it should substantially overcompensate for someone otherwise hugely underqualified. Then it just becomes a matter of performance, and some of that is on the individual, some on the school and some on the trade.”

I think maybe I should elaborate. Sure class is a big factor but even if you don’t agree with the idea of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics surely you don’t deny that there is a genetic difference in IQ between people in general. There are a huge number of ways in which any individual can be disadvantaged or privileged. There are so many I don’t think I could fit them all into an encyclopedia. They come in many forms, biological, parental, social, political etc. The idea that you could somehow find a system that gives everyone a fair go seems beyond the pale to me. To me the logical solution is to not add more bias to the mix especially when that bias is designed to pick the person who isn’t the best.


“Does it even matter if we’re as a society moving toward a dominantly mixed race?”

This argument is equally good at opposing affirmative action as it is at opposing those who oppose affirmative action


“Do you have any evidence supporting prestigious university retention rates ruining minority lives who attended as part of a quota? If so, we may have a talking point. But I also think you’re conflating performace with IQ. Most jobs are skill based and learnable without a need for a superior IQ.”

Just think about this for a bit, it all logically flows. People who aren’t as smart don’t do as well at university and are more likely to drop out. Dropping out of a prestigious university is generally worse than succeeding in a university that is less good or getting a job. I’m not sure what part you actually disagree with to provide evidence on.
I didn’t expect to have to defend the position that smart people were better at things. Are you asking me to defend this position?


Just keep in mind that my claim is actually that you should have a strong and water tight argument to justify the position that you want to discriminate based on race.

You now just seem to be supporting discrimination against dumb people. Which I can assure you is already a big part of the existing system.

Very close. Discriminating based on what value you can provide and in general intelligent people are better at creating value. Just give the job to the person that can do it the best.

Are you not in favor of capitalism?

I suppose I shouldn’t have expected completely rational debate but wow I can’t believe I’ve gotta defend positions like not making moral decisions based on what makes you feel good and that capitalism is actually a good thing.

You’re projecting. Your premise has flaws. There’s no reality where genetics causes race which both causes and explains IQ disparities among and between them. You’re oversimplifying how nonlinear certain behavior can be. Your perspective seems like you think that cultural systems and biology exist in a static environment. That’s not correct. Brain capacities are both interrelated and innerdependant on external events; some foreseeable, many not. Some changeable, some not.

Plus, society already has organizations set up that rate, judge, compare and measure people based off merit and value. Some people live in brutally competitive spaces.

Basically, you’re receiving relevant feedback and rational diologue. You might just not like what you’re hearing. Help me understand what I’m missing?

[ Edited: 17 April 2018 09:57 by Jb8989]
 
 
Libertarian
 
Avatar
 
 
Libertarian
Total Posts:  221
Joined  26-03-2018
 
 
 
18 April 2018 08:57
 
Jb8989 - 17 April 2018 09:49 AM
Libertarian - 17 April 2018 09:09 AM
Jb8989 - 16 April 2018 01:08 PM
Libertarian - 16 April 2018 10:51 AM

“Pray tell? I think you might find that applying an idealistic natural selection schema to social systems theory is trickier than you think.”

I’m sure it will be very tricky. I think applying a “successful” version of affirmative action will be a lot trickier than that though and I’ve never heard of one that I thought would be best for people overall


“The class system sits on top of racism, no doubt. In America after Native American apartheid and before slavery, poor white immigrants landing in the northeast were the most oppressed people. Slavery changed that and now poor black, poor white and poor minorities are all screwed similarly in a lot of ways. The thing that you gotta understand about social systems is that whatever ones are in place by the time you get (t)here, are the one’s you’ll have to deal with. Regardless of whether they favor you or not, changing them is time consuming and multi-faceted. You’re also confalting need based programs with your ideas on affirmative action. Of course I think there are enough bright people in all races to fill quotas so that there doesn’t need to be rediculious retention rates setting people up for failure. Again, I think race should be ONE factor to consider, not that it should substantially overcompensate for someone otherwise hugely underqualified. Then it just becomes a matter of performance, and some of that is on the individual, some on the school and some on the trade.”

I think maybe I should elaborate. Sure class is a big factor but even if you don’t agree with the idea of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics surely you don’t deny that there is a genetic difference in IQ between people in general. There are a huge number of ways in which any individual can be disadvantaged or privileged. There are so many I don’t think I could fit them all into an encyclopedia. They come in many forms, biological, parental, social, political etc. The idea that you could somehow find a system that gives everyone a fair go seems beyond the pale to me. To me the logical solution is to not add more bias to the mix especially when that bias is designed to pick the person who isn’t the best.


“Does it even matter if we’re as a society moving toward a dominantly mixed race?”

This argument is equally good at opposing affirmative action as it is at opposing those who oppose affirmative action


“Do you have any evidence supporting prestigious university retention rates ruining minority lives who attended as part of a quota? If so, we may have a talking point. But I also think you’re conflating performace with IQ. Most jobs are skill based and learnable without a need for a superior IQ.”

Just think about this for a bit, it all logically flows. People who aren’t as smart don’t do as well at university and are more likely to drop out. Dropping out of a prestigious university is generally worse than succeeding in a university that is less good or getting a job. I’m not sure what part you actually disagree with to provide evidence on.
I didn’t expect to have to defend the position that smart people were better at things. Are you asking me to defend this position?


Just keep in mind that my claim is actually that you should have a strong and water tight argument to justify the position that you want to discriminate based on race.

You now just seem to be supporting discrimination against dumb people. Which I can assure you is already a big part of the existing system.

Very close. Discriminating based on what value you can provide and in general intelligent people are better at creating value. Just give the job to the person that can do it the best.

Are you not in favor of capitalism?

I suppose I shouldn’t have expected completely rational debate but wow I can’t believe I’ve gotta defend positions like not making moral decisions based on what makes you feel good and that capitalism is actually a good thing.

You’re projecting. Your premise has flaws. There’s no reality where genetics causes race which both causes and explains IQ disparities among and between them. You’re oversimplifying how nonlinear certain behavior can be. Your perspective seems like you think that cultural systems and biology exist in a static environment. That’s not correct. Brain capacities are both interrelated and innerdependant on external events; some foreseeable, many not. Some changeable, some not.

Plus, society already has organizations set up that rate, judge, compare and measure people based off merit and value. Some people live in brutally competitive spaces.

Basically, you’re receiving relevant feedback and rational diologue. You might just not like what you’re hearing. Help me understand what I’m missing?

I can try to elaborate more but I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m saying is wrong. It sounds like you’re saying I won’t acknowledge that there are other factors then culture and biology, yet I have acknowledged this exact point many times.

My whole case is that you simply don’t know what that gap should be because there are many factors that will cause a gap that are completely justified and it would be immoral to try to close that gap based on those reasons.

There’s a point I kinda see you making that’s hard for me to put into words. It seems like you’re sort of saying that western systems/businesses are set up to preference white attributes. There’s a truth to that statement, I try to acknowledge when I see good points. The best way I see for systems/businesses that are “superior” to western systems/businesses to rise through the ranks is a capitalist system. One based on competitiveness and allowing the consumer to choose what he/she wants. The consumer will naturally favor the product he/she prefers. Removing regulations for small businesses and giving tax breaks for small businesses would be a good start. As I understand it most of the political systems are handled by representatives who are voted in and I think all American citizens can vote if they like so I’m not sure what your solution would be there.

I know capitalism isn’t perfect but I’ve never seen a better system. I’m open to your suggestion though.

Let me reiterate that I think you’re not understanding just how serious a thing I believe affirmative action is.
Affirmative action is by definition discrimination based on race.

I was thinking too, I think the left has picked up a pathological obsession with the idea of fairness. Fairness isn’t a good thing if it does harm overall.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6151
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
21 April 2018 07:47
 
Libertarian - 18 April 2018 08:57 AM

I can try to elaborate more but I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m saying is wrong. It sounds like you’re saying I won’t acknowledge that there are other factors then culture and biology, yet I have acknowledged this exact point many times.

You’ve acknowledged it, but don’t seeem to grasp the impact a person’s environment has on their intelligence, decision making or trajectory in life. What’s more is that you speak about a general standardized intelligence measurement without a tool competent enough to capture it. Or maybe you think more of the IQ tests than I do?

Libertarian - 18 April 2018 08:57 AM

My whole case is that you simply don’t know what that gap should be because there are many factors that will cause a gap that are completely justified and it would be immoral to try to close that gap based on those reasons.

We talked about culture, but what role does emotion play in this so called society-wide intelligence gap?

Libertarian - 18 April 2018 08:57 AM

There’s a point I kinda see you making that’s hard for me to put into words. It seems like you’re sort of saying that western systems/businesses are set up to preference white attributes. There’s a truth to that statement, I try to acknowledge when I see good points. The best way I see for systems/businesses that are “superior” to western systems/businesses to rise through the ranks is a capitalist system. One based on competitiveness and allowing the consumer to choose what he/she wants. The consumer will naturally favor the product he/she prefers. Removing regulations for small businesses and giving tax breaks for small businesses would be a good start. As I understand it most of the political systems are handled by representatives who are voted in and I think all American citizens can vote if they like so I’m not sure what your solution would be there.

I know capitalism isn’t perfect but I’ve never seen a better system. I’m open to your suggestion though.

Let me reiterate that I think you’re not understanding just how serious a thing I believe affirmative action is.
Affirmative action is by definition discrimination based on race.

I was thinking too, I think the left has picked up a pathological obsession with the idea of fairness. Fairness isn’t a good thing if it does harm overall.

That’s not nearly a point I’ve been trying to make. Systems don’t prefer white “attributes.” A system or a business’s agency relies on the aggregate subjective perceptions of the individual people who set them up, put the policies in place and made the early cornerstone decisions with regard to care and loyalty to the group; be that group a company, small or large, a government agency, a community or whatever. Historically in the west, whites called the shots in this regard. So of course there’s preference toward white people from white people by white people. Privilege is real. There’s no need to feel shame or blame about it, though, unless you refuse to acknowledge it and give back at least a little. Fairness isn’t always equal, sure, but what’s fair and what’s equal have more overlap than our current systems are set up to provide.

Here’s a quick thought experiment: Ask yourself how tied to the happenstance of your surrounding geographical birthplace are your capitalistic tastes and preferences? Do you feel as though you have the ability to intellectually unsubscribe from the beliefs you inherited from not just your genes and your culture, but also just the sheer luck of where you were born?

[ Edited: 21 April 2018 10:22 by Jb8989]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6998
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
21 April 2018 18:04
 

jb:

Here’s a quick thought experiment: Ask yourself how tied to the happenstance of your surrounding geographical birthplace are your capitalistic tastes and preferences? Do you feel as though you have the ability to intellectually unsubscribe from the beliefs you inherited from not just your genes and your culture, but also just the sheer luck of where you were born?

Let me stack a thought experiment on top of yours: What if we could demonstrate that capitalism done right, increases the release of brain chemicals (such as dopamine), that are known to increase and be a marker of well being? Now defending that claim is a bit tricky, but if we were to assume it, would it strengthen the case for capitalism?

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6151
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
21 April 2018 19:42
 
icehorse - 21 April 2018 06:04 PM

jb:

Here’s a quick thought experiment: Ask yourself how tied to the happenstance of your surrounding geographical birthplace are your capitalistic tastes and preferences? Do you feel as though you have the ability to intellectually unsubscribe from the beliefs you inherited from not just your genes and your culture, but also just the sheer luck of where you were born?

Let me stack a thought experiment on top of yours: What if we could demonstrate that capitalism done right, increases the release of brain chemicals (such as dopamine), that are known to increase and be a marker of well being? Now defending that claim is a bit tricky, but if we were to assume it, would it strengthen the case for capitalism?

What’s capitalism done right?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6998
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
21 April 2018 20:07
 
Jb8989 - 21 April 2018 07:42 PM
icehorse - 21 April 2018 06:04 PM

jb:

Here’s a quick thought experiment: Ask yourself how tied to the happenstance of your surrounding geographical birthplace are your capitalistic tastes and preferences? Do you feel as though you have the ability to intellectually unsubscribe from the beliefs you inherited from not just your genes and your culture, but also just the sheer luck of where you were born?

Let me stack a thought experiment on top of yours: What if we could demonstrate that capitalism done right, increases the release of brain chemicals (such as dopamine), that are known to increase and be a marker of well being? Now defending that claim is a bit tricky, but if we were to assume it, would it strengthen the case for capitalism?

What’s capitalism done right?

With the proper checks and balances in place so that it’s not headed towards oligarchy.

 
 
Libertarian
 
Avatar
 
 
Libertarian
Total Posts:  221
Joined  26-03-2018
 
 
 
21 April 2018 22:37
 
Jb8989 - 21 April 2018 07:47 AM

You’ve acknowledged it, but don’t seeem to grasp the impact a person’s environment has on their intelligence, decision making or trajectory in life. What’s more is that you speak about a general standardized intelligence measurement without a tool competent enough to capture it. Or maybe you think more of the IQ tests than I do?

We talked about culture, but what role does emotion play in this so called society-wide intelligence gap?

That’s not nearly a point I’ve been trying to make. Systems don’t prefer white “attributes.” A system or a business’s agency relies on the aggregate subjective perceptions of the individual people who set them up, put the policies in place and made the early cornerstone decisions with regard to care and loyalty to the group; be that group a company, small or large, a government agency, a community or whatever. Historically in the west, whites called the shots in this regard. So of course there’s preference toward white people from white people by white people. Privilege is real. There’s no need to feel shame or blame about it, though, unless you refuse to acknowledge it and give back at least a little. Fairness isn’t always equal, sure, but what’s fair and what’s equal have more overlap than our current systems are set up to provide.

Here’s a quick thought experiment: Ask yourself how tied to the happenstance of your surrounding geographical birthplace are your capitalistic tastes and preferences? Do you feel as though you have the ability to intellectually unsubscribe from the beliefs you inherited from not just your genes and your culture, but also just the sheer luck of where you were born?

I imagine I probably do think more of IQ tests than you do. I think knowing how smart someone is says says much more about them than most other pieces of information you could have. I acknowledge the tests we have could be improved, but they are certainly not terrible. They are pretty reliable over large sample sizes.

I would again like to say that before I had done an ounce of honest research into this topic I was fully socialist and leaned left on pretty much all business related economic policies. I wanted to tax businesses and rich people more, regulate them more heavily etc. I genuinely believed right wing politics to be evil and racist.

I looked at the data and then opposed my own personal bias in order to come to the place I am now. I am happy to admit that white people overall have privilege, but just as I wouldn’t say all black people have low IQs I wouldn’t say all white people are privileged. In the same way I wouldn’t advise businesses to skip over black candidates profiles because they’re more likely to have a low IQ I wouldn’t advise affirmative action policies to skip over white people cause they’re more likely to be privileged.

I’m not just opposed to Affirmative action because on their face value they’re immoral, I’m also opposed because in general they’re just plain terrible at producing the result they claim they will produce.

The problem with other systems I’ve seen is that the incentives are never right. It seems like such a simple thing to say but just imagine that most people will essentially have a trend of doing what is good for them. You’ve got to set a society up so that the incentives are right. I can’t think of any other system that does this other than capitalism. If you want to offer alternatives we can discuss the principles.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6151
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
22 April 2018 06:30
 
Libertarian - 21 April 2018 10:37 PM
Jb8989 - 21 April 2018 07:47 AM

You’ve acknowledged it, but don’t seeem to grasp the impact a person’s environment has on their intelligence, decision making or trajectory in life. What’s more is that you speak about a general standardized intelligence measurement without a tool competent enough to capture it. Or maybe you think more of the IQ tests than I do?

We talked about culture, but what role does emotion play in this so called society-wide intelligence gap?

That’s not nearly a point I’ve been trying to make. Systems don’t prefer white “attributes.” A system or a business’s agency relies on the aggregate subjective perceptions of the individual people who set them up, put the policies in place and made the early cornerstone decisions with regard to care and loyalty to the group; be that group a company, small or large, a government agency, a community or whatever. Historically in the west, whites called the shots in this regard. So of course there’s preference toward white people from white people by white people. Privilege is real. There’s no need to feel shame or blame about it, though, unless you refuse to acknowledge it and give back at least a little. Fairness isn’t always equal, sure, but what’s fair and what’s equal have more overlap than our current systems are set up to provide.

Here’s a quick thought experiment: Ask yourself how tied to the happenstance of your surrounding geographical birthplace are your capitalistic tastes and preferences? Do you feel as though you have the ability to intellectually unsubscribe from the beliefs you inherited from not just your genes and your culture, but also just the sheer luck of where you were born?

I imagine I probably do think more of IQ tests than you do. I think knowing how smart someone is says says much more about them than most other pieces of information you could have. I acknowledge the tests we have could be improved, but they are certainly not terrible. They are pretty reliable over large sample sizes.

I would again like to say that before I had done an ounce of honest research into this topic I was fully socialist and leaned left on pretty much all business related economic policies. I wanted to tax businesses and rich people more, regulate them more heavily etc. I genuinely believed right wing politics to be evil and racist.

I looked at the data and then opposed my own personal bias in order to come to the place I am now. I am happy to admit that white people overall have privilege, but just as I wouldn’t say all black people have low IQs I wouldn’t say all white people are privileged. In the same way I wouldn’t advise businesses to skip over black candidates profiles because they’re more likely to have a low IQ I wouldn’t advise affirmative action policies to skip over white people cause they’re more likely to be privileged.

I’m not just opposed to Affirmative action because on their face value they’re immoral, I’m also opposed because in general they’re just plain terrible at producing the result they claim they will produce.

The problem with other systems I’ve seen is that the incentives are never right. It seems like such a simple thing to say but just imagine that most people will essentially have a trend of doing what is good for them. You’ve got to set a society up so that the incentives are right. I can’t think of any other system that does this other than capitalism. If you want to offer alternatives we can discuss the principles.

Congrats on being more centralized with your views. I can appreciate the process you went through.

Regarding principles, whenever there are goods and services for sale for profit, there will be highly competitive rival sellers. Honest competition is a thing reserved for sports, not business. Businesses adapt to whatever gain they can gleam. They’re incentive generators. At least the successful ones are. I’m not for bombarding the wealthy with draconian tax laws, not even close, but I am for things like not letting the wealthiest companies in the world shelter their intellectual property (in name only) in Dutch or Irish countries so that they can pay a quarter of their tax. And then limit their liability even further. If “companies are people,” how are they able to separate their intellectual property from their principal place of business for taxing purposes while people are stuck where their feet reside?

Since the dawn of time people with money wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. But I think you’ll find that if you dig a little deeper, money, happiness and intelligence are not as heavily correlated as you think.

[ Edited: 22 April 2018 06:41 by Jb8989]
 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1369
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
22 April 2018 07:31
 
Libertarian - 21 April 2018 10:37 PM

. . .

I’m not just opposed to Affirmative action because on their face value they’re immoral, I’m also opposed because in general they’re just plain terrible at producing the result they claim they will produce.

. . .

I don’t want to interrupt the conversational flow here, but what do they claim they’ll produce, and how specifically does that claim not work?

[above-quoted text isolated for clarity only.]

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6151
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
22 April 2018 10:11
 
nonverbal - 22 April 2018 07:31 AM
Libertarian - 21 April 2018 10:37 PM

. . .

I’m not just opposed to Affirmative action because on their face value they’re immoral, I’m also opposed because in general they’re just plain terrible at producing the result they claim they will produce.

. . .

I don’t want to interrupt the conversational flow here, but what do they claim they’ll produce, and how specifically does that claim not work?

[above-quoted text isolated for clarity only.]

Good question. NV you’re back! Hi handsome.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6998
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 April 2018 10:25
 
Jb8989 - 22 April 2018 10:11 AM
nonverbal - 22 April 2018 07:31 AM
Libertarian - 21 April 2018 10:37 PM

. . .

I’m not just opposed to Affirmative action because on their face value they’re immoral, I’m also opposed because in general they’re just plain terrible at producing the result they claim they will produce.

. . .

I don’t want to interrupt the conversational flow here, but what do they claim they’ll produce, and how specifically does that claim not work?

[above-quoted text isolated for clarity only.]

Good question. NV you’re back! Hi handsome.

I’m going to go “meta” here… Maybe it’s a good question, but I’m not so sure. It might also be leading us to distinctions without a difference, which ultimately means the question is just a bit of obfuscation?

In this case it seems that the goals of affirmative action initiatives are fairly well known and that their shortcomings are also? This question could be viewed as a sort of “LMGTFY” question? So perhaps the devil is in the details, but in this case I’m not so sure.

 
 
‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 >