Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Current wisdom in measuring intelligence says that intelligence goes across many different factors.I don't know who Scott Smith and Mike Williams are but if one of them is "wired" to have intelligence that makes him good at football and the other "wired" to be be good at mathematics they'll never reach the others level at that area. You can certainly teach both of them math and football but they're simply not going to be equals.
One is caucasian, one is African American.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People with severe deficits/differences in learning ability (autism, downs, brain trauma) form the basis for the idea that everyone is in fact not equal. If these things exist at extreme levels it makes logical sense that more minor versions would also have effects.
No, everyone is not equal. That wasn't my point. We are getting off track.
To make it more literal for you, I was not referring to those born with obvious mental disabilities.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was kidding 😐
So was I. 😐 I was being both sarcastic and cynical.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can work through many limitations you have but that doesn't mean you can necessarily reach the same level as someone who didn't or for whom it's simply easier.Let's say that Alice and Bob (who can be of any race or mix of races) both set out to become mathematicians. If Alice is a genius and gets into college at 15 and Bob learns more slowly and doesn't get in until 20. Even if they have equal potential the gap will simply never be actual equals making that potential rather meaningless.
This is a given.
But how does that change that humans, regardless of race, have the same average potential?
Find the "least intelligent" tribe in Africa or South America. Take one of their babies at birth, raise it with an excellent Western education, and it should come out more intelligent than the average white person in America. Agreed?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Curse you Poe's Law.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Indeed. You should have used a smilie. 😐
Originally posted by The Scribe
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."There's discrimination and that's all.
Hire the best person for the job and stop this garbage.
This is my belief, as well. Handicapping requirements to accomodate others brings down everyone to their level when the opposite is necessary. They need to come up and be on level.
Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
Originally posted by chithappens
I might offer a fuller response later but breakfast awaits: It is not simply the color of a person's skin but the history that comes with the specific people that might determine why these things are in place.
Agreed. I'm off the opinion that nurture plays a much larger role in "intelligence" and educational motivation, on the whole, than does genetics.
Originally posted by chithappens
I do believe that I would not have been able to go to college has certain measures for black Americans been put in place following the civil rights movement which helped my parents' generation do well (this is also a complex statement but just work with me for now).
No, I understand. I agree. Had the Civil Rights movement not occurred at all and we were still segregated and you "just had to tak it", you wouldn't have gotten an education as nice as yours is.
Originally posted by chithappens
In general, minorities are given hard times in different nations history which is why there is a bit a favor given to them because they are not as likely to have the same standard of living given the same conditions (statistically). Of course the point is to get to the point where this is no longer needed but we are still some decades away from that in the U.S. , not just with black Americans and white Americans but all people. It would be foolish to say that discrimination no longer exist, but that is the fault of everyone.
I agree, somewhat.
I think that the standards should be raised and no exceptions should be made for anyone. While this occurs, we could dissolve Medicare/Medicaid/SS and use a third of the money for those programs to help with education in many forms. (Public, charters schools, grants, etc.)
Originally posted by chithappens
This country still lacks open, honest discussion so everyone gets offended. After those discussions can be had, tons of progress can be made and this sort of shit will no longer be needed. Speaking honestly, I do not believe it's coming in my lifetime.
This could be true. However, with cybernetics and neural interfaces being a literal reality, now, an education will no longer be necessary, before long. You'll just purchase knowledge. 😐 This is highly likely to occur in our lifetimes. (You and I are about the same age.) This will null the race problem, for the most part, when these technologies become cheap. Yes, I'm referring to "The Matrix" type of knowledge uploads. 😐
Edit- I don't like "men" at all. 😐
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To make it more literal for you, I was not referring to those born with obvious mental disabilities.
Obvious mental disabilities suggest non-obvious ones.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a given.But how does that change that humans, regardless of race, have the same average potential?
Find the "least intelligent" tribe in Africa or South America. Take one of their babies at birth, raise it with an excellent Western education, and it should come out more intelligent than the average white person in America. Agreed?
Quite likely. I would still argue it depends more on the individual than anything else.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obvious mental disabilities suggest non-obvious ones.
Say whaaa?
Oh. OIC.
I'm not referring to retards: I'm referring to those who are average.
Does that work for you?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Quite likely. I would still argue it depends more on the individual than anything else.
This is true...sort of.
Back in the day, the rich children didn't have a choice. They were forced to learn, "or else". Some rebeled and wallowed in ignorance, but it was quite forecful in the "edcuation" received.
Stupid laws in place don't allow us to flog our stupid children. 😄
How this ruling changes the law and precedent:
Before-There's a test or some employment standard wherein over 90% of an ethnic or racial or gender group fail despite coming from diverse backgrounds. A court can strike down the test as illegal and prejudicial.
Now-The court can only strike down the test or standard based on the following burden of proof. That someone could file a civil lawsuit AND that the person would win. In other words, no one cares about discrimination or principles, they just don't want to pay out damages. hence why the court voted along party lines and was split 5-4, not 9-0 like Beck and Limbaugh are reporting it.
if the failure rates are that disproportionate, it has nothing to do with the job and there's obviously something rotten going on. and even then, this precedent means the suite has nothing to do with how well they perform the job.
It's like, say you're working at a financial services company where to get promoted beyond a certain point, you have to be able to do 20 pull ups. It has nothing to do with the job, and it's quite possible that a disproportionate amount of people based on economic, ethnic, adn gender lines are not going to get that promotion. The new standard isn't discrimination and job relevance, it's can they sue us, so if those people can't hire lawyers to file a civil suit against the company, than in the eyes of the law, it's not discriminatory.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
if the failure rates are that disproportionate, it has nothing to do with the job and there's obviously something rotten going on. and even then, this precedent means the suite has nothing to do with how well they perform the job.It's like, say you're working at a financial services company where to get promoted beyond a certain point, you have to be able to do 20 pull ups. It has nothing to do with the job, and it's quite possible that a disproportionate amount of people based on economic, ethnic, adn gender lines are not going to get that promotion. The new standard isn't discrimination and job relevance, it's can they sue us, so if those people can't hire lawyers to file a civil suit against the company, than in the eyes of the law, it's not discriminatory.
I was really just referring to cases where the test actually relates to the job. If you have some job where only 5 blacks apply and maybe 20 whites, it is statistically quite possible that the 5 actually weren't suited for the job, and if they then got a job, on the sole base of their race, I would say that, if you accept the vaidity of anti-discrimatory laws in the first base, you'll have to admit they were wronged and give them the option to sue, just as a member of another race could in the opposite case.
For your point about it just being an issue of money, I don't follow exactly the reasoning behind it, i.e. I don't know how your conclusion is reached from the case that was presented in the initial post, which might be because I am missing some information or just don't actually know anything about law, but that's why I didn't comment on that particular issue.
Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was under the assumption that all humans had the same intellectual potential, regardless of what actually happens in their nuturing.Is this incorrect?
In other words, switch Scott Duncan Smith with Michael Tyrone Williams at birth, and William will end up "stupid" and Michael will end up just as intelligent and knowledgeable as Scott would have. Is that incorrect? Is there really different intellectual potentials across the races? I mean, sure there is actual differences, but are the potentials different?
Biggest problem with what you are asking is that there are many measures of intelligence or "smartness", especially in a case like this, where actual ability and IQ score may be totally unrelated.
anyways:
1. People do not have the same potential. Whatever measure it is that is used to measure intelligence, it is highly hereditary and stable. Much like some people are born with genes that allow their body to become muscular with little effort, some people have that with linear thinking or problem solving. Training may compensate to a certain degree, but all the training in the world wouldn't make me as talented a hockey player as Jerome Iginla.
2. However, this isn't to say that birth conditions are sufficient to produce intelligence. One might have the necessary genes to become super smart, though they may not nurture them, and they would never develop. So, switch any two people, and even if they had identical genetic make-ups, they would develop different intellectual capacities based entirely on their environmental interactions.
3. The way race interacts with this is, potentially, two-fold:
A. Because there are socio-economic differences between races, and these differences lead to more or less of a poverty of stimuli for a developing mind, races on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will have a less engaging environment for their children to be raised in, offering them less ability to develop the neurological architecture necessary for advanced intellect.
B. Also, there are potential innate differences in races with regard to their scores on the standard IQ test. The most recent study I have seen, which controlled for things like SES, education, etc, maintains something like 4 points of difference between white and black students. This is by no means definitive, and there are still many variables that were not controlled for in the study, however, it does provide some evidence that differences in IQ scores may be racial. What 4 IQ points translates to in reality, I have no idea, and based on the interactions I have with people on a daily basis, if it is true, the 4 points are negligible at best.
4. Following that last point, there are some weird psychological phenomena that come into play when measuring this stuff. If black people take a test knowing their score is being used for a racial comparison, they perform worse than they would if they didn't think that. Several things work this way, and the dominant explanation is that black people feel more racial pressure to perform, or are more anxious when they know they will be compared to members of other races.
Re: Re: Re: White men win a "discrimination" case.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed. I'm off the opinion that nurture plays a much larger role in "intelligence" and educational motivation, on the whole, than does genetics.
If we are speaking of IQ, that is highly debatable.
Nature vs Nurture is almost entirely irrelevant in modern psychology, and it is the interaction between the two that is seen as the most important for any trait, however, the hereditary nature of IQ scores is very strong. It is also very likely that one's attentional resources are "genetic", meaning that their ability to direct themselves to be motivated to learn may be something they are born with (though, like I said above, these nature/nurture distinctions are moot with regard to modern psych).
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I hate white people.
What the **** are you talking about? The white people are not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, white people is not the preferred nomenclature. "English-American", please.