Libertarians Unite

[AoM]

Hence I agree that attributes such as sexuality, intelligence (or at least the 'ways that we learn' (i.e: photographic of monologue) out-goingness etc. are to an extent pre-determined.

But, personally, I see that 'extent' is very limited - I would see issues such as upbringing (especially the first 3 years of life) family background, cultural backgrounds etc. etc. as having far much more of a profound and deeper impact on who someone is.

So does that mean you are an advocate of a psychoanalyst's (neo-freudian) views on personality development? Or do you think that the first years of childhood are more important simply because that is when the central nervous system is at its most fragile and mutable stage (post-natal)?

It's interesting how much nurture and nature can be interchangable. What a child hears and sees becomes registered and alters the brain, but the individual's brain alters how information is received in the first place. What is causal? Which is more important? Do these questions even have answers?

[AoM]

@Racetyme: You err when you assume that there is only one definition of intelligence. This is false. There are many forms of intelligence, and I'll guarantee you that the kids in your program are weak in many of those forms, despite their prowess in one. Understanding international economics requires intelligence. So does survival in the middle of a Cambodian jungle, three days away from civilization, armed only with a knife. But no amount of book-smarts is going to get you out alive.

Furthermore, I have met incredibly stupid rich people. I have seen worse on tv. I'll debunk your theory with a couple choice words. Paris Hilton.

Do not mistake education level for intelligence. It is an easy trap to fall into. What are the questions being asked, and how are they being asked? Are the SAT tests fair to blacks and latinos from poor income families to use vocabulary of distinctly upper class white culture in its analogy questions? Is this a true measure of intelligence, or heritage?

Those in power can stay in power more easily than those who must rise to it. There may be some hereditary value to intelligence, but it's not an all or nothing, and its misleading and innaccurate in the least to level the kind of blanket statement you suggested.

[Racetyme]

This fair testing issue really makes me angry. If we can't expect people to learn to speak correctly, what are we allowed to test them on? How well they can mug me? I'm not racist, it's an example, treat it as such.

[AoM]

Pick your examples better. And it is not a matter of speaking correctly, it is a matter of exposure to the vocabulary, or lack of it. This again goes back to the difference between education and innate intelligence. You may claim not to be a racist, but you do come off as very elitist.

The fair testing rule isn't going to force rich, sweater vest-wearing white kids from Greenwich, CT to learn hip hop lingo. It won't affect your test scores, so why should you be outraged by it?

[Racetyme]

It will effect my scores, now the test is subjective rather than definitive, and that scares me. I don't want to lose points because the person reading my test's wife has just left him. I could perhaps see changing the test as acceptable, but changing it to a subjective grading system is not the way to do it.

While it is fresh in my mind, I am going to talk about affirmative action. As some of you are sure to expect, I hate it. It is not for the reasons you think though. If I don't get into a college because someone is actually better than me, fine, they deserve it. But if I don't get in because I'm not black, then I can feel upset. If anything, affirmative action is racist, not the other way around. Why am I being descriminated against because I am white? It's just not right. There is no way you can tell me that it is not descrimination, that is, by definition, descrimination.

[formerly known as hf]

So does that mean you are an advocate of a psychoanalyst's (neo-freudian) views on personality development? Or do you think that the first years of childhood are more important simply because that is when the central nervous system is at its most fragile and mutable stage (post-natal)?

The latter...

Race:
I think you're being very naive to equate intelligence and prosperity.

Richer kids generally do better in academic fields - this is nothing to do with genetics.
Kids from richer families generally have an easier, smoother upbringing. This fosters a mind set that can spend more time on work.
Richer kids generally have more money to afford the things that provide a better academic education - especially tutors to put them through the tests.

You don't have to be intelligent to be rich - far from it.

As AoM pointed out - there are many forms of intelligence. academic intelligence is not the only one, nor the most important, nor the most preferable.
Money can by academic intelligence - it can by the environment, the right upbringing, the right atmosphere, the right contexts to foster a mindset that can deal well with academic tests etc.

[Racetyme]

Alright, I'm tired of talking about intelligence, I'm fired up about the SAT changes and Affirmative action. I definitely think you are right about the intelligence though, and I realize coming from a broken home and whatnot can make life harder, however, I would just like to point out that I am from a broken home.

[formerly known as hf]

Affirmative selection?
From your description, that means the accepting of black students - some kind of quota for minority ethnic populations in schools?
What's wrong with that?
Selection by schools canm often be racist, and geared towards those with a more privileged background. By enforcing a school population that is more of a reflection of the local population, you are insuring that you do not get elite, white, schools.

Apologies if I misunderstood what affirmative selection is...

[Racetyme]

Where do you live, you do have it a little wrong, it is not based on a local population, they are assigned a quota by the government, I heard of one man, black, as it happens, who recieved a 620 on the SAT's, an abysmal score, and got into Berkley. The SAT score is probably an exageration, but regardless, he dropped out after one semester. I'm so happy he got in instead of someone with a 1400 or higher who I am sure was rejected.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm from the UK

It's a myth that making sure there is a quota for minority ethnic populations means that birghter pupils get rejected - there's absolutely no validity to that - what happens is that the not so bright white kids loose a place in favour of the fairly bright black kids who would have otherwise been refused (despite having better results than the not so bright white kid)

I'd like to see proof behind that the elitist, frankly racist, assumption that minority ethnic quotas actually means brighter kids are refused (and not just anecdotal evidencs, and certianly not the fairly bigoted assumption like above) - Instead of doing what it does, which gives the opportunity to bright black kids that would otherwise have been refused because of their background

[Racetyme]

Two white women were at the center of the University of Michigan cases. Jennifer Gratz was a top high school student in suburban Detroit in 1995, when Michigan rejected her application. Barbara Grutter, a 49-year-old mother of two, ran her own consulting business. Michigan's prestigious law school rejected her application in 1997.

The university acknowledges it has used race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of "under-represented" racial and ethic minority groups have received extra points, as do children of alumni, athletes and men enrolling in nursing programs. Gratz's lawyers called the points granted for race a "super bonus," equivalent to a full grade point on a student's GPA.

From http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/

Now tell me that is not racist. I can go get more if you really want me to, I think that this is really good enough though. If you are considered under-represented, meaning not white, a male nurse, an athlete, or a legacy, you get a bonus of one entire point to your GPA. That's really fair. In the rest of the article, it talks about how the supreme court upheld this system, so yes, this is a typical system.

[formerly known as hf]

From the same article:

The court agreed with the university's arguments that the law school policy "promotes 'cross-racial understanding,' helps to break down racial stereotypes, and 'enables [students] to better understand persons of different races,'" she wrote.

That article shows what you want it to show...

[Racetyme]

That is what I am saying, the supreme court agreed with the school, and I do not. I even said that in my last post. I am saying that there must be something wrong with the system when you get a full point advantage from being any of those things I talked about in my last post. I'm not sure what you guys do on that side of the pond, but here a full point is huge. More than a full grade level.

[formerly known as hf]

I don't know of the point system you're talking about.

I see nothing wrong with giving extra credit for other things than academic test scores - including ethnicity.

It is far too often the case that selective processes result in all-white, all-rich schools - which is detrimental to the pupils - having a wide social experience, being exposed an interacting with other cultures is a very important part of an education system...

[Racetyme]

That is not my point, I can't see how you can see that, but never the less, that is not my point. Yet. What I am saying is that it is descrimination. By definition.