Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For what it's worth, I'd rather have the most competent person do my heart surgery if I will ever need such surgery. I don't care what race, ethnicity, or religion they are just as long as they're the most competent available person to do this. Indeed, it really shouldn't matter that, most of the time, my heart surgeon is going to be an Ashkenazi Jew, Asian, or Gentile White person. Rather, what matters most of all is their competence level and their ability to actually do this job!
Unfortunately, cognitive talents don't appear to be distributed evenly among various groups. Thus, it is completely unsurprising to see some groups overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in various things which require a lot of cognitive ability.
Liberals are eventually going to have to acknowledge the possibility that not all groups of humans evolved completely identically--including in regards to important traits such as intelligence. For instance, it is entirely possible that Ashkenazi Jews--at least those who descendants ended up in the U.S.--evolved to have a higher average IQ--which in turn explains their significant overrepresentation in various fields which require a lot of cognitive ability.
I support things such as wealth redistribution and help for America's poor and needy. However, we have to acknowledge the possibility that not all groups have the exact same potential when it comes to things such as average level of intelligence. Also, before you go and start shaming me for this, I would like to point out that my own liberal hereditarian position is much better than a colorblind conservative position which assumes that everyone has the same potential and that the reason that certain groups are underperforming is simply because they don't try hard enough. After all, the latter position here is much more destructive for underperforming groups than the former position is--especially considering that the latter position here can be used to cut or even completely eliminate our social safety net--thus putting underperforming groups in an even more vulnerable position!
I agree with you here in concept. I have lived in a few different countries and traveled the world. Before I did this, I was a full on nutty liberal who bought hook, line and sinker that all cultures and people are equal in their ability and culture.
Once one realized this is perhaps the biggest lie ever told, one comes to understand that the entire narrative of the left is a lie and begins to unfold.
I would tweak your point a bit, claiming that within any population set, mentally there is an arc of people that is very similar among any population. However, culture is undeveloped and retards the potential growth of peoples.
In America, if people of any background adapt mainstream Western culture, if they have the cognitive ability, they can prosper. If they adhere to closely to their native culture and refuse to assimilate, they will very often struggle.
But not all factors, most importantly not the individual student's reputation among colleagues and professors who know him or her well.
There is no contradiction, as MPowering has clearly explained to you. Go back and read his posts again if you are still confused.
The study you refer to does find that blacks and Asians are picked for the honor society at a slightly lower rate than whites after controlling for some factors like membership in certain groups and self reported leadership activities. But we cannot conclude from this that "equally qualified" people got different treatment since the evaluation of nominees for honors was comprehensive and partly based on the overall judgement of professors and no two students could be equal. Yes, it is possible that some profs are racist and that accounts for a tiny part of the discrepancy. But there is no good evidence for that and it's absurd to think it's an important factor in differing outcomes.
Especially in light that the study found no difference in the rate between white and Hispanic of those picked for the society. How would these supposed white racist supposedly discriminate against Asians but not at all Hispanics?
Unfortunately, cognitive talents don't appear to be distributed evenly among various groups. Thus, it is completely unsurprising to see some groups overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in various things which require a lot of cognitive ability.
Liberals are eventually going to have to acknowledge the possibility that not all groups of humans evolved completely identically--including in regards to important traits such as intelligence. For instance, it is entirely possible that Ashkenazi Jews--at least those who descendants ended up in the U.S.--evolved to have a higher average IQ--which in turn explains their significant overrepresentation in various fields which require a lot of cognitive ability.
I support things such as wealth redistribution and help for America's poor and needy. However, we have to acknowledge the possibility that not all groups have the exact same potential when it comes to things such as average level of intelligence. Also, before you go and start shaming me for this, I would like to point out that my own liberal hereditarian position is much better than a colorblind conservative position which assumes that everyone has the same potential and that the reason that certain groups are underperforming is simply because they don't try hard enough. After all, the latter position here is much more destructive for underperforming groups than the former position is--especially considering that the latter position here can be used to cut or even completely eliminate our social safety net--thus putting underperforming groups in an even more vulnerable position!
And also better than the liberal non-hereditarian position that blames disparate outcomes on "white racism" or "privilege". It encourages racism against whites, resentment toward whites and resentment from whites.
Through faulty attribution, colorblind conservatives want to end affirmative action and social safety nets, while liberals want to scapegoat and disadvantage whites or any group who succeed on their own efforts or merits. Both based on the faulty premise or attribution that all groups would have equal outcomes but for some environmental cause. While all along heredity is the primary cause that's being totally ignored.
Unfortunately, cognitive talents don't appear to be distributed evenly among various groups. Thus, it is completely unsurprising to see some groups overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in various things which require a lot of cognitive ability.
Liberals are eventually going to have to acknowledge the possibility that not all groups of humans evolved completely identically--including in regards to important traits such as intelligence. For instance, it is entirely possible that Ashkenazi Jews--at least those who descendants ended up in the U.S.--evolved to have a higher average IQ--which in turn explains their significant overrepresentation in various fields which require a lot of cognitive ability.
I don't know about that. The trend is entirely in the other directions, with liberals proving very successful at denying rather than acknowledging the inevitable consequences of evolution.
Quote:
I support things such as wealth redistribution and help for America's poor and needy. However, we have to acknowledge the possibility that not all groups have the exact same potential when it comes to things such as average level of intelligence. Also, before you go and start shaming me for this, I would like to point out that my own liberal hereditarian position is much better than a colorblind conservative position which assumes that everyone has the same potential and that the reason that certain groups are underperforming is simply because they don't try hard enough. After all, the latter position here is much more destructive for underperforming groups than the former position is--especially considering that the latter position here can be used to cut or even completely eliminate our social safety net--thus putting underperforming groups in an even more vulnerable position!
This is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but exceedingly rare. No liberal, outside of tenured professors, can acknowledge group average differences in intelligence and keep their job. Certainly no liberal politician could do this. Not that mainstream conservatives are any better on this subject. Their "stop being so lazy" take on denial of innate difference is no more useful than mainstream liberals' "stop being so racist."
I agree with you here in concept. I have lived in a few different countries and traveled the world. Before I did this, I was a full on nutty liberal who bought hook, line and sinker that all cultures and people are equal in their ability and culture.
Once one realized this is perhaps the biggest lie ever told, one comes to understand that the entire narrative of the left is a lie and begins to unfold.
Agreed. It would be hard to exaggerate the degree to which the dogma of innate group equality has poisoned the West.
I agree with a some of the Democrats' positions on various issues, but it is this PC insanity and the mission to make people not accountable for their actions is why I can't vote for them.
But not all factors, most importantly not the individual student's reputation among colleagues and professors who know him or her well.
There is no contradiction, as MPowering has clearly explained to you. Go back and read his posts again if you are still confused.
The study you refer to does find that blacks and Asians are picked for the honor society at a slightly lower rate than whites after controlling for some factors like membership in certain groups and self reported leadership activities. But we cannot conclude from this that "equally qualified" people got different treatment since the evaluation of nominees for honors was comprehensive and partly based on the overall judgement of professors and no two students could be equal. Yes, it is possible that some profs are racist and that accounts for a tiny part of the discrepancy. But there is no good evidence for that and it's absurd to think it's an important factor in differing outcomes.
Still statistically significant nonetheless - not just "slightly lower." Moreover, I think conservatives underestimate the role of implicit bias; especially when people are asked to evaluate someone on subjective characteristics. Also, if black students are complaining they aren't adequately represented, why shouldn't the university believe them? I think the tacit assumption in this thread that they're lying.
Most of Trump's positions are old time Democrat positions. You are really confused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
