- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 1,953
lol!
Again the subject was meritocracy.
But you've made it clear the capacity you are operating at.
Opinion Lowering of standards in every industry in the name of diversity
- Thread starter Koro_11
- Start date
Again the subject was meritocracy.
But you've made it clear the capacity you are operating at.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2023
- Messages
- 2,516
- Reaction score
- 2,979
The largest predictive factor of success is IQ
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Messages
- 37,064
- Reaction score
- 49,154
My comment clearly mentions schooling in general, not the medical specifically. Are you denying that standards in schooling in general are being lowered? Are you claiming there's no evidence of lowering of standards in education?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 18,678
- Reaction score
- 14,888
How about just improving education in low income areas?
Attack the issue that way. Keep race out of it.
Attack the issue that way. Keep race out of it.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 51,190
- Reaction score
- 21,200
No. I'm not citing a specific case. I'm stating the very obvious point (yet again) that in general if you accept lesser candidates into your talent pool, long term you're going to have a less capable group. This really isn't complicated.
I'm not sure why you'd think that equates to one specific person and how adept they did or didn't become through the course of their schooling.
Your argument is just bonkers. It's like if I said the NBA is closing things off to eastern Europeans. No more drafting them. You're arguing the talent pool wouldn't be affected because we can't ever know which of those guys would or wouldn't have developed into good or great players.
Think about how ridiculous your premise is. Not knowing the exact and specific differences in the capabilities that each person would've achieved doesn't mean we don't logically realize there would be an overall effect. FFS...
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 3,490
- Reaction score
- 5,162
Not gonna work. They've tried this many times already
Even LeBron James tried it and he didn't get a single student to pass basic math and science
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 18,678
- Reaction score
- 14,888
When it's working in your favor is the best time to oppose it, if you actually want to stand by the principle.
Have to attack the street culture bullshit at the same time, or it's futile.
Lebron failed because he threw in with the Democrats. They don't want black people to succeed, they want perpetual dependents.
Unfortunately black children are being taught criminality by the rappers they look up to. Nobody is rapping about math unless it has to do with ounces and such. A significant culture change has to take place, but people are too busy blaming the white man to do anything that's actually productive towards that end.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 20,337
- Reaction score
- 19,286
It was a figure of speach, I’m pretty sure you know that and just deflected the relevant question
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2023
- Messages
- 2,516
- Reaction score
- 2,979
thats not true, where are you getting this insane idea from?
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 1,953
No I dont understand who you are referring to?
Fortune 500 companies? I dont run them, at all.
Who is the 'you' you are referring to?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 1,953
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
school standards "in general" are lowered?
What does that mean? Compared to when exactly?
What type of schooling are you referring to?
Public schools, private schools, charter schools, higher education, community colleges
associates degrees, advanced degrees, bachelors degrees, PHds programs, Ivy leagues?
On a state or federal level?
This is such an absurdly vague bordering on vapid statement.
If you are trying to make a point, you'll have to be more concise.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 1,953
Reading some of the comments from specific people, its clear education was not, and will never be their thing.
But they're feigning indignation about something that wont impact their careers at the supermarket.
They'll never step foot in a fortune 500 company or medical program promoting diversity.
Its quite clear what the real issue is for them.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 20,337
- Reaction score
- 19,286
I’m referring to anyone who supports discrimination based on race.
Do you support discrimination based on race? Or favouritism based on race?
If you support one of those you’re automatically supporting both.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 1,953
Well our country (the US) is built on discrimination based on the social construct of race.
modern institutions are working to mitigate that.
There's obviously still a lot of work to be done, because clearly many people ( right here on this forum) believe in upholding that favouritism the country was built on.
Have you looked at the people who became president for America? They were idiots who got pushed by their rich families.
Clinton and bush both had terrible academic careers and only got into their respective universities based on legacy admissions. Two of the dumbest people of all time that would be nobodies if not for their privilege.
That’s most of society. You’re out here railing against the very small % of minorities that get placements instead of the rich white kids that take up most of the admissions.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,531
- Reaction score
- 18,346
I would argue if there's a criticism to make its the reverse, that a lot of the "representation" which so angers Sherdogs cultural warriors is actually tokenism, a phase which seems to have lost its bite as its arguably become the orthodoxy of the media post Obama. What they rage at is actually something which is often used to reinforce the status quo of racism and inequality on a larger scale.
As you say if your looking to actual lowered standards I think nepotism between rich white men is the much better bet, its endemic at the top of society.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Messages
- 37,064
- Reaction score
- 49,154
You're not making any sense.
What does it mean? Like mean how, like ontologically, from the point of view of comparative analysis, from the logistical standpoint of education evolutions?
Compared to when? what are you asking her even? A historical hierarchy, a methodological instrument of cross-time evaluation? Are you just being metaphoric?
What type of schooling? this is a bizzare question. Are you speaking of a dynamic evaluation or of a post-hoc one?
Your comment is very childish. If you're going to ask questions, try being more specific and less unprepared.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2009
- Messages
- 35,444
- Reaction score
- 2,101
IQ is not the strongest correlation. They have proven this false many times.
The American Dream promises that individual talent will be rewarded, regardless of where one comes from or who one’s parents are. But the reality of what transpires along America’s K-12-to-career pipeline reveals a sorting of America’s most talented youth by affluence—not merit. Among the affluent, a kindergartner with test scores in the bottom half has a 7 in 10 chance of reaching high SES among his or her peers as a young adult, while a disadvantaged kindergartner with top-half test scores only has a 3 in 10 chance.
The disparities in immediate college enrollment are jarring for tenth graders with bottom-half math scores—54 percent of those who are lowest SES do not immediately enroll in any college, compared to 16 percent who are highest SES. Those who are highest SES are more likely to enroll in a four-year college (46%) than their lowest-SES counterparts (14%).
Family class plays a greater role than high school test scores in college attainment. The highest-SES students with bottom-half math scores are more likely to complete college degrees than the lowest-SES students with top-half math scores.
It doesn't really matter how smart you are since someone who is much dumber than you has a higher chance of success just due to the fact their parents are wealthy. They have modelled this through all year levels and age groups. The results don't change.
Let's start with income. Not surprisingly, the amount of money people make is strongly predicted by what their parents earn. Up until a parent-household-income threshold of roughly $150,000, adult children tend to earn another $0.33 for every dollar their parents earn. Above that cutoff, the increase they see in their income based on their parents' earnings is less dramatic:
IQ doesn't even come close to this type of correlation. The stats don't really lie about this. It's actually pretty damning tbh.
Be sure to share this fantastic analysis with immigrants from India, China, Taiwan, and South Korea.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 17,682
- Reaction score
- 6,471
IQ is not the strongest correlation. They have proven this false many times.
The American Dream promises that individual talent will be rewarded, regardless of where one comes from or who one’s parents are. But the reality of what transpires along America’s K-12-to-career pipeline reveals a sorting of America’s most talented youth by affluence—not merit. Among the affluent, a kindergartner with test scores in the bottom half has a 7 in 10 chance of reaching high SES among his or her peers as a young adult, while a disadvantaged kindergartner with top-half test scores only has a 3 in 10 chance.
The disparities in immediate college enrollment are jarring for tenth graders with bottom-half math scores—54 percent of those who are lowest SES do not immediately enroll in any college, compared to 16 percent who are highest SES. Those who are highest SES are more likely to enroll in a four-year college (46%) than their lowest-SES counterparts (14%).
Family class plays a greater role than high school test scores in college attainment. The highest-SES students with bottom-half math scores are more likely to complete college degrees than the lowest-SES students with top-half math scores.
It doesn't really matter how smart you are since someone who is much dumber than you has a higher chance of success just due to the fact their parents are wealthy. They have modelled this through all year levels and age groups. The results don't change.
Let's start with income. Not surprisingly, the amount of money people make is strongly predicted by what their parents earn. Up until a parent-household-income threshold of roughly $150,000, adult children tend to earn another $0.33 for every dollar their parents earn. Above that cutoff, the increase they see in their income based on their parents' earnings is less dramatic:
IQ doesn't even come close to this type of correlation. The stats don't really lie about this. It's actually pretty damning tbh.
Good info, thanks for sharing.
One of the rewards of being a good parent is providing opportunities for your child or children that you yourself never had. I don't see the "problem" here, let alone an alternative. If anything, it's healthy human nature. A strong material family bond does indeed allow people to not have to do low income type work, to be able to have a more manageable work-life for longer higher education, supplement their income by owning assets, and so forth.
There's really no way around this. If someone wants to do some sort of inheritance tax so that all children are on an even playing field, it's not going to accomplish anything positive. You'd see people just squander their wealth on lavish goods and vacations.
I think where the value of this is, is the stress on the importance of a strong family with functional bonds. I think it's a bit unfortunate that broken homes seem more and more common.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 17,682
- Reaction score
- 6,471
The expression "life isn't fair" is of course very true, so people need to get a grip if you think any society will be fully meritocratic, but it's still quite odd to me that "meritocracy" has become such a bad word in modern day parlance and an ideal that gets ditched. Whether a society is a "meritocracy" is a bit of an impossible question to answer - it's more of an "as compared to what?" for me. But in general I think steering clear of patron-client type relations and corruption is ideal and where corruption or bias exists, it's best to find it and expose it as opposed to implementing a ham-fisted "counter-balancing" corruption that inevitably hurts people not involved in the creation of the original corruption or biases.
I like to support individual rights, and thus view "counter-balancing" discrimination as collective punishment to innocents. Even if someone's heart is in the right place, it's basically saying it's ok to screw over some people because other people screwed over other people. It's not really a philosophy that works for me, and you can't rationally expect legal code be drawn up for this, so I was not the least bit surprised discriminatory admissions practices and "white males need not apply" job postings are falling on the wrong side of judgment in the courts. As a judge, I really don't get how anyone could rule any other way TBH.
I like to support individual rights, and thus view "counter-balancing" discrimination as collective punishment to innocents. Even if someone's heart is in the right place, it's basically saying it's ok to screw over some people because other people screwed over other people. It's not really a philosophy that works for me, and you can't rationally expect legal code be drawn up for this, so I was not the least bit surprised discriminatory admissions practices and "white males need not apply" job postings are falling on the wrong side of judgment in the courts. As a judge, I really don't get how anyone could rule any other way TBH.
