Research Shows "grit" more important than IQ

[Unknown Pleasures]

Thanks CEROVFC.

That TED talk was very interesting. It also talks about people seeing themselves as losers and about envy. It remindes me of the qoute of Mises.

Glad you enjoyed. I can't believe how fast the times shoots by when I hear that talk.

That's an interesting quote.

My personal thoughts is what attracts people to Marxism is:

- People living in utter / extreme poverty with no hopes of anything better (think that's what makes it popular in very under developed places)

- And in more advanced societies, I think it's the realization of how much more additional wealth helps people at the margins. Give a multibillionaire an extra $100K he doesn't get the lifestyle change out of it than someone barely able to make rent. It's a simple concept, and I think to an extent valid, but to change things the devil is int he details and very hard to implement.

I think they're both rather simple notions.

 

[panamaican]

No... Affirmative action implies that.



I'm pretty sure that basketball is a societal construct. So, why can't or shouldn't the rules be changed again?

Actually affirmative action was a response to the fact that people believed that skin color affected ability. The implication that skin color affects how well someone does their job preceded affirmative action. Affirmative action attempted to negate that belief through the strategy that if more people worked/studied with people from different backgrounds they would stop assuming ability from skin color.

That's not to say anyone should agree with it or that it worked, only that the faulty belief that there was skin color and ability relationship was the reason that affirmative action was created.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Actually affirmative action was a response to the fact that people believed that skin color affected ability. The implication that skin color affects how well someone does their job preceded affirmative action. Affirmative action attempted to negate that belief through the strategy that if more people worked/studied with people from different backgrounds they would stop assuming ability from skin color.

That's not to say anyone should agree with it or that it worked, only that the faulty belief that there was skin color and ability relationship was the reason that affirmative action was created.

Ben mistakenly believes that there is equality of opportunity. Of course such a belief ignores history and current socio-economic and cultural factors but what good is belief if it doesn't contradict evidence.

 

[ben236]

Ben mistakenly believes that there is equality of opportunity.

And you base this claim on what exactly?

 

[UpaLoompa]

And you base this claim on what exactly?

Your posting history and even just the assertion that AA assumes differential skill as opposed to being an attempt (good or bad) at ameliorating historical biases and disadvantages.

 

[ben236]

Your posting history

That's kind of a cop out without any examples don't you think?

and even just the assertion that AA assumes differential skill as opposed to being an attempt (good or bad) at ameliorating historical biases and disadvantages.

Accepting less qualified candidates over more qualified candidates is not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome.

They're two separate things.

 

[panamaican]

That's kind of a cop out without any examples don't you think?



Accepting less qualified candidates over more qualified candidates is not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome.

They're two separate things.

And affirmative action doesn't promote accepting less qualified candidates over more qualified ones. If you have a problem with that then your problem lies with the groups who have chosen to do so.

Unless you can demonstrate that the language of affirmative action as it currently exists explicitly promotes accepting less qualified individuals. Which would surprise me since 90% of the time opponents of affirmative action cry about white women and qualified minorities who don't need affirmative action stealing opportunities from the poor, underqualified minorities.

Additionally, shouldn't the outrage extend to legacies, scholarship athletes, and basically everyone who wasn't the most qualified applicant. Think about how many jobs aren't filled by the most qualified resume but by the "best fit". How many universities accept students with unique backgrounds, even if they weren't the best students. That is equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome would mean guaranteeing that they all graduated.