Monday, December 22, 2014

The Downside of PC: Empty Words Alone Aren't Wide Enough to Cover Real Problems (pt 2 of 2)

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy O'Kelley wrote: "No, I said that, I didn't say they believe that. Most don't..."

No, they really do. That's what that poor mindset sounds like. "I can't because I don't have XYZ and I just can't."

Anthony Atkielski - Hard work is always enough. The only thing that varies is the amount required.

Ismail MW - Jeremy If you want to get somewhere without getting lost, study of a map is most recommended. If you want to reduce body odour, shower! If you want to get out of poverty, learn the skills that will get you paid and pursue opportunities your skills are in demand for! Pretty straight forward! Again, "The opportunities don't present themselves to everyone to escape"

Ismail MW - Jeremy "What about free day care for working single moms? " Why are they single-moms? Singapore doesn't promote single-moms in their society, and the number of single-moms is extremely low, in contrast to countries that make it easy to pop out babies AND get paid to do so. UK, USA, and Canada.

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony Atkielski - hard work isn't always enough. There are tons of people who work hard, maybe even two jobs and still qualify for food stamps.

Ismail MW - Jeremy If you PROJECT things that are not there into people's words, I can question your own self-esteem quite easily.

Ismail MW - Define "hard work." Working two jobs that pay the same as one job is pretty much working for the sake of working.

Ismail MW - Stephanie When I was in college I had an instructor who considered coming into wipe desks and prep his class while on his 4 month PAID vacation was "hard-work."

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy O'Kelley wrote: "No, my solution is that hard work isn't enough..."

Well, if they are working hard digging ditches for $0.10 a month then obviously they are doing the wrong kind of work. Work hard to apply the valuable skills that you busted your ass and worked hard to learn.

Jeremy O'Kelley wrote: "and that the issue is much more complex than your simplistic interpretation."

No, it's not. Do an Internet search (I recommend Google) for the top 50 highest paying jobs in the country, pick the one that is most appealing to you, do what you need to do to learn the skills involved, and bust your ass to apply them. That's stage one. After that comes living beneath your means, saving, investing, purchasing income producing assets, but let's do stage one first.

Jeremy O'Kelley wrote: "Helping our fellow citizen could include, not only stop gap measures, but ensuring our jobs aren't shipped overseas, and making all education at every level free, including reeducation when certain trades are no longer feasible. What about free day care for working single moms? Your assumption that I suggest "free money" appears nowhere in what I said (until now, a little). Those are just some ideas."

Even if we had all of that stuff the poor would still be among us.

Jeremy O'Kelley wrote: "You're not arguing a universal truth..."

Yes, I am. Learn what you need to learn, and work hard to apply it, and you will not be poor. Only the content among them, or the lazy and without vision and focus reject that message.

Jeremy O'Kelley wrote: "'re just trying to make yourself feel better by denigrating another class of people."

Really? So being poor wasn't already denigrating, I made them feel even poorer? awww...

What are they going to do about? Food fight? Get poorer?

Anthony Atkielski - Do the people on food stamps vote? Are they taking any classes? What type of education did they originally get? Do they have children? Are they single parents? Do they smoke, drink, or do other drugs? There are many variables.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ismail MW wrote: "Define "hard work." Working two jobs that pay the same as one job is pretty much working for the sake of working."

It's okay as long as it's done temporarily with a specific plan in mind. You're doing it to make $X.00 a month so you can pay for the certification exam fees for XYZ to get a $80K a year job. Like that.

Muhammad Rasheed - That would HARDLY be "banging your head against the wall" despite the difficulty involved.

Stephanie Radakovich - 1) well-paying jobs aren't always plentiful
2) low-paying jobs are not necessarily unskilled jobs
3) the alternative to poverty isn't necessarily wealth

Ismail MW - Stephanie 1: neither are low-paying jobs
2: Majority are.
3: Yes it is. Contrast. The contrast of poverty is wealth. Both are states of mind.

Ismail MW - Also define: skills. You need more skill to be a welder than you do to be a newspaper delivery attendant. Welder pays more than delivering papers.

Ismail MW - Low-skill set tends to equate lower pay.

Anthony Atkielski - Higher skills require more time and money to acquire, and often more intelligence.

Anthony Atkielski - I think there should be a tax law that says that all corporate officers pay 98% income tax on their total compensation unless they reside in the same country as the majority of their employees and subcontractors. Jobs would all move back to the States within a year or so.

Muhammad Rasheed - Anthony Atkielski wrote: "Higher skills require more time and money to acquire, and often more intelligence."

Well, if you've been eating nothing but poor quality cornmeal mush and garbage for all your early formative years, chances are your cerebral cortex is probably a little light. Another reason the poor will always be among us.

Stephanie Radakovich - Okay, why do we all have enough time to sit and have this extended conversation on computers, generated by electricity, ostensibly sitting in some kind of safety, maybe sipping a decaf soy latte, maybe lifting our feet so someone can vacuum under them.

Face it. All of us have resources and opportunities available to us that some folks don't have. You can argue why that is all day long. But that just gets you way far away from the original topic, which is the construction of a class structure.

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought the original topic was switching out 'poor' for 'struggling' as a kind of magic spell?

Stephanie Radakovich - no. it's about not defining people, as a group, by their financial situation. that turns into identity.

Muhammad Rasheed - And then what will happen?

Muhammad Rasheed - Magic?

Anthony Atkielski - Most unintelligent people are not that way because of malnutrition or health problems. They simply inherited low intelligence.

Anthony Atkielski - A class structure is fine … as long as there is mobility between the classes for individuals. It's only when artificial barriers to mobility exist that you'll have problems. All societies tend to stratify into classes.

Stephanie Radakovich - as long as someone believes they are poor/fat/stupid, then they will continue to be so. if they believe that those situations are temporary or changeable, then things can change.

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony, calling people The Poor means they have no mobility.

Muhammad Rasheed - Anthony Atkielski wrote: "Most unintelligent people are not that way because of malnutrition or health problems. They simply inherited low intelligence."

No, that's a white nationalist tenet. Discard that, please.

Anthony Atkielski - If they are poor, fat, or stupid, they're that way no matter what they believe. If they want to be something else, they must first acknowledge what they are.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephanie Radakovich wrote: "Anthony, calling people The Poor means they have no mobility."

Yeah? So where are they going?

Anthony Atkielski - Calling people poor simply means that they are poor. It has nothing to do with mobility.

Current evidence indicates that at least half of intelligence is genetically determined.

Stephanie Radakovich - you've got to be freakin' kidding me, Anthony...

Anthony Atkielski - Nope.

Tacuma Alexander - I'd like to find the person that is born intelligent and not taught anything

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony, you've been skating around the edges of some racist ideas for awhile now... reign that stuff in, or take your argument elsewhere

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephanie Radakovich wrote: "as long as someone believes they are poor/fat/stupid, then they will continue to be so. if they believe that those situations are temporary or changeable, then things can change."

I agree. Insisting that they will never stop being poor because they lack magic good luck/connections, or because they are doomed to poverty because of genetics is what will damage and denigrate them.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tell them they can fix their situation by education/hardwork and it will empower them.

Anthony Atkielski - Intelligence and acquired knowledge are two different things.

Muhammad Rasheed - Anthony wrote: "Current evidence indicates that at least half of intelligence is genetically determined."

Evidence from where?

Anthony Atkielski - Look it up. Or choose to disbelieve me if you prefer. The reality will not change. I'm certainly not going to write a thesis on it here.

Muhammad Rasheed - 'Look it up' when it is a clear falsehood paraded around by white nationalists, Anthony?

There is no evidence to back that up.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please discard that foolishness.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're better than that.

Nathan Nicholls - Yes, pay them more

Anthony Atkielski - As I've said, you can choose to not believe me, just as some people choose to believe in magic words. It has nothing to do with white nationalists, most of whom aren't terribly bright themselves. There are unpleasant realities in the world, and one of them is that a large part of your intelligence is hard wired into your brain. You can reduce intelligence through disease and malnutrition, but genes appear to put an upper limit on how high it goes even in the best of conditions.

People who are unintelligent have a harder time becoming wealthy, but it's still possible if they compensate in other ways. Nevertheless, low intelligence is one of the most serious handicaps a person can have.

Muhammad Rasheed - How are intelligence levels measured?

Nathan Nicholls - Actually, conscience plays a huge roll. If you have one, you don't invest in human exploit for profit and you don't care to be exploited for profit. We have a society that separates the two yet allows for both. There is economic advantage in our system. As you progress, if you can save, you too can invest in exploiting others and looking down on the ones who do not do the same.

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony, the most serious handicap a person can have is the desire to influence others, but without the communication skills to do so.

Anthony Atkielski - Usually by IQ tests. Outside of IQ tests, vocabulary is highly correlated with intelligence, even if it's not a direct measurement. Empirically, people who are smart usually appear that way to others, just as people who are dumb seem dumb to others. Being smart is a great advantage when seeking wealth, but it's not a prerequisite.

Stephanie Radakovich - IQ tests should involve a broken toaster and a screwdriver.

Anthony Atkielski - Communication skills are hugely influenced by intelligence as well. I'm not sure that a desire to influence others is a good thing.

Nathan Nicholls - Most live in denial of our system of economic advantage or we give other discriminants to it but it is economic. We grant privilege to the investment class so that they can invest in human exploit for profit without risking their personal assets or actually doing any of the work. Wealth without work is the result. Concentration of wealth is the result. The process is upward redistribution of wealth through environmental and human labor exploit for capital gain

Stephanie Radakovich - you're doing your best to influence people, but without backing up your opinions.

Anthony Atkielski - IQ tests are hard to design. Existing ones correlate well with academic success and fairly well with material success in life.

Anthony Atkielski - Unbridled capitalism always concentrates wealth.

Nathan Nicholls - Doesn't have to, it does by design. We teach toward it

Anthony Atkielski - I'm simply providing information, I do not expect or desire to influence. People have to reached conclusions on their own in order to be truly convinced, if they think for themselves. If they don't think for themselves, it doesn't matter.

Muhammad Rasheed - Anthony Atkielski wrote: "Usually by IQ tests."

That's what I thought you were talking about. The evidence you referenced earlier was a falsehood, sir. You may safely discard it.

Anthony Atkielski - The only time capitalism doesn't do that is when some non-capitalist controls intervene.

Nathan Nicholls - elf employment is capitalism without human exploit

Anthony Atkielski - I've spent years studying intelligence and measurement thereof. You have not. Don't waste your breath.

Anthony Atkielski - The self-employed can be greedy, too.

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you know what i've studied and what I haven't?

Nathan Nicholls - Greedy sure but its not upward redistribution. It alone would not redistribute or concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. That is a result of corporate capitalism and banking

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony, you've provided no verifiable information.

Anthony Atkielski - You're repeating popular misconceptions, which you would not do if you were more familiar with the topic. In any case, it's not very germane to the topic at hand, as there is much more to poverty and escape therefrom than just intelligence.

Anthony Atkielski - Do your own verification, if you want more information.

Nathan Nicholls - Poverty could be ended with policy change. It is not ended because it is a matter of political structure

Anthony Atkielski - Which policies must change?

Nathan Nicholls - Favoring capital gain over compensation for one

Muhammad Rasheed - Dr. Flynn's research is not a misconception, Anthony. It's a nonsense smasher. lol

Nathan Nicholls - Favoring investment and return without work over real personal productivity

Muhammad Rasheed - You're the one holding onto the misconceptions. You should let them go. The only thing holding the poor back from better lifestyles, is their force of will.

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony, I don't know who you are, but you're very adept at hijacking threads with opinions delivered with a Spock-like, emotionless affect. I don't like it.

Anthony Atkielski - Dr. Flynn is one of many. Did it really take that long to alt-tab to Google?

Nathan Nicholls - There is no tie between a persons productive energy value on the market and what they receive because wealth without work for capital investment is the priority of both government and business

Anthony Atkielski - I think that publicly-held corporations and stock markets are the real problems.

Nathan Nicholls - Pretty much

Anthony Atkielski - Stephanie, you friended me, not the other way around. If you only want to talk to people who share your opinions, stop friending people who think for themselves.

Anthony Atkielski - Anonymous institutional shareholders care only about money, nothing else. And the stock market is legalized gambling. Very bad things.

Nathan Nicholls - I don't believe genetics plays a role in a persons financial successes any more than the privileges afforded wealth and family. I think there are farm hands who are or could be far more productive and desrving than most of the best paid CEO's alive.

Muhammad Rasheed - Anthony Atkielski wrote: "Dr. Flynn is one of many."

One of many what? lol

Anthony Atkielski wrote: "Did it really take that long to alt-tab to Google?"

I'm engaged in a few convos right now.

Stephanie Radakovich - Anthony, I welcome other opinions - respectfully and intelligently delivered.

Anthony Atkielski - Success is not genetically determined. But some of the personal characteristics that influence our motivation to succeed or the ease with which we can do so are.

Anthony Atkielski - Dr. Flynn is one of many people who have studied intelligence. I look at data rather than personalities, though.

Anthony Atkielski - Stephanie, I welcome other opinions, period.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's not about the personality, it's about the data his research uncovered. And the cover up.

Nathan Nicholls - I don't know. I think exposure to external influence determines intellect and that economic standing is the most significant determinant. That is not to say that minimal economics guarantees you can't succeed. There are so many external factors involved. I sure cannot back my position.

Muhammad Rasheed - "In recent years, research by Professor James R. Flynn, an American expatriate living in New Zealand, has shaken up the whole IQ controversy by discovering what has been called 'the Flynn effect.' In various countries around the world, people have been answering significantly more IQ test questions correctly than in the past.

"This important fact has been inadvertently concealed by the practice of changing the norms on IQ tests, so that the average number of correctly answered questions remains by definition an IQ of 100. Only by painstakingly going back and recalculating IQs, based on the initial norms, was Professor Flynn able to discover that whole nations had, in effect, had their IQs rising over the decades by about 20 points.

"Since the black-white difference in IQ is 15 points, this means that an even larger IQ difference has existed between different generations of the same race, making it no longer necessary to attribute IQ differences of this magnitude to genetics. In the half century between 1945 and 1995, black Americans' raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points.

"In other words, black Americans' test score results in 1995 would have given them an average IQ just over 100 in 1945. Only the repeated renorming of IQ tests upward created the illusion that blacks had made no progress, but were stuck at an IQ of 85." ~Thomas Sowell

Anthony Atkielski - I'm not into conspiracy theories, either.

Unintelligent people tend to have lower socioeconomic status. Smart people tend to have higher SES. This persists even for people born into the opposite SES (although that's uncommon because intelligence tends to run in families).

Nathan Nicholls - My understanding is that IQ is simply a composition of your familiarity with the world around you. It makes sense that the environment you live in will affect your understanding.

Anthony Atkielski - No, IQ is unrelated to acquired knowledge.

The Flynn effect has been around for decades, so it's not recent, nor has it been covered up. All measurements of intelligence are relative rather than absolute, so it's hard to assess the significance of the effect, if it's real.

Nathan Nicholls - Intelligence may run in families. IQ I would think is dependent on external factors and financial success is determined by so many factors, I doubt it can be established.

Anthony Atkielski - IQ is simply a measure of intelligence, so if intelligence runs in families, so does IQ.

Nathan Nicholls - I am no professional but I understood IQ not to be an intelligence measure as much as a measure of your awareness of your surroundings. When I was tested 32 or more years ago, that was what I was told. With a 135 score. I live below the poverty line regardless that I was born into the middle class

Muhammad Rasheed - Anthony Atkielski wrote: "I'm not into conspiracy theories, either."

I'm not into people deliberately trying to uphold the concept of their race's superiority based on falsified data as an excuse to oppress them, but to each his own. You have your own reasons for wishing to hold onto that stuff; it is attractive to you. For my part I reject falsehood and prefer only truth.

Anthony Atkielski wrote: "Unintelligent people tend to have lower socioeconomic status. Smart people tend to have higher SES."

Those individuals who manage to gain the motivation to pull themselves up the socio-economic ladder increase in intelligence along the way because of what they have to learn and the new concepts they must negotiate at they transform from a victim mindset to a solutions driven one. Naturally as they are from a family that still has the victim mindset with it's corresponding atrophied and inflexible intelligence that they continue to pass on, it may superficially give the impression that it is a genetic trait, but this is obviously not so.

Anthony Atkielski - Those are popular misconceptions again, encouraged for purposes of political correctness. There are other factors that influence success; a high IQ isn't a free ticket to riches, it's just an important advantage.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Misconceptions" based on what, Anthony?

Anthony Atkielski - Intelligence is pretty much constant over a person's lifespan. Learning does not increase it. And I haven't said anything about race … you have.

Muhammad Rasheed - ^THAT is the misconception that the Flynn Effect proved as nonsense. What do you have? Throw down your rod.

Anthony Atkielski - Misconceptions that people acquire when they adopt the opinions of others instead of investigating and developing opinions of their own. As in many technical fields, in the field of intelligence there is a gulf between popular perceptions and reality.

Muhammad Rasheed - The concept that intelligence is constant over a person's lifespan is the very popular misconception that the white nationalists really, really wished to be true. The actual facts proved them wrong. You have no rod to throw.

Muhammad Rasheed - You may safely discard that nonsense you are holding onto. There's a lad.

Anthony Atkielski - Actual measurements show that intelligence is consistent throughout life, barring any disease states such as brain injuries and such. I'm not sure why you are preoccupied with white nationalists and race, nor do I see their relevance here.

Muhammad Rasheed - No, the actual measurements revealed the exact opposite of that. You can read the article. It won't bite.

The 'intelligence consistency' concept was invented by and upheld by the white nationalist community because they need it as a component for their pet ideologies. It is pseudoscience in its worst form and not backed by any real study, despite statements you've claimed to the contrary.

Again you may safely discard it as a treacherous nonessential to your repertoire as a free thinking intellectual.

Anthony Atkielski - I can see that I'm wasting my time. Perhaps we can return to the topic at hand.

Muhammad Rasheed - It does you no credit to hold on to it.

Muhammad Rasheed - I was on your side at every other turn. You really disappointed me with that one.

Anthony Atkielski - I don't need credit, and I don't take sides. I don't worry about pleasing or disappointing people. Would you like to discuss the nominal topic?

Muhammad Rasheed - No, I'm done, sir. Have a good day.

No comments:

Post a Comment