Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In the "Contempt of Court" thread someone opinted that there is a conflict between my opposition to the irrational egalitarianism that guides much of what this culture does and my belief that public officials should not be treated as though they are royalty.

The irrational egalitarianism I oppose is the assumption that all definable groups are equal and so a "just" society would theoretically have definable groups represented in various fields in proportions consistent with their proportions in the population. Also things like promoting the idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality are just two different and "equally valid" orientations along a continuim of sexual orientations.

For example: There is an assumption that there are no innate, genetically based differences in distributions of aptitudes among races. Yet we have things like this (I've used this before):

In the 2009 8th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, poor children of parents who didn't finish high school scored an average of 135 while "not poor" children of of college graduates (at least one parent has college degree) scored an average of 168. That is no shock. The "not poor" children with educated parents obviously have a significant environmental advantage.

Yet when race is included we can see that poor Asian children of parents who did not finish high school scored an average of 162 on the test while "not poor" Black children of college graduates scored scored an average of 143. In spite of significant environmental advantages that are associated with a 33 point difference over the socioeconmic/parental education group the Asian chldren are in within the overall population, the "environmentally advantaged" Black children scored 19 points lower on average than the "environmentally disadvantaged" Asian children.

The NAEP collects "scientific" samples to take its test, so the averages are legitimate "scientific" estimates of the true means for the student groups. Also, the difference is statistically "significant" (p=0.0022), so it can't be reasonably attributed to chance.

Does that "prove" that innate, biological differences in the populations are a factor in the difference in the distributions of math aptitudes between Asian and Black students? No. People can raise other possible factors, such as "culture of achievement" among Asians, that are difficult to quantify. In any case, "proving" innate biological difference as a factor would require experiments that are not possible to conduct. But it is ridiculous to act as though there is no possibility that biology is a factor in the face of that kind of information.

Yet that is the "acceptable" posture. Everything proceeds under the assumption that there are no biological differences in distributions of aptitudes and that if we see differences in achievement something "unfair" is going on. It's assumed that, if only we could equalize all environments, we would not see such differences. There is absolutely no "proof" of that. And proving THAT would also require experiments that are impossible to conduct.

I also think that there is a strong bias among scienTISTS in the relevant fields towards the egalitarian assumption. If someone presents evidence as consistent with heredity as a factor they are villified and their work is subjected to detailed scrutiny for every possible technical violation of the scientific method and/or rules of statistical inference. But if someone presents evidence as consistent with environment as a factor they are lauded and minor technical deviations from perfect methodology tend to be forgiven.

Thus "irrational egalitarianism." Fundamentalist Christians are criticized for sticking to the idea that the Bible is the absolute truth regardless of evidence to the contrary but a lot of the people who criticize them stick just as tenaciously to the unwritten bible of egalitarianism.

Here we go again: from a dislike of "egalitarianism" to biological determinism in one easy step. Feeling better now, JSO?

I fear that with eagles being taken off the threatened species list that it is critical that we not take their continued survival for granted. I will always support egalitarianism. I am also a wolfitarian.

JohnStOnge wrote:In the "Contempt of Court" thread someone opinted that there is a conflict between my opposition to the irrational egalitarianism that guides much of what this culture does and my belief that public officials should not be treated as though they are royalty...

That was me. I was at a graduation party and had been drinking all afternoon. I put no thought what so ever into my post (I seldom do, alcohol or not). Glad to see it was worth a whole thread of it's own.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:In the "Contempt of Court" thread someone opinted that there is a conflict between my opposition to the irrational egalitarianism that guides much of what this culture does and my belief that public officials should not be treated as though they are royalty...

That was me. I was at a graduation party and had been drinking all afternoon. I put no thought what so ever into my post (I seldom do, alcohol or not). Glad to see it was worth a whole thread of it's own.

did the graduate take like 60 semesters off or are you partying with a slightly younger crowd these days?

citdog wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
That was me. I was at a graduation party and had been drinking all afternoon. I put no thought what so ever into my post (I seldom do, alcohol or not). Glad to see it was worth a whole thread of it's own.

did the graduate take like 60 semesters off or are you partying with a slightly younger crowd these days?

It was one of the wrestlers form my sons high school team. I hung out with the dads, most of whom are older than me.

JohnStOnge wrote:In the "Contempt of Court" thread someone opinted that there is a conflict between my opposition to the irrational egalitarianism that guides much of what this culture does and my belief that public officials should not be treated as though they are royalty.

The irrational egalitarianism I oppose is the assumption that all definable groups are equal and so a "just" society would theoretically have definable groups represented in various fields in proportions consistent with their proportions in the population. Also things like promoting the idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality are just two different and "equally valid" orientations along a continuim of sexual orientations.

For example: There is an assumption that there are no innate, genetically based differences in distributions of aptitudes among races. Yet we have things like this (I've used this before):

In the 2009 8th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, poor children of parents who didn't finish high school scored an average of 135 while "not poor" children of of college graduates (at least one parent has college degree) scored an average of 168. That is no shock. The "not poor" children with educated parents obviously have a significant environmental advantage.

Yet when race is included we can see that poor Asian children of parents who did not finish high school scored an average of 162 on the test while "not poor" Black children of college graduates scored scored an average of 143. In spite of significant environmental advantages that are associated with a 33 point difference over the socioeconmic/parental education group the Asian chldren are in within the overall population, the "environmentally advantaged" Black children scored 19 points lower on average than the "environmentally disadvantaged" Asian children.

The NAEP collects "scientific" samples to take its test, so the averages are legitimate "scientific" estimates of the true means for the student groups. Also, the difference is statistically "significant" (p=0.0022), so it can't be reasonably attributed to chance.

Does that "prove" that innate, biological differences in the populations are a factor in the difference in the distributions of math aptitudes between Asian and Black students? No. People can raise other possible factors, such as "culture of achievement" among Asians, that are difficult to quantify. In any case, "proving" innate biological difference as a factor would require experiments that are not possible to conduct. But it is ridiculous to act as though there is no possibility that biology is a factor in the face of that kind of information.

Yet that is the "acceptable" posture. Everything proceeds under the assumption that there are no biological differences in distributions of aptitudes and that if we see differences in achievement something "unfair" is going on. It's assumed that, if only we could equalize all environments, we would not see such differences. There is absolutely no "proof" of that. And proving THAT would also require experiments that are impossible to conduct.

I also think that there is a strong bias among scienTISTS in the relevant fields towards the egalitarian assumption. If someone presents evidence as consistent with heredity as a factor they are villified and their work is subjected to detailed scrutiny for every possible technical violation of the scientific method and/or rules of statistical inference. But if someone presents evidence as consistent with environment as a factor they are lauded and minor technical deviations from perfect methodology tend to be forgiven.

Thus "irrational egalitarianism." Fundamentalist Christians are criticized for sticking to the idea that the Bible is the absolute truth regardless of evidence to the contrary but a lot of the people who criticize them stick just as tenaciously to the unwritten bible of egalitarianism.

Are you suggesting that black kids are worse students or that they're more stupider than asians?

93henfan wrote:I fear that with eagles being taken off the threatened species list that it is critical that we not take their continued survival for granted. I will always support egalitarianism. I am also a wolfitarian.

Damnit! I was going to make the same smart ass comment.

Word for word.


I'm strictly a Foxitarian.

IMO the difference is more cultural than we think. IMO income has less to do with it than the difference in emphasis on nuclear family between those two communities.

93henfan wrote:I fear that with eagles being taken off the threatened species list that it is critical that we not take their continued survival for granted. I will always support egalitarianism. I am also a wolfitarian.

E - G - A - L - S

EGALS!

Are you suggesting that black kids are worse students or that they're more stupider than asians?

I think it's been pretty much documented that they are worse students on average. Seirously. That's one thing that is not really debatable.

As for the second question: We all know that Asians score much higher on average on IQ tests than Blacks do. Also on just about any kind of aptitude test one decides to choose. The way I would put it is that any reasonable assessment of the evidence suggests that Asians are, on average, more intelligent than Blacks. The only question is whether or not elimination of all environmental differences would change that.

Here we go again: from a dislike of "egalitarianism" to biological determinism in one easy step. Feeling better now, JSO?

Well, I do enjoy poking at Sacred Cows. And it's not really "biological determinism." It's just recognizing biology as a factor. Neither "nature" nor "nurture" fully determine the final result on their own.

The problem with our egalitarian culture is that there is resistance to recognizing that nature is a factor at all.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Here we go again: from a dislike of "egalitarianism" to biological determinism in one easy step. Feeling better now, JSO?

Well, I do enjoy poking at Sacred Cows. And it's not reallyl "biological determinism." It's just recognizing biology as a factor. Neither "nature" nor "nurture" fully determine the final result on their own.

The problem with our egalitarian culture is that there is resistance to recognizing that nature is a factor at all.

IMO the difference is more cultural than we think. IMO income has less to do with it than the difference in emphasis on nuclear family between those two communities.

Well, that could be true. There is no way to really know. But the point is that we are "programed" to look for reasons to say that heredity is not a factor. That's the direction of the social pressue.

citdog wrote:[

Well, it's the truth as I see it. Whether it's "racist" or not is for others to judge. "Racism" is defined as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

To me that's not my belief. But I do believe that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between groups we classify as "races." I do believe that genetics is a factor in Asians just being better, on average, than others are iin math (for example).

JohnStOnge wrote:I do believe that genetics is a factor in Asians just being better, on average, than others are in math (for example).

I come from a good area and attended an amazing high school, and ALL the black kids in my school went to college. Seriously, if you think it's about genetics, you're crazy. It's all about the support system behind the person.

Another local example is Alexandria, VA. You'll meet a lot of young Asians who have fallen into that "I'm to cool for school" mentality because Asian gangs have recently penetrated the area. My mother's friend, a leader in the Laotian community, is currently creating workshops and events to curtail what's happening with little success. Once again, it's all about who's around you than what your genetic makeup is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Here we go again: from a dislike of "egalitarianism" to biological determinism in one easy step. Feeling better now, JSO?

Well, I do enjoy poking at Sacred Cows. And it's not really "biological determinism." It's just recognizing biology as a factor. Neither "nature" nor "nurture" fully determine the final result on their own.

The problem with our egalitarian culture is that there is resistance to recognizing that nature is a factor at all.

At first it was "irrational egalitarianism" but now it's just egalitarianism in general. Gee, thanks Edmund Burke.
Next thing you know were gonna let some Chinese dude play center in the NBA.

JohnStOnge wrote: To me that's not my belief. But I do believe that there are differences in distributions of aptitudes between groups we classify as "races." I do believe that genetics is a factor in Asians just being better, on average, than others are iin math (for example).

You don't think it's difference culturally and not racially?

Asians emphasize studying your ass off, anything less than an A is a complete failure and they're shamed, etc. etc.

I don't think schooling is emphasized as much in black homes.

Take 20 asian kids and 20 black kids... switch their parents. Guarantee you the asian kids' math scores drop and the black kids' math scores increase.

I don't believe there is anything inherent about aptitude in any of the races. I don't believe math test scores are determined at birth. I also don't believe you've posted any decent evidence that there is an inherent difference in aptitude between black and asian kids from birth.

I'm sure there are similar statistics out there that would say a kid born in Louisiana scores lower, on average, than a kid from New Hampshire in math. Doesn't mean that Louisianans are genetically inferior or inherently worse at math than people from New Hampshire. I'm sure you would object to that.

BlueHen86 wrote:

93henfan wrote:I fear that with eagles being taken off the threatened species list that it is critical that we not take their continued survival for granted. I will always support egalitarianism. I am also a wolfitarian.

E - G - A - L - S

EGALS!

Yay!

I come from a good area and attended an amazing high school, and ALL the black kids in my school went to college. Seriously, if you think it's about genetics, you're crazy. It's all about the support system behind the person.

Are you saying that you think that there are no innate differences in intellectual potential between individuals and that if everyone had the same "support" system everyone would achieve at the same level?

What you are reporting is not based on a "scienfitic" sample. It's quite possible that if you live in a "good area" the Blacks there tend to be more capable than average. Even so, within your school, it would be interesting to see how Blacks scored on standardized tests that were administered as compared to other racial groups. We will probably never know, but I would feel very comfortable in betting that the Blacks in your school scored substantially lower on average than the average for the general student population.

I must also say that, unless it was a small school, I'm kind of skeptical about you knowing that "all" the Black kids in your school went to college. But even if you are correct, it's not like looking at a national scientific sample of the entire student population such as those collected by the NAEP. Really, the fact that people could be arguing that something like differences in support systems could account for something like what I reported from the NAEP sample just illustrates how resistant to objectivity people tend to be when it comes to an issue like this. It's an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about: Irrational egalitarianism.

JSO hates black people

At first it was "irrational egalitarianism" but now it's just egalitarianism in general. Gee, thanks Edmund Burke.
Next thing you know were gonna let some Chinese dude play center in the NBA.

It's still irrational egalitarianism. I just don't always include the word "irrational." We don't exercise it in sports except for the gender equity thing. Within one sport for one sex we use a merit based system. We have no problem if there is zero racial diversity on, say, a NBA basketball roster.

But what kind of chance do you think, say, a NBA franchise would have if it decided that it was going to make "diversity" a goal as opposed to just trying to get the best combination of players that it could regardless of race?

That's what we're doing with an awful lot of things in this country right now.

93henfan wrote:I fear that with eagles being taken off the threatened species list that it is critical that we not take their continued survival for granted. I will always support egalitarianism. I am also a wolfitarian.

I'm sure there are similar statistics out there that would say a kid born in Louisiana scores lower, on average, than a kid from New Hampshire in math. Doesn't mean that Louisianans are genetically inferior or inherently worse at math than people from New Hampshire. I'm sure you would object to that.

The New Hampshire sample scored "significantly" higher than the Louisiana sample, 292 to 272.

However, one can quickly see that most of the difference disappears with the first crude adjustment for demographics. If you adjust for race, socioeconomic status, and parental education level there was only one group such that there was a "significant" difference in sample means. Here is how it goes for groups for which comparisons are available (enough students to provide estimates):

Poor, White, Parent(s) graduated high school: Louisiana 272, New Hampshire 273
Not poor, White, Parent(s) graduated high school: Louisiana 279, New Hampshire 284
Poor, White, Parent(s) some college: Louisiana 282, New Hampshire 288
Not poor, White, Parent(s) some college: Louisiana 291, New Hampshire 291
Poor, White, Parent(s) graduated college: Louisiana 280, New Hampshire 284
Not poor, White, Parent(s) graduated college: Louisiana 295, New Hampshire 303*

*Significant difference.

With respect to the "significant" difference: Parental education level is the highest level achieved by one parent. If one parent has a bachelors degree in any major, that's "Parents graduated college." But there is a lot of variation within that. One or both parents could have graduated. One or both parents could've gotten graduate degrees. It doesn't come anywhere close to taking all of the variation into account. Also, "poor" vs. "not poor" just means eligible for the school lunch program or not. It does not take economic advantage fully into account. It is quite possible that New Hampshire students in the "Not poor, White, Parent(s) graduated college" group are "more advantaged" than Louisiana students in that group.

But you don't get something like the "most advantaged group" in Louisiana scoring way lower than the "least advantaged group" in New Hampshire. The "most advantaged" group in Louisiana scored 295 and the "least advantaged" group in New Hampshire scored 273. Contrast that to what happens when you compare the "most advantaged" group among Blacks in terms of socioeconomic status and parental education level to the "least advantaged" group among Asians. The LEAST ADVANTAGED Asians scored SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the MOST ADVANTAGED Blacks.

In my opinion, your post is another example of how resistant our culture is to being objective about this issue.

I have noticed that I was getting scores in the 100s the last time I queried the 2009 NAEP 8th grade math test and now I'm getting scores in the 200s. I'm going to have to try to figure out what's going on. The basic picture hasn't changed. But something weird is going on. For now I have to quit hogging the hotel lobby computer.