Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Commodore]

there are some people, that's the best they can do.

What do you mean, exactly? That even if they had been raised in an affluent family, exposed to diverse and quality intellectual and aesthetic experiences, supported by individual tuition, they still couldn't probably master a professional discipline beyond burger flipping? Or that the people are doing the best they can with the tools they've been given, and you can't look down on them for it? I completely agree with the latter, but not at all with the former, regardless of the "innate potential".

Rich halfwit wastrel is a meme for a reason. Some of the extremely rich are unable to master more than burger flipping.   Or reality TV.

I'm agree about the need for figuring out what this ought supposedly is. Maybe the next civilization will figure it out better.

[darrelljs]

My point is an unlucky birth should not consign someone to a job & life below their innate potential

What is the "innate potential"? With proper training and dedication, pretty much any healthy human can become capable at most tasks -- engineering, medicine, law, politics, management, cooking, take your pick. People who work in Amazon Warehouses, Walmart stores, do cleaning duties, or even admin work in hospitals, in schools, in prisons, all of those are pretty much consigned to a job and life below their "innate potential", if that means "a level of expertise one could realistically reach, provided all necessary support in the course of his life".

Hmm...I think you are neglecting the impact of competition in the job market.  It would, for example, be difficult for someone with a below average IQ to succeed in the field of electrical engineering.  That's okay with me.  What's not okay is someone who would have really loved being an electrical engineer (and had the capability) being denied the opportunity.  That's all I meant.

Any of the jobs you mentioned above can be done with dignity, passion, pride, and contribute to society in a way worthy of respect.  Fair compensation is a ant hill even I'm not willing to knock over .

Darrell

[Bacchus]

But what's "below average IQ" if not "an unlucky birth"?

Also, most people who are "denied opportunity" don't even get to stage of wanting to be an electrical engineer. An America at least, if you consciously want that, I think you have pretty good chances of becoming one. Lack of education works on a more insidious level, it narrows horizons, and thus molds motivations. If you haven't read a bunch of books/watched programmes about Tesla, Edison or Faraday and the like, electrical engineering will be just a meaningless phrase to you, whilst joining a gang may look interesting and important.

As for dignity, passion and pride of exhausting low-paid jobs, I don't think anyone is fooled. The persons can be and should be afforded dignity, but it's totally OK to say that some jobs are just shit, some shouldn't even exist, some should be automated as soon as practicable. I can give you a recent example -- I ran a project at a hospital's specimen reception, where an entire department was created to do the following: receive a box of barcoded test tubes from external clinics, for each testtube scan it's barcode, click "OK", wait for a printer to print a NEW barcode, compatible with hospitals lab equipment, stick that over the old barcode and put the test tube back in a box. On one hand, without this no lab work could be done on the specimens, on the other it was clear that this is essentially a stop gap measure, and that the job shouldn't really even exist, external barcodes should just be standardised with hospital scanners. The people doing the job were great, and none of them saw the job as any kind of self-fulfilment to be passionate about. If anything it would be undignified to pretend that those people had nothing better to be proud about in their life than barcode sticking. They could have been proud, and were, of doing the job well, finding improvements to it, etc, but that's pride in yourself, not the job.

[ipecac]

The equal opportunity stuff is a bit of a red herring, and I don't think it's the best argument in favor of investing in state education. I agree with the comments made that equal opportunity is impossible, and I don't think it should actually be the goal.

I addressed what others have brought up.

The proper framing IMO is instead that everyone should have some sort of baseline opportunity level, and even in the US that just doesn't exist for many kids. ... This isn't about equal opportunity really, it's about everyone having some sort of opportunity. A lot of kids simply have none at all, and in an obscenely wealthy country that can absolutely afford it, that's a failure of society...Finally, if you're hung up over "life isn't fair," you ought to consider the net societal benefit to education access.

Again, previously I was addressing what is almost a dogmatic commitment to Equality. I don't have a problem with a practical perspective, such as yours.

[ipecac]

Why is the distinction the thing that is important? The idea is not to get an education to make yourself better compared to those who do not go to college, but to make your life better, full stop. A rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

If too many college degrees messes up the markets then those who go to technical/trade schools will be in higher demand and the market corrects itself, right?

Bubbles can persist for some time, such as the current college bubble. Counting on young teenagers to be rational actors, especially when some like Bernie peddle the prospect of 'free college' is not a good plan.

Failing this, better to rely in the naked self-interest of voters.

That is bound to fail a la tragedy of the commons.

And, better still, how about we provide a good education to those voters so they will be less susceptible to propaganda and have better critical thinking skills.

What's the point? Education is not a panacea to just about anything; most people are by nature followers.

No. I think that Nature's inequalities are too big to tackle at this point. You missed the argument there entirely. Nurture issues are certainly within our grasp, if we are willing to work collectively toward a good solution.

I gathered that you were agreeing with Krill who showed how Nurture issues can't practically be overcome.

Current political trends seem to be headed in the direction of "less equal, win more" policies. See the recent tax bill travesty for the most blatant example.

Less equal isn't necessarily bad if all boats are floated, to borrow a phrase.

[ipecac]

I believe that increasing knowledge though something like a college/university education is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.

What type of knowledge?

Personally I have no desire to maintain a staus-quo that relies upon a large, poorly-educated, underclass. So, let them unravel.

I'm not particularly convinced with the 'let's outsource more of our poorly-educated underclass work to other countries, so it doesn't count on our ledger' approach that is prevalent amongst the elite in the West.

[ipecac]

They leave because of policies that are meant to ensure universal access, and equality, and have the practical effect of making teachers ineffective:...

When this happens, at best the class moves at the pace of the slowest kid, leaving everyone else bored and learning basically nothing.  At worst, the teacher has no control and the lessons taught are how to win fights or get out of the way, with teacher as another spectator.

Because Equality.

But...if you change those policies, then you have to admit that you're performing triage, abandoning disruptive kids even if they don't know they're making a horrible mistake, in order to educate the rest.

The policies can't be changed because that would be admitting that some things can't be educated to some people, contra to another dogma where 'education' is essentially a panacea to all ills.

[ipecac]

My point is an unlucky birth should not consign someone to a job & life below their innate potential

What is the "innate potential"? With proper training and dedication, pretty much any healthy human can become capable at most tasks -- engineering, medicine

wut.

[darrelljs]

But what's "below average IQ" if not "an unlucky birth"?

I should clarify when I say unlucky birth I mean Nurture, not Nature (thanks to whoever introduced those words to this thread). Being born dumb is a good reason not to be an electrical engineer. Being born indigent is not.

My school, which was an engineering school, was adjacent to a housing project. There was a tutorial program whereby students would be paired from someone in the project to help them with their studies. I taught a 7th grader Algebra -> Differential Calculus in about 10 hours. No credit to me, she was simply a genius. I hope with all my heart she was able to take advantage of it. Another kid in 10 hours was able to solve equations around the complexity of 2X + 5 = 13. It was no less rewarding for me, but for him it was frustrating, and not something he'd want a part of his regular life. Even had he wanted to, the first two years of my undergraduate program had six Calculus classes, and they were taught at a fast pace. There is no chance he would have been able to keep up.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

That's very US-centric. In the high school I work at only the second item on your list ("Discipline focused on administrative effects like detention and permanent record, rather than anything an unmotivated kid would care about) is true. It's possible to create a good working environment in a bad neighborhood school.

There is a somewhat pervasive philosophy (?) in the U.S. best summarized by this quote:

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

It really does lead to a lot of accomplishments, however one downside is there is an aversion to taking on anything that can't be "won".  We have movies like Dangerous Minds and Stand and Deliver that reveal our standard for "winning" here, and of course its an impossible standard.  There is little appetite for incremental, one step at a time improvements.  This is a generalization of course, and all generalizations are wrong ().

Gun violence is another example <runs for cover>.

Darrell