Terry, I know you're a student of history but sometimes we fail to appreciate the progress we've made as a species. Pointing out all that is wrong in the world and ignoring all the good is a choice. Just as the opposite would be a sign of denial so is obsessing with the evils in the world.
The One Per Cent (1%) - Is it a Phenomenon of Nature itself? Is it Fair? Is it our enemy?
by Terry 25 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
Terry
Genius can be co-opted by the Billionaire game-riggers.
And it is.
Genius can be weaponized!
The Nazi intelligentsia created amazing weapons for real in WWII.
America and Russia grabbed those Nazi scientists and put them to work.
Pause and reflect.
A pattern through history: the Pope and Michelangelo, Mozart and the Princes,
rich Egos make tools of artists, musicians, scientists, etc.
MONEY trumps genius by co-opting it.Consequently: we can't really make the Conservative Argument that "Hard work makes all the difference." Nope.
-
Simon
It's too simplistic - some of the 1% are spoiled selfish entitled cunts. Others have created untold jobs and used the wealth they created to benefit numerous others.
People think the 1% (and other brackets) are fixed but they are not - there is some hereditary wealth but much of it churns and changes.
Often missed in the resentful discussion of the 1% is that most of the tax burden is paid by the wealthy - the great unwashed pay little to nothing and receive handouts. This is the real imbalance in society - allowing people to not work and contribute anything.
-
LoveUniHateExams
Your article wonders how gender representation in a given specialist field happens - There are several ways this could happen. Most obviously, these gendered stereotypes could lead to bias on the behalf of practitioners already in the field, which could lead to them offering fewer opportunities to women. Take philosophy, for instance: The US National Science Foundation reports that only 27 percent of PhDs in philosophy and ethics were awarded to women in 2013, though 51.2 of all doctorate recipients in the humanities were women. On the other hand, some STEM fields have a high rate of female doctorates, with 58.8 percent of microbiology PhDs in the same year going to women practitioners already in the field, which could lead to them offering fewer opportunities to women. But stereotypes are also more insidious than that; women could internalise these stereotypes and effectively self-select out of the field, feeling that they probably don't fulfil the requirements.
Giving a few stats and using them to support 'gendered stereotypes' just doesn't cut it. Virtually the next line says that some STEM fields have a high rate of female doctorates, with 58.8 percent of microbiology PhDs in the same year going to women practitioners already in the field. This isn't gendered stereotyping at all, it's just all about getting your foot in the door.
There are no studies cited that refute the IQ distribution I've spoken about - i.e. males dominate the genius and dumb ends and females cluster more around the mean.
"Like women, African Americans are stereotyped as lacking innate intellectual talent," the authors wrote - mean IQ for African-Americans and other racial groups do differ. That's not negative stereotyping, it's fact.
Here's something for consideration: natural selection acted on male and female bodies for many thousands of generations, so that the average man had broad shoulders, narrow waist, male genitalia, facial hair and chest hair. The average woman has breasts, a general lack of facial hair and body hair in general, has female genitalia, and wider hips for childbirth. Why would evolution act on males' and females' bodies but not their brains?
Natural selection has also acted upon people for many generations so that we have different ethnic groups. Peoples' skin, facial features, hair type, eye colour, bodily proportions and even % of fast-twitch muscle fibers are different. Again, it seems absurd to accept all that but then deny natural selection acted upon people's brains.
The brain is just another organ, like skin, eyes, hair and muscle. Behaviour is just another phenotype.
The US National Science Foundation reports that only 27 percent of PhDs in philosophy and ethics were awarded to women in 2013, though 51.2 of all doctorate recipients in the humanities were women - these statistics simply reflect women's choice of career, that's all.
It's not just STEM (science, technology, engineering, and maths) fields that suffer from low levels of female representation, though they definitely have a problem - this isn't a 'problem'. Again, the numbers simply reflect people's choice of career and life.
There's nothing arbitrarily stopping more women from going into STEM or becoming members of board of directors. The main factor that's effecting women is poor life choices, such as when to have children, etc.
There are no doubt many factors that contribute to low diversity in certain academic fields, from outright discrimination to internalised biases, and all manner of social influences. - now we're almost starting to get somewhere. Men and women do differ on behaviour, on average.
-
Terry
"Your opening statement is about the economic "1%" - the wealthiest.
The rest of your post is about the intellectual "1%" - the smartest.
I don't see why there is necessarily a correlation between the two."
Quite right.
In my follow-up posts I added this.
The $$ group can weaponize the I.Q. group toward corrupt ends.
And has. Always.
I lived through the Tobacco era when "scientists" bought and paid for conducted "studies" to thwart other scientists and all the while
the news media sopped up advertiser money.
It is a miracle of political achievement we ever got legislation for seat belts, for drunk driving laws, for bans on smoking, etc.
"Public Interest" is the 'tax' paid by the $$ group to avoid being torn to bits in the streets. -
Terry
Simon:
Often missed in the resentful discussion of the 1% is that most of the tax burden is paid by the wealthy - the great unwashed pay little to nothing and receive handouts. This is the real imbalance in society - allowing people to not work and contribute anything.
_____
True, that.
Tax "refunds" to people who don't pay tax is a rather mind-boggling ploy, for example.
Ayn Rand was ostracized by her contemporary intellectual community for pointing these things out under the virtue-signaling banner of "Compassion, Altruism, Charity."
The actual argument itself is owned by Academia and modern universitiesare pretty much breeding grounds for wet-behind-the-ears radicalized Marxist dupes and "useful idiots."
Whereas Religion as the opiate of the people is fading, Liberal Marxism has replaced it.
Young people need desperately to associate themselves with a JUST CAUSE and are so vulnerable to manipulation. (I.e. Jehovah's Witnesses and those of us here still licking those wound.)Who makes the most altruistic argument and gains the most virtuous standing is the group who wins. (Until the next and the next).
-
peacefulpete
There are just causes, most people are decent, there are practical solutions to many of society's issues. Painting those not yet cynical enough to not try as "Liberal Marxists" "radicalized Marxist Dupes" and "idiots" reveals how dark your heart has become. Parroting right wing attacks on university education is destructive to the nation and discouraging youth from bettering their lot in life. Education is the enemy of superstition and small mindedness. My wife's education enabled us make good life despite squandering the first few decades. Travel and discover there are many successful ways for government to serve the people. It's not far right or far left, Fascist or Communist with nothing in between. For crying out loud Israel has universal healthcare, are they leftist idiots?
-
hoser
I believe there will always be a group of people or countries that hold a disproportionate amount of the resources. Life’s like that.
However 100 years from now it will be a different 1%. Some people make money, some people spend it. The third generation after the one who built the fortune are usually the ones that blow the family fortune and have to sell the assets.
This gives the next up and coming person an opportunity to gain wealth.
-
peacefulpete
I've tried 2 web browsers and yet some of the posts are running beyond the margin and losing half the comment. In each case I've included a link to a youtube video. Anyone know how to avoid this?