41–50 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now translate "chips" into "systemic and generational advantages" and include detail on how to give everyone the same number.
Childcare, subsidized/free tutoring, mentoring, etc. I'm on board with practically anything other than lowering the admission bar. Edit: admission to good public schools based on standardized tests instead of family real estate would be a good start
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to play poker. Everyone will start with a randomly determined number of chips. But people whose HN handles start with A-H will get, on average, 40% less to start with. Aside from that tiny nit, it'll be a totally fair game.
If only it was so easy in real life to cleanly figure out who "starts out with less". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
You know about slavery of the past and the labor practices of big agriculture today yeah?
To fix inequality of opportunities one would be well advised to start with the way k-12 schools are funded. It's too late for most disadvantaged students by the time they are old enough to go to college.
I bet it's all those pesky good for nothing lazy asians that spend their entire time doing useless things like studying and trying to make it in life. They're the reason smart and honest blacks and hispanics are being pushed out of top universities. We really need to do something about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the alternative that we play poker and after every N rounds the chips are redistributed so that everyone has the same amount? At what point(s) should redistribution happen? At what point(s) should it stop to allow better decision making?
At the point when you realize that the original distribution is out of line with your current moral and ethical values.
Values are extremely subjective, people tend to base their values on however they feel about a situation at any given time.
To fix inequality of opportunities one would be well advised to start with the way k-12 schools are funded. It's too late for most disadvantaged students by the time they are old enough to go to college.
Perhaps a significant part of it is because those groups have lower IQ's on average? I think it's kinda strange that the article doesn't even entertain the notion that intelligence is genetic.
According to Wikipedia[0] it's 15 to 18 points lower on average for African-Americans than for white Americans, which would imply that only 11-18% of African-Americans have an IQ above 100.
I get that it's taboo to talk about groups having "worse genes" in some respect than white people, I guess I can thank the fucking Nazi's for that. I definitely don't think any individual should be judged based off their group identities, but I do think it's hypocritical to only accept the discussion of racial differences when it's to the benefit of minorities (e.g. "Jews/Asians are smart", "certain Africans run best", "white people/especially Asians have tiny penises").
Perhaps "Affirmative Action" even hurts a portion of black students, by lowering the bar and funneling them into colleges that are too competitive for their abilities; that would be a possible explanation if there would still be an achievement gap after corrections for IQ.
Affirmative Action is partly about admission standards, so I interpret it as assuming someone was measured to perform worse, because of some kind of systemic disadvantage that will leave them once they're at university. However, I don't really understand how you'd tell the difference between someone being plain under-qualified and someone being under-qualified due to unjust circumstances that will "magically" correct once they're at university. I'm on shaky ground here though, I don't know that much about AA.
Meta: is my post at all "trollish" to anyone? I tried to be as neutral as possible but perhaps I overreached somewhere, I'm fairly new to this topic and it's hard to always distinguish between information that can reasonably be assumed to be factual and baseless or exaggerated claims.
This area of knowledge is mostly discussed by white supremacists, I suppose partly for lack of liberals even wanting to consider the notion that IQ is genetic. I must admit I'm slightly grateful to them for spamming comment sections because they inspired me to start studying media, history and politics.
If you say "Hitler did nothing wrong" I think you're dead wrong and you should learn to troll better or go home, but history sure is more nuanced than I previously thought, and the people that complain about steel beams actually seem to have more solid evidence than those who support the official story.
I also think it should be more acceptable to discuss these non-mainstream perspectives, because even though they're wrong they highlight different parts of history, and if they're taboo you also can't find sources that will refute them. It makes it harder to curate a well-balanced perspective.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#United_S...
So as long as Harvard et al keep their incoming classes small and the number of prospective college students remains high or keeps increasing, the imbalance will continue. A few elite colleges may be able to poach from each other to improve their numbers (like Harvey Mudd) but obviously they can't all do that.