New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program • Hacker News Board

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#161

Post by padastra » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

pacbard wrote: post #91

_hilro wrote: post #13

> But the highly selective and racially segregated program will be replaced for incoming students. Wow, using a word such as segregation, which has connotations of 'by design' sure lays bare their hand. Just to be clear, there is no segregation(of any kind) amongst the students in the program. In fact, there is no segregation at all. There's just not equal representation of the makey-uppy USA racial classifications.…

The context for the use of "racially segregated" is probably within the current anti-racist movement (see, for example, Kendi's work). This movement has moved away from labeling racist a policy that was implemented with racist intent (like segregated schools during Jim Crow) towards labeling racist a policy that has unequal outcomes based on race, regardless of policymakers' intent. If you start from that perspective…

There's some conclusions that I disagree with here assuming the same starting facts. Also, I think calling things "racist" or "segregated" usually ends critical thinking because they have the same emotional label as the initial definition (systematic differences in treatment due to skin color) even as the definitions have expanded (systematic differences in outcomes, independent of cause).

Let's presume that intelligence is heritable. Given the difference between humans and other species I do not see how this can be argued.

Let's also presume that intelligence varies between humans. If there is no variation across a population, then it cannot be selected for, unless you argue a stepwise change that's completely uniform, for which I don't see any other evolutionary proxy.

Let's NOT presume that intelligence varies between races.

My question to you is this:

Can the children of a group of humans selected for intelligence (e.g. completed enough education despite a cultural revolution, had enough finances, etc. -- Asians; escaped systematic genocide, etc. -- Jews) be, on average and not uniformly and with lots of overlap, smarter than the children of a group of humans not selected for intelligence (e.g. sold by other Africans into slavery, so presumably disadvantaged in the original African society, lower-educational-barrier illegal immigration as with many Central and South Americans)?

Note for the purposes of this question that reproduction within each group (Asian immigrants : Asian immigrants; Jews : Jews; African-Americans : African-Americans; Hispanics : Hispanics) is much larger than reproduction between groups, preventing admixing over time.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#162

Post by Chris2048 » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26

refenestrator wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current stats include a ridiculously large number of Asians, and the changes are racially motivated according to the proponents' own words. It doesn't sound like the system was perfect, I'm all for reform that helps everyone. Hurting Asians to create equality isn't it.

Equality, to the priviledged, looks like persecution. That many Asian kids got a golden ticket, and now won't get a golden ticket, seems like not such a problem to those who were denied any such chance at a golden ticket for generations.

Faulty premises often hide behind metaphors.

What does "got a golden ticket" mean? On merit?

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#163

Post by Chris2048 » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156

darthvoldemort wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely BS. The activists have been trying for decades to bump up the percentage of Blacks and Latinos, and yet it's dominated by Asians. Asians are "stealing" spots from White, Blacks, and Latinos and it makes it hard to justify racism, especially when Asians are not only 40% of the G&T but also the poorest demographic in NYC.

If poverty is not a distinguishing factor, then what is left but racism? I'm confused.

literally every other factor.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#164

Post by Chris2048 » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #27

Bostonian wrote: post #24

Subtitle: "Students who are currently enrolled in gifted and talented classes will not be affected. But the highly selective and racially segregated program will be replaced for incoming students." The reasons can be debated, but it's a fact that on IQ tests, American blacks score about 1 standard deviation (15 points) below whites. A common threshold for a gifted program is an IQ of 130, 2SD above average. If you de…

It's also a fact that American blacks have several standard deviations less wealth than whites. If wealth ultimately is the driver for such a disparity, and education is the gateway to said wealth, you're effectively trapping people.

> If wealth ultimately is the driver for such a disparity

My understanding of "IQ" (although there seem to be multiple definitions) is that is it supposed to be the purely physical (mental?) trait i.e. unaffected by environmental factors.

Although I suppose whether that is the case is an open question (for me at least, unless anyone familiar with the topic can comment?).

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#165

Post by fdanconia21 » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #157

superflit2 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real thing about the asians is: There is a whole narrative that people are equal and have same capabilities. Anyone can be a sport start if trains enough or a super scientist if study enough. Then looking at statistics it is not true. The same people with cognitive dissonance claim that because social factors, etc. Usually whites get a better treatment thus because and only because of that they have better repres…

It's not I.Q., it's culture. Asians have a significant cultural focus on education. But then again so do a number of Black African minorities like the Igbo, Ashanti and Yoruba. So even "race" is a complete red herring.

Culture, 100% is the reason. But I feel the real problem here is how we CANNOT talk about the negative effects of culture. Growing up black/Mexican I was made fun of by blacks and Mexicans for being smart, acting white etc. and I know I'm not the only one who experienced this.

Intelligence was not valued in black culture when I was growing up and I'd argue is still not.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#166

Post by _hilro » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

enkid wrote: post #84

superflit2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following the IQ distribution by races. I can scream whatever I want about people being equal and have equal capabilities. But that is a lie. Genetics is a huge factor in disease, skills and behavior. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

Race does not exist genetically. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-res...

> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives.

Species do not exist genetically /s

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#167

Post by bitwize » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

Zababa wrote: post #111

pacbard wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context for the use of "racially segregated" is probably within the current anti-racist movement (see, for example, Kendi's work). This movement has moved away from labeling racist a policy that was implemented with racist intent (like segregated schools during Jim Crow) towards labeling racist a policy that has unequal outcomes based on race, regardless of policymakers' intent. If you start from that perspective…

I'll preface this by saying that I don't live in the USA, so some of these things are a bit alien to me. I'm sorry if the way I word things here is not the best, the goal here is not to attack or even label something as good or bad, but only understanding. > This movement has moved away from labeling racist a policy that was implemented with racist intent (like segregated schools during Jim Crow) towards labeling rac…

The thing about racism is, a system can be racist without being explicitly so. Even without Jim Crow laws and segregation, even assuming everyone is perfectly colorblind, the historical context where there were slavery and Jim Crow laws for hundreds of years means that whites wield considerably greater social capital than blacks, and that means they have a significant social advantage.

The amelioration for this is equity, or as you call it "positive discrimination". That means -- yes, holding whites back so that blacks have an opportunity to step forward. Blacks need greater advantages in order to achieve social parity with whites. It is also exceedingly shameful that one of the easiest ways to repair the damage caused to blacks' pool of social capital -- slave reparations -- was never considered by the U.S. government.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#168

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

fdanconia21 wrote: post #165

zozbot234 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not I.Q., it's culture. Asians have a significant cultural focus on education. But then again so do a number of Black African minorities like the Igbo, Ashanti and Yoruba. So even "race" is a complete red herring.

Culture, 100% is the reason. But I feel the real problem here is how we CANNOT talk about the negative effects of culture. Growing up black/Mexican I was made fun of by blacks and Mexicans for being smart, acting white etc. and I know I'm not the only one who experienced this. Intelligence was not valued in black culture when I was growing up and I'd argue is still not.

[deleted]

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#169

Post by bitwize » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

_hilro wrote: post #36

bitwize wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a school system or program doesn't have enough black kids in it, it is by definition segregated. School antisegregation laws care nothing for intent, only for effect.

> If a school system or program doesn't have enough black kids in it, it is by definition segregated. No, it is literally not "by definition" segregated. Using the phrase 'by definition' is not that powerful a modifier that every word that surrounds it suddenly becomes true. That's the most nonsense thing ever. Secondly, read the line I quoted: > highly selective and racially segregated program The program is not rac…

Sorry, but the law says otherwise. If a school does not have a representative proportion of minority students, a court will rule it is segregated, and the school would be legally mandated to take desegregation measures including busing students in from out of district.

Re: New York City to Phase Out Its Gifted and Talented Program

#170

Post by _hilro » Fri, Oct 08, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

mrblampo wrote: post #130

_hilro wrote: post #13

> But the highly selective and racially segregated program will be replaced for incoming students. Wow, using a word such as segregation, which has connotations of 'by design' sure lays bare their hand. Just to be clear, there is no segregation(of any kind) amongst the students in the program. In fact, there is no segregation at all. There's just not equal representation of the makey-uppy USA racial classifications.…

Look up segregation in the dictionary, it does not have to imply intent.

Spend any amount of time greater than 0 reading books and articles which use the word segregate.

Segregation/segregate is defacto used as a noun/verb with intent behind it.