Macarthur said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

There would not be a problem if it were an equal opportunity mindset. The problem is the equal outcome mindset.

---

This is the issue with so many of the problems in our country. It's become so poloarized that neither side wants to come to the middle. No doubt there are those on the left that want equal outcomes, but the correct response isn't to deny the issue exists.

---

The vast majority of the time one contends that the issue exists, they are coming from an axiomatic position of equal opportunity means equal outcome.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

There would not be a problem if it were an equal opportunity mindset. The problem is the equal outcome mindset.

---

How do we promote equality of opportunity? And what do you see as the factors that create the biggest differences in opportunity?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Higher IQ correlates positively with longer life, career success, wealth, creativity, leadership effectiveness, and social skills.

---

More than wealth of ones parents?

Protect everyone's rights. So that they are not physically harmed. So that they aren't sent to prison for what they decide to put into their bodies. So that they in the rare cases where they are discriminated against by law enforcement or other governmental means, that justice is served and they are protected.

Those are the largest contributions to not having equal opportunity.

Superficial things like, "your mommy and daddy have more money than mine so you have a better opportunity", are not true inequalities of opportunity so far as what our government should care about.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Higher IQ correlates positively with longer life, career success, wealth, creativity, leadership effectiveness, and social skills.

---

More than wealth of ones parents?

---

Much more so.

As far as I have seen, yes.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Superficial things like, "your mommy and daddy have more money than mine so you have a better opportunity", are not true inequalities of opportunity so far as what our government should care about.

---

Do they not create inequalities of opportunity? Or are these just not inequalities that government should care about? Should we as individuals care about it?

Many gay friends. Most of my work place is non white. Most of my last workplace was gay. Good friends with all of them.
I've been involved with Big Brothers, CASA and other programs that benifit poor and minority kids.

I grew up having more minority friends in school than white.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Higher IQ correlates positively with longer life, career success, wealth, creativity, leadership effectiveness, and social skills.

---

More than wealth of ones parents?

---

Much more so.

---

I'd be interested in digging into this. A lot of what I've seen suggests otherwise, but I'm open.

Not really that big. What matters is quality of parenting which has nothing to do with wealth.

I do not know one person who really wanted to do something in life as a career, and was intelligently capable of it yet could not do it simply because their parents weren't rich.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Many gay friends. Most of my work place is non white. Most of my last workplace was gay. Good friends with all of them.
I've been involved with Big Brothers, CASA and other programs that benifit poor and minority kids.

I grew up having more minority friends in school than white.

---

If you asked them about who has it easier in America; gay vs straight, men vs women, white bs black bs Hispanic, what do you think their answers would be? This isn't a loaded or trap question . . . Genuinely curious.

Well obviously those outside of the norm comes with some difficulties. Regardless of how those in the norm treat you. But not a single minority friend I have would say they experience anything as being in that group that government should do something about, or that is a big issue with how they are treated by others.

The biggest issue with most of my gay friends is how their own family treated them.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Not really that big. What matters is quality of parenting which has nothing to do with wealth.

I do not know one person who really wanted to do something in life as a career, and was intelligently capable of it yet could not do it simply because their parents weren't rich.

---

Parents are crucial and government can't replace that. I get that. But poor families end up having poor children and rich families end up having rich kids. There is NOT a lot of mobility in the country. A smart kid with no parents from a rough neighborhood is going to end up in poverty 9 times out of 10. An average kid from a wealthy family is going to end up middle class or better 9 times out of 10.

I made those numbers up obviously - I'd have to look actual studies. Are their studies that correlate IQ with success?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Well obviously those outside of the norm comes with some difficulties. Regardless of how those in the norm treat you. But not a single minority friend I have would say they experience anything as being in that group that government should do something about, or that is a big issue with how they are treated by others.

The biggest issue with most of my gay friends is how their own family treated them.

---

A good answer, but can I press you to answer the specific question?

Yes... IQ is probably the most well studied sociological effect and there even a direct relationship between average IQ and GDP - about $230 per capita GDP per point.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Many gay friends. Most of my work place is non white. Most of my last workplace was gay. Good friends with all of them.
I've been involved with Big Brothers, CASA and other programs that benifit poor and minority kids.

I grew up having more minority friends in school than white.

---

If you asked them about who has it easier in America; gay vs straight, men vs women, white bs black bs Hispanic, what do you think their answers would be? This isn't a loaded or trap question . . . Genuinely curious.

---

such a shallow helpless way to approach life.

Rich gay man vs poor gay man? Stupid white guy vs genius black vs average Hispanic? Gorgeous woman vs ugly man?

Why do you only count the political segments and not the ones that actually consistently have objective and measurable effects on outcome of life?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Not really that big. What matters is quality of parenting which has nothing to do with wealth.

I do not know one person who really wanted to do something in life as a career, and was intelligently capable of it yet could not do it simply because their parents weren't rich.

---

Parents are crucial and government can't replace that. I get that. But poor families end up having poor children and rich families end up having rich kids. There is NOT a lot of mobility in the country. A smart kid with no parents from a rough neighborhood is going to end up in poverty 9 times out of 10. An average kid from a wealthy family is going to end up middle class or better 9 times out of 10.

I made those numbers up obviously - I'd have to look actual studies. Are their studies that correlate IQ with success?

---

Any stats on poor kids who have two parents? And have no drug abuse, alcohol abuse, out of wedlock pregnancy, etc. I think that welfare has caused the dissolution of the poor families and lack of upward mobility. I have worked at the old Ben Taub, ran the STD clinics in Houston, worked indigent care, etc. and seen kings and sheiks. Have a gay nephew that I love. Best friend since grade school is Jewish. And to simply think success comes from skin color or gender has not been my experience.

My experiences tell me that personal responsibility, two parents, graduating from hs, no addictions, no pregnancies out of wedlock, and a strong religious faith are the biggest determinants of success. Obviously, IQ helps. But welfare destroys a lot of the things I have seen to cause success.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Not really that big. What matters is quality of parenting which has nothing to do with wealth.

I do not know one person who really wanted to do something in life as a career, and was intelligently capable of it yet could not do it simply because their parents weren't rich.

---

Parents are crucial and government can't replace that. I get that. But poor families end up having poor children and rich families end up having rich kids. There is NOT a lot of mobility in the country. A smart kid with no parents from a rough neighborhood is going to end up in poverty 9 times out of 10. An average kid from a wealthy family is going to end up middle class or better 9 times out of 10.

I made those numbers up obviously - I'd have to look actual studies. Are their studies that correlate IQ with success?

---

Numbers suggest that IQ impacts success more than poverty, on a 1 on 1 comparison. The difference is as I said parenting. Most families that stay in poverty suffer from bad parenting. That is the factor that is likely to keep the kid in poverty. If they have bad parenting and wealth, they end up in poverty many times. That or dead from drugs.

They would of course say that they have it worse overall, but the level of worse is minuscule compared to other countries and not because of "systemic racism" or other things government needs to address.

Nailed it. You get rid of racial and gender injustice and there is still not equal results. So to libs there must still be racism and sexism. It can not be the poor person's fault, it has to be someone else's. And that creates enabling and further poverty and dissolution of the family.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Not really that big. What matters is quality of parenting which has nothing to do with wealth.

I do not know one person who really wanted to do something in life as a career, and was intelligently capable of it yet could not do it simply because their parents weren't rich.

---

Parents are crucial and government can't replace that. I get that. But poor families end up having poor children and rich families end up having rich kids. There is NOT a lot of mobility in the country. A smart kid with no parents from a rough neighborhood is going to end up in poverty 9 times out of 10. An average kid from a wealthy family is going to end up middle class or better 9 times out of 10.

I made those numbers up obviously - I'd have to look actual studies. Are their studies that correlate IQ with success?

---

Numbers suggest that IQ impacts success more than poverty, on a 1 on 1 comparison. The difference is as I said parenting. Most families that stay in poverty suffer from bad parenting. That is the factor that is likely to keep the kid in poverty. If they have bad parenting and wealth, they end up in poverty many times. That or dead from drugs.

---

I've seen independent studies showing a very noticeable affect for both factors. I haven't seen a side by side indicating a more pronounced effect. What are you sourcing on that? I'd like to read it.

Intuitively social mobility should be very high in a society where meritocratic measures like IQ strongly outweighs factors such as parental wealth, number of parents, quality of schooling, safety of environment etc. social mobility in the US at least is currently quite bad.

There's nothing to be done about IQ. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't identify where we still fall short of equality of opportunity.

And there will be cases where such inequalities are observable and the proposed fixes are ill advised and lead to other worse consequences.

Even taking the most studied and supported area of research which is IQ you are left with many stupid rich and smart middle class and poor. There are also countless and horribly difficult to measure things like work ethic, tendencies toward addiction, and plain old luck that weigh heavily.

k2aggie07 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Many gay friends. Most of my work place is non white. Most of my last workplace was gay. Good friends with all of them.
I've been involved with Big Brothers, CASA and other programs that benifit poor and minority kids.

I grew up having more minority friends in school than white.

---

If you asked them about who has it easier in America; gay vs straight, men vs women, white bs black bs Hispanic, what do you think their answers would be? This isn't a loaded or trap question . . . Genuinely curious.

---

such a shallow helpless way to approach life.

Rich gay man vs poor gay man? Stupid white guy vs genius black vs average Hispanic? Gorgeous woman vs ugly man?

Why do you only count the political segments and not the ones that actually consistently have objective and measurable effects on outcome of life?

---

Yes, it's a shallow way of looking at people. I'm asking questions (and maybe they are clumsy) and trying to discuss the topic. This is a format for discussion where meaning and intent gets lost a lot of times.

The world is often superficial and people are sometimes treated accordingly. Acknowledging that it happens and that we are all guilty of it sometimes does not mean I endorse it as a lifestyle.

I'll have to look at my bookmarks when I'm back on my laptop tomorrow and see if I cam find some. Been a bit since I was doing a lot of reading on that. Mainly when i was debating the alt righters alot.

Not sure what sources you got the upward mobility being low notion but I would guess when compared to countries that are catching up to the US in standard of living, you would see a different standard. To rightly compare tou would need to match countries with as culturally and racially diverse populations.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I love the concept of last mile fog for this. You're never ever going to eradicate the last mile of racism, sexism. Those things are hardwired to our brains, they're actual differences between people that babies react to before they're socially conditioned.

Last mile fog is the idea that when we were are the first mile it was simple - fixing slavery or working to affirm that blacks and whites are equally human are easy fixes, for example. Now we're at a place where the factors are so small it's really not clear what we should do, and fixing takes more and more effort. There's diminishing returns.

In this country we are at a point where your family and personality and intelligence have a far greater impact on your opportunity for success than your skin color. That's success, that's literally what success looks like. But that isn't politically expedient so people keep screaming louder and louder about smaller and smaller inequalities.

---

I think that's an excellent point. The last mile fog is a great idea. But who decides when the inequities are small enough to stop the screaming? I worry about a reaction to someone who feels unequal that tells them 'look we're close enough, stop the complaining'. How do we draw a line between indulging pettiness and victim mentality and taking people seriously who feel they are being treated poorly?

This also reminded my that on the podcast I listened to this morning they referenced a study showing scarcity (in this test of money) lowered cognitive scores significantly. They used a population in India where they get paid once a year doing the test before and after their yearly pay.

What about people who think they are being treated badly because they were taught as kids that anytime they dont get their way, it's because of discrimination?

k2aggie07 said:

---

I love the concept of last mile fog for this. You're never ever going to eradicate the last mile of racism, sexism. Those things are hardwired to our brains, they're actual differences between people that babies react to before they're socially conditioned.

Last mile fog is the idea that when we were are the first mile it was simple - fixing slavery or working to affirm that blacks and whites are equally human are easy fixes, for example. Now we're at a place where the factors are so small it's really not clear what we should do, and fixing takes more and more effort. There's diminishing returns.

In this country we are at a point where your family and personality and intelligence have a far greater impact on your opportunity for success than your skin color. That's success, that's literally what success looks like. But that isn't politically expedient so people keep screaming louder and louder about smaller and smaller inequalities.

---

Excellent point!

How about when the medicine makes things worse?

k2aggie07 said:

---

How about when the medicine makes things worse?

---

You mean the law of unintended consequences which has been the "fruit" of liberal policies for it seems forever.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree that those terms are divisive, but I doubt we agree on why. I think that many people are vexed by those terms because they fear admitting to having advantages in life. We want to think that what we accomplish is based on who we are and not in any way owed to our race, gender, class, family, etc. Suggesting that its easier to be white in America than it is to be black is seen as a personal attack or a way of saying 'you don't deserve what you have - you made it as far as you did because you are white.'

If we can agree that certain factors beyond our control do affect likelihood of success, how can we talk about it without being indecent? Is there another term that's better? Is there a better characterization of 'white privilege'?

---

I remember my sister getting really mad at me once when I was a kid. I griped that she got a bunch of scholarships "because she was a girl." It upset her because it diminished her feeling that she got scholarships on merit. Was I wrong? Probably not...it was probably an advantage to be female in some of them. Was she wrong? Also probably not, it's unfair to her. She can't help being a girl any more than I can help being a guy.

I don't think the terms are vexing because it forces us to admit to advantage. The terms are vexing because there's not a single thing anyone can do about it. It's just racism / sexism / whatever-ism in another form.

And it's just stupid anyway. What's the difference between white privilege, male privilege and something like intellectual privilege or physical privilege or beauty privilege? Can't do anything about your looks, and it indisputable that being attractive has advantages. Being intelligent is basically the single best predictor of success. Your namesake tells you where this leads - someone with your handle ought to recognize the basic form of the concepts in Harrison Burgeron.

---

This is the correct response. Attaching guilt and punishment to immutable characteristics is not higher level thinking, it's base level emotion. It also degrades things that are rightly ordered and widely beneficial by attaching guilt and punishment, such as having parents who are still married or affirmed you positively in regards to intelligence and looks while you were growing up.

---

I'm not arguing for guilt or punishment. I'm saying people should be willing to listen to other people and admit to themselves when they have had advantages over others in life. I think I've been pretty privileged in my life - guess that makes me a bigot?

I feel like I'm in crazy town reading this thread. Have any of you ever met someone who wasn't a white male Christian? Do any of you know a woman? Someone who is black? Gay? I'm not saying that white men don't have some troubling double standards against them, I'm saying that historically speaking, straight white Christian men have it pretty ******* good in this country.

The difference between social and economic advantages is that something can be done. You can help a poor kid get an education or counseling or put food in his/her belly. I can't change an IQ or make someone a better athlete. As 79 said - equality of opportunity, not outcome.

---

Notice how in the first paragraph you disaggregated privilege from race? That's because it's an honest idea and one that everyone can engage in. 'White privilege' and 'white fragility' are not. You can't have honest engagement when someone argues that you're completely blind to your advantage due to an immutable characteristic like race (privilege) and can't handle said criticism of your blindness (fragility) while the practical expectation is that you agree with everything they say and if you don't its a deficiency in you personally (again, due to race). It's an attack on a person, not an idea, and that's what makes it utterly repulsive. If you took race out I think many would say, yes we've had advantages. But those should be treated as a blueprint and fostered, such as getting married, not having kids before marriage, and finishing your education first. These are huge predictors of success as an adult along with IQ but privilege exercises are not teaching moments designed to encourage them and create a successful culture.

Regarding your second paragraph it's more an indictment of your beliefs than ours. There are far more impoverished white people than black, almost double if I recall correctly. So a ton really haven't had it all that great (and that's historical too as if you read Sowell he ascribes southern black culture to being around poor whites) but they're largely invisible to these arguments because they don't fit the narrative. The failure in your logic is to associate class with race when really class in and of itself makes a bigger difference.

Here is a study that separates out the different effecting factors, including parental income and shows where IQ is the strongest of them. You can skip to the charts at the bottom if you just want the results.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf

An article on it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm

Quote:

---

You can't have honest engagement when someone argues that you're completely blind to your advantage due to an immutable characteristic like race (privilege) and can't handle said criticism of your blindness (fragility) while the practical expectation is that you agree with everything they say and if you don't its a deficiency in you personally (again, due to race). It's an attack on a person, not an idea, and that's what makes it utterly repulsive.

---

This is a good summation of why people recoil from the "white privilege" assumption and take to their own comforting assertions of varying intellectual rigor. It is a presumption of guilt that is deployed to prevent debate.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

I love the concept of last mile fog for this. You're never ever going to eradicate the last mile of racism, sexism. Those things are hardwired to our brains, they're actual differences between people that babies react to before they're socially conditioned.

Last mile fog is the idea that when we were are the first mile it was simple - fixing slavery or working to affirm that blacks and whites are equally human are easy fixes, for example. Now we're at a place where the factors are so small it's really not clear what we should do, and fixing takes more and more effort. There's diminishing returns.

In this country we are at a point where your family and personality and intelligence have a far greater impact on your opportunity for success than your skin color. That's success, that's literally what success looks like. But that isn't politically expedient so people keep screaming louder and louder about smaller and smaller inequalities.

---

I think that's an excellent point. The last mile fog is a great idea. But who decides when the inequities are small enough to stop the screaming? I worry about a reaction to someone who feels unequal that tells them 'look we're close enough, stop the complaining'. How do we draw a line between indulging pettiness and victim mentality and taking people seriously who feel they are being treated poorly?

---

The last mile fog is, I think, solid and makes a valid point.

But as Kurt said, you clearly think we are close to if not at the last mile. While I don't think anyone would disagree we've made progress, some still think we have further to go.

To this point, I would like to point out something that struck me this week. Go to the internet and take a look at the video footage of the arrest of the El Paso shooter. It was an incredibly calm and nonchalant scene. One officer walking beside him, and at times, not even really paying attention to him and looking around. Now, contrast that with the arrest video of Eric Gardner that was incredibly intense and ultimately lead to a man dying because he was selling cigs. The contrast of these two events is startling.

This is just one example of many. I really don't know how someone can see these things happening and think that there is nothing systematically in this country that needs to be addressed.


The point made earlier that the poster said not a single minority or gay they knew would say they think they have it tougher than a white Christian male is simply poppycock. You can't honestly believe that every single minority you know thinks exactly like you? What were their positions in relation to you? Co-workers? Were you a supervisor? Even assuming that's true, don't you see the highly anecdotal nature of that?