Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Ironically black kids learned more and came out very scholarly in the days of segregation. So did white kids. Don't confuse causation and correlation. Chris Green I am not sure what Chris means. This is the fallacy of assumed equity. White kids always had privileges at all times. However during the days of segregation when black kids went to schools that were allegedly substandard,their motivation to succeed were influenced by teachers,parents,and significant others who knew that education was necessary to combat the forces of discrimination and to raise their status in life.There was a saying at that time that a black had to be twuce as good as the white to get the job . I remembered when I was at Mizzou,a black prof from one of those Ivy league schools was invited to give a colloquium.His topic was on S S Stevens (the psychophysics dude).Members of Mizzou's Psy dept questioned heavily his expertise and tested him from all angles,as if a black could not demonstrate excellence on S S Stevens. I by no means imply that segregation was a positive climate for blacks.And maybe the fact that blacks saw the value of education then was a form of a necessary strategic acculturation. However integration (leveling the playing field) created some drawbacks for black education.Kids were not as fired-up as their counterparts in the days of segregation. I can agree with Chris that white kids were also impacted.What I fail to comprehend is hpw can a correlation be used to explain the two subject variables Black and White when obviously one factor is linear for W and the same factor shows a significant impact on blacks. Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5749 or send a blank email to leave-5749-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Chris Green writes: currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) Ignoring the smiley (which just possibly may be a device by which Chris may brush off my reply as taking his comment too seriously), Chris's comment says more about him than about me. Evidently anyone who doesn't endorse a 'progressive' (or whatever word one might use to describe it) agenda on a variety of subjects is right-wing or, in the British context, a Tory. Scott Lilienfeld recently dubbed this mind-set group think. In fact I have voted Conservative in a general election only once in the whole of my fairly lengthy life – and that was in the recent election, and only because my local Tory candidate was a youngish black guy who's been a good local councillor and whose policies on education (especially in relation to under-achieving boys of Afro-Caribbean descent) I was impressed by. Whether in the political field, or any other, my approach is to endeavour to take any case on its merits, regardless of who is the proponent. It is also one of taking contentions (whether in articles or books) with a modicum of caution, always wanting to know the evidence for specific assertions, no matter how categorically they are asserted. (I'm constantly astonished how often reviewers of non-fiction books take supposedly factual assertions at their face value, as if they are true by virtue of their being published in a book.) Maybe this attitude of mind became a basic part of my outlook because I was brought up in a Communist household, and was involved in one or two other left wing groups in my early adulthood. What that background impressed on me was the extent that the thinking of many people (most people?) who have a strong interest in political/social affairs is constrained by whatever is acceptable within the groups (or, more generally, social circles) within which they function. As indicated above, I hope that experience has largely immunised me against such a restriction on one's critical faculties. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- From: Christopher D. Green chri...@yorku.ca Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:08:58 -0400 Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=5751 or send a blank email to leave-5751-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Are Genes Left-Wing?
Getting caught up on email, so only briefly scanned these posts, but two things come to mind about the gene/environment/left/right wing issue. While in my personal experience left wingers seem to favor environmental explanations for individual differences, I have to point out that Marx (Karl,not Groucho) was a fan of Darwinism (I am lumping evolution with genes, big jump I know, but both imply biological determinism), and wanted to dedicate portions of Das Kapital to Darwin, who declined partly because of his unfamiliarity with the topic, and also I believe Marx' opposition to religion. My readings of the original communists/socialists was that they saw parallels between biological and cultural evolution (Though what happened in history didn't quite fit the theory. England and Germany, being more advanced in the Industrial Revolution, were supposed to be where workers united. In Russia, it was reversed, communism was used as a means to industrial growth). Second, when one follows the logic of Herrnstein Murray's Bell Curve, you can see how genetics and left-wing can be easily combined. That is, right-wingers sometimes combine two incompatible ideas: (1) don't help the poor because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and (2) the poor, unemployed, etc. are stuck there because of genetic inferiority (putting it too crudely perhaps). The Bell Curve makes a case for people rising and falling through the socio-economic ladder based on genetics. IF people gravitate toward the bottom of society because of genetics, one can more easily make the case for charity and welfare imo, echoing the famous phrase from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. Though, some conservatives opt for family, friends, churches being the source of charity rather than big government. Interestingly, the authors are an odd couple, with Herrnstein being the liberal and Murray from the conservative Heritage Institute. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Allen Esterson allenester...@compuserve.com To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:14:19 AM Subject: RE: Re:[tips] Are Genes Left-Wing? Chris Green writes: currently in Montreal... reading and enjoying _The Spirit Level: Why Equlaity is Better for Everyone_, in which Oliver James is occasionally cited, which I am sure will rankle Allen's apparently reflexive Toryism. :-) Ignoring the smiley (which just possibly may be a device by which Chris may brush off my reply as taking his comment too seriously), Chris's comment says more about him than about me. Evidently anyone who doesn't endorse a 'progressive' (or whatever word one might use to describe it) agenda on a variety of subjects is right-wing or, in the British context, a Tory. Scott Lilienfeld recently dubbed this mind-set group think. In fact I have voted Conservative in a general election only once in the whole of my fairly lengthy life – and that was in the recent election, and only because my local Tory candidate was a youngish black guy who's been a good local councillor and whose policies on education (especially in relation to under-achieving boys of Afro-Caribbean descent) I was impressed by. Whether in the political field, or any other, my approach is to endeavour to take any case on its merits, regardless of who is the proponent. It is also one of taking contentions (whether in articles or books) with a modicum of caution, always wanting to know the evidence for specific assertions, no matter how categorically they are asserted. (I'm constantly astonished how often reviewers of non-fiction books take supposedly factual assertions at their face value, as if they are true by virtue of their being published in a book.) Maybe this attitude of mind became a basic part of my outlook because I was brought up in a Communist household, and was involved in one or two other left wing groups in my early adulthood. What that background impressed on me was the extent that the thinking of many people (most people?) who have a strong interest in political/social affairs is constrained by whatever is acceptable within the groups (or, more generally, social circles) within which they function. As indicated above, I hope that experience has largely immunised me against such a restriction on one's critical faculties. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- From: Christopher D. Green chri...@yorku.ca Subject:Re: Are Genes Left-Wing? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:08:58 -0400 Free will for me. Determinism (genetic or environmental) for thee. Chris Green currently in Montreal...
