We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
He says "systemic racism" is a political narrative:
I am left wanting to know just what they are talking about when they say, “systemic racism.” Use of that phrase expresses a disposition. It calls me to solidarity while asking for fealty, for my affirmation of a system of belief. It frames the issue primarily in terms of anti-black bias. It is only one among many possible narratives about racial disparities, and often not the most compelling one.
I wish to offer here an alternative way of telling the story of persistent racial inequality which I call the “development narrative.” This account stresses patterns of behavior within the disadvantaged population that need to be considered. I speak now about African Americans, some 40 million people in the United States. This, of course, is a variegated, differentiated, and heterogeneous population. One size does not fit all. Nevertheless, I am willing to ask: do some behaviors observable in certain communities of color have the consequence of inhibiting the development of human potential among their members? And should such behavioral disparities be borne in mind when confronting and acting against the fact of racial inequality?
It's a lengthy piece so I'm sure he could not include every factoid, but I find it interesting, when considering these things, that the bourgeois black family in the US was stronger in the 1950s than today. I don't think "urban black dysfunction" existed then. Correct me if I am wrong.
The vikings had better luck going east and south rather than west. Oh yes, they had slaves too. White ones. "Slavs" often, which is the origin of the word.
Somebody asked me this weekend how many firearms I owned.
"Not sure," I said. "Never counted them." I guess I have too many. I am pretty sure that I have never shot anybody intentionally, but I did shoot a pal with birdshot one time accidentally. It happens in the woods. He was fine, and just glad I did not hit his dog.
Numbers are good tools, but some things are computationally reducible, and some not. Most interesting thing I've read recently. I had to read it three times to get the gist of it.
... we argued that even though at the most fundamental level numbers really aren’t involved, our sampling of what happens in the universe leads us to a description that does involve numbers. And in this case, the origin of the way we sample the universe has deep roots in the nature of our consciousness, and our fundamental way of experiencing the universe, with our particular sensory apparatus, place in the universe, etc.
What about the appearance of numbers in the history of science and engineering? Why are they so prevalent there? In a sense, like the situation with the universe, I don’t think it’s that the underlying systems we’re dealing with have any fundamental connection to numbers. Rather, I think it’s that we’ve chosen to “sample” aspects of these systems that we can somehow understand or control, and these often involve numbers.
In science—and particularly physical science—we have tended to concentrate on setting up situations and experiments where there’s computational reducibility and where it’s plausible that we can make predictions about what’s going to happen. And similarly in engineering, we tend to set up systems that are sufficiently computationally reducible that we can foresee what they’re going to do.
As I discussed above, working with numbers isn’t the only way to tap into computational reducibility, but it’s the most familiar way, and it’s got an immense weight of historical experience behind it.
But do we even expect that computational reducibility will be a continuing feature of science and engineering? If we want to make the fullest use of computation, it’s inevitable that we’ll have to bring in computational irreducibility. It’s a new kind of science, and it’s a new kind of engineering. And in both cases we can expect that the role of numbers will be at least much reduced...
When I was young, "strivers" were looked down upon. The "natural talents" were most admired, whether in math, using words, athletics, the arts, etc. Before my time, Jews were the "strivers," but in my time they could be anybody.
I believe that the elite schools seek special talents and qualities in a variety of areas. Of course, IQ and academic potential also. Elite schools could easily fill their classes with kids with perfect SAT scores. There is the issue with meritocracy with college admissions.
Asian-Americans are the strivers of today. They, on some average, study twice as hard as "white" kids. I do not know whether they are also "resume-builders" like many kids used to be. The sterotype is that Asian kids are all math and violin geniuses.
With ethnic issues dominating the news these days, I'd like to ask a question. Are people with Indian (India) heritage "Asian"?
In the words of Ibram X. Kendi, the present intellectual leader of the movement, “Racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large” and “to be antiracist is to reject cultural standards and level cultural difference.” Kendi, who is the second holder, after E. Wiesel, of the Andrew W. Mellon Professorship in the Humanities at Boston University and who has recently received numerous prizes and distinctions, also declares, “Capitalism is essentially racist” and “racism is essentially capitalist.” Does that imply that teaching the principles of market-based economy is also racist? Should such courses be banned? Is socialist economy OK, i.e., antiracist? In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo, the other guru of the movement, claims that “attributing inequality between whites and people of color to causes other than racism” is a form of racism.
These guys (why no women?) have so many technical skills that it amazes me. It humbles me, because I have no clue. I am overpaid, due to my credentials.
I asked a guy on the job today how he learned all of this. All of these electronic things, testing equipment, big machines, soldering equipment, vacuum engines, air-handlers. A fully-tattooed hispanic guy. He said "Some guys go to school for this, but I learn it on the jobs." I said "Like an apprentice?" "Yes. Four years, bad pay, but now I make plenty." "Are you union?" "Naw. Great boss. Good job. Plenty of work every day."
"Can I ask you what you do for fun?" "I play with my kids, and I play baseball. We have a team plays 3 days a week. Not too good, but good enough. My wife brings the beer."
A happy guy. Gotta love it. Land of opportunity. I recalled that lawyers used to learn their job by apprenticeship and self-education. Abe Lincoln did, and became prosperous working for the railroads. Railroads were the Silicon Valley of the time.
Horseradish is basically Wasabi. It's easy to grow in a garden. It is perennial and, once established, you can take a shovel and chop out a hunk of root with no damage to the plant.
I love fresh horseradish, but I love chili peppers too. Depends on what meat you are eating.
A general difference between Republicans and modern Democrats is not so much ideological as it is the Democrats' failure to understand human incentive, and human nature in general.
That's a paraphrase of Scott Adams. I'm not sure that it is true, but I get his point.
...and are seeking academic success or just mental challenges, there are many resources available for kids who want to advance at their own levels. Kids in "bad schools" can learn all they want, thanks to the internet.
Online classrooms have not proven to be very useful. Probably better than nothing, but barely, but Khan has it figured out for motivated kids.
NYC has used tests, some at 5 years old, to determine who is admitted to the city's public accelerated schools. 5 years old seems a bit young to me for that, but the general idea was the same that drove the creation of the SAT: to prevent discrimination other than about intellectual potential.
I was a bright kid without any particular talents, no genius and not entirely dedicated to school. I grew up in an entirely non-diverse neighborhood and town. Lily-white. Every boy wanted to be an Eagle Scout.
The notion of racial disparity did not exist, but there were clear distinctions between the smart kids and the slow kids, the athletically talented kids and the not, etc. I doubt I would have been admitted to a public NYC accelerated school, but I was forced to learn discipline when I went to a private high school with high demands and expectations.
I think what is going on in NY is about skin tone and ethnicity.
