If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Campus Reform)   Harvard's Kennedy School of Government will require mandatory "power and privilege" training for students, because how else are they to relate to the peons of the world?   (campusreform.org) divider line 86
    More: Amusing, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, peons, degree programs, socio-economic classes, preconditions, sexual orientation  
•       •       •

2511 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2014 at 4:54 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-14 08:46:44 PM

rewind2846: Considering what one religion in particular has done to the social fabric, law and politics in this country for the past 30-plus years, they would be justified in thinking this.


It's one thing not to know ancient history but how do you get recent history so wrong?

Yea, America was so much better before religion screwed up our educational system via their divinity schools. It was so much better in the religiously liberal era of the 1930s.
 
2014-05-14 08:49:52 PM

meyerkev: Is this that one class about how every single person in the world is secretly giving off "microaggressions" and therefore every single slight, intentional or unintentional, is secretly a great horrendous insult to your entire race/gender/class?

I mean, I'm not saying they're wrong, but maybe we should back off that for a while.  Because that way of thinking scares the EVER-living shiat out of me.

/Because "He cut in front of me in line" -> "He's a misogynist" is never going to end in a victimization complex, deserved or not.


I completely understand what you're saying. I completely understand the concept of microaggressions and yea, it's something we all kind of inevitably do to some extent and certainly something we're better off as human beings being aware of so we can correct...but in the end it always feels like the concept is used in order to facilitate aggression by the aggreived party.

It's one of those things that defeats good, heartfelt discussion, because it's a trump card vs pretty much any form of debate. Once the card is pulled, you know they are going to twist whatever you say to defend yourself, and they only pull that card after they bait you into a corner. I guess I'm saying that in addition to cultivating a victim complex, it also makes some people think they have the right to be an asshole.
 
2014-05-14 08:53:09 PM

rewind2846: Considering what one religion in particular has done to the social fabric, law and politics in this country for the past 30-plus years, they would be justified in thinking this. Remember, these students grew up under the onslaught of the religious right, and as such have felt the full fury of their societal rendering, especially college (reproductive) age women.

This is not about religion, it's about assholes. Unfortunately enough assholes from one religion in particular have screwed things up for those other members of that religion who mind their own business, read their book, pray to their god, and leave other people the fark alone to live their lives. People don't like assholes who want to change the law, change society, and even change other religions to fit their paradigm of "how things are supposed to be".


Piece of crap Fark ate my reply because of the XSS bug.

I understand this and certainly sympathize. However it's hypocritical to cloak oneself in the guise of "diversity and tolerance" and yet retain certain "correct" prejudices. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but many are certainly trying within this movement. It will result in a major backlash as people clue on to the hypocrisy. I'm sure having a claim on the moral high ground gets a lot of recruits, but just like the religious, many tend to think that the apparent moral high ground gives them the right to push their own prejudice.
"Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." is how I feel about it.
 
2014-05-14 08:55:36 PM
Also, Fark, aside from the XSS bug, the user profile page on mobile has a tremendous amount of javascript on it. A mobile-only user profile page would be nicer.
 
2014-05-14 09:22:43 PM
 Anita Sarkeesian and Jonathan McIntosh must be creaming in their pants right now.
 
2014-05-14 09:33:35 PM

thumbs1767: Anita Sarkeesian and Jonathan McIntosh must be creaming in their pants right now.


TheAmazingAtheist, is that you?
 
2014-05-14 10:11:59 PM
This is actually pretty important. What you have to remember is that every year elite schools admit a fair amount of talented poor kids on scholarship. Those kids show up knowing nothing about mandatory power and privilege.
 
2014-05-14 10:35:18 PM
This could be good.

Sadly it will probably be BS like only white people can be racist.
 
2014-05-14 10:36:07 PM

the_vegetarian_cannibal: thumbs1767: Anita Sarkeesian and Jonathan McIntosh must be creaming in their pants right now.

TheAmazingAtheist, is that you?


No.........nor am I jordanowen42
 
2014-05-14 11:17:51 PM

Odd Bird: justanothersumguy: As a graduate of Harvard, I would simply like to say to my fellow farkers.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Now give me Total Fark.

Couldn't get into Yale, eh?

/giving a Total Fark to a Yalie tonight.


My sister's a Yalie, but she's not on Fark.  I'd be happy to accept on her behalf.

/Emory man.
 
2014-05-14 11:28:08 PM

spamdog: I'm sure having a claim on the moral high ground gets a lot of recruits, but just like the religious, many tend to think that the apparent moral high ground gives them the right to push their own prejudice.


If the choice is between the prejudice of "how about let's leave other people alone" and the prejudice of "let's remake society and the world in the image of our book", it's not a difficult decision. Some of these same people would be the first to shout against what they see as "tyranny", with cries of "freedom" emanating from their lips... yet that freedom they seek is not what freedom means.

The freedom to live a life not bound by the strictures of their religion or any religion is just as important a freedom, yet they cannot see this idea as equal in value to their right to live according to the edicts of their religion. In their minds, their freedom of religion trumps my freedom from religion (or of a different religion), and that is where the contention lies.

Freedom must be for everyone, or it exists for no one.
 
2014-05-14 11:45:28 PM

rzrwiresunrise: If their history and political science courses aren't already getting them to examine "components of race, gender, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability, religion, international status, and power differentials", then WTF are they actually learning???

This makes me glad to say I went to a state university.

Power and privilege training. W. T. F.


I don't understand the ability bit.  Does that mean dumbing things down so even the village idiots can feel useful?
/and yes most of that should have been covered in your GenEd classes...
 
2014-05-15 12:07:58 AM

spamdog: "Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." is how I feel about it.


Here's a great (and relevant) example:
Creationists Stall Eight-Year-Old Girl's Idea for State Fossil for South Carolina

If you haven't read this, let me summarize:

- Eight year old schoolgirl writes to South Carolina legislature, asks them to consider the Columbian mammoth for state fossil (the first bone was found there)

- Only 7 states have no state fossil

- Procedure would have taken five minutes or less

- State house passes it 94-3

- State senate hold up passage on the objection of Sen. Kevin Bryant and Sen. Mike Fair, both "born-again christians".

- They try to insert this language into a simple one line bill:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."


- When that didn't pass, Bryant proceeded to revise his amendment to describe the Columbian Mammoth "as created on the Sixth Day with the beasts of the field,"

- That language is removed, but then Bryant tries to insert language into the bill that would make sure there were to be no more official state anything else (flower, tree, bush, rock, goat)

- Bill finally passes last week, moves on to the governor

All this over what should have been nothing but a feel good photo op to make kids want to study science... but then this is South Carolina, a state that wants to have "intelligent design" taught as actual science, and use bibles as textbooks.

This is precisely what I mean. It's not their "religion" that cheeses people off, it's their assholiness.
Most people with two working braincells really don't give a flying fsck what god you pray to, as long as you don't expect me to pray to that god as well.
 
2014-05-15 01:31:42 AM

taurusowner: The time would be better spent beefing up the business ethics course (cue Billy Madison jpg) and making that mandatory. We'd be far better off if the future business leaders of the world were taught that true capitalism means being honest, making a good product, and exchanging the fair value of that product freely with consenting parties for something of equal value. That system works. It pays people a fair wage (value for value) teaches them to embrace innovation (increasing the value of what they're selling) being in tune with the social climate of their clients (be who people want to freely give money to) and creating actual products people want to buy. Not the fascist system we have now which promotes collusion with government to rig the system in their favor, rewards bribes and corruption with edging out competitors, removes choice from the consumer and neuters the consumers role as a consenting party with an equal say in any transaction, all while limiting innovation and allowing inferior products to be made and sold because people don't have a better option to spend their money on.


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 01:42:12 AM

hasty ambush: I Checked My Privilege, And It's Doing Just Fine


The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there's really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms.

Call: "Check your privilege!"

Response: "What you call 'privilege' is just me being better than you."

They won't like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like "Check your privilege" are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.

Check my privilege? I just did, and it's doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job.


Conservatives are supposedly for equality of opportunity, and liberals are supposedly for equality of outcomes.  So, if you're parents are able to provide economic security, send you to the best schools, enable you to grow up around other socieconomic elite and form the networks that enable you to enter the work force as a mid-manager, how is that equal opportunity?
 
2014-05-15 01:46:55 AM

Kumana Wanalaia: not_an_indigo: hasty ambush: I Checked My Privilege, And It's Doing Just Fine


The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there's really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms.

Call: "Check your privilege!"

Response: "What you call 'privilege' is just me being better than you."

They won't like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like "Check your privilege" are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.

Check my privilege? I just did, and it's doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job.

You sound white.

He's probably white, but he's definitely an asshole.


Why is he an asshole? Because he refuses to be a victim of white guilt? Sounds more like a hero to me.
 
2014-05-15 02:07:53 AM
Here's the problem with the theory of privilege: it can create a stereotype then justify it.  There are exceptions to the rule and lots of them.


This man is a young, Christian, heterosexual, able bodied, white American who has always identified himself as male.  He's privileged.
img.fark.net


This man is famous, lives in a mansion, has an annual income in the tens of millions and has access to any celerity or world leader, but he's also gay.  He isn't privileged.
img.fark.net


Non-white, non-male, overweight.  Not privileged.
img.fark.net


Muslim, Middle-eastern origin.  Not privileged.
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 03:18:38 AM

meyerkev: Ok, think of it this way.


Education is not one of those fields where past performance of a group determines the future performance of an individual. The fact that there exist the Obamas, the Shaws, the Tysons of the world is an indictment of the idea that "marginally performing" minorities should be tracked to tier N-1 schools for their benefit, not support for it.

And it's disturbing that you'd use an evolutionary term to describe the "mismatch" between students and their educational milieu. There're a whole host of factors that contribute to the performance of students in different educational environments that have nothing to do with evolutionary adaptability.

Unless of course you think there's some genetic reason that black kids would do worse in the Ivy League.
 
2014-05-15 03:22:20 AM

JDJoeE: rzrwiresunrise: If their history and political science courses aren't already getting them to examine "components of race, gender, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability, religion, international status, and power differentials", then WTF are they actually learning???

This makes me glad to say I went to a state university.

Power and privilege training. W. T. F.

I don't understand the ability bit.  Does that mean dumbing things down so even the village idiots can feel useful?
/and yes most of that should have been covered in your GenEd classes...


I'd say these are topics of importance even in upper division classes. To address these is to address the underlying engines of civilization.
 
2014-05-15 08:27:07 AM
Why don't "student activists" ever demand mandatory math and science classes?
 
2014-05-15 08:55:27 AM

Oblio13: Why don't "student activists" ever demand mandatory math and science classes?


Because those are mandatory already, no matter what your major.

Now go be stupid somewhere else.
 
2014-05-15 09:07:30 AM

justanothersumguy: Odd Bird: /giving a Total Fark to a Yalie tonight.

If it improves my position in the matter, I do attend the Yale Club with some regularity.


lamecomedian: My sister's a Yalie, but she's not on Fark.  I'd be happy to accept on her behalf.

/Emory man.


I know that doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
2014-05-15 09:13:35 AM

dbrunker: Here's the problem with the theory of privilege: it can create a stereotype then justify it.  There are exceptions to the rule and lots of them.


This man is a young, Christian, heterosexual, able bodied, white American who has always identified himself as male.  He's privileged.
[img.fark.net image 300x300]


This man is famous, lives in a mansion, has an annual income in the tens of millions and has access to any celerity or world leader, but he's also gay.  He isn't privileged.
[img.fark.net image 400x300]


Non-white, non-male, overweight.  Not privileged.
[img.fark.net image 414x496]


Muslim, Middle-eastern origin.  Not privileged.
[img.fark.net image 460x300]


The rule is the rule for a reason. In statistics the people you posted are called "outliers", and don't even come close to either the usual or the average experiences of the racial/gender groups of people those pictures are supposed to represent.

Plain and simple - white people run things. White males run most of the things that white people run. A white male will earn more money, have more opportunity, and go further in life than a person from the other groups pictured, especially if they all start out under similar economic conditions. Stats and numbers, along with history, back this up.

The reason is simple - those who run things (white men) when given the choice whom to help, whom to hire, whom to promote, whom to give loans to, whom to give scholarships to and so on, will choose other white males. Most of that I believe is not due to color, but to "comfort".

"Comfort", or "comfort level" has to do with wanting to associate with those perceived to be like ones self, avoiding the "perils" of having to think about what comes out of their mouths before it is said. If they're all white guys, they'll understand, right? They don't have to learn anything, or act in a non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic way (although this last one is tricky - plenty of white gay men out there)... they can be... themselves.

tl;dr - "lots of exceptions" don't mean squat, because they re just that - EXCEPTIONS. The rule is the important part here, not the outliers.
 
2014-05-15 09:20:21 AM
The genetic lottery was kinder to Tom Brady than it was to me. I feel like he owes me a few million bucks and Gisele Bundchen.
 
2014-05-15 09:22:49 AM

rewind2846: In statistics the people you posted are called "outliers", and don't even come close to either the usual or the average experiences of the racial/gender groups of people those pictures are supposed to represent.


That's fine, as long as you recognize that you're legitimizing race/class/gender/orientation generalizations.

i.e.
On the whole, blacks commit much more crime than whites
Men generally are better at math than women
Gays are more likely to transmit AIDS

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?
 
2014-05-15 09:28:29 AM

spamdog: On the whole, blacks commit much more crime than whites
Men generally are better at math than women
Gays are more likely to transmit AIDS

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?


Well aren't they?

*runs*
 
2014-05-15 09:30:54 AM

not_an_indigo: hasty ambush: I Checked My Privilege, And It's Doing Just Fine


The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there's really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms.

Call: "Check your privilege!"

Response: "What you call 'privilege' is just me being better than you."

They won't like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like "Check your privilege" are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.

Check my privilege? I just did, and it's doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job.

You sound white.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-15 09:39:21 AM

Kumana Wanalaia: hasty ambush:  Check my privilege? I just did, and it's doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job.

Right. Because 5 years at a McJob will catapult you right to the top.


If after fives years you are still stuck  the problem probably lies more with you than with the system.
 
2014-05-15 09:41:57 AM
spamdog:
Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

As I mentioned upthread, unless you choose to include the "why?" in those assumptions, you fail.
If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I welcome it. If all you want to do is denigrate the groups you mentioned, you know where you can put your can of worms.

No one but you is going to feel sorry for the group of people that run things. Not gonna happen.
 
2014-05-15 09:49:57 AM

acohn: hasty ambush: I Checked My Privilege, And It's Doing Just Fine


The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there's really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms.

Call: "Check your privilege!"

Response: "What you call 'privilege' is just me being better than you."

They won't like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like "Check your privilege" are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.

Check my privilege? I just did, and it's doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job.

Conservatives are supposedly for equality of opportunity, and liberals are supposedly for equality of outcomes.  So, if you're parents are able to provide economic security, send you to the best schools, enable you to grow up around other socieconomic elite and form the networks that enable you to enter the work force as a mid-manager, how is that equal opportunity?


There is no such thing as eqaul outcome unless through the force of government you limit everybodies outcome to the same level otherwise some people, through drive, talent (and the market place values of those skills and talents), connections etc are gong to do better than others.

Equal opportunity means no government imposed or sanctioned  obstacles to opportunity such as segregation and discrimination.  Naturally family is going to take care of family and parents help make an effort provide well for their children and give them a leg up and outside of nepotism laws  not much you can do about that unless Same thing with friends helping friends-this is called life.

Special treatment under the law, quotas and reverse discrimination merely undermine the concept of equal treatment under the law

a.abcnews.com
 
2014-05-15 11:15:39 AM
"Check your privilege" is code for "I resent your success".

"You are more intelligent and/or have a better work ethic and/or are better looking and/or are luckier than I am, and I want an excuse to fail."
 
2014-05-15 01:35:44 PM

spamdog: Men generally are better at math than women


Wrong.   http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

Among the studies avoiding these pitfalls is the Project Talent1 study of 1960. It remains one of the best assessments of cognitive sex differences in a complete age group ever made. The sample was designed to be representative of all 15 year-olds in the US. It included more than 73,000 15 year-olds, both students and nonstudents. They were given an all-day battery of 23 cognitive tests. The mathematics results revealed a mean (male-female) difference of 0.12 standard deviations2 and a 1.20 (male/female) variance ratio. The corresponding distributions are shown in Figure 1.

www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com

If you're going to be sexist, at least be *factually* sexist.

2+2= What's a 2?  Probably a dude
Einstein?  Also Probably a dude

www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com

Of course, since you know, maybe 10% of the world is employed in large part for their math skills, MOST of those people are going to be men.

/Also, as far as the crime thing goes:
* The single BEST predictor of crime rates in cities over 250K is the total percentage of black people.  Hispanics actually have a negative crime correlation (And outside of the Northeast, after age-norming, have basically the same crime rates as white people, despite statistically being a lot poorer.  Which suggests that the poverty correlations are an artifact of urban blacks being poor).  And interestingly, the South tends to have lower than expected crime rates.  Dunno why.
* And most people don't commit crimes.  The white murder rate is 2 out of 100K, the black murder rate is 14 out of 100K.  So 99986/100K black people didn't murder anyone last year.
//Besides, I'm mostly a culturalist.  There might be some biodeterminism going down, but the genetics thing doesn't explain a lot of really awesome minorities like Mormons and Sikhs.   And culturalism explains why the suburban kids who dropped out were the same suburban kids who hung out with the kids from Detroit all the time.  (Which interestingly, isn't code for white/black.  Worked across every race. Of course, the smart kids were either smart enough to not hang out with kids from Detroit, or were busy getting beat up by kids from Detroit, or were busy hiding out in the computer lab during lunch so that they couldn't get beat up by the kids from Detroit, so there could just be some confounding going on there).
 
2014-05-15 04:58:18 PM
rewind2846: 

The rule is the rule for a reason. In statistics the people you posted are called "outliers", and don't even come close to either the usual or the average experiences of the racial/gender groups of people those pictures are supposed to represent.

Plain and simple - white people run things. White males run most of the things that white people run. A white male will earn more money, have more opportunity, and go further in life than a person from the other groups pictured, especially if they all start out under similar economic conditions. Stats and numbers, along with history, back this up.

The reason is simple - those who run things (white men) when given the choice whom to help, whom to hire, whom to promote, whom to give loans to, whom to give scholarships to and so on, will choose other white males. Most of that I believe is not due to color, but to "comfort".

"Comfort", or "comfort level" has to do with wanting to associate with those perceived to be like ones self, avoiding the "perils" of having to think about what comes out of their mouths before it is said. If they're all white guys, they'll understand, right? They don't have to learn anything, or act in a non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic way (although this last one is tricky - plenty of white gay men out there)... they can be... themselves.


tl;dr - "lots of exceptions" don't mean squat, because they re just that - EXCEPTIONS. The rule is the important part here, not the outliers.


That's exactly the irony of the idea of privilege.  The whole point is to create awareness about minorities.  Instead we end up telling ourselves that a minority within the majority doesn't matter.
In other words, a minority is being marginalized and that's wrong so we'll marginalize a different minority and tell ourselves it's OK because we're protecting a the minority we like, the very thing we're trying to prevent in the first place.   The rule about being sensitive to stereotypes has a stereotype built into it.  The theory of privilege creates the perception that white people in America are middle class or above, Christian, attractive, able bodied, heterosexual, protective and welcoming of each other and that if a few white people control something then all white people are responsible for it.  There are millions and millions of white people who are none of those things but they're still being told they're responsible for the suffering of anyone who isn't white, while they themselves suffer from both sides because of the group they belong to.


Look at the example of the millions of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Progressives don't like them because they're too Christian: they love Jesus, read Bibles, they're Creationists and they're against same-sex marriage and anti-abortion.  Conservatives don't like them because they're not Christian enough: their Jesus is different, their Bible is different and they don't celebrate holidays and they won't stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance as though they hate America.  Moderates don't like them because they refused life-saving blood transfusions, even for their children and they try to convert everyone.  If we want to go totally Godwin's law, enormous numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to Nazi death camps.  Clearly this is a group who is disadvantaged by society because of their beliefs.  But they're still Christian so they're considered to be privileged.
 
2014-05-15 05:46:11 PM

dbrunker: There are millions and millions of white people who are none of those things but they're still being told they're responsible for the suffering of anyone who isn't white, while they themselves suffer from both sides because of the group they belong to.


Then they misunderstand. What they are being told by minorities is not "You personally are responsible for my hardships" , but "there are people withing your ethnic group who have been responsible for the hardships of people in my ethnic group", along with "you may have been advantaged in your life by belonging to your ethnic group" - the very definition of "privilege".

The privilege of automatically being seen as trustworthy, as honest, as inoffensive, as a leader, and as intelligent can be granted to almost any white male with the gift of a good haircut and a nice suit, even if that person is in reality a child rapist/serial killer. A great example of this is here, played for comedic effect in a commercial. A dredlocked street DJ is given a haircut and a nice suit, and is placed in an office to read from a script, giving people bogus investment advice. People believed him, and were surprised when they were let in on the joke with pictures of his true appearance.

Image is everything. We have been conditioned to this by the majority.

Simply put, those who occupy the top rungs of the socioeconomic ladder are being asked to think about how they got there and why they are there.
Is that too much to ask?
 
2014-05-15 06:39:26 PM

meyerkev: spamdog: Men generally are better at math than women

Wrong.   http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

Among the studies avoiding these pitfalls is the Project Talent1 study of 1960. It remains one of the best assessments of cognitive sex differences in a complete age group ever made. The sample was designed to be representative of all 15 year-olds in the US. It included more than 73,000 15 year-olds, both students and nonstudents. They were given an all-day battery of 23 cognitive tests. The mathematics results revealed a mean (male-female) difference of 0.12 standard deviations2 and a 1.20 (male/female) variance ratio. The corresponding distributions are shown in Figure 1.



If you're going to be sexist, at least be *factually* sexist.

2+2= What's a 2?  Probably a dude
Einstein?  Also Probably a dude

 

Of course, since you know, maybe 10% of the world is employed in large part for their math skills, MOST of those people are going to be men.

/Also, as far as the crime thing goes:
* The single BEST predictor of crime rates in cities over 250K is the total percentage of black people.  Hispanics actually have a negative crime correlation (And outside of the Northeast, after age-norming, have basically the same crime rates as white people, despite statistically being a lot poorer.  Which suggests that the poverty correlations are an artifact of urban blacks being poor).  And interestingly, the South tends to have lower than expected crime rates.  Dunno why.
* And most people don't commit crimes.  The white murder rate is 2 out of 100K, the black murder rate is 14 out of 100K.  So 99986/100K black people didn't murder anyone last year.
//Besides, I'm mostly a culturalist.  There might be some biodeterminism going down, but the genetics thing doesn't explain a lot of really awesome minorities like Mormons and Sikhs.   And culturalism explains why the suburban kids who dropped out were the same suburban kids who hung out with the kids from Detroit all the time.  (Which interestingly, isn't code for white/black.  Worked across every race. Of course, the smart kids were either smart enough to not hang out with kids from Detroit, or were busy getting beat up by kids from Detroit, or were busy hiding out in the computer lab during lunch so that they couldn't get beat up by the kids from Detroit, so there could just be some confounding going on there).


I don't actually believe in the generalizations I made. They're just ones I've heard before. Nice stats though.
 
2014-05-15 10:35:50 PM

dbrunker: Here's the problem with the theory of privilege: it can create a stereotype then justify it.  There are exceptions to the rule and lots of them.


This man is a young, Christian, heterosexual, able bodied, white American who has always identified himself as male.  He's privileged.
[img.fark.net image 300x300]


This man is famous, lives in a mansion, has an annual income in the tens of millions and has access to any celerity or world leader, but he's also gay.  He isn't privileged.
[img.fark.net image 400x300]


Non-white, non-male, overweight.  Not privileged.
[img.fark.net image 414x496]


Muslim, Middle-eastern origin.  Not privileged.
[img.fark.net image 460x300]


I take it you've never read about intersectionality.

Basically, it explains all of the above.  New made-up word?  Maybe.
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report