A moral dilemma

[Kuciwalker]

What you're not realising is that this "bringing" has already been done - there already exists a 50% flat quota. But to the great dismay of the proponents of the quota, it has not resulted in any significant difference in the break-up of people getting in through the open category - that is, on merit.

You have more than a billion people. These things take generations. We still don't have racial parity in the United States, even.

[Kuciwalker]

However, I am saying that a sense of caste culture led to people from certain caste groups valuing education even when they could not afford it, and leading to even the most impoverished of those from the said groups clutching at each and every opportunity, howsoever slender, of obtaining it. How would the existence of such a culture associated with caste (or any inherited characteristic - such as race) skew the results?

It's obvious how that would skew the results. This skew would disappear as you dismantled the ideas of caste and brought more and more of the disadvantaged through the higher education system.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

However, I am saying that a sense of caste culture led to people from certain caste groups valuing education even when they could not afford it, and leading to even the most impoverished of those from the said groups clutching at each and every opportunity, howsoever slender, of obtaining it. How would the existence of such a culture associated with caste (or any inherited characteristic - such as race) skew the results?

It's obvious how that would skew the results. This skew would disappear as you dismantled the ideas of caste and brought more and more of the disadvantaged through the higher education system.

OK. Now imagine a situation where caste has been abolished, but the reverence for learning which certain caste groups feel is not diminished, and is continued, even though a "caste sense" may not exist, and the person may not even be aware that it was this same caste sense which led to this reverence for learning in the first place.

How would THAT affect the results? I ask because this is mostly the situation that prevails today - caste, among the educated, is gone, but certain caste groups still retain their reverence for learning, which I doubt will disappear for over a hundred (if not more) years.

Also - in your opinion, is there anything inherently wrong in having a caste-derived sense of reverence for learning? Most educated people have discarded almost everything, but this sense remains.

It (this sense) is so strong that it survived being uprooted form India, the loss of language and culture, and the stresses of life in a colony, and was one of the things which triggered V.S. Naipaul's interest in writing, and gave him an idea of the written word as noble, even though he had no idea of caste as such at all. It has very deep roots in the psyche.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The rationale is a bit strange
If 42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started, am I wrong to think that 58% have moved up, which is not so bad. Would you think desirable that 100% of those born in the poorest fifth ended up higher after 32 years?

Make that 40 years (roughly the length of a career) and 80%: Yes.
I know the aim isn't reachable, because disparities in upbringing (unless we do away with family, Romania-style: this idea is atrocious). However, this is basically a noble ideal aim, which, like any other ideal aim, should guide our action even if it's not reachable by itself.

I consider it a really worthy idea, that your place in society comes from your merit rather than from your birth. And in such a society, indeed, cards are redistributed in the short while a human carreer lasts.

Who wants a society redistributing everything every 32 years?

Make that 40 years

No, actually, make that "everyday". We should be a redistributive society, precisely as to avoid the dire consequences of being in a lower bracket in the first place.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor



No, actually, make that "everyday". We should be a redistributive society, precisely as to avoid the dire consequences of being in a lower bracket in the first place.

err-- unless you completely equalize wealth and income, SOMEONE is always in the bottom fifth.

I would have thought that improving the lot of the bottom fifth would be less about replacing them with people from the other fifths and more about improving the standard of living of the people IN that bottom group.

Is reshuffling the deck necessarily that great??

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Kuci, your analysis would be immensely more interesting, and you would look much less as a self-righteous spawn of the overclass, if you wondered about the extent to which inherited traits affect one's social success.

I don't do that because I don't have the ability to even begin to determine the extent. All I know is that experiments have shown that IQ is roughly 50% inheritable, that IQ is a decent measure of general itnelligence, and that general intelligence is a significant component of job performance. How much each of those dilutes the whole, I don't know.

btw, I'm not terribly concerned with how my arguments are perceived, unless you discount them because of the source, in which case I will happily point out that you are being an idiot, like fakeboris

If anyone wants to point out some genuine flaws in my analysis, go ahead.

Basically, your argument is fairly sound, IF you were clearly talking about a very small part of job performance, and even smaller part of economic success - we know that job performance ain't it all by far.

The way you write your argument is however very disingenuous, and even dishonest. You emphasize on inherited intelligence in this thread (at least, until your argument with aneeshm). As a result, you're justifying to a large extent the rigid social structure, because you jusify why the higher-ups are there (they're smarter and better at their jobs), and why their progeny remains at the top (they're smarter, it's in their genes).

My contention is that those currently at the top aren't necessarily the smartest. And the upper-classness of their progeny by birthright is rarely justified by inherited intelligence, given how remote inherited IQ is from economic success.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber


err-- unless you completely equalize wealth and income, SOMEONE is always in the bottom fifth.

Yes. Which is why I talked about the dire consequences of being in the bottom fifth.
Obviously, being in the bottom fifth in Sweden is much better than being in the bottom fifth in China. Or, to take a developed country, in the bottom fifth of the US.

I would have thought that improving the lot of the bottom fifth would be less about replacing them with people from the other fifths and more about improving the standard of living of the people IN that bottom group.

Is reshuffling the deck necessarily that great??

It's not wonderful in itself, but it has quite a few qualities: if the upper class is fragile, it can't get complacent. Also, if the lower class can reach the top, it can bring its specific kind of life-experiences and creativity among the leaders*.

Besides, equal opportunity is essential for human dignity. If you are fatalist and think success is out of your grasp because of the wrong birthplace or childhood, it likely leads to self-depreciation and demotivation. I know several people who are completely aimless because they feel so powerless.




*In the French context, I strongly believe the most important effort of creativity, ambition, and re-definition of core French values will come from those in the ghetto who managed to go through class barriers. This is where France's future lies, not in the reproducing elite which, while it generally works its ass of, has very little creative power.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. Which is why I talked about the dire consequences of being in the bottom fifth.
Obviously, being in the bottom fifth in Sweden is much better than being in the bottom fifth in China. Or, to take a developed country, in the bottom fifth of the US.

IN Canada I would see the bottom 1% as being really dire but a lot of those folks are battling serious addiction and/or mental health problems and it would be rare for them to even achieve above average economic success.

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's not wonderful in itself, but it has quite a few qualities: if the upper class is fragile, it can't get complacent. Also, if the lower class can reach the top, it can bring its specific kind of life-experiences and creativity among the leaders*.

I like the idea that anyone can get to the top as well. Its a great idea. But a decent chunk of those at the bottom are there due to lesser intelligence or a poor family life. The key is that progression needs to be available for the bright ones that just happen to be born poor

An IQ 85 person is unlikely to raise themseleves anywhere. If they happen to be born rich they may just be smart enough not to blow their inheritence.

Originally posted by Spiffor

Besides, equal opportunity is essential for human dignity. If you are fatalist and think success is out of your grasp because of the wrong birthplace or childhood, it likely leads to self-depreciation and demotivation. I know several people who are completely aimless because they feel so powerless.

There is a continuum between equal opportunity and powerlessness. I think that both those endpoints are fallacies which never truly exist. I think a realistic goal is "reasonable" or "sufficient" opportunity. I don't expect to have an EQUAL shot at economic success as the guy that inherits a half billion. But I am not powerless because I don't.

I actually think that societies like Canadian society do offer a reasonable opportunity right now. A good student can get a degree. Any warm body can get a job. Could opportunities be increased -- sure . ..I hope they are

I actually salute the recent Canadian tax measures that gace additional tax credits to the WORKING poor. There had long been a complaint about the welfare trap that a person could lose money by going to work-- I think this measure is trying to address that

[Kuciwalker]

The way you write your argument is however very disingenuous, and even dishonest. You emphasize on inherited intelligence in this thread (at least, until your argument with aneeshm). As a result, you're justifying to a large extent the rigid social structure, because you jusify why the higher-ups are there (they're smarter and better at their jobs), and why their progeny remains at the top (they're smarter, it's in their genes).

I'm not doing that. I'm demonstrating that even with perfect equality of opportunity (children are reared by the state), you will end up with classes that are inheritable to some degree (by which I mean that the classes of the parents will be correlated with the classes of the children). To some degree. This effect will be vastly more pronounced if we permit parents to raise their own children, even if we limit extra spending like private schools and tutors. The latter case is the only realistic one.

Therefore, the existance of (weakly) inherited classes isn't good evidence that we have massive inequality of opportunity.

However, my only concrete recommendation in this thread is that we establish a (nationwide) system for recognizing the highly-talented and promoting them onto an advanced track. Our shoddy approximation of that right now is the private school system, which ignores a huge talent pool.

My contention is that those currently at the top aren't necessarily the smartest.

Obviously not, especially given the decreasing marginal value of IQ and the fact that many of the most important jobs require skills not easily measured using traditional tests.

And the upper-classness of their progeny by birthright is rarely justified by inherited intelligence, given how remote inherited IQ is from economic success.

Here I would disagree*. Within a couple standard deviations of the mean (70 to 130) I'd imagine IQ is tremendously important. For many jobs you cannot really make up for a lack of intelligence with other (also required) skills.

* with the second part, not the first

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Make that 40 years (roughly the length of a career) and 80%: Yes.
I know the aim isn't reachable, because disparities in upbringing (unless we do away with family, Romania-style: this idea is atrocious). However, this is basically a noble ideal aim, which, like any other ideal aim, should guide our action even if it's not reachable by itself.

I consider it a really worthy idea, that your place in society comes from your merit rather than from your birth. And in such a society, indeed, cards are redistributed in the short while a human carreer lasts.


Make that 40 years

No, actually, make that "everyday". We should be a redistributive society, precisely as to avoid the dire consequences of being in a lower bracket in the first place.

I know that you are a revolutionary, but total redistribution every 40 years is not equality of chances but equality of disasters.
I started not far from the bottom, and after 40 years of hard work I enjoy a comfortable living, around the top 10%. Would it be fair that my retirement income be reduced as if I had done nothing?
I have had the chance that one of my children was quite gifted (in the 0.2% whereas I was in the 2.5%) and was able to join one of the most elite school of engineers (Ecole des Mines de Paris). His professional career owes nothing to his family. It is quite possible that he finally earns more money than I did, but it will not be because of the family acquaintances but because he is a great engineer.
It seems that you believe that equality of chances would result from equality of income. It is prolly badly wrong. When I was 30 I understood that the “fils à papa” had a serious advantage on me, except when there are crisis, extreme difficulties or critical problems. In such circumstances the potential competition is quite reduced and does not include them. And I made a career of trouble-shooter. In other words, the competitive advantage of the “fils à papa” is limited to the pool of mediocre to average individuals. The excellent and outstanding people are willingly given nice slots by the elite.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I know that you are a revolutionary, but total redistribution every 40 years is not equality of chances but equality of disasters.
I started not far from the bottom, and after 40 years of hard work I enjoy a comfortable living, around the top 10%. Would it be fair that my retirement income be reduced as if I had done nothing?

I'm not a revolutionary.
The "40 years" was a figure of speech: of course you are entilted to your retirement. What I meant is that you gained it through your merit, and that your son should also get his from his own merit, not yours. And, if you had been born in the upper class, definitely not from the ancestor that ascended.

I have had the chance that one of my children was quite gifted (in the 0.2% whereas I was in the 2.5%) and was able to join one of the most elite school of engineers (Ecole des Mines de Paris). His professional career owes nothing to his family. It is quite possible that he finally earns more money than I did, but it will not be because of the family acquaintances but because he is a great engineer.

Good for him

It seems that you believe that equality of chances would result from equality of income. It is prolly badly wrong. When I was 30 I understood that the “fils à papa” had a serious advantage on me, except when there are crisis, extreme difficulties or critical problems. In such circumstances the potential competition is quite reduced and does not include them. And I made a career of trouble-shooter. In other words, the competitive advantage of the “fils à papa” is limited to the pool of mediocre to average individuals. The excellent and outstanding people are willingly given nice slots by the elite.

I don't think equality of income would result in equal opportunity. It would contribute, but it wouldn't be a decisive factor. To me, the main important factor is the cultural attitude (the work ethics) prevailing in the family and evironment during the formative years:

If you grow in an environment of people who got their status thanks to their academic training (many are like that in France), you are very likely to consider academic training as being essential. And if you don't, your parents will do it for you.

If you grow in an environment that isn't so intellectual, but that made money because of, say, daring business, you'll also tend to have a work ethics that will lead you to make money through your commercial wits.

If you grow in an environment where people owe their success to hard manual labour, you are likely to consider it as the main virtue for success, etc. Unfortunately, manual labour is often unskilled (or more accurately, the skill isn't as valuable as in other ventures), and people who grow into this are much more likely to get the shaft.

Also, I strongly disagree when you say the competitive advantage of the "fils à papa" is limited to mediocre or average positions. If you look at the top schools in France (if you're student there, you have an immensely higher likelihood to belong to the elite later on, than if you're an average joe), their students are overwhelmingly from the upper or educated class. I have seen it by personal experience, and there are also damning stats about it. There's a reason why Sciences-Po Paris has started its own "AA" program.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Also, I strongly disagree when you say the competitive advantage of the "fils à papa" is limited to mediocre or average positions. If you look at the top schools in France (if you're student there, you have an immensely higher likelihood to belong to the elite later on, than if you're an average joe), their students are overwhelmingly from the upper or educated class. I have seen it by personal experience, and there are also damning stats about it. There's a reason why Sciences-Po Paris has started its own "AA" program.

I did not say "mediocre and average positions", but "mediocre and average individuals". And since you are refering to Sciences Po, which is the prefered cursus of the fils à papa, I can say that this school typically leads to positions like Prefet in the state administration or Secrétaire Général in the private economy, both positions which do not require outstanding qualities, whereas highly ranked engineers or surgeons in top level hospitals are selected out of competition with the fils à papa. Remember the first months of WWI; all fils à papa generals were dismissed (send to Limoges!) and replaced by better ones, which is what I name the selection by crisis. Incidentally it demonstrates that fortunately the fils à papa had not confiscated all general jobs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm not a revolutionary.

Anyway this isn't just a comment for Spiffor. 42% of children in India suffer from malnutrition. Unless you believe that intelligence is 100% inherited you have to agree that that is going to affect people's intelligence. I personally don't agree that equal opportunity makes a difference, but either way if you want to do the right thing in India I can hardly see how you do anything but feed the people and give all of them a good education so that they wont have so many babies.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Anyway this isn't just a comment for Spiffor. 42% of children in India suffer from malnutrition. Unless you believe that intelligence is 100% inherited you have to agree that that is going to affect people's intelligence. I personally don't agree that equal opportunity makes a difference, but either way if you want to do the right thing in India I can hardly see how you do anything but feed the people and give all of them a good education so that they wont have so many babies.

THats why I say that striving for "equal opportunity" is a pipedream and think that a society should attempt to provide a "reasonable opportunity" to all its members. Starving or pathetic public schools or being left with abusive parents . . . None of these meet that test--


AS I said before I don't care that the kid with the half billion dollar inheritence has more opportunites as long as the impoverished kid has a reasonable opportunity to advance himself. I don't think that Canadian or American society would meet the "reasonable opportunity" standard today but it is something to strive for

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Anyway this isn't just a comment for Spiffor. 42% of children in India suffer from malnutrition.

And that is a terrible crime that deprives the world of tens of millions of talented people