Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

Why do some current college students want to discredit higher education?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

Dude, we're not the ones being revisionist with what "race" is. Also, from your frickin wikipedia source...

 

"

While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[17] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[18][19]

Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and emotionally charged synonyms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[6][20]"

"One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept of race is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as some branches of anthropology, there is strong consensus. Some studies use the word race in its early essentialist taxonomic sense. Many others still use the term race, but use it to mean a population, clade, or haplogroup. Others eschew the concept of race altogether, and use the concept of population as a less problematic unit of analysis"

 

And, since you're using wikipedia, here's fun stuff from 'Race and ethnicity in the US" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

"In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, Africans and Europeans were considered to belong to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person's appearance, his social circle (how he lived), and his known non-White ancestry. History played a part, as persons with known slave ancestors were assumed to be African (or, in later usage, black), regardless of whether they also had European ancestry."

" The differences had little to do with biology and more to do with the history of slavery and its racism, and specific forms of White supremacy (the social, geopolitical and economic agendas of dominant Whites vis-à-vis subordinate Blacks and Native Americans). They related especially to the different social places which Blacks and Amerindians occupied in White-dominated 19th-century America. "

 

the fact that every argument about race descends into an argument about the definition of race basically proves my our point.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

Dude, we're not the ones being revisionist with what "race" is. Also, from your frickin wikipedia source...

 

"

While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[17] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[18][19]

Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and emotionally charged synonyms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[6][20]"

"One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept of race is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as some branches of anthropology, there is strong consensus. Some studies use the word race in its early essentialist taxonomic sense. Many others still use the term race, but use it to mean a population, clade, or haplogroup. Others eschew the concept of race altogether, and use the concept of population as a less problematic unit of analysis"

 

And, since you're using wikipedia, here's fun stuff from 'Race and ethnicity in the US" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

"In the United States since its early history, Native Americans, Africans and Europeans were considered to belong to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person's appearance, his social circle (how he lived), and his known non-White ancestry. History played a part, as persons with known slave ancestors were assumed to be African (or, in later usage, black), regardless of whether they also had European ancestry."

" The differences had little to do with biology and more to do with the history of slavery and its racism, and specific forms of White supremacy (the social, geopolitical and economic agendas of dominant Whites vis-à-vis subordinate Blacks and Native Americans). They related especially to the different social places which Blacks and Amerindians occupied in White-dominated 19th-century America. "

 

I didn't create the definitions.  You guys are the ones trying to define it as this or that when there's 100s of examples of it being defined with genetics/biology as part of the definition.  You've painted yourself in to a sociology corner here

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jack Bauer said:

I didn't create the definitions.  You guys are the ones trying to define it as this or that when there's 100s of examples of it being defined with genetics/biology as part of the definition.  You've painted yourself in to a sociology corner here

If you want to learn about race, actually want to learn, you should study those definitions over time, who created them and how they were created. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smltwnrckr said:

If you want to learn about race, actually want to learn, you should study those definitions over time, who created them and how they were created. 

Why are genetics and biology consistently placed within every single definition of the subject then?  You guys want to have a chat about systemic racism because of how whites 200 years ago decided race is defined, and I want to acknowledge that there are objective, real differences between races of people due to isolation, lack of genetic diversity, and advantageous phenotypes for where certain groups live resulting in real, objectively measured differences between groups of people.  

But sure, champ.  Keep telling me to go read more about what race/genetics/ethnicity is.  I'll leave you guys to your circle jerk.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I didn't create the definitions.  You guys are the ones trying to define it as this or that when there's 100s of examples of it being defined with genetics/biology as part of the definition.  You've painted yourself in to a sociology corner here

?

We haven't painted ourselves into a corner. We pointed out that race is not based in biology, that historically and culturally it is based on superficial differences, that your use of "race" is more appropriately attributed to "populations" or "ethnicities", and that your insistence that there's a basic set of genetic differences in races indicates that you don't really have a firm historical or cultural grounding for what race means or connotations behind that word. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

?

We haven't painted ourselves into a corner. We pointed out that race is not based in biology, that historically and culturally it is based on superficial differences, that your use of "race" is more appropriately attributed to "populations" or "ethnicities", and that your insistence that there's a basic set of genetic differences in races indicates that you don't really have a firm historical or cultural grounding for what race means or connotations behind that word. 

Sure it is.  We just don't agree on a definition of it.  In every definition across the board I've looked up today, genetics/ethnicity is mentioned.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jack Bauer said:

Why are genetics and biology consistently placed within every single definition of the subject then?  You guys want to have a chat about systemic racism because of how whites 200 years ago decided race is defined, and I want to acknowledge that there are objective, real differences between races of people due to isolation, lack of genetic diversity, and advantageous phenotypes for where certain groups live resulting in real, objectively measured differences between groups of people.  

But sure, champ.  Keep telling me to go read more about what race/genetics/ethnicity is.  I'll leave you guys to your circle jerk.

I never once said anything about systemic racism. Is that why you're so invested in the concept of race as an objective, static truth? Because you think it makes you racist to acknowledge otherwise?

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2017 at 0:26 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

This is an excellent post.  First I would very much like to thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to engage with me on this, read the paper and offer a thorough and for the most part unbiased opinion on it, even if your own biases do show up that is expected and means you are being honest in your dialogue.  Bias is not a bad thing on its surface, it becomes a bad thing when it overrides critical thought.  A sin you certainly are not guilty of.  In fact I would be deeply distrustful of a man who claimed no biase and tried overly hard to hide one.

That brings me to the point about The New Atlantic.  Yes, they have an agenda so to speak however they publish papers that follow the scientific method and are well done, sometimes papers that can not get published elsewhere due to....bias.  Nature magazine they are not however they do a good job.  I feel it is of great import to have an outlet for those in Academia to publish pieces that might rub their peers the wrong way.  Many critics of academia note a culture that promotes an echo chamber, pieces like this make it seem more balanced and fair.

The hard sciences differ in one key way and that is the competition those at the top of their field have.  Some of the scientific feuds between those in physics are the things of classroom lore.  I mean it can get nasty.  Realllly nasty.  The soft sciences seem a little more altruistic whereas there is a shared goal of creating a general accepted linear progression.

Thank you again for the thoughtful and genuine response.  We absolutely must break bread and down a beer sometime.

This is so not the way to MWCBoard.  Far too civil and well reasoned....

Aztec-Nation-Banner2010-03.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jack Bauer said:

Why are genetics and biology consistently placed within every single definition of the subject then?  You guys want to have a chat about systemic racism because of how whites 200 years ago decided race is defined, and I want to acknowledge that there are objective, real differences between races of people due to isolation, lack of genetic diversity, and advantageous phenotypes for where certain groups live resulting in real, objectively measured differences between groups of people.  

But sure, champ.  Keep telling me to go read more about what race/genetics/ethnicity is.  I'll leave you guys to your circle jerk.

Basically, because we learned about them and shoehorned them in to our prior definitions.

Race today is still defined the same way, Jack. We STILL use the "single drop" system. We STILL look at a person who is, say, 15/16 European ancestry and say "black". We STILL call someone a different "race" based on religion and culture. 

The fact that you think that a concept that is hundreds of years old has a genetics and biology as a component is telling. Frankly, at this point you're not being ignorant any more, you're being stupid. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2017 at 0:33 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Your mother is of ill repute and you have called a dozen men dad.

Much better...  THAT is how one MWCBoards.  However, you missed the available bonus points for insulting a fellow MWC institution and referencing the odor of livestock.

Aztec-Nation-Banner2010-03.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

Sure it is.  We just don't agree on a definition of it.

Do you even know what you're arguing exactly? 

Race is a rough and inaccurate way to describe physical difference between haplogroups. It's extremely unscientific and an overgeneralizarion. Its "boundaries" are arbitrary and were invented over time to justify exploitation. 

 

Do you disagree with any of that? 

 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

Why are genetics and biology consistently placed within every single definition of the subject then?  You guys want to have a chat about systemic racism because of how whites 200 years ago decided race is defined, and I want to acknowledge that there are objective, real differences between races of people due to isolation, lack of genetic diversity, and advantageous phenotypes for where certain groups live resulting in real, objectively measured differences between groups of people.  

But sure, champ.  Keep telling me to go read more about what race/genetics/ethnicity is.  I'll leave you guys to your circle jerk.

Goddammit, @smltwnrckr @happycamper @youngrebelfan40 , are you guys disputing what Jack is pointing out or are you just arguing semantics regarding his description of groups as "race".

If it's the latter, who the phuck cares? We use language in order to effectively communicate; everyone on this board knows what Jack is saying regarding physiological traits that are more prevalent in certain groups. Is it "racist" for him to use this info in order to effectively treat his patients?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Goddammit, @smltwnrckr @happycamper @youngrebelfan40 , are you guys disputing what Jack is pointing out or are you just arguing semantics regarding his description of groups as "race".

Language matters. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Is it "racist" for him to use this info in order to effectively treat his patients?

No, but I find it curious why some people are so willing to dig in to the notion that it's PC nonsense to suggest that race is a culturally contingent way of categorizing people.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

No, but I find it curious why some people are so willing to dig in to the notion that it's PC nonsense to suggest that race is a culturally contingent way of categorizing people.

Is there another word that you would prefer Jack use when discussing diagnostic methods among different groups?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Goddammit, @smltwnrckr @happycamper @youngrebelfan40 , are you guys disputing what Jack is pointing out or are you just arguing semantics regarding his description of groups as "race".

If it's the latter, who the phuck cares? We use language in order to effectively communicate; everyone on this board knows what Jack is saying regarding physiological traits that are more prevalent in certain groups. Is it "racist" for him to use this info in order to effectively treat his patients?

Race is a stupid and dangerous way to categorize people. It's not just semantic.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, youngrebelfan40 said:

Race is a stupid and dangerous way to categorize people. It's not just semantic.

Guns are dangerous when used improperly. Doesn't context and/or intent matter? Is Jack wrong to consider "race" as an aid in diagnosis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, renoskier said:

Guns are dangerous when used improperly. Doesn't context and/or intent matter? Is Jack wrong to consider "race" as an aid in diagnosis?

I don't care how he uses in in diagnosis, but I am a little concerned that he seems to think the concept actually has grounding in objective biological truth.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Goddammit, @smltwnrckr @happycamper @youngrebelfan40 , are you guys disputing what Jack is pointing out or are you just arguing semantics regarding his description of groups as "race".

If it's the latter, who the phuck cares? We use language in order to effectively communicate; everyone on this board knows what Jack is saying regarding physiological traits that are more prevalent in certain groups. Is it "racist" for him to use this info in order to effectively treat his patients?

Paraphrasing, language is the instrument of the republic. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

You know the funny thing is that the scientists that actually matter, they take what you call "sociology" seriously. But keep telling yourself that race is genetic. You and your friends can roll your eyes at PC fanatics like me.

No one takes sociology seriously.

Well maybe those who take astrology seriously think sociology makes sense.

You're a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...