George Will on baseball

Apr 18, 2014 2:08:04 GMT pjohns1873 said:

What evidence do you have that these tests are "reverse enginerered" with "white males" in mind? And (even if that were true) why could it not be corrected?

Your view as regarding poor people's selling of their labor sounds almost like the Marxian view of "surplus labor."  And it certainly does not sound (even remotely) laissez-faire. 

The very origin of IQ testing was based upon predicting "success" (or more accurately failure that is the opposite of success) in education of a person. They originated in France when the government asked Alfred Benit to develop a test for children. The test was to be used to identify those children that would require special education programs because France had mandated schooling for children. It wasn't that they were intentionally created with "whites" in mind but instead it's because attributes of white society (i.e. originally French children) established the criteria for the test. Benit did find that the scores varied between the students of the same age and developed the IQ score based upon that.

The IQ tests measure several basic aspects of the person which include attention, memory and problem-solving skills but they don't actually measure intelligence. Binet stressed the limitations of the test, suggesting that intelligence is far too broad a concept to quantify with a single number. Instead, he insisted that intelligence is influenced by a number of factors, changes over time and can only be compared among children with similar backgrounds. I do propose that the tests are slanted based upon "White Males" because "White Males" have been historically dominate in Western society and Western society creates the IQ tests.

So here's where I'm at. First of all IQ tests do not measure intelligence because they were never designed to measure intelligence. They measure attributes of  person as a predictor of future success when compared to the "white males" in a limited sense. Additionally the IQ test scores of "whites" growing up in middle class suburbia cannot be compared with the IQ test scores of "blacks" growing up in the ghetto because of the significant cultural differences.

The question of "can they be fixed" is one that the APA itself is trying to address and has been for decades. The real problem isn't whether the tests can be fixed or not though. The problem is with those that assign values to the results of the tests that are false. Racial prejudice, for example, often assumes that "blacks" are less intelligent than "whites" because the average IQ test score for blacks is lower but the IQ test doesn't measure human intelligence and the scores only relate to those with the same cultural background while blacks and whites don't have the same cultural background.

*******************************************

Yes, I am a laissez faire capitalist but we must remember that laissez faire (free market) capitalism reflects the idealistic economy of Utopia. It assumes no invidious discrimination, no denial of equality of economic opportunity, and economic exchange that is mutually beneficial resulting in "win-win" economic outcomes for those involved.

Our problem is that we don't live in uptopia and there are problems with laissez faire capitalism "in practice" because of that fact. The problems need to be addressed in a pragmatic manner keeping the goal of someday living in utopia where laissez faire capitalism in it's purest form is the economic system. We need to balance the idealistic goal with the actual reality by addressing the problem of reality in a manner that will move us toward the idealistic goal.  

Trust me, I don't have all the answers but I do try to think of a means of addressing the problems in the least instrusive manner.

Apr 18, 2014 23:49:09 GMT pjohns1873 said:

For the past half century or so (ever since the implementation of civil-rights laws in the 1960s), there has been a narrowing of the erstwhile gap between "black culture" and "white culture"; and, as a believer assimilation (as opposed to multiculturalism), I would regard this as a very positive development. (For awhile, in the 1990s--when "Afrocentrism" was at or near its apogee in academia--this was not so much the case.  But it is now, once again.)

I agree that there are some very different forms of intelligence.  For example, the ability to draw (or paint) realistically is one form of intelligence, it seems to me.  (For my part, I am only slightly more advanced than I was as a mere kindergartner, when I considered the very apotheosis of a realistic depiction to be a stick man.)  

I won't provide the source (but could) that reflects that there has been "closure" between blacks and whites both socially and enconomically since the 1960's but there's a problem with this general statement. That closure in the gap has only occurred between the top 50% of black and not between all blacks and whites. The bottom 50% have been left far behind and, in many cases, are worse off today than they were in the 1960's. While the top 50% reflect an improvement it's offset by the fact that the bottom 50% are left behind. That's 1/2 of an entire demographic group that is actually worse of than they were in the 1960's and they are worse off because of anti-black racial prejudice based upon false stereotyping that studies show is increasing and not decreasing in the United States.

Yes, there are numerous forms of intelligence and the APA has stated that there isn't even a definition of human intelligence because of this fact. Because human intelligence isn't defined it can't be tested for. That's the problem with tests and creating false stereotypes based upon them. Tests are only "accurate" related to what they test for an are only accurate based upon individuals of the same age group and with the same social or what's often referred to as their "environmental" background. So when we test students the test differences are often reflective of different social (environmental) backgrounds of the students. That needs to be a consideration and colleges, where intelligent people are generally at the helm, do allow for those considerations. It's the person that doesn't understand the limitations related to testing that draws the wrong conclusions based upon nothing but test score differences.

It was that reason that when you stated that "test scores" should be the only criteria I had to call you on it. The results of the test scores are myopic as there are many other considerations that really must be taken into account. 

Your statements seem to be reflecting that you're starting to understand that a bit more now.

It's sort of like misunderstandings related to black crime statistics. We know that blacks are targeted by law enforcement due to racial stereotyping and are subjected to discrimination in our criminal justice system so it's virtually impossible to accurately compare black v white crime statistics. The person with racial prejudice ignores that blacks are targeted by law enforcement and subjected to discrimination by our criminal justice system. They also ignore the different "social" (environmental) background differences between blacks and whites. 

This anti-black prejudice even extends as far as the issue of "marriage" where many stereotype blacks by comparing them to whites but the social (environmental) differences are huge. The man has always been the primary "earner" because the woman bears and raises children but when a man cannot support a wife (and child) they are reluctant to marry. We tend to forget that when we cite the percentage of black households where the biological father isn't married to the woman. If they can't afford to raise the child they are reluctant to marry the woman. As a white person we don't have the concern as much even if we're not earning the income at the time. We're not discriminated agianst in employment so we always tend to believe that we will be able to provide but that belief doesn't exist for many black males. They know that it is highly unlikely that they will be able to earn enough to provide for a family because of economic discrimination. Hugely different "social" (environmental) backgrounds to be considered.

Apr 19, 2014 16:10:18 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I guess I have a fundamental problem with the view that the husband must be the "primry" breadwinner. (My late wife--who worked until the mid-1990s; I retired about 10 years thereafter--always earned about double what I earned.  But so what?  It all went into one common pot.) 

It isn't an issue that the husband must be the "primary" breadwinner but instead that overwhelmingly the husband traditionally is the primary breadwinner. From a "white middle class income" perspective the woman can be the "primary" income earner but that isn't because the husband can't earn enough to support the family but instead because in some cases the woman earns far more than the husband related to what is required to support the family.

Anecdotally a close friend of mine was a "stay-at-home" dad because he could only earn about $70,000/yr but his wife, with an advance college degree, could earn over $150,000/yr. It made financial sense for him to stay at home and take care of the kids.  It is the "exception" as opposed to the "rule" in our society.

That doesn't situation doesn't typically exist is a society subjected to generational poverty because of invidious prejudice and discrimination.   

Apr 21, 2014 2:25:58 GMT pjohns1873 said:

And I believe that the animating factor behind "generational poverty" is not "invidious prejudice and discrimination," but the welfare state that arose (with the best of intentions) from LBJ's Great Society.

The greatest misconception is that the War on Poverty was about reducing poverty. It was never intended to do that just like Social Security was never intended to correct the problem that people didn't have enough personal wealth to live on after they were too old to work. Both "mitigated the effects of a problem" but did nothing to reduce or eliminate the problem.

The War on Poverty did not create poverty nor did it increase or decrease poverty. All it did was to provide assistance that would mitigate the effects of the poverty.

Let me use the analogy of a boat with a hole in the bottom. Welfare assistance is like using a bucket to bail water out of the boat to keep if from sinking but it doesn't increase or decrease the size of the hole that's letting the water in. If we increase the size of the bucket it does make things slightly better but it doesn't fix the hole and if we stop bailing the boat sinks. If the size of the bucket is reduced then the boat is probably going to sink in spite of our efforts. In any case the "hole" (causes of poverty) is unrelated to the bucket (welfare assistance).

Social Secutity, Medicare, Welfare Assistance all address the symptoms of the problem of poverty but have no effect on poverty itself.

Apr 21, 2014 18:11:49 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your analogy is well-taken; but slightly misplaced, I think.

The welfare state was surely intended to ameliorate poverty; but it has instead had the opposite effect, I think, by encouraging social pathologies (however inadvertantly) and dependency upon Big Government (with its ubiquitous income-transfer payments).

Does it "ameliorate" poverty? Well if doing nothing results in tens of millions of homeless starving people living and dying on the street corners and the welfare assistance allows them to have a roof over their head and enough food so that they don't starve then they are better off. What it never attempted to do was to lift people out of poverty so that they wouldn't require the assistance. I use the term "mitigate" because the welfare assistance was never designed and did nothing to eliminate the povery. It merely provided enough to the person to survive and made them dependent upon the assistance and made us responsible for providing it.

Poverty can only be overcome with more disposable income and the accumulation of wealth.

I'm the only one I know of that pragmatically addresses poverty with my state & federal tax proposals and privatization of Social Security.

Apr 22, 2014 20:30:49 GMT pjohns1873 said:

With this, you address (briefly) the dependency created by welfare; and you appear quite undisturbed by it.  In fact, you appear to endorse (tacitly, at least) a materialistic worldview.

And you have not addressed at all the social pathologies that are encouraged by the welfare state.

By the way, do you really believe that large numbers of low-income Americans were "dying on the street" from starvation prior to the emergence of LBJ's Great Society in the 1960s?

That is not the case at all and you should know better. I've made numerous proposals that address reducing the poverty that eliminates the necessity of "welfare assistance" both public and private to mitigate the effects of the poverty.

As long as the poverty exists it places a financial burden on society to mitigate the effects of the poverty. The mistake by "social conseratives" is in believing that by reducing the welfare assistance provided by the government it eliminates the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty. All it does is force that financial obligation on the private sector because the "Welfare Burden" created by poverty is not reduces one iota unless we reduce poverty.

If government doesn't provide the assistance and the private sector doesn't provide the assistance then we fundamentally become an immoral nation as we do, as a nation, have the financial resources to prevent starvation, homelessness, death from treatable illness, etc.. The only "moral" solution is to reduce the poverty so that the "Welfare Burden" is reduced as that removes any obligation on Society to provide assistance.

We should not allow greed to be the sole motivation in America and the Republican proposals are exclusively based upon greed. It's sort of like the Libertarian proposal that welfare assistance should be predominately provided for by the private sector. That's a fine proposal but it hinges upon the private sector stepping up and providing more assistance which reduces the need for the public assistance.

The necessity for the welfare assistance is driven by the poverty and that assistance must be provided regardless of whether it's done by the public sector, private sector, or both. Today it's currently provided for by both but the "public sector" provides the lion's share because the "private sector" does not.

My position has always been do what we can to eliminate the need for the assistance by reducing poverty because we cannot be irresponsible as a society based upon personal greed.  

Apr 23, 2014 21:17:54 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your views as regarding welfare assistance almost sound like a corruption of Maslow's Hierarchy: The most basic need is (supposedly) enough money for mere survival; and those mired in poverty simply cannot be expected to care about such small matters as, say, the social pathologies that often result from the actions of the welfare state.  Why, they are just too busy concentrating upon their own survival! 

As for your worry about "death from treatable illnesses" from among the poor, is it your position that "[t]he only moral solution" would be some form of UHC?  

Maslow's Hierarchy addressed psychological needs whereas I address economic needs. There can be correlation but I don't see them as being the same.

NO! I do not advocate UHC and never have.

I do endorse a state run health care safety net to provide medical services for those that cannot afford to pay for basic medical services. We, of course, have had that since 1965 when Medicaid was created but unfortunately it was never adequately funded until the expansion under Obamacare. Sadly not all of the States have accepted the expansion even though it doesn't require equally shared financial funding by the State and Federal government which was the financial foundation for Medicaid.

More importantly though is taking pragmatic steps to reduce poverty as that reduces the need for the safety net. As I've proposed previously it is my belief that elimination of the tax burden on the bottom half of those in society which increases their disposable income is the first step that needs to be taken. I've made the following proposals to address the tax burden of the person that is created by both federal and state taxation.

Federal Taxes - Use the income tax (already in place) but exempt all income from taxation up to the medial household income and then impose a single tax rate above that amount that fully funds the authorized expenditures of the federal government. All income regardless of source or entity receiving the income would be taxed based upon this.

Privatize Social Security based upon my proposal that would use the 15.3% FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment tax up to median household income to fund the privatization and impose the 15.3% tax on all income regardless of source above that amount to replace the funds being used for private investment.

State Taxes - Use a "Consumption" (sales) Tax" exclusively and provide a prebate similar to the FairTax.org proposal for federal taxation to eliminate the regressive nature of a consumption tax. This is problematic from an implementation standpoint as it requires each of the 50 States to change their state laws and/or state constitutions but it does address increasing the disposable income of low income workers. I would include the elimination of annual property taxes and instead use the "consumption tax" on the sale of real estate.

My goal is and has always been to REDUCE POVERTY that imposes a necessary financial burden on society.

Reducing poverty reduces the necessity for welfare assistance.