Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame)

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

Note that several points in those excerpts serve as direct rebuttals to assertions made in this thread. If we were litigating against each other in court, you would not be wise to choose Reich as your expert witness.

Boy you are really an idiot.

That was also replied before too; most noted, like iiandyiii, that Reich is not really talking about guys like him or many in this thread.

So that leaves then the other target that he also referred to: racists like Murray and their ilk should be countered and be told that indeed they can not use the research from Reich and others for advancing their racist solutions.

@SlackerInc

Hey, look at that: you’re finally right about something! You got me, good for you. Good for you.

I know you’d like to quote this admission and repost it over and over, but you were called to heel on those shenanigans. Still, they can’t stop you from printing this out, putting it in a nice frame, and displaying it in a prominent location in the hole you crawl out of at night. Maybe you can even be buried with it. Your life’s greatest triumph, huzzah!

Meh, the mod pointed out that you can indeed be found to be stupid in more creative ways, EE or others can use different ways to do it.

You got ilk.

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

I know you’d like to quote this admission and repost it over and over, but you were called to heel on those shenanigans. Still, they can’t stop you from printing this out, putting it in a nice frame, and displaying it in a prominent location in the hole you crawl out of at night. Maybe you can even be buried with it. Your life’s greatest triumph, huzzah!

You seem angry.

[SlackerInc]

@Evil_Economist

You seem angry.

I’d call this more “pot/kettle”, but I’m not even close to being as “black” as either of those. If you’re not the angriest person in this thread, you’re giving rat avatar a run for his/her money. Whereas by stark contrast, if I’m not the calmest and most dispassionate person in this thread (of those who have posted significantly at least), I don’t know who else it would be.

[Chisquirrel]

@SlackerInc

I’d call this more “pot/kettle”, but I’m not even close to being as “black” as either of those. If you’re not the angriest person in this thread, you’re giving rat avatar a run for his/her money. Whereas by stark contrast, if I’m not the calmest and most dispassionate person in this thread (of those who have posted significantly at least), I don’t know who else it would be.

We know, we know, you’ve already proven you’re too smart to be “black”.

[GIGObuster]

So, as it is clear this was missed, here is what Reich did say about racists like Murray:

To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating. Nicholas Wade, a longtime science journalist for The New York Times, rightly notes in his 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” that modern research is challenging our thinking about the nature of human population differences. But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes.

One of Mr. Wade’s key sources, for example, is the anthropologist Henry Harpending, who has asserted that people of sub-Saharan African ancestry have no propensity to work when they don’t have to because, he claims, they did not go through the type of natural selection for hard work in the last thousands of years that some Eurasians did. There is simply no scientific evidence to support this statement. Indeed, as 139 geneticists (including myself) pointed out in a letter to The New York Times about Mr. Wade’s book, there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes he promotes.

As pointed before, me and others do think that Reich is protesting too much on how others (particularly from the popular press) misunderstand and explain the science; but clearly, even Reich does know what the biggest enemy that he and others are warning others about: Racists that are supported 100% by Murray and others.

The point here is that when the Slacker attempts to make Reich his hero, that is wrong. Reich is looking to be like the ones that found about the asteroid that helped end the dinosaurs. Turns out that while gradualists were wrong on some items and the catastrophists got some kudos. But no catastrophic proponent in their right mind would say that Velikowsky was correct with his “world collisions shaping recent human events”, and gradualism is still considered the most important component in shaping what we see on earth.

In this case Reich can tell us about how [del]asteroids[/del] genes might be found to play a part in differences in intelligence, but the evidence does point to the effect to not be as big as [del]Velikowsky[/del] Murray and others propose. Hence the point that [del]gradualism[/del] nurture is still more likely to be the most important factor regarding the differences in intelligence and [del]Velikowsky[/del] Murray and others do not deserve any credit but criticism for being racists. Because there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes they promote. As Reich and the other researchers did note.

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

perhaps you don’t realize what a large share of school funding comes from the feds.

Direct federal aid is 0.7% of Elementary-secondary revenue.

Edit: above refers only to 2015. Haven’t checked other years

[GIGObuster]

@Evil_Economist

Direct federal aid is 0.7% of Elementary-secondary revenue.

Showing that indeed the Slacker doesn’t know shit from Shinola.

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

But as of 2016, the federal government mandated that districts not spend less per student in their Title I schools, although they could spend more

More than forty years after ESEA was enacted, our nation has still not achieved the law’s original promise of providing all students with equitable access to educational resources. … 3.3 million children remain in Title I schools that receive less. Currently, schools receiving Title I funds educate more than two-thirds of our low-income children and children of color, and yet approximately 5,750 Title I schools nationwide received substantially less state and local funding than their non-Title I peers within the same district. on average, these Title I schools are shortchanged by about $440,000 per year

Maybe the federal government should mandate harder

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

revenue coming from the feds will make up a lot of disparities between richer and poorer school districts.

While Title I funds are meant to supplement state and local funds, the funds ultimately do not go very far, as they only amount to about $500-600 per-pupil per year.

$600 won’t make up a lot of disparities.

FYI, Title I is the largest category of federal spending on public elementary-secondary school systems, other than nutritional programs

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

as of 2016, the federal government mandated that districts not spend less per student in their Title I schools, although they could spend more

You seem to be pretty significantly overstating things:

Title I provisions consider school spending “comparable” at 90 percent of the average of non-Title I schools, which allows high-poverty schools to spend less, thus perpetuating and sometimes widening the spending gaps.

A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education disclosed that more than 40 percent of Title I schools spent less on personnel per-pupil than non-Title I schools at the same grade level and that are within the same school district.

[SlackerInc]

@Evil_Economist

Direct federal aid is 0.7% of Elementary-secondary revenue.

Edit: above refers only to 2015. Haven’t checked other years

Oh look, back to being wildly wrong again, by an order of magnitude and then some. Or maybe “direct federal aid” allows for weaseling of some sort. In any case:

How Much Do States Rely on Federal Funding?

When it comes to total general education expenditures, federal funds nationally accounted for just 13 percent in fiscal 2015, as schools are primarily funded by various state and local taxes.

GIGO, this implicates you too, thanks to your “shit…Shinola” remark. Maybe you should rethink being such an eager little puppy and not tie whatever little credibility you have to EE. Just some helpful advice, not that I think you’ll take it.

Seriously, didn’t either of you even stop to think about that number? How would the federal Dept. of Education have any leverage to back up NCLB and its successor if their funding was so miniscule? Why would you think a Cabinet level Department could possibly be so picayune in its financial scope? You might as well just eliminate it if that were the case, as Rick Perry wanted to do (or was that the one he left out at the debate?).

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

Oh look, back to being wildly wrong again, by an order of magnitude and then some.

Tell you what, let’s make a bet. If I can prove that my number is correct, you fuck off the board and never post again.

Deal?

[SlackerInc]

Ahem:

@SlackerInc

Or maybe “direct federal aid” allows for weaseling of some sort.

Unlike the posts where I was accused of being purposely misleading, this category that apparently makes up about five percent of all federal education funding is nowhere near as clear as “within the same district” or “black men, black women, Hispanic men, and Hispanic women, combined”. But as consistency seems to be the last thing anyone cares about here, enjoy your technicality if it gives you joy. :rolleyes: Fortunately the actual federal funds, not limited by such verbiage (probably because they have strings attached), are twenty times as great.

Or does federal money only help black kids learn if it qualifies for that precise label? :dubious:

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

Unlike the posts where I was accused of being purposely misleading, this category that apparently makes up about five percent of all federal education funding is nowhere near as clear as “within the same district” or “black men, black women, Hispanic men, and Hispanic women, combined”.

Man, your confidence went from 100% to zero.

I’m using an absolutely clear technical term, and what I said was 100% correct. Do you agree?

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

This implicates you too, thanks to your “shit…Shinola” remark. Maybe you should rethink being such an eager little puppy and not tie whatever little credibility you have to EE. Just some helpful advice, not that I think you’ll take it.

The point, besides you being still wrong, is that I was referring at how wrong you were about minorities and the poor getting enough funding for your misleading statement to be valid.

Again, there is no counter from you about the point that minorities and the poor do not get enough funds when looking at the big picture. So yeah, your conclusions still rely on half truths while you grasp at straws in the form of discrepancies on a number that, while important, it does not make as much of a difference as state and local funding numbers do.

[Evil_Economist]

While **SlackerInc **contemplates having to admit he was wrong again, I’ll write this post:

So, **SlackerInc **spends a lot of time “thinking” about federal spending on black students, and apparently no time at all actually trying to actually understand it. So, since I’m bored waiting for someone, and since I’m much smarter than SlackerInc, I’ll just go ahead and solve his problem for him. Turns out it wasn’t very difficult.

First, a few facts:

Overall
There are about 50,485,000 total K-12 students
Black students are 15.6% of the K-12 student population, or about 7,848,000 students total

Title I
Title I supports about 14,900,000 students in total, approximately 27% of whom are black
Total Title I federal spending is 13,167,192,000, or about $884 per child

Special Education
Federal Special Education Programs support 6,612,752 students, 1,308,328 (or about 19.78%) of whom are black.
Total federal spending on special education programs is 10,821,981,000, or about $1,637 per student

Other
The rest of federal spending on K-12 students is nutrition programs and misc small amounts, so we don’t need to allocate it

State and Local
One final fact: on a state and local level, black students receive on average $334 less than white students. Multiplying $334 by the total number of black students tells us that black students are underfunded by 2,621,232,000.

The problem
So, a $2.6 billion deficit is a lot of money. The question **SlackerInc **has been impotently wrestling with is: is federal spending on black students sufficient to offset the shortfall in state and local funding.

Well, given the facts above, it’s not a difficult question.

First, the “excess” spending on special education for black students: (19.78% - 15.6%)7,848,0001,637 = 544,527,734

Second, the “excess” spending on Title I for black students: (27% - 15.6%)7,848,000884 = 794,425,125

And now we can conclude:

Shortfall of 2.6 billion less excess special education funding of 0.5 billion les “excess” Title I funding of 0.8 billion = overall shortfall of 1.3 billion

So, SlackerInc, I did the work that you were unable to do, and concluded that, as expected, black children receive less education funding than white children, even after taking federal spending into account.

You’re welcome

[SlackerInc]

@Evil_Economist

Man, your confidence went from 100% to zero.

I’m using an absolutely clear technical term, and what I said was 100% correct. Do you agree?

Bullshit it did, and bullshit you did. I said in my first response, which you are calling 100% confident, that you might well be using weasel terminology. I said that again in my later remark. How that equates to a shift from “100% to zero” in your strange little brain, who can know?

Your “technical term” is not “absolutely clear”, but it’s irrelevant. Money is money regardless of how it is labeled, so if 1/20th of federal education funding is labeled “direct aid”, that does not negate the other 95%, and it reeks of desperation to even attempt to say otherwise.

I have no comment on all the numbers you threw up on the screen with no sourcing. You’re fond of doing that, and on occasions when a citation belatedly shows up, it quickly becomes clear why you didn’t want to disclose it to begin with.

(I should definitely have my head examined for engaging to this degree on a tangential issue that is the dullest subject imaginable, just because some dillweed is “Wrong on the Internet”. What’s next? Are we going to have an endless dissection of per capita Medicare spending and its ratio to per capita GDP among Asian-American widows living in Idaho between 1977 and 1981? Jesus fucking Christ, what am I doing with my life? Congratulations, you are succeeding in boring me to death.)

[Evil_Economist]

@SlackerInc

Bullshit it did, and bullshit you did. I said in my first response, which you are calling 100% confident, that you might well be using weasel terminology. I said that again in my later remark. How that equates to a shift from “100% to zero” in your strange little brain, who can know?

Your “technical term” is not “absolutely clear”, but it’s irrelevant.

Let’s make a bet. If I can prove to an unbiased 3rd party (let’s say Monty) that I used a technical term, which is not a weasel word, and that I used it in a technically correct way, then you agree to publicly post that you have a below-average IQ.

Deal?

I have no comment on all the numbers you threw up on the screen with no sourcing. You’re fond of doing that, and on occasions when a citation belatedly shows up, it quickly becomes clear why you didn’t want to disclose it to begin with.

Let’s make a bet. You pick the number in my post you think is most controversial. If I can provide a “reasonable” cite to it, as judged by an unbiased 3rd party (again, let’s say Monty), then you agree to publicly post that I’m smarter than you.

Deal?

So…do you have a lot of confidence in your opinions?

[Evil_Economist]

@Evil_Economist

Let’s make a bet. If I can prove to an unbiased 3rd party (let’s say Monty) that I used a technical term, which is not a weasel word, and that I used it in a technically correct way, then you agree to publicly post that you have a below-average IQ.

Deal?

Let’s make a bet. You pick the number in my post you think is most controversial. If I can provide a “reasonable” cite to it, as judged by an unbiased 3rd party (again, let’s say Monty), then you agree to publicly post that I’m smarter than you.

Deal?

So…do you have a lot of confidence in your opinions?

I pick the wording in your post, and you post it as coming from you (not just quoting me), and you don’t add any commentary after it. Just a single post saying something like “I, SlackerInc, publicly admit that I have a below-average IQ”

It’s a low-stakes bet, you just have to have faith in your opinion.

[GIGObuster]

Lots of tap dancing from the Slacker in an attempt to deny what is clear.

His say so that “So more money is spent on them” only works for his sorry ideas if that was indeed the case. It was only half the truth, the whole truth is that in the USA there are many districts that are short-changing large percentages of low-income and minority students.