If you assume that someone will be short, and do not provide them with proper nutrition as a growing child, they will likely end up being short, even if they would have been tall with proper nutrition.
This is true to a large extent. Fat shaming doesn’t work.
This is largely true. It is definitively true that treating law abiding citizens like criminals makes them more likely to break the law.
That could probably work for the majority of criminals, who are not being held in prison because they are a danger to society, or a danger or committing the crime again, but only because we like to see people suffer.
Do you feel that one of them is a better person than the other? Why do you feel the need to judge?
I don’t see any difference. Treating someone as if they are smart leads them to over-estimate how smart they are.
And the history of affirmative action in the US tends to work against your assertions as well. People who are admitted to colleges because of affirmative action are being treated as if they were smart, or at least as smart as their classmates. Yet they drop out more, get lower GPAs, take longer to graduate, and migrate to fields of study that are easier than STEM fields.
When you are done being ridiculous you may want to learn the actual facts. Stereotype threat is a myth. Short, Medium, Long. The original studies only found it through data mining and none of the studies replicate.
You’ve got to be kidding. Denying people food is not treating them like short people. Short people like to eat too.
Fat shaming does not work but fat denying does not work either. If you abolished prisons crime would go up, not down.
I don’t know if Shaq is a better person than Webster, all I know is that they are different and those differences did not result from people treating them differently. Different is not bad and it is not wrong but it is reality.
Do you really disagree that if one group of children gets a consistent message that they are dumb and inferior, they might have poorer outcomes (on average) than a group of children that gets a consistent message that they are smart and capable?
I’d argue almost the opposite. Taking someone and giving them admission to a college based on something like race, and specifically NOT because of their academic performance is essentially saying to them “You’re not actually as smart as our other incoming students, but you’re black, so we’ll let you in because we have to.”
That’s essentially saying that they’re NOT being treated as if they were as smart as their classmates. Similarly, having different standards for race/ethnic based scholarships vs. the strictly academic ones sends the same message. If color-blind academically based scholarships have say… a 3.0 minimum GPA requirement, and black/hispanic academic scholarship have a 2.5 minimum, what does that imply?
And treating someone like they are stupid leads them to under-estimate how smart they are.
Which is more likely to get them to live up to their potential.
Is that entirely because of their genetically defined intellectual capabilities, or could there be environmental issues with that?
If you don’t learn to read until first grade, or even later, and you aren’t taught any challenging or interesting subjects, and you feel that school is a place to put you to keep you out of trouble, you may not learn as well as someone from a family who values education, and goes to a school with the resources and willingness to impart knowledge.
So, yeah, when this person gets to college, they are at a disadvantage, just like they have been their entire life. So, if you are saying that the implementation of AA should be looked at to ensure that it is creating an environment that increases the chances of positive outcomes, then I agree. If you are trying to say that AA proves that black people aren’t as smart as white people, I completely disagree, but that’s the only logical conclusion from the direction of your argument.
And also more likely to get them to think they are smarter than they are.
You are arguing that treating people as if they were dumb causes them to under-achieve, and treating them as if they were smart causes them to over-achieve. Affirmative action treats them as if they were as smart as their classmates, and does not cause them (on average) to over-achieve.
I think this is a legitimate criticism of AA, by the way. I support AA, but I recognize that it is a far from perfect solution (and it’s not really a solution – more like a slight re-weighting of an unbalanced system) for a still far from equal and fair society (if closer than in the past).
Depends on how glaring any differences are. There is a huge difference between “they qualified in any case, but were favored over someone else because hey, quotas” and “they wouldn’t have qualified in a million years if it hadn’t been for the quotas”.
One of my grad school classmates got accepted because she was American: if she’d been a foreigner, her grades wouldn’t have been high enough to be able to apply. She wasn’t stupid, it took her a few days to realize she needed to catch up or change plans.
People tend to overeat when they are depressed. There’s a difference between denying that someone is fat, and identifying them as a fat person. Overweight people are told to “think thin”, which is hard if everyone identifies you by your weight.
Who said abolish? Is this a black and white issue for you? Is it all excluded middle? Lock everyone up, or no one? I only said most inmates, not all.
Hey, here’s a stereotype. Americans are criminals. All you have to do is to look at how many of our citizens we incarcerated for proof of that.
Should the rest of the world start treating us like criminals, as there is an more than just an element of truth in it?
Other countries have fewer people in jail, and lower crime rates.
And if Shaq had grown up undernourished, he may have ended up as short as webster( I assume you mean Emmanuel Lewis), and if Emmanuel had had a drug abuser for a father like shaq did, then he may have never gotten to star in TV shows.
Qualified" is made up of many many factors, many of which are subjective and unquantifiable. And people tend to think they themselves are more qualified for things than they actually are.
So I would guess instances of people being aware that they were unqualified other than race are vanishingly rare.
In addition, many minorities who score low on quantifiable parts of “qualification” tests assume - in some cases correctly - that this is the equivalent of a white person scoring a lot higher, considering the obstacles they had to overcome. This would lead them to rate their own abilities higher than would be indicated by their raw scores.
Theoretically, if you did a Truman show type scenario where everyone was explicitly told to pretend smart people were dumb and dumb people are smart it might be possible to convince them.
However, in the real world telling someone who makes all As that they are dumb is not going to do anything to convince them, nor is telling someone who makes Fs that they are smart.
But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m hypothesizing a society that, through various media, cultural, and societal factors, consistently delivers a message “you are stupid and inferior” to one group of children (group A), while delivering the message “you are smart and capable” to another (group B). All else being equal, would you agree or disagree that it’s likely that, in this society, outcomes for group A, on average, might be lower than group B? Or do you think that such a consistent message would have no affect whatsoever on children?
I think they would likely be lower. I think self-esteem is a real thing, and such messages might possibly affect self-esteem (and/or other factors) in some children to some degree, and lower self-esteem (and other factors) might generally be a hindrance to high achievement, while high self-esteem is generally a help.
Americans are no more likely to be criminals than citizens of other countries. The only reason more Americans are arrested and jailed is because police in other countries are too busy looking to arrest Americans and are letting their own criminals go free.
It would depend on the population. If group A and group B were exactly similar in potential then it might affect them slightly. However if Group A were a bunch of Jamaicans and Group B were a bunch of Eskimos and society was dedicated to the proposition that Eskimos are faster than Jamaicans, then given opportunity to compete Jamaicans would still win all the sprint races.
Self esteem is a real thing but it does not make much difference to outcomes. Among teenagersblacks score highest on self esteem, then whites, then hispanics, and then asians. Boy adolescents have higher self esteem than girls. If self esteem had any affect on life outcomes than black men would be doing the best and asian women the worst. Yet in actuality we see the exact opposite.
Who passes on cultural expectations to black children? Their parents who are black, their peers who are black, their media role models who are black, and their teachers who are mostly black or if white highly unlikely to be racist. The idea that cultural expectations of white people play a huge role in how black youths feel about themselves feels odd.
I’m not sure if that self esteem study says that exactly:
In any case, there are clear differences in self-esteem and likely other characteristics of children based on race. If we consider that (as has been true in pretty much all of human history) society might treat people of different race differently, then it’s possible that this differing treatment has some affect on children. Kids who think that basketball is their best chance at success are likely to expend more effort on basketball than kids who think that a professional career like medicine or engineering is their best chance. It seems at least plausible that different messages might be sent out to different kids, based on more than just differences in parenting, and this may lead to different outcomes.
I work with a black woman who has the phrase “Bottom Bitch” tattooed around her neck which she never tries to hide. The urban dictionary says that means “The one girl the pimp reserves for himself, or the player’s favourite girl.”