5 ms·

Why deny someone that pleasure based solely on the ever-retreating carrot of hand-out promises? It is dehumanizing, in my opinion. Why eschew "white priviledge,

by pitay 11y ago

Why deny someone that pleasure based solely on the ever-retreating carrot of hand-out promises? It is dehumanizing, in my opinion. Why eschew "white priviledge," then turn around and say, "The only way you can succeed is if we, the majority, give you success?" It is a lie! I don't think people have been saying "The only way you can succeed is if we, the majority, give you success" at all, certainly not the "only" part. Of course people know that success is possible without it, and inferring that the other side said that is very dishonest. Getting help is not dehumanizing at all, unlike what you say. I have seen various alterations of this sentiment spruiked by politicians to remove aid from people. I am pretty sure that the people receiving aid would not say that it dehumanizes them. Disadvantage and advantage is compounding in almost all real life areas (social competence being a stand out one), which is why people worry about schooling for their young children and other such things that may give them advantage from a young age. The correct sort of aid could have a very large positive effect over time, unlike not giving aid.

innocentoldguy 11y ago
I disagree. I have volunteered to help religious organizations, both in the United States as well as other countries, who provide aid to those in need. In all cases, aid was offered to help people get back on their feet and to become self reliant. In these cases, the aid was not only greatly appreciated, but was given in a way that was ennobling. In the United States, government aid often becomes a multigenerational lifestyle, and it is indeed dehumanizing because it keeps people from living up to their full potential. It sends the message, "You can't survive without us," and that simply isn't true.
- eevilspock 11y ago
  innocentoldguy, I believe you when you say you don't mean to insult. I mean no insult to white people either (see the end of my prior comment). I wholeheartedly respect that you "purposefully ignored caution" and agree that > "It is hard to have an honest conversation if you stifle yourself based on your own sex, gender, or other distinguishing features. How can we ever eliminate prejudices unless we acknowledge our differences and weaknesses and talk our way through them?" In all honesty you are making straw men arguments. Yes, there are many aid programs that don't help in the long run. But in my point I'm not asking whites to give aid. I'm asking them to first recognize and then stop taking advantage of their unfair privilege, privilege that came on the backs of the disadvantage of others, privilege that perpetuates privilege. And to call out unfairness when they see it. Too many do not. That is the tragedy of the shipwreck, both the one in the story and the one that is racial relations today. Keep in mind that being a single minority person is not the same as being a member of a minority population. Individuals of other colors or countries are often treated as guests, or even royalty, when they number very little. It is only when the minority population is large enough does the prejudice of the dominant population start to get ugly. My family was the sole one of its "race" in the farm town I grew up in. You were a sole white guy in Japan. Now go talk to the Korean population there and ask what their experience was and is. To deny the Matthew Effect is to deny reality. As Aloha and omegaworks discussed, there are serious structural issues stacking things against part of the population. That a small percentage of people can overcome it does not prove that it doesn't exist or that it should be ignored. I hope you read and reply to istjohn's excellent comment.
  - innocentoldguy 11y ago
    Hi eevilspock. Thank you for your reply. Regarding the Matthew Effect, I don't deny that it is real. The rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer, but that is a principle of economics, not race. When the Matthew Effect enters a discussion on racial injustice, it seems to me the conversation has taken a sharp turn away from equal rights, and has started driving down the path of greed and envy. I'm a staunch supporter of equal rights. I am not a supporter of equal stuff.
    - eevilspock 11y ago
      It wasn't me that downvoted you, but the Matthew Effect is not limited to economics. It governs social status; the distribution and concentration of power, whether in politics or elsewhere; the education of children and their self esteem, and whether they feel they are a welcome member of society or persona non grata; and many other things in life. Hell, it even effects who succeeds in Canadian Hockey[1]. It was critical to Bill Gates's success[2]. You also failed to answer the moral point I made above. Using your wealth to accumulate more power and wealth at the expense of others, making it harder and harder for them to escape the hole they are in, or even worse, pushing them further into the hole, to disregard their suffering and structural oppression, is a serious moral issue. That is my point about public vs private schools in my first comment. It is also my point about people advantaged by the cultural and structural issues staying silent, often because speaking up will threaten their advantage. Or perhaps even worse (or maybe not worse. It is good we are talking about it and bringing it out into the open), actively discounting the issue as you are here. - [1] http://blogs.ausd.net/users/thearchofthesky2010/uploads/thearchofthesky2010/OutliersRedux.pdf http://blogs.ausd.net/users/thearchofthesky2010/uploads/thea.... See also: http://sportsscientists.com/2009/01/the-matthew-effect/ http://sportsscientists.com/2009/01/the-matthew-effect/ [2] http://gatorshockey.ca/articles/the-matthew-effect-and-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://gatorshockey.ca/articles/the-matthew-effect-and-the-1...
      - innocentoldguy 11y ago
        Hi eevilspock. Don't worry. I don't vote people down. I think everyone has something worthwhile to say, even if I disagree. I'm glad you brought up Outliers. It is one of the most interesting books I've read this year. I'd like to discuss this further with you, but I feel like I need to get on the same page. First of all, how are you defining "economics?" A lot of people think "money" when they hear the word, but I'm defining it as "opportunity costs," for this discussion; which can relate to money, but often times doesn't. Also, how are you defining "pushing them further into the hole?" Can you describe the scenario you're talking about? For example, I make a lot of money writing software as a full-time employee. I also make even more money by writing freelance code, articles, and books. How am I pushing others into a hole? Please don't misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. I realize, from personal experience, that it is more difficult to succeed in one condition vs. another (which is why I wrote my original post the way that I did). I am also aware that race, birthplace, etc. play into our conditions (again, refer to my original post). My point is that it is entirely possible to succeed in spite of that condition, rather than succumbing to it. In fact, I think it is very important that we do. Using one of the articles you posted as an example, let's say we have two boys, one born in January and one born in December. The January kid knows he's the star, and so does the December kid. Which scenario is psychologically better for the December kid? SCENARIO 1: The coach comes up to December kid and says, "You were born in December, which means that you don't have an equal chance to succeed, so I'm going to go ahead and let you play this game instead of January kid in order to make things fair." SCENARIO 2: The December kid practices twice as hard as the January kid, camps out at the rink while all his friends and teammates are living their lives, demonstrates better skills, and is placed in a game over January kid simply because he is better. My point is that I think black people in America (or white/Korean people in Japan, etc.) should practice the 10,000 hours to succeed, rather than lamenting the fact that their dad isn't William H. Gates, Sr. It is a tougher road, but much more rewarding. It also isn't the only thing that needs to happen; just an important one, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Thank you for the civil discussion, eevilspock.

by pitay 11y ago

innocentoldguy 11y ago

I disagree. I have volunteered to help religious organizations, both in the United States as well as other countries, who provide aid to those in need. In all cases, aid was offered to help people get back on their feet and to become self reliant. In these cases, the aid was not only greatly appreciated, but was given in a way that was ennobling. In the United States, government aid often becomes a multigenerational lifestyle, and it is indeed dehumanizing because it keeps people from living up to their full potential. It sends the message, "You can't survive without us," and that simply isn't true.

eevilspock 11y ago
innocentoldguy, I believe you when you say you don't mean to insult. I mean no insult to white people either (see the end of my prior comment). I wholeheartedly respect that you "purposefully ignored caution" and agree that > "It is hard to have an honest conversation if you stifle yourself based on your own sex, gender, or other distinguishing features. How can we ever eliminate prejudices unless we acknowledge our differences and weaknesses and talk our way through them?" In all honesty you are making straw men arguments. Yes, there are many aid programs that don't help in the long run. But in my point I'm not asking whites to give aid. I'm asking them to first recognize and then stop taking advantage of their unfair privilege, privilege that came on the backs of the disadvantage of others, privilege that perpetuates privilege. And to call out unfairness when they see it. Too many do not. That is the tragedy of the shipwreck, both the one in the story and the one that is racial relations today. Keep in mind that being a single minority person is not the same as being a member of a minority population. Individuals of other colors or countries are often treated as guests, or even royalty, when they number very little. It is only when the minority population is large enough does the prejudice of the dominant population start to get ugly. My family was the sole one of its "race" in the farm town I grew up in. You were a sole white guy in Japan. Now go talk to the Korean population there and ask what their experience was and is. To deny the Matthew Effect is to deny reality. As Aloha and omegaworks discussed, there are serious structural issues stacking things against part of the population. That a small percentage of people can overcome it does not prove that it doesn't exist or that it should be ignored. I hope you read and reply to istjohn's excellent comment.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  Hi eevilspock. Thank you for your reply. Regarding the Matthew Effect, I don't deny that it is real. The rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer, but that is a principle of economics, not race. When the Matthew Effect enters a discussion on racial injustice, it seems to me the conversation has taken a sharp turn away from equal rights, and has started driving down the path of greed and envy. I'm a staunch supporter of equal rights. I am not a supporter of equal stuff.
  - eevilspock 11y ago
    It wasn't me that downvoted you, but the Matthew Effect is not limited to economics. It governs social status; the distribution and concentration of power, whether in politics or elsewhere; the education of children and their self esteem, and whether they feel they are a welcome member of society or persona non grata; and many other things in life. Hell, it even effects who succeeds in Canadian Hockey[1]. It was critical to Bill Gates's success[2]. You also failed to answer the moral point I made above. Using your wealth to accumulate more power and wealth at the expense of others, making it harder and harder for them to escape the hole they are in, or even worse, pushing them further into the hole, to disregard their suffering and structural oppression, is a serious moral issue. That is my point about public vs private schools in my first comment. It is also my point about people advantaged by the cultural and structural issues staying silent, often because speaking up will threaten their advantage. Or perhaps even worse (or maybe not worse. It is good we are talking about it and bringing it out into the open), actively discounting the issue as you are here. - [1] http://blogs.ausd.net/users/thearchofthesky2010/uploads/thearchofthesky2010/OutliersRedux.pdf http://blogs.ausd.net/users/thearchofthesky2010/uploads/thea.... See also: http://sportsscientists.com/2009/01/the-matthew-effect/ http://sportsscientists.com/2009/01/the-matthew-effect/ [2] http://gatorshockey.ca/articles/the-matthew-effect-and-the-10000-hour-rule/ http://gatorshockey.ca/articles/the-matthew-effect-and-the-1...
    - innocentoldguy 11y ago
      Hi eevilspock. Don't worry. I don't vote people down. I think everyone has something worthwhile to say, even if I disagree. I'm glad you brought up Outliers. It is one of the most interesting books I've read this year. I'd like to discuss this further with you, but I feel like I need to get on the same page. First of all, how are you defining "economics?" A lot of people think "money" when they hear the word, but I'm defining it as "opportunity costs," for this discussion; which can relate to money, but often times doesn't. Also, how are you defining "pushing them further into the hole?" Can you describe the scenario you're talking about? For example, I make a lot of money writing software as a full-time employee. I also make even more money by writing freelance code, articles, and books. How am I pushing others into a hole? Please don't misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. I realize, from personal experience, that it is more difficult to succeed in one condition vs. another (which is why I wrote my original post the way that I did). I am also aware that race, birthplace, etc. play into our conditions (again, refer to my original post). My point is that it is entirely possible to succeed in spite of that condition, rather than succumbing to it. In fact, I think it is very important that we do. Using one of the articles you posted as an example, let's say we have two boys, one born in January and one born in December. The January kid knows he's the star, and so does the December kid. Which scenario is psychologically better for the December kid? SCENARIO 1: The coach comes up to December kid and says, "You were born in December, which means that you don't have an equal chance to succeed, so I'm going to go ahead and let you play this game instead of January kid in order to make things fair." SCENARIO 2: The December kid practices twice as hard as the January kid, camps out at the rink while all his friends and teammates are living their lives, demonstrates better skills, and is placed in a game over January kid simply because he is better. My point is that I think black people in America (or white/Korean people in Japan, etc.) should practice the 10,000 hours to succeed, rather than lamenting the fact that their dad isn't William H. Gates, Sr. It is a tougher road, but much more rewarding. It also isn't the only thing that needs to happen; just an important one, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. Thank you for the civil discussion, eevilspock.