5 ms·

>>* we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children's classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share ou

by liber8 13y ago

>>* we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children's classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds.*<< It's interesting that the article (and presumably the researchers) presume this is a bad thing. This is, in essence, natural selection playing out. Adopting the behaviors of those closest to us is also how will advance (or retreat) as a species.

eightpersimmons 13y ago
What you are talking about is social darwinism, not simply natural selection, and I think there has been enough said on why it is problematic that I don't need to reiterate it here.
- fyi80 13y ago
  It's kin selection, which is regular Darwinism. "Natural" != "morally right"
  - eightpersimmons 13y ago
    Were this an article about how, for example, people's mothers /sisters/familiar relations favors them, that might be the case. But it isn't. And, in case this was a point of confusion, race != family.
aiiane 13y ago
Please, tell me how you adopt the socioeconomic background of someone more well-off than you. I'm sure we're all dying to hear your advice in that matter.
- liber8 13y ago
  Snark aside, adopting the culture or behavior of those you aren't intimately exposed to is a legitimate concern. However, if we look at just about any period of history we see that just about every group has been able to do it [not including periods were systematized violence or oppression of minority groups was sanctioned by those in charge]. Traditionally, it was done via military service. In exchange for risking your life, those in power will educate you, give you a set of skills and some discipline, and surround you with people also looking to get ahead. If you wanted your child to have a better life, military enrollment was a good, if risky, way to go. More recently, schools have been the answer. If you wanted your child to succeed, you put an emphasis on education so he could get into the best schools, learn a valuable skill, and be surrounded by those with similar aspirations. I’m sure that going forward, even more and cheaper opportunities will arise based on technology. If you look just at the United States, nearly every immigrant group has done this. The Irish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean immigrants, all of which were at the bottom of the social totem pole at one time, have all adopted the prevalent socioeconomic background of the dominant groups of the time. And they’ve all succeeded to the point where nobody in the United States considers “the Irish” or “the Chinese” to inhabit a separate or distinct socioeconomic subgroup of Americans.
  - stdgy 13y ago
    What exactly is the 'socioeconomic background' of the people on top in the United States? I don't intend this to be snark. I'm just not sure such a blanket actually exists. I'd be interested in hearing a description.
    - newman314 13y ago
      I'll just leave this here. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/fashion/02studied.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/fashion/02studied.html?_r=...

by liber8 13y ago

eightpersimmons 13y ago

What you are talking about is social darwinism, not simply natural selection, and I think there has been enough said on why it is problematic that I don't need to reiterate it here.

fyi80 13y ago
It's kin selection, which is regular Darwinism. "Natural" != "morally right"
- eightpersimmons 13y ago
  Were this an article about how, for example, people's mothers /sisters/familiar relations favors them, that might be the case. But it isn't. And, in case this was a point of confusion, race != family.

aiiane 13y ago

Please, tell me how you adopt the socioeconomic background of someone more well-off than you. I'm sure we're all dying to hear your advice in that matter.

liber8 13y ago
Snark aside, adopting the culture or behavior of those you aren't intimately exposed to is a legitimate concern. However, if we look at just about any period of history we see that just about every group has been able to do it [not including periods were systematized violence or oppression of minority groups was sanctioned by those in charge]. Traditionally, it was done via military service. In exchange for risking your life, those in power will educate you, give you a set of skills and some discipline, and surround you with people also looking to get ahead. If you wanted your child to have a better life, military enrollment was a good, if risky, way to go. More recently, schools have been the answer. If you wanted your child to succeed, you put an emphasis on education so he could get into the best schools, learn a valuable skill, and be surrounded by those with similar aspirations. I’m sure that going forward, even more and cheaper opportunities will arise based on technology. If you look just at the United States, nearly every immigrant group has done this. The Irish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean immigrants, all of which were at the bottom of the social totem pole at one time, have all adopted the prevalent socioeconomic background of the dominant groups of the time. And they’ve all succeeded to the point where nobody in the United States considers “the Irish” or “the Chinese” to inhabit a separate or distinct socioeconomic subgroup of Americans.
- stdgy 13y ago
  What exactly is the 'socioeconomic background' of the people on top in the United States? I don't intend this to be snark. I'm just not sure such a blanket actually exists. I'd be interested in hearing a description.
  - newman314 13y ago
    I'll just leave this here. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/fashion/02studied.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/fashion/02studied.html?_r=...