CSNbbs

(06-25-2021 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 08:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Not disputing anything you've said, but I always wonder about motivation.

When Bill Yoeman was questioned about the dismal graduating rates for black UH football players, he half shouted his answer, "Well they all had high school diplomas." One could easily argue that athletes, in this instance black football players at UH, were exploited. So, what was the real motivation of desegregating university athletics (at various universities)?

Thomas Sowell has pointed out that admitting black students into Ivy League colleges where many (or most?) failed or underachieved was a disservice to those students. Instead he has argued it would have been better if they attended other universities where they might have excelled. I think the same argument could be made for all students at selective and highly selective universities. Do universities have a responsibility to their students beyond letting them in the front door (regardless one's race, creed, or colour)? Or is it just me?

I seem to remember a Georgetown law professor who asked a somewhat related question on a Zoom call. She got fired.

As did the person who was on the call and didnt reply to that question.

She didn't even say that really, which is worse. She expressed a dismay that she often finds her lower performing students are black. I never really understood the consternation of that, especially given that the woman was saying she wished she was not seeing a correlation. Plus she was even thoughtful, asking if it was her own biases influencing the results.

Minor correction - the other person resigned and wasn't fired.

Resigned under pressure and with the knowledge their career there was over, whether they stayed or left.

But yes, they resigned.

Hence the "minor correction" comment. It was likely an effective fire, but saying that person was fired wasn't factual.

Okey-doke. Minor correction noted.

(06-24-2021 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-24-2021 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2021 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this is that different than a state university naming a building after someone who funded its construction. Once again, naming that building was honoring the person for how they spent that fortune.

SO tell me....

If you thought that 5 or 20 or 100 years from now that something you did that was perfectly acceptable during your lifetime... like perhaps driving an internal combustion engine... that has later been determined to be the cause of the deaths of millions of mostly underprivileged people... and those people are later vilified as pariah as a result... so your GIFT now becomes a potentially PERMANENT stain on your family name.... FRONT AND CENTER at the forefront of your gift... and not merely as an aside, or as a means to point out how HARD it must have been for those 'firsts'.

Are you more or less likely to do it??

What if it was someone who has (or WOULD have, but they were killed by their butler) 'evolved' on their position on gay marriage??

Remember, we're not talking about erecting a statue celebrating slavery... we're talking about founding a University.... something that actually ultimately encourages/leads to diversity and lessens things like racism.

I'm not comparing driving a car to being a slave owner... not comparable... I'm simply talking about having that note be in an appropriate context.

I actually think it somewhat demeans the significance of 'the firsts' at Rice and elsewhere to ignore the context of the times... and to put the times in a more current context.... which is what I see your idea as doing.

I think the comparison, which you note isn't really apt, falls apart even more when we think about how ubiquitous car driving is during this time vs slave holding in the pre-Civil War south. While slave holding wasn't uncommon, it wasn't as common as owning (an especially not just driving a car). I think the ubiquity of an action impacts how future generations will look back on it.

To the bigger idea of how views change over time for individuals and society. Regarding slavery, it wasn't as if there weren't fairly large movements at the time of WMR that were explicitly anti slavery and viewed it as a moral evil AND there were alternatives to owning a slave (like doing the work yourself or paying workers). In the future, some might make the argument about combustion engines, but appropriate alternatives haven't really existed until recently.

Furthermore, slavery was an action causing acute harm to another person - driving a car is generally not going to cause acute harm.

All of the above seems designed to ignore the reality that wealth in this nation, and really in the entire world for thousands of years... INCLUDING still today in many places has involved the exploitation of others. Child labor, poor living conditions... If you don't like the cars example, then change it to Nike and children making their shoes or whatever else. I chose cars because I thought you might believe that someday, people may be living in a post-apocalyptical world and judging those who caused it by different standards, certainly than we did in the early 1900s when we seemingly had no environmental concerns whatsoever.

I can't tell you what the next century will find despicable... but I can tell you that it seems clear the world saw 'less developed' people as 'savages' and not really as their equals, whether or not they owned slaves. See the Crusades among other acts.

Quote:We can't control how future generations look back and judge the past, and I doubt our decision to recognize publicly someone's involvement with a moral evil will have any impact on how future generations judge us. It's not like we're saying WMR should be fired from a job because he owned slaves when it was legal.

Wow... talk about taking something unique like founding a university and comparing it to something ubiquitous like being fired from a job. Nevertheless, I didn't ask about a decision to recognize someone publicly... I asked about the propensity for people to avoid doing things, ESPECIALLY things they don't NEED to do (like founding a University) that could potentially bring shame upon their ancestors at some point. Nobody would have thought in 1890 that founding a world class University in Houston, Texas could EVER bring shame upon a family.

Quote:As to your comment about why the memorial was erected, I find that this is a great reason rationale as to why further context is beneficial. Make it explicitly clear that WMR had his failings in regards to owning slaves, and the memorial is meant to recognize his great contributions that have benefited thousands, if not millions.

If I understand you then you don't get it at all.
A) its not a memorial, its his tomb
B) you don't memorialize people by making their failings explicitly clear.

His statue is a place to recognize all the good he has done.
The secondary location I mention is a place that not only puts his life in perspective, but IMO brings even greater honor to those who 'broke barriers'.

WMR is recognized for coming to a place in Texas where educational opportunities probably weren't great and creating a world-class University.

Those who 'broke barriers' similarly came to a place in Texas where educational opportunities weren't great and they faced some push-back (some potentially deadly) and succeeded against what was at times almost insurmountable odds. It doesn't take nearly as much 'strength' for a minority to attend Rice University today as it did 50+ years ago.

I think anything that MAKES it ubiquitous (as in it ignores how common it was to make this kind of money involving slaves) defeats the specific purpose.

(06-25-2021 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-24-2021 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-24-2021 11:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2021 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this is that different than a state university naming a building after someone who funded its construction. Once again, naming that building was honoring the person for how they spent that fortune.

SO tell me....

If you thought that 5 or 20 or 100 years from now that something you did that was perfectly acceptable during your lifetime... like perhaps driving an internal combustion engine... that has later been determined to be the cause of the deaths of millions of mostly underprivileged people... and those people are later vilified as pariah as a result... so your GIFT now becomes a potentially PERMANENT stain on your family name.... FRONT AND CENTER at the forefront of your gift... and not merely as an aside, or as a means to point out how HARD it must have been for those 'firsts'.

Are you more or less likely to do it??

What if it was someone who has (or WOULD have, but they were killed by their butler) 'evolved' on their position on gay marriage??

Remember, we're not talking about erecting a statue celebrating slavery... we're talking about founding a University.... something that actually ultimately encourages/leads to diversity and lessens things like racism.

I'm not comparing driving a car to being a slave owner... not comparable... I'm simply talking about having that note be in an appropriate context.

I actually think it somewhat demeans the significance of 'the firsts' at Rice and elsewhere to ignore the context of the times... and to put the times in a more current context.... which is what I see your idea as doing.

I think the comparison, which you note isn't really apt, falls apart even more when we think about how ubiquitous car driving is during this time vs slave holding in the pre-Civil War south. While slave holding wasn't uncommon, it wasn't as common as owning (an especially not just driving a car). I think the ubiquity of an action impacts how future generations will look back on it.

To the bigger idea of how views change over time for individuals and society. Regarding slavery, it wasn't as if there weren't fairly large movements at the time of WMR that were explicitly anti slavery and viewed it as a moral evil AND there were alternatives to owning a slave (like doing the work yourself or paying workers). In the future, some might make the argument about combustion engines, but appropriate alternatives haven't really existed until recently.

Furthermore, slavery was an action causing acute harm to another person - driving a car is generally not going to cause acute harm.

All of the above seems designed to ignore the reality that wealth in this nation, and really in the entire world for thousands of years... INCLUDING still today in many places has involved the exploitation of others. Child labor, poor living conditions... If you don't like the cars example, then change it to Nike and children making their shoes or whatever else. I chose cars because I thought you might believe that someday, people may be living in a post-apocalyptical world and judging those who caused it by different standards, certainly than we did in the early 1900s when we seemingly had no environmental concerns whatsoever.

I can't tell you what the next century will find despicable... but I can tell you that it seems clear the world saw 'less developed' people as 'savages' and not really as their equals, whether or not they owned slaves. See the Crusades among other acts.

Quote:We can't control how future generations look back and judge the past, and I doubt our decision to recognize publicly someone's involvement with a moral evil will have any impact on how future generations judge us. It's not like we're saying WMR should be fired from a job because he owned slaves when it was legal.

Wow... talk about taking something unique like founding a university and comparing it to something ubiquitous like being fired from a job. Nevertheless, I didn't ask about a decision to recognize someone publicly... I asked about the propensity for people to avoid doing things, ESPECIALLY things they don't NEED to do (like founding a University) that could potentially bring shame upon their ancestors at some point. Nobody would have thought in 1890 that founding a world class University in Houston, Texas could EVER bring shame upon a family.

Quote:As to your comment about why the memorial was erected, I find that this is a great reason rationale as to why further context is beneficial. Make it explicitly clear that WMR had his failings in regards to owning slaves, and the memorial is meant to recognize his great contributions that have benefited thousands, if not millions.

If I understand you then you don't get it at all.
A) its not a memorial, its his tomb
B) you don't memorialize people by making their failings explicitly clear.

His statue is a place to recognize all the good he has done.
The secondary location I mention is a place that not only puts his life in perspective, but IMO brings even greater honor to those who 'broke barriers'.

WMR is recognized for coming to a place in Texas where educational opportunities probably weren't great and creating a world-class University.

Those who 'broke barriers' similarly came to a place in Texas where educational opportunities weren't great and they faced some push-back (some potentially deadly) and succeeded against what was at times almost insurmountable odds. It doesn't take nearly as much 'strength' for a minority to attend Rice University today as it did 50+ years ago.

I think anything that MAKES it ubiquitous (as in it ignores how common it was to make this kind of money involving slaves) defeats the specific purpose.

It is a memorial to WMR that also happens to be his tomb.

Did you read any of the document that brought this entire topic up? It goes into a lengthy discussion on that topic specifically. For example, there was a discussion of the memorial being placed in the courtyard of the president's house, even. It wasn't until 1930 that the memorial, which was then decided to house WMR's ashes, was unveiled.

Here's the link: https://alumni.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bx...morial.pdf

I agree that his memorial should be a place to recognize all the good he has done, but I do not see a problem with providing a discussion about the blind spots that also existed - especially given that our charter forbad POC from joining the Institute.

I think it helps to read a quote from Thomas Freeman, one of the first black professors at Rice:

Quote:You see, for a long time Blacks didn’t go to Rice. Not because they didn’t want to but the charter said that no Black will ever be admitted to Rice—for Rice was for whites, and for whites only…Now William Marsh contributed millions, and this was his wish and desire that no Black would ever attend Rice.” “Marsh,” the professor completed his thought while thinking of his early walks across campus, “must have been turning over in his grave.”

(06-25-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how 93 is so certain that melanin levels and hair type and jumping/running ability are the ONLY differences between races. Sounds more like a doctrine than a scientific fact.

Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

(06-25-2021 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 08:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Not disputing anything you've said, but I always wonder about motivation.

When Bill Yoeman was questioned about the dismal graduating rates for black UH football players, he half shouted his answer, "Well they all had high school diplomas." One could easily argue that athletes, in this instance black football players at UH, were exploited. So, what was the real motivation of desegregating university athletics (at various universities)?

Thomas Sowell has pointed out that admitting black students into Ivy League colleges where many (or most?) failed or underachieved was a disservice to those students. Instead he has argued it would have been better if they attended other universities where they might have excelled. I think the same argument could be made for all students at selective and highly selective universities. Do universities have a responsibility to their students beyond letting them in the front door (regardless one's race, creed, or colour)? Or is it just me?

I seem to remember a Georgetown law professor who asked a somewhat related question on a Zoom call. She got fired.

As did the person who was on the call and didnt reply to that question.

She didn't even say that really, which is worse. She expressed a dismay that she often finds her lower performing students are black. I never really understood the consternation of that, especially given that the woman was saying she wished she was not seeing a correlation. Plus she was even thoughtful, asking if it was her own biases influencing the results.

Minor correction - the other person resigned and wasn't fired.

Resigned under pressure and with the knowledge their career there was over, whether they stayed or left.

But yes, they resigned.

Hence the "minor correction" comment. It was likely an effective fire, but saying that person was fired wasn't factual.

A correct distinction that, in the conversation, has zero difference. But glad you denoted it, for whatever it is worth.

(06-25-2021 01:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how 93 is so certain that melanin levels and hair type and jumping/running ability are the ONLY differences between races. Sounds more like a doctrine than a scientific fact.

Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

(06-25-2021 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 01:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how 93 is so certain that melanin levels and hair type and jumping/running ability are the ONLY differences between races. Sounds more like a doctrine than a scientific fact.

Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 01:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how 93 is so certain that melanin levels and hair type and jumping/running ability are the ONLY differences between races. Sounds more like a doctrine than a scientific fact.

Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

Nothing you just said makes sense. Embedded in the possibility that there ARE differences is also the possibility there are none. All possible. And not at all the binary choice you describe.

Why does this make you so mad? Because it cast doubt on the validity of your beliefs? You can believe what you want, on whatever evidence you want. Just like the KKK, which also has faith, just a different faith. I am skeptical of their beliefs too, even more so that I am skeptical of yours. I am skeptical of both the Mormon and Muslim faiths, but that does not mean either is wrong - just that they have not made their case just because they believe it.

I think it would important to know if there were differences, or to know there are no differences. I would like to know either way. You only want to hear stuff that supports one way.

I haven’t said a word about fitness of any race for any positions. You read those into what I do say, which is that I do not know if we are all equal, and if not, I don not know who is better suited for what positions.

For those wondering, I recommended that he watch Power, a black-centric show with black writers, black producers, a black show runner, and a mostly black cast, but with the caveat that N-word was used a lot. I recommend it also all of you, along with it’s sequel Power Book II, and Snowfall, once again with the warning to all of you that the N-word is freely used. But the shows are top notch.

True, my experience with blacks is more limited than 93’s, even though an interracial couple used to be a part of my inner circle. But I have extensive experience with Hispanics, and realize that they cover the gamut of good,and bad, and I am not sure if there are any differences between Hispanics and any other ethic group. I cannot say there is, and I cannot say there isn’t

In each case, I suspect any differences, if indeed there are any, would be slight. It is you, 93, that tries to make this an all or nothing thing. Are black people exactly as able to be CEOs as Asians? I don’t know. Maybe they are better. Maybe not. I don’t know.

You say you know in your heart. That is faith.

I don’t know, in my head. That is skepticism. I feel the same way about anything that is offered as a fact without proof.

Power. Created and produced by Curtis Fifty cent Jackson

snowfall. Created by John Singleton


Power Book II. Sequel to Power. Much of the same cast and crew.

All three feature black men as exceptional leaders.

(06-25-2021 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 01:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how 93 is so certain that melanin levels and hair type and jumping/running ability are the ONLY differences between races. Sounds more like a doctrine than a scientific fact.

Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

Nothing you just said makes sense. Embedded in the possibility that there ARE differences is also the possibility there are none. All possible. And not at all the binary choice you describe.

Why does this make you so mad? Because it cast doubt on the validity of your beliefs? You can believe what you want, on whatever evidence you want. Just like the KKK, which also has faith, just a different faith. I am skeptical of their beliefs too, even more so that I am skeptical of yours. I am skeptical of both the Mormon and Muslim faiths, but that does not mean either is wrong - just that they have not made their case just because they believe it.

I think it would important to know if there were differences, or to know there are no differences. I would like to know either way. You only want to hear stuff that supports one way.

I haven’t said a word about fitness of any race for any positions. You read those into what I do say, which is that I do not know if we are all equal, and if not, I don not know who is better suited for what positions.

You originally brought up your theory during the discussion of black people being admitted to elite colleges with the implication being that perhaps there are genetic differences that would lead to their unsuitability for those institutions. Not that you said you believe that, mind you, but you do keep bringing your theory up over and over again...

Quote:For those wondering, I recommended that he watch Power, a black-centric show with black writers, black producers, a black show runner, and a mostly black cast, but with the caveat that N-word was used a lot. I recommend it also all of you, along with it’s sequel Power Book II, and Snowfall, once again with the warning to all of you that the N-word is freely used. But the shows are top notch.

True, my experience with blacks is more limited than 93’s, even though an interracial couple used to be a part of my inner circle. But I have extensive experience with Hispanics, and realize that they cover the gamut of good,and bad, and I am not sure if there are any differences between Hispanics and any other ethic group. I cannot say there is, and I cannot say there isn’t

In each case, I suspect any differences, if indeed there are any, would be slight. It is you, 93, that tries to make this an all or nothing thing. Are black people exactly as able to be CEOs as Asians? I don’t know. Maybe they are better. Maybe not. I don’t know.

I would say that any genetic difference between races when it comes to mental performance (which is the topic that we were discussing) is either zero or close enough to zero that it makes no sense to bring it up during debate. That's my personal opinion based on personal experience.

Quote:You say you know in your heart. That is faith.

I don’t know, in my head. That is skepticism. I feel the same way about anything that is offered as a fact without proof.

One can come up with all sorts of inflammatory theories that can't be disproven based on the available scientific record.

"Perhaps right-wing extremists are prone to commit violence on a massive scale due to a lifetime of smoldering rage because of their well-below-average-length schlongs" Can you prove me wrong, OO? I only like facts, not faith.

(06-25-2021 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 01:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how 93 is so certain that melanin levels and hair type and jumping/running ability are the ONLY differences between races. Sounds more like a doctrine than a scientific fact.

Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

Nothing you just said makes sense. Embedded in the possibility that there ARE differences is also the possibility there are none. All possible. And not at all the binary choice you describe.

Why does this make you so mad? Because it cast doubt on the validity of your beliefs? You can believe what you want, on whatever evidence you want. Just like the KKK, which also has faith, just a different faith. I am skeptical of their beliefs too, even more so that I am skeptical of yours. I am skeptical of both the Mormon and Muslim faiths, but that does not mean either is wrong - just that they have not made their case just because they believe it.

I think it would important to know if there were differences, or to know there are no differences. I would like to know either way. You only want to hear stuff that supports one way.

I haven’t said a word about fitness of any race for any positions. You read those into what I do say, which is that I do not know if we are all equal, and if not, I don not know who is better suited for what positions.

For those wondering, I recommended that he watch Power, a black-centric show with black writers, black producers, a black show runner, and a mostly black cast, but with the caveat that N-word was used a lot. I recommend it also all of you, along with it’s sequel Power Book II, and Snowfall, once again with the warning to all of you that the N-word is freely used. But the shows are top notch.

True, my experience with blacks is more limited than 93’s, even though an interracial couple used to be a part of my inner circle. But I have extensive experience with Hispanics, and realize that they cover the gamut of good,and bad, and I am not sure if there are any differences between Hispanics and any other ethic group. I cannot say there is, and I cannot say there isn’t

In each case, I suspect any differences, if indeed there are any, would be slight. It is you, 93, that tries to make this an all or nothing thing. Are black people exactly as able to be CEOs as Asians? I don’t know. Maybe they are better. Maybe not. I don’t know.

Since the topic was executive positions in the NFL/NBA, what do you think is the more likely reason behind the historically poor representation of black people?

a) conscious or unconscious bias against black candidates
b) possible genetic differences

(06-25-2021 10:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]"Perhaps right-wing extremists are prone to commit violence on a massive scale due to a lifetime of smoldering rage because of their well-below-average-length schlongs" Can you prove me wrong, OO? I only like facts, not faith.

Clearly, with no hard facts available, I would have to say it was possible either way, and I could not with any degree of certainly choose one way or the other, even if I knew any right wing extremists and/or had intimate knowledge of their schlongs.

(06-25-2021 10:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 01:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Asked and answered previously.

Since there are no studies to completely prove my hypothesis (black people can handle executive positions and elite academic insitutions) I go on my personal experience with interacting/going to school/working with black people.

I never called it a scientific fact.

You keep saying that if there is a difference, it is likely small (but you're not sure). Do you have any reason to believe that genetic differences exist that may make black people less likely to perform at the executive level?

I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

Nothing you just said makes sense. Embedded in the possibility that there ARE differences is also the possibility there are none. All possible. And not at all the binary choice you describe.

Why does this make you so mad? Because it cast doubt on the validity of your beliefs? You can believe what you want, on whatever evidence you want. Just like the KKK, which also has faith, just a different faith. I am skeptical of their beliefs too, even more so that I am skeptical of yours. I am skeptical of both the Mormon and Muslim faiths, but that does not mean either is wrong - just that they have not made their case just because they believe it.

I think it would important to know if there were differences, or to know there are no differences. I would like to know either way. You only want to hear stuff that supports one way.

I haven’t said a word about fitness of any race for any positions. You read those into what I do say, which is that I do not know if we are all equal, and if not, I don not know who is better suited for what positions.

For those wondering, I recommended that he watch Power, a black-centric show with black writers, black producers, a black show runner, and a mostly black cast, but with the caveat that N-word was used a lot. I recommend it also all of you, along with it’s sequel Power Book II, and Snowfall, once again with the warning to all of you that the N-word is freely used. But the shows are top notch.

True, my experience with blacks is more limited than 93’s, even though an interracial couple used to be a part of my inner circle. But I have extensive experience with Hispanics, and realize that they cover the gamut of good,and bad, and I am not sure if there are any differences between Hispanics and any other ethic group. I cannot say there is, and I cannot say there isn’t

In each case, I suspect any differences, if indeed there are any, would be slight. It is you, 93, that tries to make this an all or nothing thing. Are black people exactly as able to be CEOs as Asians? I don’t know. Maybe they are better. Maybe not. I don’t know.

Since the topic was executive positions in the NFL/NBA, what do you think is the more likely reason behind the historically poor representation of black people?

a) conscious or unconscious bias against black candidates
b) possible genetic differences

Mostly A. Without any research, B remains at best a possibility, a small one in my opinion.

Still do not under stand why you insist the is NO differemces, when clearly we don’t know.

(06-25-2021 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 10:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 04:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what it takes to perform at the executive level - maybe if you outlined those characteristics, I could respond more directly. Certainly we have capable people at the top from all races, and incapable people at the bottom from all races.

However, i think it is obvious that if there are obvious and well defined differences on the physical level level, it stands to reason that there MAY (English word, denoting possibility) also be differences on other levels. To stand firm that there are none, period, end of discussion, without any evidence, is the very definition of faith.

Is there any logical reason to assume ALL differences between ALL races are limited to physical differences only?


By races, I mean all the various kinds of human beings on this planet - not just black and white. Are Asians smarter? The make up of the student body at Rice might say so. And so forth. But I am not talking just about intelligence - perhaps some races are innately more aggressive, or more friendly, or more analytical, or ... well, more this or less that. Maybe some of those capabilities would fit into your definition of executive ability.

You intuit there are NO differences, without anything beyond personal, anecdotal evidence. I intuit that there MIGHT be other differences, based on the unlikelihood of ALL differences being physical.

But alas, your faith and my doubt will both have to remain unresolved, since research into this matter is verboten.

So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

Nothing you just said makes sense. Embedded in the possibility that there ARE differences is also the possibility there are none. All possible. And not at all the binary choice you describe.

Why does this make you so mad? Because it cast doubt on the validity of your beliefs? You can believe what you want, on whatever evidence you want. Just like the KKK, which also has faith, just a different faith. I am skeptical of their beliefs too, even more so that I am skeptical of yours. I am skeptical of both the Mormon and Muslim faiths, but that does not mean either is wrong - just that they have not made their case just because they believe it.

I think it would important to know if there were differences, or to know there are no differences. I would like to know either way. You only want to hear stuff that supports one way.

I haven’t said a word about fitness of any race for any positions. You read those into what I do say, which is that I do not know if we are all equal, and if not, I don not know who is better suited for what positions.

For those wondering, I recommended that he watch Power, a black-centric show with black writers, black producers, a black show runner, and a mostly black cast, but with the caveat that N-word was used a lot. I recommend it also all of you, along with it’s sequel Power Book II, and Snowfall, once again with the warning to all of you that the N-word is freely used. But the shows are top notch.

True, my experience with blacks is more limited than 93’s, even though an interracial couple used to be a part of my inner circle. But I have extensive experience with Hispanics, and realize that they cover the gamut of good,and bad, and I am not sure if there are any differences between Hispanics and any other ethic group. I cannot say there is, and I cannot say there isn’t

In each case, I suspect any differences, if indeed there are any, would be slight. It is you, 93, that tries to make this an all or nothing thing. Are black people exactly as able to be CEOs as Asians? I don’t know. Maybe they are better. Maybe not. I don’t know.

Since the topic was executive positions in the NFL/NBA, what do you think is the more likely reason behind the historically poor representation of black people?

a) conscious or unconscious bias against black candidates
b) possible genetic differences

Mostly A. Without any research, B remains at best a possibility, a small one in my opinion.

Still do not under stand why you insist the is NO differemces, when clearly we don’t know.

I'm not insisting that there are ZERO differences. I am arguing that whatever difference there may be, it is negligible at best.

Look at it this way... we can work on a). We have no idea on b) (although we both strongly suspect little to no differences) and even if there are differences we couldn't do anything about it anyway. If you don't think there any real differences and we can't do anything about it in any case... why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion and it is undeniably inflammatory.

I'm going to cut/paste my take on the general conversation again (post #1992):

"Why are there so few black people at this school? I wonder if there is bias in the selection process. Perhaps affirmative action is necessary."

"Affirmative action? That's a terrible idea. It's a racist policy."

"Well something should happen. It doesn't seem right that there are so few black people here. Surely there are plenty of qualified black students who would benefit from this education."

"I think you can agree that there are certain physical differences among races. Perhaps there are also IQ differences among races at play here. I'm not saying there are necessarily but we don't know for sure."

"Wait... what?"

If it isn't likely to be important then why are you bringing it up?

(06-25-2021 11:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 10:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 10:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]So personal experience plays no part in developing a belief system? It's a binary situation? You either go on 1) hard, unassailable scientific data or 2) completely blind faith?

Congratulations, OO. You are truly the champion for the idea that "There is the possibility that black people have genetic traits which might limit their effectiveness at the executive level or their ability to handle elite colleges". You keep bringing it up with minimal prompting. You are right... I cannot deny that possibility without the science to back me up. What I do have is many years of close relationships with black people to know in my heart that the preceding statement is ridiculous.

Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

Seriously, OO... I think you probably would have a different attitude about this had you had many close relationships with black people (you have inferred previously that you have not). You honestly seem to derive a fair amount of your opinion on that one random TV show that you watch (and the main point you seem to have gotten out of your show is to note that black people on the show say the N-word a lot).

Nothing you just said makes sense. Embedded in the possibility that there ARE differences is also the possibility there are none. All possible. And not at all the binary choice you describe.

Why does this make you so mad? Because it cast doubt on the validity of your beliefs? You can believe what you want, on whatever evidence you want. Just like the KKK, which also has faith, just a different faith. I am skeptical of their beliefs too, even more so that I am skeptical of yours. I am skeptical of both the Mormon and Muslim faiths, but that does not mean either is wrong - just that they have not made their case just because they believe it.

I think it would important to know if there were differences, or to know there are no differences. I would like to know either way. You only want to hear stuff that supports one way.

I haven’t said a word about fitness of any race for any positions. You read those into what I do say, which is that I do not know if we are all equal, and if not, I don not know who is better suited for what positions.

For those wondering, I recommended that he watch Power, a black-centric show with black writers, black producers, a black show runner, and a mostly black cast, but with the caveat that N-word was used a lot. I recommend it also all of you, along with it’s sequel Power Book II, and Snowfall, once again with the warning to all of you that the N-word is freely used. But the shows are top notch.

True, my experience with blacks is more limited than 93’s, even though an interracial couple used to be a part of my inner circle. But I have extensive experience with Hispanics, and realize that they cover the gamut of good,and bad, and I am not sure if there are any differences between Hispanics and any other ethic group. I cannot say there is, and I cannot say there isn’t

In each case, I suspect any differences, if indeed there are any, would be slight. It is you, 93, that tries to make this an all or nothing thing. Are black people exactly as able to be CEOs as Asians? I don’t know. Maybe they are better. Maybe not. I don’t know.

Since the topic was executive positions in the NFL/NBA, what do you think is the more likely reason behind the historically poor representation of black people?

a) conscious or unconscious bias against black candidates
b) possible genetic differences

Mostly A. Without any research, B remains at best a possibility, a small one in my opinion.

Still do not under stand why you insist the is NO differemces, when clearly we don’t know.

I'm not insisting that there are ZERO differences. I am arguing that whatever difference there may be, it is negligible at best.

Look at it this way... we can work on a). We have no idea on b) (although we both strongly suspect little to no differences) and even if there are differences we couldn't do anything about it anyway. If you don't think there any real differences and we can't do anything about it in any case... why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion and it is undeniably inflammatory.

I'm going to cut/paste my take on the general conversation again (post #1992):

"Why are there so few black people at this school? I wonder if there is bias in the selection process. Perhaps affirmative action is necessary."

"Affirmative action? That's a terrible idea. It's a racist policy."

"Well something should happen. It doesn't seem right that there are so few black people here. Surely there are plenty of qualified black students who would benefit from this education."

"I think you can agree that there are certain physical differences among races. Perhaps there are also IQ differences among races at play here. I'm not saying there are necessarily but we don't know for sure."

"Wait... what?"

If it isn't likely to be important then why are you bringing it up?

.

Likely is a relative term, as is important. Is a difference of .5% important? But I would rather go on truth rather than assumptions.

I think the possibility should be taken into account. Right now the narrative is that 100% of the differences in outcomes is due to racism, since all else is held to be equal. That may be based on a false assumption, that the capabilities of all races are exactly the same.

An example would be the widespread acceptance of the heliocentric theory. How did that hurt anybody in the Middle Ages? What difference did it make? But it was widely accepted as fact, without proof.


I wish we could have definitive proof one way or another. But politically incorrect results will not be tolerated.

No need to continue. I will remain a skeptic until somebody shows me some research to support one view or the other. You will remain you, and that certainly is not a bad thing. As we both say, the probability is that differences, if any, are probably insignificant. Certainly individuals of any race can excel, and should be given the chance. We agree on that, for sure.

(06-25-2021 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that his memorial should be a place to recognize all the good he has done, but I do not see a problem with providing a discussion about the blind spots that also existed - especially given that our charter forbad POC from joining the Institute.

This is an answer in search of a question.

I think it ridiculous to memorialize someone by 'providing a discussion of their blind spots.' You almost NEVER see that. Maybe a memorial to holocaust survivors should include notes about all the medical advancements or whatever 'good' (in quotes) may have come from their deaths? That is ridiculous on its face. I know you didn't say that, but that's how I see it.

Best I know (I haven't looked closely in almost 40 years now) there isn't a huge synopsis of his life on his tomb. IIRC and I could certainly be wrong... Its mostly just a 'WMR, Founder of Rice University'. Even if it says more, I doubt it says a whole lot more.

Quote:I think it helps to read a quote from Thomas Freeman, one of the first black professors at Rice:

Quote:You see, for a long time Blacks didn’t go to Rice. Not because they didn’t want to but the charter said that no Black will ever be admitted to Rice—for Rice was for whites, and for whites only…Now William Marsh contributed millions, and this was his wish and desire that no Black would ever attend Rice.” “Marsh,” the professor completed his thought while thinking of his early walks across campus, “must have been turning over in his grave.”

I agree and have friends who have said similarly... and having his 'grave' be in the middle of campus as opposed to off on some corner only makes it all the more sweet.

(06-25-2021 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Ham... you expressed skepticism previously that OO was taking this position. Are you more clear now regarding his intent?

With respect, I'm very clear about how you are reading him... and similarly clear about opportunities he could take to make his position more clear in response to you.... but what I really see him doing is following you down the rabbit trail of racist intent, which for lack of a better description, only leads you to confirm your presupposition. That's my impression based on limited inputs... I certainly haven't read every word of every post between you two.

My impression is that OO is speaking of the myriad of tendencies and inputs that lead people to be 'who they are'. There are studies that imply that (as an example) women are simply 'wired' differently from men. Nature? Nurture? who knows? Some people have an artistic eye. Some people analytical. I suspect if you broke it down, depending on how you broke it down, you could find what COULD be genetic predispositions... not determinate, but 'on average'. To me, OO is simply talking about the idea that just because we are all human and INDIVIDUALLY CAPABLE of doing anything, doesn't mean that we are all equally likely to choose or be inclined towards the same things... or jobs or anything else.

Since this is mostly a sports forum, lets go there for a minute...
We all believe that the primary driver of the high propensity towards basketball for black youth is the access and availability of that sport in areas where the population is heavily black. That doesn't explain though how some kids who've never lived under such conditions still excel, or how some kids who do, don't. Why don't we see many Hispanics, even those in the same neighborhoods and conditions as blacks similarly succeed? Is it ENTIRELY nurture? Is it POSSIBLE that there are genetic differences INCLUDING of course physical attributes which we can often simply see... but also potentially hand-eye coordination, depth perception, three dimensional thinking?? All great skills, but not necessarily ones that translate well to say accounting. Still, there are plenty of highly skilled minority accountants.... but again... you can't have a group over-represented in SOME areas and not by definition have them be under-represented in others. Its vastly more complicated than this... but lets speak to the elephant in the room...

Minorities are greatly over-represented in prisons. That makes it difficult for them to be similarly over-represented in areas where 'a record' is a problem.... and while we MAY be able to give the 20yr old today a fresh start and a quality education so that he can become a CEO in 10-30 years, we can't 'unmake' that opportunity denied to a similar 20yr old, thirty years ago... not to mention all of the events, choices and intrusions/discriminations that took place over those 30 years.

I'm not talking about clear acts of racism etc... I'm talking about how two equally smart kids... one lives in suburbia, one in the projects. The suburban kid goes to college and does fine... 30 yrs later he's CEO of a fortune 500. The other gets involved with a gang; gets a record and doesn't get in to college.... so he goes into the army learning to repair engines... gets out and gets a job as a mechanic... 30 years later he owns his own business, but he's not the CEO of a fortune 500 company. Other than the factors that put that kid into the projects and couldn't protect him from the gangs, did racism play a significant part? Again, if minorities are over-represented in the projects, they can't also be over-represented in suburbia.

This is why I focus on the things I do. Maybe its self-determining... but I haven't heard a better option/idea. 'demanding' (on some level) that we ignore the differences in the paths and simply jump the mechanic and small business owner into a CEO role (of course I've made a ridiculous hypothetical, but the concept is what I'm talking about) is problematic... NOT because it is a bad idea on its face, but because it is telling businesses to NOT do what is in their best interests... and that has almost always ended poorly. The GOVERNMENT needs to fix this, to the extent that it needs to be or can be fixed... but you can't fix 1972 in 2021.

I saw a report on triplets in foster care who were separated as kids; and intentionally given to different families. It was clandestine and wrong, but I'd be very interested in the results. The Nazis on a vastly lower level... where you hate what they did, but SOME good could come of it. One of the boys committed suicide iirc.

In terms of various sports, the studies on East African slow twitch fiber density and West African fast twitch density seem on point.

There is probably some other genetic/anatomical issue underlying the prevalence of whites, especially East European, in weight lifting, and Asians in diving.

Even the tennis great Arthur Ashe noted the following:

Quote:When asked about what he had come to believe after years of research, whether blacks had a physical advantage, Ashe responded deliberately: "The results are outstanding, nothing short of stellar.

"Damn it," he sighed, frustrated at the political incorrectness of his own beliefs. "My heart says 'no,' but my head says 'yes.' Sociology can't explain it. I want to hear from the scientists. Until I see some numbers [to the contrary], I have to believe that we blacks have something that gives us an edge."

Ran across another interesting and perplexing case of cancel culture. I was reading Smithsonian Magazine, and one of the articles was about a naturalist who collected lots of specimens, including one of a bird that has onl been sighted once since then. The bird is named after him, as are several other species. I cannot remember his name, but if it were, say, Ferguson, then the Ferguson’s Warbler and several other species are named after him.

Well, there is a movement to rename all those species, removing his name, because he owned slaves. Imagine that, in 1840.

Not only this guy, but there is also pressure to remove the name of James J. Audubon and presumably his books and paintings, for the same reason.

J. J. Freaking Audubon!!!!!

Liberal suing

...for the right to call somebody a House Negro.

This doesn't fit anywhere, but I didn't think it was significant enough for its own thread.

Miss Navajo Nation Pageant

"The four-day event includes preparing three traditional dishes, testing the women on Navajo’s history and philosophy, Navajo language fluency, and butchering an adult sheep (called dibé in Navajo) in an hour—a symbolic ritual."

Butchering a sheep?

Personally, I have no problem with this. I just wonder whether the liberals will come down on the side of preserving ethnic values or the side of no animal cruelty.

(09-06-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This doesn't fit anywhere, but I didn't think it was significant enough for its own thread.

Miss Navajo Nation Pageant

"The four-day event includes preparing three traditional dishes, testing the women on Navajo’s history and philosophy, Navajo language fluency, and butchering an adult sheep (called dibé in Navajo) in an hour—a symbolic ritual."

Butchering a sheep?

Personally, I have no problem with this. I just wonder whether the liberals will come down on the side of preserving ethnic values or the side of no animal cruelty.

Those who are squeamish about mutton might prefer venison instead: whereas sheep, hogs, and so on are butchered, deer are merely processed.