Re: No Genius Left Behind

"R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Hanover Fist wrote:

> > Sorry, no. Some kids can strum a guitar until their fingers bleed, and
> > they'll never be any good at it whatever the training they're
> > provided. Others have gifts that, augmented by education, are obvious.
> --------------
> They tried to prove this by documented genetics in families years ago
> and failed totally to meet the statistical requirements research-wise.

If you mean they tried to prove a genetic predisposition granted by
heredity, and couldn't, that's understandable. If, however, you mean
that everyone is capable of the same feats given training, I don't
agree. I'm interested in seeing the research though.

> The nearest they can get is to indicate that some body-types can do
> some physical tasks with more facility, but even that alone doesn't
> predict with enough accuracy to account for it.

Well, they certainly shouldn't be weeding people out of the potential
hiring pool just because they don't meet a height requirement or other
physical criteria that aren‘t strictly necessary for predicting future
job performance - after all, I'm one of those who thinks some women
can make excellent firefighters or soldiers etc. - but I do think that
is can be predicted with a certain amount of accuracy, when looking at
a 120lb man, that he won't make a very good offensive lineman no
matter how much he practices at football.

Special research just isn't necessary on that one; it seems obvious. 

> > > Except people don't actually come in denominations as your continuous
> > > spectrum from ability to disability, so convenient for reactionaries
> > > to select their slave classes from. People are ALL able to be
> > > scientists, if trained, unless they were mechanically or chemically
> > > retarded in their development, either before or after birth. AND
> > > Society HAS THE OBLIGATION to ALL of them to DO SO!
> > > Steve
> > 
> > Slave classes? Are you kidding me?
> ----------------------------
> Not at all.

Hold that thought…
  
> > First of all, someone who tests with an IQ of 75 probably *does* have
> > a mental disability with a clear biological cause.
> ---------------
> Some do, some don't, they differ by disgnosable retardation only in
> some cases, however. The rest are apparently merely deprived, and can
> be accelerated in their remediation by expert assistance.

If someone who has been trained in the same environment that produced
his average-performing peers (and has benefited from the same level of
care and nutrition) scores 75 on an IQ test, his problem isn't
deprivation. Either he has a different learning style that can be
accommodated, or he's simply not as bright as the average individual.
People aren't produced in a cookie cutter, after all.

> > He's still entitled
> > to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, but pushing him to
> > enter professions beyond his capacities will just leave him frustrated
> > and unfit for any sort of work. 
> --------------
> If he were retarded, in the vast majority of cases, he isn't.

If he's living in a nutritionally or socially deprived home
environment, than he might score low for reasons other than mental
disability, but I don't think the vast majority of low scorers in the
US or Canada are so impoverished that their severe physical wants can
be determined as the underlying cause of their underperformance on IQ
tests. I will concede that *academic* performance is believed to be so
effected by nutrition that some schools have instituted lunch programs
in hopes of increasing achievement, but I haven't seen much evidence
that these programs actually help underachievers in their school work.
(And before anyone asks or assumes, of course I support hot lunch
programs - just not on the assumption that they lead to academic
achievement).

> > There's no shame in choosing a vocational path through school. 
> -------------
> Now that's a TOTALLY different question than posed.
> Nor did I say that.

You certainly implied it. The emphasis you placed on encouraging
everyone to get involved in the scrabble for more socially valued jobs
suggested - at least until you clarified it later in this last post -
that you considered semi/unskilled employment to be a gutter into
which capitalists threw potentially skilled workers, for their own
nefarious purposes.

> > There's no shame in taking a
> > semi-skilled job.
> -------------
> Nor was that. Nor did I say that either.

See above. 

> > I'm not saying standardized tests should be used to
> > pick a child's future profession, but that kids should be encouraged
> > to play to their strengths, rather than hobbled with this idea that
> > "anyone can be a rocket scientist." Not everyone can be, and there's
> > nothing wrong with that.
> -------------------------
> That's unshown and unshowable by research so far completed.
> And that is an affirmative failure, namely, it appears to indicate
> that given proper corrective education, anyone can achieve anything.

If the claim is "unshowable" (either way) by research, it's logical to
assume the opposite?

> > Further, certainly people come with a range of mental abilities and
> > talents - just like in any other area. Some people are stronger than
> > others. Some people are faster than others. Some people are smarter
> > than others. They're all equal under the law, as they should be. That
> > doesn't mean that they all need, or even want, to compete for the same
> > sorts of jobs.
> ---------------------------------
> People who are stronger than others usually have exercised a lot.
> Same with their mental ability.
> People don't need to "compete" for jobs, they need to be trained for
> them.

People can work for years in preparing for tests like the GRE, but
some will still fail even if their materials and training methods are
universally impressive. Why?

> Equality before the law is yet a third unrelated question.

Hardly. A true slave class wouldn't have equal legal rights. You
mentioned a "slave class" (see above) thus implying that people who
fall into this category haven't been granted the same legal rights as
umm…what…the "master class"? I was pointing out that although some are
encouraged to enter less skilled professions, that doesn't in any way
diminish their rights (at least ideally) in our society.

> > If someone with a low IQ has been trained as well as he can be, and
> > has advocates watching out for his interests, there's absolutely no
> > reason that he should end as part of a "slave class" just because he
> > works an honest job that doesn't require a whole lot of acumen.
> -------------------------------
> A person with a low IQ has been slighted by society.

Maybe he's just not particularly talented upstairs. Society didn't
screw him over. No one did.

> And by slave class I mean those who are accidentally deprived like
> these, and who are then taken advantage of by the rich, who under-
> employ them so they can pay them less than other people, which is
> criminal, since they have the same aspirations as others. The rich
> support the leaving of unfortunates to their fate simply for the
> sake of their reduced costs of under-employing them at menial jobs.

I can buy that, to a point. If an employer is intentionally hiring
people part-time so he can deny them benefits (as in, he's hiring two
part time employees to cover two halves of a whole shift), or he's
hiring illegal workers who have no redress for their grievances, than
you're right.

If you mean, however, that he has some sinister ulterior motive simply
for paying someone with no education beyond high school eight dollars
an hour when he pays a person with university $16 for a more demanding
job, than you're further "out there" than I'm prepared to go.

> That's as criminal as leaving someone injured laying in a pool of
> their blood and failing to provide an ambulance and trauma treatment!

If he's abusing his workers (e.g. by knowingly exposing them to unsafe
equipment) and no one does anything about it, the analogy works. If
he's simply paying what their level of experience and education
warrants, then it's not the same.

> > Moreover, there are only so many positions open in each profession.
> ---------------------------
> That's a circular argument. The reasons we have to pay doctors so much
> IS, as any capitalist knows, because we DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF THEM!

Circular argument? It's not a single argument at all, but merely one
point in a series of them: There are only so many jobs in each sector.
Why have everyone clamouring for one set of positions, when there are
so many other ones out there that they might enjoy equally well?

> > Rather than have everyone clawing at one another for the most coveted
> > jobs, society should 
> --------------------------
> Train enough people so they don't HAVE to pay so much!

Training costs money. The more specialized the training, the more
money it costs. It also takes time - a lot of time, and not everyone
is interesting in investing ten years of their lives to become
surgeons etc. Sure, some people are overpaid, but when it comes to
specialized professions, the degree of pay is warranted by the amount
of effort these people put into achieving their educational goals.

> > shift its priorities and start recognizing that
> > we all benefit from the labour done in every sector of the economy.
> ------------------
> We ALL have the right to a challenging profession, or three of them!

A right? Since when is challenging work a right? That's not exactly on
par with the right to legal representation during criminal
proceedings, or the right to free speech.

A living wage could even be seen as a right. But challenging work? No.

> > We need power company employees, hotel chambermaids, janitors,
> > astronauts, doctors, assembly line workers, judges etc. They all
> > contribute to the smooth operation of this society.
> ------------------
> Actually people CAN and SHOULD make their OWN damned beds, and having
> one poor sucker make all the beds is abuse of a superior human being!
> People should have to buss their own damned dishes into dish washers.

The person shows up for work willingly, and makes the beds for pay. If
she's being exposed to a substandard work environment, or is being
ripped off for her wages (they‘re not paying her what she agreed to
work for), than you would have a case for claiming she's abused. If
not, than you're abusing her intelligence yourself by suggesting that
she's so deceived by the lies of capitalism that she plum didn't
realize she had a choice as to her profession.

There might be other factors barring her from pursuing more schooling
- kids etc. - but capitalism can't be "blamed" for that. In fact,
there are programs out there where employers provide daycare services
and cover the costs of upgrading.

It's a better recognition of individual dignity that everyone -
starting from a playing field made legally equal - get what they earn
as individuals, than that all individuals be treated as a class
wherein everyone, regardless of individual effort, is given the same
privileges.

> > While some of
> > these jobs are more necessary that others, strictly speaking, all of
> > them should be seen as honourable choices. All of them should pay a
> > living wage, too.
> ----------------------
> ALL jobs should pay an EQUAL wage per hour, or else we're abusing some
> superior human beings and being unfair as a society!

You're being more unfair by giving everyone the same regardless of
effort. In such a society, there is no incentive.

> > If you think that being a factory worker is somehow beneath the
> > dignity of the average individual, and that we're failing society by
> > not encouraging everyone to become scientists or whatever, than you're
> > the one who is undervaluing people in blue collar professions - not
> > me.
> -------------------------------
> Nope, we need more blue-collar scientists, as any engineer can tell you!
> Steve