SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-care-I'm-getting-intelligenter dept.
In November, the European TV channel Arte aired an hourlong documentary, Demain, tous crétins?—Tomorrow, everyone’s an idiot?—on a topic that would seem to be of great importance. It starts with a London-based researcher, Edward Dutton, who has documented decades-long declines in average IQs across several Western countries, including France and Germany. “We are becoming stupider,” announces Dutton at the program’s start. “This is happening. It’s not going to go away, and we have to try to think about what we’re going to do about it.”
[...] It’s wrong to hint that scores on tests of memory and abstract thinking have been falling everywhere, and in a simple way. But at least in certain countries—notably in Northern Europe—the IQ drops seem very real. Using data from Finland, for example, where men are almost always drafted into military service, whereupon they’re tested for intelligence, Dutton showed that scores began to slide in 1997, a trend that has continued ever since. Similar trends have been documented using data from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. At some point in the mid-1990s, IQ scores in these countries tipped into decay, losing roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of a point per year. While there isn’t any sign of this effect on U.S. test results (a fact that surely bears on our indifference to the topic), researchers have found hints of something similar in Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands.
Are we becoming dumber, as in losing cognitive function, or merely less-well read?
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:52PM (13 children)
I get it, there's a serious radical left pull on this site and you're enjoying the support. But you're using the typical tact of twisting words to fit your narrative.
What I clearly said and you opted not to hear was that when people compete based on merit alone then humanity as a whole will benefit. It is through competition with others that we reach our fullest potential. Racism, sexism, and all the other 'isms" are meaningless if we restrict ourselves to merit. If you grant someone a position beyond their ability simply because you want to feel better about hiring someone you feel has been a victim, then you're doing yourself AND THEM a disservice.
The fact that you are still hung up on the whole "I'm a victim of [racism/sexism/etc] so pick me over someone better qualified" means you're part of the reason people are no longer striving to improve themselves. Stop being a victim and start being a competitor. You don't "deserve" a job because you think you're a victim. You deserve a job because you've worked hard to achieve it and because you're good at it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:37PM (12 children)
I don't think you do.
Agreed. You also don't deserve to be passed over for a job because you are black, female, or a white male.
Au contraire, I'm a white guy, and the presence of racial and gender quotas and diversity hires means that I am now competing harder than ever before.
Oh I heard it, but until racism and sexism are eradicated the idea that everyone can compete on merit alone is by definition unattainable.
For a long time in the past including through to today though we've been passing over black and female candidates without a 2nd thought to their merit. Now, with quotas and diversity hires we're also sometimes passing over white guys unfairly too. It's not an ideal solution, but it does level things out a bit. I don't see that as a net negative for humanity relative to what we had before. As we eradicate racism and sexism hopefully well eradicate diversity quotas as well, for a true net positive. But that's not going to happen overnight.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Wednesday October 24 2018, @08:57PM (11 children)
> You also don't deserve to be passed over for a job because you are black, female, or a white male.
In a purely merit based system this is not a consideration.
> the presence of racial and gender quotas and diversity hires means that I am now competing harder than ever before.
Racial and gender quotas and diversity hires mean you are being passed over for the same reason you objected to others being passed over - not because you do not have the skill but because of the color of your skin or your gender. You can't support one and denounce the other.
> until racism and sexism are eradicated the idea that everyone can compete on merit alone is by definition unattainable.
You cannot attain an end to racism if you push instead for quotas and "diversity" hires. By definition you are placing race over actual skill - you are literally enforcing racism. The way to get passed racism and sexism and frankly any form of victimhood is by enforcing hiring practices based soley on merit. Striving towards a meritocracy is the ONLY way to remove racial and gender based impediments.
The problem is that there are people who want success handed to them as though they have an innate right to it, but NO ONE does. You succeed or fail based on your abilities not based on how much you want it or feel you deserve it. If you fail, then find some other goal that is within your ability or work harder to succeed at the goal you want. Don't use your race or sex as a crutch.
But whatever you do - don't follow your passions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVEuPmVAb8o [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday October 25 2018, @06:27AM (10 children)
Sure, and when we have a post-rascist and post-sexist world we can talk about that.
Sure. I'm happy to denounce both. But think diversity hires + racism creating an imperfect but level field is better than just the racism.
You are right. Quotas don't end racism. They are a temporary compensation for the racism that exists.
I agree. But that's going to take a few generations... and that's if we're lucky. Minorities and women need jobs right now.
Quotas and diversity hires didn't create the racism and sexism, they are a counter-reaction to it.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday October 25 2018, @02:55PM (9 children)
> Minorities and women need jobs right now.
I'm not sure what more can be done - the jobless rate in this country is at historic lows. It seems to me that anyone who wants a job need only go out and get one. A thriving economic boom like we're seeing with the current adminstration does more to remove racism in the workplace than any law or regulation ever could.
And honestly, I don't see how you can seek to eliminate racism by promoting it, and thats exactly what quotas do. They enforce the idea that if you are a minority or a woman then you must by definition be a victim and therefore require help from the state. This does two things: 1) It fosters animosity towards minorities by those who have better skills but are passed over because a lower skilled minority was selected to fill a quota, and 2) It encourages minorities to rely not on their own abilities but to use their skin color or sex as a crutch. They have no motivation to improve themselves because they know handouts are readily available with no effort. There even has a third effect - where a competent woman might be passed over for a position because a less competent minority was needed to fill the quota (or vice versa).
Quotas and "diversity hiring" do not lead to benefits to individuals, companies, or society as a whole.
The other problem is the assumption that racism and sexism are pervasive, that all minorities and women are victims who are denied opportunity. But that's really not been the case for a very VERY long time. This isn't the 1800's nor is it even the 1960's. The vast majority of this country couldn't give a rats patutey who you are as long as you're capable of doing the job. Can you point to specific modern instances where racism or sexism came into play? Of course you can. There are 350 million people in this country and all of them are falable humans with varying intelligence (which as the OP pointed out is trending downward). But you're never going to fix that with any law. All of us are flawed and always will be.
Bottom line is, if you want the population as a whole to improve then you MUST incentize that improvement and only a merit based system can do that. When people compete the entire group improves. Moaning about victimhood does nothing to improve your actual skills. Wallowing in self pity doesn't help you improve your position. But if you can demonstrate you're more skilled than the next guy (or gal), that's something that will move you forward. Of course, if the powers that be would rather the nation become a herd of easily controlled cattle, then by all means encourage the idea that you as an individual are a victim and unable to survive without the nanny state to help you. I think we both know which political party prefers that particular scenario.
People of all races and sexes can and have achieved the highest of positions in this world based on their skills. It's time we encouraged that for everyone.
But that's just, like, my opinion man.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday October 25 2018, @10:01PM (8 children)
The jobless rate is unrelated to the problem. A female with a degree in compsci who can get a job at starbucks but got passed over a less competent male based on the fact that she was female still has a job, but that hardly means 'problem solved'.
You present that as fact. Not only is that your opinion, it's an opinion not borne out by evidence. At best the laws that outright enforced that discrimination against them have mostly been repealed, but we're a long way from it being a solved problem.
And being 'actually skilled' is irrelevant if the white dude hiring for the job sees that you've got breasts or brown skin or both and hires or promotes the other white dude applicant instead. If you think that still isn't happening, you are delusional.
I agree with you that working on actual skills is important, but its only part of the solution. That white dude in charge of hiring isn't going to change overnight, and some aren't ever going to change; that changes over generations, and he's going to need to age out and retire before hiring practices change.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday October 26 2018, @12:00AM (7 children)
Anti discimination laws should prevent that woman from being passed over. If she can show she was more qualified then that company has a lawsuit on their hands. It doesn't require a quota or diversity hire to deal with such a situation.
We have anti discrimination laws on the books to handle the edge cases where it might still exist. Companies know this and train for it. Again, we dont require quotas or diversity hires to deal with any straggling remnants of discimination, we have laws.
You complain about me saying that racism/sexism is essentially dead in modern times and then you turn around and make claims that it's alive and thriving yet provide no evidence of it. If it were so rampant then so would the lawsuits. The lawsuits are few and far between BECAUSE racism/sexism are NOT rampant.
Companies need skilled workers, they risk serious legal repurcusions if they disciminate, therefore they will base their decisions on merit and, in the case of all other things being equal, they will choose the minority in order to reduce any chance of a legal battle.
This racism/sexism issue has already been addressed by law. There is no need to actually ENFORCE racism/sexism by requiring companies to hire lesser skilled individuals simply because of their race or sex. It's counter productive.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday October 26 2018, @05:33AM (6 children)
Should but doesn't. nuff said.
That's ridiculous. First you have to sue a current/potential employer so even if you win you aren't getting a job there. Second anyone else looking to hire you is going to see your lawsuit and isn't going to want to touch you, for good reason so you pretty much have to black-list your own future to take that step. And then you have to objectively show being "more qualified" which is an entirely subjective assessment. Maybe I selected the candidate for being a white guy, but all I have to do is weasle it by saying we thought he was a better culture fit, or thought he was at just the right experience level to grow with the company, or any of 10,000 other soft "requirements" that are practically impossible to argue.
Yes. They've carefully coached HR on exactly what weasle language to use to get around it.
No. The lawsuits are few and far between because prosecutable cases with a smoking gun are few and far between. Everyone knows how to hire whoever they want to hire without leaving a smoking gun behind. And nobody wants to prosecute a case without a smoking gun because its career suicide win or lose. And usually evidence is pretty thin... its little more than he-said she-said.
Next you'll be telling me sexual harrassment must not be a problem... at least not for the last 40 years because there weren't a lot of lawsuits, but i guess suddenly its popped up as an epidemic right? Since this last year there have been so many more allegations than usual, and more lawsuits than usual... or maybe they just weren't being reported or prosecuted because they were likewise career suicide to launch, and had only a small chance of resolving cleanly in ones' own favor.
And drugs are illegal too right, so nobody ever buys them, and everybody who does is promptly arrested and prosecuted right? Right? RIGHT?
And I bet enforcement is consistent across the race spectrum... a white guy caught with drugs is statistically treated the same as a black guy right?
"Addressed by law" is barely worth the paper its printed on. Societal and cultural factors are far more important and the law bends with that.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday October 26 2018, @01:59PM (5 children)
>"Addressed by law" is barely worth the paper its printed on. Societal and cultural factors are far more important and the law bends with that.
You're contradicting yourself - either laws don't work or they work in favor of society, pick one or the other.
Your problem, as I see it, is that you are a utopian dreamer who thinks that it's possible to have a perfect system governing human interactions. That's a lazy way to look at the world. The fact is that human interactions both social and commercial are exceedingly complicated and messy. You will NEVER see a world where there is no injustice, it will never happen. Understanding that is part of growing up, something that fewer and fewer people appear to be doing. So we have rules and laws that usually try to curb things towards equality and fairness. Do they work 100% of the time? Hell no, but that doesn't mean they don't work. If a battle is important to you, you seek legal justice. But you have to pick your fights and understand that no one goes through life without losing some of those fights. Quota requirements and diversity hiring on the other hand, fail 100% of the time. It's literally requiring racism/sexism in the guise of stopping racism/sexism. It's exactly the sort of hypocritical thinking that is undermining this nation. You're making an assumption that ALL minorities and women are ALWAYS being discriminated against, that they are ALL victims. This is ludicrous on it's face.
In your example, you claim this increasingly hypothetical highly skilled woman who was passed over can't file a complaint for fear of repercussions. That's her choice, the law says she can, and in fact the law also says she can file a complaint if the company takes retaliatory action. It all depends on how important the position really was to her - if she truly believes she's been discriminated against, then she has options. And thanks to the current administration, the job market is so tight that companies are fools to risk losing a skilled employee - they're getting scarce and very hard to replace. A quota system on the other hand REQUIRES a company to make the foolish decision, to fill its ranks with under skilled entitled minorities who have been told they are lesser beings, victims of the establishment. What crap! It condones racism/sexism without any option for the more skilled individual (who themselves may be a minority) to fight back. You're basically trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.
A true meritocracy is the real solution here - it ignores race and sex in the work place and concentrates on the individuals ability to do what's needed. There is no better way to counter discrimination than to focus on ability over class. It's the whole basis for the success of this nation - the American Dream. If you work hard and have talent, you can improve your lot in life. If instead you teach kids that it's ok to fail, that they get trophies just for participating, that they will never face adversity, then you're setting them up for a miserable self loathing existence full of self pity and finger pointing at all the people who are victimizing them. And you're undercutting what makes this nation great at the same time by depriving society of functional adults. Teach kids to compete, to challenge themselves, to constantly work to improve themselves and they will lead much happier lives and make the lives of those around them better at the same time.
Utopian dreamers need to remember one very important fact about human existence - we are NOT all equal. Humans aren't assembly line drones all alike - we each have skills and abilities that are better than some, worse than others. Part of becoming an adult is understanding yourself and where you fit in. We all want free candy as children, but once you become an adult, free candy is a pipe dream. You want that candy? Go earn it. Stop thinking you deserve free candy because someone told you you are a victim and should be compensated. And for gods sake, don't look to the government to be your mom, they're very bad at it.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday October 26 2018, @09:09PM (4 children)
Don't be simplistic. Some laws work. Some don't. For example, a law enforcing the illegality of non-compete clauses is practical and easy to enforce. Whether a non-compete exists in a contract is black and white, and you can launch the lawsuit when you are terminating your relationship with the employer trying to stick you with it.
A law saying people can't discriminate when they hire is far less practical and far harder to enforce. The plaintiffs are unlikely to have solid evidence they've been discriminated against, the employers have lots of weasle ways to cover up discrimination, and if the plaintiff proceeds with that lawsuit its career suicide at the company they are trying to get a job at, with potential blowback anywhere else.
A law putting a quota on minority representation in large labor pools, or on company boards is practical and easy to enforce. I don't personally like it, but it is practical and easy to enforce. The affected labor pools can be easily and independently audited and violations can be prosecuted without an individual potential employee needing to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they personally were discriminated against on race or gender or whatever.
Don't pretend all laws are equal.
You are steadily careening from being reasonable to being hysterical. Reality doesn't line up with this. Countless people have, and continue to put up with all kinds of harrassment at their jobs.
None of that does squat if the people doing the hiring are racists. You really need to get over
That would be you my friend. You are the one who is dreaming of a utopia that simply isn't going to happen simply by clearing away some discrimination laws and teaching kids to compete harder.
And once the rest of your utopia is realized that will be part of it. But that's not the world we live in.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday October 26 2018, @10:19PM (3 children)
> None of that does squat if the people doing the hiring are racists. You really need to get over
The bottom line here seems to be that you feel everyone (or a very large segment of people) are racist and therefor all minorities require the government to protect them from the inherent evil in the job market.
I on the other hand think the vast majority of people just want good help no matter who it is. As long as they can do the job, they get the job.
If you believe everyone is a racist and your enemy, then quotas are necessary to stop the villains from their dastardly discrimination practices.
If however most businesses just want someone reliable to do a job, then that quota is a burden - it requires me to hire incompetent lazy people who have no motivation to actually work because they got their job based on skin color not ability. When you hire based on a quota the person hired feels entitled to the job and has no reason to actually DO the job.
I for one would rather try to make the non quota system work first. The nanny state can rear it's ugly head if and when someone is found to be discriminatory. Until they do, stop calling the guy doing the hiring a racist and stop telling the guy looking for a job that he's a victim. It's not helping.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday October 27 2018, @05:51AM (2 children)
Of course I don't think everyone is racist or sexist. But yeah, a large segment is. I do believe that. I see it every day. I see the statistics. I see the #metoo movement. I see how many women and minorities are on in senior positions in the whitehouse.
I think you've got some serious blinders on if you think racism and sexism are solved problems and things of the past. I'd love to live in your world. I just don't.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Saturday October 27 2018, @12:41PM (1 child)
Maybe I have blinders, or maybe you pay too much attention to the noisey radicals who scream about how bad things are instead of seeing the world for what it is - 90% decent honest folks from all walks of life, and 10% lunatics also from all walks of life. You can either listen to the wailing of lunatics, or trust in the humanity of the rest of us.
You can't expect everyone to be perfect, but most folks are at least out there trying. The world isn't as dark and evil as the lunatic fringe would have you believe.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday October 27 2018, @09:59PM
"or maybe you pay too much attention to the noisey radicals who scream about how bad things are instead of seeing the world for what it is"
I'm not listening to 'noisy radicals' I'm looking at the clearly and plainly visible statistics. I'm looking at what i see everywhere.
"90% decent honest folks from all walks of life, and 10% lunatics also from all walks of life."
Alright, first let me tone down the inherent inflammatory rhetoric in the term racisct or sexist. Because when I say rascist or sexist it conjures up neo-Nazi's and Harvey Weinstein's. And I even completely agree that most people are 'honest decent folks'. However, a huge proportion of honest decent folks are still making biased decision making. They aren't really overt or offensive about it and its not just white people and its not just men.
People tend to gravitate towards people like themselves. You see it everywhere, a mcdonalds with an Indian manager has surprisingly Indian weighted staff. A major grocery store nearby is all white men management, all women in the deli and bakery, and the warehouse / stock team is mostly Filipino. Why? There is so much going on -- first I have no doubt that pretty much everyone there are honest decent folks. But nevertheless there seems to be a glass ceiling to women and minorities; lower management roles are available to them, but they don't seem to move up past that. Likewise, the bakery/deli manager is a woman, and she seems to predominantly hire other women into her department; and the stock manager is a filipino and seems to have hired a disproportionate number of filipinos under him. A lot of this isn't overt, people are just more comfortable around people they relate to, and a lot of it is organic -- within an organization staff will refer friends and family to openings and peoples friends and family are often people like themselves. Is that "racism" or "sexism"? Sure Its not 'malicious' or 'evil', but it certainly results in people being passed over for other people based on race and gender. It shows that even honest good folks aren't blind to race and gender.
This sort of low level bias, and organic hiring practice entrenches racial divides. You'll note its not just white men preferring white men, its women preferring women, and filipino preferring filipino, and Indian preferring indian, etc. But it doesn't all balance out because the historical power balance has white men at the top, and various minorities and women in the lower echelons. So that structure is being preserved.
At another firm I deal with has 2 real divisions an engineering team 'upstairs' where he worked, and a production team 'downstairs'; the engineering team was all white men; and the production team was more diverse but heavily weighted chinese. How? the owner was white, and he mostly only hired other white guys; but he put a chinese person in charge of production including hiring -- and that department gradually filled out to the point that it is largely chinese employees that don't speak much english. Then there was a changing of the guard - the old owners sold and retired, and the buyer came in (another white guy) and the hiring upstairs has shifted over the last decade -- its a lot more diverse; now there's women, Indians, Iranians, etc. Downstairs hasn't really changed though because the same person has been retained in that management position.
I'm not going to screech that the old owners were 'racists' because they were honest decent folks, and they hired a chinese person to a management position, and they had no problem that half their staff ultimately was chinese. But when it came to who they worked with and who they hired is was almost all white guys. The new owner definitely isn't in the 'quota camp' but when spots opened up he really did the "right thing" and looked for the absolute best candidate he could find and was blind to gender or race doing it. So he's getting a genuine mix of people. But the production facility is still heavily chinese to this day.
Anyway, that was a really long way around to saying a lot of "honest decent folk" aren't blind to race and gender. I wouldn't call them racist or sexist but a large segment of them still perpetrate hiring in a non "neutral" way. And that's ultimately 'wrong' wouldn't you say?
I'd go further, and say that from what I've seen organizations that are more diverse tend to attract better candidates. A Turkish women walks into an office that's 100% white men... or 100% Indian men or whatever isn't going to be as comfortable there, than a more diverse environment and may not even apply there, or will choose to accept a position elsewhere. And conversely an organization that clusters around one race/gender -- even if its not deliberate ends up becoming self reinforcing, and effectively closes itself off from a large pool of candidates to its own disadvantage. It's also more likely that toxic internal cultures will develop.
A colleague once observed to me that software startups that had women in at the start (within the first 4 within the team) tended to develop a 'culture' that was welcoming to women, while software startups that only had men at the start, tended towards 'bro-culture' and that women joining later often found it toxic and hostile, and advocated building gender diverse teams at the start of a project to prevent bro-culture from taking root.