"Americans are Simple-Minded"

[daveman]

Thomas Sowell illustrate that point precisely in his book "A Conflict of Visions".

Regardless of party he wrote, the fundamental divide seems to come down to one question:

Do you believe in Equality of Opportunity? Or do you believe in Equality of Results?

The two are mutually exclusive and cannot abide the other. To believe in equality of opportunity is to accept the fact that some people, given the same chance as everyone else will do better than others. They will become richer, more successful and have more of the good things in life than someone else who did not do the same with their opportunities.

Those who believe in equality of results believe that what everyone has at any particular moment MUST be the same. The pie is the same size, the the soda is the same, the income's the same... everyone has the same in the end, regardless of what they do to get it.

You have those who complain that not everyone starts out the same, and that makes the equality of opportunity unfair. This is a misleading argument in the fact that equality of opportunity also requires equality under the law. No special priviledge is given or penalty to anyone. Equality of results requires that every case is viewed individually so the results match as closely as possible. Like kids at a party measuring the size of a piece of cake. The point is that even if the starting positions are not equal that does not make it unfair to anyone under equality of opportunity, for you still have the same chance as someone else in a similar position to dig themselves out as that person in a privledged position has the chance to fail and fall down to your level.

But, some may cry, "the law is NOT applied equally!" This is correct, because both competing visions of the world (opportunity/law versus results) have carved out niches for themselves and they tend to co-mingle in horrible ways. The rich are given both deference in some areas while penalized in others. The poor are given benefits beyond their justification yet prevented from many opportunities.

It is when these two views come together that the worst of both aspects combine to create the hell on earth we so frequently see. Then you get entrenchment of elitism where the haves fight to keep all they have and oppress those they believe may achieve and take what they have. It' almost a form of paranoia that borders on delusion. They try to slam the doors of opportunity, sentencing those who are striving to achieve to a miserable life, and striating equality of opportunity to themselves, while forcing everyone else to equality of results in a twisted view of the two sides by using special laws and circumstances to protect the status quo.

The sad part is, this is precisely what we see going on in government today. The bureaucracy and elected officials have gained power and they plus their private sector buddies who got them elected are solidifying and protecting their limitless opportunity to crush those who also wish to share in that dream. This is the essence of what the tea party is struggling against. For too long, special privileges have been carved out, and the need to be purged from the system. Equality of opportunity needs to be restored to all people. You may never become the next Rockafeller. But you will have the opportunity to try if the monstrosity of the status quo can be shifted.

The choice will be yours. Nothing can be more American than that.

 

[Samson]

'hopelessness reduction' is innately in the purview of adaptation.

Because you say so?

Sir, you presumith much: Many do not adapt.

 

[Samson]

There's a root cause: promoting equality of outcome.

equality of outcome =/= equal outcomes

Promoting success doesn't mean everyone becomes a professional baseball player, engineer, doctor, or CFO. It means everyone Good Enough at Something that they can expect to be paid for doing it.

Those that excel will do so despite obsticles.

Those with obsticles might not ever excel. The key is to remove obsticles for this group.

 

[antagon]

'hopelessness reduction' is innately in the purview of adaptation.

Because you say so?

Sir, you presumith much: Many do not adapt.

while not everyone adapts to the same effect, i argue if there are people who don't adapt at all, that they are few and far between. likely, they have a disability.

sir, doth you see how proactive hopelessness reduction presumith that this issue is worth compromising the opportunity to develop the innate capacity for adaptation which the vast majority of us do have?

 

[Samson]

'hopelessness reduction' is innately in the purview of adaptation.

Because you say so?

Sir, you presumith much: Many do not adapt.

while not everyone adapts to the same effect, i argue if there are people who don't adapt at all, that they are few and far between. likely, they have a disability.

sir, doth you see how proactive hopelessness reduction presumith that this issue is worth compromising the opportunity to develop the innate capacity for adaptation which the vast majority of us do have?

The vast majority of ADULTS with established egos

See here, good sir, what might ye do with this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/130580-would-you-marry-again-2.html#post2669624

 

[antagon]

There's a root cause: promoting equality of outcome.

equality of outcome =/= equal outcomes

Promoting success doesn't mean everyone becomes a professional baseball player, engineer, doctor, or CFO. It means everyone Good Enough at Something that they can expect to be paid for doing it.

Those that excel will do so despite obsticles.

Those with obsticles might not ever excel. The key is to remove obsticles for this group.

i see where you are coming from with this explanation, samson. i think there are some central- (rather than side-) effects to this approach: 1) the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average? 2) what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?

i feel this is one of the ways which younger guys who've worked for me differ from the older guys. none were big academic achievers, but some of the younger guys dont draw an association between 'something they can expect to be paid for' and their performance when doing that work. they dont understand mine, my client's or the older guy's concern for their half-assed work.

this is simple shit, samson. keep the pavement damp til it hardens. sand the plaster til it's smooth. it's not a scientific analysis, but i draw a connection to the approach you've described.

 

[Samson]

There's a root cause: promoting equality of outcome.

equality of outcome =/= equal outcomes

Promoting success doesn't mean everyone becomes a professional baseball player, engineer, doctor, or CFO. It means everyone Good Enough at Something that they can expect to be paid for doing it.

Those that excel will do so despite obsticles.

Those with obsticles might not ever excel. The key is to remove obsticles for this group.

i see where you are coming from with this explanation, samson. i think there are some central- (rather than side-) effects to this approach: 1) the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average? 2) what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?

i feel this is one of the ways which younger guys who've worked for me differ from the older guys. none were big academic achievers, but some of the younger guys dont draw an association between 'something they can expect to be paid for' and their performance when doing that work. they dont understand mine, my client's or the older guy's concern for their half-assed work.

this is simple shit, samson. keep the pavement damp til it hardens. sand the plaster til it's smooth. it's not a scientific analysis, but i draw a connection to the approach you've described.

If it was simple, then we'd have no need for social welfare, and every school would graduate every student with a 3.0+ average.

First, I've no idea what you're saying: "the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average?"

I'll take a stab: what "aggregate average?" I do not preceiveth how this doth make a whit of difference. Average will be Average. Are you saying there is no "average" if we "raise the bar?"

Happily, I'm very familiar with your second point: "what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?"

When we discuss the harm of "PUSHING" kids, to borrow a Bfgrnism, we are speaking of making severe demands upon people who are less than 14. I certainly agree that coddling modern humans 15+ years of age is detrimental.

 

[jillian]

we are quickly becoming the dumbest civilized nation on earth. our school systems (except some colleges) are a joke compared to world standards. their students are a good 3-4 years ahead of us and their familys actually value education, a complete one at that which encompasses, art, science, math, history and everything in between.

"being dumb" and laughing about your ignorance of some subject is embarrassing in most other countries while it flourishes here

that's what happens when 70% of a nation's people don't believe in evolution; won't allow stem cell research and hate science and don't provide for basic medical needs of a good portion of its population.

people start to think there's a screw loose somewhere.

 

[Modbert]

that's what happens when 70% of a nation's people don't believe in evolution; won't allow stem cell research and hate science and don't provide for basic medical needs of a good portion of its population.

people start to think there's a screw loose somewhere.

In 1999, Gallup did a poll asking people whether the Earth revolved around the Sun. 20% of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.

True Fact.

 

[Toro]

that's what happens when 70% of a nation's people don't believe in evolution; won't allow stem cell research and hate science and don't provide for basic medical needs of a good portion of its population.

people start to think there's a screw loose somewhere.

In 1999, Gallup did a poll asking people whether the Earth revolved around the Sun. 20% of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.

True Fact.

TV Nation Polls

 

[Samson]

that's what happens when 70% of a nation's people don't believe in evolution; won't allow stem cell research and hate science and don't provide for basic medical needs of a good portion of its population.

people start to think there's a screw loose somewhere.

In 1999, Gallup did a poll asking people whether the Earth revolved around the Sun. 20% of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.

True Fact.

TV Nation Polls

You guys need to check this out:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/130580-would-you-marry-again-2.html#post2669624

 

[jillian]

this was my favorite:

16% of all Americans believe that the world is out to get them.
Of those, 46% are gun owners.

 

[antagon]

i see where you are coming from with this explanation, samson. i think there are some central- (rather than side-) effects to this approach: 1) the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average? 2) what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?

i feel this is one of the ways which younger guys who've worked for me differ from the older guys. none were big academic achievers, but some of the younger guys dont draw an association between 'something they can expect to be paid for' and their performance when doing that work. they dont understand mine, my client's or the older guy's concern for their half-assed work.

this is simple shit, samson. keep the pavement damp til it hardens. sand the plaster til it's smooth. it's not a scientific analysis, but i draw a connection to the approach you've described.

If it was simple, then we'd have no need for social welfare, and every school would graduate every student with a 3.0+ average.

First, I've no idea what you're saying: "the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average?"

well, it isn't simple. i dont think we are talking about the simplicity of things, but the way that a difficult task ought to be undertaken.

the statement above means that if education is less effective, which is how i would characterize education which doesn't promote the value in coming up with the correct answers or the right spelling, that students who comprise the average will have poorer aptitude. those who you've described as likely to excel anyhow, will excel only in a less effective system. in comparison to kids who will go to schools which dont subscribe to this shit, like catholic schools for example, this average or excelling public school group will be sub-standard, simply by virtue of having a lower bar set. the catholic school students who also run a spectrum from poor to excellent will have an advantage. these schools dont seem to have a big problem with hopelessness in my experience.

Happily, I'm very familiar with your second point: "what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?"

When we discuss the harm of "PUSHING" kids, to borrow a Bfgrnism, we are speaking of making severe demands upon people who are less than 14. I certainly agree that coddling modern humans 15+ years of age is detrimental.

generally, this is part of my larger criticism of the typical public schools system remedy to performance. i feel that rather than following the intuitive approach of looking at the contributing factors present in the lives of successful students and aiming to incorporate these elements into their philosophy, the system has decided on focusing on issues like hopelessness. instead of recognizing that the sooner a paradigm is introduced, the better, the system adheres to ideas like hoping to introduce real life to a 15 year old for the first time.

this is the opposite of what is true of the school system's most successful students. rather than being acquainted with realities like right and wrong from later in life, these above average students are likely to have had earlier than average exposure. why go against the grain and expect the same results?

ad absurdum justifications citing zealous parents dont make a real argument that this hopelessness arises from the early presence of a concept of right, wrong, correct and incorrect. in fact, the impression that i get of these parents and those who make a big scene of disciplining their kids at the grocery is quite the opposite: that these parents have not availed their kids to exposure to right, wrong, correct and incorrect, and that the parent's behavior is acting out embarrassment about the fact.

 

[Samson]

i see where you are coming from with this explanation, samson. i think there are some central- (rather than side-) effects to this approach: 1) the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average? 2) what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?

i feel this is one of the ways which younger guys who've worked for me differ from the older guys. none were big academic achievers, but some of the younger guys dont draw an association between 'something they can expect to be paid for' and their performance when doing that work. they dont understand mine, my client's or the older guy's concern for their half-assed work.

this is simple shit, samson. keep the pavement damp til it hardens. sand the plaster til it's smooth. it's not a scientific analysis, but i draw a connection to the approach you've described.

If it was simple, then we'd have no need for social welfare, and every school would graduate every student with a 3.0+ average.

First, I've no idea what you're saying: "the lower bar functions as an obstacle to average and higher achievers in and of itself; those who'll excel might, notwithstanding, but what about the aggregate average?"

well, it isn't simple. i dont think we are talking about the simplicity of things, but the way that a difficult task ought to be undertaken.

the statement above means that if education is less effective, which is how i would characterize education which doesn't promote the value in coming up with the correct answers or the right spelling, that students who comprise the average will have poorer aptitude. those who you've described as likely to excel anyhow, will excel only in a less effective system. in comparison to kids who will go to schools which dont subscribe to this shit, like catholic schools for example, this average or excelling public school group will be sub-standard, simply by virtue of having a lower bar set. the catholic school students who also run a spectrum from poor to excellent will have an advantage. these schools dont seem to have a big problem with hopelessness in my experience.

Happily, I'm very familiar with your second point: "what about when a student in 'need' of this accommodation is betrayed by their lack of preparedness for the real, unbuffered world; wont that be a big obstacle in the end?"

When we discuss the harm of "PUSHING" kids, to borrow a Bfgrnism, we are speaking of making severe demands upon people who are less than 14. I certainly agree that coddling modern humans 15+ years of age is detrimental.

generally, this is part of my larger criticism of the typical public schools system remedy to performance. i feel that rather than following the intuitive approach of looking at the contributing factors present in the lives of successful students and aiming to incorporate these elements into their philosophy, the system has decided on focusing on issues like hopelessness. instead of recognizing that the sooner a paradigm is introduced, the better, the system adheres to ideas like hoping to introduce real life to a 15 year old for the first time.

this is the opposite of what is true of the school system's most successful students. rather than being acquainted with realities like right and wrong from later in life, these above average students are likely to have had earlier than average exposure. why go against the grain and expect the same results?

ad absurdum justifications citing zealous parents dont make a real argument that this hopelessness arises from the early presence of a concept of right, wrong, correct and incorrect. in fact, the impression that i get of these parents and those who make a big scene of disciplining their kids at the grocery is quite the opposite: that these parents have not availed their kids to exposure to right, wrong, correct and incorrect, and that the parent's behavior is acting out embarrassment about the fact.

Your classical approach, for lack of a better phrase, which has been tried, and has failed, in public schools, has no sucessful examples in public schools......does it?

If so, show me the typical example, and I'll be happy to agree with you.

Bear in mind that the typical American public school is integrated, co-ed, and representative of all social classes, with the exception of the higher classes, which send their kids to private schools.

 

[Big Fitz]

that's what happens when 70% of a nation's people don't believe in evolution; won't allow stem cell research and hate science and don't provide for basic medical needs of a good portion of its population.

people start to think there's a screw loose somewhere.

In 1999, Gallup did a poll asking people whether the Earth revolved around the Sun. 20% of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.

True Fact.

Since 100% of politicians are people, there is a good likelihood 20% of them believe that too and a 1 in 5 chance the same can be said for our president.

So?

::: notes the current economic mess :::: on second thought the chance may be skewed to MORE than 20%. Some of these politicians if not watered twice a week would probably die.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

now is there a stupider sound out there? is there, eh?

This guy, literally, could be the next Prime Minister of Japan. He is attempting to oust Prime Minister Kan.

I'm not slagging Americans. I'm amazed that this guy could be the next leader of one of the most important countries in the world.

He is doing the usual mistake of generalizing from limited experience. He is not the only one who does this.

I would imagine his limited conversations with Americans are with US Politicians and journalists. It is trying to generalize what Japanese are like when the only Japanese you know are anime freaks, cosplayers and people who converse in SQL.

But see things from his perspective. If the only Americans you knew were Joe Biden and Kieth Olberman, you would have a very low estimate of American intelligence as well.

 

[antagon]

samson, what are you alluding to when you say that it has been tried? what do you mean by failed? if obtaining decent grades is made easier by not counting errors for what they are, i argue that the metric has been tampered with. the bar has been lowered.

as far as earlier rather than later with regard to exposure, didn't a study come out that said that head-start kids are more likely to graduate high school and graduate from college? less likely to get thrown in jail? that's public schooling recognizing that their better students have a head start worth emulating.

i mentioned catholic schools specifically because that is my personal experience. while the schools i went to did perform better than virtually all the public schools in the area (ghetto), the demography was no different; the kids were not richer, per sa. many, to include myself from time to time, were there by the graces of the parish. the kids at my highschool weren't all dandies. me and some others were thugs. despite lesser resources and lower qualifications and pay for the teachers, the fundamental approach was more effective than the one used at the public schools.

 

[Samson]

samson, what are you alluding to when you say that it has been tried? what do you mean by failed? if obtaining decent grades is made easier by not counting errors for what they are, i argue that the metric has been tampered with. the bar has been lowered.

as far as earlier rather than later with regard to exposure, didn't a study come out that said that head-start kids are more likely to graduate high school and graduate from college? less likely to get thrown in jail? that's public schooling recognizing that their better students have a head start worth emulating.

i mentioned catholic schools specifically because that is my personal experience. while the schools i went to did perform better than virtually all the public schools in the area (ghetto), the demography was no different; the kids were not richer, per sa. many, to include myself from time to time, were there by the graces of the parish. the kids at my highschool weren't all dandies. me and some others were thugs. despite lesser resources and lower qualifications and pay for the teachers, the fundamental approach was more effective than the one used at the public schools.

Your approach, I call the "classical approach," isn't new, it was applied in public schools between their origin, and 1960, but then it failed: Thus the rise of other methods. I have very little basis for speculating what happens in private parochial schools, but as such, they do have the OPTION of taking any student that darkens their door. This is a tremendous "benefit" that doesn't exist in any public school.

For the past 50 years, your approach to public education has been recognised as inadequate. The "Head Start" program doesn't employ the methods you've mentioned, but is merely a preschool program the DOE offers for poor kids.

 

[MikeK]

"A key figure in Japan's ruling party dubbed Americans "simple-minded" in a speech to fellow lawmakers Wednesday."

It was not clear what prompted the remarks by Democratic Party heavyweight Ichiro Ozawa at a political seminar, in which he otherwise paid tribute to Americans' commitment to democracy, saying it was something Japan should learn from.

"I like Americans, but they are somewhat monocellular," the former Democratic Party leader said. "When I talk with Americans, I often wonder why they are so simple-minded."

Ozawa didn't elaborate on what aspect of Americans made him compare them monocellular organisms, a term also used to mean shortsighted or dumb.

"Simple-minded" does not necessarily mean dumb. And understanding the absence of Japanese tendency to insult I'm inclined to believe Mr. Ozawa meant something more along the lines of Americans' lack of curiosity and interests outside their respective sphere of existence, which is rather typical. So it's entirely possible the comment was nothing more than objective, and rather accurate, observation.

 

[MikeK]

we are quickly becoming the dumbest civilized nation on earth. our school systems (except some colleges) are a joke compared to world standards. their students are a good 3-4 years ahead of us and their familys actually value education, a complete one at that which encompasses, art, science, math, history and everything in between.

"being dumb" and laughing about your ignorance of some subject is embarrassing in most other countries while it flourishes here

Thank you, liberal-dominated education.

Unfortunately the Liberal philosophy does not acknowledge the need for strict discipline as a principal component of the educational process. Evidence of this is most apparent in some American schools in which the teachers are actually afraid of their students.