Education is full of irrationality. You can’t say anything with bad connotations about children, because that’s a big taboo. You can’t say that a child is too stupid to understand something. You can’t say that if a child always refuses to cooperate, it is impossible to teach them. The official hypothesis is that each child is perfect, so if they don’t become Einstein, it’s someone else’s fault, and we should express moral outrage about such loss of a talent. In recent years, the consensus seems to be on blaming the teachers. So it is refreshing to hear an alternative explanation.
But I think that difference in IQ is only part of the story. It explains why some people will always fail. But it does not explain why recently more people fail at school (at least in my country it seems so). Here is an interesting comment from Scott Adams’ blog:
Coincidentally, my sister raised this topic last month. She works as an Early Childhood Educator caring for 2,3 and 4 year olds. She has worked at it for over 25 years and in the last 10 years she and her coworkers have noticed that increasingly even 3 year olds kids are unable to amuse themselves or self organize into games where they make up their own rules. Without direction they just sit there waiting to be entertained or told what to do. The cause is not clear, but 2 year olds do not spend a lot of time surfing the web. Maybe they are modelling the adults in their life?
This fits my model that recent bad outputs of school systems are caused by bad inputs. But the causes of the “bad inputs” can be both in biology or in environment. If a child is retarded, that’s bad for the school results. But if parents don’t cooperate in their child’s education (if the child instead of making their homework spends the whole day with Facebook or Counter-Strike), that’s bad too.
Yeah, I meant that you can’t say it outside of the school. If you do, a typical reaction is: “If you don’t like children, you are not a good teacher.” Because it is assumed that if you like children, you would never say anything with a negative connotation; and if you don’t like them, you are a psychopath and should be kept far away from them.
So, either the children are perfect, which means that if they don’t get good grades, you are a bad teacher; or you disagree that the children are perfect, which proves that you are a bad teacher. -- The only way to signal that you are a good teacher, is to give best grades to everyone. Some teachers use this strategy, knowingly or not.
Education is full of irrationality. You can’t say anything with bad connotations about children, because that’s a big taboo. You can’t say that a child is too stupid to understand something. You can’t say that if a child always refuses to cooperate, it is impossible to teach them. The official hypothesis is that each child is perfect, so if they don’t become Einstein, it’s someone else’s fault, and we should express moral outrage about such loss of a talent. In recent years, the consensus seems to be on blaming the teachers. So it is refreshing to hear an alternative explanation.
You know what’s even bigger taboo? Blaming culture and attitudes.
You can’t say that a child is too stupid to understand something.
too stupid
too stupid
Nor should you be allowed to. (In public, that is—I haven’t yet gone so totalitarian as to propose control of private conversations.) Instead, a neutral language such as “genetically disadvantaged” should be available for accurate and objective use, without any connotations of oppression or uncharitable attitude. Yes, that means that I’m against today’s extreme hypocrisy but for a climate of political correctness, and for some form of censorship!
People who inherited or “won” more intelligence early on should NOT be raised atop the goddamn miserable status heap by the sole “virtue” of said intelligence! This is just one incident of many that convince me that the anti-PC crowd is low-status largely not because they tell inconvenient truths (although the brightest among them sure do), but because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills. And because they have a number of… ethically shaky aspects about their thought.
(Oh boi! I’m so hungry I could eat an octorok and −10 karma!)
What, you never heard of a euphemism treadmill? Choose any “neutral term” you like as a synonym for “stupid”; there’s no kid in the world so “genetically disadvantaged” that they won’t realise what you actually meant to say. You do know that ‘retarded’ was once a perfectly neutral term, right? It literally just means “slower than the others”. It acquired its modern connotations because changing the word doesn’t change the phenomenon and doesn’t change the way people react, either.
It might be a palliative while we’re looking for a real solution. I actually pointed out the root of the problem right there: the godawful connection, overt or implicit, between the raw intellectual power and “General Worth” (incoherent concept, but sadly an emotional given) of a person in society’s eyes. Changing the language is, I think, a necessary but not sufficient part of breaking that habit of thought. When combined with other tactics, linguistic manipulation can be an effective tool, even working for the common good—see “Gay”.
Instead, a neutral language such as “genetically disadvantaged” should be available for accurate and objective use
This is part of why euphemisms are so dangerous—they are often phrases which aren’t accurate. Intelligence is not just genetic. Parasite load at an early age, nutrition, lead exposure, some aspects of parental care can all impact intelligence.
People who inherited or “won” more intelligence early on should NOT be raised atop the goddamn miserable status heap by the sole “virtue” of said intelligence
Are they though? This has a lot to do with what one means by status. If anything we have the opposite problem. Look at how many people use “I could never do math” or similar statements as a status raiser.
This is just one incident of many that convince me that the anti-PC crowd is low-status largely not because they tell inconvenient truths (although the brightest among them sure do), but because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills.
If you think the “anti-PC crowd” is low status that may say more about who you spend time with than anything else. In much of the US, even in fairly left-wing areas, self-identifying as not PC can be quite effective as a status raiser. People who go out of their way to be “anti-PC” might be low status but that’s more because that often involves high degrees of obnoxiousness, is often a cover for genuine bigotry (e.g.someone claiming that their use of the word “kike” is because of their refusal to be be PC), and are defining themselves as against something else. It is very hard to be high status when one is defined in terms of one’s opposition. But that’s all distinct from being blunt and saying “stupid” when one means some form of “intelligence substantially below the average or the level generally necessary to function in society”.
And because they have a number of… ethically shaky aspects about their thought.
What is ethically shaky here? That there are genuinely stupid people? That we should acknowledge it? That some of that is genetic?
This is part of why euphemisms are so dangerous—they are often phrases which aren’t accurate. Intelligence is not just genetic.
Exactly. It’s like if someone would decide that the word “green” is offensive, so we need to use “chlorophyll-rich” instead. Problem is, many green things don’t contain chlorophyll at all.
It’s teaching people to immediately jump to a wrong conclusion. And adding a moral connotation that who doesn’t immediately jump to the same conclusion, is an evil person. (And we obviously shouldn’t let evil people teach in schools or speak about education.)
You just shouldn’t say it at all. Unless they really are 100% 0 variance, not one in a million people with their brains will learn it trying their hardest you shouldn’t say this in public because it might damage their chances. Stupid is especially bad because it’s more general than you need to be. If someone has a brain that has some poor cognitive abilities, but others that are normal or good (specifically, I am talking about almost everyone) they shouldn’t be told they are stupid for doing below average in some area because stupid is a general term.. “Stupidness” is often limited to a particular area.
When is it an advantage to the person being talked about to hear that they are fundamentally incapable of doing something over hearing that it is not worth their trying to do it?
Also, stupid and genetically disadvantaged are not synonyms.
What makes you think the anti-PC crowd is low-status? That doesn’t ring a bell. I have no strong belief either way.
also, do you really think this is an accurate reflection of reality? “because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills.” It’s fine if you just wanted to have a go, but X is experiencing negative outcome Y “because they are unwilling to learn” is much more often claimed than is true. It’s just so convenient and just world-ey. Also, “social skills” may in this case actually consist solely of deference to majority opinion.
Where I come from, being overltly PC is low-status. Where I live now, being anti-PC is low status. In both places, unsurprisingly, people think their own attitudes are normal.
Education is full of irrationality. You can’t say anything with bad connotations about children, because that’s a big taboo. You can’t say that a child is too stupid to understand something. You can’t say that if a child always refuses to cooperate, it is impossible to teach them. The official hypothesis is that each child is perfect, so if they don’t become Einstein, it’s someone else’s fault, and we should express moral outrage about such loss of a talent. In recent years, the consensus seems to be on blaming the teachers. So it is refreshing to hear an alternative explanation.
But I think that difference in IQ is only part of the story. It explains why some people will always fail. But it does not explain why recently more people fail at school (at least in my country it seems so). Here is an interesting comment from Scott Adams’ blog:
This fits my model that recent bad outputs of school systems are caused by bad inputs. But the causes of the “bad inputs” can be both in biology or in environment. If a child is retarded, that’s bad for the school results. But if parents don’t cooperate in their child’s education (if the child instead of making their homework spends the whole day with Facebook or Counter-Strike), that’s bad too.
Not publicly, but teachers know it, or at least those of my acquaintance.
Yeah, I meant that you can’t say it outside of the school. If you do, a typical reaction is: “If you don’t like children, you are not a good teacher.” Because it is assumed that if you like children, you would never say anything with a negative connotation; and if you don’t like them, you are a psychopath and should be kept far away from them.
So, either the children are perfect, which means that if they don’t get good grades, you are a bad teacher; or you disagree that the children are perfect, which proves that you are a bad teacher. -- The only way to signal that you are a good teacher, is to give best grades to everyone. Some teachers use this strategy, knowingly or not.
Many managers use this strategy during industry performance reviews, as well.
.
You know what’s even bigger taboo? Blaming culture and attitudes.
Nor should you be allowed to. (In public, that is—I haven’t yet gone so totalitarian as to propose control of private conversations.) Instead, a neutral language such as “genetically disadvantaged” should be available for accurate and objective use, without any connotations of oppression or uncharitable attitude. Yes, that means that I’m against today’s extreme hypocrisy but for a climate of political correctness, and for some form of censorship!
People who inherited or “won” more intelligence early on should NOT be raised atop the goddamn miserable status heap by the sole “virtue” of said intelligence! This is just one incident of many that convince me that the anti-PC crowd is low-status largely not because they tell inconvenient truths (although the brightest among them sure do), but because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills. And because they have a number of… ethically shaky aspects about their thought.
(Oh boi! I’m so hungry I could eat an octorok and −10 karma!)
What, you never heard of a euphemism treadmill? Choose any “neutral term” you like as a synonym for “stupid”; there’s no kid in the world so “genetically disadvantaged” that they won’t realise what you actually meant to say. You do know that ‘retarded’ was once a perfectly neutral term, right? It literally just means “slower than the others”. It acquired its modern connotations because changing the word doesn’t change the phenomenon and doesn’t change the way people react, either.
It might be a palliative while we’re looking for a real solution. I actually pointed out the root of the problem right there: the godawful connection, overt or implicit, between the raw intellectual power and “General Worth” (incoherent concept, but sadly an emotional given) of a person in society’s eyes. Changing the language is, I think, a necessary but not sufficient part of breaking that habit of thought. When combined with other tactics, linguistic manipulation can be an effective tool, even working for the common good—see “Gay”.
What do you propose as the new measure of worth? I think you’ll find that these things are pretty hardwired.
This is part of why euphemisms are so dangerous—they are often phrases which aren’t accurate. Intelligence is not just genetic. Parasite load at an early age, nutrition, lead exposure, some aspects of parental care can all impact intelligence.
Are they though? This has a lot to do with what one means by status. If anything we have the opposite problem. Look at how many people use “I could never do math” or similar statements as a status raiser.
If you think the “anti-PC crowd” is low status that may say more about who you spend time with than anything else. In much of the US, even in fairly left-wing areas, self-identifying as not PC can be quite effective as a status raiser. People who go out of their way to be “anti-PC” might be low status but that’s more because that often involves high degrees of obnoxiousness, is often a cover for genuine bigotry (e.g.someone claiming that their use of the word “kike” is because of their refusal to be be PC), and are defining themselves as against something else. It is very hard to be high status when one is defined in terms of one’s opposition. But that’s all distinct from being blunt and saying “stupid” when one means some form of “intelligence substantially below the average or the level generally necessary to function in society”.
What is ethically shaky here? That there are genuinely stupid people? That we should acknowledge it? That some of that is genetic?
Exactly. It’s like if someone would decide that the word “green” is offensive, so we need to use “chlorophyll-rich” instead. Problem is, many green things don’t contain chlorophyll at all.
It’s teaching people to immediately jump to a wrong conclusion. And adding a moral connotation that who doesn’t immediately jump to the same conclusion, is an evil person. (And we obviously shouldn’t let evil people teach in schools or speak about education.)
You just shouldn’t say it at all. Unless they really are 100% 0 variance, not one in a million people with their brains will learn it trying their hardest you shouldn’t say this in public because it might damage their chances. Stupid is especially bad because it’s more general than you need to be. If someone has a brain that has some poor cognitive abilities, but others that are normal or good (specifically, I am talking about almost everyone) they shouldn’t be told they are stupid for doing below average in some area because stupid is a general term.. “Stupidness” is often limited to a particular area.
When is it an advantage to the person being talked about to hear that they are fundamentally incapable of doing something over hearing that it is not worth their trying to do it?
Also, stupid and genetically disadvantaged are not synonyms.
What makes you think the anti-PC crowd is low-status? That doesn’t ring a bell. I have no strong belief either way.
also, do you really think this is an accurate reflection of reality? “because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills.” It’s fine if you just wanted to have a go, but X is experiencing negative outcome Y “because they are unwilling to learn” is much more often claimed than is true. It’s just so convenient and just world-ey. Also, “social skills” may in this case actually consist solely of deference to majority opinion.
Where I come from, being overltly PC is low-status. Where I live now, being anti-PC is low status. In both places, unsurprisingly, people think their own attitudes are normal.
.