Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Egalitarianism.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 22, 23, 24 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 6:58 pm Post subject:

I got a 205 on privilege (63%) when I check atheist, and a 230 (70%) when I check Jewish. Atheist is probably the better descriptor, given the "Jewish" stuff is nothing but genetic. I gave myself an attractiveness of 4 out of 10.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:02 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I got a 205 on privilege (63%) when I check atheist, and a 230 (70%) when I check Jewish. Atheist is probably the better descriptor, given the "Jewish" stuff is nothing but genetic. I gave myself an attractiveness of 4 out of 10.

How the hell you get 205. You a plutocrat?

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:10 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Korea is really not the country that you should use when arguing this theory. Not very long ago, South Korea was poorer than most African countries and considered to be a lost cause. North Korea is poorer than most African countries.

When African countries start regularly approximating South Korea's success, I'll concede the gun was jumped. When that never happens in your entire lifetime, will you concede otherwise? You've got this weird mix of honesty and delusion going on; you seem to know in your heart just how stupid the narratives excusing observed results here are, yet you won't just come out and concede that the narratives are wrong.

I'm a fairly strong believer in the importance of geography. I'm not excusing results, I am honestly, in my view, explaining them. I could construct a similar list of reasons for the problems in the Middle East, or I can construct a list of reasons why the United States is successful, and not mention culture or IQ a single time. It comes back to where were before when I say things are complicated and you see that as some sort of a cop out.

Fox wrote:

I'm completely willing to admit that errors in judgment can occur. When you've got a single country to work with, circumstances can cloud true potential. When you've got a single country + disaspora, circumstances can still cloud potential. When you're working with a billion+ people spanning the entire globe, it's becomes much harder.

Leon wrote:

IQ and race cannot explain these things.

It can't explain them entirely on its own, but a matrix of IQ, culture, and means of production certainly explains a lot.

Leon wrote:

China also used to be dirt poor in very recent history, Singapore, Malaysia, the list goes on. Korea received massive benefits from the U.S. and received massive reparations from Japan.

The key word here is "history." These countries were poor, until an influx of western technology and knowledge. A similar influx of western technology and knowledge hasn't turned things around in Africa. Yes, Korea has received foreign assistance. So have African countries. You need to explain why the results are so incredibly disparate if you want to maintain the fiction of perfect genetic equality.

Korea received multitudes more than any African country, except maybe Egypt which isn't ethnically African anyways. A lot of people don't realize how much money Korea made in Vietnam during the Vietnam war when the U.S. used Korean companies as contractors, or how much aid Japan gave, etc.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Some explanations I've heard for Africa is the presence of diseases that aren't in other places, or occur much less frequently.

Europeans suffered from diseases which Native Americans did not (at least before contact). Somehow that didn't hold them back. This is narrative; reach a conclusion, desperately try to find some factor, however questionable, to explain it.

Leon wrote:

A major one is that despite the long coastline there are very few natural ports or navigable rivers, combined with desert and jungle mean less culture being transmitted along the continent.

Perhaps relevant several centuries ago, completely irrelevant now. Africans may be poor, but they've got cell phones and trucks just like anyone else.

Ports and navigable rivers are massively important for trade now, and probably in the foreseeable future. Disease is massively important- as your example of native americans proves. One of the major problems is of course malaria, http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/MalariaBasicsGlobalImpactandActions.aspx

Also, history is important. It is easier to be a rich country in the present if you were a rich country in the past.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

There is also the resource curse ...

... which, again, is bullshit narration. Norway has natural resources and gets rich, we get told, "Oh, Norwegians aren't special, it's just the oil." Some African nation has natural resources and stays poor, we hear the "resource curse" nonsense. How well natural resources are brought to bear for the sake of the broader populace depends on which populace we're talking about. But that would imply actual, meaningful differences between people, so instead we get the dishonest rhetoric.

Norwegian oil wasn't discovered until 1969. Before this, Norway had already built strong institutions and a diverse economy. Countries without resources need to develop a tax base, therefore they need to develop human capital to grow the economy to collect taxes. They have to provide some level of services to justify the taxes collected, they have to build institutions to deliver the services to collect the taxes. If you are able to rely on primary resources than human capital, services, and institutions become less and less important.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

or the tribal culture being pushed into the westphalian nation-state system without a real sense of identity, and having tribes cut in half by artificial borders.

Sudan shows Africans can reformat their borders if they like, and it's not like tensions between ethnic groups is unique to Africa. I concede this is an issue, but it's an issue driven by Africans failing to come up with their own non-violent solutions first and foremost.

How many countries have recognized Somaliland? Also, again back to the natural resources, if a breakaway region has oil or diamonds the central government will not cede that land for obvious reasons, which can lead to war and chaos. I think we've had this discussion before, and my point was that in most of Africa, excluding a few places like Egypt, national identity is weak because that identity was dictated to the people instead of being created by the people, but there are strong economic reasons for the people in power, both multinational countries and African leaders, to maintain the status-quo. Currently in the international system changing borders, even when it makes sense (Kurdistan, many would argue for Crimea, the Balkans) there will be forces trying to stop it from happening.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Africa is a mess, but it is not from any one reason, but a multitude.

I'm fine with that, so long as the specific reasons are at least remotely based in reality, and some reasons aren't a priori excluded because they might hurt someone's feelings.

I'm not sure you are. You called my reasons B.S. and dismissed them pretty quickly despite all of them having lots of research and thought behind them. I am not a geneticist so I don't talk about that reason, but I do know quite a lot about geopolitics, development, and a fair bit about economics so I do talk about that. Only looking at it from the one perspective you have taken when I can easily see many other explanations that seem almost elementary seems strange.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:11 pm Post subject:

Thankfully, completing surveys was not a survey question. I put it all in again and scored a 186. Fox, you're quite tall? White, male, straight, cisgodthatisstupid, USA/Canada, Agnostic (could be Atheist, and I attend a Catholic church, but I'm trying to be honest), affluent (they start affluent at 65k?), able, normal height, 8 (wife says I'm 7), normal height, engineer. Also amusing is they list inv.banker as the most privileged. Most i-bankers earn less than 100k. Nurses with a specialization earn more than i-bankers. Welders too. Should have made more income categories and removed the profession. The most wealthy people I know, and the most free, own businesses. It is a snapshot into how a leftist studies-major sees the world.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:17 pm Post subject:

Titus wrote:

Thankfully, completing surveys was not a survey question. I put it all in again and scored a 186. Fox, you're quite tall?

White, male, straight, cisgodthatisstupid, USA/Canada, Agnostic (could be Atheist, and I attend a Catholic church, but I'm trying to be honest), affluent (they start affluent at 65k?), able, normal height, 8 (wife says I'm 7), normal height, engineer.

Also amusing is they list inv.banker as the most privileged. Most i-bankers earn less than 100k. Nurses with a specialization earn more than i-bankers. Welders too. Should have made more income categories and removed the profession. The most wealthy people I know, and the most free, own businesses.

It is a snapshot into how a leftist studies-major sees the world.

I redid it and got a 200. I put Christian, which is apparently worth 15 points more than agnostic which might be more accurate. I'm surprised my none/other career still allowed me to be privileged. Maybe the privilege checking that the Harvard Kennedy School will do at orientation will be better, I'm sure it probably will be more detailed, perhaps I'll sneak in and get my privilege properly checked.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:26 pm Post subject:

Hopefully they use this when it is time for reparations and you and fox will have to pay more than me.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:32 pm Post subject:

The pitfalls of working with white people: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/radical-group-that-listed-pitfalls-of-working-with-white-people-received-over-250k-in-doj-grants/ We're horrible.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:38 pm Post subject:

Titus wrote:

Fox wrote:

How the hell you get 205. You a plutocrat?

My family is extremely rich, not that I'm especially interested in it.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:40 pm Post subject:

Ha, jeepers dude don't be a stereotype.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:16 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

So are you suggesting that any African country could be brought up to Korean levels of prosperity if only they had some more money dumped on them? Because if so, you're defying your own "it's complex" approach, and if not, then this is only marginally relevant, since many other factors would be at work here.

How about instead ofusing vague terms like "how much" and "multitudes more" you simply cite a dollar figure?

Leon wrote:

Ports and navigable rivers are massively important for trade now, and probably in the foreseeable future.

You said, "A major one is that despite the long coastline there are very few natural ports or navigable rivers, combined with desert and jungle mean less culture being transmitted along the continent." Now you've switched from concerns about cultural transmission to concerns about trade, which are obviously not the same thing.

Leon wrote:

Disease is massively important- as your example of native americans proves. One of the major problems is of course malaria, http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/MalariaBasicsGlobalImpactandActions.aspx

Quote:

Individuals can protect themselves against malaria by wearing protective clothing and using insect repellents and bed nets. According to the WHO, field trials indicate that insecticide-treated bed nets and curtains have the potential to reduce childhood mortality by 15 percent to 35 percent. Despite their proven efficacy, fewer than 2 percent of African children sleep under protective bed nets.

Is malaria the problem, or is African refusal to do something about it the problem? This comes back to Titus' future-orientation concerns; when an African father spends money that could be used on a mosquito net on drinking, and then his children get malaria, to turn around and say, "Wow, malaria is a real problem there!" ignores an additional key factor. Europeans were disease-ridden enough until they started doing something about it, and unlike Africans, they largely had to figure it out for themselves.

Leon wrote:

This might explain the difference between Norway and Saudi Arabia to some extent, but Norway and the African states? Even then I'm not really sure that's fair; Arab oil might to some extent explain a failure to develop, but if that oil were to vanish, I don't think we'd see suddenly see the Arabs shifting into Norwegian mode and become more industrious. Quite the opposite really. I think you've got things almost inverted here in a way; it's not the institutions that make the Norwegian people industrious, it's the industriousness of the Norwegian people that allows for and empowers the institutions.

Leon wrote:

How many countries have recognized Somaliland?

Other countries recognize you is far less important than how the locals behave. If the people of Somaliland comport themselves as the citizens of a country otherwise would, then lack of recognition from other nations, while it might have diplomatic consequences, and to some extent trade consequences, should not obstruct them from working towards something better for themselves. I'm not saying lack of international recognition is 100% unimportant by any means, but it shouldn't stop the creation of domestic institutions, institutions of which you yourself are constantly emphasizing the importance.

Leon wrote:

Also, again back to the natural resources, if a breakaway region has oil or diamonds the central government will not cede that land for obvious reasons, which can lead to war and chaos.

And here we are again with local behavior causing local problems, yet instead of acknowledging the agency of the people involved, we talk about "the curse of resources." Blaming inanimate objects instead of living, breathing humans is absurd.

Leon wrote:

I'm not sure you are. You called my reasons B.S. and dismissed them pretty quickly despite all of them having lots of research and thought behind them.

Right, but often enough when you say "research" you mean that you read someone's opinions on the matter and nodded in agreement. I understand that you have to take that seriously; if you don't take your fellow academics seriously, they won't take you seriously, and then your credentials will mean nothing, so I don't hold it against you, but you can't expect me to play by the same rules. "I am not a geneticist so I don't talk about that reason," is a great way to try to reconcile yourself with the unspoken rules of this topic while not actually telling a lie, but it's pretty transparent. Watching people do intellectual gymnastics trying to explain an immensely obvious global pattern in terms of anything and everything except the single strongest and most obvious correlation gets a bit absurd after a while.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:48 pm Post subject:

Titus wrote:

Thankfully, completing surveys was not a survey question. I put it all in again and scored a 186. Fox, you're quite tall?

No, I picked normal.

Race: White
Sex: Male
Orientation: Straight
Gender: Cisgender
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist / Jewish
Status: "Plutocrat" > $500,000 (family, not personal)
Disability: Able-Bodied
Size: Normal
Attractiveness: 4/10 (my wife also says higher, but Koreans can never really tell)
Profession: Teacher

205 / 230

When I change "teacher" to "none/other" for a profession, my privileged status doesn't change, so once I retreat into the mountains and become a full-time hermit, I'll evidently maintain my privilege. I'm sure the squirrels will envy me.

The cut off for "Plutocrat" being $500,000 also seems low. There's definitely a "privilege differential" between a $500,000 a year family, a $2,000,000 a year family, and a "I suck billions out of the economy while not actually producing anything at all" family.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 5:17 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

No, I'm not suggesting that all it would take is money being thrown at Africa to bring it to South Korean level success. You stated that Africa also received aid money, but the differences in amount, and type, are important. Aside from amounts, South Korea does not have a single natural resource to base the economy on, and the American army heavily supported the Korean manufacturing section, Hyundai, and others, would not have existed if it were not for contracts with the U.S. government, and would not have become a major player without the massive government contracts in Vietnam that was only possible because of the already existing American military alliance. That's kind of a unique circumstance, although Japan had something similar with the U.S. except to a greater scale.

As to the actual amounts,
"From 1953 to 1974, when grant assistance dwindled to a negligible amount, the nation received some US$4 billion of grant aid. About US$3 billion was received before 1968, forming an average of 60 percent of all investment in South Korea. after 1963 South Korea received foreign capital mainly in the form of loans at concessionary rates of interest. According to government sources, between 1964 and 1974 such loans averaged about 6.5 percent of all foreign borrowing. Other data suggested a much higher figure; it seemed that most loans to the government were concessional, at least through the early 1970s."

According to the inflation calculator I used online that is more than $35 billion in today's dollars. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12334.html

Also, in 1965 Japan gave South Korea almost $4 billion for reparations and started trading heavily with Korea. http://www.jiyuushikan.org/e/reparations.html

One major difference is that Korea, and Japan, had an actual strategic interest for the U.S., so the U.S. cared about stability in those countries, cared about how the money was spent, and used Korean and Japanese companies which encouraged manufacturing. Africa gets aid in terms of humanitarian stuff, which at some level is important to deal with health issues, but the money is given with less strings attached, and since Africa isn't a strategic issue less efforts are taken to ensure stability. China's involvement might actual change things because China is building infrastructure and sees Africa as strategically important, and China and Africa are building a massive trading relationship.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Ports and navigable rivers are massively important for trade now, and probably in the foreseeable future.

That's true. I consider a people's history to have an effect on their current reality, so I consider that important. Also, it meant less contact with the outside world except in a few port towns. They aren't the same things of course, but I consider it both to be valid.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Quote:

Some of that is probably a fair point. Although, Europe, because of its climate and lack of jungle, etc. never had the amount of disease that Africa has consistently had throughout its history.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Like I said before, history and geography matters. The Arabs in Saudi Arabia are from a nomadic culture living in a harsh desert climate and believe in an extreme form of islam. Without oil Saudi Arabia becomes Yemen, but Saudi Arabia would have been Yemen without the oil in the first place. Norway had strong institutions before the oil was found, and continued to have them afterwards. The African colonies were created for extractive reasons by Europe, now that they are no longer colonies the extraction continues, except now it is usually a strongman supported by multi-national corporations instead of colonial relationships.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

How many countries have recognized Somaliland?

Yes, that's true. By most accounts Somaliland is actually doing well, all things considered. In a sense the collapse of Somalia itself was a factor in this being able to happen. Africa has lots of civil wars- a lot of people are trying to do what you suggest, but a lot of these contested regions have oil or diamonds so the state is unwilling to cede these areas to breakaway regions.

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

Also, again back to the natural resources, if a breakaway region has oil or diamonds the central government will not cede that land for obvious reasons, which can lead to war and chaos.

I know you don't care about money, but it has a powerful influence on most other people in the world. Should I make some observation on white people based on the 30 years war?

Fox wrote:

Leon wrote:

I'm not sure you are. You called my reasons B.S. and dismissed them pretty quickly despite all of them having lots of research and thought behind them.

Yes and No. You see, most of what I said, others have said before me about Africa, some of it I took from knowledge of other places and applied it to Africa. It is not merely a matter of agreeing though, it is a matter of filtering which things I agree with or disagree with. If there is data and relevant case studies available to refer to, then it makes more sense to utilize those to try and understand things than to come to a priori conclusion based on what you think makes sense on the surface.

A lot of things that seem obvious are wrong. Not always of course. Most geneticists disagree with Titus' proposition. There is lots of research out there about how poverty- or environmental stress, affects human development. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_02_03.pdf

In some cases it becomes a chicken-egg argument, do the people in Somalia have lower IQ scores in the studies Titus cites because they are Somali, or because they live in Somalia. I lean towards the second one, Titus leans towards the first.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 6:07 am Post subject:

Quote:

A lot of things that seem obvious are wrong. Not always of course. Most geneticists disagree with Titus' proposition.

Geneticists disagree that genes are 1) heritable and 2) impact behavior?

I think you need to read Wade's book. Or Cochran's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

Quote:

There is lots of research out there about how poverty- or environmental stress, affects human development.

The above is true. It is circular.

Leon, how are people with a 70 IQ going to climb out of poverty? Let's assume white people (or the Chinese?) are able to lift every African in Africa out of poverty. Once they're all out of poverty, how will they maintain it?

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 6:32 am Post subject:

Titus wrote:

Quote:

A lot of things that seem obvious are wrong. Not always of course. Most geneticists disagree with Titus' proposition.

Geneticists disagree that genes are 1) heritable and 2) impact behavior?

I think you need to read Wade's book. Or Cochran's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

Quote:

There is lots of research out there about how poverty- or environmental stress, affects human development.

The first part, I was referring to the effects of race on IQ, which is at best, at least as far as I am aware, an open question in genetics.

I don't really believe that it is the responsibility of America or China to lift people out of poverty. However, the aid and international loans that maintain kleptocratic regimes are a major stumbling block. Like I said before somewhere earlier in the thread, Africa is actually having pretty strong growth rates. A lot of the growth is coming from trade with China, but not only from big projects but a lot of individual trading companies.

Most African countries are not really that worse off than, as mentioned before, most of Asia in the 1950's. During the 1940's-1950's Americans thought that all Japan would be good for was making shirts or paper products like napkins, and thought even less of Korea.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 7:24 am Post subject:

Quote:

The first part, I was referring to the effects of race on IQ, which is at best, at least as far as I am aware, an open question in genetics.

IF a trait is heritable then it follows that the ancestral mating pool will be similarly endowed (very likely). In other words, a race is an extended family. I don't like the term race.

Here's a great collection of reviews of Wade's book. It covers the scope of the debate well.

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/linkfest-a-troublesome-inheritance/

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 22, 23, 24 Next
Page 15 of 24

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe