View Single Post
Old 01-13-2011, 06:54 PM   #64
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
Why. If the US became a super power and the the most dynamic economy in the world by not using the "Chinese parent's" playbook, what makes you think changing the playbook is going to bring you success? If you have been winning the super bowl 7 out of the last 10 years, running the single wing offense and the 46 defense. Do you all of a sudden change to the run & shoot offense and 3-4 defense? This seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
When the facts change you have to change your opinion. The United States has relied on hard working or intelligent immigrants to get to where it is today. But as the rest of the world catches up, it will be harder and harder to attract the best talent from abroad. We're still the best option, but we will be less so in the coming decades. Plus it's not like we've kept the same playbook, let alone playing the same game, all these years. Our immigration policy is far less open, our government makes up a much larger portion of GDP, and our competition is getting better and better.

But, how much are they really made up of their DNA. How much of a delta is their between the kids DNA, the parents DNA, and the DNA of another individual chosen at random. A kid may have red hair and green eyes, nether of which the parents have. that is a pretty strong disparity of certain DNA, relative the the parents DNA.
Red hair or green eyes is actually a very minor quibble in terms of your genetic material.

I understand your point. I just find it flawed. There is less than 25 difference in DNA between humans and chimps. Do you think there is really a marked difference in DNA between DNA of humans chosen at random and that of that small percentage difference, the percentage of those particular DNA sequences are going to be that significant? Really?
Perhaps you should refine your statement using standardized mathematical and descriptive concepts. Less than 25 difference in DNA? What does that mean?

Could those outside influences be people other than parents? Even (gasp!!) more critical than parents to their success?
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
It all starts with your parents. They determine where you live, what you eat, who you associate with. Your parents are the gatekeepers to those other outside influences.

But, wait. You said the best way to measure success was buy standardized test scores. These are the standardized test scores we use. So that is the measurement we need to gauge by.

If you are going to apply your rationale in one area, do you not need to apply it to the other.
I didn't say we should disregard it. Plus I did say we could improve average IQ scores. But there should also be a push to refine the way we measure intelligence. It's almost all based on pattern recognition and arithmetic.

But again, how do you know this? What were Warren Buffet's parents like? Or fill in the blank. There are numerous examples of music, film, & sports starts who are very successful, make huge jack, who had parents who did not "maximize the chance that their children can achieve success." And there are examples of parents who did "the chance that their children can achieve success." and their kids OD'd on heroin or stepped in front of a train because they cracked under the pressure. This is the internet startup myth for children. Everybody hears the story of google, facebook, fill_in_the_blank company that became huge. Nobody hears the stories of the thousands of others that failed.
Let's talk about average cases, not outliers. I'm not looking to train a generation of Sergey Brins or Tom Bradys.

US history shows that this parenting behavior is often the case in 1st generation immigrants and their kids. As those folks future generations integrate into the culture that parenting often changes. Do we think that these "chinese mothers" will be that prevalent in the US 4 generations from now? History say no.
Right. But the second generation is often the most well adjusted and educated. If we can find a way to put everybody in the second generation mindset, we're golden.

That is hogwash.
Firstly: We can manipulate other people to get the things we and and desire. That does not mean we need to consider or care how we are actually viewed within the society. If we can con them into believing something, we are free to do so. That does not mean what we con them into thinking we are is who we are.
Secondly: The measure of people is supposed to be their ability to do things (that is success, is it not). Not what they believe or whether we like them, or their beliefs. If I am in sales and I can sell dbl everybody else and I am an atheist and the others are monotheists. Does it matter that I don't believe in god even though 92% of americans do?
Perhaps I used the term "sociopath" incorrectly. Even sociopaths care about how people view them (which is why they go to such great lengths to conceal who they really are). Everybody cares about how everybody else views them.
__________________ - Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote