Slashdot Mirror
Red Brains vs. Blue Brains?
eLoco writes "From the NYTimes (reg. req.): The Political Brain -- "Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically? Perhaps it's all in the head." Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives. According to the article, studies of stroke victims "have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly? [DISCLAIMER: this is not a troll; I am a liberal]. Regardless, this seems to have implications for more than just politics. Favorite quote: "Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function.""
So are we going to start using a Party sorting CAT scanner? [please not slitherin... please not slitherin...]
So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly?
No. It is, however, flamebait and fodder for the conservatives to jump over.
I'm a liberal. I also am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and in fact own multiple firearms. Why? Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence. I look at my intellectual forbears like Samuel Adams, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi (not as peace as you believe!), Malcolm X, and other political agitators. Frequently changes can come about through peaceful means, but when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled.
In no religious or political tradition is the forceful opposition of tyranny considered a sin or a crime. This is very much a liberal train of thought, in the "power to the people" sense, the fundamental democratic sense. The liberals who founded America did so by violently opposing British tyranny, and they were wholly justified in doing so.
The question is: empathy towards who? I am empathetic towards the oppressed, the poor, and those who do not get treated justly by their governments. I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day. If violence is required to make it happen, then so be it. I hope it does not come to that, but if it will, I will not run from it.
It's not my fault that I refuse to take responsibility for my actions!
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Well, some people (such as yourself) see this as sort of an over-the-top, politically-correct perspective. In actuality, it's a long standing philosophical debate: is freewill a myth? It's B.F. Skinner and Co. vs. the existenialists.
While you respond in disgust, what happens if one day science does indeed discover that biology trumphs freewill? What if almost all of out behaviors are predetermined by chemistry?
Not attempting to threadjack here, just adding an additional perspective to a post that was an immediate +5.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
lol, that's just politics man. if you honestly believe that conservatives are politically worse than liberals, or vice versa, you're just silly. politics are politics. doesn't matter which side you're on.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Marshall Brain wrote a blog post where he joked about the way we pick any explanation that feels scientific.
Explaining why smokers have more sex: "Here's a theory. Perhaps, way way back in the evolutionary chain, humans have a long-extinct ancestor that had long, thin, tusk-like incisors jutting out of its mouth. And perhaps, residually, our brains are programmed to recognize that "long incisors" means "good mate". So when a person puts a cigarette up to his or her mouth, it triggers the "long incisors" circuit in our brains, and cigarettes get associated with sex in that way. It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because it is ridiculous -- there must be a better theory."
Right now, people seem to buy up anything that sounds like Evolutionary Psychology. The attitude is: "It is scientific. Therefore, it must be true. Anything else would be religion or emotion."
Quote: (Note to non-US residents: the governor of New Jersey has recently resigned after being 'outed' as gay).
No, the governor resigned due to very serious corruption while using his homosexuality as a cover. Please get your facts straight.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over thirty, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-Winston Churchill
My views have definately changed in the past ten years or so. It's one of the reason we need to, in this election, which should concern matters of national security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc., stop all this nonsense about what may or may not have happened in Vietnam 35 years ago. We should be discussing education, social security, national security; we should be looking at voting records and bills that have been signed and/or sponsored by the candidates in the past 10 or 15 years. The worst part of this election is that it's hinging on what may be some exagerations from a boasting veteran of what happened 35 years ago.
Thomas Sowell had an amazing quotable first paragraph in his article today, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, I think we can all agree on this:
Also, I think it's been proven, at least to my satisfaction, that people develop fear over time. I don't know what causes compasion, but I also think it's a myth that conservatives are not, or cannot be, compassionate. Many people agree that democrats and republicans are not that far apart on the issues - nobody wants people to go without food, healthcare, shelter, education... what we differ on is how best to accomplish those goals.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This sort of argument is a dangerous one that's plagued science for a number of years now: "If there are biological underpinnings for our actions, preferences, and personalities, how can we be responsible for anything?"
But the question itself assumes a connection where none has to exist: Science and ethics aren't connected like that. Maybe I'm a liberal because of my genetic makeup; maybe it's my environment; probably it's both. In any of these cases, I have made choices, and it's appropriate for me to accept responsibility for them, regardless of the various biological and environmental factors that went into them.
The notion that explaining our behavior eliminates free will or responsibility is an unfortunate one, and has held back a number of scientific fields. Learning what lies behind our choices doesn't invalidate them, but merely helps us understand ourselves better and perhaps make more informed decisions.
(A much more complete, better-written, and better-supported version of what I'm saying can be found in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.)
A friend of mine didn't realize he was gay until he'd already slept with several men
See, that right there is a dead giveaway.
Finkployd
Still with me?
Ok, here goes...
Why is it seen as courageous to support war (any war, as US republicans often do) when all you risk is, at most, a slight tax increase. You don't even have to get your fat ass out of your comfy chair! Just order some flags and stickers over the internet (got to "Support The Troops") and watch the fireworks on FOX!
Pay someone to fight and die somewhere far away, destroying someone elses country in the process.
This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.
The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP.
If the common voter had a real possibility of having to directly bear the burden of the decisions of the leaders (like the entire population of $INVADED_COUNTRY will) in the event of war, maybe we wouldn't see any cases of going to war on faulty intelligence?
Ask yourselves: How many "brave" conservatives would support a war if it was going to be fought in their hometown?
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Maybe the way we think alters the physical structures of our brains. Just like if we exercise certain muscles they get bigger.
How does that deny free will?
Every time I hear Americans choose between the far right wing and the even further right wing I shudder.
Illegal detainments in Iraq and Cuba.
Vast expansion of secret police powers via "Patriot Act".
World's biggest Military budget (thats a guess) and a military commander chosen in hail of controversy.
If any of the above scares you, and you are American, break the two party system that makes it too easy to buy your government.
Think twice when you are sold something by a fear mongering right winger (of either party).
LS
categorizing political idealology into two groups is really the mistake you've made.
When two opposed groups with supposedly opposite idealogies end up doing the same thing it makes you wonder that there is something going on. It's not cynical to notice this, it's being realistic. Both parties have something to sell, and when it comes to voting if you're not for a canidate then you're against them.
It's always some sort of near-scandal if a republican is pro-choice or a democrate is pro-gun. Somehow picking in choosing your issues isn't acceptable, you have to be all the way to the left or all the way to the right.
What if, as a voter I'm for things that both parties are selling, then who do I vote for? Now you see why so many people seem cynical about the whole thing. We want to vote for a good politican who will represent us well, but we are rarely given that choice.
I'm for throwing dictators (especially ones we set up in the past) out of power, and I'm for gun rights. Does that make me a conservative? But I'm for preserving the environment because it is a resource the belongs to everyone, and should not be damaged for profit. And I'm pro-choice. So does that make me a liberal? No I'm what some people like Rush sometimes call indecisive, I apparently can't make up my mind if I want to be left wing or right wing. Why should I change my basic beliefs just to fit in better with one group or another? (the real question here is why would I want to be associated with either of those groups?)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I have a feeling that you and the parent are falling on the Red Brain side. First of all, there's no logical basis for the argument that a doctors diagnosis now alleviates personal responsibility. If you get drunk and kill someone, you may have been incapacitated by alcohol, but you chose to get drunk and therefore are culpable. This awareness that a particular way of thinking is part of your biological makeup doesn't give you a pass, it increases you're responsibility since it is now a defined problem which you have a responsibility to fix.
There is an extreme difference between someone having a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic and having one for homosexuality. Being gay doesn't cause you to violate someone else's rights, whereas alcoholism seems to ratchet that risk up through the roof. Until the 1930's there was no widespread, successful, way of dealing with alcoholism. Alcoholics were treated as seriously mentally ill. Instead of being rehabilitated into productive, self-reliant citizens, many times they were lobotomized and institutionalized.
After the 30's people started to understand alcoholism and people who wound up alcoholic were expected to act responsibly and use one of the many avenues now available to them to become responsible citizens instead of criminals. Now we know that predisposition for addiction can be passed on genetically, but we don't allow anyone to just get away with lapsing into that behavior.
Self-Knowledge increases responsibility, arguing otherwise is a slippery-slope based on a false dichotomy.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
In my mind, the main difference between liberals and conservatives is a preference for nature or nurture. This ties in to your idea abou the loss of free will. Disclaimer: I consider myself a conservative, athough I think I have a good understanding of how liberals think because a lot of my friends are liberals and I like to talk about politics. I'd love to hear feedback on this idea to see how valid it is.
Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature. Some people are just good and some people are just bad. Nothing can be done to change or fix the situation- it's just how they are. Good people tend to obey the law, pay taxes, go to church and be good citizens. Bad people don't. When a bad person does something bad, it's because he's a bad person and therefore likely to do bad things.
Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured. We're affected by what goes on around us and the things we see and experience. Bad people are bad not because of some intrinsic difference between them and good people; they're bad because of their childhood or the atmosphere they live in. A bad person does something bad because there was some sort of external influence upon him, causing him to be bad.
To illustrate my point, consider gun control. Conservatives are generally against it - and this makes perfect sense considering their ideas on how people behave. Good people should be allowed to own guns becuase they're good. They'll only use them for self defense and as a result society will be safer. Bad people on the other had, don't have any respect for the law. They'll get their hands on guns regardless of the law, and use the guns to do bad things because they're bad. To a conservative, gun control simply punishes good people and prevents them from defending themselves from the bad people.
Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.
Poverty is another example of the difference. There is obviously some sort of connection between poverty and crime. Most of the nations involved in terrorism are not particularly wealthy, and crime is ramapant in poorer urban areas. Why?
Ask a conservative, and most likely she'll tell you that crime causes poverty. No one wants to start a buisness in a crime-ridden city. Because crime prevents economic activity, it causes poverty. To fix the poverty situation, just crack down on the crime. Once you've made the neighborhood safer, jobs will show up and poverty will go away. Note that no attempt is made to explain crime. The Conservative uses crime to explain poverty.
Ask a liberal, and most likely he'll tell you that the poverty causes the crime. If you grow up in a situation devoid of any opportunity for a job and a good life for yourself, you've got a good chance of turning to crime because of the hopelessness and despair of your situation. To fix the situation, you need to get rid of poverty. Try to lure companies in to provide jobs, and the crime will go away once the people have an opportunity for economic advancement. Unlike the conservative, the liberal uses poverty to explain why there's crime.
How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are.
My blog
They are gay. It doesn't matter if gays are gay because of biological influences, environmental influences, or if they made a choice to be. There are probably people who fall into each of those categories. Ultimately, what does it matter? No law has ever stopped gay men from living out life in gay relationships (in whatever form.) No amount of anti-gay violence has ever stopped gay men from being gay. No therapy has ever worked to make a man straight (desire for homosexual contact still continues, even if behavior is modified.)
When the gay civil rights movements began in the 20th century the laws against gay sex were brutal. For example when American soldiers liberated the Nazi death camps they returned the gay survivors of the camps back to the German prison system because, "they were criminals." Until recent times (and still in some places today) the social stigma for being discovered to have been a homosexual would lose you your job, your family, your home, etc... Ultimately, what it comes down to is that no matter what you do, what you say, or what laws you attempt to inact: gays will always be there. They are adults consenting to relationships (whether short term, or long term) that are worthy of the same level of respect we would afford to all human beings who do not harm others.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
I wish I had mod points to mod you up (don't know why you got modded down). Interesting research by Andrew Newberg (University of Pennsylvania) used imaging techniques to study the differences between the brains of laypeople and religious clergy-type people (Franciscan nuns and Buddhist monks). He found that certain brain regions were stronger in those who meditate often than in the laypeople. He also studies their brains when meditating (or, in the case of the nuns, chanting), and he found an increase in the brain areas during that time period. Coupled with the idea of neural plasticity, it could be that the actual practice does increase those areas (like your exercise analogy).
Newberg has a book out entitled "Why God Won't Go Away." I haven't read it, but I did have the pleasure of seeing him give a seminar at my school last year. There's also a documentary that's being screened called "What the Bleep Do We Know." It's kind of a "Sophie's World" docu/fiction hybrid, but it has interviews with mystics and neuroscientists and philosophers detailing modern ideas about the mind. Again, I haven't seen it (hasn't shown in South Carolina...go figure) but it sounds really interesting.
Terrorism works. Terrorism causes fear, and the people whom terrorism works best on are those who fear the most and are most able to emphatize with victims. This has been aided by modern media, which is able to deliver maximum shock images instantly via a worldwide television network.
I will be moderated down for saying this, but it's on-topic, it's factual, and it's my well reasoned opinion. Not good material for Slashdot, but my conscience dictates my actions.
If we lived in a world of people who were reasonable, no actions would have been taken as a result of the Columbuine killings. Eleven dead teenagers in a nation of hundred of millions equals an inconsequential cause of death. Thirty teenagers had died the previous day in car crashes, but no one stopped driving. The reason Columbine made an impact is because of people who are capable of becoming afraid, and empathizing with victims. They are able to irrationally magnify their fear outside the actual scope of the threat - again with the help of mass media. Hence we got a million people marching on Washington to ban guns, when lightning strikes and airbags both killed more children that year than school shootings.
Irrational fear leads to irrational behaviour. Terrorism works.
So now we have these same people, genetically gifted with empathy and able to feel irrational, choking amounts of fear, banding together to form a political movement. You can call them "liberals" if you want but I'm not really into name-calling. This isn't surprising. The article is full of hokum when it speculates that "people who think alike form political movements". DUH.
The question we need to ask ourselves is: should people who are irrationally ruled by fear decide the fate of our nation? Is this wise?
Perhaps gene therapy will provide a cure for this in the future; for now we have a choice to make on Nov. 2.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
While you respond in disgust, what happens if one day science does indeed discover that biology trumphs freewill? What if almost all of out behaviors are predetermined by chemistry?
I don't get this biology trumping freewill thing. Look, my brain belongs to me. If it does some sorta electro-chemical mumbo-jumbo to figure out what kind of cereal I decide to eat in the morning, how does that destroy my free will? Oh no, I'm a slave to my physical brain! Oh, the angst! Like it would be so much better if I was a slave to an immaterial, invisible soul instead?
-- dR.fuZZo
The really shocking news is we now have scientific proof that the US/UK two-party democracy is the only right system for mankind.
More refined distinctions between schools of thought in the multi-party systems in continental Europe are unnecessary and confusing to our brains.
We don't need environmentalists, socialists, communists, social democrats, social liberals, social christians, conservative liberals, christian conservatives, constitutional christians, conservative nationalists, national socialists etc. Just "blue" and "red" will do fine. There is no such thing as a "green" brain, and nazis do not exist. They are just "blue" and "red". Or vice versa.
Oh well thats just what I think
P.S. when did "family" values start to mean "christian" values?
categorizing political idealology into two groups is really the mistake you've made.
Agreed. This seems to be the mistake made by the submitter as well. The scientists involved seem to be saying that certain brain structures predispose certain people toward reluctance or caution. It's a pretty big leap to say that this makes some people wimpy liberals or patriotic conservatives, especially considering how little such labels mean in reality. A liberal in the US could be considered a right-wing conservative in Canada or Europe, for one example. Even trying to shoehorn all political philosophies into a simple single-axis spectrum is pointless--where do militant anarchists fit in? How about pacifist individualists, or authoritarian capitalists?
I like learning how these things operate, but the idea that people might try modifying these things to "better the species" scares the shit out of me. The thought that we may try to engineer a political and social monoculture forces me to consider what would be required to maintain the integrity of that artificial consciousness. It would certainly require a greater amount of resources than that already used to ensure the survival of plant and animal monocultures we've engineered for the food supply in some parts of the world!
Better we simply watch these things and allow natural processes to operate as they have for a few hundred million years, observing and learning so we can deal with the less desirable effects (such as my near-blindness, for one tiny example) in a humane, sustainable fashion.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I hate to break it to you but you are falling in to the black and white trap everyone falls in to when they try to divide politics in to liberal and conservative. You seem to have lumped liberalism in with socialism and they are two different things. Most of the big governmentism that sprung out of the depression and FDR, which you rightly have problems with is much more socialism than liberalism. If you weren't politically naive you would realize politics is like the spokes in a wheel and not a turn signal.
I'm kind of curious, when you claim the moniker "compassionate conservative" does that mean you are a fervent supporter of the other self proclaimed "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush? If so I have news for you, you should probably start calling yourself a libertarian than the travesty "conservate" is in the U.S. today.
The "compassionate conservatives" who have a stranglehold on power at the moment are instituting "large powerful central government" faster than the "liberals" you hate ever did, though the Dem's are helping. They are doing the same injustice to "conservatism" that the Dems have done to "liberalism" over the years.
Here is the short list of the most obvious examples of Republican backed "large powerful central government":
- Patriot Act
- Medicare "Reform" bill
- Department of Homeland Security
- Skyrocketing Federal budget and deficit
- Skyrocketing defense spending
- Preemptive warfare and nation building
- Free speech zones which in fact prevent free speech
- The rush to a National Intelligence Director is going to result in spying and law enforcement whose power to intrude in to your life is going to be unchecked and unstoppable. It is going result in an out of control spying agency like the CIA was in the 50's and 60's but with unfettered domestic spying powers. The Republican's are feigning reluctance but they are drooling at the prospect of creating it and of suckering the Dems in to being eager to do it too.
- Detention of people without due process at the whim of the executive branch
I hate to break it to you but what the Dems and Republicans are both practicing are different flavors of "socialism". The Republicans talk big talk about free markets but they are in fact intervening in the economy and civil liberties in truly massive ways.
The medicare "reform" bill being the most obvious example of massive economic intervention. It has all the earmarks of classic Democratic socialism except they are instead using it as a thinly veiled disguise to pump large quantities of tax payer dollars in to the pockets of their friends in the pharmaceutical, healthcare and insurance industry. The Dems woudl have just pumped it in to a huge bureaucracy and the pockets of the poor and elderly.
The defence industrial complex is in fact one of the largest planned economies on the face of the earth, the Republicans love every bit of it and can't pump money in to it fast enough.
I hate to burst the bubble but the two offerings available in the U.S. today aren't true conservatism or liberalism. They are both Socialism, the democrats leaning towards classic socialism and the Republican's leaning more towards Fascism(substituting Muslims for Jews) every day.
@de_machina
I would be considered a "Liberal" on most people's scale.
But I'm pro-gun. And I favour a strong military (but I oppose "Star Wars" because I don't think it is necessary now nor do I believe that it would work even if it was necessary). I also believe in more State's rights and a reduced federal government.
"Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature."
I also believe that. But I also believe that the way they were raised affects their choices. Someone who craves power can go into politics or religion or financials or just be an abusive husband.
"Some people are just good and some people are just bad."
Good and bad are personal evaluations. Saddam is "bad" but the US government thought Saddam was "good" when he was fighting Iran.
Personally, I thought one tin-pot dictator was fighting a authoratarian theocracy and I didn't see any "good" in either side.
"Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured."
But our environments do shape the choices we have. It takes someone with a LOT of self-focus to overcome the obstacles of his environment.
So, someone with a lot of character (an internal trait) can overcome his environment, but most people do not have that and become products of their environment.
"To illustrate my point, consider gun control."
I'm completely in favour of the 2nd Amendment.
-but-
I'm also in favour of a waiting period. I don't want someone buying a gun because he just found out his wife is cheating on him. I'm also in favour of registering guns which includes ballistics. A bullet pulled from a murder victim should be traced back to the gun that fired it and the person who purchased it.
I believe that 99%+ of the people who own guns are responsible gun owners and no threat to themselves or society.
But I also believe that a responsible gun owner would register his weapons, properly secure them and immediately report any that were stolen. This is his responsibility to society. When you exercise certain rights, you take on certain responsibilities.
So, is that "Conservative" or "Liberal"?
"Poverty is another example of the difference."
Easily answered by my previous statement about character and environment. Those with weak to average character will end up as products of their environment. Those with strong character will overcome those obstacles.
Now, take Enron and such. Crime does not depend upon poverty.
"How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are."
Which is why I am not a Conservative.
"Liberals, on the other hand, attempt to explain bad behavior. They say it's a result of our upbringing or our environment. By attempting to explain it, they don't leave a lot of room for free will to say that the people made the choice to be bad."
I believe that people do make their own choice.
Here's an example: Exercise.
Everyone (Conservatives and Liberals) knows that you should exercise. Yet not many people do. Is that because they are "bad" people who have chosen not to exercise? Or is it because the parents didn't love them enough?
I believe that it is because most people do not have the character to force themselves to do what they know is good for them and would rather take the easy way.
As in the exercise example, so as in Life.
Interesting question. Why do blacks tend to have such a single parent percentage as a whole? I think perhaps a possible that there really is a flaw in today's 'black culture' in the US. I've actually heard something that is very sad....very smart, movtivated young black men and women, that are derided by their peers saying that getting an education and trying to work and better themselves, they are accused of acting 'white'. I don't know where this comes from...I know there are a great many bad role types that are put up for today's youth, particularly in the black community, that portray violence, acting like a thug, and having no respect for women is the 'cool' way to be. It doesn't...it leads to a quick death or internment in prison.
The sad thing is...when you hear someone say things like this...even if they ARE black, like Bill Cosby has done recently...they are either crucified publicly...or shushed to the side by the media. This is something that needs to be addressed publicly...to promote getting an education IS the thing to do. This is, IMHO, not a problem that can be solved by throwing money, public or private at it. It needs to be addressed by leaders in the black community itself.
There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself...
As far as some people having a head start...sure, that's a fact of life. Not everyone gets the same starting place...but, this is a free country. I've seen plenty of those starting from nothing, do what it takes and succeed. I've seen plenty of those starting out quite wealthy...and go nowhere and end up with nothing. This is life we're talking about here...it isn't fair...but, you gotta play with what you're dealt.
I don't think we should stand in anyone's way...and all opportunities should be as open as possible to all to make their own success. But, in a society inhabited by biological beings...not all ARE created equal. Some are smarter than others...so, are larger/stronger than others, some are more attractive, some are more naturally gifted in some areas than others. That's irregardless of race or sex...just how nature works. So, strive more for a system and society that allows for us all to gain according to out abilities and aspirations. But, don't create a welfare state where it becomes nothing more than a wealth redistribution system that creates voting blocks of those who are voting to keep 'on the dole'. I believe we need to have basic society safety nets...the elderly, the handicapped and the seriously infirmed...sure. But, anyone that is able bodied...needs to be working and earning a living.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Could it be that our education system is programming native-born blacks for failure? That is the opinion of many notable successful black entrepreneurs and authors. Check out the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, both brilliant economists, and both happy they got their educations before our system was "improved" for blacks in the 60s and 70s.
For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say - but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.
Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed. If we truly moved to Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society, these powerful people would be out of work... Who would listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, if they weren't screaming discrimination at every turn?
Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long. When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".
The solution? Let's put an end to teaching blacks and other minorities that we expect less from them, just because they're not white. Let's stop giving people crap jobs to fill quotas to keep the race merchants from shaking your company down for "donations".
The parent post is referring to Dr. Cosby's assigning culpability to the black community for perpetuating a culture that derides academic and financial success. Jesse Jackson was there too and heard the message, but sadly many in the audience were miffed because Dr. Cosby wasn't just blaming "the man", but instead told them to take some personal responsibility. This happened a few months ago, IIRC.
"There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself..."
Probably shouldn't point this but you are engaging in the very kind of thinking that causes the problem you are lamenting. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.
Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.
It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.
You may choose to forget it but America, especially the South, was practicing something resembling apartheid barely 40 years ago. The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil. Its kind of naive to think blacks are going to jump from deeply oppressed, and in social tatters, to a level playing field in the space of a couple of generations.
If you grow up knowing all this chances are you too would be toting animosity to people whose ethnicity gives them every advantage. I'm guessing your ethnicity has always puts you at a advantage so you really have no clue what the problem is like. Someone black in America can succeed but they are going to have to work at least twice as hard to just reach parity. Someone who is affluent and white can fail too but they have work twice as hard at it too, and they can succeed without really trying or deserving it.
Here is a case study. There is this white guy I know. He was an academic disaster, intellectually challenged, squandered his youth partying, was arrested for Cocaine possession, failed in every business he tried excepting wealthy friends of his family baled him out every time. How did he make out in life. He is President of the United States. How did this happen you ask, he was born in to a white, privledged, wealthy, powerful family. If he'd been poor and black and and made the same life choices he would have ended up packing an M-16 in Vietnam and probably the rest of his life in prison.
Its all nice to bang the drum about how free America is and anyone can succeed but its a lot freer for some than it is for others, and it sure helps being born in the right place at the right time and the right color.
@de_machina
In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful.
In 1976, I was told I was free as a result of reaching 18 years of age. All I was given was instructions that I needed to go out and join the job market... even though I'm white, I was given no property, and no special birthright. While I did not suffer under slavery (some of today's kids might think the tight discipline of my youth was slavery, but it was not), the "meaningfulness" of my freedom was entirely tied to what I was willing to make of it, just as the "meaningfulness" of the 1863 slave's freedom was. Today, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring, based upon a variety of criteria, unless they're a white male under the age of 50. Most of these people never owned a slave, and were never in a position to have denied someone else a job because of the color of their skin. And the unfairness of that makes it damn hard for them to accept the idea that someone will less education or less skills has priority over them... or that anyone from these "privileged" groups who didn't need the special programs to succeed really did make it on their own.
Walter E. Williams once related that, when faced with a choice of doctors where he only knew the age and race of the doctors, how he would make his choice. If they were both in their late 50s, and one was black, he'd take the black doctor, because he knew that this man had worked hard to get where he was.
But, if they were in their 30s, he'd go with the white doctor, because he would have no way of knowing if the black doctor had gotten through on his skills, or the need for the university to fulfill its quotas.
This is not the desired result of affirmative action, but it is the common one. It only gets worse when people use the argument that removing race-based quotas hurts blacks, purpetuating the myth that blacks aren't smart enough to succeed on their own.
Just thought I would add my 2 cents plus some personal experience. I am always wary of explanations that ignore societal factors. Yes, blacks on average are notably poorer than whites and a small part of that may have to do with so called 'black culture' (black culture is not a monolith, there are multiple parts to it but the media potrays only the bad/dysfunctional sub cultures) but if one is trying to claim that the disparity is not due to a large part on discrimination and exclusion then you are sorely mistaken.
I am a black african who grew up middle class at home and I now work in hi-tech (software engineer) in the Boston area. I have faced discrimination in the past but as one climbs the social/financial ladder its effects become less pervasive (but still as painful). However, every once in a while its pervasiveness becomes apparent. My girlfriend and I were recently looking for an apartment and since I was the one who had a lot of free time we had a number of interesting experiences
1. Spoke to a realtor and when we showed up the first thing out of his mouth was that we should look for low income housing (huh?)
2. Had a realtor I spoke to (people sometimes mistake my accent for British or something) and made an appointment to see quite a few apartments. Spoke to him multiple times (called him from work and he stated he had quite a few places to show us). When I showed up he suddenly got this look when he saw me. First words out of his mouth were "So, do you work?" (this after I had spoken to him by calling him from work and stating that I would be leaving work early to meet him. He them claimed that he really had nothing to show us and hurriedly left (this one I shall be reporting to the BHA)
Had realtors just yank my chain, treat me rudely etc. I got to the point where I would joke with my girlfriend (who is white) that maybe she should do all the looking and booking and then I would show up at the end.
We eventually gave up and decided to do Craigs List and only do for rent by owner, since by doing this we were dealing with young enlightened people, we had much better luck .
On the whole my experiences with realtors is very disheartening. Now, I have only had to deal with this (and the occasional N word yelled, treated suspiciously by policeand people etc) for only a few years and also not during my formative years. If I had to deal with this all my life I can tell you I would be a very different person.
As far as affirmative action goes, I whole heartedly support it. I know that I have benefited from it (I know jobs that I would have never gotten even to the initial interview unless the companies involved were not afraid of not looking as if they were following certain mandates. Also for the longest time when job hunting I would make sure that my first few interviews were over the phone (but then again, a study done last year in the Boston and Philadelphia area found that job applicants with black sounding names were called back 50% less than job applicants with white sounding names (this after controlling for education).
As far as the black intelligence argument that is used as an explanation all I can say is give me a break!. I remember that in the Bell Curve it was stated that the average I.Q of Africans was something like 75 or 80 (borderline retarded). The fact tha such a book could be greeted with anything but scorn says everything you need to know about race relations in the U.S