The End Of School Discipline By Design

[Energizer]

There's a difference between acknowledgement of pedigree and giving it undue credence. The phrase dysgenic mating is putting undue emphasis on the role of the gene in development. I have no problem accepting that who one mates with influences the development of the future organism, it's the emphasis of it that I think is problematic hence why I posted the quote from Peat about eugenics and Konrad Lorenz. I don't doubt that it matters, but not as much as people think.

 

[michael94]

That is a fair position. Would you agree that - it would be ideal to optimize both, but because of ethical reasons we should only focus on environment. Meaning if the premise of said ethics were re-evaluated - a different conclusion could be made.

 

[Queequeg]

I am not sure that everyone has actually read the article I linked to or watched the video. This incredible change in behavior in just a few years was the result of purposeful government intervention that forced principals under threat of civil rights actions to stop disciplining their students. What many seem to have latched onto was the already poor behavior of at risk children before these changes took place. However, what is going on now is something completely different and unprecedented. The inmates have been encouraged to take over the asylum by design.

With that said I think anyone looking to a genetic or cultural explanation for poorly behaved black children before these changes is conveniently ignoring other government mandates that have wreacked havoc on the black communities. Most importantly was the requirement within the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program that no mothers were allowed to live with their husband or any other man as a condition of aid. Prior to this program blacks had a higher rate of marriage and children born in wedlock than the average population. The fact that this has been allowed to continue in spite of the obvious impact should tell you that it wasn't just an unintended consequence that wasn't easily forseen. Before the war on poverty the black community was slowly pulling themselves up into the middle classes.
How the Welfare State Has Devastated African Americans - Discover the Networks

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

As he's saying here, it's quite obviously an ideology based on faulty cultural conceptions, and not a valid scientific model, you can't predict anything based off of it, all you can do is arbitrarily class and stereotype groups of people based on behavior and assume that the genes are responsible, as you are assuming here with the black community.

There's really no way to prove what you're saying, there are probably many reasons why certain communities suffer more than others, and it probably has a lot more to do with social class, economics, nutrition, and their environment, imo. I think it makes more sense to focus on things you can change and observe, rather than things you can't, (ie. genes). You can't measure someone's genes, so trying to correlating their genes with their behavior just doesn't make much sense, and is definitely not reliable. You can't predict someone's behavior well based on what genes they have, how they look, or what genes someone has based on their behavior (excluding the obvious genetic disorders such as Down's Syndrome), so it's not reliable to assume as much. I think many people in mainstream culture still think genes are the most important things, when that's not at all true. I think genes are given far too much credit, and are far less influential, than many seem to believe.

If we want smarter kids, correcting nutritional deficiencies and improving the environment for them should be the focus, not who's mating with who. That's not only unproductive, but completely out of anyone's control (furthermore it would be unethical to try to control that, as in the Nazi experiments), even if the biggest village idiots were having the most kids (which is possible in any community I suppose), the best way to solve that problem is to improve the environment and nutrition for the future generations. Spreading awareness about "Peaty" concepts I think has done a lot of positive for people that are transitioning from miserable health with fad dieting, low carbing, and eating tons of PUFAs. I think Peat mentioned as well in a radio interview that Mexican mothers were told to feed their babies with soymilk by government health agencies as way to reduce costs or something similarly horrendous, I forget exactly what the reason was, but I was kind of shocked to learn that. I think minorities usually get shafted so to speak nutritionally because they have less to spend on good food and usually know less about eating for optimal nutrition.

Anyway, as far as schooling goes, I think the teacher's observations Hugh Johnson posted in the previous thread were spot on. Education must be de-institutionalized and the way things are taught should be like how things were done at Blake College, in a self-directed and voluntary way. I doubt there would be many behavioral issues in that ideal scenario, if any.

everything you said was wrong.

you can control who mates with who. you can predict behavior based on genes. genes do determine behavior. there is such a thing and good genes and bad genes. if you want smarter kids then breed with smarter men. if you want violent kids breed with violent men.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

With that said I think anyone looking to a genetic or cultural explanation for poorly behaved black children before these changes is conveniently ignoring other government mandates that have wreacked havoc on the black communities. Most importantly was the requirement within the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program that no mothers were allowed to live with their husband or any other man as a condition of aid. Prior to this program blacks had a higher rate of marriage and children born in wedlock than the average population. The fact that this has been allowed to continue in spite of the obvious impact should tell you that it wasn't just an unintended consequence that wasn't easily forseen. Before the war on poverty the black community was slowly pulling themselves up into the middle classes.
How the Welfare State Has Devastated African Americans - Discover the Networks

But I thought you couldn't control who blacks mate with? Isn't this a problem for nutrition?

 

[Energizer]

That is a fair position. Would you agree that - it would be ideal to optimize both, but because of ethical reasons we should only focus on environment. Meaning if the premise of said ethics were re-evaluated - a different conclusion could be made.

Not just ethical reasons, genetic engineering is so primitive that it's advocates are bound to commit very serious errors in using it. In an ideal world, if genetic engineering wasn't so crude, maybe it would be feasible, but it's not at all feasible as of right now.

 

[Energizer]

everything you said was wrong.

you can control who mates with who. you can predict behavior based on genes. genes do determine behavior. there is such a thing and good genes and bad genes. if you want smarter kids then breed with smarter men. if you want violent kids breed with violent men.

Sounds an awful lot like genetic determinism.
Perhaps you should read more of Ray's work, things don't exactly work how you think they do.


Edit, oops, I didn't mean to double post there. Mods, please merge my post if possible, thanks.

 

[Sucrates]

@Queequeg, Do you happen to remember what video that is?

 

[Queequeg]

@Queequeg, Do you happen to remember what video that is?

Do you mean the one in the first post?

 

[Queequeg]

But I thought you couldn't control who blacks mate with? Isn't this a problem for nutrition?

Genetics isn't the problem. The problem is with government programs that are designed to hurt the people they are supposed to be helping. You don't need a super high IQ or special genetics to contribute to society. All you need is a strong work ethic. Having an intact family with at least one parent working would go a long way but the welfare rules as structured makes this impossible.

 

[michael94]

Sounds an awful lot like genetic determinism.
Perhaps you should read more of Ray's work, things don't exactly work how you think they do.

I do believe a lot of so-called genes are in fact epi-genetic and very mutable. And to a far greater extent than even Peat has mentioned. However, this does not make heredetarian arguments completely bunk, just that our understanding of how ancestry expresses itself is incomplete. Ancestral inertia may very well be tied to things not physical or measurable in a lab. ( By the way, the word 'ancestral' comes from - astral )

The problem ultimately with purely environmental approaches is they are time-enslaved ideologies based on incorrect conceptions of development, i.e. the difference between these group of people can be completely overcome by living in a different part of the world and eating a different way. In this way the meliorism becomes an end-objective in itself because the mechanisms and origins of development are based on lies and no end goal or direction can be conceived besides vague notions of better-ness.

 

[jaguar43]

Ask a dog/horse breeder if they think pedigree matters. Acknowledging such doesn't mean he/she stops caring about how the animals are raised. It does not follow that - since environment matters a lot, who breeds with whom doesn't.

Actually, according to Peat, the idea of environmental conditions influencing offspring were actually started by breeders and horticulturalist. Here is a quote from him.

This theory opened the possibility for newly acquired traits to be passed on. It grew out of the experience of animal breeders and horticulturists, who were dedicated to improving their breeds and strains, by selecting the best individuals grown under the best conditions. It was known that the miniature ponies, Shetlands for example, would grow larger each generation when bred under favorable conditions of domestication, rather than under the harsh conditions of their native island. It apparently never occurred to most plant and animal breeders that they might be able to improve a breed by subjecting it to harmful conditions.

Estrogen, memory and heredity: Imprinting and the stress response

 

[jaguar43]

I do believe a lot of so-called genes are in fact epi-genetic and very mutable. And to a far greater extent than even Peat has mentioned. However, this does not make heredetarian arguments completely bunk, just that our understanding of how ancestry expresses itself is incomplete. Ancestral inertia may very well be tied to things not physical or measurable in a lab. ( By the way, the word 'ancestral' comes from - astral )


The problem ultimately with purely environmental approaches is they are time-enslaved ideologies based on incorrect conceptions of development, i.e. the difference between these group of people can be completely overcome by living in a different part of the world and eating a different way. In this way the meliorism becomes an end-objective in itself because the mechanisms and origins of development are based on lies and no end goal or direction can be conceived besides vague notions of better-ness.

I don't think people who advocate for inheritance of acquired characteristics would reduce development to living in a different part of the world and eating a different way. If an organism can acquired characteristics throughout it's lifetime and pass it on to it's progenitor's then the whole life of the organism has to be taken into account. Most importantly prenatal and early life which is especially sensitive to biological changes in development. What you state is a very simplified version.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Sounds an awful lot like genetic determinism.
Perhaps you should read more of Ray's work, things don't exactly work how you think they do.

Yes they do. Violent men have violent children. Dumb men have dumb children. There is good breeding and bad breeding.

How is it that black people have children of the same race if genetics are so meaningless? They've lived in America around caucasians for half a millennium shouldnt that change in environnent have resulted in a change in traits.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Genetics isn't the problem. The problem is with government programs that are designed to hurt the people they are supposed to be helping. You don't need a super high IQ or special genetics to contribute to society. All you need is a strong work ethic. Having an intact family with at least one parent working would go a long way but the welfare rules as structured makes this impossible.

Government programs change the environment which changes what men are most fit to mate with. Suddenly the woman is provided for, on the provision that she eschew long term mating. Instead of mating with stable men who are protocols and would have provided for the family, they begin to mate with less stable but more sexually attractive men. This leads to dysgenic mating practices.

The black men who would have made good father's and husbands go off to marry women of other races, which is why mixed people tend to be much better than blacks in America.

 

[Sucrates]

Do you mean the one in the first post?

The one you were referring to here. Thanks.
"No, no matter how good the parents raise their children, the day after day exposure to poorly behaving children makes all children behave poorly. This has been proven in double blind studies which Dr Jordan Peterson discusses in one of his latest talks."

 

[Queequeg]

The one you were referring to here. Thanks.
"No, no matter how good the parents raise their children, the day after day exposure to poorly behaving children makes all children behave poorly. This has been proven in double blind studies which Dr Jordan Peterson discusses in one of his latest talks."

The whole talk is worth watching but the part I referred to starts around 1:21:00.

 

[Queequeg]

Government programs change the environment which changes what men are most fit to mate with. Suddenly the woman is provided for, on the provision that she eschew long term mating. Instead of mating with stable men who are protocols and would have provided for the family, they begin to mate with less stable but more sexually attractive men. This leads to dysgenic mating practices.

The black men who would have made good father's and husbands go off to marry women of other races, which is why mixed people tend to be much better than blacks in America.

Even if we accept your theory about dysgenic breeding, the main change that the government programs are making is the destruction of the family unit and work ethic. Children of all races growing up in similar situations have much worse life outcomes than children of similar race and socio-economic status. The evidence is that these programs are hurting all children regardless of genetics.

As for your dysgenic breeding theory you have no proof for this but just a knee jerk assessment of the situation. I could argue that the men who are most sexually successful in the inner city have better genetic traits in that they are most likely more alpha and have higher leadership potential, more economically successful and therefore have higher IQs, have better game and therefore have higher EQ, and are probably better looking so would give their kids the advantage that comes with better looks. The thing with pseudo sciences like eugenics is that you can argue these situations anyway you like because there is very little real science backing it.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Even if we accept your theory about dysgenic breeding, the main change that the government programs are making is the destruction of the family unit and work ethic. Children of all races growing up in similar situations have much worse life outcomes than children of similar race and socio-economic status. The evidence is that these programs are hurting all children regardless of genetics.

As for your dysgenic breeding theory you have no proof for this but just a knee jerk assessment of the situation. I could argue that the men who are most sexually successful in the inner city have better genetic traits in that they are most likely more alpha and have higher leadership potential, more economically successful and therefore have higher IQs, have better game and therefore have higher EQ, and are probably better looking so would give their kids the advantage that comes with better looks. The thing with pseudo sciences like eugenics is that you can argue these situations anyway you like because there is very little real science backing it.

That'd be a pretty stupid argument to make. Eugenics is not a pseudoscience. It's the technical term for "breeding". As in good breeding and bad breeding.

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Queequeg]

That'd be a pretty stupid argument to make. Eugenics is not a pseudoscience. It's the technical term for "breeding". As in good breeding and bad breeding.

The proof is in the pudding.

First of all that was not the only argument I made, just the only argument you cherry picked, nor was it stupid. Claiming that welfare has led to dysgenic breeding in inner cities however just may be and is a perfect example of eugenic pseudoscience.

"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

The wild claims of Eugenicists seem to fit quite well with the above description of pseudoscience. The various factors that play into the area of Human development are far more complicated then breeding where one or two traits are optimized such as a horse's speed or a cow's milk production. Eugenics is a pseudoscience because of the many conclusions made solely on the basis of genetics without a full understanding of the far greater impact of epigenetics, nutrition, environment and many other factors we don't have a clue about.