-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Affirmative action (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cosmo kramer
- Start date
cosmo kramer
Banned
link plz
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
cosmo kramer
Banned
when was this interview conducted
im guessing they're talking about carter but idk
im guessing they're talking about carter but idk
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
in regards to before, it was homosexuals lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Academic_freedom_controversy
You should read 'Talent is Overrated' by Geoffery Colvin. It states that no studies have conclusively proven a link between IQ and success in the workplace. In any case certain types of affirmative action aren't bad. Some of the conditions these kids grow up in are atrocious and obviously impact upon their ability to learn/get high ATAR's/etc. I'm a believer that nurture plays a more important role than nature, with some exception of course such as physical features (height/body type/etc). to the people completely against affirmitive action, i'd liek to see you grow up in the same conditions as these kids and achieve the results you are today, if your results are even that good to begin with.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 3,411
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
- Uni Grad
- 2013
Same, but is trying to help bring the disadvantaged up to a level where they are able to compete better with the rest (giving what the majority already have to those that don't) affirmative action though?
Isn't AA generally more deliberate ways of handing a free pass (something significantly more than what the majority get) to minorities in order to increase their presence in certain education institutions/occupations/higher income statistics?
Cianyx
Planarian Leader
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2010
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
Affirmative action is more based around what Phoenix Fury said. It's more about giving an unfair boost because of someone's race, gender or socioeconomic status. If a university offers extra points/scholarships (given that they're provided by the university from tax funding and not from a donator)/what have you, to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, it's heralded as championing some sort of "closing the gap". Now, I have no issues with someone getting into university because they are actually academically suitable for it. I have issues with people getting into university because they're of a certain race. Be it white (I'm white), black, blue, green or yellow. If my university were to offer specific bonuses to say, hopeful white students, it would travel around the world within a week as being a racist university. No one cares if the exact same thing is done with other races, which is obscenely hypocritical.
It's about giving people the same opportunity. Not an unfair advantage based on race or gender. Everyone should deserve the same opportunity, but they do not deserve the same results just because they don't like it.
cosmo kramer
Banned
General intelligence is regarded as a very powerful, if not the most powerful, predictor of workplace performance, only rivalled sometimes by personality constructs such as extraversion and especially conscientiousness or psychomotor capabilities in less mentally involving professions. The predictive validity of general intelligence is even greater than that of workplace experience, though it can be rivalled occasionally also by this factor when complexity of the profession is not that high. The value of general intelligence as a practical predictor of workplace performance is, or was, well known to employers, with 26% of American businesses utilising intelligence tests as criteria for recruitment and promotion as early as 1940. The number of American firms utilising intelligence tests was as high as 90% in 1963, though this practice was eliminated by the Supreme Court in the early 70s.
Perhaps, because I am citing the importance of general intelligence (which I will refer to by its technical name as g from this point on) as a predictor which is based upon a correlation between it as a variable and the variable of measured workplace productivity, I am not actually addressing your initial claim that g casually influences workplace performance. This has been addressed when it comes to education, but in the workforce the most convincing evidence of its casual relationship with trainability and workplace performance lies in various experiments conducted by the U.S military, another institution which extensively makes use of IQ tests in personnel selection, or at least a pseudo-IQ test battery called the AFQT which has higher intercorrelational predictiveness of proper, standardised IQ test performance than said IQ tests have between themselves (this is a good indication that it measures the same factorial constructs as 'proper' IQ tests do, and I am sure that a factor analysis would reveal this to be the case.) Military experimentation as well as findings that the complexity and the taxingness on one's cognitive functions of one's profession is affected by g far more profoundly than the reverse (Schooler, 1984) is strongly indicative that g casually influences productivity and workplace performance rather than the other way around.
The primary recipients of affirmative action are not ghetto blacks but children from upper-middle class families. This was conceded by the Supreme Court in 1978:
.. (this has also been well established by decades of testing and comparing the IQs of different races while taking socioeconomic status into account).
The point is and especially given that we live in a hostile environment with an ANTI-WHITE government that is intent on demographically reducing whites to a minority in their own ancestral and diaspora homelands means that even if somebody may in principle support government action to make society more equalitarian or eliminate workplace discrimination or 'hate speech' unless they really do desire these things and don't have an ulterior ethnic motive in mind they should rethink their support for these policies because they are merely going to be used as an implement by the ANTI-WHITE governments of Western countries to reduce white economic, social and political influence. This may be overt in countries such as South Africa but is normally justified by a slew of convoluted rationalisations and smokescreens in Western countries to confound and lull the white masses into not taking action. More importantly, even if white people do manage to legistatively eliminate (via referendums and such) ANTI-WHITE discrimination the ANTI-WHITE elite class will find a way to work their way around these new laws because they are completely and utterly committed to exterminating people of European descent to avenge what they believe to be the atrocities committed by the white economic collosus against the Rousseau-esque imagined persons of colour.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Last edited:
