Equality - fact or fiction?

[Crazy Horse]

40 minutes ago, sees said:

Yes what I meant was that the topic is ABOUT competititveness i.e. you don't want it!  

I don't feel comfortable with your idea of dumbing down society in order that we are all equal - do you realise the implication here?  Classrooms may have some slow learners so are the brighter sparks supposed to suppress their intelligence to not make the slow learner feel like he is a slow learner?     That feels wrong and problematic on many levels.

Although I dislike elitism, I am not sure what the solution is since competitiveness seems somewhat natural, i.e. it is evident in children playing!    Schools do not encompass the field of all talents e.g. creative talents can be developed outside of the system.  Also, socially, charisma goes a long way so someone may not be academically bright but still very popular!

Sees, I do want competitiveness.

And its not my idea to dumb down society, thats what I am against.

And yes, I do realise the implications here, thats why I started the thread.

[Illyrius]

" Equality is an important concept in many aspects of life, especially in the legal field, I know so well, as a former lawyer. But in real life, because equality is intertwined into our thinking DNA it is used in ways that many times hinders excellence. All men are not born equal. Whoever tells you that is lying. All man should deserve an equal opportunity to excel, to be happy and to use their comparative advantage. That is the truth. And there is a big difference between the two."

-source-

[Crazy Horse]

28 minutes ago, sees said:

      

Hehe

But I love your passion anyway..

[Crazy Horse]

33 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

To me its not about everybody being equal - its about

1. Equality of Opportunity - opportunities to be available to all those with the inclination and the ability
2. Equality of Respect - respecting sameness and difference - determining whether an individual is deserving of respect purely on the basis of the individual, not a through wider grouping or stereo type perspective. 

I'm sure I could have worded it better, but there you go.

Well said.

"....not a through wider grouping or stereo type perspective."

That right there is dumbing down of society which can cause friction and resentment.

Obviously we have to sort out the good points as you noted, and the unhelpful issues too. 

[sees]

27 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Sees, I do want competitiveness.

And its not my idea to dumb down society, thats what I am against.

And yes, I do realise the implications here, thats why I started the thread.

Sorry I misunderstood you.   I think the notion of equality pertains to human rights mostly doesn't it?

I have never heard it suggested that bright sparks at school dumb down.....

Edited November 9, 2017 by sees

[rashore]

22 minutes ago, sees said:

Sorry I misunderstood you.   I think the notion of equality pertains to human rights mostly doesn't it?

I have never heard it suggested that bright sparks at school dumb down.....

I dunno what's in education in the UK... But here in the states in public education we have a couple things. No child left behind- it's meant to help struggling children, but it also helps slash education funds that could or did go into brighter sparks, advanced classes get dropped to help support more basics. This can be an example of dumbing down the bright sparks to the level of average. And also, sports play a part too- some schools slash or reduce extra or advanced education in but still give additional funds to sports teams. That would be an example of education being set aside for physical prowess.

I saw these things happen a bit in my hometown in high schools- keystone advancement, 5th year classes, college prep, and array studies being dropped, while more basic classes being expanded- and also while the education programs dropped, sports teams being fully funded. Part of it was due to law and policy, and part of it due to how society perceives and values or not education or advancing education in light of other things.

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

That classrooms should not hinder the brighter sparks for the sake of the slow learner.

I've met one of these "slow learners" and it astounded me at the sheer stupidity of the kid. He graduated but has zero ability to think. We gave him a job for a while, had to hold his hand everyday because he couldn't be left alone. He had no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Just an idiot, so yeah, push the smart kids. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by XenoFish

[Kismit]

9 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Equal rights under the law are a fundimental necessity for a community to thrive and flourish etc. Thats not in question here. What I would like to examine is this idea of humanity being equal amongst themselves. Eg, is there a need for hierarchy, leadership, even grammar schools?

It seems to me that in this rush to equality we have dragged those "bright ones" down to a more vacuous level.

I mean, what happens to a society when there are no winners in a children's sports day? When you have an exam with a multiple answer question? When positive discrimination disregards a better person simply because they are not from an ethnic minority?

The reason why I am using these as examples is simply because if we want everybody to be equal then you have to drag everybody down to the lowest level of humanity, because trying to raise everybody to the level of genius would take serious time and money and our government has no dog in that race, in fact a dumbed down populace is exactly what "they" want. Our school systems isn't about striving for excellence but to produce unquestioning worker bees.

In my opinion, everybody has a talent and everybody is needed for society to thrive and happiness to flourish. Disregarding those who don't fit in is just creating problems that affect us all - collateral damage.

Would it not be better to admit our differences and then work together? 

We are all different, squeezing everyone into a "one size fits all" box, named Equality, seems to only breed resentment and discord?

There are a lot of things you hit on here so many things it's hard to focus on the poInt.  But I will work on the aspects of education as I know them. A level playing field is needed to give everyone the same opportunity  (equality), however people react differently to these opportunities

A teacher can not suppress a clever child.. A clever child who is suppressed will act out, they need more stimulation.

If an education system does not allow for this the child will find ways to learn themselves. Like what happens when I poke Jenny.

Non competitive schooling is also a myth. Up until the age of 11, a child can not judge his or her own ability against another child. They don't know if they are good or bad, they just have fun. These children are also still growing, encouraging participation and small goal setting gives them a better opportunity at learning skills they would not have if they where told before this that Johnny is the best at this so don't even bother. Remember it actually is not about being the best but about being your best. Micro ambition fostered under 11.

After 11,  or sometimes just before, school athletics programs open up to include regional and national qualifications. These are the goals or rewards for an athlete, and educational competition opens up like mathletics,  spelling bees, national quizzes and writing competitions. These opportunities are open to everyone (equality) but by this stage most children have worked out what their skill set is on thier own.

A quick Google search can show you just how many scholarships, national and regional competitions are on offer.

If your school does not offer it, get involved and get them motivated. You have the same option to do that as everyone else. (Equal opportunity )

[sees]

19 minutes ago, rashore said:

I dunno what's in education in the UK... But here in the states in public education we have a couple things. No child left behind- it's meant to help struggling children, but it also helps slash education funds that could or did go into brighter sparks, advanced classes get dropped to help support more basics. This can be an example of dumbing down the bright sparks to the level of average. And also, sports play a part too- some schools slash or reduce extra or advanced education in but still give additional funds to sports teams. That would be an example of education being set aside for physical prowess.

I saw these things happen a bit in my hometown in high schools- keystone advancement, 5th year classes, college prep, and array studies being dropped, while more basic classes being expanded- and also while the education programs dropped, sports teams being fully funded. Part of it was due to law and policy, and part of it due to how society perceives and values or not education or advancing education in light of other things.

Ah yes - it's happening here too in UK (I have not heard it being mentioned in the media though).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9082053/Dumbing-down-of-state-education-has-made-Britain-more-unequal-than-25-years-ago.html

Although this article is 5 years ago and there doesn't appear anything more recent, i.e. maybe the situation has changed here and not become widespread.

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by sees

[Crazy Horse]

42 minutes ago, rashore said:

I dunno what's in education in the UK... But here in the states in public education we have a couple things. No child left behind- it's meant to help struggling children, but it also helps slash education funds that could or did go into brighter sparks, advanced classes get dropped to help support more basics. This can be an example of dumbing down the bright sparks to the level of average. And also, sports play a part too- some schools slash or reduce extra or advanced education in but still give additional funds to sports teams. That would be an example of education being set aside for physical prowess.

I saw these things happen a bit in my hometown in high schools- keystone advancement, 5th year classes, college prep, and array studies being dropped, while more basic classes being expanded- and also while the education programs dropped, sports teams being fully funded. Part of it was due to law and policy, and part of it due to how society perceives and values or not education or advancing education in light of other things.

This is what I am talking about.

Under the guise of anti discrimination, 'No child left behind' is actually discriminating against the more academically inclined. There is a huge contradiction here.

If you were a parent of a gifted student, who had their childs future torn up right in front of you, wouldn't you be resentful? I would be, not against the slower kids, but against the political system hell bent on dumbing everybody down - in the name of Equality and Social Justice etc.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

No, there are not always winners on kids sports days. So what kind of message is this sending out to children subconsciously? The actual reason given by the schools is to not hurt the feelings of the children who didn't win. 

I actually haven't heard of this but I don't doubt it I guess.  What I've heard of is complaints about giving kids 'participation awards', but that doesn't mean there are no winners.  What I'm not following is why you are referring to 'sports'.  Sports by definition are competitions; if they aren't actually competing in any sense, then it's not a sports day, it's a sports practice day.  When I was a kid our 'sports' days involved running 50 yard dash and jumping and stuff and they did give out first-third place ribbons for the winners.  What 'sports' are you referring to?  Do they have kids run a 50 yard dash but stop them all before they get to the finish line so there is no 'winner' or something?

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

As for multiple answer questions I don't actually know the official reasoning behind it, but nevertheless, a monkey could get 1 in 3 correct by pure chance.

There is nothing new about multiple choice exams, a good chunk of college entry exams (ACT, SAT) are exactly that.

Quote

And as for 'Positive Discrimination' lets just call it for what it is, flat-out racist. If you own a company and you are forced to hire someone based entirely on their ethnicity instead of who has the best experience and qualifications, or who has the best attitude and personal skills etc, then your business is going to go down the tubes pretty quickly. 

There's racism and then there's racism, I don't refer to 'positive discrimination' as just plain, 'flat-out racist', it leaves lots of relevant details out.  At worst it's 'racism' in an effort that is non-racist, it is trying to counterbalance real racism that occurs and has occurred in our society, racism that is based on solely on idiotic ideas concerning 'races'.

I'll go out on a limb and say that no employer is 'forced' to hire someone 'entirely' based on their ethnicity; employers just can't deny someone a job based on their ethnicity as it's discrimination.  There are indeed perks and benefits that may be given to those who employ minorities, I think companies here may get tax breaks or some other perk for being minority-owned, employing a certain percentage of minorities, etc.  That's different than 'forced'.

Quote

If I were to put an ad in the local newspaper saying, "bricklayers needed, must be white working class men." that would be racist, but when the BBC, a publicly funded corporation seeks only ethnic minorities, thats ok?

I don't know about the racial history of England but in the US, sounds fine with me.  See 'American history'.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Liquid Gardens

[Crazy Horse]

43 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I've met one of these "slow learners" and it astounded me at the sheer stupidity of the kid. He graduated but has zero ability to think. We gave him a job for a while, had to hold his hand everyday because he couldn't be left alone. He had no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Just an idiot, so yeah, push the smart kids. 

Its the system and those who run it.

We could, in therory, have a wonderful education system applicable to those high academic kids, and a different kind for everybody else. That might be art, buismness, sports, skilled or semi skilled, or those who enjoy manual labour. 

This is about making the most of an individuals talents and abilities, academic or overwise. Equality, shoving everybody into a the same box, is actually anti prosperity, anti social, anti everybody.

In society there is a place for everybody and everybody is needed.

[8th_wall]

I'm not sure how true this is but it did make me think.  Supposedly the difference between the least intellectually capable members of our species and the most intellectually capable is greater than the difference between the least capable and animals.  That is the variance between human beings are so great that you could effectively start a new species with some.

What this suggests is that concerning oneself with equality is the wrong route to take since the extremes operate on different levels. 

As far as intelligence is concerned lording geniuses for their monstrous academic ability compared to the average is like being super impressed with a strongmans physical strength compared to a toddler.  The only thing it does is blind them of their own ability by defining them in terms of the average.

Academia developed primarily to cater for the average in preparation to becoming functioning member of society.  The fact that the super intelligent pushes systems like these to their breaking points is simply indicative that they require different systems to help their development.  And many of them seek this out naturally however it is a far cry from the development they could undergo with structure.

As far as I'm concerned school in terms of preparing the mind to handle the loads of functioning society is a bloody joke.  99% of jobs are learned and performed with virtually no reliance on what was learned at school.  It's a useful system, just like religion, that doesn't evolve with society.

I think the true schooling kids undergo with a view of being functioning productive healthy members of society nowadays is in their 20s.  It's a bloody dark road to walk as preconceptions developed in school are stripped away. 

[Crazy Horse]

3 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

I'm not sure how true this is but it did make me think.  Supposedly the difference between the least intellectually capable members of our species and the most intellectually capable is greater than the difference between the least capable and animals.  That is the variance between human beings are so great that you could effectively start a new species with some.

What this suggests is that concerning oneself with equality is the wrong route to take since the extremes operate on different levels. 

As far as intelligence is concerned lording geniuses for their monstrous academic ability compared to the average is like being super impressed with a strongmans physical strength compared to a toddler.  The only thing it does is blind them of their own ability by defining them in terms of the average.

Academia developed primarily to cater for the average in preparation to becoming functioning member of society.  The fact that the super intelligent pushes systems like these to their breaking points is simply indicative that they require different systems to help their development.  And many of them seek this out naturally however it is a far cry from the development they could undergo with structure.

As far as I'm concerned school in terms of preparing the mind to handle the loads of functioning society is a bloody joke.  99% of jobs are learned and performed with virtually no reliance on what was learned at school.  It's a useful system, just like religion, that doesn't evolve with society.

I think the true schooling kids undergo with a view of being functioning productive healthy members of society nowadays is in their 20s.  It's a bloody dark road to walk as preconceptions developed in school are stripped away. 

I like your post except the idea that anybody is lording the geniuses.

The highly academic kids should be given every opportunity to thrive, but so should those children who are not so bright, academically speaking.

Ive said this over and over again, and because I'm such a nice guy, I will say it once more!

In society there is a place for everyone and everyone is needed. Seeing our uniqueness, embracing our diversity, and being honest with ourselves and each other is the way towards a true Meritocracy and therefor a true equality.

[aztek]

it is a myth, no 2 people are the same, everyone should be treated the way they deserve to be treated. and since everyone is different, treating everyone equally is a fallacy.

[Crazy Horse]

On 10 November 2017 at 9:04 PM, aztek said:

it is a myth, no 2 people are the same, everyone should be treated the way they deserve to be treated. and since everyone is different, treating everyone equally is a fallacy.

I would say very strongly that equality under the law is very important if we wish to see a thriving and prosperous community?

But this political idea of "Equality of Outcome" is an utter nonsense. Where in nature do we see an equality of outcome?

We are unique, beautiful and ugly, (on the inside) happy and sad, ingenious and content. Trying to shove everybody in to the same box called Equality will have a hugely detrimental effect on life.

As we see in the US right now. The more social justice warriors shouting, fighting, punching and kicking their way towards equality, the more division and unease we see too. 

[Rlyeh]

Aside from equal rights I don't believe equality does or can exist.

[Susanc241]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Aside from equal rights I don't believe equality does or can exist.

I have to agree with this, especially the last three words.  As a species we are far too diverse in our intelligence levels for anything other than equality of opportunity and equal access to education to be possible.  In my school days (50s and 60s), no-one freaked out or became anguished over a child coming last in a race or getting the least points in a test.  In the former they were cheered on for trying their best and in the latter they were given help to improve.  That didn’t mean the last in the race would ever achieve being first, or be top of the class in academic performance, but they had the opportunity to do so.  This, IMO, is where comprehensive education falls down.  It aims at mixing all skill levels together and I do feel the brighter sparks do suffer as a result, as time is invariably spent on trying to raise the performances of the less able child at the expense of the more able.  I have no problem with schools that use streaming, which allows each class to work to its own level of attainment. This usually meant the more academic were grouped together and those less so concentrated on more practical skills.  This current trend of encouraging as many students as possible to aim for university just for statistical reasons is very wrong.  We need more technical colleges, apprenticeships, more hands-on practical skills being taught.  That way we will have experts in engineering and plumbing, electricians and bricklayers, hairdressers etc.  These people should be respected just the same as the scientists, brain surgeons, rocket scientists etc are.  Instead such qualifications are looked down on (in general) and we get young people doing 'soft' degrees in seemingly made up subjects that offer them no advantage once out in the wide world all for the sake of be able to say they went to university.  Too many degree holders are doing low paid waiting jobs, or flipping burgers in MacDonalds, for instance, when they would have been far, far better served getting out into the working world straight after their basic schooling and learning on the job.  They have been pressurised, conned and put into debt just because the governments of the day want to crow about how many have gone to university on their watch.  Success in life is not all about getting the highest grades or earning the most money.

Sorry, this has turned into a bit of a rant, but I agree with Crazy Horse's general premise that expecting equality (in life achievements) for everyone is folly, and to the detriment of society as a whole.  And no, I never went to University, or even college after my basic schooling.  I was educated in a streamed secondary school where I was successful to the limits of my abilities.  I did not throw a tantrum if I didn’t win or come top in competitive situations, wouldn’t have crossed my mind.  We were brought up to be realistic about what we could achieve, to realise that life is not fair, and can never be, but we all had equal opportunity to aim for our own personal goals, largely without the undue pressure and stress such as the young are under in todays education system (here in UK, anyway). 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Susanc241

[Will Due]

4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Aside from equal rights I don't believe equality does or can exist.

Except spiritually. 

Everyone is equal in spiritual potentialities.

 

 

[Crazy Horse]

On 12 November 2017 at 2:45 PM, Will Due said:

Except spiritually. 

Everyone is equal in spiritual potentialities.

 

 

Ultimately speaking, we are all a tiny unit of divine energy winging it way back Home. So it becomes a personal choice, what and how and why we live.

I geuss this is why we have equality in law. The law is supposed to come from God. 

But relatively speaking, there is no such thing as equality. 

 

 

 

[Crazy Horse]

We should, if we want to be happy? We should recognise our differences, celebrate our uniqueness, and love our divinity too.

 

 

[ryanltzw]

On 11/9/2017 at 6:28 PM, Crazy Horse said:

Equal rights under the law are a fundimental necessity for a community to thrive and flourish etc. Thats not in question here. What I would like to examine is this idea of humanity being equal amongst themselves. Eg, is there a need for hierarchy, leadership, even grammar schools?

It seems to me that in this rush to equality we have dragged those "bright ones" down to a more vacuous level.

I mean, what happens to a society when there are no winners in a children's sports day? When you have an exam with a multiple answer question? When positive discrimination disregards a better person simply because they are not from an ethnic minority?

The reason why I am using these as examples is simply because if we want everybody to be equal then you have to drag everybody down to the lowest level of humanity, because trying to raise everybody to the level of genius would take serious time and money and our government has no dog in that race, in fact a dumbed down populace is exactly what "they" want. Our school systems isn't about striving for excellence but to produce unquestioning worker bees.

In my opinion, everybody has a talent and everybody is needed for society to thrive and happiness to flourish. Disregarding those who don't fit in is just creating problems that affect us all - collateral damage.

Would it not be better to admit our differences and then work together? 

We are all different, squeezing everyone into a "one size fits all" box, named Equality, seems to only breed resentment and discord?

Equality encompasses many definitions and situations, not merely on an intelligence, leadership and capability level. By not promoting equality, it would mean including aspects such as personality or gender differences as factors we will disregard. On the aspect of individual personality differences, we're basically going to condone selfish or cunning personalities to take charge. These will be the individuals that rise to the top, and do you think they would 'work' together with others? If anything, this would increase the inequality spread among society. To end that note, if we disregard the promotion of equality, don't you think feminists around the world would accept it? To finally say once and for all that 'men and women were built differently and have different capabilities, deal with it'.

[RoofGardener]

On 11/9/2017 at 10:28 AM, Crazy Horse said:

Equal rights under the law are a fundimental necessity for a community to thrive and flourish etc.......

No they're not

Historically, lots of communities have thrived and flourished whilst having a disadvantaged subclass in their group.

Equal rights MIGHT be a benefit to a community (although even that is debatable), but historically they are far from being a necessity .

[Crazy Horse]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No they're not

Historically, lots of communities have thrived and flourished whilst having a disadvantaged subclass in their group.

Equal rights MIGHT be a benefit to a community (although even that is debatable), but historically they are far from being a necessity .

Flourished for who?

The guy who has to clean $hit up all day because he was an untouchable?

[Crazy Horse]

48 minutes ago, ryanltzw said:

Equality encompasses many definitions and situations, not merely on an intelligence, leadership and capability level. By not promoting equality, it would mean including aspects such as personality or gender differences as factors we will disregard. On the aspect of individual personality differences, we're basically going to condone selfish or cunning personalities to take charge. These will be the individuals that rise to the top, and do you think they would 'work' together with others? If anything, this would increase the inequality spread among society. To end that note, if we disregard the promotion of equality, don't you think feminists around the world would accept it? To finally say once and for all that 'men and women were built differently and have different capabilities, deal with it'.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

For instance, who is condoning selfish or cunning personalities to take charge?

What I was talking about was a Meritocracy. Where the brightest, from any background are allowed and supported to thrive, but where everybody else who has different skills can also get the best education for them.

Trying to make everybody equal means dragging the brightest down to the lowest level because trying to uplift everybody to the status of genius is more or less imp***ible especially in todays world. And it would take around 50 times the resources that are currently spent. And no government is about to educate its people to think for themselves.