Proving once again, liberals hate achievment...

Sep 2017
4,414
5,347
Massachusetts
The Axial Age is a fascinating example, but also one which suggests there was some kind of climatic golden period during which people around the world experienced a agricultural abundance enough that it spawned an early age of trade, and afforded societies something they had never experienced before. Liesure time for a large portion of people.

Another factor that I find kind of interesting is the Flynn Effect. Developed countries that have a long history of IQ testing show that over time, everyone's scores have risen. Tests get updated periodically and the average score is reset to 100, but people who take older tests using the previous scoring tend to do better than they do on the more current test. Also, it seems that since 1990 this effect has been in decline; that is to say that people who take the newest test tend to do slightly worse when they take a test created in the 1980s. Granted, intelligence tests have problems of their own, but surely just measuring within the set of IQ test takers, this represents something social. It just seems too absurd to consider that people across the developed world were spontaneously being endowed with more natural intelligence, and now seem to be born with less inborn intelligence.
I agree with the climatic notion, but I expect that between the evolution of anatomically modern humans and the start of the Axial Age, there must have been any number of periods when climate would have favored unusually abundant harvests. We're talking about tens of thousands of years. But there had to be a culture capable of benefiting from it -- certain agricultural technologies already being in place, the establishment of government forms that allowed the abundance to partly take the form of leisure-time thinkers (rather than just becoming a big boost in population), the written word to allow for cross-pollination of ideas across wide areas, etc.

I also find the Flynn Effect really interesting. It's actually one of the things that makes me a progressive rather than a conservative. Conservatives are burdened by the myth of a past golden age when the common man was morally better, politicians were more noble, culture was purer, and people were smarter. In reality, almost any way you want to measure such things, you'll find that --at least starting at the depths of the collapse of the Roman world-- there was an overall pattern of improvement for humanity, on average, across any given hundred year sample of time. And that includes average intelligence rising. Right now we're living in the best time in human history, in terms of overall material prosperity, moral behavior, education, intelligence, etc. So, this reactionary instinct of conservatives, to put culture in reverse and pursue some imagined earlier time of greatness, just doesn't line up with the reality.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
11,760
12,703
Work
I agree with the climatic notion, but I expect that between the evolution of anatomically modern humans and the start of the Axial Age, there must have been any number of periods when climate would have favored unusually abundant harvests. We're talking about tens of thousands of years. But there had to be a culture capable of benefiting from it -- certain agricultural technologies already being in place, the establishment of government forms that allowed the abundance to partly take the form of leisure-time thinkers (rather than just becoming a big boost in population), the written word to allow for cross-pollination of ideas across wide areas, etc.

I also find the Flynn Effect really interesting. It's actually one of the things that makes me a progressive rather than a conservative. Conservatives are burdened by the myth of a past golden age when the common man was morally better, politicians were more noble, culture was purer, and people were smarter. In reality, almost any way you want to measure such things, you'll find that --at least starting at the depths of the collapse of the Roman world-- there was an overall pattern of improvement for humanity, on average, across any given hundred year sample of time. And that includes average intelligence rising. Right now we're living in the best time in human history, in terms of overall material prosperity, moral behavior, education, intelligence, etc. So, this reactionary instinct of conservatives, to put culture in reverse and pursue some imagined earlier time of greatness, just doesn't line up with the reality.
Reminds me of a book I had to read in college:

 
Likes: Arkady
Sep 2017
4,414
5,347
Massachusetts
Reminds me of a book I had to read in college:

Never read it. But that nostalgic prejudice of the conservative mind explains why they're wrong about so much on such a consistent basis. They start out with false first principles, which forces them to make a habit of avoiding facts if they wish to hold onto that worldview. For example, if you want to imagine the 1950s as a golden age, you need to ignore the fact that life was substantially worse for most people (women, racial and religious minorities, gays, etc.) Once you get in the habit of ignoring the facts, there's no end of mental mistakes you'll stumble into.
 

RNG

Moderator
Jan 2015
13,133
8,913
Left coast
Idiocrat has been thread banned.

Kallie Knoetze has been thread banned.

Please do not reference or reply to their posts.
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
23,188
15,815
Colorado
Educating kids that don't already have an education? That's too hard. I'd rather take the kids that are already educated, and pat myself on the back for their continued achievement any day.
This is no different than selection in colleges and the real world.

If we were hiring employees to a business or onboarding college kids to a particular school - it's not common to accept just anyone who applies. To say, "we can educate or hire someone with ZERO experience" - that ideal wouldn't last very long among your constituents nor would it progress the goals of the business or school.

Not everyone is equal.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
11,760
12,703
Work
This is no different than selection in colleges and the real world.

If we were hiring employees to a business or onboarding college kids to a particular school - it's not common to accept just anyone who applies. To say, "we can educate or hire someone with ZERO experience" - that ideal wouldn't last very long among your constituents nor would it progress the goals of the business or school.

Not everyone is equal.
Of course not. But we're talking about 14 year old kids, not people who are going to potentially make or break a company and the investment of stockholders. If the goal is to educate kids, then why not let the teachers that know them best encourage them and recommend they to go to specialized schools. You make it sound like kids are going to be picked completely at random, and some kid with absolutely zero interest in theater is going to have to go to a specialized theater high school. It was really about eliminating the audition and relying on a lottery system to select kids who have demonstrated an interest in theater.

This is just a way to ensure that kids with an interest in (for example) dance, don't get pushed aside for the kids who have had private ballet lessons since they were 7 years old. It gives everyone a chance to get an education in a field they have an interest in pursuing, whether or not they have grown up with tons of resources to pursue it.
 
Likes: OldGaffer