MovieChat Forums > MichaelJPollock > Replies
MichaelJPollock's Replies
Don't forget the marines making fun of the Arcturians' gender-fluid identity during the lunch scene... "Can't do that." (as another character from another James Cameron film says...)
Coïncidence? You do the math...
Great performance in a great film, indeed.
"The answer is that it doesn't matter what's fair."
***
I think it does.
I believe the perceived fairness of a society by its members (i.e. how fair they think they are treated, with regards to the law, education and career opportunities, etc.) is an essential component of its cohesion.
It seems like a built-in psychological feature of human beings that perception of unfairness generates anger and leads to violence, stemming from a sense that one has "nothing to loose" ("if the game is rigged, why play by the rules?", etc.).
"If you're giving them exactly the same chances, taking away any disadvantage... then you're eliminating working incentives."
***
The way I understand it, I think you "eliminate working incentives" only if you implement an 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' policy. Only the latter seems fair, and will not undermine the value of 'hard work'.
At the same time, I recognise that a "fair society" is an ideal towards which we must strive, but one that is probably impossible to fully achieve. If only because it's an easily verifiable fact of life that intellectual and physical aptitudes are unevenly (=unfairly) distributed among individuals. Even with equal opportunities, some will always be born better equipped for success.
But in a fair(er) society there should be a way for these lucky individuals (one that is also fair to them...) to 'give back' to the community.
"The window of progress is narrow".
***
How do you mean?
"Education is not as aggressively promoted in black households as it is in white and asian households. Their idols tend to be basketball players and rap artists, whereas asian households for example promote professions such as accountancy and medicine. Education is front and center."
***
I believe that to be true as well. And apparently, so does Harvard's Faculty (with regards to the higher test grades Asian students need to achieve in order to pass,compared to African-American's... but that's another story for another thread).
What it sounds like we don't agree on, is on "why" this is the case.
I don't believe one chooses the conditions that are prerequisites to developing a mind that is inquisitive and has the qualities required for sustained, hard intellectual work, nor the culture into which one is born (and therefore not what role models will be available to us).
Which is why I believe it is the collective duty (and self-interest) of all members of society to help resorb inequalities.
"Definitely less dangerous as laziness is a learned behavior. If you're inherently less intelligent then there's just no hope. "
***
Well, that would be true, and I would agree with you, if what you call "laziness" was not correlated with intelligence and/or environment whatsoever. But I don't think that's the case.
Laziness seems undoubtedly linked to a less than optimal capacity to project oneself in the future (and anticipate one's failure), as well as the lack of education and the role models it provides. It can also be a correlation of mental illness (which we know also has a genetic+environmental origin): try getting out of bed early and "put in the work" day-in day-out when severely (clinically) depressed.
What do you think of the following example:
some (but not all) rich white -or asian, or black why not?- trust fund kids raised by nannies and with a silver spoon in their mouth are lazy too.
Some are even culturally indigent, but most of them are lucky enough to benefit from the superior education (home tutors and all, you don't even have to wake up early in the morning to go to school!) their absent parents' money provides.
Would you say it's fair that these kids more often than not end up with very comfortably lives and successful careers? Is it any of their own doing? After all they were also guilty of laziness. And you have to put in considerably less work when able to afford high-priced home tutors, and already have a vast network of more-or-less influential friends and parents' friends.
The argument could also be extended to ruling on whether it's any of their own doing if they were born to parents in a culture where one is taught not to resist arrest (even when innocent), because they know they'll be able to afford a good attorney?
"I think you're getting a bit philosophical when talking about luck and free-will..."
**
That, also, is quite possible.
I don't have the answers. I find that philosophy helps understand facts that help build sound political systems that help make the laws that help build a safer and fairer society that help individuals live more satisfying lives...
But, like everything, it can be overdone as well.
"For this world to function we need certain things to remain objective."
***
Agreed.
For this world to function on a fair and equitable basis, we need to objectively understand whether people are self-made (i.e. have free-will) or not, and whether or not they are entirely responsible for their predicament and disposition, or at the mercy of external factors (i.e genes + environment) which they do not choose.
"If blacks are performing poorly academically it's something they need to resolve on their end"
***
I respectfully disagree. Not if even a small portion of the reason why they are performing poorly is not entirely and completely "on them" (i.e. external historical and political factors), which I believe is the case.
"There's no point babying them"
***
Agreed.
"...and giving them an unfair leg-up without the appropriate grades/qualifications."
***
The operative word here -and the one we seem to disagree on- is 'unfair'.
"And it's pretty dangerous to blame their lack of academic success on genetics, it's almost inferring that blacks are inherently less intelligent."
***
It can be a slippery slope indeed.
Tell me, do you think it more (or less) dangerous to infer that they are unsuccessful because they are lazy ("not willing to put in the work")?
But the 'genes vs. environment' dichotomy appears to be a false one: genes do not magically activate or 'express themselves' in a vacuum; environment plays a major part in their expression, or lack thereof (see Robert Sapolsky in 'Behave' for a recent review of contemporary research on the subject).
I believe it would be dangerous indeed (and wrong, and unfair) if one was to infer the corollary that any race is "inferior" and therefore must not be treated as equal (in the eyes of the law, and with regards to their right to the pursuit of happiness, etc.), for the simple reason that, statistically, most (not all) of its members are more likely to have certain genes (and live in certain environments) that do not favour academic success.
Also, you'd have no guarantee that a specific individual from that particular race would be in the population featuring both the genes and upbringing in an environment conducive to academic failure. So you'd have to treat every individual from any race, equally.
"You can apply the same logic for professional sports where blacks tend to dominate, but there's no affirmative action for less represented races there."
***
Agreed.
I'd apply the same thinking to athletes. Or to child murderers.
The latter, society definitely needs to put away in order to protect itself, but also has to recognise they are "unlucky" as well, and that they can -and must- be judged 'penally', but not 'morally'.
"At some point there needs to be accountability for their own actions."
***
Somewhat agreed. it's a difficult problem.
Most of the time, we do indeed need to behave as if we enjoyed free-will and were 'self-made' (even though we know it's not the case) for society to function. But we need to acknowledge, account for, and remedy, the inequalities that produce 'less successful minds" so to speak.
Michael Jordan is a fantastic basketball player. But he was lucky:
- he developed into a very tall and very fast man,
- he was able to train at an early age,
- he had the right mentors and coaches,
- he didn't have any debilitating accident in his prime,
- he was born in an era where people enjoy and will pay money to watch 10 guys throw balls through a hoop,
- etc.
Similar reasoning with, say, Bill Gates.
Or reverse reasoning with, say, unlucky Charles Whitman. If I'd had Charles Whitman's brain (tumor pressing against the amygdala included) and childhood, I too would have shot 17 people from a university tower (and of course my victims would have been unlucky as well...).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgiX53hjAPc
You're a one-man thread unto yourself!
LiquidOcelot, I sincerely wish that were true.
The problem is, 'culture' is based on environmental factors, which you don't get to choose.
And having the 'will to put in the work' or not, is based on genetic factors and experience, which you don't get to choose either.
One's success is mostly due to being lucky...
...and you probably won't believe me if I tell you I identify most with what Americans would call "a Republican" (albeit one that doesn't believe in free will...).
True, but apparently the expression of that Y chromosome can be muted and lead to a more or less female phenotype (see post above about Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome).
"If you were born with an X and a Y chromosome, a dick, and balls, you're male."
***
Yes, that's what I thought as well, but apparently -at least according to the Wikipedia page for "XY sex-determination system"- there are some borderline cases where this is not exactly true (note that they are referred to as "disorders" and produce of a "malfunction"):
"Variations to the sex gene karyotype could include rare disorders such as XX males (often due to translocation of the SRY gene to the X chromosome) or XY gonadal dysgenesis in people who are externally female (due to mutations in the SRY gene)."
"Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a rare chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females (see Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)."
"Clinical phenotypes in these individuals range from a typical male habitus with mild spermatogenic defect or reduced secondary terminal hair, to a full female habitus, despite the presence of a Y-chromosome."
"Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is divided into three categories that are differentiated by the degree of genital masculinization: (...) external genitalia are those of a typical female; (...) external genitalia are those of a typical male, (...) external genitalia are partially, but not fully, masculinized."
"Management of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is currently limited to symptomatic management; no method is currently available to correct the malfunctioning androgen receptor proteins produced by AR gene mutations. Areas of management include sex assignment, genitoplasty, gonadectomy in relation to tumor risk, hormone replacement therapy, genetic counseling, and psychological counseling."
Concise, fair and to the point. But most of all, true.
Fair point. You're a better person than that Radcliff guy.
Saw the film recently (very good one by the way... Barbara Harris had such screen presence, and ultra precise/subtle idiosyncrasies) and from memory he says :
In the first sequence with Alda:
"Where does this idea of eternal youth come from? Answer me that, old friend?"
"Listen my friend, you need to read Stendhal on this subject matter. Everything's there. He said everything that needed saying."
Later on:
"Look my friend, I asked you a simple question. Yes or No. What's it gonna be."
During the senate hearing sequence:
"This is a senate hearing, not a circus. In any case it's not a Roman circus. How are we to hold council my friends? Allow me to remind you that this is not Comic Opera. Remember the words with which Mr. Stendhal begins his novel 'The Red and The Black': "The little town of Verrières can pass for one of the prettiest in Franche-Comté...". This is the kind of quietude I want for this hearing. "...its white houses with their pointed red-tiled roofs stretch along the slope of a hill, whose slightest undulations are marked by groups of vigorous chestnuts..."."
He speaks in modern French, with a not too great (definitely feels like phonetically memorised lines) but fairly understandable pronunciation.
Like Ben-Hur said: "Over my dead body!".
I ain't afraid of nobody wearing a brown shirt: it's just a cheap way to whiten yellow teeth.
Yet another argument in favour of physical media such as DVD and Blu-rays: the film remains available in your library no matter what, and you're sure scenes are not being edited or sanitised on the sly (as 'Splash' or 'Back To The Future' have been in the recent past...).
And then of course there's also the bonuses and nice artwork...
No disrespect intended here, and I mostly agree with you, but with how many friends did you discuss or share this face-to-face, before you posted it on this board for all to see?
A rough literal translation would be "one cannot measure the depth of people's heart".