March 31, 2010
-
Race-Based Admissions
Getting into a good college is so important.
President Obama and his administration is asking a federal court to allow colleges to continue to be “race-conscious.” Colleges can not participate in “racial balancing” but they can allow race to play a factor in bringing minorities into a college. Here is the link: Link
Do you think colleges should allow race to factor into who gets in to the college?
Comments (120)
No.
Nope.
No. I can’t stress enough how much I hate this.
No, race should not affect a persons chance..
That’s just ignorant!
No…but I’m pretty sure it does.
No it should not. Race has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the person themselves. THey should look deeper than looks.
Coming from a middle-classed, white, average female student who is currently applying to colleges…
No.
If everyone is to be treated equal, then everyone should be treated equal. Redundant, but doesn’t it make sense?
Nope, but I’m a white male so by definition I will “Never understand and therefore have no right to an opinion on racial matters”. This was explicitly written to me by a professor in a response to a paper I wrote for a class.
-EDIT- In effort of full disclosure though I received a 12 page response to my 7 page paper, I still received a B+ on the paper, points were only taken off for grammatical errors not for my position.
No. Filling a “quota” of minorities is being racist in itself. Special treatment of any race is unnecessary, it should be about who deserves to get into the colleges applied for based upon academics, not color.
It shouldn’t, but it does give people a convenient excuse as to why they didn’t get into college. No need to study or do homework or do any extra curricular activities when you can scapegoat someone of a different race after being rejected from getting into college.
Not in any way, shape or form.
Honestly, race based admissions are a terrible idea. Leave out anything that might give a hint as to what the persons race may be and just go on GPA and classes alone. Maybe an admissions essay.
I think diversity should be a factor heavily considered. While an easy way to attempt to do that is by race, I think considering an applicants background is more important. Ultimately though, that is hard to relate in releasing stats about your school to show how diverse you are. I have no problem with those coming from a difficult background given extra consideration, regardless of race. That can help break cycles of poverty for those who get such an opportunity and help enrich the classroom by having people from multiple walks in life.
Nevar. I think this will be unanymous. Unless there’s something else underlying the act. If the colleges comply with filling the quota basing it on their race and not their intellegence. They pay to get into school… only to fail it. leaving them with loads of cash, less students, and a scapegoat to blame for their money making and drop out percentage. headline: “we were only filling our quotas”
I don’t believe they should. Everyone is human and we deserve to have a good education. Most of the prejudices we see comes from the crimes and injustices arriving from uneducated people.
he’s continuing to be slack, his racial crutch is
continuinv to make people, regular ones, not dighim. sad he uses already old/lame arguments;bad move mr. presidunt…
@BooduhX3Belly -
The reality of the situation though is that not everyone has been treated equal in life or been given equal opportunities. Not to say race should be the automatic drawing line for determining this, but the argument that everyone should be treated equal in admissions because we should all be treated equal in general rings hollow since the latter simply doesn’t translate from theory to reality.
@LauraG0929 - and who has the money to fill the coffers of the professors and staff, right?
too late. it does whether the law encourages it or not. otherwise, colleges wouldn’t ask for that info as part of the application.
Nope. Geez when is our culture going to grow up?
You know what’s great. Coming to posts like these and reading the opinions of people whom the topic at hand would have no benefit for. Of course the gross majority of you isn’t going to agree. That’s okay. The people for whom such policies exist support it.
Hell no. Whoever qualifies no matter what color deserves to get in.
@striemmy - Supporting something just because you as an individual benefit from it is a weak reason.
screw that
if you qualify you should be let in
it’s not your fault you werent born a race that would get a “get in scot free”
It’s so stupid where I go to school natives get special priorities when applying for competitive faculties. It’s really annoying.
@Ro_ad808 - do you have a copy of your paper saved? I’m kind of interested about what you said that would make your professor respond like that. I, at least, am curious about your opinion. lol.
@whataboutbahb - Everything you support in some way benefits you. There is no such thing as selflessness. Are we really going to get into this this morning?
It’s enough that there are many scholarships and such which are provided for particular racial groups in a lot of places, including little old NZ. Why push the issue further with being “race-conscious” in admitting more minorities? Yeah, if everyone’s equal, don’t consciously account for certain groups.
No, that’s pretty much being racist against the majority. And why would minorities want that kind of pity? If they got into school because of the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes rather than their own academic merit that would feel a bit self deprecating to me.
Eh, no… But I think they should still allow scholarships to support and encourage minorities going to college.
Maybe I’m biased.
No. Merit should be the deciding factor in who gets to go to college.
@RaquelHiggins005 - I concur.
our skin color and where we come from should never be taken into consideration when we’re talking about how it effects our future. how well someone does in high school and what kind of person someone is are the only things a college should take into consideration.
@striemmy - If you want to make the argument there is no such thing as true altruism, that’s fine. There is still the concepts of enlightened self-interest or long term interests, etc to consider though.
I would not be in favor of the government that established white males with dark hair and blue eyes as the ruling class and everyone else as their slaves. True altruism does not have to be the reason why I would not support this. You could use utilitarian principles to argue this, you could choose Social contract theory (i.e. Rawl’s veil of ignorance). The list could go on.
Heck no! I’d be soooo mad if I found out I got into my college of choice just because of my race and not because of my grades/etc! It’s an insult to me and to the poor soul that didn’t get into their college of preference just because they’re not a minority. Seriously, this is so dumb. =_=
I think the best answer is the sociological answer and that tends to be politically incorrect.
I think this illustrates my belief in what would otherwise be a ten page research paper.http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jpIT0PuafLg/RnxoRIRE5-I/AAAAAAAAAIU/Ty4Eg-qQunQ/s1600-h/cartoon4.png
@whataboutbahb - Altruism would be unnecessary. It would immediately affect your self interests in the way of contending with your morals and interfering with your interpersonal relationships if you were to support it. It directly and significantly would impact your life and your self image to oppose it. Now, if you had no specific moral qualms with human enslavement and no family or friends to speak of and didn’t feel any sort of kinship to the rest of humanity you probably wouldn’t have an issue with it.
no.
simply put, it’s just not fair.
Darn affirmative action.
I am so glad I am not the only one with my opinion. Not only do I give a strong ‘no’ to this topic, but it strongly offends me.
As a young white girl who recently went through the college application process, this is such a ridiculous policy. In order to increase “diversity” and consider one’s race, you are blatantly being racist against others. If a school that was predominantly one race, for example Tuskegee University, began to deny african-american students and admit more caucasian students to increase their “diversity”, people would be outraged. It is completely absurd for people to admit based on race, it is even more racist to do so.I do think that more than just GPA and SAT scores should go into a person’s college admissions. Background plays a very influential role on the type of person one is, but you can do so in a race-blind manner. Universities and officials should look at where people came from, and how they thrived in those situations, but they should absolutely not admit based upon race. If two students were identical, and one was admitted and the other denied because the school wanted more “diversity”, how is that not discrimination towards the less diverse student? It blows my mind as to how people can support the opposite side to this argument.
@striemmy - ”Now, if you had no specific moral qualms with
human enslavement and no family or friends to speak of and didn’t feel
any sort of kinship to the rest of humanity you probably wouldn’t have
an issue with it. “
Yes I could, based on some of the theories I mentioned.
@david_a_wood - Nice comic.
@whataboutbahb - Veil of ignorance works great in a clean laboratory hypothetical but not when applied with realistic conditions. If the condition of your hypothetical societal change is that the particular subset of humanity is given sovereignty then you already know where you’ll be on the food chain. Do you mean social contract politically?
Enlightened self-interest and long term interests are equally inapplicable. If the group you consider yourself belonging to is in fact the group being promoted into sovereignty then it would be in the group’s best interest to support it and therefore in your best interest, now and in the long term.
NO! ! !
It’s not racism because they’re black. It’s only racism if you favor whites.
@striemmy - Social contract theories were politically based and I’ve never encountered any forms that completely separated themselves from the political. From a Rawlsian perspective I would never wish the form of government that had the situation I mentioned earlier since a different form that put me in the bottom rung could be the reality. Thought experiments never work perfectly removed from the armchair, but the point is to consider the moral issues it raises, which in this case refers back to enlightened self-interest.
And yes both enlightened self-interest and long term interests could apply to the scenario I proposed b/c it is not unrealistic to think that in that form of government there is a good chance for a revolution that would occur that would result in my “class” being the one then being oppressed. It is an extreme example, but I think it would be a very dumb form of government because it stands a good chance of not being in my interest in the long run.
I’m not saying you should not support schools considering race in admissions because it would be unwise in the long term. I just wanted to bring up the point that is a bad argument to make this the sole reason for supporting it (that reason being current self-interest).
And for the record: I support diversity being considered in schools admissions not because it provides a current benefit to me. Actually, I am currently in the end phases of law school admissions, were it actually acted as detriment to me during the process (seeing as I’m a white male). I believe schools who consider diversity will provide a benefit to me in the form of greater potential for learning while in law school as well as a benefit to our society as a whole though.
@whataboutbahb - The form of government isn’t what determines the rate of acceptability but the satisfaction of the people. People already accepted a class system involving nobility which were of one particular set of individuals characterized by bloodline rather than by physical characteristics. The reason heads rolled was not by virtue of them being ruled. That said, it could very well be in your interest in the long run.
Well, it’s in my enlightened self interest that policies like those are propagated.
In any event, my counter point was that most people are exercising bad reasoning for the bulk of their decision making that is directly or indirectly an issue of self interest. As far as I’m concerned it all boils down to self interest and no one will do anything for which this is no form of benefit to themselves.
For the record, I support race considerations in admissions. It balances the playing field.
@whataboutbahb - nice response. lol.
edit* to first retort… i didn’t know you guys were gonna have a epic battle like that in the duration of writing.. nice response. lol.
race should not play a factor. One’s background, character, academic performance, and experiences should play a factor. You could be a poor white kid, or a wealthy black kid. Everyone should have a fair shot.
every minority that said no is a fucking idiot.
No. Never. It’s annoying for people who work equally to harder and don’t get in. Funny you mentioned this because the class graduating from my high school has only two acceptances to Stanford in the past 5 years (I think) and one girl was 1/16 Jamaican and the other girl is 1/2 black.
@Uek - I’m considered a minority as an Asian American but not in the college system, where especially in the UC system we dominate.
It should not have anything to do with race. It is a shame Obama is behind this. Do you suppose these perks helped him along the way to becoming who he is today? I surely hope it was more than just that, or we are in serious trouble.
@jenigrins - Obviously I meant that comment for minorities who would benefit from more educational affirmative action. Got friends elsewhere? Claim residence there.
No. Neither should financial means be; beyond reasonable costs of providing the education. The latter should be addressed more vigorously.
in some places, some race initiated social change things – like school busing,- have been declared “successful” and there fore not needed. But they were not dropped.
This is currently allowed in some ways, but wow….if you are Asian….what competition. UC Berkley seems 80% Asian now! based on skill. probably i vote for the mixed method….mostly skill, perhaps 20% racial balancing
Nope.
No. I have never supported that idea (though I’ll be honest I plan on taking advantage if I ever move to a different state for school lol).
I mean, I can MAYBE see getting away with factoring in economic status of the family and the area they lived in/school they went to. If they show that they came from less-then-ideal conditions. You know, the whole not everyone starts from the same starting line deal?
Oh.. I don’t know… some of this stuff I try not to pay too much attention to because I hate being the center of drama.
It’s so hard to say something and not get attacked for being taken out of context or simply because someone doesn’t like your opinion.
I’ll just say this… I think everyone should have the same chance…. of getting in. If a college only has so much room, then it’s first come first serve… grades should be the only factor, in my opinion.
Even with grants and scholarships… they shouldn’t be given based on skin color.
If I come from a poor white family and my black friend is the child of a doctor and a lawyer… it kinda seems unfair to me that they’ll still have more grants and scholarship opportunities than me because of their race, when their family clearly is more able to pay than mine, and at the same time, they shouldn’t be kept out of a school because of their race either. Everyone should just be treated the same.
Of course, college doesn’t really matter to me anymore, I got in and graduated. I did come from a pretty poor family..but I worked 2 and 3 jobs for four years after high school to save up, then went to college and worked while I was there… and now, after, I’m still working my ass off to pay for it. I did get several grants based on my academic achievements, but it didn’t pay for it all..
Race shouldn’t have anything to do with it.
no. that’s sad.
Heck, no. Period.
In the past race-based admissions were a necessary evil, as certain minorities were disadvantaged by society in opportunities to gain education. That’s becoming less and less true, though. Ironically, it’s because of Barack Obama, or rather his election to the highest position in this country, that indicates that the whole question, whether race-based admissions are all that necessary any more, needs to be revisited.
I think Chris Rock said it best,
“If a white man scores higher than a black man he should get the job. But if the scores are equal… fuck em!”
I think they should allow grades to play a factor…but…pshhhh that’s just silly.
so much for equality.
I applied to a great school in my hometown with a 34 on my ACT and a 4.0 GPA. I scored 1390 with 800 on writing on my SAT. But I did not get into this school. Mind you, it’s a very selective school and my essay probably wasn’t stellar stand-out material, but I was surprised when I found out I had been wait-listed. Later, another girl who had similarly excellent academic records told me she had been wait-listed as well. She also pointed out that this school was HUGE on diversity and that we were both from that same city and both white females. White girls are the majority of college applicants. We realized we’d probably been discriminated against because of our normalness. Luckily that wasn’t my choice school; it was just a whim to apply, but it was kind of disheartening to realize that. That said, it IS important to have a diverse student body; I just don’t think it should weigh in very heavily during admissions. I think demographics should be completely taken out of the process. It should be a blind thing – here are the records, here is the essay, now make your choice.
No. Not really but thats how the world runs.
If they aren’t qualified, no. Why should people who work for years be penalized in favor of someone who has done nothing just to fill a race quota? But they shouldn’t be turned away for their race, either. If they’ve worked hard and gotten good grades, then they deserve it. It should kind of be like a transplant list. Whoever does best, gets in. The end.
Hm… Shrug. I won’t say no because there ARE places were the qualified person who is a minority won’t get selected to attend that college. I won’t say yes either. I think like to believe we all think everyone is equal, but that’s not the case. Discrimination IS an issue and sometimes people who are qualified, but limited in their opportunities don’t get the chance they should. Nothing is as equal as we like to believe it is.
Once again I remind everyone affirmative action seeks to assist those minorities whose qualifications are EQUAL to their white counterparts as a countermeasure against historical discrimination and the extant disadvantages stemming therefrom. It does not exist to give an unfair advantage to less qualified persons who are part of a minority group.
That said, though race should perhaps be part of consideration for some need based (or cultural) scholarships, it should not be a strong factor in admission. The racial disparities in education will not be eliminated this way. I firmly believe that the only way those disparities will be eliminated is with all children receiving a solid foundation at the beginning of education.
no.
Of course not.
Everyone should have an equal shot at it…regardless of their skin color.
This corner of Xanga’s looking pretty conservative today. Interesting.
Race is a social construct born of millennia of tribal and cultural interaction.
Skin pigmentation is a physiological trait; in the same category as height, weight, eyesight, etc.
I do not see people with better eyesight being given special treatment over people who wear glasses, and I do not see short people being discriminated against by taller people.
Likewise, the trait of skin pigmentation should have no bearing on social interaction, collegiate or otherwise.
This shows how little our society has graduated from the centuries-old lines drawn back in Colonial America.
Ironically, this short-sighted dogma is being ascribed to by people whom the system hurts the most. Being admitted on the grounds of skin color and not academic prowess is a good way to waste your money and wind up in the same situation you began, penniless and uneducated.
These are old men fighting old wars that they will inevitably lose.
We are not a collection of different races living on the same planet, we are one species sharing limited resources.
It’s time to start acting like it.
@whataboutbahb - Yeah, I agree with you. But I don’t think race is the only reason why people haven’t been given the same opportunities. I think colleges should just look at economic disadvantages instead, or maybe based on where the student lives, not necessarily what his/her race is.
While I agree that people who don’t deserve to get into college shouldn’t be accepted because they fill some “quota” (that’s not fair to anyone involved), I’d hate to see a college where everyone was exactly the same.
Aside from ‘education,’ College is all about meeting new people and learning new perspectives / ideas. The majority of that experience comes from interacting with your fellow students. How do you expect to learn it if everyone is EXACTLY THE SAME whether it be ‘the same race’ or ‘the same Type A, over-achieving, individuals who think the same way you do?
I think it depends. I do not think that someone should be let in just because they are a minority. S/he should be let into school based on academic standing. If it comes down to the college having to choose between a white person and a minority, and they both have the same academic scores, move on and look at involvement in the community or do it on a needs-basis (or some other criteria besides race). That way, people who actually want to go to school, will earn the grades in high school in order to go to college and the government won’t have to waste money on anyone who doesn’t want to be there!
I hope that makes sense.
Diversity is a theoretical idea. They want people of all types to attend college in the “hopes” that everyone brings something unique to the table. What happens is at college people just find their own types and mingle with them instead of hanging out with others.
race should not be a factor when candidates are of the same caliber. white women receive the most benefits from Affirmative Action and various other “equal” opportunity clauses, laws, suggestions. race shouldn’t be a factor but it is because based on race one person may have been placed at an unfair disadvantage and thus their racial standing should be taken into account when decisions are being made. i’m not supporting reverse discrimination or saying that race should be the only factor, however it is definitely something to be considered in conjunction with that students up bringing, ses, etc.
No. I understand the reasoning behind it though (when this was started most minorities were in areas with terrible schools). Instead, they should keep a list of schools that generally are underfunded, because that means the students won’t have the same resources and won’t learn the same material as students who go to schools with proper funding. Students from those schools should be looked at more (like having an interview with them if you don’t give interviews for admission or requiring them to take the SAT or ACT) to see if the student is capable of keeping up with the classes at their school. But it shouldn’t be based on race any longer. Plenty of minorities populate areas with properly funded schools now.
I’m tired of hearing that I only got to the college that I’m at because of racial quotas or racial preference. I’m tired of getting special attention because I’m a minority who actually did well last semester in class. Race shouldn’t determine how well you’ll do in college at all and shouldn’t cause special awards to be given to those of us who actually try to learn. It’s not needed.
Hmm… nope. Someone who worked hard in school should get in over someone else who didn’t–I don’t get having any other criteria.
Yes.
Because you have to keep “those people” out. You know what people I am talking about. We can’t let “those people” become too smart. Who do “those people” think they are?
no.
How is letting race decide admissions in order to bring in minorities and different from racial balancing?
It’s ALL wrong! Everybody should be accepted or denied based on merit. They should not even ask for one’s race. They don’t actually need to know the number of blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, etc. in their schools. That only makes them, consciously or unconsciously, stack the odds up against one another.
I hate those little circles on standardized tests, too, the ones for the black national something or other scholarship. Like, really? Black students did nothing remarkable by being black. I did nothing remarkable by being white. It’s all about genes. All that little circle tells me is that either: A: black kids are a lot more special than I am or B: black kids aren’t smart enough to succeed with their own credit.
@crazygrampastuey - I guess the colleges just need to make sure they appeal to everyone in some way, so they’ll bring in all kinds of economic backgrounds, thus gaining different cultures.
@RaquelHiggins005 - IT DEFENETLY DOES
i have friends who got into schools i didnt becasue of this
I had MUCHbetter gradesMUCHhigher SATmore extra cericularsLOADS more comunity service
but she was like a racial minority, and I wasnt >…<
@Ro_ad808 - Which is absolutely ridiculous, because in this day and age (depending, of course, on YOUR age) you were likely never treated any better than anyone else based on race and gender. You never owned slaves, I imagine, and were not favored for having lighter skin. So I hate it when people say that.
Like, especially supposedly “educated” people. A kid in my history class asked my teacher when white history month is, and she said, “uh, every other day of the year?” in this “well duh” kind of voice. Like blacks and hispanics inherently deserve months and we don’t because we’re a majority, and as if we only ever talk about white people the rest of the year. My God.
Im hispanic
so in Texas schools that means nothing
but i got into the top 5 schools in the nation, and Im 100% it had nothing to do with my race
you don’t get into schools like that whithout the grades
EXSPECIALLY if they only take 15 students a year
im tired of my white friends saying thats how I got into school. My grades at theirs nuff said
and race SHOULD NOT EVER be a factor
neither should money. I shouldn’t be punished for how much money my parents make, and it pisses me off that scholarships RUN BY THE SCHOOL will do that
@Ro_ad808 - Sorry to keep replying to people’s stuff, but like someone else said, do you have a copy of that paper saved anywhere?
No, it should be based on merit, or even personality, I dont care, just not race. I’m half black and i personally dont think that letting someone into college because of there race makes sense. by doing that you would just be putting importance and emphasis on race which is wrong. we need to focus more on character and personality than something trivial like race and appearance.
@striemmy - Your claim that there’s no such thing as selflessness is an extraordinarily strong empirical claim about human psychology. What is your evidence that nobody in all of humanity is ever selfless?
Coming from that poor white girl who was never given any handouts and didn’t have any opportunities either, HELL FUCKING NO.
@zaerix - There’s nothing extraordinary or strong about it. Your question isn’t an appropriate one. What I said was that selflessness does not exist. For me to attempt to present said evidence presents a couple of problems. 1) You cannot present evidence that something does not exist. If you could the atheists might have a case. 2) The term is heavily subjective. If I were relying on methods of self-reporting, which are already unreliable, I’d also be banking on the different ways in which people measure internal motivation. For example, I am certain that there are people that perform actions that are completely selfish yet represent themselves to others and to themselves as a wholly selfless individual.
As such, I deem that a complex question. You may ask a fair question and receive an answer but no more loaded ones, mmkay?
@striemmy - Asking you to justify a claim that you made is a loaded question? Nice rhetorical maneuver, but it doesn’t get you off the hook. The fact is you made a sweeping generalization about human psychology, and you have no empirical evidence to back it up. You don’t have to rely on self-reporting – any empirical data from psychology that the motivational structure of human beings is the way you say it is would do the trick. Unfortunately for your position, there is loads of data from psychology, especially if you look at recent work in evolutionary psychology, that suggests the exact opposite of what you claim.
@zaerix - Incorrect. What was stated regarding your question was that you cannot present evidence that something does not exist. Don’t come back at me because I exposed your loaded question for what it was. You put yourself in a position such that any evidence I put towards the prevalent theories of human motivation, all of which root in the individual, would never and could never possibly disprove the possibility of selflessness. It would be foolish, at best, to set out to prove something that cannot be proven. That being your question and not necessarily my claim.
Name one new theory supported by the field of evolutionary psychology that directly contradicts what I’ve said. Expound on it completely and we may have something other than your loaded questions to discuss.
That said, is there any particular reason for your trolling tonight or are you just bored?
@striemmy - You said: “There is no such thing as selflessness.”
That is a sweeping generalization, a claim of non-existence. If you really think that such claims are impossible to support – so impossible to support that any request to justify them is automatically deemed a “loaded question” – then you probably shouldn’t make them. Making such claims and then saying that it’s impossible to support them just makes you look rather ridiculous.
Now, if you can show that you’re actually interested in a dialog by providing the slightest shred of positive evidence for your claim that altruism is not part of the motivational structure of human beings, and not just in arrogantly dismissing people who dare to ask you to justify the things that you say, then I can point you to some good sources that will explain some of the data from psychology that supports the existence of altruism, and how the framework of evolutionary psychology predicts and explains the existence of altruism.
@zaerix - You didn’t ask for a justification. You specifically asked me to prove that nobody in all of humanity is ever selfless. Sorry, that’s unrealistic. That ain’t how modern science works, bud. Nothing like that can ever be conclusively proven or disproven. It can only ever be theorized and generalized about but never with certainty. So, to begin with, you’re attempting to hold me to an onus that goes above and beyond the scope of science, which this claim falls under a branch of. To conclude, you’re asking me to do the impossible, which is to determine conclusively a psychological facet of at least 6.8 billion people, and that’s before we get into the logistics of such an operation and the effects it would have on the data. So, yeah, kind of a loaded question, friend.
I didn’t say my claim was impossible to support. As a matter of fact, I specifically stated “It would be foolish, at best, to set out to
prove something that cannot be proven. That being your question and not
necessarily my claim.” Nice try though.
Here’s a shred for you. Can you tell me which one of these theories of motivation does not logically stem from some benefit, any benefit to the self, whether direct or by proxy? Instinct, incentive, drive-reduction, hierarchy of needs, Freud’s eros and thanatos, cognitive dissonance and Reiss’ 16 basic desires.
To be clear, the concept of altruism predates modern science. It’s no wonder that most acts that appear to benefit the receiver to no benefit or even to the observable detriment of the giver, would seem wholly selfless without an understanding of the complex motivations of human beings and emotional-chemical responses to situations. We aren’t exactly your average member of the animal kingdom. Even conceptions of social evolution don’t take into account emotional pay offs in their definition of what constitutes altruism. Ayn Rand holds that it is irrational to act against one’s self-interest and I agree wholly.
However, you’re kind of a dick. If it’s all the same I’d rather not discuss jack squat with you.
@striemmy - “Specifically” I didn’t ask you to conclusively “prove” anything. I asked for evidence for your claim that nobody is ever selfless – which is (obviously) directly implied by your directly quoted claim that selflessness does not exist. Read again.
“Can you tell me which one of these theories
of motivation does not logically stem from some benefit, any benefit to
the self, whether direct or by proxy?”
And here is the crux – and no surprise – you are making an elementary conceptual confusion. You’re conflating the origins of motivations with what the motivations themselves are. Every single theory you list is perfectly compatible with the existence of altruism as a basic part of our motivational structure. Let’s take instinct, for example. We have basic altruistic instincts; an obvious example being the mother’s instinct to protect her offspring, even at the cost of her own life. Now, one might argue (and I’ll readily agree) – there is an evolutionary explanation for that altruistic instinct; namely, that mothers who protect their offspring are more likely to have offspring that survive to pass on the mother’s genes. No problem there. But one must be careful not to make the conceptual slip and conclude that the mother’s REASON or MOTIVATION for her action has anything whatsoever to do with the preservation of her genes. It does not. Evolution doesn’t need the mother to know anything about or care anything about the preservation of her lineage; it only needs her to have a simple, selfless desire to protect the life of her child. That desire, which by its very nature is an altruistic desire, confers an advantage from the evolutionary standpoint, and hence it is selected for, plain and simple.
For the record, all I did was ask a simple question – I wanted evidence for your sweeping claim that selflessness does not exist. You’re the one who started in with arrogant dismissive dickishness; no surprise at all that you would cite the incompetent hack and moral monster Ayn Rand.
@zaerix - I simply do not have time for your fuckery.
“What is your evidence that nobody in all of humanity is ever selfless?”
To have evidence that “nobody in all of humanity is ever selfless”, I would have to [excuse me, please take the time to read this and kindly do not gloss over it] HAVE TO have evidence on everybody in all of humanity with the capability of being selfless (which until any sort of conclusion on the matter is reached, is everyone). It’s like asking someone to show evidence that no human has a tail. The person would HAVE to, by necessity, have information on the status of tails of every person on the planet and off of it to answer such a question and you damn well know that that entails from the phrasing.
Any motivation that is based on a need or want of or for the self cannot, by definition, be selfless. Giving without regard to reward or benefit. This is kind of a no-brainer. So, when mother dearest dives in front of a speeding ice cream truck and pushes her children to safety, there is a desire in her to protect her children that is satisfied in that action. Where that desire comes from is irrelevant. Instantly, clearly, and by definition, that action cannot be viewed as being selfless. Awareness of the payoff on a conscious level is a non-variable.
I don’t suppose you’d be familiar with the celestial teapot? Yeah, you should probably familiarize yourself with it. This is kinda sorta like the inverse of it conceptually. =)
I dismissed you because your sentiments are worthy of being dismissed. Did you see the person my original statement was addressed to gripe at my claim? Did you stop to wonder why? A person’s character has no bearing on the validity of their statements. Enough of the bullcrap, friend.
@striemmy - “I simply do not have time for your fuckery.”
And yet, you continue to reply.
“I would have to [excuse
me, please take the time to read this and kindly do not gloss over it]
HAVE TO have evidence on everybody in all of humanity
with the capability of being selfless”
I get that. What you don’t get is that this is the precise reason why it was idiotic of you to make the claim that selflessness does not exist. You were the one who made the ridiculous non-existence claim, and that is precisely why I challenged you on it. Get it now?
“Any motivation that is based on a need or
want of or for the self cannot, by definition, be selfless.”
You are, again, conflating two quite distinct concepts. The concept of desires OF the self is quite distinct from the concept of desires FOR the self. Obviously all of our actions are motivated by desires of ours, desires that belong to us. That is a trivial, banal, and obvious claim which nobody is disputing or ever has disputed. The controversy, the question of whether we are altruistic, is a question about the nature of our desires; specifically, about what our desires are directed at or are about. If our desires are all ultimately for or about the advancement of the well-being of the self, then altruism does not exist. However, if some of our desires are for or about the advancement of the interests of others, even at the expense of our own well-being, then we are at least some of the time to some degree altruistic – in the only sense anyone has ever really meant the term. That is what the debate has always been about.
Now, you can redefine altruism if you like and make it so that the only way anyone could count as being altruistic is by acting on a desire that they didn’t have – you can say that someone is by definition being selfish even if they sacrifice their own life and their only thought, their only desire, even at the very deepest unconscious level, is to save the life of the other with no regard whatsoever for their own well-being – but that would be quite an absurd perversion of the ordinary use of the terms, and would sidestep the historical debate entirely.
@zaerix - As ridiculous as saying unicorns and the tooth fairy don’t exist, I’m sure.
Conflation implies that they aren’t already the same concept. The idea that you failed to get is that ultimately every want of the self is a want for the self as every action taken is taken at ultimate benefit in some way to the person taking it. In the satisfaction of a desire of the self there is benefit for the self, rendering the two the same.
I don’t have to redefine jack squat, amigo. As I stated, the idea is archaic. Get over it. Ordinary usage? Pardon, thought we were having a serious discussion about complex concepts. I wasn’t aware we were trading intellectual jabs over your vernacular.
That said, you have a point. I do continue to reply. That won’t happen again.
Eat shit and die, pig fuckerino. =)
@zaerix - @striemmy - You both seem to be making a mistake. We provide positive evidence for non-existence claims all of the time. This includes the classic celestial teapot example. Every time I explore a region of space and don’t find a celestial teapot, I have provided a piece of evidence that there is no celestial teapot. Granted I haven’t decisively proven that there is no celestial teapot, but I have provided a small piece of evidence for that claim. The more I look, the stronger my claim is supported.
Scientists work much the same way; they construct theories that involve sweeping generalizations (nothing moves faster than the speed of light, for example), and then they look for evidence. Each experiment or test provides a piece of evidence for the general theory. The more they experiment and test without finding data that refutes the theory, the better confirmed the theory is.
On the question of altruism, I think zaerix is (basically) right. Lots of times (I see this in class discussions frequently), there is an equivocation back and forth between two senses of selfishness. There is the trivial sense (in which an action counts as selfish any time we have a desire for it), in which it’s hard to imagine how anyone could even in principle fail to count as selfish. And there is in the more significant and interesting sense, the sense that actually requires some substantial empirical data (in which we consider whether or not all of our desires are ultimately about the self). For my money I’m inclined to think we’re at least partially motivated by altruistic desires (meaning desires that are truly about advancing the well-being of others), but I think that’s a very complex thing to establish empirically, and there may still be some room for skepticism.
@striemmy - ”In the satisfaction of a desire of the self
there is benefit for the self, rendering the two the same.”
Your conclusion simply does not follow. The fact that in the satisfaction of a desire there is in some sense a benefit for the self in no way implies that the action was done for the sake of the benefit to the self. And that, obviously, to anyone who isn’t just redefining terms at will to cheapen and trivialize discourse, is the question of altruism – it is the question of what we act for the sake of, what our desires are about; are the objects of our desires ultimately ourselves always, or do our desires ever truly target the well-being of those beyond ourselves? It’s an interesting question, it’s too bad you have no interest in discussing it.
@chaospet - Well, I can see your point. At the same time you have provided no evidence at all. You have evidence that the teapot was not in that particular space at that particular time. However, as I understand it, the teapot isn’t a static object in space-time. At any other time someone may return there and in fact find the teapot there if it exists. The more you look the more evidence you find but it will never be enough to speak about it as anything more than a weak possibility. Not all examples of that sort, just these two. For example if I said there’s no living unicorn in my bedroom that could be substantiated with a quick look around the room, using realistic assumptions about the physical dimensions of a unicorn.
The question that that leaves open, the question for which I have decided to answer differently than you but respect you more than enough not to insinuate that you copulate with swine, is whether those desires which on the surface seem altruistic aren’t at their root, thinly veiled selfish desires. So, an easy example in support of my side of the issue is seemingly selfless every day actions that can be undertaken. You see someone homeless, down on their luck but still looking rather like the sort of person who will use your money to buy a sandwich rather than a crack pipe, and you give them some money. Was that altruistic? It can be argued as such. That money could have been used to feed you, clothe you or keep a roof over your head or to satisfy some other selfish desire. Perhaps giving away that money was detrimental to your finances. Then again, you got something out of the deal, something you wanted. Whether that something was an affirmation of the persona you’ve selected for yourself of a “good” person or the warm fuzzy feeling inside or it was to alleviate the possibility of future guilt from not giving or to alleviate past guilt, it all boils down to you having done something for yourself. You’ve satisfied your chemical dependency for a certain emotion or patched up the gaping insecurity you have about your character. Whatever the case is, the question becomes, was it selfless? Did you do it for them or did you do it for you? I’m inclined to say you. Would you have done it if you didn’t know there was going to be a benefit for you? Most people have a pretty good idea of what they’re getting out of a given scenario. I give the man money, I get to feel good about myself. I open the door for the lady, I get a warm fuzzy feeling. I help someone across the street, I get to not be looked at like a douchebag and made to feel bad. I think we have a great example of the way people act when these reactions to interpersonal activities don’t exist in people suffering from antisocial personality disorder. I’m a fan of parsimony on this one. I can agree with you in that altruistic desires exist and that degree of motivation by them is a very complex thing to establish empirically.
If you grew up in a terrible neighborhood and went to terrible schools your whole life, you should be give a small amount of leeway when applying to college. It’s is unfortunate that those types of boundaries statically correlate to race lines.
@striemmy - Right, I definitely see the force of what you’re saying; it’s always an open question whether you actually did it for the sake of the other person, or for the sake of what you feel (the warm feeling, or to avoid guilt). At the same time, it’s possible to turn that point on its head; one could argue that the very fact that you feel good about helping someone else (or guilty about not helping them) is itself evidence that you have altruistic desires – after all, why would helping someone make you feel good unless advancing their interests was a genuine desire of yours?
Ultimately my bet is that human motivation for most actions is very complex, and probably generally a mixture of selfish concerns and concerns for the well-being of others.
No. It’s not fair.
No way. And like someone else already said, I cant stress enough how much I hate this. Its ignorant and raciest towards those who are not black (because you know there would be a riot if people got into collage JUST because they are white!) And also, I would hate it if the only reason a college excepted me is because of the color of my skin. Getting accepted into the college of your choice should be a proud moment for people because they were able to prove that they are good enough to get in. Not just because of some rule about needing to meet the colleges’ quota of blacks. That’s terrible.
NO
I’m pretty sure the only reason I got into the school that I’m going to next year is because I’m Jewish. And I’m kind of offended, but honestly I don’t know for sure. I think it’s stupid that who I am is considered a handicap and helps me get into Universities that I wouldn’t have gotten into if I hadn’t been raised Jewish. My religion doesn’t hold me back, and it shouldn’t be a deciding factor about whether a student can be admitted or not. Neither should race.
However, I do think it’s wrong to discriminate when it comes to the admissions process. Michigan, a few years back, was caught when they weren’t admitting Jewish kids. A good friend of my family was one of them. Now basically every Jewish kid that applies gets in, just so they won’t get in trouble again. This I feel awkward about also. Sure, I hate discrimination. But now they’re just scared and don’t want to be caught again. It’s just annoying – I don’t think this will ever go away.
Studies have shown more diverse groups end up being more productive. I don’t see a problem with colleges taking advantage of that knowledge.
I’m playing the Hispanic card for all it’s worth; going to college is expensive, not mention if you’re interested in grad school (As I am)
FUCK NO.
they shouldn’t even ASK you your race on the paper, because it should be IRRELEVANT whether or not you should get into college.
if minorities want to be equal, they should start by not getting special treatment ie let into college just because they’re (insert ANYTHING other than white here).
Yeah, that’s positive discrimination and in the UK you have to do it to balance things out. Like you’ve gotta have a minimum of 20% Black and Ethnic Minority people in a workplace, so sometimes they’ll write in job ads “we welcome BEM people” or same with elderly people, etc.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, but as an Asian, I would not want to go to a college that is all white because I will just feel like a fish out of water.
I am a Central Asian who was born in Kazakhstan, raised in America, but now I’ve been living in China for some quite a while, and I do feel like the diversity of my background gives me a bit of an advantage when it comes to admissions.
However, I think that your academics should be the first factor when colleges consider you.
NOO, NOO, NOO and I am p!ssed off about it. My friend had to lie on her (3rd) application to a college and say that she was African to be allowed admission to the college.
She is whiter than white. THIS IS WRONG. And I’m angry about it. YEA!
Allow me to join the unending chorus of “No”.
NO way !!! College admission should be based on grades,not based on race. I feel the same way when it comes to career opportunities;you get a job based on your knowledge and experience/qualifications…not because you’re Black,or White,or asian,or Latino.EARN your place…it shouldn’t just be handed to you.
The question of race should not be on the application