I’ve never heard anyone use that acronym. I think it’s just a Freudian slip on the part of progressive whites.
That makes my brain cry.
4 Likes
Noted.
Agency meaning…?
Do you really think that’s the point? That is, do you really think the authors believe all SGIs fail? Or is it possible that this encapsulation is intended to explain why so many SGIs have trouble succeeding?
I’m curious: What changes would you make to the diagram so that it more accurately reflected the truth of the situation?
This might cheer you up, Bolt. The cop decided to take the cash of this poor hotdog vendor’s wallet, claiming forfeiture rules applied. You’d think a ticket would do, right? Can you imagine watching a police officer open that man’s wallet and take all the cash? The response renewed my faith in America.
It’s right at the bottom of the diagram.
I first thought of Silicon Graphics when I saw it, but knew that was wrong.
I know. That’s the only reason I was able to tell basementgainz what it means.
The flow chart isn’t even accurate. The “causation” box is “white people being ideologically averse to government spending”. Well, no, that’s simply not true - in areas where SGI are seeing the worst effects of bad public education, it’s in areas most inclined to spend more, and in fact, spending per pupil is higher. The causes of underfunded education - to the extent underfunding is the root cause, and there’s no consensus on that - are multiple, for example, places where property values have moved up quickly due to economic forces, but wages haven’t moved up as fast, and so it’s hard to raise property taxes (the primary fund for education in a lot of places), because people are having a hard time writing a check for the additional funding.
It’s complicated, in other words, but this intellectually lazy chart - being passed off as “education” to a young mind - starts with an ideological conclusion and therefore unsupported premise (mean, selfish white people are the cause) and derives a flow chart from that predetermined conclusion. That’s the very opposite of science, so why is it being taught at all?
And like @anon71262119 notes, it ignores the agency of the individual - what is the role of personal choices, expectations, etc. in this flowchart? It ignores this variable completely and assumes SGIs are all victims of external forces with no control over their own fate. That’s not to say it’s all their own fault - but you can’t ignore this variable in a disinterested analysis.
It’s ideology being peddled, not reason. There’s a flaw at every step of the flow chart.
6 Likes
I blame T-ball for all of this.
Just pay the tuition bill, Bolt. You can pay upwards of $35,000 per year so your 19-year-old can explain “how taxes work” to you.
1 Like
Hmm, I can’t seem to find that box on the chart. Where is it?
While you can probably find individual districts in which this is true, I think you’re painting with much too broad a brush here. For example:
Are you suggesting that race is not one of these ‘multiple causes’?
This chart was presented completely out of context, so unless you have read the book, you have no idea re how it fits in with the overarching thesis. Nor do you have any idea whether the premises are unsupported.
In short, you are doing precisely what you accuse the authors of–being intellectually lazy, and drawing ideological, predetermined conclusions on very limited data. The opposite of science, as you say.
Would it make the chart any more illuminating if they drew an arrow shooting off to the side labelled Those rare SGIs who, by dint of extraordinary ability or initiative, are able to succeed despite their daunting, stultifying socioeconomic circumstances?
Upper left - white people don’t want to waste money. You can’t miss it, if you look at it.
I’m not - look at the data on per pupil funding in big cities. Point being, as I said, there are places of significance where minorities are a huge part of the student population but per pupil spending is high. Quite obviously, in those places, there re factors in play other than lack of white people’s interest in paying for public education.
But in any event, your article is helpful to my point, which is underfunding, where it is a problem, isn’t caused by race. There may be correlations, but the causes are complicated.
Nope, I’m not suggesting that - I’m saying race isn’t the cause, like the author of the assumes, without foundation, it is.
Is the flow chart right? Or wrong? I’ve explained why it’s wrong, and why its premises are unsupported. The plight of SGIs where they are struggling in public schools isn’t because of the sole reason that “white people don’t want to waste money on government spending”. It’s ideology disguised as disinterested analysis. If you want to explain why it’s right, be my guest.
Nope, I’m attacking the flawed logic and insufficiently supported starting premise of the flow chart - it’s exactly how bad and flawed ideas are debunked, scientifically.
And I am not attacking this from an ideological angle - after all, I personally support more spending on public education.
Why would it? It wouldn’t fix the underlying flaws on the flow chart.
Oh, Hell no. And how bizarre - you can spend $15 on late fees from the public library on all the tools you need to learn how to think, but people are willing to spend six-figures on this sstuff
1 Like
Well, that’s closer.
Yes, I saw that the first time. What I didn’t see was the ‘causation box’ containing the phrase “white people being ideologically averse to government spending” (note that you even put it in full quotation marks). The point being, the phrase “White taxpayers do not want to waste money” is not the same as “white people being ideologically averse to government spending.” (You can’t miss it, if you look at it.)
Indeed. But then, I doubt if anyone would seriously suggest that the extent to which white people are averse to paying for public education is the sole determining factor in SGI success.
Like I said…
Oh. Read the book, have you?
You have explained nothing. You have assumed a great deal.
And for the third time…
You cannot attack the premises of a chart when said premises have not been explicated. Based on your ideological preferences, you are assuming what the premises are, and going from there.
Because it would address your ‘agency’ argument.
The theme of the flow chart is whites refusing to properly fund public education for SGIs, but you don’t read “whites don’t want to waste taxpayer money” as the same as “ideologically averse to government spending”? I see. Are you more comfortable with “ideologically averse to government spending on people of color”?
Here’s how I don’t read it - to mean whites are really just disappointed as what they see as insufficient ROI on public education expenditures, and ideology has no bearing on that premise.
That’s weird, because that’s precisely what the flow chart was about.
You asked a question - what’s wrong with the flow chart? I provided an answer. The statements and logic of the flow chart rise or fall on their own.
They have been explicated - that’s the entire point of reducing the information down to a basic flow chart. All of the (purported) data and conclusions have been distilled into a premise. The statements say what they mean, and they can be measured by precisely that.
But it doesn’t - it says exceptions exist to the rule. Ok, so? We’re debating if the rule is even true.
Good Lord–that’s not the theme at all. The theme of the flow chart is the vicious cycle that SGIs get caught in. Note the name of the Figure: “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy,” not “Whites refuse to properly fund public education for SGIs.”
Good Lord, again–that’s EXACTLY what it says. What do you think “White taxpayers do not want to waste money” means?
SMH. It’s just astonishing how strongly your preconceptions affect everything you see.
Perhaps @anon71262119 will post a passage in the book explicating the extent to which the authors attribute SGI difficulties to white-taxpayer reticence, and put this issue to bed once and for all.
No, they really don’t. Context matters. For example, what if we were to discover that the text referred to the chart as ‘an identity-politics perspective on SGI educational issues’ without endorsing it? Absent reading the text, you simply don’t know to what extent the authors attribute SGIs’ socioeconomic difficulties to the reticence of white people to fund education. You certainly have ZERO justification for claiming (as you do above) that the authors believe it is the sole determinant thereof.
And as I’ve demonstrated above, even your stand-alone analysis of the chart is deeply flawed.
Again, no. See above.
Edit: Never mind, @Powerpuff–I found a PDF of the book. Here is the section referring to this figure:
"In certain situations, we may respond to negative stereotypes and act on them, with the result that false definitions become accurate. This is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. A person or group described as having particular characteristics begins to display the very traits attributed to him or her. Thus, a child who is praised for being a natural comic may focus on learning to become funny to gain approval and attention.
Self-fulfilling prophecies can be devastating for minority groups (Figure 1.4). Such groups often find that they are allowed to hold only low-paying jobs with little prestige or opportunity for advancement. The rationale of the dominant society is that these minority people lack the ability to perform in more important and lucrative positions. Training to become scientists, executives, or physicians is denied to many subordinate-group individuals (SGIs), who are then locked into society’s inferior jobs. As a result, the false definition becomes real. The subordinate group has become inferior because it was defined at the start as inferior and was, therefore, prevented from achieving the levels attained by the majority."
1 Like
The chart flat out says the lack of funding of public education that benefits SGI is whites’ reluctance to provide said funding. I didn’t take you to be the mendacious type. That’s disappointing.
Already said.
This, coming from someone who thinks whites are racist, either consciously or subconsciously racist, but regardless, starts with that peconceiced notion- I’ll punt on the irony of this statement.
But more importantly, what I said was correct - that is precisely what the flow chart was about.
Yeah, they really do.
Then what’s the point of the flow chart? It’s a causation flow chart - if there were other causes, where are they in the flowchart?
SGIs are “allowed” only to have low-paying jobs; SGIs are “denied” training to become scientists, etc.; SGIs are “defined” at the start as inferior. Lots of active verbs here, ED - who exactly in the author’s mind is “(dis)allowing”, “denying”, and “defining”? White people who are simply convinced public education didn’t pay off for SGIs, and ideology has nothing to do with it?
In any event, all dissembling aside, the point is the flow chart reduces causation to a reductionist myth - white people not agreeing to ponying up the necessary resources to adequately fund public education for SGIs, and the negative spiral that it puts SGIs in. That’s ideology, not empricism, in action.
2 Likes
I see. I provide the evidence that irrefutably dismantles your view of the matter, but your response is to dismiss it by accusing the author of “dissembling.”
And with that, this pseudo-discussion has jumped the shark. I shall leave you to it.
Sorry, BG. Was away from the computer all weekend, and the thread got a bit away from me. In order to give you a fully fleshed out answer, I’ll have to crack the books. It has been 4 years since I delved into legal philosophy with any depth.
1 Like
I’m calling “Hypocrite” right here.
2 Likes
Call it if you’d like. But at least you haven’t seen me dismiss the evidential import of plainspoken, unambiguous source information by accusing its authors of lying.