Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

[Pattern-chaser]

There are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.

Exactly. Why is this so difficult to see, I wonder? It seems obvious to me...?

[GE Morton]

I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.

Now, now. I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary. Social theories per which groups are the primary units of analysis, such as Marxism, ignore the individual differences which produce different economic outcomes for different people and instead rely upon group stereotypes, which lend themselves to facile (and usually polemical and vacuous) explanations.

Yes, members of every group, if it is well-defined, will share at least one commonality, namely, whatever property qualifies them as members of the group, by definition. But that common property will rarely have any value, or even any role, in explaining any given individual's economic circumstances.

[GE Morton]

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.

Besides, it is possible to simply assert that loving and being loved promotes one's own well-being. So say the poets, anyway. So even from a selfish perspective agape may lead to a life well-lived.

Hasty generalization there. Though loving and being loved may well promote well-being, I'm sure those poets were speaking of "love" in the ordinary, emotionally-based sense, not of a behavioral simulation of it prompted by a religious dogma.

And of course, no such nonsense is necessary to morally justify charity. That is easy to justify. What is much more difficult to justify is forced "charity," which, BTW, not even (biblical) Christianity advocates.

[Belindi]

I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.

Now, now. I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary. Social theories per which groups are the primary units of analysis, such as Marxism, ignore the individual differences which produce different economic outcomes for different people and instead rely upon group stereotypes, which lend themselves to facile (and usually polemical and vacuous) explanations.

Yes, members of every group, if it is well-defined, will share at least one commonality, namely, whatever property qualifies them as members of the group, by definition. But that common property will rarely have any value, or even any role, in explaining any given individual's economic circumstances.

I remember that GEMorton wrote that social class is not a useful classification. I claim it's useful because it can explain why some children fail in school. Social class is an explanation that does not blame the failures but instead indicates ways and means of helping school failures to success in school.

[GE Morton]

I remember that GEMorton wrote that social class is not a useful classification. I claim it's useful because it can explain why some children fail in school.

But it doesn't, Belindi. That is a superficial explanation based on a stereotype devised for ideological reasons. If the "lower class" is defined as "those whose incomes are below $X per year," then pointing out that Alfie is a member of that class tells you absolutely nothing about why Alfie's income is less than $X per year. You've explained nothing by pointing that out. To explain Alfie's low income requires information about many personal characteristics of Alfie, about which his "class membership" tells you nothing.

Social class is an explanation that does not blame the failures but instead indicates ways and means of helping school failures to success in school.

It doesn't do that, either. Helping kids who are having difficulty in school requires the same sort of personal information about each kid you're trying to help, which will differ from kid to kid.

The system most likely to address those problems is a free-market approach to education, wherein hundreds of competing privately-operated schools, following different educational philosophies, offering different curricula or emphases, catering to kids with different talents, interests, abilities, etc., may be chosen by parents according to their own judgment as to what is best for their kid.

Public education in the US (and many other places) resembles the State-operated restaurant system in the former Soviet Union: If you live in neighborhood X you dine in Restaurant #121, which will offer the same menu as every other restaurant in the city, at the same prices. If you don't like the 3 or 4 choices offered, or the quality thereof, you stay home.

An optimal system of childhood education requires the complete separation of school and State.

[Ecurb]

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.

Only the most naive interpretation of the Golden Rule would suggest that it entitles suicidal people to become murderers. Kant's imperative is fine, too, but more legalistic.

Hasty generalization there. Though loving and being loved may well promote well-being, I'm sure those poets were speaking of "love" in the ordinary, emotionally-based sense, not of a behavioral simulation of it prompted by a religious dogma.

I doubt this was true of Saint Paul, who wrote ("love" is the translation of the Greek "agape"):

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body [a]to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, [c]thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

[AgentSmith]

The predator-prey paradigm is fractal in nature. What Dr. Ghoulem Barrah sees at the global, continental level (Europe preying on Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas) plays out at the level of countries, communities, and families too. Look at the crime rates, the exploitation of people by their very own countrymen/countrywomen, and so on.

[LuckyR]

I have to chuckle a bit observing this back and forth. It is like the battle between the lumpers and the splitters. One side claims there is no such thing as groups ie we are all individuals (they over emphasize differences) while the others put every individual into various groups (they over emphasize commonalities). News flash! You're both right, there are actual groups who share certain commonalities, while at the same time everyone, including group members, have certain unique properties that mark them also as individuals.

Now, now. I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary. Social theories per which groups are the primary units of analysis, such as Marxism, ignore the individual differences which produce different economic outcomes for different people and instead rely upon group stereotypes, which lend themselves to facile (and usually polemical and vacuous) explanations.

Yes, members of every group, if it is well-defined, will share at least one commonality, namely, whatever property qualifies them as members of the group, by definition. But that common property will rarely have any value, or even any role, in explaining any given individual's economic circumstances.

I apologize, when I said "no such thing as groups", I meant: "no valuable conclusions to be drawn from the behavior of groups".

[Belindi]

Belindi wrote:

I remember that GEMorton wrote that social class is not a useful classification. I claim it's useful because it can explain why some children fail in school.

GEMorton wrote:

But it doesn't, Belindi. That is a superficial explanation based on a stereotype devised for ideological reasons. If the "lower class" is defined as "those whose incomes are below $X per year," then pointing out that Alfie is a member of that class tells you absolutely nothing about why Alfie's income is less than $X per year. You've explained nothing by pointing that out. To explain Alfie's low income requires information about many personal characteristics of Alfie, about which his "class membership" tells you nothing.

I agree that classification by income is superficial. My classification depends on comparisons of local cultures as much as it does on income, although actual hunger, cold,and debt enter my classification. Cultures are defined by their proclivity to spread judgments and evaluations. People who suffer from endemic poverty are open to the idea that their case is hopeless at least by legal means.People who suffer from endemic affluence are open to the idea that they are entitled.


B . wrote:

Social class is an explanation that does not blame the failures but instead indicates ways and means of helping school failures to success in school.

GEM replied:

It doesn't do that, either. Helping kids who are having difficulty in school requires the same sort of personal information about each kid you're trying to help, which will differ from kid to kid.

The system most likely to address those problems is a free-market approach to education, wherein hundreds of competing privately-operated schools, following different educational philosophies, offering different curricula or emphases, catering to kids with different talents, interests, abilities, etc., may be chosen by parents according to their own judgment as to what is best for their kid.

Public education in the US (and many other places) resembles the State-operated restaurant system in the former Soviet Union: If you live in neighborhood X you dine in Restaurant #121, which will offer the same menu as every other restaurant in the city, at the same prices. If you don't like the 3 or 4 choices offered, or the quality thereof, you stay home.

An optimal system of childhood education requires the complete separation of school and State.

Private schooling has been and to a significant extent is still being done in England. It works to cream off the more advantaged kids who have books and computers and great spaces to play. It also favours the people who pay the bills i.e. the parents.

A centralised school system that is paid for by taxation does not favour the parents it favours the politicians.

The best system is fiscally centralised but planned and maintained by experts i.e. educationists.

[Pattern-chaser]

I've not claimed there are no such things as groups. On the contrary, there are as many groups as one wishes to define --- which is the problem; to what groups an individual is assigned is arbitrary.

No, group membership is not usually "assigned"; its members chose to join. Societies, however, are different, as membership is not a choice. But in either case, the 'assignment' is not arbitrary.

arbitrary
adjective

• subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: "an arbitrary decision."
• decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
• having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: "an arbitrary government."
• based on whim or personal preference, without reason or pattern; random: "This is an unusual encyclopedia, arranged by topics in a more or less arbitrary order."
• Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: "an arbitrary constant."

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.

The Golden Rule makes the point well, but its focus is mistaken. The real Golden Rule asks that one will treat others as they would wish to be treated. After all, what you might find to be beneficial treatment might be insufferably unpleasant to someone else.

[GE Morton]

No, group membership is not usually "assigned"; its members chose to join. Societies, however, are different, as membership is not a choice. But in either case, the 'assignment' is not arbitrary.

Yes, groups can form voluntarily; they're often called "clubs." We were speaking of "social classes" and other groups defined by sociologists (and ideologues).

There are two routes for becoming a member of a group: by enlistment, or by definition. The latter is arbitrary, reflecting only the whim of the person doing the defining. Such "memberships" entail no obligations or other bonds between members.

[Ecurb]

Yes, groups can form voluntarily; they're often called "clubs." We were speaking of "social classes" and other groups defined by sociologists (and ideologues).

There are two routes for becoming a member of a group: by enlistment, or by definition. The latter is arbitrary, reflecting only the whim of the person doing the defining. Such "memberships" entail no obligations or other bonds between members.

"Americans" never applied for membership (unless they are immigrants). Nonetheless, membership confers privileges and obligations.

"Social classes' were well defined in Europe (in the past). One could be dirt poor and remain an "aristocrat" (at least until one married an heir or heiress). The modern penchant for defining "class' based on wealth is a bit silly. Steel workers may make more money than college professors, but their status is not higher.

Defining group membership arbitrarily is as it does; sometimes it is a valuable and enlightening way to look at things -- sometimes it is not. Some vaccinated Covid sufferers die; some unvaccinated ones live. Still, it's reasonable to compare the "groups" and come to conclusions about the value of vaccines.

[GE Morton]

I agree that classification by income is superficial. My classification depends on comparisons of local cultures as much as it does on income, although actual hunger, cold,and debt enter my classification. Cultures are defined by their proclivity to spread judgments and evaluations. People who suffer from endemic poverty are open to the idea that their case is hopeless at least by legal means.People who suffer from endemic affluence are open to the idea that they are entitled.

That classification has no explanatory power either. I.e., it doesn't answer the question, "Why is Alfie cold, hungry, and in debt?"

There are no such things as "endemic" poverty or affluence, for individuals. Poverty is only "endemic" to some group because that group has been defined as "those who are poor." But the membership of that group changes constantly, with some entering that group and other leaving it. Who enters it or leaves is determined by the personal traits of the individuals involved.

BTW, an affluent person who acquired his wealth by legitimate means, e.g., by producing it, certainly is entitled to it.

The best system is fiscally centralised but planned and maintained by experts i.e. educationists.

Yikes! Shades of "Brave New World!" "Best" in whose judgment, that of the kids and their parents, or that of the technocrats? And, of course, Which technocrats?

There are no "experts" with respect to methods, content, or philosophy of education; there are only competing, and largely unfounded and ideologically-driven, theories. What is "best" for each kid depends on the kid.

(That issue, BTW, is currently a lively one in the US: Whose judgment should prevail concerning what is taught and how it should be taught in public schools, that of parents, or of school bureaucrats?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... -takeover/

[Ecurb]

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I think we've covered this before. The trouble with the Golden Rule is that "what you would have others do unto you" is subjective, and I would not want a masochist to do unto me what he would have me do unto him. Kant's Categorical Imperative aims at the same point, but avoids that problem.

The Golden Rule makes the point well, but its focus is mistaken. The real Golden Rule asks that one will treat others as they would wish to be treated. After all, what you might find to be beneficial treatment might be insufferably unpleasant to someone else.

This version is subject to more objections than the original. Should a good-looking woman have sex with everyone who wants to bed her? Should we hand over all our cash to every beggar we see?

The Golden Rule assumes certain restrictions. If we want to die, we are not obligated to kill everyone else. Common sense requires us to blend the two rules (Pattern's and Jesus's).

[Belindi]

GEMorton wrote regarding child education:

There are no "experts" with respect to methods, content, or philosophy of education; there are only competing, and largely unfounded and ideologically-driven, theories. What is "best" for each kid depends on the kid.

Child- centred education is a theory of education with which I agree. Indeed it's ideal when each child has her education tailored to suit her. This is done to the utmost ability of every good teacher.