But the Gattaca world assigned jobs to people based on their weaknesses, something else entirely. Something wrong. What if Thomas Edison had the same heart ailment? He probably wouldn’t have been allowed to attend higher schooling. He was deaf to some extent, though this was not a genetic thing. Would Beethoven have been allowed to study music?
My wife workes with developmentally disabled folks. The worst thing you can do to harm a person who already has strikes against them, is to assume they “can’t.” Can’t anything. This is the same thing that separates us unicyclists from the majority of the population that complains “they can’t” do it, so they never try. Assume a developmentally disabled person can’t hold a job, and you never get to find out. Assume they can’t create art, and they’ll probably never try. Assume they can’t live their own life, and you take it away from them. This is basically the philosophy of my wife’s company: http://www.stepsite.com/about.htm
Your DNA may be able to tell if you have a proclivity toward physical problems. It does not tell what kind of a person you might be. So it should never be allowed to determine that. If it gets used to identify dangerous recessives, that’s another story, but separate from the topic above.
uhm…no
I said that people SHOULD do what they do best…if a male is better at being a stay at home dad then a mechanic, he SHOULD do it…will he? Maybe not…
However, assigning someone a job based on skills is wrong…I’m all for capitalism and free enterprise, but I still think people should do what they are best at, whether they be male or female
What about doing something that will stretch them and help them to learn new things about the world and so on, rather than just being good at? They are not necessarily the same thing. Or even what they like, rather than what they’re good at?
Which is true to a point, but even the idea that everyone wants to be stretched or helped to learn new things is a product of your own social context. Not everyone would agree with it.
Indeed, without having to go looking for obscure cultures around the world, I know plenty of mainstream white collar workers who strenuously avoid being stretched or learnign anything new, however attractively the prospects are presented to them.
Oh yes. I was only presenting it as a possible option. Not as the only option. I was in no way suggesting that everyone wants to do this.
I don’t think I would suggest that ‘everyone’ wants to do any particular thing. We’re all different and have different goals/motivators/constructions of the world and so on. That’s the whole point. There isn’t one ‘right’ thing.
To some extent, even in “the land of the free” we do this. Children are given exams and put in special “gifted” programs in areas that they demonstrate promise. And even at the college level, we have standardized testing to separate the “intelligent” from the “unintelligent.”
Doesn’t there have to be a “right” thing in order to preserve the order in society? How else would we decide whom should do what and how they should be rewarded?
It makes sense for people to be encouraged to seek employment in areas where they have aptitude. Assigning them a job whether they like it or not is a different thing.
And as for whether the job is rewarding or fulfilling, etc. Ideally it should be, but reward and fulfillment are not the only criteria. If a job is necessary for society as a whole, it is surely necessary that it is done by someone with the right aptitude. Let’s not give all the lorry-driving jobs to people with poor spatial awareness and short concentration spans, just because they might find it fun.
I do agree with placing kids in programs based on those “standardized” tests, because (I say this in a completely non bragging way) if I was in Regulars classes because I wasn’t tested and placed in a higher level, I would be making at least 95’s in all of my classes, and be bored out of my mind. I would also not learn a single thing. However, I’m not assignedto the IB program. I could be in Regulars if I wanted to, however, since I can be in IB, and I’m “better” at being in IB, I should (not have to) be in IB.
Ok, so, fast forward eight or ten years, I’m out of college, what do I do?
Do I go for something I’m good at, and that I enjoy doing?
Should the government find out my skills, and assign (read force) me to do whatever job they think I’m best at?
My point is that people should do what they have the skills for, and what they are best at. Do they have to? No.
Interesting. So you’re in the International Baccalaureate Program? I completed the diploma program when I was in high school. It was definitely more challenging than even the “normal” honors programs provided by the local school district.
So you think you have a choice? If all you learn is what you are taught in school, then you will most likely be persuaded, perhaps by the intrinsic or extrinsic rewards, to pursue the profession that you have been prepared to do by the schooling you’ve experienced. You might think you have a choice, but the choices will have narrowed to that which you have been schooled to do simply because the rewards will be greater. You see, the government doesn’t have to aggressively assign you a job. They’ve already passively set you up to contribute to society in a certain way. You probably won’t end up flipping burgers because you’ve been given an education. You have a choice, but not much of one: minimum wage versus a typical salary for a college graduate doesn’t leave much room for choice.
If we really had a choice, then we’d be able to choose unicycling as a viable career. But who can really make a living out of unicycling?
I’m not saying that we absolutely don’t have a choice, but our choices are limited by forces outside of our wills. I think people ultimately like to be told what do AND given choices. If we had too many choices, we’d all end up clinically depressed and suicidal. And, if we were told exactly what to do, we wouldn’t have the illusion of being absolutely free.
Maybe I am. This certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
To stick it to The Man. To prove that you really do have choices. Because janitors work less hours and don’t have to deal with finicky clients. Because you love studying architecture, money or not.
I recently completed a math degree that I have no direct use for, and I did it for fun. Maybe I am insane!
People should definitely be stretched. Sermatologists should be made to perform heart surgery a few times a year, just to keep their esteem up. Unicylists should be made to act like power lifters a few times a year, defineitly. and peoplewho can spell should be made to type faster withougjhty proof reading.
The only thing I can think about that is “who cares?” What use would it be for anyone to attempt such a study. Who needs to know that their particular race is more intelligent than another? Besides, there would be too many factors, or yeah-buts to account for in a study like that. I’m sorry to say, but anyone sitting around thinking about crap like that seems quite insecure.
And whether or not you are personally racist, I don’t really care. I think we’re all a little racist inside, and that’s ok. Just try not to be prejudice (judging others based on preconceived notions/strereotypes.)
Originally Posted by James_Potter
However, I think it would be beneficial to, not entirely, but partially “assign” jobs to people based on their natural strengths. Some people really are more cut out for manual labor.
This is not “exactly the same argument” I used. In no way did I suggest people be assigned jobs whether that assignation be based upon gender or on aptitude. I did say that the genetics, biology and indeed the gender of a person befits them better for some occupations and for some roles.
I specifically stated that if woman wanted to be a mechanic, then that was fine, but unless she was as good as the other mechanics she should not expect to be treated the same financially. That is reward based on skill levels. If I were to employ a hod carrier I would want someone who could carry a full load. If that excludes most women then that is not assigning jobs on a gender basis. It is assigning them on a strength basis. To the business it also makes sound economic sense.
I took pains to emphasise choice, bearing in mind that any chosen course probably involves restricting choices elsewhere. I think, especially in the UK, that we have very little gender inequality now. Too many people want gender equality ( and racial equality) of the 2 and 2 makes 5 variety.
What you say of this Dr. Ellis, could well be true. I am myself of mixed background (White and Black Afro Caribbean). Therefore this subject is not taboo as many have said, but something I deal with everyday, I think many people are trying to say whether black or white people are cleverer which to me is the same as trying to compare for performance an identical unicycle in different colours. I believe that people are the same and it is simply the education they receive and how tit is given to the individual. I say this as my dad has just finished writing his PHD on racial sciences and from his work in with we have had many in depth discussions, minorities in schools are expected and set up to fail, the way they are taught prepares them for this and if this is true whichever minority you may be and 99% of people in this circumstance will not learn to the best of there ability giving the assumption the majority is cleverer.
But on a serious note regardless of race creed or colour as long as you can ride a unicycle you’re cleverer than a MTBer and anyone walking which at end if the day is the real victory.
easy now keep it wheelie funky
