Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Friday, Sep 30, 2011 - 01:49 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

Listening Places


New Orleans

There comes, every so often, a song that one keeps on a loop, and this is one of those:


An alternate version

There is a house in New Orleans,
they call The Rising Sun.
And it's been the ruin of manys a poor boy,
and God, I know I'm one.

My mother was a tailores
she sewed my new blue jeans
an' my father was a gamblin' man
down in New Orleans.

Now the only thing a gambler needs
is a suitcase and a trunk.
And the only time that he's satisfied
is when he's down and drunk.

So mothers tell, tell your children
not to do what I have done
not to spend their lives in sin and misery
in the House of the Rising sun.

I've got one foot on the platform
and another one on the train.
I'm going home to New Orleans
to wear that ball and chain.

There is a house in New Orleans,
they call The Rising Sun.
And it's been the ruin of manys a poor boy,
and God, I know I'm one.

 - Lyrics from sing365.com

Beautiful voice, beautiful name, and a one-in-a-thousand face that could not be diminished by being shorn of hair; what a shame it is that some gifts are so fleeting, though 'tis true that some glories are all the greater for lasting but a span.


Oxley Road & Berkeley

"I am an agnostic... But who created this universe? There may be a God. We will never know. However, I do not accept that any written book, whether the Bible, Old or New Testament, or the Quran or the Buddhist scriptures has the last words on it."

- Former PM, SM, MM Lee (source)


Now, whether or not one likes his politics and ruthlessness, one has to grudgingly admit that he talks (or at least has talked) sense (and hard truths). In practice it hardly matters, for faiths of all stripes have often been exceedingly willing to render unto Caesar whenever their interests are concerned.

The hardness of his truths have often grated, though, with one of the most recent occurences being his asking a female PhD student whether she had a boyfriend. The poor girl was dumbstruck, the online community predictably far less so, especially given that his own daughter had been in the same position (and not moved on, to the best of public knowledge).

A few weeks later and over ten thousand kilometres away, a storm brewed in a cupcake as a group called the Berkeley College Republicans held a bake sale. It would have been completely unremarkable, but for the prices:

White:$2.00
Asian:$1.50
Latino:$1.00
Black:$0.75
Native American:$0.25
$0.25 off for all women


Many were incensed at the racial (racist?) pricing, a not-very-subtle dig at affirmative action policies that allow minorities with poorer test scores to enter universities ahead of others (which happens much closer to home too). Personally, opponents should have just invited a Native American lady for unlimited free cupcakes. [N.B. It could be argued that, if the prices were to be an accurate reflection, Asians should actually pay something like $2.25]

These two controversies happen to be linked - on one side, we have an unavoidable throwback to the theory that smarter parents have smarter kids, which if true leads to the incredibly dicey and barely whisperable question of the consequences if certain groups indeed tend to have smarter kids.

Only, the first part is actually not quite as controversial as it may seem. It is, according to the best that current science can offer and age-old everyday observation, largely true, with studies as a whole suggesting that about three-quarters of I.Q. differences between individuals can be attributed to heredity.

Nor do I see why this conclusion should be so unacceptable - most people would express little surprise if Alan reaches six-foot-four if his parents were both six-footers, and Benny five-foot-five like his mom and dad, even if they had been classmates and ate the same food all their young lives. Nor is it usually considered in bad taste to say that Alan has inherited his father's fiery disposition, or Benny his mother's eyes and skill at working with the hands.

Further, farmers of many cultures around the world have employed this to their advantage - wolves, selected for friendliness, eventually became dogs, a process that can be observed in even a single lifetime. Horse and cattle breeders since antiquity have treasured their prize stud stallions and bulls, not without good reason.

Certainly, nothing is guaranteed - a pair of professors may have a dud son (or very possibly none at all), while two cleaners may produce a top scientist, and indeed traits tend to regress to the mean. However, it is just as true that some outcomes are more likely than others, unfair as reality may be.

I gather that the particular vitriol towards the suggestion that intelligence (at least the part of it recognized as I.Q.) is inherited to a substantial extent is because it so happens to correlate strongly (or at least be seen as such) with success in the present time. Nobody seems very threatened if it is hypothesized that certain groups have a genetic disposition towards running very long distances at high speeds, although that may well have been a far more useful trait to have for the vast majority of human history - the potential to do differential calculus mentally would be of scant consolation to the laggard in a crowd fleeing from a sabre-toothed tiger...

While individuals passing down at least some tendencies to their offspring is usually acknowledged, the really touchy part comes when this line of reasoning is extended to entire races, especially given the deplorable history of eugenics. The mainstream stand as of now appears to be that there are still differences - achievement gaps - but we (delicately put) don't know why that is the case.

And thus, affirmative action (or as its detractors might say, reverse discrimination) was born, which seeks to compensate and make up for these differences, at least in part, and is a bone of contention I do not envisage resolving here.

All this does not take away from the fact that the Graduate Mothers Scheme was by and large ill-conceived, even if it is true (as it probably is) that their kids would in fact tend to be smarter. Apart from issues of equity, there were simply too many complicating variables, not to mention unanticipated negatives - for example, autism is increasingly prevalent among kids in Silicon Valley, which has been put down to too much "inbreeding" among all the self-selected clever guys and gals there; it figures that if one keeps walking on the edge, one may well fall off one day.

Anyway, it turns out that we don't even need that many graduates - or at least local ones, for some reason.

To close off this discussion: one lady PhD has taken the trouble to write, all the way from England, on how local men are not inclined to marry women cleverer than themselves (a point made in the other direction by another, sadly unmarried, lady doctor), how her enlightened Bachelor-of-Science-only Caucasian hubby breaks that mould, and how wonderfully clever her son is, drawing a dissenting reply, which the reader may consider in light of the discussion on heritability thus far.

I would say that it is foolish to discount a lady because of her academic qualifications, but also nearly as foolish to put much weight on it, as far as matrimonial prospects go. Men, even local ones, are not that complicated creatures; if their little brothers stand for it, they will too.


Very, very, very simple



San Pedro

One of my perennial favourites:





comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: We Regret


Related Posts:
Off My Back
IPPT (Mati), BIG5, Lock
Just Justice
Final Days In Italy
Taking Stock
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.