If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Oh dear. So Prince William & Harry would become "lower class" by smoking?
why does any of this matter? You are who you are, and you should be comfortable with yourself and your upbringing.
How are you friends with 'posh people' if you dont fit in with them?
The more I read your posts you either know Jomery/are Jomery or at least aspire to be like him!
I'd try to be more specific but it was about 7 years ago and I promptly forgot all my ejukashun wen i joined da feds.
lol, seriously, anyone who was working, paid rent/had a mortgage was considered to be middle class.
Millionaires were the uppers and the permanantly unemployable were the lowers. I think that's how it went.
Saying that, from experience i've met and worked with a lot of "poor" people who work damn hard for everything they've got. I've met a lot of rich people who are complete tossers and think they can do what they want. Spoilt kids are the worst, I get more back chat off them.
Academic ability, which is all the IQ test boils down to, is largely governed by environment. Someone who comes from the best environment will undoubtedly prosper against someone who comes from the worst environment, regardless of inate ability. This has been proven time and time again, and whilst recognising this with SureStart was one of Labour's best policies, changing the rules so that the poor can no longer afford to reach the highest levels of education was one of Labour's worst.
I don't believe we have a meritocracy, and I don't believe that a meritocracy is ever possible without some drastic wealth redistribution. The haves have an immediate advantage over the have-nots, and anyone who tries to claim that the haves are genetically better is talking tosh.
If Alan Sugar or Richard Branson had gone to university and got a job instead of going it alone, does anyone believe they'd be on the board of a top company today?
I don't see how he has posted anything like what Jomery has posted.
I think he's got a point.
Where abouts are you from? Just out of curiousity.
How can the Bell Curve be discredited? It's like saying graphs were discredited ice ages ago.
So some races are more 'intelligent' than others?
And I think that it's more to do with the definition of intelligence (even though there is a heavy emphasis on academic intelligence in this thread). There is definately a difference in culture between many working class groups and many middle class groups as well as different values. Different attitudes towards education for example.
If all environmental factors are provisioned equally (education, food etc), Asian people are the most intelligent, and the least physically strong. Black people are the least intelligent, and the most physically strong. White people have a good equilibrium. This is simple evolutionary theory, which of course will be dismissed for being "racist". If people open their eyes and see the lack of Asians on the start line of the 100m final, and their heavy prevalence at Oxbridge, in direct contrast to black people, maybe they'd think about it. Obviously socio-economic factors are key here (Asian emphasis on education), but what about 'playing to your strengths' too..
I'm not on about race. I'm talking about the Bell Curve itself, it has many uses.
I think that 'Asian' is a pretty broad term seeing as there are racial differences between somebody from Bangladesh and China as well as huge cultural differences.
I this is based on a certain country, well it tends to be people who are ethnically black who live in some of the most impoverished conditions, in ghettos for example. Surely that has a bigger factor to play when measuring intelligence than race.
Yes black people live in some of the most impoverished conditions. Why do you think that is? If they represented in blue on that bell curve graph and Asians (or whites, for that matter) in yellow it would be the other way round.
Gee I don't know! I guess it must be because of their race because they have always had it better than other people in the USA haven't they! ::)
When is this graph from?
Hispanic people are slightly less intelligent? Could it be because *shock-horror* demographically they are another marginalised group?
I do not mean to stereotype and know there are exceptions to the rule.
Don't get me wrong, I know that there were Chinese people working on the railtracks in the states, as well as white irish people who also lved in poverty... But you cannot deny that history has a role to play in perceived intelligence. I am sure that the graph would have been very different, had it been white people subjigated thoughout history.
You believe that black people in the states have since the slave trade, posessed the same opportunities for economic mobility as white people? You don't think that race issues were involved with the economic mobility of black people? Or are dem durty blacks jes stoopid?
It's not as simplistic as one race being intellectually more inferior than others, it is far more profound and moulded by history.
Most of the black recruits had no education and were unable to read/write. Instead of being able to give the test verbally they were given a pencil and told to answer the questions. Unsurprisingly they didn't do too well, and it led to decades of black people being considered to be stupid.
I don't think intelligence is just genetic. Neither of my parents have education post 16. No one in my family has been to uni. However I've always done well in school, was in the top 1% and on the gifted and talented register. However my brother has aspergers syndrome. So according to the genetic theory - i should be 'thick' right? I went to a really good primary school (many parents were taking their kids out of private school to go there) and when I got to senior school I was way ahead of my peers. But at senior school I felt held back.
I have a friend whos parents are both teachers, her older brothers both have degrees and her younger sister is the best in her year - yet she struggles at school. I think genetics do play a role, but I think environment plays a much bigger role.
I know a very upper class guy. He is into shooting, hunting, etc. I think classical music is more of an old people thing though, he listens to dance music.
Ummm there are plenty of interests people can have in common, eg general gossip, TV, chat about life, not just the above list.
I went to the opera once. It was dire, never again. If that is what you have to be into to be upper class they can keep it.
I don't think anyone said it was 'solely' inherited. No denying though that the children of two intelligent people (by whatever measure) are more likely to be intelligent themselves than the children of two less intelligent people.
Not sure what the Bell Curve has to do with that, if you are referring to the the theories on the differing distributions of intelligence of ethnic groups (and not something else that is normally distributed) I don't see what that has to do with it......
I don't see how Labour has restricted opportuniteis for eduaction for the poor, the new scheme, with the grants and loans for fees should encourage the poorest to attend university if they have the abiltity, certainly more so than the previous scheme, plus the university sector has continued to expand thus offering more opportunities.....
Of course richer people have advantages in life, but they are not as great as they used to be......
imho -
I'm old school on this - I define class by the relation the mode of production. Anyone whose worked in a call centre will realise how much it's a myth that everyone is middle class or that there's no industrial jobs anymore. You're still on a factory floor getting paid fuck all so that the owner of a company can make a massive personal profit.
Anything else is ultimately a marketing tool, and tends to reinforce predujice and division by allowing people they've some how improved themselves when all they've really done is buy a new telly, got a mark on a piece of paper or read some Ovid.
So you are either a worker or a capitalist correct?
Marketing tool of whom exactly?
I don't think many people have said that everyone is middle class, no denying that many, many more people are than say 150 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago...
Do call centre workers earn fuck all? A quick look on some websites suggests not......