Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm never bored. I have been discussing the results of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty with some like minded folks.

The bottom line: the Brits came out really well, compared to the US, which was supposed to be on equal terms with the Royal Navy, and the Japanese got rogered worse than the 5:5:3 ratio would justify.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Got it! Yippee! Thanks, syke6!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Got it! Thanks!
Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thanks for the heads up!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm never bored. I have been discussing the results of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty with some like minded folks.

The bottom line: the Brits came out really well, compared to the US, which was supposed to be on equal terms with the Royal Navy, and the Japanese got rogered worse than the 5:5:3 ratio would justify.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've got those in hardcover on my bookshelf, but I'll get the Kindle offer as well.

Great books in there.

Rip
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The bottom line: the Brits came out really well, compared to the US, which was supposed to be on equal terms with the Royal Navy, and the Japanese got rogered worse than the 5:5:3 ratio would justify.

Yeah, and they got really rogered in 1945!

When I consider the Rape of Nanking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

and

the Bataan Death March
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

I don't feel sorry for them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
The original Harvard Classics Collection contains 51 volumes of the essential works of world literature... supplemented with the 20 volume Harvard Shelf of Fiction

Syke6,

You have provided a quick and easy source of the entire series - including the 51 original volumes of classical works comprising a liberal education, along with 20 classic works of fiction, as selected by Harvard President Charles W. Eliot and published in 1909. My dad bought and admonished the 12 year-old me to read the 5-foot shelf that held pride of place in our bookcases.

Just last week, I was re-reading the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, beginning with expressions of appreciation to each person in his life who had taught him the admirable practices, moral values, and character traits necessary to be an honorable and civilized emperor.

It seems only a few decades ago that the citizens of our own nation agreed that our own leader should embody the traits Marcus Aurelius described. How strange that we have strayed so far from the Aurelian ideals such as...

modesty;
austerity of lifestyle;
not to slander;
not to meddle;
to read carefully, not superficially;
to avoid speculation;
to exercise reason;
to be disposed to reconciliation with those who have offended you;
to refrain from passion/anger;
to refrain from fault-finding or criticizing those from different lands or cultures;
to eschew envy, duplicity, and hypocrisy;
to love justice and truth;
to observe equal application of the law;
to pursue equal rights and freedom of speech;
to exercise self-control and maintain cheerfulness;
to be mild of temper;
not to be vain or arrogant;
not to be swayed by applause or flattery;
not to bribe or take bribes;
to take the long view of things;
and many other beneficial ideals of leadership.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15877/15877-h/15877-h.htm

How different our present circumstances might be if the world had more leaders who had studied the Harvard Classics in their youth and who circumspectly strove to embody ideals of character, modesty and benevolent temperament.

Instead, we are dominated by petty, money-grubbing power mongers and their cronies.

=:-o
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How different our present circumstances might be if the world had more leaders who had studied the Harvard Classics in their youth...

Get woke, brother. There's way too much Whiteness in the Harvard Classics.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Get woke, brother. There's way too much Whiteness in the Harvard Classics.

From Vassar:
https://pages.vassar.edu/pharos/2020/01/24/report-white-supr...
Twenty classical scholars gathered at the 2020 Society for Classical Studies Annual Meeting to brainstorm a list of ways that the discipline of Classics has been and continues to be complicit in white supremacy. Participants included graduate students, high school teachers, and college professors of all ranks. Nearly all were white.

As such, the function of the round table was something like a discipline-specific version (minus the expert facilitator) of the “White Fragility” workshop on the first day of the conference, where Robin DiAngelo invited participants to reflect on how our socialization into white supremacy “renders us racially illiterate” and to take “the first step” of “let[ting] go of our racial certitude and reach[ing] for humility.” One quote from that workshop that encapsulated the motivation and aims for this roundtable came from an essay by Ijeoma Oluo: “Your survival has never depended on your knowledge of white culture. In fact, it’s required your ignorance. The dominant culture does not have to see itself to survive because culture will shift to fit its needs.”

In order to overcome this ignorance of how our discipline perpetuates racial inequality, we asked ourselves three specific questions about Classics....

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Notehound: Thank you for posting that list.

I have been pondering how successfully our current chief executive office personifies each and every one of them:

modesty;
austerity of lifestyle;
not to slander;
not to meddle;
to read carefully, not superficially;
to avoid speculation;
to exercise reason;
to be disposed to reconciliation with those who have offended you;
to refrain from passion/anger;
to refrain from fault-finding or criticizing those from different lands or cultures;
to eschew envy, duplicity, and hypocrisy;
to love justice and truth;
to observe equal application of the law;
to pursue equal rights and freedom of speech;
to exercise self-control and maintain cheerfulness;
to be mild of temper;
not to be vain or arrogant;
not to be swayed by applause or flattery;
not to bribe or take bribes;
to take the long view of things;
and many other beneficial ideals of leadership.

It "comforts" me to know we are in such hands

Jeff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
...our socialization into white supremacy “renders us racially illiterate”...the discipline of Classics has been and continues to be complicit in white supremacy.

Ancient and honorable ideals of character, modesty and benevolent temperament know no color.

The fruits of intellectual reflection recorded in the learned languages of antiquity - both eastern and western - belong to humankind globally and equally.

To be educated is not to be defined in terms of "dominant vs. subservient," it is to be freed from the chains of ignorance.

The knowledge and erudition wrought of great books is equally available to everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, or gender. Now, more than ever, no one is bound to remain poor by their lack of access to education.

Thanks to the Internet, great libraries, and generous teachers whose lectures are available at our fingertips on YouTube, the rationing of education is no longer controlled by supremacists of any sort.

If you want racial equality, you should strive first and foremost for free and equal access and distribution of all the world's accumulated recorded knowledge, which was at one time reserved for the wealthy or holders of the keys of privilege.

Now that education - the key to knowledge and wisdom - is free for all, there is no need for anyone to be functionally illiterate or "racially illiterate."

Real education and wisdom, as Dr. Martin Luther King himself taught, enables each person to strive for true knowledge and noble character, which empower us to become "racially blind."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you want racial equality...

Can't these people make up their minds, do they want diversity or equality? Equal diversity? Diversified equality?

The only way to get equality is to cross breed all races but you also have to abolish gender so how do you cross breed.

The Captain
 
BTW, I believe Aesop was an African enslaved in Greece. Is he OK or Uncle Aesop?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's 49 cents at Barnes & Noble.

Now I just need to find a way to download it OTHER THAN the Nook app... because that app stuffs it in a place where nothing else can read it, and it's (along with the Kindle app) in the next-to-bottom tier of ebook software.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Now I just need to find a way to download it OTHER THAN the Nook app...

Warrl,

The entire collection of the Harvard Classics (51 volumes) and the Shelf of Fiction (20 volumes) are available for free download from Bartleby at the following link:

https://www.bartleby.com/hc/

Other free downloads can be found embedded in an intelligently-written article at the Open Culture web site.

http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/the-harvard-classics-down...

The Open Culture essay identifies the philosophical, ideological, and cultural "shortcomings" of the Harvard Classics as incomplete due to the Victorian optimism, inspirational, and aspirational intentions of its compilers. Nonetheless, the free resources of the Internet easily fill in the "missing links" in the learned Doctor Eliot's inveterate faith in humankind's "progress" from barbarism to civilization.

http://www.openculture.com/2014/03/the-harvard-classics-down...

What may strike modern readers of Eliot’s collection are precisely the “blind spots in Victorian notions of culture and progress” that it represents. For example, those three harbingers of doom for Victorian certitude—Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud—are nowhere to be seen. Omissions like this are quite telling, but, as Kirsch writes, we might not look at Eliot’s achievement as a relic of a naively optimistic age, but rather as “an inspiring testimony to his faith in the possibility of democratic education without the loss of high standards.” This was, and still remains, a noble ideal, if one that---like the utopian dreams of the Victorians---can sometimes seem frustratingly unattainable (or culturally imperialist). But the widespread availability of free online humanities certainly brings us closer than Eliot's time could ever come. [Emphasis added.]

DB2's reference to the currently fashionable rejection of "knowledge of white culture" belongs more to the political world than it does to the world of basic education.

Having spent the last decade teaching hundreds of foreign-born and minority students in a technical school with a 99% job placement rate, I can assure you that their educational goals and economic aspirations are very much in line with the optimism and desire for cultivation that motivated Dr. Eliot to assemble the 71 volumes we have discussed.

People with truly "open minds" and a desire to succeed will always be interested in reading the collected experiences, thoughts, wisdom, and history of their world - wherever and however they have been provided. For millennia, they have been provided by human beings who recorded such things using written language - whether white, brown, yellow, or male.

Knowledge and vicarious experience (through the reading of books) can be acquired from many sources - even from those whose race or gender happen to be "out of favor" at any moment in time. An apple cultivated and provided by a person with whom I disagree is still as sweet if honestly obtained by free exchange or gift.

;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
At least we've moved beyond the also Aurelian-contemporary ideals of flaying and eviscerating vanquished enemies, putting their and their families' heads on spikes or hanging them upside down for the vultures. Which only lasted for another 1500 years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
At least we've moved beyond the also Aurelian-contemporary ideals of flaying and eviscerating vanquished enemies, putting their and their families' heads on spikes or hanging them upside down for the vultures. Which only lasted for another 1500 years.

Really?

Drat!

Thinking of the oligarchy.

Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Can't these people make up their minds, do they want diversity or equality?

We could start with not having police officers choke "these people" to death on city streets.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We could start with not having police officers choke "these people" to death on city streets.

It's an idea but does not address the question, "diversity or equality?"

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
At least we've moved beyond the also Aurelian-contemporary ideals of flaying and eviscerating vanquished enemies, putting their and their families' heads on spikes or hanging them upside down for the vultures. Which only lasted for another 1500 years.

Ah yes, we humans are such a nice group.

It makes you wonder why the UFO's don't land and say "Hi!"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's an idea but does not address the question, "diversity or equality?"

Maybe consider the possibility the greater diversity ---> greater equality (equity)?

And also improve organizational and economic performance: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/great-teams-dive...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's an idea but does not address the question, "diversity or equality?"

You appear to believe these are mutually exclusive.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I thought of this when I read his question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nGQLQF1b6I
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pareto Principle Maybe consider the possibility the greater diversity ---> greater equality (equity)?

And also improve organizational and economic performance:


Wharton: How Diversity Powers Team Performance

I happen to believe that diversity improves performance, probably the reason why the British and the Americans are such innovators, but that does not necessarily bring equality, just look at the British caste system and the complaints of inequality in America.

Equality needs to be qualified. Equal opportunity and equal outcome are two different goals and they tend to be antagonistic driven by the Pareto Principle. Equal opportunity creates diversity of outcomes, the Alphas gaining the top positions and, in a well ordered society, the society as a whole will benefit. A system of equal outcomes results in the exact opposite because you cannot much improve the productivity of the less able so your only equalizer is handicapping the more able. Just like they do in horse races, they put weights on the fast runners to make them run slower and, by handicapping them, make the race (outcome) closer -- more equal.

The above is inherent in complex systems that exist at the edge of order and chaos. Create too much order and the system dies from inactivity. Create too much chaos and the system explodes. It is only by keeping the system in the narrow gap between order and chaos that it can best survive and thrive and it will never have equal outcomes. But we certainly can try for equal opportunity.

------------------

I have been contemplating the Pareto Principle for a very long time. I was introduced to the concept at IBM around 1964/5 when they were marketing an inventory control system (IMPACT) that incorporated the idea. One of the curious features of sand piles that illustrate the Pareto Principle is than when the sand pile is small it is rather stable. As the pile grows it becomes less stable. In time the "avalanches" become very large.

If instead of sand we use wealth, poorer (middle class) societies tend to be more stable than rich ones. I think this is what might be happening in America, too much wealth which, according to the Pareto Principle will be very unevenly distributed. I'm not sure the problem has a solution short of a Depression that reduces the danger of excess wealth.

I'm living in Portugal, a much poorer country, but it seems to be happier than America.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You appear to believe these are mutually exclusive.

In some cases, yes. It depends on which equality you are considering. Please see my reply to MisterFungi

https://boards.fool.com/pareto-principle-maybe-consider-the-...

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe consider the possibility the greater diversity ---> greater equality (equity)?
---
And also improve organizational and economic performance


And a downside to diversity....

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger. But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects.

In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Putnam's finding that diversity--->social distrust has been shown to be an artifact of the aggregated data and analytical approach he employed. E.g., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-cr...

If you read Page's recent book or other research on the subject, you'll see the numerous benefits of diversity. (Putnam and Page are colleagues of mine. I know this literature cold.)

Re the Captain: the Pareto principle shows that, under highly stylized conditions that seldom obtain in the real world, aggregate benefits outweigh aggregate costs such that the "winners" could compensate the "losers" and everyone would be at least as well off as they were before. There are at least two fundamental problems:

1. Relative positions matter as much as absolute ones do. If, e.g., the winners corner the market because they can always outbid for scarce goods (e.g., safe neighborhoods and high-quality schools), then the losers may be worse off even post-redistribution.

2. Winners could compensate losers from the surplus, but will they? The near-zero increase in median real hourly wage for male US workers over the last approx. 40 years despite enormous increases in productivity and GDP indicates otherwise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Putnam's finding that diversity--->social distrust has been shown to be an artifact of the aggregated data and analytical approach he employed. E.g., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-cr......

From the link:
"Sociologists Maria Abascal, of Princeton University, and Delia Baldassari, of New York University, published a paper late last year which refutes Putnam’s conclusions. After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities."

However, that doesn't make it any less real.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
“...most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities."

However, that doesn't make it any less real.

DB2

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

No, it certainly does not. Real social data are real social data.

But that it is “real” does not make it any less culturally unethical, inimical, nor immoral.


David fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Re the Captain: the Pareto principle shows that, under highly stylized conditions that seldom obtain in the real world, aggregate benefits outweigh aggregate costs such that the "winners" could compensate the "losers" and everyone would be at least as well off as they were before. There are at least two fundamental problems:

1. Relative positions matter as much as absolute ones do. If, e.g., the winners corner the market because they can always outbid for scarce goods (e.g., safe neighborhoods and high-quality schools), then the losers may be worse off even post-redistribution.

2. Winners could compensate losers from the surplus, but will they? The near-zero increase in median real hourly wage for male US workers over the last approx. 40 years despite enormous increases in productivity and GDP indicates otherwise.


So you agree with me that the Pareto Principle is the law of nature that dictates economic outcomes? A simple yes/no answer suffices.

The Captain
is confused by excess verbosity. KISS!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
“...most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities."
However, that doesn't make it any less real.
---
But that it is “real” does not make it any less culturally unethical, inimical, nor immoral.


True, but you want data to be descriptive rather the prescriptive. What you do about the data is something else. MisterFungi wrote that "Putnam's finding that diversity--->social distrust has been shown to be an artifact of the aggregated data."

It wasn't an artifact; it was real. People were uncomfortable and did have less trust in their neighbors.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I know its quite late, but I want to thank you for that link. I actually had a small Amazon day credit lying around unused, so I only spent 50 cents.

Of course, any stress relief I might have found by reading some of the fiction works has been negated by dealing with the Kindle app. It took me 20 minutes to figure out that the spaces in their [insert long list - a very long list! - of expletives here] captcha were part of the captcha and were necessary to type. BTW, I really don't like captchas. May the inventor of the captcha burn in a fire fueled by the white hot intensity of 1000 burning suns!

And then I had to accurately type a rather long and complex password over and over and over correctly each time. On a virtual keyboard. Which is impossible to do multiple times accurately. (I had my Amazon account hijacked a few years ago, so it now has my longest and most complex password. Which I have to keep written down because of its complexity.)

In time, the stress will fade. I hope.

But I will still hate captchas.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bob in italics, flyerboys in editors brackets

People [WHITE ones, not people in general] <wi>were uncomfortable and did have less trust in their neighbors [“COLORED” neighbors, not their neighbors in general],

Your summary smoothly eliding the crucially relevant and even central failure of their study, a failure on their part that was almost certainly unconscious, is a more potent SOCIAL FACT (a la Durkheim) by far than what they though they had found and reported. And beyond that statistical reality and its implications lie deeper moral ethical issues and their implications. Including in your blinders firmly on misleading summary of what they found as factual.


Keep throwing be these squishy softballs Bob. We could do a seminar of what one might see once ones blinders are removed.....


David fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
DrBob wrote: After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities." However, that doesn't make it any less real.

You're missing the point. As the full paper and related other research explains, the point is that there's no evidence that it was the changing diversity of their neighborhood that caused the Whites to feel that way. Instead, evidence suggests that they always felt that way. Putnam's research is correlational, and the correlation is an artifact.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
captain asks, So you agree with me that the Pareto Principle is the law of nature that dictates economic outcomes? A simple yes/no answer suffices.

No.

Perhaps one can find an economist somewhere who would call the Pareto Principle a "law of nature" or say that it "dictates" economic outcomes, but no economists I've encountered in more than 50 years at a major research university would say such things.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As the full paper and related other research explains, the point is that there's no evidence that it was the changing diversity of their neighborhood that caused the Whites to feel that way. Instead, evidence suggests that they always felt that way.

Presumably they were racist before; I got that. But why, for example, did voting go down when POC moved into the community? Did the whites fell less motivated to say what the government did? Did POC votes less?

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But why, for example, did voting go down when POC moved into the community? Did the whites fell less motivated to say what the government did? Did POC votes less?

These are entirely reasonable questions. The root problem is that Putnam made inferences about dynamic processes (i.e., what happens when the neighborhood changes) from cross-sectional data. Moreover, the "treatment" variable (neighborhood diversity) is not at all applied as in a controlled experiment. To the contrary, people choose where to live (and also when and where to move) based at least partly on neighborhood diversity and factors related to such diversity (e.g., housing prices). In view of this, I suspect that you can come up with plausible rival hypotheses to Putnam's as to why residents of racially mixed neighborhoods might exhibit lower levels of social capital than residents of racially homogeneous ones do.

In any event, Putnam concludes his study as follows: "It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity. It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable. The task of becoming comfortable with diversity will not be easy or quick, but it will be speeded by our collective efforts and in the end well worth the effort."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Captain writes: If instead of sand we use wealth, poorer (middle class) societies tend to be more stable than rich ones. I think this is what might be happening in America, too much wealth which, according to the Pareto Principle will be very unevenly distributed. I'm not sure the problem has a solution short of a Depression...

An important purpose of intelligent public policy is to move the sand around a bit so that the whole pile doesn't collapse.

In terms of reducing current extreme income (and even more extreme, wealth) inequality in the U.S., we don't need to become Norway. We could aspire merely to being the United States of the three decades following World War II. You know, those wild-eyed radicals like Truman and Eisenhower.
Print the post Back To Top