Classism and socio-economic inequality. - Page 2

May 23, 2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cancer Man

What he failed to mention was the educational advantage that middle and upper class people tend to have, and their upbringing. There is a much broader range of factors than simply intelligence.

He made it sound as if poor people are inherently dumber, which implies that well-off people are inherently smarter. It's a load of crap. Well-off people having better education makes them more knowledgeable, but that knowledge wasn't there to start off with.

Quote:

True, accents and mannerisms can also be factors. If someone is impolite, and has uncouth, unpleasant mannerisms, you wouldn't want them to work for you. This is quite often to do with class, but it is perhaps one thing that I think is an acceptable basis for discrimination. "Smart" style and politeness are the way to go.

I suppose you could call this discrimination...but yes, it's acceptable. When you run a business you have to look at it from a professional standpoint and hire professional-looking people. It'll present a very bad image if you have a bunch of slack-jawed yokels or sloppy teenagers working in a store or wherever. They might be a very small minority the company has hired, but to the public they are what represents the company because they're the visible part of it.

If a college was to discriminate based on someone's looks, or income, it would look pretty bad though. Colleges are supposed to help people further themselves in life so they don't have to live in bad conditions anymore....so I can't imagine that sort of discrimination going over well.

**Battle Royale: Profiles** · May 24, 2008, 6:08 AM

What I'm most interested in for this article, is how this guy collected his data.

Did he just go up to all of the kids in regular classes who had a job and ask them to take an IQ test, and then went to the honors and gifted kids who were rich and asked them to do the same?

On average, I'm sure, in general world-population terms, there may some truth that 'wealthier families have higher IQs,' simply because it's such a SMALL percentage of people, compared to the VAST amount of those in the 'working class.' It's such a skewed comparison to begin with, because CEOs and Entrepreneurs would be assumed to be of higher intelligence, same with Politicians, so they would make up a large percentage of the tiny 'rich people percentile.' But when you look at the huge working class population, you're going to get a lower average, because of all of those that just AREN'T educated. The population of those persons alone is far greater than the 'rich' population of the world, or even in most areas.

This article is bothersome, because there could be some truth to the statement of 'rich people have higher IQs,' but the truth is only achieved with such skewed and unfair ways.

May 24, 2008, 10:57 AM

Well, it isn't said how Mr. Professor collected his data.

I think that intelligence can be genetic to some degree. You would expect a highly intelligent person to have intelligent children. This is often, but not always the case. Other factors than just genes affect intelligence and skills, such as education, upbringing, and culture. Intelligence can be stunted or enhanced through nurture.
There are many blood families which show evidence of some sort of hereditary intelligence, and families which show genetic stupidity. It might be attributed naturally having more or less proteins and hormones which affect raw intelligence.
Though, you see plenty of successful "average" intelligence people, and plenty of failed supposedly "smarter" people, so this can not mean a genetic guarantee of success or failure.