Review on "Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?"
It is said that gay marriages will result in churches turning against other churches because of what they believe and support. Gay marriage is a very controvertial issue which many people have different views and opinions on. I for one, think that gay marriages is something which can be allowed, but not encouraged.
Many think that homosexuality is morally wrong. But how does one define "morally wrong"? It depends on how the individual perceives it. Some people may object violently towards homosexuality while others feel that it is perfectly fine. The different teachings from different culture also leads to people having differing views on the issue. This, will definitely bring tension and conflict between the various teachings, as mentioned in the article.
I agree with the author about gay marriage resulting in clashes between churches as different churches have different teachings. "Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle", as such, clashes will happen due to the differing views and teachings.
Saying "yes" to gay marriages may cause harm to society itself. Because by agreeing to gay marriages, it is akin to supporting homosexuality. This may result in the younger generations to be influenced by it and will result in many of them thinking that it is alright to be gay or lesbian and would turn that, thinking that it is the norm. If that were to be the case, then society would be in trouble. when that happens, the birth rates might be lower than ever, affecting not only the economy, but also the defence of the country.
However, it is really up to the individual to decide whether it is alright for gays to get married. Ultimately, it is the individuals who decide whether to get married or not and not the community or the society. Moreover, most countries are democratic, where everybody have their own rights. Wouldn't we be breaking human rights law if we deprive gays the right to get married? Gays are also normal human beings like you and me who have feelings with the ability to think, except for the fact that they are more inclined towards people of the same sex. But apart from that, we are the same. So how can we stop them from doing what they want, when it does not harm anyone?
There had been a repeal to Penal code 377A in Singapore. Gay rights activists say the law against homosexual sex affects about 200 000 people in Singapore. However, the Singapore Parliament did not repeal Section 377A, rejecting a petition by gay rights activists and their homosexual supporters to abolish the law. The had been many protests from the public as well. The differing views of people was part of the factor for consideration when deciding this.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?
By Michael A. Lindenberger Sunday, Apr. 26, 2009
The fight over gay marriage may be far from over, but already some conservative Christian leaders are looking beyond the courtroom dramas and the legislative infighting. The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.
"More than anything else, these developments may signal the fact that those who, on biblical grounds, are led by conscience to reject same-sex marriage, really will be exposed as a moral minority," the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a staunch defender of traditional definition of marriage, told TIME recently. "If so, it will expose a great divide over the authority of the Bible among many Christian churches and denominations — perhaps in a way exceeding any other issue." (Check out the story "What If You're on the Gay 'Enemies List.'")
Ever since Jesus told followers to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," preachers have been warning about a clash between "the world" and "the church." But now Mohler is predicting something more, a clash between churches themselves. (Most recently, the Anglican Communion has been paralyzed by debate over the consecration of gay bishops.) Writing on Thursday morning in his personal blog, Mohler laid out his thoughts more clearly still. "No issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle," he wrote. "Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns. Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident — with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other." (Read the story "A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriage?")
Mohler's view is, to a certain extent, shared by Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville, who leads an ad hoc panel of U.S. Catholic bishops set up to fight gay marriage. He too sees a potential future when a greater acceptance of homosexuality leads to pressure on churches to conform, and even to change their teachings. "There are grave threats that decisions by the courts, legislative actions or regulations could erode religious freedom," Kurtz tells TIME. "With regard to marriage, this implicates the right of Catholics to practice our beliefs. Here we are talking about the bedrock of society, it's not just a belief, it's written on the hearts of every human person."
Unlike the Baptist's stark outlook, however, Kurtz is more optimistic that the fight to preserve a traditional definition of marriage is not doomed — and is actively forming alliances and organizing to shore up the one-man-and-one-woman concept of matrimony. He sent a letter last fall to Thomas Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, praising Mormon support for Prop 8, the ballot-initiative in California that made gay marriage unconstitutional. That state's Supreme Court is expected to rule on the validity of the amendment soon.
Kurtz concedes there have been wins for supporters of gay marriage lately, but last November's statewide votes against gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida buoyed him. "It's hard for any of us to have a crystal ball to know our culture society will move," says Kurtz. "The Catholic Church will certainly respond with a commitment to truth and love. ... November is not all that long ago, and I still believe that getting out the message about marriage, with a commitment to both truth and love, will succeed. In upholding the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a desire to punish or hurt anyone. We want to do a better job of communicating our concern for all, for both those who agree, and disagree."
Mohler sees the true church as a body comprised of believers who refuse to give ground on gay marriage. So does the Catholic Church, which has shown no willingness to change its own teachings, rooted as they often are in centuries of tradition. But, except for the November referendums, solidarity among fellow-thinkers has not borne much fruit. And a recent swarm of dire ads warning of a "gathering storm" of gay rights mostly backfired. "Those advocates want to change the way I think," a woman says in one of the most-viewed commercials. Another adds, "I will have no choice." And another warns that she will soon be faced with a choice between "my job and my faith." The ads prompted hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube.com, but they mainly served to show how far removed their creators were from the zeitgeist. The Colbert Report mocked the ads, and countless parodies have sprung up across the Internet at the expense of the ads' grave-faced actors.
So while both men are calling for courage and compassion among their flocks, it's not clear yet whether their message that homosexuals are sinners by definition is resonating beyond their staunchest supporters. Of course, that may be just fine with both men, who see in the future a kind of purifying ordeal that will sort out the true church from the others.
By Michael A. Lindenberger Sunday, Apr. 26, 2009
The fight over gay marriage may be far from over, but already some conservative Christian leaders are looking beyond the courtroom dramas and the legislative infighting. The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.
"More than anything else, these developments may signal the fact that those who, on biblical grounds, are led by conscience to reject same-sex marriage, really will be exposed as a moral minority," the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a staunch defender of traditional definition of marriage, told TIME recently. "If so, it will expose a great divide over the authority of the Bible among many Christian churches and denominations — perhaps in a way exceeding any other issue." (Check out the story "What If You're on the Gay 'Enemies List.'")
Ever since Jesus told followers to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," preachers have been warning about a clash between "the world" and "the church." But now Mohler is predicting something more, a clash between churches themselves. (Most recently, the Anglican Communion has been paralyzed by debate over the consecration of gay bishops.) Writing on Thursday morning in his personal blog, Mohler laid out his thoughts more clearly still. "No issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle," he wrote. "Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns. Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident — with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other." (Read the story "A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriage?")
Mohler's view is, to a certain extent, shared by Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville, who leads an ad hoc panel of U.S. Catholic bishops set up to fight gay marriage. He too sees a potential future when a greater acceptance of homosexuality leads to pressure on churches to conform, and even to change their teachings. "There are grave threats that decisions by the courts, legislative actions or regulations could erode religious freedom," Kurtz tells TIME. "With regard to marriage, this implicates the right of Catholics to practice our beliefs. Here we are talking about the bedrock of society, it's not just a belief, it's written on the hearts of every human person."
Unlike the Baptist's stark outlook, however, Kurtz is more optimistic that the fight to preserve a traditional definition of marriage is not doomed — and is actively forming alliances and organizing to shore up the one-man-and-one-woman concept of matrimony. He sent a letter last fall to Thomas Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, praising Mormon support for Prop 8, the ballot-initiative in California that made gay marriage unconstitutional. That state's Supreme Court is expected to rule on the validity of the amendment soon.
Kurtz concedes there have been wins for supporters of gay marriage lately, but last November's statewide votes against gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida buoyed him. "It's hard for any of us to have a crystal ball to know our culture society will move," says Kurtz. "The Catholic Church will certainly respond with a commitment to truth and love. ... November is not all that long ago, and I still believe that getting out the message about marriage, with a commitment to both truth and love, will succeed. In upholding the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a desire to punish or hurt anyone. We want to do a better job of communicating our concern for all, for both those who agree, and disagree."
Mohler sees the true church as a body comprised of believers who refuse to give ground on gay marriage. So does the Catholic Church, which has shown no willingness to change its own teachings, rooted as they often are in centuries of tradition. But, except for the November referendums, solidarity among fellow-thinkers has not borne much fruit. And a recent swarm of dire ads warning of a "gathering storm" of gay rights mostly backfired. "Those advocates want to change the way I think," a woman says in one of the most-viewed commercials. Another adds, "I will have no choice." And another warns that she will soon be faced with a choice between "my job and my faith." The ads prompted hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube.com, but they mainly served to show how far removed their creators were from the zeitgeist. The Colbert Report mocked the ads, and countless parodies have sprung up across the Internet at the expense of the ads' grave-faced actors.
So while both men are calling for courage and compassion among their flocks, it's not clear yet whether their message that homosexuals are sinners by definition is resonating beyond their staunchest supporters. Of course, that may be just fine with both men, who see in the future a kind of purifying ordeal that will sort out the true church from the others.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Review to 'Russia's Rearm'
I believe that Russia's recent approach to rebuild its military defence is untimely as now a bigger crisis is on the surface- unemployment. I acknowledge the fact that military defence is an important aspect in the country's survival however the priority should be placed at reducing the unemployment rate by spending big money into creating new jobs or sustain the economy rather than on improving the technology of military weapons. Satisfying the people's needs and desires are clearly important as a country's government can not afford to displease the people as democracy is mostly used. Hence, the inceased spending in military defence is a risk-involving move as people's needs are misplaced in this case.
However, as Russia's approach to increase their military power, the weapon technology is being constantly upgraded and is also a source of income for Russia by selling the manufactured weapons to other countries. But, the purpose of the income generated is not clear on whether it is used to rebuild the economy or to further fund them in the upgrading of military power. Supposingly if the generated income is used to rebuild the economy, we can claim that the approach is well-planned as Russia can now strengthen the military and also rebuild the economy using the income generated, however it will be a bad one if it's not the above case.
Also, Guy Anderson mentioned, "The West sees it as saber-rattling, but for Russia it is about retaking what it sees as its rightful position in the world". For the West, the rebuilding of the military is alarming as there's hardly the need to engage in any conflicts or fighting in the near future and yet the Russians are still reinforcing their arms and in the eyes of the peace loving countries.
However, as Russia's approach to increase their military power, the weapon technology is being constantly upgraded and is also a source of income for Russia by selling the manufactured weapons to other countries. But, the purpose of the income generated is not clear on whether it is used to rebuild the economy or to further fund them in the upgrading of military power. Supposingly if the generated income is used to rebuild the economy, we can claim that the approach is well-planned as Russia can now strengthen the military and also rebuild the economy using the income generated, however it will be a bad one if it's not the above case.
Also, Guy Anderson mentioned, "The West sees it as saber-rattling, but for Russia it is about retaking what it sees as its rightful position in the world". For the West, the rebuilding of the military is alarming as there's hardly the need to engage in any conflicts or fighting in the near future and yet the Russians are still reinforcing their arms and in the eyes of the peace loving countries.
Russia Rearms
By VIVIENNE WALT
Russia's leaders are getting used to cutting budgets this year. As the country sinks deeper into recession — unemployment, according to some estimates, is as high as 12% and the economy is predicted to shrink by about 4.5% in 2009 — the government is slashing spending at most of its ministries. The Energy Ministry's budget is down by 33%, and that of the Transport Ministry by 30%. But there is one hugely expensive project on which President Dmitri Medvedev has vowed to actually increase spending: transforming Russia's creaking Soviet-era defense industry into a modern technological power, and turning the 1.1-million-man Russian army into a leaner but more effective fighting force.
Russia's leaders are getting used to cutting budgets this year. As the country sinks deeper into recession — unemployment, according to some estimates, is as high as 12% and the economy is predicted to shrink by about 4.5% in 2009 — the government is slashing spending at most of its ministries. The Energy Ministry's budget is down by 33%, and that of the Transport Ministry by 30%. But there is one hugely expensive project on which President Dmitri Medvedev has vowed to actually increase spending: transforming Russia's creaking Soviet-era defense industry into a modern technological power, and turning the 1.1-million-man Russian army into a leaner but more effective fighting force.
To get there Medvedev has increased government military spending this year by nearly 26% to about $37 billion, and given military producers of strategic weapons like missile systems and aircraft an extra $1.9 billion in 2009. In late March, just days before flying to the G-20 summit in London, the President donned a military pilot's helmet and uniform at an air base near Moscow for a ride in the back of a Sukhoi-34 fighter bomber, one of Russia's most sophisticated and deadly pieces of hardware. Afterwards he told reporters that it was time to modernize the country's entire air-force fleet. "We have the momentum and people who want to serve their country," he said. "Much is yet to be done." (See pictures of Russia on Victory Day.)
That's an understatement. Russia's military is still largely a remnant of the Soviet days, when the Red Army's millions were spread across a vast swath of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. When the Soviet empire began collapsing in 1989, Russia lost the bulk of its foot soldiers, as well as several key defense-related industries, ranging from shipbuilding in Ukraine to nuclear enrichment in Kazakhstan, according to an analysis of Russia's military in February by Stratfor, a U.S. company. The upheaval also forced many of Russia's finest engineers to quit for better-paid jobs abroad. Defense factories across Russia lumbered through the 1990s, many of them barely seeing a splash of paint. Meanwhile the Russian army filled its ranks with reluctant conscripts; recent Russian newspaper and government reports have found physical abuse, drug addiction and alcoholism rampant among the poorly trained, disaffected soldiers.
The limitations of both equipment and men became obvious during Russia's five-day war with Georgia last August. Despite Russia's superior firepower and its bigger army, its ground offensive was not the overwhelming success it should have been. Moscow's military arsenal lacked anything to match Georgia's Israeli-made spy drones, according to Paul Holtom, senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Indeed, Russian troops operated with no modern surveillance or night-vision equipment at all, according to Russian Duma hearings last October. Says Vadim Kozyulin, head of the conventional-arms program at the Center for Policy Studies in Moscow: "Our army was modern at the end of the 1980s. Since then it has been allowed to stagnate."
But there is one area where Russia's military has boomed during the past few years: arms exports. Moscow earned a record $8.3 billion in arms sales in 2008, second in the world to the U.S., which accounts for more than 40% of global defense spending. Moscow has been particularly good at targeting buyers in the developing world. Between 2004 and 2007 Russia sold $37.9 billion worth of military equipment — outstripping even the U.S. in that period — to more than 80 developing nations on every populated continent. Russian arms manufacturers have cut deals for everything from helicopters to tanks and rifles. Among eager customers have been North Korea, Iran, China and Venezuela, which are barred from buying Western weaponry under various sanction regulations. The embargoes have had the effect of recruiting new clients for Moscow. "Venezuela's jets used to be [American] F-16s," says Richard Grimmett, who tracks global arms sales for the Congressional Research Service in Washington. "Well guess what? We ain't selling squat to Venezuela."
Russia's strategy is twofold. It wants to use the huge profits it makes selling arms around the world as a platform on which to relaunch its own defense forces. But the arms sales are not only about money. Moscow hopes that as Venezuela and other countries grow more dependent on Russian weapons, political and economic ties will also grow, increasing Russia's global heft. "The West sees it as saber-rattling, but for Russia it is about retaking what it sees as its rightful position in the world," says Guy Anderson, editor of Jane's World Defence Industry in London.
Russia has crafted its role by using its two most valuable assets — vast energy resources and mountains of military hardware — to cut a series of clever deals. In 2006, for example, then President Vladimir Putin flew a delegation of oil, gas and defense executives to Algeria. Putin negotiated to sell $7.5 billion worth of combat jets, missiles and tanks to the government, while Russian energy giants Gazprom and Lukoil secured key oil and gas concessions in the North African nation. And Putin offered an extra sweetener: he wrote off Algeria's near $5 billion Soviet-era debt. Then there was the deal Putin cut with Libya just before he stepped down from the presidency to become Prime Minister: that one involved an agreement to sell $2.5 billion worth of arms, while cancelling Libya's $4 billion Soviet debt. Or there was last October's agreement with Venezuela in which Medvedev gave Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez a $1.1 billion credit line so the country could add to its arsenal of Russian weapons.
Funds and Talent Needed
For Russia's arms-export boom to continue, its defense industries need a huge infusion of fresh funds and talent. Russia's defense department buys only 15% of the weaponry the country's factories produce, while old customers such as India and China have begun producing their own weapons in the past decade or so. Unless Russia modernizes its factories, Moscow could lose more clients, says the Stratfor analysis. If that happens, the report states, "the Russian defense industry will be hard-pressed to keep from becoming irrelevant."
That's why Russian officials from the President on down have made it clear in the past few months that more money — and hence a modernization of defense-industry facilities — is on its way. And why much of the money is heading to companies that produce prized exports such as the Sukhoi fighter jets. But finding enough talent to overhaul Russia's rusting production lines may prove tough. Defense companies did not recruit and train engineers during the recessionary 1990s, leaving the average age of a worker in the industry at about 60, according to Kozyulin.
And finding engineers may actually prove easier than getting enough good recruits to bolster the army. The Kremlin plans to retire about half the army's 300,000 aging officers over the next three to six years, and train hundreds of thousands of fresh, paid soldiers in modern warfare. But today's high school graduates were born when Russia's birth rate hit an all-time low in the early 1990s, and were raised during the disastrous Chechen war. Near the decrepit train station of Vladimir, a military town near Moscow, an army-recruiting center promises a life of adventure for those who sign up. THE ARMY OF RUSSIA — AN ARMY OF PROFESSIONALS, says a billboard, showing a young man in a leather military helmet peering out of a tank scope. Not yet, it isn't. But money always helps.
With reporting by John Wendle / Moscow
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Review to 'Sex, Race And IQ: Off Limits?'
The author mentioned that she is for the research on the possible links between gender, race and intelligence to prove that there is not much difference in the intelligent quotient(IQ) as long as there is equal chance of gaining experience. I agree with the author as there are various factors we have to consider before condemning a race or gender inferior.
One of the factors against the research mentioned is the flexibility of the measurement of the intelligence which is reported to be adjusted to make the result 'right'. Hence, there is a certain level of bias and that the measurement of intelligence is still ambiguous as there is no fixed method of how you can measure one's intelligence. Also, various races all have genetic differences, thus having nothing in common to compare with respect to intelligence. The genders, also have different structural and biochemical differences which can make comparison difficult. However, all these factors actually do not attribute to one's intelligence and ability as proven by the Flynn effect. These factors are in fact independent with the gain in IQ. More research is hence needed to convince everyone that there is no superiority over a certain race say despite the various differences. Some of the past researches have either been tamed or bias and this only causes inaccuracy of measurement of IQ.
The author also mentioned that experience is what makes one cleverer and with successive generations receiving more education than the past , intelligence is definitely on the rise among humans in general. Without a doubt, experience is crucial for one in gaining IQ as one will gain more exposure and perspectives to solving problems. It also makes one become familarised with similar problems or questions, hence the increase in IQ. It is then reasonable to think that one with induction of endless knowledge and prolonged exposure to problems which promotes critical thinking and experience will without a doubt has a high IQ, instead of investigating at genders or different races which really prove nothing but only further to show likewise.
Therefore, I think that equal opportunity must be given to everyone in order for everyone to have the experience to gain IQ. Give anyone an opportunity, the chance for a better education and together with one's motivation to work very hard, you will see a highly intelligent human being, be it a woman,man,black or white.There is perhaps no need to dispute who is more superior but the research can rather be a indicator on the progress of human advancement in general and we can actually see that more opportunities are equally spread towards those who have been discriminated or look down upon in the past as the IQ gap of different races and gender has been closing up.
In Singapore's society, due to government's implementation of the meritocracy system in education, there has always been a fair and equal chance for each and everyone to shine and perform. Students here are motivated to study and work hard for their future. Hence, the overall average IQ in Singapore is high. There has been no discrimination or bias against a certain race, so scholars are rather evenly proportional to the size of each race and gender. Therefore, having to conduct the research here will no doubt show the even distribution clearly.
Ultimately in the end, a lack of talent can always be compensated with a strong desire of wanting to succeed. There is no inferiority or superiority to compare about as we are all potentially superior if given the same environment, level of education, experience and maybe nutrition. All it matters is whether one is given the chance to be so and to make use of it to be highly intelligent regardless of the race and gender.
One of the factors against the research mentioned is the flexibility of the measurement of the intelligence which is reported to be adjusted to make the result 'right'. Hence, there is a certain level of bias and that the measurement of intelligence is still ambiguous as there is no fixed method of how you can measure one's intelligence. Also, various races all have genetic differences, thus having nothing in common to compare with respect to intelligence. The genders, also have different structural and biochemical differences which can make comparison difficult. However, all these factors actually do not attribute to one's intelligence and ability as proven by the Flynn effect. These factors are in fact independent with the gain in IQ. More research is hence needed to convince everyone that there is no superiority over a certain race say despite the various differences. Some of the past researches have either been tamed or bias and this only causes inaccuracy of measurement of IQ.
The author also mentioned that experience is what makes one cleverer and with successive generations receiving more education than the past , intelligence is definitely on the rise among humans in general. Without a doubt, experience is crucial for one in gaining IQ as one will gain more exposure and perspectives to solving problems. It also makes one become familarised with similar problems or questions, hence the increase in IQ. It is then reasonable to think that one with induction of endless knowledge and prolonged exposure to problems which promotes critical thinking and experience will without a doubt has a high IQ, instead of investigating at genders or different races which really prove nothing but only further to show likewise.
Therefore, I think that equal opportunity must be given to everyone in order for everyone to have the experience to gain IQ. Give anyone an opportunity, the chance for a better education and together with one's motivation to work very hard, you will see a highly intelligent human being, be it a woman,man,black or white.There is perhaps no need to dispute who is more superior but the research can rather be a indicator on the progress of human advancement in general and we can actually see that more opportunities are equally spread towards those who have been discriminated or look down upon in the past as the IQ gap of different races and gender has been closing up.
In Singapore's society, due to government's implementation of the meritocracy system in education, there has always been a fair and equal chance for each and everyone to shine and perform. Students here are motivated to study and work hard for their future. Hence, the overall average IQ in Singapore is high. There has been no discrimination or bias against a certain race, so scholars are rather evenly proportional to the size of each race and gender. Therefore, having to conduct the research here will no doubt show the even distribution clearly.
Ultimately in the end, a lack of talent can always be compensated with a strong desire of wanting to succeed. There is no inferiority or superiority to compare about as we are all potentially superior if given the same environment, level of education, experience and maybe nutrition. All it matters is whether one is given the chance to be so and to make use of it to be highly intelligent regardless of the race and gender.
Sex, Race And IQ: Off Limits?
Scientists who study intelligence risk adopting a policy of 'unilateral disarmament.'
From the magazine issue dated Apr 20, 2009
Granted, the study of racial and sex differences in intelligence has not exactly covered itself in glory. There was that unfortunate incident in the mid-20th century, when British psychologist Cyril Burt apparently made up data to "prove" that genes make blacks and the poor innately less intelligent than whites and the wealthy. Later studies reaching similar conclusions were based on statistics that would have done Mark Twain ("lies, damned lies …") proud. But does this sorry record warrant the scientific equivalent of the death penalty for such research? That's what some scientists are arguing. In a heated debate that began in the journal Nature and spread online, they are calling for an end to research on possible links between race, gender and intelligence. "Stupid science" and "evil science" are the more polite terms being hurled. But the arguments for and against the research are not what you'd expect.
Political correctness—as in, it's offensive and destructive to even ask if women as a group, say, are less intelligent than men—doesn't merit more than a brief nod, thank goodness. Instead, argues neuroscientist Steven Rose of Britain's Open University, the problem is that both race and IQ are slippery concepts. Standard measures of intelligence are ridiculously flexible. In the 1930s and 1940s, for instance, when girls kept outscoring boys, IQ tests were repeatedly adjusted to make the results turn out "right." That calls into question what studies of intelligence actually measure, and whether it's too easy to choose and massage data to produce desired results. Worse, "race" in the sense of Caucasian, Asian and African is too broad to capture anything biological, including genetic differences. Only smaller groupings based on geographic ancestry (Basque, !Kung, Inuit …) do. Since each "race" is a hodgepodge of ancestries, it's as hard to draw meaningful conclusions about how it relates to intelligence as it is to draw meaningful conclusions about food and allergies by studying a stew with 27 ingredients.
As for sex, there are indeed structural and biochemical differences between male and female brains. But since boys and girls, and men and women, live very different lives and are treated differently first by parents and then by society, it's impossible to attribute those differences to innate biology rather than experience. That is especially true now that discoveries in neuroplasticity have shown that brains of any age can change their structure and function in response to experience. Even the visual cortex, which you'd think is pretty hard-wired, can switch from processing sight to processing touch if you are blindfolded for just five days.
Kudos to defenders of studies of how intelligence varies by race or sex for basing their case on something other than the obvious grounds of academic freedom. Instead, they argue, the studies must continue because of the wealth of important knowledge they produce. In the 1960s, for instance, psychologist Arthur Jensen presented evidence that African-Americans are inferior in intellect due to inherited genes. That prompted psychologist James Flynn of the University of Otago, New Zealand, to examine decades of IQ data from dozens of countries, something he never would have done without Jensen's work to goad him. He discovered what is now called the Flynn effect. One of the most fascinating phenomena in psychology, the Flynn effect is the increase in IQ scores over the last 70 or so years. The increase, of about .3 points per year and as much as 25 points in some countries, reflects generational improvements in abstract problem solving, a product of a more complex, mentally stimulating modern world. The Flynn effect "shows that substantial increases in IQ can and have occurred over a short period of time," says psychologist Wendy Williams of Cornell University. "Genetics cannot explain such changes. Thus we look to environment … As experiences [for blacks] improve, so can and does IQ." That has already happened: one quarter of the IQ gap between black and white Americans has been erased in 30 years (it's now 10 to 15 points). Cultural effects are more powerful than we thought, says Williams, a conclusion that would have remained undiscovered if race and IQ were off limits.
There has been a parallel increase in understanding sex differences in IQ. Boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1 in the top .01 percent of U.S. math scores 30 years ago; now that's down to 2.8 to 1, providing more evidence for culture's effect on intelligence, in this case evolving beliefs about what girls can be good at. The fact that experience shapes the brain, and that girls' and boys' experiences are different so their brain differences might be the result of different experiences, seems less like an argument against studying sex and IQ than a fascinating research project: how do sex-specific experiences leave a footprint in the folds of the cortex?
If race-IQ studies are viewed as the third rail of psychology, many scientists who might answer questions like that will stay away from them. That will leave the field to those whose agenda is to prove women and blacks intellectually inferior. If that happens, warns Flynn, they will win the debate "because the rest of us have all adopted a policy of unilateral disarmament." On this fraught issue, science must not give up without a fight.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Review
Facebook is one the most popular social networking website that many of us have an account of. Everybody have their own views in whether having a facebook account is really worth our time to use on. The writer certainly thinks that facebook is an utter form of rubbish that had him watse one whole year of purely doing nothing at all which lead to him quiting but i beg to differ because facebook has it's own pros which may be one of the reason of it being so popular.
Facebook is a social networking website that allows you to meet friends all over the world and keep in contact with many friends that you had before. However,not many of them are still constantly present in your life that u communicate everyday or even meet before! This may be a good outlet for people to keep up with each other and allowing others to know what they are currently doing now as well as meeting more friends around the world. Relations between people have has therefore become virtual where we communicate only online more often than not. We have left out the core to building a good peer relationship which is to communicate one to one face to face especially with those that we come in contact with frequently. Facebook does not allow these kind of communication that builds close relationships, rather we are only friends on the surface where we only know each other existence and nothing more than that which really defeats the defination of being friends.
Facebook contains thousands of appilcation to choose from that your friends will probably spam you once you have an account. Many of them are just purely a watse of time whose sole purpose is for the fun that you could have with your friends. Rather than playing or taking quizes that sometimes make no sense at all, the author propose that we could have done more to the society from the time wasted.True enough these applications are harmful in a way that is addictive into playing games that has totally no meaning at all. Spending countless hours to use these application could have been channelled into more important targets of our lives which could be studying or working.
Facebook do have a positive effect on the society because of it's growing popularity, it is able to reach out to the world as such, events such as the recent earth hour event was publicized as an invitation. Facebook is an influential tool that we are able to use to call upon the masses for a global cause.The author talks about doing more meaningful stuff rather than spending it on appilcations that contribute nothing to your life, this is a perfect way to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Facebook ultimately has its pros and cons but depending on the degree of usage that will affect whether its a great social network website.
Facebook is a social networking website that allows you to meet friends all over the world and keep in contact with many friends that you had before. However,not many of them are still constantly present in your life that u communicate everyday or even meet before! This may be a good outlet for people to keep up with each other and allowing others to know what they are currently doing now as well as meeting more friends around the world. Relations between people have has therefore become virtual where we communicate only online more often than not. We have left out the core to building a good peer relationship which is to communicate one to one face to face especially with those that we come in contact with frequently. Facebook does not allow these kind of communication that builds close relationships, rather we are only friends on the surface where we only know each other existence and nothing more than that which really defeats the defination of being friends.
Facebook contains thousands of appilcation to choose from that your friends will probably spam you once you have an account. Many of them are just purely a watse of time whose sole purpose is for the fun that you could have with your friends. Rather than playing or taking quizes that sometimes make no sense at all, the author propose that we could have done more to the society from the time wasted.True enough these applications are harmful in a way that is addictive into playing games that has totally no meaning at all. Spending countless hours to use these application could have been channelled into more important targets of our lives which could be studying or working.
Facebook do have a positive effect on the society because of it's growing popularity, it is able to reach out to the world as such, events such as the recent earth hour event was publicized as an invitation. Facebook is an influential tool that we are able to use to call upon the masses for a global cause.The author talks about doing more meaningful stuff rather than spending it on appilcations that contribute nothing to your life, this is a perfect way to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Facebook ultimately has its pros and cons but depending on the degree of usage that will affect whether its a great social network website.
You Can’t Friend Me, I Quit!
I was a late convert to Facebook, the social-networking site that turned five years old Wednesday. I joined about a year ago at age 47, swept up in the massive wave of people turning the corner to the back nine of life, and pitifully trying to do what comes so naturally to our sons and daughters. My own 16-year-old, Grace, literally cried from embarrassment when I told her I was signing up, and she begged me through her tears not to do it. When it was clear that I was serious, she made me promise never to "friend" her. Since I didn't know what that meant at the time, I agreed. Last week I redeemed myself in her eyes, because I signed off of Facebook forever—or at least until Tuesday.
I had one of those Hallmark movie moments. I was sitting here at work thinking up my next pithy "status update," which is where you broadcast to all your online buddies in a few words what you're up to at that very moment—and finally came to my senses. "What the hell have I become?" I cried.
So goodbye 157 Facebook friends, 75 of whom I wouldn't recognize if I saw you on the street. Goodbye super nifty "Pieces of Flair" application, and the 1,332,359 members of the "I Don't Care How Comfortable Crocs Are, You Look Like a Dumbass" Crocs-hater group. Goodbye, William and Mary alums I barely remember from 25 years ago. Not you, Tom, the other Tom. Hello to actually working at my job again. Well, a little anyway. I wouldn't have been able to write this story about quitting Facebook if I didn't quit Facebook because I wouldn't have had the time.
When I think about all the hours I wasted this past year on Facebook, and imagine the good I could have done instead, it depresses me. Instead of scouring my friends' friends' photos for other possible friends, I could have been raising money for Darfur relief, helping out at the local animal shelter or delivering food to the homeless. It depresses me even more to know that I would never have done any of those things, even with all those extra hours.
I was so addicted to my imaginary playgroup, I put the Facebook application on my BlackBerry. That way I could know immediately when some kid who used to pick on me in elementary school was reaching out across the years to remind me that I still had cooties. Once I was so entranced reading my Facebook page on my handheld, that I lost sight of the actual faces of the people on the street around me, and came to only after I fell into the lap of a man in a wheelchair. I was hurt when he rebuffed my attempt to friend him, but it turns out real life doesn't have that feature.
Nothing personal, former Facebook friends: I'll miss those wall updates about doing dishes and changing the kitty litter. I'll miss seeing those artsy photos of beach sunsets and city streets covered with snow. I'll miss posting those, I mean. I'll miss your constant name dropping and updates that make sure we all know you're camping in a hemp tent on a sustainable emu farm in Costa Rica, or that you eat only dolphin-free tuna, and I should too. But most of all, I will miss those hundreds upon hundreds of baby pictures that remind me daily of how insanely happy I am that my kids aren't babies any more.
Then there's the whole anxiety-inducing to-friend-or-not-to-friend minefield that I won't miss at all. You get a request from, say, Spiffy McGee, but the name doesn't ring a bell. You see that you share a friend, so maybe he found you that way. Or you note that he went to your college, which makes sense, because there were a lot of WASPy "Old Virginia" guys at William and Mary with names like Biff or Buff or Ridge. So you think, what the hell, and you add him, and within minutes your wall is peppered with posts like "Spiffy McGee feels a deuce coming on" or "Spiffy ate the worm!" with photos to prove it. Then you feel pressure to say what you're doing to outwit Spiffy, so you write: "Steve is in a Honey Smacks mood this morning." Seriously, I wrote that.
Facebook status updates are the literary equivalent of inane cell-phone chatter, like when you're on Amtrak and the man in front of you can't stop talking loudly on his Bluetooth for one second, so you're stuck sitting behind him and have to listen to stuff like: "Hi, honey, I'm on Amtrak now. I'm sitting in my seat now. I'm taking off my coat now." Yes, I could always sit in the Quiet Car, but one of the last times I did that the train attendant kept waking me up every five minutes yelling: "This Is The Quiet Car! This Is The Quiet Car!"
Being on Facebook is like volunteering to receive spam, and the more successful you are at finding friends, the more spam you get! In the end, Facebook is really the emptiest, loneliest place on the whole World Wide Web. It's all static and white noise, and the steady streams of status updates start to look like ASDF, ASDF, ASDF after a while.
So I've decided now to do something more worthy and productive with all of my new free time. I'm going back to the original reality-based Facebook, the local bar where everybody knows your name, which for me is Off The Record at the Hay-Adams Hotel here in D.C. Status updates there are said in real time to real people, like: "That guy's got a problem with alcohol. I see him every time I come in here," or "How would the Civil War have changed if Abraham Lincoln had octopus tentacles instead of a beard?" (Thanks, Cliff Clavin). So goodbye, potential and former Facebook pals, all 150 million-plus of you, and hello, John Boswell, the best bartender in America. If any of you need to get in touch, check the third stool in, right side. If you want to friend me, buy me a beer.
Link:http://www.newsweek.com/id/183180/page/1
I had one of those Hallmark movie moments. I was sitting here at work thinking up my next pithy "status update," which is where you broadcast to all your online buddies in a few words what you're up to at that very moment—and finally came to my senses. "What the hell have I become?" I cried.
So goodbye 157 Facebook friends, 75 of whom I wouldn't recognize if I saw you on the street. Goodbye super nifty "Pieces of Flair" application, and the 1,332,359 members of the "I Don't Care How Comfortable Crocs Are, You Look Like a Dumbass" Crocs-hater group. Goodbye, William and Mary alums I barely remember from 25 years ago. Not you, Tom, the other Tom. Hello to actually working at my job again. Well, a little anyway. I wouldn't have been able to write this story about quitting Facebook if I didn't quit Facebook because I wouldn't have had the time.
When I think about all the hours I wasted this past year on Facebook, and imagine the good I could have done instead, it depresses me. Instead of scouring my friends' friends' photos for other possible friends, I could have been raising money for Darfur relief, helping out at the local animal shelter or delivering food to the homeless. It depresses me even more to know that I would never have done any of those things, even with all those extra hours.
I was so addicted to my imaginary playgroup, I put the Facebook application on my BlackBerry. That way I could know immediately when some kid who used to pick on me in elementary school was reaching out across the years to remind me that I still had cooties. Once I was so entranced reading my Facebook page on my handheld, that I lost sight of the actual faces of the people on the street around me, and came to only after I fell into the lap of a man in a wheelchair. I was hurt when he rebuffed my attempt to friend him, but it turns out real life doesn't have that feature.
Nothing personal, former Facebook friends: I'll miss those wall updates about doing dishes and changing the kitty litter. I'll miss seeing those artsy photos of beach sunsets and city streets covered with snow. I'll miss posting those, I mean. I'll miss your constant name dropping and updates that make sure we all know you're camping in a hemp tent on a sustainable emu farm in Costa Rica, or that you eat only dolphin-free tuna, and I should too. But most of all, I will miss those hundreds upon hundreds of baby pictures that remind me daily of how insanely happy I am that my kids aren't babies any more.
Then there's the whole anxiety-inducing to-friend-or-not-to-friend minefield that I won't miss at all. You get a request from, say, Spiffy McGee, but the name doesn't ring a bell. You see that you share a friend, so maybe he found you that way. Or you note that he went to your college, which makes sense, because there were a lot of WASPy "Old Virginia" guys at William and Mary with names like Biff or Buff or Ridge. So you think, what the hell, and you add him, and within minutes your wall is peppered with posts like "Spiffy McGee feels a deuce coming on" or "Spiffy ate the worm!" with photos to prove it. Then you feel pressure to say what you're doing to outwit Spiffy, so you write: "Steve is in a Honey Smacks mood this morning." Seriously, I wrote that.
Facebook status updates are the literary equivalent of inane cell-phone chatter, like when you're on Amtrak and the man in front of you can't stop talking loudly on his Bluetooth for one second, so you're stuck sitting behind him and have to listen to stuff like: "Hi, honey, I'm on Amtrak now. I'm sitting in my seat now. I'm taking off my coat now." Yes, I could always sit in the Quiet Car, but one of the last times I did that the train attendant kept waking me up every five minutes yelling: "This Is The Quiet Car! This Is The Quiet Car!"
Being on Facebook is like volunteering to receive spam, and the more successful you are at finding friends, the more spam you get! In the end, Facebook is really the emptiest, loneliest place on the whole World Wide Web. It's all static and white noise, and the steady streams of status updates start to look like ASDF, ASDF, ASDF after a while.
So I've decided now to do something more worthy and productive with all of my new free time. I'm going back to the original reality-based Facebook, the local bar where everybody knows your name, which for me is Off The Record at the Hay-Adams Hotel here in D.C. Status updates there are said in real time to real people, like: "That guy's got a problem with alcohol. I see him every time I come in here," or "How would the Civil War have changed if Abraham Lincoln had octopus tentacles instead of a beard?" (Thanks, Cliff Clavin). So goodbye, potential and former Facebook pals, all 150 million-plus of you, and hello, John Boswell, the best bartender in America. If any of you need to get in touch, check the third stool in, right side. If you want to friend me, buy me a beer.
Link:http://www.newsweek.com/id/183180/page/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)