|
Module 6 – Contemporary Views of Intelligence
Though I was generally aware of the Bell Curve due to the media coverage portraying it as controversial, after learning that low IQ correlates to crime, risk for being on welfare, and even likelihood of worker disability, I understand why the book seemed threatening to some groups. So often, narratives based on academic study become the basis for propaganda with the wrong intentions. As a manager I have advocated for budgets that included near-constant increases in well-being costs based on neuroscientific data about the benefits of enabling work-life balance, providing physical space to relieve stress, and the virtuous cycle created by consistent “waffle Fridays” and “Tuesday Night Happy Hours” for my organization. Herrnstein’s and Murray’s evidence clearly advocates for some of their propositions, such as supporting top performers, but I did not understand how school choice was beneficial unless they intended it only for the gifted. All of that said, my first finding from this module – which absolutely shocked me – is the data that in 1993, 92.2% of federal education budget was directed toward the disadvantaged and less than one-tenth of one percent was allocated to gifted students. While it is difficult to compared based on the 2020 budget information available online, of the $64B, $30.7B of just discretionary funding has been clearly allocated for disadvantaged groups, to “support high-need students through essential formula grant programs.” (US Dept of Education, 2020) A second significant finding based on my plan to teach was the triarchic model of Sternberg. Intuitively, my understanding of intelligence is based on Analytic, Creative, and Practical components – closely aligned to his model. Having read his scholarly paper about the application of his triarchic model in the classroom, my understanding of Successful Intelligence seems complimentary to the Vygotsky model of scaffolding that enables the student with an emphasis on self-efficacy and appropriate support. While I agree that the cladistic view of the triarchic model presented in the lecture notes does not differentiate inductive and deductive reasoning, I strongly favor his triarchic model of intelligence. Further, based on the data presented in his paper that showed achievement benefit in both performance assessments and objective assessments, the theory will be useful when identifying how to structure a classroom activity or a test so that all of the students will have an opportunity to learn, and to apply their knowledge based on the component ability in which they are strongest. Finally, the positive correlation between political engagement and intelligence was another finding. It gives me hope for a progressive future for this world to see that r = 0.45 for IQ and social liberalism, which is much higher than I would have guessed. For example, Ritchie’s data that shows higher-IQ correlates to increased interested in politics in general, being more likely to vote in elections. Furthermore, Ritchie’s information relating the physical aspects of the brain to intelligence corresponds well with the Anthropology class I’m taking as we focus our study to the Homo genus after several weeks of studying the endocranial capacities of species that are the bridge between apes and humans.
0 Comments
Following a century during which the proverbial ‘hand of government’ replaced the fickle assistance meted by monarchs and oligarchic elites, US policy makers and advocates now have a robust dataset on which to perform impact analysis of social welfare benefits, income insurance policies, and the effect of poverty protection programs on work incentives. The white paper, “Why a Universal Basic Income Is a Terrible Idea” written by Oren Cass and originally published by National Review on June 15, 2016, presents a conservative response to all Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposals which are a predominantly liberal solutions to two significant exigencies in 21st century America – poverty and technological unemployment. Cass’s white paper implies a close relationship exists between both problems, but the following analysis will be focused on the latter issue as it is the topic about which I am writing policy response speeches.
The cost of any UBI policy will be significant, diminishing the wealth of a nation’s highest earners to redirect income to meet the basic needs of people who earn the least. Supporting arguments as well as those against such a policy attempt to influence that wealthy group who controls the money today, and historically, most often controls the levers of power necessary to implement any such policy change. Whether or not the possession of money is directly related to the control of power, and the moral or ethical implications of that relationship, has been set aside by this discourse because the focus is always on one side of the exigency, or the other. Supportive arguments that favor UBI provide historical analysis, data-driven rationales, and anecdotes that attempt to engage the audience through enthymeme. Oppositional arguments, for example Cass’s white paper, tend to leverage coercive language based on institutionalized fears of change, discussions of social class, and generalized examples of potential financial challenge. In this paper, I argue that Cass’s argument is not persuasive because he constitutes an audience distrustful of facts, he ignores basic math when estimating costs, and inaccurately labels everyone who is not part of his ideology as outsiders and less worthy. Ultimately, his terrible argument against UBI disconnects from reality, disengages from the exigency it claimed as its topic, and dissolves into false claims and racist tropes that demean American citizens. Literature Review Audience as the foundation of argument enables the rhetor to choose the right word, form the most influential argument, and present evidence based on what is required according to the expectations of the immediate reader as well as the many, virtual readers who the author cannot necessarily presuppose. “A reenergized citizenry committed to carrying on the fight” (Campbell et al., 2015, p.30) aptly describes the audience for Cass’s white paper as a group of citizens, historically connected to the society – in this case Americans – who have been enthused to action by progressive arguments that threaten their grip on power and wealth. They engage in the good fight because they believe their power means that they have been right all along. Skeptically identifying the best-known speakers, thought leaders, and actors in the movement in favor of UBI is how Cass builds his credibility with his audience. In her book, Rhetorical Criticism – Exploration and Practice, Sonja K. Foss devotes a chapter to what she labels Ideological Criticism, described as “the privileging of the ideology of one group over the ideologies of other groups… that represents experience in ways that support the interests of those with more power” (Foss, 2018 p. 239). This is an obviously accurate description of the methodology Cass’s white paper deploys to argue his position. Society’s belief in his version of social norms and values must be maintained or else his argument unravels into a selfish, greedy, and isolated position that reminds me of Shelley’s poem Ozymandias written in 1817 that describes a statue of the world’s most powerful leader centuries later, now decrepit as “two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand/in the desert” (Shelley, 2002). Only the legs remain, not the body, like an argument that needs a powerful body but has only the legs to move the once powerful assertions that have been diminished by time. In addition to using norms and values to build his arguments, Cass leverages two additional techniques Foss calls Hegemonic Ideology, “position and group relations” and “ultimate authority” (Foss, 2018 p. 238). The former concept focuses on the audience as “supporters of the group members” in relation to “their enemies or opponents” while the latter asks, “what is the sanctioning agent” with the power to arbitrate what is true, or should be excluded from the argument (Foss, 2018 p. 238). The implied racism and obvious classism inherent in several of Cass’s arguments attempt to redirect factual arguments presented by eminent scholars and productive businesspeople into a narrow discussion of unsubstantiated, idealized conservative opinions of history as it relates to current affairs today. To a liberal perspective, this redirection is a necessary function of conservative discourse because the basis of their arguments is a coercive misrepresentation of historical facts necessary to support the dominant ideology. Facts matter, but not to Cass. In the following pages, I will leverage these rhetorical techniques to unravel the prejudiced, classist, elitist, and wrong-headed essay of an archconservative who is far more concerned with maintaining his white privilege than he is with discussing the merits of the arguments about progressive proposals that attempt to solve the problem of unemployment, and the related issue of poverty, through an income redistribution program named UBI. Analysis The central idea of his essay has been effectively conveyed by the title, “Why Universal Basic Income is a Terrible Idea” (Cass, 2016, pg. 1) but it reflects the core weakness of his argument, which requires a sympathetic audience and as such, does not even attempt to engage in persuasive arguments based on analysis, anecdote, or data. Cass elaborates on his central idea using a flamboyant, one-line paragraph to begin the white paper, “UBI would only entrench our misconceptions about the relationship between the individual and the state” (Cass, 2016, pg. 1) previewing his ideologically focused argument against wage replacement and social welfare benefits. He does not write for an audience of policy makers who require analysis to make decisions, but for those who are motivated by ideology and their memory of the past. Unfortunately for his argument, those memories are often incomplete and extremely limited because they include only personal perspectives. Without the more complex and nuanced objective viewpoints, his arguments can be more readily consumed by an audience who observe the discourse but do not directly participate in creating the policy response it enacts. Cass establishes his pathos by presenting a roll call of eminent think-tank writers, politicians, and economists, positioning himself as credible because he has knowledge of the issue’s current arguments. After introducing of the idea’s promoters like the chorus in a Grecian drama, “Columnists,” followed by two more groups that he names inside quote marks as “’data journalists’” and “’explainers’” he ends the list by naming the group that stands to provide the most benefit to society while also being a symptom of the unemployment problem being solved by UBI, “technologists” (Cass, 2016, pg. 1). Cass intends his use of quotes around the categorical names of his opponents to instill a skepticism of those groups in his audience. It’s his way of implying that ‘so-called’ or ‘supposed’ should precede their names because they are not part of his, and his audience’s, group. He must believe that his group is disinterested in facts but intrigued by statements that sound impressive because he uses weak data to support his position that a UBI will be cost prohibitive. The second paragraph introduces an elementary math error when estimating the cost per individual for UBI, “a monthly check of $800 or $1,000 to cover basic needs… a couple would receive $20,000 per year” (Cass, 2016, p. 1). It’s obvious that monthly checks at those amounts would be $9,600 and $12,000, not $20K, per year but the intention of his argument is not to be objective, rational, or accurate. Instead, he intends to make arguments with which his audience is already familiar because they are part of a social class and ethnic group that already fears any benefit that may be given to someone other than themselves. I agree with Foss’s point about ideological rhetoric that states a “dominant ideology controls what participants see as natural or obvious by establishing the norm” (Foss, 2018 p. 239) and the sole data-driven example in Cass’s paper attempts to establish a false fact that will be meaningful to his audience because it sounds good, without any regard for the accuracy of the basic math. Following a cost estimate that has been inflated transparently, Cass transitions to the body of his argument through a ‘They Say/I Say’ that refutes a progressive labor secretary by implying that he has presented a false obligation. “Former labor secretary Robert Reich, plugging Stern’s effort, says, ‘America has no choice.’ Actually, we do have a choice — one that goes far beyond safety-net details to reach the very heart of state and society” (Cass, 2016, p. 2). The argument against Reich is not followed by justification for an alternative opinion, but instead, the enthymeme is the conservative reverence for a secular state with heart, based on the historical values of an oppressive Caucasian majority. He reminds his audience of everlasting American norms and values, while naming his opponents as defenders of a social safety-net that is detrimental to the current moral values embodied in American society, as he sees it. As Foss explained, hegemonic ideology privileges one group above another. Cass casts his opponents as breakers of the societal covenant that he believes had been established by the prior century. For Cass, values and norms should not change. He names government as becoming a provider if UBI is enacted, implying without evidence that it will be a new role for the government. Just a paragraph earlier though, he had referenced the “safety-net programs that would no longer be necessary” but now contradictorily states that government does not provide for “individuals, families, or communities” (Cass, 2016, p. 2). Like the elementary math error that initiates his argument, contradicting himself on the same page is not a concern while he reinforces an ideological distrust of facts and logic. Cass reminds his readers about the racist and classist theories of the past, positioning the United States as a country with two sides: “the Haves” and “the poor and the black” the latter being the beneficiaries of policies “that have absolved people of responsibility for themselves and one another… and thereby eroded the foundational institutions of family and community that give shape to society” (Cass, 2016, p. 2). Cass’s narrow point of view built on racist principles created to maintain wealth and power amongst a few citizens are his replacement for concrete evidence to support his central idea. Campbell’s points to this directly when she labels an audience as a “reenergized citizenry committed to carrying on the fight” (Campbell, 2013, p.30). By grouping those in poverty with the black community, he attempts to ostracize both groups with a norm-breaking label that implies that they have not taken responsibility for themselves or their society. Like his use of skeptical quotes to label his detractors as ‘so-called’ and unworthy, Cass uses blatantly racist tropes to define his opposition to social welfare programs while attempting to establish his argument and his group as the ultimate authority. He claims that “unfulfilling” work is nonetheless imbued with meaning, which supports a conservative view of family as male-dominated, which he emphasizes by referring to the worker as a “breadwinner” who provides essentials for their family, whereas UBI would eliminate work’s “essential role as the way to earn a living, work would instead be an activity one engaged in by choice, for enjoyment, or to afford nicer things” (Cass, 2016, pg. 4). Yet work is already these things for some people at all levels of the wage scale, especially those who have earned higher wages in the past. I am an example of this type of worker, who has worked hard and sacrificed to generate enough savings through income to be able to respond to unfulfilling employment by making a life change that I believe will lead to more rewarding work. Mark Zuckerberg and other billionaires talk about how a secure financial safety net would have enabled them to invest more energy and time into their big ideas, so that the benefits to society would have been delivered sooner. “We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful” (Zuckerberg, 2017, 18:00). Wealth as the result of innovation is a net-positive to Cass, but his ideology refuses to accept the societal changes that may accompany it, most notably when there is a cost to his audience’s wealth. Zuckerberg’s speech, most progressive discourse, and my own experience all acknowledge that work is not only essential, but also enjoyable and a choice determined by bigger factors than a need for more expensive things. Finally, Cass tries to act as the agency that sanctions what is right or wrong in the personal lives of low-income workers. He restates the Luddite Fallacy that technological progress leads to more opportunity for work. He assumes that Farm labor transitioned into Service labor. That may or not be true, but this year we have seen how providing wage support funding during the pandemic has altered the loyalty of Service workers of America to their exploitative and now potentially health-damaging employment. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, “Americans quit their jobs at a record pace for the second straight month in September” (Rugaber, 2021). Workers who are changing jobs at the highest rate in the history of America most often cite dissatisfaction and risk to health as the reason. The relatively small additional wages provided to these workers to offset job loss during the pandemic has enabled them to make a choice to select a new job with better incentives for them to work. They are not selecting the option that Cass suggests will be the outcome of UBI – i.e., not working. As he presents final arguments against providing benefits that are not tied to work programs for low-income workers, Cass uses Charles Murray’s well-known classist, misogynistic argument about the difference in intact nuclear families between 1960 – a time in history idealized by 21st Century Conservatives – and the early 2000s. His data reports that in 1960 more than 95% of children lived with two parents when mom was 40 years old, but that has declined to 60% in this century. He quotes Murray several times, reminding his audience “that it calls into question the viability of white working-class communities” (Cass, 2016, pg. 6). The difference in what he labels as intact households is more likely related the fact that stress caused by unfulfilling work is a major contributor to domestic abuse according to The American Psychological Association (APA). Guidelines for domestic abuse noted that “individuals living with LIEM [Low Income and Economic Marginalization] may suffer from increased mental health symptoms and mental health disorders; limited opportunity for engaging in healthy behaviors; and a decreased capacity to manage stressors both cognitively, mentally and socially” (Parker, 2019). Cass avoids addressing these challenges faced by LIEM households and the finding by the APA, which is indicative of a fundamental problem with the Conservative mindset that a married woman is necessarily better off. In conclusion, Cass’s white paper “Why a Universal Basic Income Is a Terrible Idea” provides an example of a Conservative American pundits who knows his audience well. The fact-lessness of his, and his audience’s, hegemonic ideology leverages weak arguments, elementary math errors, generalized and counterfactual labels for opposing voices, and overt racism to convey it’s elitist argument. According to Foss (2018), this “constitutes a kind of social control, a means of coercion, or form of domination by more powerful groups over the ideologies of those with less power” (p. 239). The values and norms of the group in power – often defined as the group with the most wealth and the most wealth to lose via redistribution policies – demand an ideology that assesses their beliefs as good and the opinions of those who disagree as contrary to society. Asserting an ultimate authority, his statistics do not need to be corroborated, nor allow any broad context that would complicate the stated opinion of his group. Despite his reliance on the principle that a citizenry can aggressively defend its ideals in the face of overwhelmingly oppositional facts, I am grateful for the ability of a citizenry to mobilize into action, to innovate for the benefit of all society and all workers, for data and anecdotes that can be validated and thus used to make better decisions about how to support workers through times of unemployment; for example, an income insurance program like UBI. References
Module 5 – Developmental and Environmental
I appreciated that our lecture notes started with the example of Piaget applying his cross-domain knowledge – a critical component of successful, creative teams – using a principle of biology to address a concern of educational psychology. My first finding was the clear evidence from the Luria study that clearly illustrated the relationship between categorical knowledge and education. It was a surprise to see that the responses to her questions in the study were as literal and functionally oriented as his hypothesis expected. Responses such as “plate” when being asked about a flat round object, declining to answer the question about Socrates due to a lack of direct knowledge of the person, and the avoidance of such an open-ended invitation to ask about any subject, made it clear to me that their mental models were the formed by their environment – just as those with greater education were clearly affected by their time in the school environment. My path to becoming a language arts and technology teacher has been strongly influenced by a desire to strengthen abstract thinking skills in young people, to help them synthesize their domain knowledge and apply it effectively in new situations, and this study is a great example of the potential long-term impact of education on cognitive skills, notably the abstract. Dave’s study in particular, but also Wolf’s study, was personally meaningful to me, my second finding. I grew up as the only child of a single mother – an English teacher who was underpaid – and we struggled through financial and social disadvantages in the upper-middle class neighborhood she insisted had to be our home. Many weekend mornings, we would take the bus into New York City to spend the day in the museum. We would see the second half of Broadway shows, ballet, or the symphony because admission was free if you waited until intermission to enter. She would say that half-a-show was still plenty of enrichment time. Time at home was often oriented toward similar activities and reading. Wolf’s discovery of the high correlation between his rating of their home environment and their score on the Henmon-Nelson IQ test provides some explanation for why I was a successful student at an early age even though I had not participated in the same pre-school enrichment programs as my peers. Dave’s secondary finding about reading and word knowledge were also true for me as a young boy. Reading about the cognitive epidemiology data that showed a significant mortality risk difference based on intelligence was another finding. The overall difference was not surprising, but the more than 200% higher mortality rate when comparing the highest to the lowest ends of the index was striking. In this module more than the others, I noticed that I was considering the influence of external factors while reading about the findings of studies, or the points being made by Ritchie. Social class and genetics, the influence of family, must be relevant; successful parents share their lessons of success with their children. Ritchie’s addressed this well in the summary at the end of the chapter by reminding us that while intelligence is one aspect of being human that has a strong psychological impact, it’s not the only explanation for the results of the studies. Finally, I had always suspected that intelligence and near-sightedness were related and he provided evidence that that was true. |
AuthorStudent of Education, English, and Learning Technology at UMN. Archives
May 2022
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed