Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Big 15??" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster provided a list of 15 private and independent schools and suggested that posters rank them using various criteria that the original poster provided. The original poster also said that others could not add or subtract from the list. Almost from the beginning of this forum's creation there has been an obsession among some posters with the rank of schools. There have been bitter battles waged over which schools should be considered the "Big 3". The "Big 3" or "Big 5" or even the "Big 10" has been so contentious that the forum even has a "sticky" post on the topic. Expanding the list to the "Big 15" may be taking things a bit too far and the stipulation that schools cannot be added or removed seems a kind of controlling if I am honest. But, as you would expect from DCUM in general, and this forum in particular, posters are not too concerned about following rules. Before the first page was complete posters had already started adding and removing schools. The position of various schools in the original poster's list is disputed with boosters of particular schools arguing that they should be higher on the list and detractors arguing they should be lower. These disputes are sometimes accompanied by derogatory comments such as those accusing both Holton and Georgetown Day School supporters of being "delusional". The thing about a thread like this is that the original poster knows it will turn into a train wreck and everyone replying knows that it will be a train wreck. Yet, they can't help themselves. I probably received a half dozen reports about this thread from posters complaining that it is a train wreck. Of course it is, why would anyone expect anything else? I finally locked the thread this morning mostly so I could write this post without being interpreted by additional reports about it. The original poster had warned against adding BASIS Independent McLean, a member of the BASIS independent school network that has become quite controversial. The school, normally referred to as "BIM" on DCUM, has a group of extreme boosters who I've repeatedly caught sock puppetting supportive posts. The boosters tend to stake their claim for the school's superiority on ratings by Niche, a website that collects data and reviews about schools. I really know nothing about Niche and can't comment on the accuracy or validity of it ratings. BIM supporters and detractors obviously hold contrary opinions of the website. Despite the original poster's prohibition on adding BIM to the list, a BIM booster was not to be stopped and promptly put BIM at number 1 in her list. Then, true to form, the poster immediately sock puppetted a response quoting her own post and describing the list as "Very accurate". Other posters attempted to add public schools to the list, creating their own controversy. Just to be clear, I think any thread of this nature is pretty stupid and a waste of time. If your ego is so fragile that it hinges on whether your kids' school is number 1 or number 5 on a list, you would probably be better off spending money on therapy than private school. The only redeeming value of such threads is that the vast majority of posters don't take them seriously.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Liberal and left-wing politics associated with higher intelligence". The original poster linked to a study that came to that conclusion and commented that the findings were not surprising given the anti-science positions taken by many of those on the political right. I have not read many posts in this thread and really don't see a reason to do so. If anything, this topic is even more ridiculous then the previous one about top 15 schools. I am a liberal and like to think of myself as intelligent, but I am suspicious of any effort to quantify or rank intelligence. I think intelligence comes in different forms and that quantifying it is often a subjective undertaking that can be influenced by the biases of those attempting the quantification. Moreover, studies such at the one to which the original poster linked are generally written in such dense language that it would take years to parse them down to their actual meanings. Take this sentence from the study:

A polygenic score is a DNA-based predictor of someone’s trait, calculated as a linear combination of the estimated effect of alleles. When controlling for parental polygenic scores, the scores of the offspring are not confounded by environmental variation, since genes are randomly and independently inherited from parents via the process of Mendelian segregation. This allows polygenic scores to act as instruments for mental abilities.

If I understand this correctly, it is a very complicated way of saying that intelligence is inherited. That certain genetic traits are inherited is indisputable. But, which of those traits comprise "intelligence" is another discussion altogether. So, again, I am skeptical that those doing the study have truly been able to rank levels of intelligence with sufficient validity. This is all to say that I think those doing the study can, at best, say that those they ranked as "intelligent" according to their own criteria tend to be politically liberal. But I am confident an equally-valid study could come to different conclusions based simply on how "intelligence" is defined and evaluated . So, in the end, this is not worth arguing about.

Next was a thread titled, "Should I give up tenured professor position to help DH move higher?" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she is a "tenured full professor making about 190k" and her husband currently earns "around 7 figures". They have four children. Her husband's career has "skyrocketed", but to continue on this trajectory he needs to take an international position within his company for 3-5 years. In order to move with him, the original poster would have to give up her current job. She loves her job and finds it very rewarding and would hate to give it up. Moreover, she does not think she could find an equally good job after a multi-year absence. As a result, she is asking advice about what she should do. One school of thought among those responding is that the original poster has worked hard, achieved success, and is very happy. She should not give that up. Many posters in this group question why the original poster's husband needs to rise higher, suggesting that they have a great life now and don't need anything more. On the other hand are posters who warn the original poster about missing an opportunity. They think the chance to live internationally and realize her husband's greater earning power would be revealing to her. One poster astutely asks, "If you had a fulfilling life living abroad as your husband rockets forward in his career, would you give it up to have a tenured professorship"? The same poster later commented that the original poster was about to break out of "middle-class strivership" and that she shouldn't hold herself back. In the middle are posters who suggest that the original poster attempt to take a leave of absence, a sabbatical, or teach remotely. A number of posters wonder whether the original poster might be able to get a position as a visiting professor while she is abroad. Basically the thread consists of posters debating these three positions. The original poster followed up to say that her husband would probably have to change jobs if he didn't move abroad so, apparently, the status quo is not an option. She seemed to like the idea of somehow keeping her current job through a combination of sabbatical, leave, and, while unlikely, teaching remotely. The one somewhat odd thing to me in this thread is that the original poster didn't seem to express any opinion about living abroad beyond its impact on her job. Many other posters pointed out that living abroad, especially in comfortable circumstances, is a great opportunity in itself.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Explain implications of Arizona abortion ruling to me like I'm 5 years old", the original poster would like a simple explanation of why, after arguing that abortion should be a states right issue, there is a lot of concern — including from Republicans — about the recent Arizona Supreme Court ruling restricting abortion. First some background. before Arizona was even a state it enacted a very strict anti-abortion law that prohibited abortions in all cases except when the life of the mother was endangered. This law was in effect until the Roe vs. Wade US Supreme Court ruling. Subsequently, the state approved a 15 week limit on abortions that was expected to go into effect if or when Roe vs. Wade was overturned. When Roe was overturned, Arizona began adhering to the 15 week ban. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the original law was never overturned and, therefore, remained in effect. As a result, after a short waiting period before enforcement of the old law is allowed, nearly all abortions will be outlawed in the state. This decision came a day after former President and current cult leader Donald Trump had made a statement arguing that abortion should be left to the states. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's decision caused considerable consternation among Republicans. As the original poster suggested, wasn't this exactly for what they were asking? I posted in the thread and I will reiterate my points here. Many approach abortion as an issue of values. For many so-called "pro-life" individuals, abortion is murder. Very few are prepared to make compromises where murder is concerned and, hence, there is support among the "abortion is murder" crowd for laws such as that in Arizona that provide few to no exceptions. Similarly, many supporters of abortion rights see this primarily as a right to privacy (as was stated in Roe) or a matter of women's bodily autonomy. Just as those who believe abortion is murder are not willing to countenance the killing of what they consider to be a human baby, many in the pro-choice camp refuse to accept that a woman should give up any control over her own body. For these two groups, compromise is impossible. Nor should anyone expect them to compromise. Separate from these groups are those who see abortion as they do any other political issue. They may have strong feelings, very strong for that matter, about the issue, but some may have equally strong feelings about tax cuts, foreign aid, immigration laws, or a host of other political issues. They are happy to take gains where they can get them and try to prevent losses where they are able. Trump showed himself to be squarely in the second camp, explicitly stating that hardline abortion positions have been costing Republicans elections and endangering all aspects of the Republican agenda. Given the electoral strength of abortion-rights movement since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, many Republicans and almost all Democrats agree with Trump in this regard. The Arizona decision, while pleasing the abortion hardliners, antagonizes almost everyone else. Hence, Republican politicians have been running away from the decision as fast as they can. It promises to be an electoral tsunami that washes away their political hopes. What this reveals is that for many Republican politicians, abortion is not a moral issue or a question of values. Rather, like tax cuts, opposing abortion is useful when it has political benefit and unhelpful when it does not. We are clearly in a "does not" situation.