Nothing to do with it at all,dear rabbit, we've moved on; please keep up.
I think my point, sort of, was that the genes that you get are down to luck. After all, even if one parent has the Spockster "gorgeous" gene, you only have a 50% chance of inheriting it, and if the quality you are after is multifactorial (as we should assume intelligence, attractiveness etc. are), the odds are even less...luck, luck, luck!
By Rhubarb on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:41:38
pagwatch?
By Pan on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:40:50
is this the quick sand thread? - the more you struggle out of it, the more it just sucks you in???
By Spockster on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:39:01
Ye-e-e-e-s, it's only when you are pregnant/driving that you realise how boring everyone is and that all those funny stories are just the last funny story being repeated over and over and over again...
Just like MN, you are very astute; most profound.
By littlelapin on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:37:23
I'm sure I read somewhere that Princess Diana had dyslexia?
IMO, IQ and exam results are not necessarily correlated (and no, I don't have a study on that, just experience of some really really bright people at uni who were SHITE at exams! Nerves, mainly). But that's a whole different debate.
I do completely agree though that temperament/IQ/attractiveness are down to genes rather than luck, although environment may play its part. If my mum had married someone better looking, I'd probably be better looking, that's just genetics, no? (sorry dad!)
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with "class" though.
By pagwatch on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:30:21
Oh I quite like it.
It reminfds me of the occasional Friday night drink after work when for no apparent reason the usual chatting and laughing turned into a really deep discussion about something that seemed incredibly important - until we all woke up he next day with serious hangovers and realised we had just been totally pissed. I remember having a furious arguement with one of my collegues about the treatment of catholics in ireland in the early 1900's. I later found out he was discussing the miner strike.
( BTW If you do not leave as soon as the drunk current affairs discussion ends then you are doomed to tell everyone you love them, walk the length of the bar with your dress tucked in your knickers and end up shagging the new guy in accounts).
By Rhubarb on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:29:45
It's because she has bullshit genes.
By Spockster on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:26:15
Snort.
If I were Princess Di (which, obviously, I am not...that would astound even Al Fayed...) I would be a bit narked at the suggestion that I got lousy O-levels because I had a low IQ. It does not follow. It may be true; but then again, it may not; there are many reasons why someone with an average or above average IQ may have got her O level results, and this comment just displays a basic lack of understanding of the complex issues around academic and exam. success.
For someone so supposedly bright, Xenia talks a whole pile of bullshit.
By hunkermunker on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:21:32
I think Lapin said it best:
God can't this thread max out or sink the depth of obscurity? It's DULL.
By Rhubarb on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:11:40
I am actually at a loss for words.
Really and truly.
By GooseyLoosey on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:09:17
I have skimmed this thread and must admit, I have no idea whatsoever what it is now about.
I also have to confess to having no clear idea of what being middle class is. I work, dh works and without doing so, we could not live. Does that make us working class? We also both have degrees from Oxford, so does disqualify us from being working class and gain us admittance to the middle class?
SIL on the otherhand has never worked a day in her life and lives on a council estate (I am making no judgements here). Does that make her working class or, as she middle class because she does not have to work?
Who exactly is being criticsed here?
By Xenia on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:08:34
Which gene comment did you want a source for (and I will look)?
By monkeytrousers on Wed 13-Feb-08 15:00:51
it's not offensive, just strictly partisan - and hence unconvincing (and also not backed up with facts)
By SuperGrrrl on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:57:18
''All parents whatever their class and IQ (and many posh people have a low IQ by the way - look at the GCSE results of Princess D for a start) can always benefit from improving how they deal with their children''.
i agree totally.
By littlelapin on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:56:56
I agree with Xenia's recent posts, and I don't perceive them as her boasting at all - she's just a name on a screen to us all, why would she want to impress us? I could tell you I have an IQ of 200 and look like Kate Hudson, how would you know if I was telling the truth or not! (I don't, by the way - look like Kate Hudson )
This is completely unrelated to the class discussion, but more generated by people's reactions on this thread - it's very clear that comments by some posters will always engender a strong reaction. I think if someone considered more middle of the road had posted some of Xenia's comments - for example that last one about genes vs luck - people might said yes "hmm, yes, I see your point". But because it's HER, it's "offensive".
It's not just Xenia, I'm sure there are other posters who cause this sort of visceral response in others (from all sides of the class divide! )
By monkeytrousers on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:54:39
Please, pass on these recent genetic studies you have been looking at, Xenia!
By Xenia on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:53:37
Certainly it's right to give all children who can benefit it a good education and good parenting. People will never be identical unless we mass produce clones I suppose but it's better for us all if there's good opportunities for all . All parents whatever their class and IQ (and many posh people have a low IQ by the way - look at the GCSE results of Princess D for a start) can always benefit from improving how they deal with their children.
By SuperGrrrl on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:53:15
library books are free. i was v poor as a small child and i was read to every day. not all poorer families place no importance on things like that.
By monkeytrousers on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:53:11
Xenias opinions about genes are just that, opinions; they are not supported by contemporary evidence.
But it is a traditional conservative view.
On another note, apparently speaking to children in negative 'you' statements rather than 'I' statements can be very damaging and tantomount to emotional abuse.
By witchandchips on Wed 13-Feb-08 14:43:59
Surely the interesting question for policy is not whether luck, genes, nuture etc. can explain differences in outcomes now but whether better social and economic policy can create a more equal society.
For example we know that a child born into a deprived family who does not receive the right kind of stimuli is likely to do worse later on than her posh friend down the road who is read to every night. whether it is nature or nuture is not important, what is important is whether something like sure start can make the poorer child achieve more