The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Bill Gates Meets Arthur Jensen
50 years on
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Philanthropy is a fine thing. A good sum of money put in the right place can benefit many people. Commerce is also a fine thing. A small sum of money put in the right place can create goods and services which people want, which can lead to profit which leads to more money being available to create goods and services. Virtuous circle. A man who dies rich is not disgraced. He dies in grace if his companies outlive him, and continue to provide things that people want.

This leads to an interesting question: did Bill Gates do more good for the world by founding Microsoft or by founding the Gates Foundation? Probably the former, I would estimate. I say that without being a fan of Microsoft’s products, which have often exasperated me, but just as a cool calculation about the long-term impact of readily accessible business and household programming power, which made computation accessible to billions of people. Tim Berners-Lee and Vincent Cerf could claim greater impact, and with consummate flair Steve Jobs packaged components into the right combination for the ultimate portable communication device (he knew our limitations), but much earlier than that Microsoft had turbo-charged the computer revolution, and pushed Apple aside in the business world, by a country mile.

Now Bill Gates is doing good works, and why not? His 2019 letter is just out.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter

It deals with 9 topics: Africa being the youngest continent (fastest growing population); DNA testing might prevent premature births (but they may be due to racism); the world’s building stock may double by 2060 (global warming); data may be sexist (not enough suitable data collected on women); helping teenage delinquents cope with their anger; a nationalist case for globalism; flush toilets (sanitation world-wide); textbooks go digital; mobile phones help poor women;

Frankly, apart from Bill’s day with teenage miscreants, there is little about education in this letter.

In fact, the education stuff is in his 2018 letter.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter

We made education the focus of our work in the United States because it is the key to a prosperous future, for individuals and the country. Unfortunately, although there’s been some progress over the past decade, America’s public schools are still falling short on important metrics, especially college completion. And the statistics are even worse for disadvantaged students.

To help raise those graduation rates, we supported hundreds of new secondary schools. Many of them have better achievement and graduation rates than the ones they replaced or complemented. Early on, we also supported efforts to transform low-performing schools into better ones. This is one of the toughest challenges in education. One thing we learned is that it’s extremely hard to transform low-performing schools; overall they didn’t perform as well as newly created schools. We also helped the education sector learn more about what makes a school highly effective. Strong leadership, proven instructional practices, a healthy school culture, and high expectations are all key.

We have also worked with districts across the country to help them improve the quality of teaching. This effort helped educators understand how to observe teachers, rate their performance fairly, and give them feedback they can act on. But we haven’t seen the large impact we had hoped for. For any new approach to take off, you need three things. First you have to run a pilot project showing that the approach works. Then the work has to sustain itself. Finally, the approach has to spread to other places.

How did our teacher effectiveness work do on these three tests? Its effect on students’ learning was mixed, in part because the pilot feedback systems were implemented differently in each place. The new systems were maintained in some places, such as Memphis, but not in others. And although most educators agree that teachers deserve more-useful feedback, not enough districts are making the necessary investments and systemic changes to deliver it.

To get widely adopted, an idea has to work for schools in a huge variety of settings: urban and rural, high-income and low-income, and so on. It also has to overcome the status quo. America’s schools are, by design, not a top-down system. To make significant change, you have to build consensus among a wide range of decision makers, including state governments, local school boards, administrators, teachers, and parents.

Melinda Gates said:

When economists describe the conditions under which countries prosper, one of the factors they stress is “human capital,” which is another way of saying that the future depends on young people’s access to high-quality health and education services. Health and education are the twin engines of economic growth.

Human capital can also refer to how bright people are, given only reasonable health and education. The phrase is often used as a coy way of commenting on the quality of the people. Boosting health and education gives early gains which plateau pretty fast. The first $5000 has a big effect, but at about $15000 not many more gains are found.

The Economist says:

Some [problems] require the exercise of ingenuity and discretion by small teams (eg, inventing a new vaccine); some demand the programmatic mobilisation of legions of people (immunisation drives). Others require both.

Improving education falls into this third, difficult category. It is not a problem that a small team of brilliant people can crack. Nor can a good education be delivered, like a vaccine, by following a strict protocol to the letter. Instead it requires legions of teachers to respond thoughtfully and conscientiously to pupils’ needs. Mr Gates left his BAM (Becoming a Man) circle wishing every classroom could emulate its intimacy and respectfulness. But that is hard to bottle.

Well, The Economist is championing a very traditional view. Some people have proposed proposed brilliant short cuts to learning, and some of them might work, although most of them haven’t.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/boost-your-intelligence/

Doug Detterman tracked these intelligence-boosting notions for over 50 years, and found them a perpetual disappointment.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dettermans-50-years-of-seeking/

Others propose more pedestrian and strict protocols followed to the letter, because those have traditionally worked throughout the ages, mixed with rewards and punishments. A very well thought out sequence of instruction should be instructive to the average pupil. Doing standard teaching well has much to commend it. However, it does not annul individual differences.

I do not rate The Economist as a good source on the question of intelligence and the effects of early education:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-economist-is-economical-about

Consider the unwieldiness and impracticality of “legions of teachers to respond thoughtfully and conscientiously to pupils’ needs”. This is a prescription for schools being a cottage industry providing Saville Row suits for every shape and size of intellect. Really? Are reading, writing and arithmetic so idiosyncratic that instruction must be tailored to each individual? It is like saying that every computing problem is different, and must have its own operating system. Surely some instructions can be grasped by most students?

Bill Gates is a practical man, and is working with the old system, though new schools seem to be giving better results. Do these new schools use different techniques, different teachers or different students?

Many of the educational changes which struck Bill Gates as perfectly reasonable haven’t worked, or haven’t worked yet. Bill remains optimistic, and optimism is a core requirement of entrepreneurs. I have met and worked with some, and they can keep their spirits up while all the apparently objective facts are against them. One very successful entrepreneur I talk to from time to time listens to me and frequently replies: “that is a counsel of despair”. Quite so.

So, why have vaccinations worked and new teaching not? Bill rehearses a familiar view, arguing that more time and effort is required for results to show themselves. Perhaps so. Turning around institutions takes time. If you cannot turn around a business it fails before long, but state enterprises can last far longer, hence the time scale for improvement might be more than the 10 years which Bill is celebrating. Still, one has a lurking feeling that a new and improved teaching method should have an impact within a term, or at most a year. How could it not? If the technique is any good then students will learn faster, and will do better at end of term exams. Indeed, that might be the best measure, since end of year examinations might involve some forgetting, but re-learning will probably be much faster if the subject was well-taught in the first place.

Bill does not allow himself a seditious thought: perhaps some people learn much faster than others, and always will. Take Bill Gates himself, for example. He was hardly a college dropout, as he is so often portrayed, for the comfort of those who really drop out. He surged forwards and thus out of education because he realized he was capable of entering a bright new exciting field, and did not want to lose out to the competition by tarrying with his studies. He had the wit to build a business with a partner who had abilities Bill did not possess to the same degree. You might say he graduated very early, and Paul Allen was his graduation certificate.

So, why cannot he see that he learns faster than others, and that even those less bright than himself can still learn faster than others far less bright than himself, and so on downwards? It is all there, based on Army training data and summarised by Linda Gottfredson: brighter people learn faster, and can apply their learning more widely and successfully in new circumstances.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

This ability to learn fast and apply learning in new circumstances makes them worth hiring. Bill knows that. When Microsoft wanted to set up overseas offices, Cambridge and Peking were chosen. In China Microsoft recruited staff who in terms of intellect were one in a million. On arriving for their first day at the Microsoft office the successful hires wryly found that they had fallen from being “one in a million” to simply “one in 1300”.

Why does he apparently forget all that? Why did he not set up shop in Lagos? He did not choose his brilliant staff primarily by the primary and secondary schools they attended, but by their coding skills. If I remember correctly, Microsoft in China eventually moved from a big testing program to a process whereby the top coding tutors recommended only their very best students for detailed testing prior to hiring by Microsoft.

Why is it that Jensen’s detailed examination of compensatory education does not figure in Bill Gates’s conceptual world? The thesis is not difficult to understand. Education has limits, and the students are a large part of those limits.

Arthur Jensen (1969) How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement. Harvard Educational Review: April 1969, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 1-123.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.39.1.l3u15956627424k7

Bill Gates has met Arthur Jensen (in the form of a brick wall) merely because the latter had studied the facts more closely than the former. Jensen simply looked at the results claimed by extra teaching programs and found them wanting. An incredible 50 years have passed, and his main finding has held up: you cannot boost intelligence and scholastic attainment by compensatory education. Those extra interventions (mostly pre-school) give at best temporary advantage, which does not generalize and does not last. (There is one recently-discovered possible exception: staying at school for more years).

Jensen did not propose a counsel of despair. He knew kids had limits. He said that children should be offered an educational cafeteria, where they could receive an education closer to their interests and abilities. They should not all get the same set meal. He was very liberal about that, and was at pains to explain that every child could learn, though not at the same pace.

Jensen was clear in 1969 that compensatory education had not boosted student’s intelligence and scholastic ability. The subsequent years have largely confirmed his evaluation of the facts. On a broader canvas, the current estimate of how much education contributes to individual differences in scholastic attainment is 10%. That 10% covers both school and teachers. Selecting your students has more impact than selecting your teachers.

Bill Gates is doing good work, and mostly getting good results. If he reviews the literature then he might rein back a little on searching for techniques which reduce individual and group differences, and might just encourage kids to stay another year at school. Some of the instruction might help them. However, my real suggestion would be to get them out of school and train them on Microsoft Excel, which would make them useful sooner. (Yes, I know, VisiCalc in 1978, Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983, Excel not till 1987).

Finally, one has to question why people persist with an approach which was not working in 1969 and is still not working 50 years later.

P.S. I do not know if Bill Gates ever met Arthur Jensen, but we do not live by flesh alone, but also by our creations.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Arthur Jensen, Bill Gates, Education, IQ 
Hide 115 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[241] • Disclaimer says:

    I thought the article referred to Arthur Jensen from the movie “Network”.

    • Replies: @caffeine withdrawals
  2. res says:

    I do not rate The Economist as a good source on the question of intelligence and the effects of early education:

    Agreed. You might also consider the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

    The Gell-Mann amnesia effect describes the phenomenon of an expert believing news articles on topics outside of their field of expertise even after acknowledging that articles written in the same publication that are within the expert’s field of expertise are error-ridden and full of misunderstanding.

    Regarding your

    optimism is a core requirement of entrepreneurs. I have met and worked with some, and they can keep their spirits up while all the apparently objective facts are against them. One very successful entrepreneur I talk to from time to time listens to me and frequently replies: “that is a council of despair”.

    Well observed. Any thoughts on how skilled entrepreneurs manage to avoid “councils of despair” without becoming detached from reality? Is it something along the lines of the serenity prayer?

    A PDF of Jensen’s paper is available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023722.pdf
    Table 1 is a powerful comparison of the relative genetic and environmental contribution to variation between and within families for IQ and scholastic achievement. I did not realize how much the between families contributions differed (though on reflection it makes perfect sense).

    That paper is 50 years old. It is impressive how well Jensen’s observations have held up over time.

    I don’t recall seeing the following observation elsewhere (the OCR is bad, please excuse any errors I missed). Has there been followup work on this?

    The season of the year in which the child is born also affects intelligence, the summer months being the most advantageous time and winter the least. The reason for this seasonal variation in IQ is still unknown, but a likely hypothesis is that there are variations in dietary habits at various seasons which would affect maternal nutrition. Discovery of the precise mechanisms through which season of birth affects intellectual development is an important subject for future research.

    Any thoughts on Jensen’s observations about abdominal decompression? That was also new to me.

    I think Bill Gates (and many others) would do well to read this paragraph from Jensen:

    We know from laboratory research on learning and from training methods now being developed in the Armed Forces that there is no single instructional procedure that is optimal for all individuals. Optimal educational results are produced by designing instruction in accord with individual differences, and this means something much more radical than merely having slow and fast tracks in school or simply allowing some students to take more time than others to learn the same amount of subject matter, taught to all students in the same way. The educational plight of the disadvantaged, I am convinced, is the result of our not having taken individual differences seriously enough. We have acted as though human abilities were distributed along only one dimension: that everyone learns in the same way, but that some are merely slower than others. The whole methodology of teaching the so-called slow learner has grown up around teaching middle-class slow learners, and the one thing our research now makes us most sure of is that middle-class slow learners have a different pattern of abilities — a basically less advantageous pattern from the standpoint of occupational attainment — from lower-class children who also achieve poorly in school under the present conditions of instruction. The blocks to learning exist primarily in the school, and the educability of the disadvantaged will have to be improved largely in the school itself, rather than by prevailing upon the parents of disadvantaged children to do a better job of child rearing or by trying to get to the child earlier and earlier in his life in order to make him over into something more like the middle-class child who responds relatively favorably to the school environment as it is now constituted.

    Jensen’s concluding paragraph makes a good finish. (bolding was underline in original, u tag doesn’t work here, how to underline?)

    If asked to prognosticate the future trends that will improve education for all segments of our population, I would say they will take two main forms: (a) increased diversity of instructional procedures, aided by the technology of programmed and computerized instruction and based upon full recognition of differences in patterns of individual differences in the structure of learning abilities, and (b) a re-evaluation of the criteria of appropriate educational attainment for full participation in the responsibilities and benefits of our society. When we come really to respect individual differences, rather than trying to minimize their importance in the educational enterprise, we will have made the first great stride toward improving education for all children.

    P.S. Minor error with “proposed proposed” you might want to edit.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  3. TheJester says:

    Selecting your students has more impact than selecting your teachers.

    A personal experience that supports your thesis …

    I once chaperoned an outing for a class from a Gifted Children’s Program in a public school system. It was 5th Grade as I recall. The opportunity arose because our eldest son was selected for the program. He was not “gifted”; rather, he was chosen because the program wanted the “gifted” children to rub elbows with high-achieving students who did not have their intelligence but also would not hold them back.

    The demeanor, intelligence, and intellectual curiosity of the “gifted” students shocked me! It was clear that I was in the presence of a group of children who had exceptionally high IQs. I have also taught at three major universities. What a pleasure it would have been to have taught a class of intellectually “gifted” students. It would have completely changed the atmosphere and dynamics in the classroom.

    This, unfortunately, was a one-off experience. I never repeated the experience of seeing the special dynamic of a group of exceptionally high IQ people in one place at one time in spite of decades dealing at the higher reaches of government, the military, and defense-related high-tech industries.

    • Agree: atlantis_dweller
    • Replies: @m___
  4. I like how Jensen’s “proofs” put the blame on students’ capabilities, not on teaching methods and situations. Correlation is not causation.

    And of course Bill Gates is a clumsy scoundrel. Duh.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  5. “In fact, the education stuff is in his 2018 letter.”

    To his credit, Gates commissioned an outcomes analysis of his $478 million education investment and the report stated clearly that it had no effect on outcomes.

  6. m___ says:
    @TheJester

    Amazing how talent is spotted in sports, early on, in music, in dance yet, picking outliers of one in five thousand on cognitive capabilities is not tempting. Wasted outliers.

    In what average IQ has meaning mostly is that the middle the curve provides the run-off. After that it is all up to the outliers, to be bored and suppressed in the dumb systemics of our society.

    The likes of Gates and Davos. Throw enough money at a problem and it serves a gateway to the next pothole. There is always the servile middle class to cater to the billy-o-naires.

    The constricted blur of reality, of our compliments, goes to relative riches, very poor indeed as compared to incremental advances, a net result after derivatives.

  7. @anon

    I’ve always wondered if Network’s Jensen was a commentary on the real one. Beatty even looks sorta similar.

    • Replies: @S
  8. SafeNow says:

    “Bill Gates is a practical man.”

    Not in all respects. Consider the Gates $1,000 toilet for the rural third world, which even the NY Times considered impractical and indeed preposterous. Bill Gates knows not to set up a job fair across the street from DMV, but when it comes to helping the Third World, he has a blind spot.

  9. eah says:

    One look at that beta, low T face ought to make you realize that while the ‘boomer mindset’ is dangerous, it’s even more dangerous in someone with a LOT of money — the West would be better off if Gates would send dick pics like Bezos.

    Finally, one has to question why people persist with an approach which was not working in 1969 and is still not working 50 years later.

    Perhaps in some cases it’s because they have ulterior motives.

    Creighton Elementary 1968 vs 2016

    • Replies: @Wally
  10. @SafeNow

    I’d agree, that he is not always that practical. My rule of thumb would be, watch out when practical men (or women) turn romantic. That is an unpromising mixture. – The most disastrous outcome of this mixture is when those practical persons start to be good in – other places than the ones they succeeded in. School is one sector, Gates behaves very impractically (and very romantic), as James Thompson shows above (and Steve Sailer has shown numerously) – – – and Africa by and large is the other one. – When he starts raving about the endless opportunities there and how the youngest of all continents will shine – or does shine already, my heart begins to sink. Gates gives me no hope – his wife does, though, because she is engaged in “family planning***” in Africa.

    *** = birth control

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @anonymous
    , @dc.sunsets
  11. utu says:

    did Bill Gates do more good for the world by founding Microsoft or by founding the Gates Foundation?

    Probably Bill Gates had no choice. W/o the Gates Foundation Microsoft would be broken up. You can’t be just rich w/o sharing your wealth with TPTB. Any businessmen on the Main Street level knows it. It is a protection money.

    • Agree: Wally
  12. ‘Spelling Nazi’ note and correction

    Twice in the article, and repeated in a comment above, the phrase ‘council of despair’ is used … it should of course be ‘counsel of despair’, ‘counsel’ meaning ‘advice’, not ‘deliberative gathering’ which would be a ‘council’, like the Council of Europe or Vatican Council

    Same spelling error also made by the person who posted the fine 10-minute video of the most beloved spiritual writing of India, the Bhagavad-Gita, which the poster mistakenly titled ‘Krishna’s Council in Time of War’, and it of course should be ‘Krishna’s Counsel’, advice which the god gives to the warrior who has been lucky enough to have a god driving his chariot, a god able to freeze time itself so that he can explain to one man what life is all about

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Anon
  13. m___ says:
    @SafeNow

    …when it comes to helping the Third World, he has a blind spot.

    We deplorables might have.

    What are Foundations for? Consolidating private fortunes? What stands the Middle East and Africa for? No accountability? Legitimate system, “legitimate” scopes, different rules for the corny elites of a corrupt system, allowing for corrupted spoils. Oiliocracy, farmacology, oligarchy, idiocracy is given birth here, times and again. The phenomenon sustains a middle class of consultants, politicians, encrusted molusks of the societal tissue, and that is why they keep numb. Of course half a cent on the dollar might touch the dusty soil of the outer space continent of Africa.

    As most of us, Bill has base close to home concerns, the rest is sub-contracted. Nothing fancy. No principle involved. Distinction comes by fractions of a billion.

  14. Sean says:

    This leads to an interesting question: did Bill Gates do more good for the world by founding Microsoft or by founding the Gates Foundation? Probably the former, I would estimate

    The credit goes to the people of modest means who pay their taxes yet allow tax regime that allows zillionaires like him to do overseas philanthropy, which (unless secret) is an essential part of a tax avoidance PR strategy for the superich.

    Health and education are the twin engines of economic growth.

    Yes, and tax pays for that.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  15. Sean says:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2017/08/13/the-biggest-and-best-tax-break-of-all-time/#c8044f2b23fb

    Most of his wealth came not from his salary, but from the Microsoft stock that he owns, equal to about 10% of the company’s outstanding shares. Wealth gained from stock price appreciation is not taxable until you sell the shares. By holding most of his shares since the company’s founding, Mr. Gates delayed paying tax on those capital gains. By donating the shares to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that wealth will never be taxed.

    Thus, the fact that capital gains are not taxed as long as the asset is held (and, in real estate, not even when sold if the proceeds are reinvested in a “like” asset) and the existence of the charitable donation tax deduction have provided Bill Gates with what might be called the biggest tax break in history. The federal government likely lost out on $15-20 billion. Even for the federal government that is real money, enough to, for example, run the State Department for about a year.

    • Replies: @m___
    , @Endgame Napoleon
  16. dearieme says:
    @Brabantian

    Also “reign back”. But surely an occasional blemish may be pardoned in such a cogent, temperate, judicious post?

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @James Thompson
  17. m___ says:
    @Sean

    The matter of a corrupt system, is the matter. It is not even a Gates thing, it is also a Clinton thing, an everybody but Trump thing (too archaic an oligarch?, or did we miss something). It is not even the matter of applying means to real issues. Whether State Department, or NASA, or EU, UN, The Arab Emirates, Israel, anything thrives on the shale gas principle. Most of the world population is versed into the relative riches of some despicable “elites”.

    History has a history of above, today, never more then ever. A laugh, both sides of the coin are flat. Our precious crowds do not grasp their redundancy, the middle class, free range coop chickens of a global farm, …could it be that our elites are drowning?

    Not because of spoils, but derivatives of the dregs for spoils. It looks like they are pushing against barriers as population, migration, toxicity, obsoleteness of war, financial capitalism having to turn into medieval military drumming.

    Gates is a softy, the Clintons, another Billy, and his type (nothing personal) are the more dangerous mercenaries.

  18. Anon[595] • Disclaimer says:
    @Brabantian

    Good to see your real talent unveiled. Stick with it, I counsel, and implore you.

  19. @Sean

    The psychology is as important as the Benjamins. Cf. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

  20. @obwandiyag

    Thanks for keeping it short but do us all a favour by reading Jensen before blowing a mind fart.

    Apart from the author’s links res provided this .pdf doc

    https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023722.pdf

  21. @dearieme

    grievous errors, all of them. thanks for noting.

    • Replies: @another fred
  22. I like to study contemporary photos of Bill Gates. He and I were born on the same day so I like to compare our aging process. It looks like we’re on comparable paths but he has much better hair.

  23. Pandos says:

    Bill is bored. We should all be afraid.

  24. @SafeNow

    So, you think that the New York Times knows a bit more about toilets… interesting!

    • Replies: @Wally
  25. @James Thompson

    Just blame the spell-checker.

    • Replies: @Anon
  26. BG Fail says:

    What good has Bill Gates done the world? I have been thinking about that lately. I don’t think either Microsoft or the Gates Foundation has been a boon to the US in the end.

    The Gates Foundation, IMO, has done more harm than good for the world. All the babies that Gates saved in Africa and India since 1990 are now the surplus population of Africa and India who are invading Europe and the US respectively. As their corrupt incompetent governments continue to fail to create jobs for these mostly very low skilled, low talent people, every African young man is trying to get to Europe on a speed boat, while every Indian young man is trying to get to the US via an H1B visa, regardless of their actual skills, and Bill is spending billions lobbying congress for more visas for these Indian scammers.

    Bill and the SV tech plantation owners would have us believed that every Indian is born “best and brightest”, “highly skilled”, and congress incl. Trump is bought off to cater to their every whim. The “talent shortage” excuse has become a self-fulfilling prophecy as young Americans eschew computer science, seeing for themselves how their fathers were laid off by 40 and had to become “independent consultants” with no health insurance as they are replaced by cheap young Indian code coolies brought in through Indian outsourcing firms like Infosys or Cognizant.

    Meanwhile, all the hirings at Microsoft, not just direct hires but hundreds of thousands more through temp agencies, are bringing a huge flood of people into the Seattle area, esp. in the East Side near Redmond, WA, MS HQ, 80% of whom are fresh imports from Asia, mostly India, but also China and other Asian countries, and their families. The environmental degradation is heart wrenching. Western WA is quickly losing its natural beauty. Everywhere you look lands with beautiful Douglas fir trees are clear cutted to make way for more homes, and MS is making things worse by pledging $500M to area developers to build more “affordable housing”, i.e. forcing high density townhomes and condos into traditional neighborhoods with single family homes. All our streets are constantly clogged. The traffic is truly atrocious. What used to be a 30 minute commute is now easily 90 minutes or more. These techies are also extremely left wing, esp. the Indians, who are now increasingly running for local and state offices, all as socialist/progressive Democrats.

    Paul Allen has made far more and better contributions to America and the Seattle area than Gates. He mostly invested in the US by giving money to colleges to expand and improve their computer science programs, and established brain science research and other scientific research centers in the Seattle area.

    The Gates Foundation is Liberal Central, crawling with the most liberal people you’ll ever meet. That’s the main reason why every single one of their initiatives failed, esp. in education, where its contingent of education establishment lifers spend their whole lives trying to deny IQ and its effect on learning. It makes you wonder how high BG’s IQ really is, for continuing to buy into their con.

    Steve Jobs was right about Gates. He said in his biography that Gates is no visionary or genius, he just got lucky, that’s why he went off to run a charitable foundation instead of his own company. It also explains why his charitable foundation is an even bigger FAIL.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Medvedev
  27. BG Fail says:

    The best thing Gates could do for the world is to shut down the Gates Foundation which is crawling with brainless libtards pissing away his money on projects that create more problems than they solved, and instead use his money to fund scientific and medical research in the US, including providing full ride scholarships to the smartest citizens in the country to study STEM.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmawWgpX0s

    Even up through 2000, tech billionaires like Gates were worshipped in this country. Now they are reviled as enemies of the people who use their money to buy off the government to make laws that benefit themselves at the expense of the country, esp. on immigration. The rich in this country like Gates need to stop being globalist treasonous rats and start loving their own country and their own people. They have no idea how much they are increasingly being despised in their own country.

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
  28. Wally says:
    @eah

    “Finally, one has to question why people persist with an approach which was not working in 1969 and is still not working 50 years later.”

    This helps explain “why”:

    “It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends upon them not understanding it”.

    – Upton Sinclair

  29. Art says:

    Good teaching is all about potential.

    Teachers cannot make children smarter than they genetically are – BUT – teachers can discover talent that otherwise would be lost in mediocrity. A significant percentage of human talent goes unrecognized by our school systems.

    Teachers can discover what a child is best at, and then use that success as a tool to intellectually stimulate the student – raising his life’s outlook.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  30. Wally says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    Well, Jews do have a thing for poo-poo, pee-pee, & general toilet talk.

  31. Wally says:
    @Dieter Kief

    They tried ‘the pill’ in Africa, but African women couldn’t figure out how to keep the pills between their legs.

  32. BADmejr says:

    The so called education “problem” will never be solved given the religious fervor in the pursuit of equality that the West has embraced. Reason and logic simply do not permeate the overall social goals that require pretending there are no inherent group differences in intellectual capability other than those caused by unjust social forces perpetuated by (mostly) white men. It is painfully obvious that the best way for ALL to get the most out of education is to teach all to the best of their abilities. However, given the individual and group differences that exist, this will necessarily cause more distance in performance between the fast learners (intelligent) and slow learners (dull), and they will be stratified in large part by race (weird given it doesn’t exist). Apart from all the impeccable research done by those like Jensen, Gottfredson, Bouchard, Lynn, Rushton, etc., there have been plenty of reports looking at the specific question of student performance, such as the Moynihan Report, that clarify what already was common sense prior to the rise of Talmudic cognitive dissonance – THE PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE. This is true of a school, neighborhood, or nation.

    Given the changing demographics in most Western nations, the problem will only get worse, and it will become more and more obvious so long as PISA type testing exists and places like China and Japan don’t open their borders to millions of tropical peoples. Nonetheless, the powers that be will try to “fix” the problem by hiding it through manipulation of the measurements that provide good statistics. A good example is the “recentering” of the SAT that occurred in 1995, which closed a significant portion of the gap between white and black students without actually changing their performance. The following is how this worked. The SAT was originally scored between 200 and 800 with a mean of 500. However, by the 1990’s the mean SAT-V score for all taking the test was 424, and the mean SAT-M was 478. The revised calculation set the actual performance indicated by these mean scores at a “recentered” mean score of 500 without allowing the top score of 800 to rise. In essence, this allowed the 1990 Black mean SAT-M score of 352 to be rescored as a 402 while allowing the Asian mean SAT-M score of 535 to climb only to a 555, decreasing the gap between the groups from 183 points to 153 points, a reduction of 16.4% without any real change in actual performance from either group. In addition, while the previous top score of 800 points could only be achieved by getting every question correct, the new 800 allows testers to miss a few questions.

    Common Core is a good example of how much of the cognitive and abstract aspect of math has been removed from instruction. Instead of learning multiplication tables and moving on to use this information for larger numbers, such as 125 x 367, the children are being taught a method equivalent to counting one’s fingers to do multiplication and division. Here’s an example. What is 15 x 35? Now, children, draw 35 circles and put 15 dots in each circle. Then count them. You will have your answer. I am NOT joking. I have gifted children in public schools, and this is the BS they are being taught.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  33. Art says:

    First – I have great respect for Bill Gates – he is a great man.

    Gates is looking everywhere but in his own back yard for a solution to mediocre schools.

    It is hard to believe that an AI computer program could not be created to teach children anything and everything. It could self discover each child’s talents and needs. It could be monitored closely by a teacher – where the teacher could step in at an appropriate time when the child is struggling. Child would not slip through the cracks of poor teaching.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Wally
  34. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Bill Gates has a high IQ and is very good at things related to computer programming and business. That doesn’t mean he has any a whole lot of common sense or advanced abilities in any other areas. Naivete is very common in academics who have spent most of their life isolated from the real world, they tend to trust the advice of other academics too much just because they have a ph.D. Letters after one’s name, unfortunately, gives too much legitimacy to the scribblings and rantings of utter charlatans and fools who in the real world, would be ignored.

  35. @BG Fail

    These people are richer and more powerful than most countries; Congress needs to rein them in while it’s still possible! But how?

  36. BG Fail says:

    History will not judge Bill Gates and his fellow globalist elites kindly.

  37. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @BG Fail

    What good has Bill Gates done the world?

    Bill Gates is so rich he can afford to tell the truth about anything he likes, including the fact that rich people don’t pay income tax. By pointing out that rich people gain wealth through the appreciation of business assets, which are taxed if at all, only when sold, Gates reveals how a fairer society can be achieved by the simple expedient of a capital tax. At the same time Gates exposes the faux leftists such as AOC and Bernie Sanders whingeing on about the need for higher income tax that only wage slaves pay.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  38. BG Fail says:
    @anonymous

    BG has neither high IQ nor good programming skills. The only program he ever wrote was a piece of crap that quickly became obsolete and was never used in any Windows code. His supposed business acumen mostly came from the rest of the people on his team early on.

    Anyone with true high IQ would never fall for the liberal drivel that he had been doggedly buying for 20 years in his pointless philanthropic pursuit, where all his feel good efforts end up doing more harm than good for the world. Steve Jobs never fell for those snake charmers.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  39. Bill Gates is a strange specimen He has Goyim skull. But he has Jewish eyes nose and mouth.
    And first windows were by Geoworks and they were better than Gates windows. Only machinations of his father Lawyer made his windows win,

  40. @res

    My wife is a grade school teacher.

    To say the quality of the raw materials (students) entering her class each year has declined markedly these past few years is an UNDERSTATEMENT, though it appears to be less about the intellectual capabilities of students than about their basic sanity. The school is filling to the brim with kids with serious psychiatric problems.

    How does one teach a child whose mother is a stripper and hooks on the side, and while she can mouth all the right platitudes, is so lacking as a mother than Family Services strips her of her kids? How does a child concentrate when he wonders where he’s sleeping tonight, who will feed him, and whether the criminal subculture with which his mother dallies will come with violence (a teenager was murdered by her mother’s ex-BF a few blocks away not long ago.)

    How does a kid, abandoned by his father, whose stepfather and mother are headed for divorce, whose mother may not be capable of handling parenting him alongside her own life’s crash-and-burn, and who is placed on anti-psychotic medication (not ADHD, anti-psychotics!) learn in a “regular classroom?”

    How is the education of all the other kids in the classroom affected when one after another classmate goes off on a screaming, wall-kicking tirade?

    Classroom teachers now spend an astonishing amount of time acting as social workers (in addition to the actual, full-time social worker and the actual, part-time school psychologist, two positions in the grade school that didn’t even exist when our own children attended this very same school two decades ago.)

    Y’all have NO IDEA what is now IN schools across the nation. Whether it’s too much adjuvent in too many vaccines, too much video game/screen-time viewing, too little sunshine, too many petrochemicals, excreted pharmaceuticals or estrogen-analogues in their food/water or their parents’ lives increasingly shattered by decivilization, the tsunami of dysfunction heading toward adulthood has never, ever been like this before.

    Something truly wicked this way comes.

  41. @CanSpeccy

    Taxing wealth literally decreases the value of creation.

    Your prescription is a means of rendering mankind poverty-stricken.

    Take your taxation proposal, clutch it in your arms, and walk into the sea while you wear a concrete overcoat.

    • Agree: Rodney1111
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @CanSpeccy
  42. @Dieter Kief

    IQ (intelligence) is unrelated to errors of cognition that are well-described in Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow.

    We ALL are largely incapable of diagnosing our own cognitive errors.

    The worst, however, are those who are both highly able AND extremely wealthy. The former attribute makes them especially enamored of their ideas, and the latter means they’re surrounded by yes-men and sycophants who will reliably NEVER tell them their ideas are idiotic.

    My view is that we have an impulsive mind and a deliberative mind. The former comes up with extremely fast answers to questions and the latter is supposed to be invoked to make sure the former isn’t just knee-jerking into stupidity.

    Unfortunately, beliefs, biases and premises can BLIND the deliberative mind, causing it to rubber-stamp all kinds of idiocy served up by impulse. After rubber stamping the idiocy, the deliberative mind simply creates a host of rationalizations to “explain” why the impulsive decision is the correct one. This is where very bright people excel; their rationalizations are often sublime and complex.

    We see around us all manner of Cargo Cult thinking, generally espoused by a lot of very bright people. This explain why.

    This is why it’s particularly saddening when someone whose work you really respect in one sphere feels compelled to utter standard, boilerplate idiocy in another sphere. This occurs all the time in my experience.

    This is also why you can join a high IQ society and discover that the most vocal of its members believe in tooth fairies, blank-slate equalism and cold fusion.

    PS: In this context, consuming alcohol has the same effect as a deeply-held bias. Both render the deliberative mind incapable of doing its job. This is why arguing about things like “blank slate” seems suspiciously like arguing with a nasty drunk.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @res
  43. Anon[404] • Disclaimer says:
    @another fred

    I’m used to modest Microsoft spell checkers on my computer but my Smartphone’s recent updates have given me an autofill which is really a counter-fill with violently expressed dogmatic prejudices.

    • Agree: ThreeCranes
  44. res says:
    @dc.sunsets

    In this context, consuming alcohol has the same effect as a deeply-held bias. Both render the deliberative mind incapable of doing its job. This is why arguing about things like “blank slate” seems suspiciously like arguing with a nasty drunk.

    This is a valuable observation. Thanks.

  45. Peredur says:

    It is nothing new for a person to be allowed to become a wildly successful billionaire and then for a foundation to be established in his name. The foundations inevitably work to further the aims of the world oligarchs. I am not terribly familiar with this subject, but the following discussion on YouTube provides a good introduction: “Powers & Principalities: Episode 44”. Also, Eustace Mullins’ book “Murder by Injection” comes to mind. Among other things, it describes the extreme degree to which modern medical practice has been shaped by the Rockefeller Foundation.

    The idea is that people like Bill Gates are just front-men. They are built up to provide cover for the deep state. Also, they give us people to root for. For instance, they gave us Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to choose between. Joe Atwill (a regular on the Powers & Principalities show I mentioned) thinks that the whole narrative behind Bill Gates’ rise to power and success is phony. For IBM to have just given away (essentially) intellectual property rights crucial to Microsoft’s early success is not believable without some other unstated motive being involved, when you think about it. Atwill thinks that the motive was to create a new front man, since the general public was less inclined to trust IBM.

    I am not sure which world oligarch agendas are being pushed by the Gates’ foundation, but in the case of the Rockefellers, the agenda involved making sure that pharmaceutical companies would be profitable. Mullins calls the cozy relationship between foundations and the oligarchs “syndicalism.”

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  46. S says:
    @caffeine withdrawals

    There’s a taped interview from a 1976 morning show where the screenwriter of Network ( ‘Paddy’ Chayefsky, whom also besides writing the movie was heavily involved in it’s casting) spoke of the Jensen character as specifically being modeled on Teddy Roosevelt (ie an ‘old stock’/ bombastic hyper-Capitalist/progressive sort).

    And sure enough, as Beatty is presented in the film as the character Jensen, he does resemble Teddy Roosevelt.

  47. MarkinLA says:
    @Art

    Yes, if the teacher had the time and a ability to shower each kid with individual attention, it probably would make a difference. That is the job of the parent however.

    • Replies: @Art
  48. MarkinLA says:
    @Art

    A computer program can’t fix attitude. The biggest problem in “low performing” schools is that the dumbest kids make the most trouble. They are going to cause problems no matter what. AI might help if those dumb kids had the attitude that this is getting the best out of them and they appreciate it. When they excel at nothing academically related, then what? Yeah, they might make a good tattoo artist but I doubt any AI will be able to determine that.

  49. MarkinLA says:
    @BG Fail

    His supposed business acumen mostly came from the rest of the people on his team early on.

    His business acumen came from having control of DOS. Microsoft was accused many times of putting out inaccurate information relating to the next release of DOS causing delays and problems with the far better programs out there than their Microsoft competitors. Eventually, the people at companies handling a company’s software needs stopped buying products like WordPerfect, Lotus123, and DBase while Microsoft slowly brought their products up to parity.

    • Replies: @Art
  50. MarkinLA says:
    @Peredur

    For IBM to have just given away (essentially) intellectual property rights crucial to Microsoft’s early success is not believable without some other unstated motive being involved, when you think about it.

    You had to be there in the early 80s, especially in the computer industry. NOBODY could guess how powerful personal computers could eventually become. IBM was saving money by not retaining the rights to DOS. IBMs big moneymaker was hardware – especially mainframes. The PC was just some side business IBM didn’t even care about, they were just responding to other companies like Burroughs who had their B80 and other small computer and word processing manufacturers.

    Remember, the original PC did very little. You had two 360K floppy disks and 640K of memory. It used a 4.88 Mhz 8088 processor. It’s open architecture was it best point. It allowed a lot of programmers and engineers to use it in data acquisition and control operations. But as a computing machine, it did very little.

    • Replies: @Peredur
  51. @dc.sunsets

    Gates’ wealth is vastly disproportionate to his ingenuity and to his contribution to human society.

    Really top notch research scientists are not wealthy people, or rather, don’t necessarily become wealthy through their work. A brilliant chemist or physicist may only haul in $200,000 a year and of course, most earn much less than that.

    The billions do neither Gates nor the broader society any good.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  52. anarchyst says:
    @anonymous

    Bill Gates is NOT “the smartest guy in the room”. Bill Gates WAS “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” as his daddy was partner in one of Seattle, Washington’s most prestigious law firms.
    Gates purchased an “operating system” from a REAL software developer, claimed it as his own, and had his daddy’s law firm craft a tight legal “licensing system”, which, for the longest time, required one to purchase computer “hardware” in order to obtain the “operating system”. This one moved propelled Microsoft into becoming the most widely-used operating system on the planet. As IBM was looking for an “operating system” for its microcomputers at the time, things “fell into place” for Microsoft.
    People such as Bill Gates think, that because of their “success”, they can “lord it over the masses” and (attempt to) decide what is good for the rest of us. It is no secret that Gates and others of his ilk would like to see the world population drastically reduced “by any means necessary”. Who decides?
    We need to “nip this thing in the bud”…

    • Replies: @nsa
  53. Art says:
    @MarkinLA

    Yes, if the teacher had the time and a ability to shower each kid with individual attention, it probably would make a difference. That is the job of the parent however.

    In an AI culture, a child’s mind would be precious – few things could be more important.

  54. Art says:
    @MarkinLA

    Eventually, the people at companies handling a company’s software needs stopped buying products like WordPerfect, Lotus123, and DBase while Microsoft slowly brought their products up to parity.

    Companies went MS just like they did with IBM – because it was safe.

    Microsoft also got caught without a browser when the internet came online.

    With that said, the ideal that Gates was dumbo, who just fell into 50 billion dollars is a little hard to swallow.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @MarkinLA
  55. once in a blue moon, gates has expressed some sentiments of realistic thinking on this subject. that his efforts to help africans have not really panned out, that maybe there’s a limit to what can be done, and it’s possible earth might not get much out of these people after all. i give him some credit for that. 99% of his ilk never say anything like this out loud, ever.

    then, i assume, his wife gives him a good talking to in private, and a few months to a year later, he’s right back to talking about how third worlders are our future and have the human potential to lead us to greatness. patent nonsense of course.

    i suspect it’s possible gates has some inkling about different ability levels of different humans around the world, but he’s also clearly driven by genuine philanthropy, with no ulterior motive. and that’s gonna work out really bad for the rest of us.

    here’s a video the gates foundation helped produce. it’s on the otherwise rather excellent youtube channel, In A Nutshell:

    A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism

    promoting the totally nuts idea that making the world a better place for everybody, at our expense, makes the entire planet a more efficient, peaceful, prosperous place to live. rather than just making it a madhouse of 10 billion useless third worlders who can’t even support themselves, which is what would actually happen. and is happening.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  56. Wally says:
    @Art

    “Gates is looking everywhere but in his own back yard for a solution to mediocre schools”

    That’s flattery.

    If only they were “mediocre”.

  57. republic says:

    https://www.amren.com/features/2014/12/white-renegade-of-the-year-2014/

    Article from the White national website: American Renaissance

    Bill Gates winner of the 2014 prize, White Renegade of the year

    “Who did the most damage when he could have done the most good?

    To be a white renegade, it’s not enough simply to act against the interests of whites. You have to know better–or at least show signs that you know better. You have to have the capacity to act in defense of your people but consciously choose to turn away from their interests.”

    Bill Gates also promotes mass immigration that pushes European-Americans out of the tech industry. In 2013, he joined Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, a tech industry group that pushed amnesty. FWD.us has already spent $13.8 million on lobbying, vastly more than the $80,000 the National Council of La Raza spent on it during the same period.

    During the summer, Bill Gates joined forces with Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson to push for amnesty. In a July 10 editorial co-signed with these two men, Mr. Gates bemoaned the primary defeat of Eric Cantor and said it should not stop progress towards amnesty. After all, the editorial argued, “for those who wish to stay and work in computer science or technology, fields badly in need of their services, let’s roll out the welcome mat.”

    But Bill Gates has an even more explicit agenda: The Gates Millennium Scholars Program offers “good through graduation” scholarships to students of every ethnic group–except whites. Microsoft’s Indian CEO proudly announced just this month that “we will make progress every year towards building a more diverse workforce and creating opportunities at every level of the company for all of Microsoft’s employees.” The title of Julie Bort’s article on the announcement in Business Insider was “Microsoft CEO Vows To Hire More People Who Are Not White Or Male.” Mr. Nadella’s adviser in this effort is Jesse Jackson, who compares the lack of black computer programmers to segregation.

    Bill and Melinda Gates’s definition of “philanthropy” is becoming more overtly political, including million dollar donations to gun control groups. Other Microsoft execs joined this effort, which may represent a movement that will make whites even more vulnerable to non-white violence.

    What will be Bill Gates’s legacy? He’s helping turn America into something like Windows Vista–a mediocrity that trades off a legacy earned during better times. If Silicon Valley promotes affirmative-action jobs instead of pioneering innovation, America will be driven out of the technology sector.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  58. Wally says:
    @Art

    “With that said, the idea that Gates was dumbo, who just fell into 50 billion dollars is a little hard to swallow.”

    I agree.

  59. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Your prescription is a means of rendering mankind poverty-stricken.

    LOL

    Adam Smith pointed out that, without the state, there can be no wealth since any accumulation will be pillaged by all and sundry. Therefore, so Smith argued, the source of state revenue should be property.

    But if you believe, like a crazed libertarian, that Bill Gates paying a 1% annual capital tax (lower than the going rate in most cantons of conservative Switzerland) will render mankind poverty-stricken, who am I to defend the witless ravings of the world’s most famous economist.

    Smith, incidentally, though a genius no doubt, gave away most of his money without any apparent effect on his creativity.

  60. nsa says:
    @anarchyst

    The early history of Microsoft is well known. Gate’s mother at a Seattle do-gooder event got to talking to an IBM executive who mentioned they were looking for software help with a new project (the personal computer). Mom sent the suit to visit with her son, Bill, at his software startup, Microsoft. The suit contacted Gates explaining their need for an operating system. Bill sent the IBM suit off to visit Gary Kildall who had sold a million copies of his CP/M operating system for the 8080 uP. Kildall was an arrogant SOB and blew off the IBM suit, who returned to Gates for more ideas. Now here is the good part……Paul Allen convinced Bill Gates to supply the operating system themselves, as Paul knew where he could obtain a knockoff of the Kildall operating system……Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer had duplicated the Kildall system and named it QDOS (for Quick and Dirty Operating System). At the time, Paterson was going through a nasty divorce and needed money, so he sold QDOS to Microsoft for something like $50k. Bill and Paul then renamed it MS-DOS and convinced IBM to install it on all their upcoming personal computers on a royalty per copy basis. The rest is history. Some added tidbits. Gary Kildall never quite got over the stupidity and arrogance of blowing off IBM….he died at an early age after taking a severe beatdown at a biker bar. Tim Patterson is still alive and runs Paterson Technology in San Jose. Apparently he is not at all bitter about getting fleeced out of his QDOS by Paul and Bill, probably because he knew damn well he had stolen it from Kildall (the big spinning Karma wheel?). It is said that Paul Allen was the actual brains of Microsoft and had scored a perfect 1600 on his SAT scores. Before going public, Bill Gates tried to screw Paul out of his stake in Microsoft, offering him $5 share. Paul refused, left the company, and retained his shares. It is said that Gates is quite bright, but I know someone who has played chess with him and estimates Gate’s rating (if he had one) at well below 1500 i.e. not anywhere near even an average club player. There is a video of Magnus Carlsen checkmating Bill Gates in 10 moves or so. But there is no doubt, Bill Gates is a ruthless business man who sure got over on the IBM suits, and even tried to screw Paul Allen, the actual brains of the Microsoft startup and a boyhood friend, out of his full 50% share. There is a lot of serendipity to success. I hope at least a few readers enjoyed the above short history. Excuse any typos as just knocked down a couple of Fosters 5.5% 25 ounce greenies in under 30 minutes.

  61. DB Cooper says:
    @nsa

    Good stuff. I always thought Bill is smarter than Paul because Paul didn’t go to Harvard.

  62. I thin k the answer here is simple but hard to implement.

    To improve the outcomes, one has to improve not only the condition for the student in the classroom, they must also address the home environment and community that emphasis the value of education.

    • Replies: @res
  63. @dc.sunsets

    You just described the diverse classroom.

    • Replies: @res
    , @dc.sunsets
  64. MarcAllen says:

    Philanthropy – “Rich people dumping their crumbs on the poor”

    I gave up MS Windoze a few years back, switched to Linux and never looked back.

    Peace.
    Marc

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  65. @MarcAllen

    “25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

    https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/15.htm

    if the rich have crumbs they wish to part with, then so be it, as to yield some fruit rather than none.

    • Replies: @MarcAllen
  66. MarcAllen says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “if the rich have crumbs they wish to part with, then so be it, as to yield some fruit rather than none.”

    Just don`t wrap into Philanthropy. It is not. There is no benevolence, generosity, humanitarianism or altruism in it, when BG will take advantage of patent laws and have a monopoly on Operating Systems, thereby making him one of the richest persons in the world.

    Rape the world with an O.S.
    Give crumbs to the poor.
    Then stand on the pedestal.
    Shout,”OH YES”.

    https://reality.com/couldnotgiveashitaboutthebible/01.htm

    Hint…..The above is not a real link.

    End of sarcasm.

    Peace.
    Marc.

    • Replies: @MarcAllen
    , @EliteCommInc.
  67. MarcAllen says:
    @MarcAllen

    Apologies to reality.com
    Didn`t know it existed.

    Anyway, you get my point.

    Peace,
    Marc.

  68. @MarcAllen

    It is reality that crumbs matter.

    I think that Mr. Gates has redressed the matter. Regarding his business competition practices. I suspect he have done more and did so quietly. I think it would be valuable to gain some insight into Mr. Gates by stepping back an d noting this key example. When he had the opportunity to allow Apple to utterly fail or shrink considerably. He reached out and supported his competition. Not only was that a high watermark for capitalism in action, I think it said something about Mr. Gates. Sure, i am confident there was some benefit — but he could have had more by simply taking advantage.

    And I also think he may have done more for for others that we are just unaware of. I am not a socialist or a huge fan of philanthropy unless sincerely advanced, as opposed to extorted or outright taken via mechanisms of government.

    I am not sure that Mr. Gates is standing on a pedestal. If you engage in a large scale project such as he has, then the project is not going to allow much room for anonimity. Furthermore, I am not sure that self promotion is in any manner a detriment to the work. Someone wants to put their stamp on some good work. That does nothing to harm the work, In fact, it provides motivation that said effort be successful. And in the case of Mr. Gates, as I understand him, he doesn’t much appreciate failure. So, in my view, he could put his name on every page of every text.

    It’s far better than than the projects or gifts that don’t invest in people. Now, I would prefer that Mr. Gates focus his efforts primarily here in the US. However, I get that he feels the need to impact a larger sphere – his products sold world wide.

    Though, I think smaller targeting will yield larger benefits and said smaller targets will extend outward. Help here. Be successful here and that success will benefit outward. especially helpful when impacting something as subjective as learning and knowledge improvement, concentrated effort. That’s hard for men and women who think in terms of grand narratives/strategies.

    And reality may not care about scripture. But fortunately scripture has cared mightily for reality.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @anarchyst
  69. MarkinLA says:
    @prime noticer

    Anybody familiar with engineering and especially software engineering knows all about the vastly different levels of productivity among people with supposedly the same credentials. Knowing that, how could you ever believe that Africa’s deficiencies can be easily corrected?

  70. MarkinLA says:
    @Art

    Nobody ever said he was dumbo, only that he was NEVER a great software engineer or innovator. He may be listed in computer science’s Whos-who but not for things like Seymour Cray or Dennis Ritchie are known for

  71. MarkinLA says:
    @nsa

    The other story about Microsoft and the one showing that Allen was the real brains is that the first real product Microsoft had was their Basic interpreter. It was capable of running on the really smallish PCs of the day with as little as 4K of memory. It was Allen who got that Basic interpreter to fit in such a small area. If anybody had an actual IBM PC you might remember that the Basic interpreter was installed in the ROM of the PC. The clones didn’t have it.

  72. MarkinLA says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    When he had the opportunity to allow Apple to utterly fail or shrink considerably.

    It wasn’t out of altruism. According to the movie, Jobs convinced him it would help keep Microsoft out of an antitrust lawsuit.

  73. @BADmejr

    All the issues you laid out show up in uniracial, even mono-gender, settings as well. Envy is pRt of the royalty of humankind whole, there are no safe spots.

    I am male and white, and certainly witnessed a more corrosive sort of envy from male schoolmates than female — all were white in my school — and it was much pervasive and ever-present, neither occasional nor light.
    Females envied more strongly their female… schoolfriends.

    • Replies: @BADmejr
  74. res says:
    @nsa

    Nice summary, but regarding

    It is said that Paul Allen was the actual brains of Microsoft and had scored a perfect 1600 on his SAT scores.

    Supposedly Bill Gates’ SAT score was 1590, so not that much difference there. Important to remember those are both pre-1995 recentering scores.

    Bill’s treatment of Paul was lame, but it is good to remember that Paul left Microsoft in 1983 because of his cancer.

    The chess anecdote is interesting (I had not heard of it before, thanks), but slightly incorrect. The game ended because of devastating material advantage, not checkmate in ~10. Here is a really interesting account: https://chessimprover.com/9-lessons-to-learn-from-bill-gates-9-move-loss-to-magnus-carlsen/
    That makes a great deal more sense than the clickbait version.

    • Replies: @nsa
  75. res says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    they must also address the home environment and community that emphasis the value of education.

    Who is “they”? You have noticed that the parents (well, parent anyway) and community go ballistic whenever someone suggests actual concrete steps towards doing this, right? I mean besides “give us more money.”

  76. res says:
    @Nicholas Stix

    You just described the diverse classroom.

    I think he realizes that ; )
    You did notice his username, right?

    P.S. dc.sunsets, why is your wife putting herself through that torture? She must be incredibly dedicated. It is depressing to hear how much worse it has gotten given the starting point.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  77. anarchyst says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Your statement: “When he had the opportunity to allow Apple to utterly fail or shrink considerably. He reached out and supported his competition” is demonstrably false.
    Apple had the “education market” locked in. Compared to Apple, one could find very little educational-oriented software for Microsoft machines, hence the country’s educators gravitated toward Apple, which did (and still does) have a large share of the education market, as well as having a more stable, user-friendly operating system.
    That being said, Apple “shot itself in the foot” when it ceased allowing its machines to be “second-sourced”. In the 1990s, for a short time, Apple allowed other manufacturers to produce “clones” of its systems. This was extremely popular (and could have propelled Apple into being a considerable force in the computer market) until Steve Jobs “pulled the plug” only after two years. Apple could have been the dominant computer system in use if had allowed second-sourcing to continue.
    Gates may have seen “the writing on the wall” with government intervention in to its marketing practices as well as having to purchase hardware in order to procure the operating system. It did not help that European governments forced Microsoft to “unbundle” the Internet Explorer browser from the operating system.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  78. Anon[902] • Disclaimer says:

    I strongly suspect that Bill Gates actually does understand the reason he has failed is because of low-IQ students, but there is no way he can back out without causing a massive trainwreck. If he declares he’s decided it’s because blacks are dumb, he’ll destroy himself socially. The media will descend on him en masse like harpies and attack him violently for the rest of his life. He can’t shut down his foundation and get his money back out, because now he’ll have to pay massive taxes on it, and that will eat away much of its value.

    Also, this whole thing reeks of being his wife’s silly idea, and women can be more pig-headed stubborn in the face of utter failure and keep digging themselves into a hole. No doubt Melinda Gates still believes blacks are just disadvantaged and not dumb no matter how many IQ studies you wave in front of her face. Women are more prone to utter denial than men are, and they’re more frightened of social shaming, and they love to curry favor with the general public. They’re not stubborn loners the way men can be.

  79. BADmejr says:
    @atlantis_dweller

    I don’t disagree on the subject of envy, and I certainly agree that such a thing can be prevalent within groups. The old arguments of equality (prior to multiculturalism) were between SES (socioeconomic status) groups. Nonetheless, the notion of equality is much more intense given racial differences in group mean intelligence, as when students are tracked (academically gifted, special needs, etc.), the stratification between whites and blacks (or other non-Asian minorities) are so visible. For example, the average mean difference in IQ in the US and other Western nations is about one standard deviation, or 15 IQ points. The normal threshold to meet AG standards is an IQ of 130, two standard deviations above the white mean (and three above the black mean). This means about 25 out of a thousand whites will be AG, while only 1 out of a thousand blacks will be. Likewise, if the threshold for special needs education is an IQ at 70 or below, then approximately 25 out of a thousand whites will fall into this category, while about 155 out of a thousand blacks will.

    Regardless of the cause, these differences are real. However, the narrative that all people have the same capabilities is simply not true, which is an unacceptable position in our society. It would be far more acceptable if each racial group had the same mean and variation in relation to other racial groups, but this simply is not so. The nature of these differences means that if ALL people are given the optimal education to maximize their performance, then there will be even MORE inequality than if they continue the dumbed down measures they are currently using while scratching their heads (at least publicly) wondering why these new programs don’t work. They are relying on false premises, so their remedies cannot work. Perhaps they were never meant to. After all, the goal of maximizing each student’s education takes a back seat to the goal of producing equality. Given it is much easier to hold down top performers than it is to raise low performers, this will likely continue to be the unspoken goal of those in control of educational policy.

    It’s ironic that when IQ style testing first came into play, it was hailed as the great equalizer between class, as it could find true talent that would have otherwise been overlooked in the lower classes. After all, the prior methods to choose talented students involved letters of recommendation, NON-standardized tests, etc. This mostly favored the upper classes while leaving behind true talent in the lower classes. The new testing allowed many in lower classes to rise based on pure merit. One of the cases for affirmative action was (and is) that there is some vast wealth of non-white, non-Asian talent that is simply being overlooked due to racial discrimination. Were this true, one could expect non-biased intelligence testing to highlight these talented POC individuals. This has NEVER occurred in any way resembling the proportion of talented individuals within the white or East Asian groups. It is argued that intelligence tests are biased against native born English speaking blacks in the US, but this has been proven false as much as is possible with any social phenomenon being studied. Jensen’s great book Bias in Mental Testing is still the most exhaustive work in this area. What’s ironic is that intelligence testing may actually be biased IN FAVOR of blacks, as they over predict their future performance.

    Obviously, this is a subject for which I could go on and on, but I’ve probably already said too much!

  80. @nsa

    I had to dust off my copy of “HARD DRIVE” Bill Gates and the making of the Microsoft Empire by Wallace and Erickson. Itz worth a read.

    Gates first first experience was with BASIC where he wrote games like tick tac toe. He was also very smart having scored a perfect 800 on the math ACT part.

    He was very smart but he was also there at the right time.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  81. @anarchyst

    It really didn’t matter whether apple had educational software or candy eyed keyboards. They were in financial dire straits. Mr Gates, chose to provide said financial support and didn’t do so to own the company, at least not to my knowledge.

    I buy that he simply saw the value of maintaining a competitor and how that would leverage to his stead.

    The government intervention had nothing to do with Apple’s financial condition. As for Mr. Gates besides building goodwill, there’s no legal or financial (immediate) gain for Mr. Gates by allowing Apple not declare bankruptcy, restructure or fail completely and then be bought by Mr. Gates.

    “Apple could have been the dominant computer system in use if had allowed second-sourcing to continue.” This is a counter-factual, that might very well have played out. But it did not occur and so we are left with what did. And in that Mr. gates played a significant role. That is not a counter-factual, but actual history.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-what-happened-when-microsoft-saved-apple.html

    Laughing.

    As someone who is now high tech averse, I find myself in a peculiar position. I don’t use smart phones, my computers date back fifteen years or more. I couldn’t even take a photo with my phone if I wanted to.

  82. @dc.sunsets

    The perfect counter example would be schools in Switzerland. The classes at times quite diverse, but all in all very focused. Thing is, if you have a close look at how they do this, your eyes start to deteriorate from the sheer mass of actions and money and goodwill and citizen-engagement and media attention. All this being mostly centred around the local (the local!) school board, which decides over most of the questions and problems right there where they arise and have to be dealt with. The number of experts, who support the teachers is really impressive. Language training of immigrant kids starts at age three!

    Then there is the regional government, then at last, comes the parliament in Berne.
    You have an elected (!) school board – elected by all citizens of a town or village – in every municipality – from 300 inhabitants or so upward…

  83. “Thing is, if you have a close look at how they do this, your eyes start to deteriorate from the sheer mass of actions and money and goodwill and citizen-engagement and media attention. All this being mostly centred around the local (the local!) school board, which decides over most of the questions and problems right there where they arise and have to be dealt with.”

    Key.

  84. Mark G. says:
    @ThreeCranes

    You either let the market decide how much someone makes or you can have the government do it. You might say that a brilliant chemist does more good than Bill Gates did but that’s just your opinion and it’s not likely you will be the dictator who makes the decision. Everyone else will have another opinion so the decision of who makes what will be decided by majority vote instead, not by you. So you should be aware that your own personal preferences are more likely to be ignored than adopted. Do you really think the majority will vote to spend more on scientists? Looking at the tastes of the average person, I’m genuinely curious why anyone would think something like that.

  85. anarchyst says:
    @europeasant

    “He was very smart but he was also there at the right time.”
    You are correct…
    It is Gate’s “daddy’s” law firm that crafted the tight “licensing agreement” that stipulated that the operating system software could only be obtained with hardware. This one move insured the success of both Microsoft and the microcomputer industry.
    Regards,

    • Replies: @EH
  86. @BADmejr

    ” However, the narrative that all people have the same capabilities is simply not true, which is an unacceptable position in our society.”

    That is not only an over generalization, it is false. It is not a staple that equality means everyone can achieve the same. It may be generally acceptable to claim, that people can be successful, but I ave not heard that equality means everyone is successful to the same level or equally successful.

    There’s a nuance being skipped to advance an argument not held by very few people. I would need to see the numbers on that before I accepted it.

  87. nsa says:
    @res

    If you are still there, thanks for the analysis of the Gates-Carlsen blowout. Have seen strong tournament players with white pieces have some fun blowing out club players by using dangerous wide open attack gambits, even offering rook odds……a favorite being the famous King’s Gambit. An average player with black pieces will usually take the poisoned pawn bait on the 2nd move, and just get wiped out in 10 to 15 moves……unless he has memorized that portion of MCO (the print form bible of all openings ever played by masters, as you know). Funny thing……the rook odds are an illusion because the duffer is usually blown away before the queen side rook ever enters the fray. Humble nsa once won a Venice Beach boardwalk chess hustler’s wood chess set by simply declining the gambit and proceeding along safe proven lines. Sucker was pissed to the point of getting physical…but he offered the rook odds in return for white pieces. Speaking of odds, Bobby Fischer once offered knight odds to any female on the planet. The offer was accepted by one of the Polgar sisters. Fischer researched a couple of their games and then weaseled out of the offer. Later he ended up sleeping on the Polgar household’s couch….they took him in after he had his passport lifted by the US State Dept and had nowhere else to go. Later the vile State Dept had him arrested by the Japs and jailed for quite a time. Persecuting a chess player……that makes a lot of sense.

    • Replies: @res
  88. @BADmejr

    Correction:

    There’s a nuance being skipped to advance an argument not held but by very few people. I would need to see the numbers on that before I accepted it.

  89. Agent76 says:

    Jun 17, 2013 The History of Common Core

    February 20, 2016 Gates Foundation Will Pay College Students $900 To Eat Untested GMO Bananas

    On behalf of the Gates Foundation, researchers at Iowa State University will be paying students to eat genetically modified bananas. According to The Des Moines Register.

    http://www.trueactivist.com/gates-foundation-will-pay-college-students-900-to-eat-untested-gmo-bananas/

    Feb 26, 2017 Bill Gates Just Warned a New Bioweapon Will Wipe Out 30 Million

  90. @Sean

    To the extent that he employed a large number of US citizens, Gates’ corporate work was more impressive than his philanthropy, albeit it is good when the rich fund scholarships in their own countries for the brightest students, particularly in the US where college is not free. Gates has probably contributed a lot to scholarship funds at private universities that are not otherwise accessible to the most qualified students.

    But, in effect, it sounds like a huge chunk of tax dollars was diverted to the continent of Africa, while thousands of jobs and the tax revenue that would have been generated for America if most MS jobs had stayed here were diverted to China.

    MS was one of the major corporations of the second half of the 20th century if not the most influential one. Gates and Allen built on the work of a lot of tech forerunners who benefitted from US tax dollars, whether that was through university research, military research or the scholars working at IBM who, in some cases, were educated via taxpayer funds. IBM and Apple’s precursor at Xerox, too, probably got plenty of grant money from .gov for their nerdy laboratory projects.

    More of the programming and factory jobs that derived, in part, from US taxpayer funding should have stayed in the USA, generating new pools of tax revenue for our own venal, corporate-owned, US politicians to waste, not funneled to crony, dictatorial elites in China and Africa.

    Now, the broke USA is $22 trillion in debt, with an underemployed middle class in rapid decline, even though we have more formally educated citizens than at any other time in US history.

    It sounds like, due to the way that capital gains tax works, Gates was able to, in effect, choose where his tax windfall would be spent in the US.

    It sounds like a lot of it was spent on public secondary schools, even though the low quality there revolves around an entrenched culture of not-too-interested-in-their-subject mom teachers, seeking a safe second income and a job that enables them to spend the summers with their own kids. Unless the parents and the teachers change, public schools will always be mediocre at best and dismal cesspools at worse.

    Any type of philanthropy is admirable, but Gates’ higher education egalitarianism did not take supply and demand into consideration.

    When you have too many people with college degrees chasing jobs, the value of a degree goes down in most fields. An oversupply of educated people ends up benefitting the people in the top 10 to 20%, especially when you educate a majority of women. Wealth from salaried jobs concentrates in fewer households due to assortative mating. As more women got degrees, the US middle class was halved in size.

    For nations and for individuals, more higher education seems to be a time-sensitive matter.

    Since fewer people had degrees, and since an anti-citizen policy of mass immigration was not undercutting citizens in their own country’s labor market, an emphasis on higher education worked for Americans in the post WWII generation, but not so much now.

    When education was expanding the US middle class, there were also fewer women in the labor market.

    College-educated women are now absorbing more of the household-supporting jobs, even though most have a spouse who could support another household in middle-class style on his salary. This reduces the number of educated households benefitting from decent jobs, and no, it is not all due to merit. Too many of the above-firing, dual-earner parents are on a lengthy vacation every few months, in addition to enjoying lots of other time off for their kids in their family-friendly workplaces.

    If you are actually “the talent,” you are needed at work.

    MS computers are doing more of these celebrated dual-earner parents’ work for them, enabling them to take many mornings, afternoons, days and weeks off, in addition to PTO and multiple pregnancy leaves. Cronyism among working parents is a big part of it, but it still would not be possible if software, crafted by MS, did not do so much of their work for them, with low-wage babysitters, NannyCams, low-wage daycare workers and at-their-beck-and-call grandparents doing the work of raising their kids for them while they “work.”

    While concentrating the wealth at the top through assortative mating, women are also driving wages down at the bottom due to the fact they can afford to work for less.

    With college-educated women, this willingness to accept low pay is often because of income from a spouse or unearned income from an ex spouse that covers major expenses, like housing, rather than the refundable child tax credits up to $6,431 and the welfare-financed monthly bills, which enable many single moms to undercut women with one stream of earned-only income in the labor market.

    Many part-time and work-at-home moms are educated, but willing to work for extra keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ pocket change. Or, they take low-wage office jobs in safer, posher areas of town, accepting libertine absenteeism privileges as a consolation for low pay.

    In addition to well-vacationed crony-parent managers, MS software makes this lax, back-watching absenteeism possible, doing a lot of the low-wage mom employees’ work for them, although phones still likely ring off the hook with unanswered inbound calls from paying customers in the many voted-best-for-moms workplaces, sporting row after row of vacated cubicles plastered with baby pics.

    In most private-sector fields, there is no utopian connection between a bachelor’s degree and good wages or even steady employment, or a degree has the same effect on employment prospects as costly, “legally required” licenses.

    One or two people per corporate workplace are needed to be signers. Besides the managers, the rest of the building is filled with crony moms who can accept rock-bottom pay due to unearned income streams from a spouse or Uncle Sam’s welfare agencies and the US Treasury Department. This unearned income is related to womb productivity, not a sheepskin from any university. Many of the managers, too, lack a sheepskin. They are mostly “needs-the-job” dual-earner parents, however.

  91. res says:
    @nsa

    thanks for the analysis of the Gates-Carlsen blowout.

    You are welcome. Thanks for your additional comments! That Venice Beach scene sounds like something. I’m a little surprised it didn’t end with “friends” of the hustler popping out of the woodwork.

    It is interesting that the strategy to beat Bill Gates so soundly was similar to the strategy used to beat early computer programs–get out of the opening book (P.S. I had forgotten the name of MCO, which gives an idea of how much chess I play these days).

  92. Peredur says:
    @MarkinLA

    You are describing part of the received narrative of how Microsoft became successful. I am not convinced that it is the real truth, however. What determines whether or not a company decides to develop a new type of product? Just because most people at IBM had no idea that PCs were going to explode in popularity, that does not mean that certain well-connected people at the top did not realize that this was going to be a big deal. PCs were already becoming popular when IBM handed its operating system over to Microsoft in 1980. I think a cozy relationship between Microsoft and the U.S. federal government later in the 1980s helped Microsoft consolidate its advantage over competitors.

    People need to realize that received narratives of major developments are sometimes just cover stories. This reminds me of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The cover story is that our intelligence agencies had no idea that this was going to happen, but is this realistic? To the extent that they knew, would you really expect them to tell us, even after the fact?

  93. MarkinLA says:

    Just because most people at IBM had no idea that PCs were going to explode in popularity, that does not mean that certain well-connected people at the top did not realize that this was going to be a big deal.

    You must not have been around then or have any real knowledge about the computer industry to say this. The computer industry then was known as IBM and the seven dwarfs. When I started at Burroughs we were 1/10 the size of IBM in sales and we were number 2. The idea that IBM had executives that thought the PC would be big and just dropped the ball is ridiculous. IBM could have written their own operating system if they had wanted to and kept everything. They eventually did with a real multitasking OS called OS2 (unlike DOS) that failed. It failed because the PC even then wasn’t powerful enough to deal with the excess baggage that comes with a real OS that handles multiple users and switches between tasks like on a mainframe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

    Back then Intel was still in the PC game and they produced a multiuser computer (A310) running on a clone of Unix by Microsoft called Xenix. It used a 286 chip which was the first Intel microprocessor with a supervisor and user mode to facilitate a real multiuser operating system. It was virtually useless for anything other than as a text editor.

    The PC was slow and I believe the semiconductor technology was still TTY which was slow and used a lot of power compared to todays CMOS. I doubt anybody could have forseen the change in speed and capability.

    Remember Xerox pased on all the technology that was being developed by them at PARC. Only Steve Jobs saw the potential in what they were doing.

    You had to be there working with the engineers to see how primitive digital electronics were back then compared to today. What you could put on a large computer board back then would only be visible by a microscope inside a chip today.

    • Replies: @Peredur
    , @Peredur
  94. Peredur says:
    @MarkinLA

    You are pretty much restating your argument, so there is not much I need to respond to. You are wrong as far as the extent to which I was around computers at the time. It sounds like you are a bit older than I am, so it is true that we have slightly different perspectives. I was writing computer programs (games, mostly) for my own PC in the early 1980s.

    We may also have very different perspectives on the extent to which mainstream narratives are deliberate lies. Look up “argument from incredulity.”

    The main point of my original comment was to add more context about the role of foundations in shaping our society.

  95. Peredur says:
    @MarkinLA

    I just read up a little on the IBM PC. It was gaining market dominance over Apple, but then, suddenly, IBM clone products appeared. Supposedly, IBM tried to block the clones in lawsuits but ended up reaching a 130 million dollar settlement with Compaq. IBM’s PC was successful enough to establish a common standard, but somehow IBM’s investment evaporated. It was easy for companies to steal the IBM PC’s design and get away with, but one never hears about Apple clones, despite the success of Apple computers. Earlier, as you mentioned, Xerox invested in new graphical user interface technology only to let it slip away. I am sure there is another cover story for how Apple managed to take over this technology.

    I am not trying to dispute any of the particular facts you brought up but rather to raise awareness of possibilities. The public is fed many, many false narratives. Any time you look at a narrative and see that some things don’t seem right, it is good to consider the possibility that there is deception involved. An example is the Apollo “Moon landing” program. Somehow, we were able to get there and back 6 times with no loss of life (in space, at least), and yet, 50 years later we have never been back. NASA’s cover story is that it “destroyed” the “technology” and cannot easily rebuild it. That sounds fishy, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @dearieme
  96. MarkinLA says:
    @Peredur

    The clone war with IBM and Compac was over the BIOS (Basic Input Output System), IBM copyrighted their BIOS and the clone makers got around it by having some guy reverse engineer the BIOS and write a requirements spec for the BIOS and another guy implement the BIOS from the spec having never looked at the BIOS code. IBM claimed this was still copyright infringement since it did the same things.

    The point I was trying to make was that changes in digital electronics were so massive that nobody could have predicted them. It took huge advances in materials science, chemisty, and optics just to name a few to just get the PC to where it was something powerful enough to change the whole industry. There were so many dead ends in the research and in products – remember bubble memory?

    Without all those changes the PC would have remained what it was when it started out a nice little toy for geeks. It isn’t surprising to me at all that guys who started at IBM when they really did make business machines like their Selectric typewriters and card punch machines would not be able to see how things would eventually go.

  97. @anonymous

    I think the point is that BG has spent his entire life surrounded by people with average 120+ IQs.

    This isn’t necessarily a good grounding for changing a continent with average 85 IQs, or a nation with average 95 IQs.

    (I disagree with BGF – he is bright and he was from what I read a good programmer. Yes, he came from wealth, but programming hardly existed when he was born. A lot of the Silicon Valley/MS history is in Cringeley’s book Accidental Empires)

    https://www.cringely.com/tag/accidental-empires/page/4/

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @dc.sunsets
  98. @YetAnotherAnon

    This isn’t necessarily a good grounding for changing a continent with average 85 IQs, or a nation with average 95 IQs.

    Good point.

    Then there might be this phenomenon – I’m at times inclined to pretend, I brought this thought up: The higher the IQ, the more difficult it becomes not to get stuck in one’s own thoughts – i. a. w. – it might well be, that high IQ has a lot to do at least with the complexity (=intensity!) of all kinds of neurotic defense mechanisms – such as rationalization, neglection, projection, repression, et. al. (cf. Anna and Siegmund Freud).

    So it might be like this: High IQ people might at times find it even harder than regulars to understand, that (some of) their thoughts/ideals – – – – are not quite right. Goethe’s friend Friedrich von Schiller made this point again and again: He who aims high tends to fail deeply because Ideal and Life*** – are not the same thing.

    Relief is possible, but not for those, who don’t get that being bright is no license to act as if the world would be waiting for them to submit itself joyfully to their genius – WRONG, Schiller claims. Right is the following solution though:

    Des Gesetzes strenge Fessel bindet

    Nur den Sklavensinn, der es verschmäht,

    Mit des Menschen Widerstand verschwindet

    Auch des Gottes Majestät.

    – The bright too have to acknowledge, that there are things, and laws, which bind them (=factuality!). As long as a gifted person ignores this fact, it will have to act out its self-imposed illusions in struggles with God. I. a. w.: As long as the bright ones don’t wise up and accept reality, they will end up in useless fights with – – – – the almighty Gods (as keepers of the eternal laws). The only way to avoid such useless fights is, to understand the need to – – – understand that one’s own ideals and wishes can define neither what’s right nor what’s possible.

    Therefore – this is the folk-version of this thought: “Don’t try to fly to god, you might not come down.”

    (Barcley James Harvest // The Hymn)

    Simplest version for all who dig Arthur Jensen: Don’t ignore his work, if you want to achieve improvements in the field of education.

    *** Title of a long Schiller poem, which is unfortunately lost – at least in all English translations I know of.

  99. @Nicholas Stix

    Not as much as you’d think.
    The troubled kids described are white. Not off-white, WHITE.

    If every black and Mestizo and Laotian and Bosnian were removed from the school district TODAY, most of the problems would still be there. This goes so much deeper than the top-line of race, or of immivasion.

    Something is wrong…really, really wrong.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  100. @res

    P.S. dc.sunsets, why is your wife putting herself through that torture? She must be incredibly dedicated. It is depressing to hear how much worse it has gotten given the starting point.

    It wasn’t always like this. The last couple years became exponentially worse.

    And she will retire this year or next. It’s the uncertainty of this bullsh*t medical insurance scam (and it’s potentially crushing costs) that keep us in limbo. If medical service costs were not warped to orbit by government subsidies and collusion with the “insurance cartel,” we’d be well-set. As things stand, it’s a world of the unknown, especially the pension for which she contributed MORE than what I contributed to Social Security, but from which politicians took an involuntary loan of billions of dollars.

    One can reasonably argue that public pensions were ALWAYS too generous (no one who is paid $50k average over a career merits a pension that is the equivalent to a million dollar–or more–annuity) but the odds of public pensioners getting left standing when the music stops are pretty much 100%. This, too, we must factor into our decisions.

    The future is going to be a lot less fun than this present time (when lifestyles are put on MasterCard.)

  101. @YetAnotherAnon

    I think the point is that BG has spent his entire life surrounded by people with average 120+ IQs.

    Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know what is Bill Gates’ IQ, and I would question the veracity of any public source. Odds are, he’s a bright guy but highly unlikely he’s much above 132, Mensa’s threshold (which, at 1-in-50, is nothing special…a typical high school class of 400 has eight of them.)

    http://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

    The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time or who are responsible for assuring the efficient operation of social, scientific, political and economic institutions.

    When IQ tests first came out, the various intellectual elites were willing, even eager, to take them. The results, however, while good, were not great, so today they generally are not so willing to have themselves tested. Still, while most of the evidence is old, the results are still very likely to be valid. The only significant recent work is that of Robert Hauser and it suggests that, if anything, the mean IQ of the intellectually elite professions has fallen. That, however, is almost surely an artifact of the methodology.

    Much more recently, D.K. Simonton found that persuasiveness is at its maximum when the IQ differential between speaker and audience is about 20 points. While he has not studied this effect among those with very high IQs, it is assumed that it follows ratio IQs at the high end. This has been corroborated with empirical studies of manager and leader success, which peaks between a 1.0 and 1.2 standard deviation differential.

    We are going to use ratio IQs to perform our calculations, as they are probably a more accurate measure of intellectual distance at the high end. However, for clarity, we will restate our answers to the modern standard of 15 point deviation IQs.

    So we see that these parameters of maximum persuasiveness of 20 R16 points and maximum leader/follower differential of 30 R16 points, create a natural trifurcation of enfranchised people into ‘The Advisors’ (128-168 R16IQ; 125-155 D15IQ), Leaders (115-141 R16IQ; 112-138 D15IQ) and Followers (98-128 R16IQ; 98-125 D15IQ) ‘The Clueless’ with D15 IQs below 98 are effectively lost to the process. They cannot really understand the public discourse and will often not follow discussions in productive environments.

    People with D15IQs over 150 are effectively ‘The Excluded’, routinely finding their thoughts to be unconvincing in the public discourse and in productive environments. If placed in a leadership position, they will not succeed.

    So, while Sternberg et alia search for personal flaws to explain professional and social failings for people with D15IQs>150, the simple fact is that it is an artifact of a culture that fails to provide them with audience or followers. They are not a natural fit as advisors because the leaders are not persuaded and often won’t even understand the advice.

  102. dearieme says:
    @Peredur

    “one never hears about Apple clones”: but they did exist at one time. There was also a period you may not have heard of when Apple’s hardware proved unreliable. Their early machines, though, were super – far, far better than IBM’s. A delight to use – genuinely intuitive, with the GUI dropdown menus apparently designed by people who spoke good English. The literature that came with them was top class too. And yet they lost in the corporate marketplace.

    • Replies: @Peredur
  103. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Something is wrong…really, really wrong.

    Lack of discipline?

    I was talking with a middle-aged teacher about the way I recall school discipline in England in the dim and distant past — the late 40’s and early 50’s. I mentioned one teacher, a popular man, a large man, a county rugby player, who kept excellent discipline. On rare occasions when a kid acted up he would put his face within inches of that of the trouble maker and then bellow. This would produce a distinct physiological reaction, evident by a reddening of the back of the neck of the miscreant, and a great sharpened attention. The teacher I was speaking with seemed deeply troubled by this, saying, eventually: “A shouter. He’s surely be let go now.”

    Of course there were other expedients including the use of a wooden ruler across the knuckles, but usually, various forms of mental cruelty, particularly sarcasm, were sufficient to keep a class of 30 or so boys, however normally hyper-active, in a state of attentive docility.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  104. Peredur says:
    @dearieme

    I am not an Apple person. Ironically (given the discussion), I prefer Microsoft products.

    I would like to rephrase my previous point more clearly, not that I think you didn’t understand. The point is that I suspect that IBM never planned to try to dominate the PC hardware market, and that this was intentional. Certain planners in the deep state wanted Microsoft and Apple to own (so to speak) the personal computing market. IBM went to the trouble of developing the hardware, but they lost the intellectual property rights. I don’t think this was because they thought PCs were unimportant. If they thought PCs were unimportant, they wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of coming up with the hardware that would become the standard for the PC market (aside from Apple products). I mentioned the example of Apple products not being cloned because it shows that a company can prevent their products from being cloned if they wish to.

    Here is a discussion on this topic (partly) with Joe Atwill and Tim Kelly:

    Now I would like to followup on another loose end from a previous comment: “I am not sure which world oligarch agendas are being pushed by the Gates’ foundation”. Clearly, the agenda of promoting vaccines is being pushed by Gates. He pushes them like a paid shill, in my opinion. This suggests to me that he never really owned all his billions, in a certain sense. He has always known that the crypto-oligarchs could take everything from him and destroy his company, Microsoft, at any time. If you had tens of billions of dollars, would you use them to push a flawed medical technique like vaccination? Vaccines have never worked as well as is claimed and have always done more harm than good. It appears that there was a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy behind them from the beginning, since the “father” of vaccines, Edward Jenner, was a Freemason who actually started a secret society for the purpose of pushing the smallpox vaccine, which did far more harm than good.

    I plan to never get another vaccination again. Why is such a flawed medical principle and technique being pushed on the public? I think that the deepest underlying agenda behind vaccines is to gain control over all of humanity. The crypto-oligarchs want people to accept whatever is injected into them without question, which ultimately gives them the ability to commit genocide. It is likely that they plan to eventually develop a microbe that will be lethal to a large percentage of the unvaccinated population.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  105. @Peredur

    I get your comment is about vaccinations, but I am struck by a shirt that declares,

    “Murdered and innocent child.”

    Bizarre.

    • Agree: Peredur
  106. Medvedev says:
    @BG Fail

    If it hadn’t been for his mother connections he wouldn’t have been so lucky.

  107. EH says:
    @anarchyst

    You could buy the OS by itself; you had more difficulty buying a computer without the MS OS, though this could be done, e.g. CP/M in the early days or OS/2 later on, there wasn’t any savings until Linux. The MS deal for clone makers was a flat royalty per computer sold whether it had the MS OS loaded or not.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  108. anarchyst says:
    @EH

    My experiences were different. I found it more difficult to purchase MS-DOS on its own than procuring hardware. I never had a problem purchasing motherboards without the requisite operating system.
    I ended up having a friendly IT guy give me a copy of MS-DOS on a floppy disk. Such was my start in the MS-DOS world.

    • Replies: @res
  109. res says:
    @anarchyst

    You two are talking about pre-built computers vs. build your own. Completely different in this context.

    I imagine you both realize that, but good to be clear.

  110. anarchyst says:
    @EH

    CP/M was freely available and was pre-IBM. You had to write your own device drivers…been there, done that…not so for MS-DOS…
    Regards,

  111. @CanSpeccy

    Children today come from parents who themselves were raised without discipline.

    We have a new mathematical entity: Zero (self-control)^2 turns out to be a number far more negative than zero.

    The seas into which we sail are uncharted, but the skies ahead are all but black and the wind whips needles of ice toward hurricane force.

    • Replies: @res
  112. res says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Children today come from parents who themselves were raised without discipline.

    Indeed. Part of the problem here is that this second generation has never even seen discipline modeled. The first generation has at least seen how their parents behaved and had a chance of changing as adults even if raised without discipline.

    Important to note these trends vary greatly by subpopulation and individual, but it is hard to swim against the tide.

  113. APilgrim says:

    Bill Gates is an un-indicted monopolist, and a walking nuclear hazard.

    And he has clearly hired Karl Christian Rove as a presidential campaign advisor.

    Monopoly is inimicable to the genius of a free and republican form of government.

  114. APilgrim says:

    I built a few simple computers with discrete components, back in the day.

    They were crap.

    So were the kits.

  115. APilgrim says:

    Anybody who has written binary & assembly code, has no fondness for them.

    DOS was a little better, and a lot easier. Still, very primitive stuff.

    And of course Bill Gates did not write a line of code, himself.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS