Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GuidoNius · Nov 4, 2003, 03:45 pm

Rebel,

That´s probably true for most with three children, unless they can make their talent & their art their day job.

You make it sound like a day job, people to care for & people caring for you would leave lots of space for art. As if an artist can hit brain switch A: "now fifteen minutes creation between the diaper & filing the washing machine".

Sorry, for most of us time is not specifically on our side.

Agnes

RebelWithanAK · Nov 4, 2003, 05:03 pm

So having three kids is stopping you from picking up a guitar every other sunday and strumming out some Johnny Cash tunes? If you have absolutely no time whatsoever, then it's a wonder you haven't gone insane from cabin fever.

Geoff332 · Nov 4, 2003, 09:37 pm

Agnes,

The focus of my discussion was that descriptions of entrepreneurs need to be understood in the context from which they emerge. My comment that 'blacks and hispanics tend to underperform' can be readily transalated to mean that minorities tend to underperform -- the substantive conclustion that the information I presented actually indicated. Again, I realise I wasn't sufficiently clear in my original comments, but in the context of the bulk of the discussion, I felt the context was fairly self-evident.

The point of my argument was essentially that understanding entrepreneurship as a monolithic 'this is entrepreneurship' idea is never going to lead you to accurate or useful conclusions. If you are unable to grasp that (something I conclude from your comments), then I would agree that you lack felxibility of mind. Unfortunately, I would also suggest that approaching a topic as complex as entepreneurship demands a highly flexible mind. C'est la vie.

Not all of the information I provided was limited to WASP countries. There are replications of motivations to entrepreneurship from other countries (including, but not limited to, China, Singapore, Indonesia and several african countries). The replications do show some variation in the detail, but they all support the principle conclusion: that there are different motivations driving entrepreneurial activity. Claiming that all entrepreneurs are motivated by the same motive is incorrect.

The final point I made was that success in entrepreneurship was based on the co-operative actions of several people (the founding team). There is very little research on founding teams outside of the US/UK -- but the evidence there suggests that it is a substantive basis to these conclusions that transcends local cultural conditions. I suppose the idea that lessons from the US and UK cannot be applied to your market are one example of your self-proclaimed inflexible mind.

If you would like to explain to me the differences between these conclusions and the situation in your country, I would love to hear it. If you can actually give some data on that, then that would be wonderful.

Rebel,

One of the primary reasons that blacks and hispanics tend to have less successful start-up businesses in the US is due to the structure of the founding team. Generally, there is less diversity (in terms of both skills and ethnicity), which is often a factor in failure. The best study I can find on this blames this on 'ecological proximity' -- that is there are relatively fewer lawyers, accountants and other professionals in the 'average' black or hispanic community (irrespective of the professional's ethnicity), meaning that entrepreneurs are less likely to know these people and therefore less likely to include them in their founding team. It is not a direct product of education or the individual's socio-economic status, but a product of broader social dynamics.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 4, 2003, 11:43 pm

So the lack of educated professionals who are also minorities has nothing to do with the lack of universal education to minorities?

Geoff332 · Nov 5, 2003, 12:02 am

Noone (aside from you) said the minorities had to be the professionals, so the lack of proximity between minorities and professionals is not simply a lack of education amoung those minorities.

I'm sure education is a factor, but to claim that it is, "just a bias and discrimination thing in secondary and tertiary education" is quite a different conclusion.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 5, 2003, 12:10 am

But there is an underrepresentation of minorities and women in professional fields, as power brokers. They simply do not have the same status as White males in this society. To say it's cultural is tantamount to saying these people are simply inferior in the system we have in place. It is education. It is bias. It is discrimination.

Geoff332 · Nov 5, 2003, 12:17 am

Sure, I never denied that either. I never denied it was bias or discrimination.

What I don't agree with is the statement that the reason minorities tend to perform less well in business is simply a product of poor education. There are other factors at play here as well -- systemic biases and discrimination that are entirely independant of educational levels.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 5, 2003, 12:35 am

Or biases in educational levels. I don't think any Johnny-come-lately's gonna be let into Yale business school, let alone afford it; what with the high tuitions, lack of federal assistance, lack of legacy, and the utter squalor many of our public schools are in. So they don't get into Yale, you say; there are other places. But half of going to a big-name school is the connections and clubs you are automatically part of for going there. There are Harvard and Yale and Princeton and Dartmouth clubs all over the country, ready to give a willing hand to the alumni of their alma mater. It's a self-serving prophecy. What else would you like to add? You don't seem to say much except "yes, but..." but you don't explain further. If it's something else, spit it out!

Geoff332 · Nov 5, 2003, 12:55 am

I already explained what the problem was. Go back and read what I posted, then come back to me.

GuidoNius · Nov 5, 2003, 08:06 am

Geoff,

Really, I do not know why you want to kiss and make up. Maybe it is a matter of me being a girl & you a guy, but as a non-minority woman it doesn't help me a lot if you re-phrase now into "minorities". No, I'm not going to give you statistics of my country - they are as irrelevant as the statistics you provided.

Certainly some people have more talent for entrpreneurs as others, but you tried to establish the link between talent and genes. That doesn't do the job. Rephrasing into minorities might do the job but at the expense of needing to rewrite your whole post to contend that that was what you meant all the way. Well, if that was what you meant all the way then it's not too much to ask to say it from the beginning.

Now, minorities doesn't do the job either since 1. jews & indians are - to say the least - minorities in the UK, South Africa and Kenia & 2. women are (lucky you) not a minority in any country of the world. On 1., one's rather unneedful of statistics to state that they proprotionally have more success as entrpreneurs. On 2. one can rather directly assume that the proprotion of women successful entrepreneurs is low with respect to the average of women almost anywhere in the world.

So, it's a question of nature as well as nurture as in most cases. Neither the one (your original implication) nor the other (your new redefinition), come close to the hard of the debate, i.e.

a. is it fine for youngsters to undertake rather than to sit back and be taught

b. if there's talent there, do all people with talent have equal chances

I think your studies if you would read them are answering b. with "no", trying to establish an objective basis for improving the equality of their chances. You however, throw the results in there to suggest that some might be better off taking a good look on themselves and desisting.

No, no kissing yet.

AO

RebelWithanAK · Nov 5, 2003, 11:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
I already explained what the problem was. Go back and read what I posted, then come back to me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Your first post basically broadly defined what it is an entrepreneur does. Your second post said the causes as to the underperformance of minorities was "self-evident", your third post said that they aren't diverse enough, because there weren't enough professionals in their "ecological proximity," not that I know whatever the fuck that means - but it apparently means they can't hire White lawyers. Your fourth post says that it isn't entirely their environment, and that there are "broader social dynamics." Your fifth and sixth posts drive home the point that you don't think education nor discrimination are entirely to blame. Your seventh says you explained it all already.

So, if I'm to get anything from this, it's that you think that minorities are just natural under-performers in creating, maintaining and growing businesses. Unless you attribute a different inherent meaning in "broader social dynamics," something you never fully explained.

Geoff332 · Nov 5, 2003, 06:28 pm

Anges,
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
you tried to establish the link between talent and genes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You however, throw the results in there to suggest that some might be better off taking a good look on themselves and desisting.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Where did I try to do those things? Give me the specific words that I used from which you inferred those were my ideas.

Rebel,
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Rebel)
Your fourth post says that it isn't entirely their environment, and that there are "broader social dynamics."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332)
It is not a direct product of education or the individual's socio-economic status, but a product of broader social dynamics.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I never said it wasn't their environment, I said it wasn't a direct product of their education or socio-economic status. The latter is a subset of the former. The main thing I was getting at was that simply changing the education system -- the solution implied by your original statement -- is not likely to have a significant effect on ethnic or minority entrepreneurship unless there are other changes as well. I never said it wasn't discrimination; I said that discrimination wasn't merely a product of education nor merely manifest in education, nor is the lack of success in entrepreneurship solely a product of discrimination.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
because there weren't enough professionals in their "ecological proximity," not that I know whatever the fuck that means - but it apparently means they can't hire White lawyers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Having a founding team of people you know and trust is critical to the success of most start-up businesses. It is a great deal more complicated than "hiring a white lawyer"; it is finding a small group of people you know and trust and working with them to found a business. If you know fewer people who are capable of being a part of this team, you are less likely to build a strong team, and your business is less likely to succeed. The first clause of the previous sentance is ecological proximity. It is partially a product of education and of socio-economics, but it is also partially a product of individual choices about where you live, who your work with, who you socialise with, where your kids go to school, where you go to church, how you relate to people and so on. Is this discrimination? In part, yes. Is this merely a product of education, as you originally wrote? Not even close.

Let's look at one scenario. A successful white male professional decides that they want to help a small business get started. They are busy in their professional life, so they decide they only have time to work with one small business. Are they more likely to help the young (white male) cousin of their wife's friend or some black guy who they've never met before? That decision is not based on your education, on any discriminatory attitudes, or on any personal characteristics of the two individuals trying to start their new business. It is based solely on the fact that they have some connection, however tenuous, to one of the people rather than the other.

Trying to educate people out of this situation is at best, a very long-term solution (there are plenty of other very good reasons for looking at education; but this one comes well down the list). It is also not certain to have a significant effect.

GuidoNius · Nov 6, 2003, 07:46 am

Time's up Geoff, if you can't draw the inferences from your own posts - do not think it is a healthy way of argueing to challenge others in doing the work for you. Agnes

RebelWithanAK · Nov 6, 2003, 08:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332)
Are they more likely to help the young (white male) cousin of their wife's friend or some black guy who they've never met before?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>If the business is larger than 15 people, that's discrimination.

Geoff332 · Nov 6, 2003, 03:26 pm

Anges,

I agree, time's up. No, I can't draw inferences regarding my intentions from my own posts, because as the author, I know what my intention. No inference necessary from me. You, on the other hand, made an inference that you seem either unwilling or unable to actually back up. Why should I bother to second guess what you read and found objectionable.

Rebel,

I'm not sure which world you live in, but it's not a very similar one to the ones I've worked in. The scenario I described is in no way even close to discrimination.

I give up on this whole thread. If you want practical solutions to real issues, then I'm happy to argue. If you want to score points, without actually engaging, go for it.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 6, 2003, 03:47 pm

Listen. The government quanitifies such problems with think-tank statisticians, and seeks to solve such problems with top-down stastical rectifying. Thus, any business larger than fifteen people needs to take into account hiring practices that ensures a diversity of people in the workplace. This is a ham-handed - yet the only - practice to stave against just such the favoritism that you described right then.

You downplay and downplay the closed systems of racial politics in this country, and talk about how it's "social dynamics." You've repeated yourself many times that you want to look at other reasons. You keep hinting at the presence of another reason. You've gotten so close to naming the gist of this other reason. You've gotten to the upper cusp of actually describing this newfound possibility. It's on the tip of your tongue, and it hurts you that this yet unpresented angle goes unstated. You know my opinions, and I'm not going to guess at your proposal for you. It's your topic, you're just gonna have to come out and say it.

So say it.

Geoff332 · Nov 6, 2003, 06:40 pm

Rebel,

In the scenario I described, there were several things missing from describing it as discrimination.

1. There was no sense of even awareness of the white business man to the black person's business idea.
2. The business man was not employing anyone, therefore there were no disciminatory hiring practices. It is more likely that the new business owner would be employing the businessman, and the black person would not be a candidate for that job.
3. There was no sense of any contractual relationship, meaning that there was no demonstrable relationship that could be shown to be discriminatory.
4. There was no mention of any employees. Most business ideas don't have anyone employed, particularly when you are developing a business plan or proof of concept.

The networks that support people with new business ideas are a combination of formal and informal relationships, based on both professional and personal connections. When we are dealing with informal relationships and personal connections, many of the people involved are giving their time freely and without charge. At an institutional level, it is be discimination when the formal opportunities are limited by your race. The Government can and should address these directly by legislating against racism. When it is a lack of personal connections, how can you legislate how a person voluntarily spends their time? I'm not denying this is a problem (in fact I am arguing that this is one of the biggest problems). I am arguing that this is not entirely racism or discrimination, nor is it going to be solved by anything as straightforward as education and legislative definitions of discrimination. If I am right (which you haven't really suggested I'm not), then part of the solution will involve methods for making informal contacts and relationships more available to population groups that are currently disadvantaged in that respect.

All of this is actually quite secondary. I have never denied racism and discrimination as a central or important issue. I listened, now it's your turn. You seem to have changed your line of reasoning. Read your first reply to my original post on this issue. It's nice and short, so I can quote part of it (with my emphasis added):<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Rebel)
I know there are FEWER businesses owned by minorities and women. But that's just a bias and discrimination thing in secondary and tertiary education.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>My reply was that it was a great deal more than bias and discrimination in education that was the causal factor. Again, I don't deny that education is a factor, but it's a long, long way from being the only factor. I started replying to you because you were attributing this entire problem to education. My counter was that it was due to other factors. I never denied that racism and discrimination are important, I merely argued that these were not always direct products of education nor that they were the only causal factors. I hope you were listening.

castille · Nov 7, 2003, 07:02 am

Whenever I see these "government technidoodlelicky statiscian analysts" it always makes me smile.

All these "experts" can do is make a whole bunch of numbers. Frankly, I think they're depressing. "16.25% of businesses fail because of lack of financial and technical controls".

I'm not insulting you personally Geoff, but granted I have a very poor view of any sort of attempt to "analyse" business success and failure. They never take into account things like creativity, determination, and setting goals. Sure, these things can't be measured....but they're the most important.

On Racism: We don't have blacks here (we have islander blacks, but they're not really discriminated against), but I dislike any kind of affirmative action. If an employee is good, he is hired. If he is crap, hes out. If the government wants to tell me who to hire, then I'll find a way to get past it.

Besides, it causes tensions. Imagine if blacks were hired because they were black....who would trust a black doctor? He might be hired despite the fact he's killed 2 dozen patients....just because hes black.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)
Vision towards something, I suppose. I don´t buy the vision to be in this or that rank. Once you get there (if ever you get there without a vision, of some sort different from rank), what then? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Good visions can never be achieved. My vision is to completely change the world and the way it works - somehow I doubt it will ever be achieved.

If we DO achieve a vision (ie. Bill Gates), we still have to fight to maintain that vision. Bill Gates constantly engages other businesses in order to remain No. 1. He might develop a new vision (ie. Be with my family), or change visions (ie. Invent a computer that will brush teeth).

RebelWithanAK · Nov 7, 2003, 11:31 am

Geoff, my reply to that post about minorities "doing poorly" in business ventures was in response to your interpretation of the numbers, based on the study you were quoting. You responded that you didn't believe it was entirely the fault of bias and discrimination. Now, I think I have a better view of the model you believe to be the case. But I still have some caveats:<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ("Geoff332")
1. There was no sense of even awareness of the white business man to the black person's business idea.
2. The business man was not employing anyone, therefore there were no disciminatory hiring practices. It is more likely that the new business owner would be employing the businessman, and the black person would not be a candidate for that job.
3. There was no sense of any contractual relationship, meaning that there was no demonstrable relationship that could be shown to be discriminatory.
4. There was no mention of any employees. Most business ideas don't have anyone employed, particularly when you are developing a business plan or proof of concept.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>You're talking about speculation, not a venture. Usually ventures involve going out and starting a business. Yes, in the planning phases, where nothing is nailed down, Black people ain't gonna hire White consultants and vice versa, because nothing is nailed down. I fail to see the point of the matter - if you look there and draw the dotted line to the statistical conclusion, you can only reach the presumption that minorities and women are less knowledgable in business. Which isn't a conclusion so much as yet another question.

Now, if you go a step behind or a step ahead, back to business school and ahead to actually running a business, I think there is more conclusive evidence.

Geoff332 · Nov 7, 2003, 04:19 pm

Rebel,

I don't have much time for this. Basically, you don't seem to have much knowledge or experience of actually starting a new business. Your responses seem to be emphasising this point more than anything else.

A lot of people who start a new business don't have much knowledge or experience in running new businesses. This is the crux of the whole matter. Successful business founders don't need to know everything; they need to surround themselves with people they already know who can support them. You seem to be spending all your time talking about the formal relationships ("hire white lawyers", "hire white consultants") whereas many of the important relationships, irrespective of the stage of the business, don't involve hiring anyone.

Re-orient your thinking, learn a bit more about starting businesses. Perhaps try and do it once or twice, then we might have a bsis for conversation.

Nov 4, 2003, 05:03 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	So having three kids is stopping you from picking up a guitar every other sunday and strumming out some Johnny Cash tunes? If you have absolutely no time whatsoever, then it's a wonder you haven't gone insane from cabin fever. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 4, 2003, 11:43 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	So the lack of educated professionals who are also minorities has nothing to do with the lack of universal education to minorities? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 5, 2003, 12:10 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	But there is an underrepresentation of minorities and women in professional fields, as power brokers. They simply do not have the same status as White males in this society. To say it's cultural is tantamount to saying these people are simply inferior in the system we have in place. It is education. It is bias. It is discrimination. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 5, 2003, 12:35 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Or biases in educational levels. I don't think any Johnny-come-lately's gonna be let into Yale business school, let alone afford it; what with the high tuitions, lack of federal assistance, lack of legacy, and the utter squalor many of our public schools are in. So they don't get into Yale, you say; there are other places. But half of going to a big-name school is the connections and clubs you are automatically part of for going there. There are Harvard and Yale and Princeton and Dartmouth clubs all over the country, ready to give a willing hand to the alumni of their alma mater. It's a self-serving prophecy. What else would you like to add? You don't seem to say much except "yes, but..." but you don't explain further. If it's something else, spit it out! . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 5, 2003, 11:11 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,) I already explained what the problem was. Go back and read what I posted, then come back to me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Your first post basically broadly defined what it is an entrepreneur does. Your second post said the causes as to the underperformance of minorities was "self-evident", your third post said that they aren't diverse enough, because there weren't enough professionals in their "ecological proximity," not that I know whatever the fuck that means - but it apparently means they can't hire White lawyers. Your fourth post says that it isn't entirely their environment, and that there are "broader social dynamics." Your fifth and sixth posts drive home the point that you don't think education nor discrimination are entirely to blame. Your seventh says you explained it all already. So, if I'm to get anything from this, it's that you think that minorities are just natural under-performers in creating, maintaining and growing businesses. Unless you attribute a different inherent meaning in "broader social dynamics," something you never fully explained. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 4, 2003, 03:45 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Rebel, That´s probably true for most with three children, unless they can make their talent & their art their day job. You make it sound like a day job, people to care for & people caring for you would leave lots of space for art. As if an artist can hit brain switch A: "now fifteen minutes creation between the diaper & filing the washing machine". Sorry, for most of us time is not specifically on our side. Agnes

Nov 4, 2003, 09:37 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Agnes, The focus of my discussion was that descriptions of entrepreneurs need to be understood in the context from which they emerge. My comment that 'blacks and hispanics tend to underperform' can be readily transalated to mean that minorities tend to underperform -- the substantive conclustion that the information I presented actually indicated. Again, I realise I wasn't sufficiently clear in my original comments, but in the context of the bulk of the discussion, I felt the context was fairly self-evident. The point of my argument was essentially that understanding entrepreneurship as a monolithic 'this is entrepreneurship' idea is never going to lead you to accurate or useful conclusions. If you are unable to grasp that (something I conclude from your comments), then I would agree that you lack felxibility of mind. Unfortunately, I would also suggest that approaching a topic as complex as entepreneurship demands a highly flexible mind. C'est la vie. Not all of the information I provided was limited to WASP countries. There are replications of motivations to entrepreneurship from other countries (including, but not limited to, China, Singapore, Indonesia and several african countries). The replications do show some variation in the detail, but they all support the principle conclusion: that there are different motivations driving entrepreneurial activity. Claiming that all entrepreneurs are motivated by the same motive is incorrect. The final point I made was that success in entrepreneurship was based on the co-operative actions of several people (the founding team). There is very little research on founding teams outside of the US/UK -- but the evidence there suggests that it is a substantive basis to these conclusions that transcends local cultural conditions. I suppose the idea that lessons from the US and UK cannot be applied to your market are one example of your self-proclaimed inflexible mind. If you would like to explain to me the differences between these conclusions and the situation in your country, I would love to hear it. If you can actually give some data on that, then that would be wonderful. Rebel, One of the primary reasons that blacks and hispanics tend to have less successful start-up businesses in the US is due to the structure of the founding team. Generally, there is less diversity (in terms of both skills and ethnicity), which is often a factor in failure. The best study I can find on this blames this on 'ecological proximity' -- that is there are relatively fewer lawyers, accountants and other professionals in the 'average' black or hispanic community (irrespective of the professional's ethnicity), meaning that entrepreneurs are less likely to know these people and therefore less likely to include them in their founding team. It is not a direct product of education or the individual's socio-economic status, but a product of broader social dynamics.

Nov 5, 2003, 12:02 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Noone (aside from you) said the minorities had to be the professionals, so the lack of proximity between minorities and professionals is not simply a lack of education amoung those minorities. I'm sure education is a factor, but to claim that it is, "just a bias and discrimination thing in secondary and tertiary education" is quite a different conclusion.

Nov 5, 2003, 12:17 am	#47 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Sure, I never denied that either. I never denied it was bias or discrimination. What I don't agree with is the statement that the reason minorities tend to perform less well in business is simply a product of poor education. There are other factors at play here as well -- systemic biases and discrimination that are entirely independant of educational levels.

Nov 5, 2003, 12:55 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I already explained what the problem was. Go back and read what I posted, then come back to me.

Nov 5, 2003, 08:06 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Geoff, Really, I do not know why you want to kiss and make up. Maybe it is a matter of me being a girl & you a guy, but as a non-minority woman it doesn't help me a lot if you re-phrase now into "minorities". No, I'm not going to give you statistics of my country - they are as irrelevant as the statistics you provided. Certainly some people have more talent for entrpreneurs as others, but you tried to establish the link between talent and genes. That doesn't do the job. Rephrasing into minorities might do the job but at the expense of needing to rewrite your whole post to contend that that was what you meant all the way. Well, if that was what you meant all the way then it's not too much to ask to say it from the beginning. Now, minorities doesn't do the job either since 1. jews & indians are - to say the least - minorities in the UK, South Africa and Kenia & 2. women are (lucky you) not a minority in any country of the world. On 1., one's rather unneedful of statistics to state that they proprotionally have more success as entrpreneurs. On 2. one can rather directly assume that the proprotion of women successful entrepreneurs is low with respect to the average of women almost anywhere in the world. So, it's a question of nature as well as nurture as in most cases. Neither the one (your original implication) nor the other (your new redefinition), come close to the hard of the debate, i.e. a. is it fine for youngsters to undertake rather than to sit back and be taught b. if there's talent there, do all people with talent have equal chances I think your studies if you would read them are answering b. with "no", trying to establish an objective basis for improving the equality of their chances. You however, throw the results in there to suggest that some might be better off taking a good look on themselves and desisting. No, no kissing yet. AO

Nov 5, 2003, 06:28 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Anges, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by you tried to establish the link between talent and genes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You however, throw the results in there to suggest that some might be better off taking a good look on themselves and desisting.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Where did I try to do those things? Give me the specific words that I used from which you inferred those were my ideas. Rebel, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Rebel) Your fourth post says that it isn't entirely their environment, and that there are "broader social dynamics."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332) It is not a direct product of education or the individual's socio-economic status, but a product of broader social dynamics.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I never said it wasn't their environment, I said it wasn't a direct product of their education or socio-economic status. The latter is a subset of the former. The main thing I was getting at was that simply changing the education system -- the solution implied by your original statement -- is not likely to have a significant effect on ethnic or minority entrepreneurship unless there are other changes as well. I never said it wasn't discrimination; I said that discrimination wasn't merely a product of education nor merely manifest in education, nor is the lack of success in entrepreneurship solely a product of discrimination. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by because there weren't enough professionals in their "ecological proximity," not that I know whatever the fuck that means - but it apparently means they can't hire White lawyers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Having a founding team of people you know and trust is critical to the success of most start-up businesses. It is a great deal more complicated than "hiring a white lawyer"; it is finding a small group of people you know and trust and working with them to found a business. If you know fewer people who are capable of being a part of this team, you are less likely to build a strong team, and your business is less likely to succeed. The first clause of the previous sentance is ecological proximity. It is partially a product of education and of socio-economics, but it is also partially a product of individual choices about where you live, who your work with, who you socialise with, where your kids go to school, where you go to church, how you relate to people and so on. Is this discrimination? In part, yes. Is this merely a product of education, as you originally wrote? Not even close. Let's look at one scenario. A successful white male professional decides that they want to help a small business get started. They are busy in their professional life, so they decide they only have time to work with one small business. Are they more likely to help the young (white male) cousin of their wife's friend or some black guy who they've never met before? That decision is not based on your education, on any discriminatory attitudes, or on any personal characteristics of the two individuals trying to start their new business. It is based solely on the fact that they have some connection, however tenuous, to one of the people rather than the other. Trying to educate people out of this situation is at best, a very long-term solution (there are plenty of other very good reasons for looking at education; but this one comes well down the list). It is also not certain to have a significant effect.

Nov 6, 2003, 07:46 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Time's up Geoff, if you can't draw the inferences from your own posts - do not think it is a healthy way of argueing to challenge others in doing the work for you. Agnes

Nov 6, 2003, 08:14 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332) Are they more likely to help the young (white male) cousin of their wife's friend or some black guy who they've never met before?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>If the business is larger than 15 people, that's discrimination. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 6, 2003, 03:26 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Anges, I agree, time's up. No, I can't draw inferences regarding my intentions from my own posts, because as the author, I know what my intention. No inference necessary from me. You, on the other hand, made an inference that you seem either unwilling or unable to actually back up. Why should I bother to second guess what you read and found objectionable. Rebel, I'm not sure which world you live in, but it's not a very similar one to the ones I've worked in. The scenario I described is in no way even close to discrimination. I give up on this whole thread. If you want practical solutions to real issues, then I'm happy to argue. If you want to score points, without actually engaging, go for it.

Nov 6, 2003, 03:47 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Listen. The government quanitifies such problems with think-tank statisticians, and seeks to solve such problems with top-down stastical rectifying. Thus, any business larger than fifteen people needs to take into account hiring practices that ensures a diversity of people in the workplace. This is a ham-handed - yet the only - practice to stave against just such the favoritism that you described right then. You downplay and downplay the closed systems of racial politics in this country, and talk about how it's "social dynamics." You've repeated yourself many times that you want to look at other reasons. You keep hinting at the presence of another reason. You've gotten so close to naming the gist of this other reason. You've gotten to the upper cusp of actually describing this newfound possibility. It's on the tip of your tongue, and it hurts you that this yet unpresented angle goes unstated. You know my opinions, and I'm not going to guess at your proposal for you. It's your topic, you're just gonna have to come out and say it. So say it. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 6, 2003, 06:40 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Rebel, In the scenario I described, there were several things missing from describing it as discrimination. 1. There was no sense of even awareness of the white business man to the black person's business idea. 2. The business man was not employing anyone, therefore there were no disciminatory hiring practices. It is more likely that the new business owner would be employing the businessman, and the black person would not be a candidate for that job. 3. There was no sense of any contractual relationship, meaning that there was no demonstrable relationship that could be shown to be discriminatory. 4. There was no mention of any employees. Most business ideas don't have anyone employed, particularly when you are developing a business plan or proof of concept. The networks that support people with new business ideas are a combination of formal and informal relationships, based on both professional and personal connections. When we are dealing with informal relationships and personal connections, many of the people involved are giving their time freely and without charge. At an institutional level, it is be discimination when the formal opportunities are limited by your race. The Government can and should address these directly by legislating against racism. When it is a lack of personal connections, how can you legislate how a person voluntarily spends their time? I'm not denying this is a problem (in fact I am arguing that this is one of the biggest problems). I am arguing that this is not entirely racism or discrimination, nor is it going to be solved by anything as straightforward as education and legislative definitions of discrimination. If I am right (which you haven't really suggested I'm not), then part of the solution will involve methods for making informal contacts and relationships more available to population groups that are currently disadvantaged in that respect. All of this is actually quite secondary. I have never denied racism and discrimination as a central or important issue. I listened, now it's your turn. You seem to have changed your line of reasoning. Read your first reply to my original post on this issue. It's nice and short, so I can quote part of it (with my emphasis added):</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Rebel) I know there are FEWER businesses owned by minorities and women. But that's just a bias and discrimination thing in secondary and tertiary education.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>My reply was that it was a great deal more than bias and discrimination in education that was the causal factor. Again, I don't deny that education is a factor, but it's a long, long way from being the only factor. I started replying to you because you were attributing this entire problem to education. My counter was that it was due to other factors. I never denied that racism and discrimination are important, I merely argued that these were not always direct products of education nor that they were the only causal factors. I hope you were listening.

Nov 7, 2003, 07:02 am	#58 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Whenever I see these "government technidoodlelicky statiscian analysts" it always makes me smile. All these "experts" can do is make a whole bunch of numbers. Frankly, I think they're depressing. "16.25% of businesses fail because of lack of financial and technical controls". I'm not insulting you personally Geoff, but granted I have a very poor view of any sort of attempt to "analyse" business success and failure. They never take into account things like creativity, determination, and setting goals. Sure, these things can't be measured....but they're the most important. On Racism: We don't have blacks here (we have islander blacks, but they're not really discriminated against), but I dislike any kind of affirmative action. If an employee is good, he is hired. If he is crap, hes out. If the government wants to tell me who to hire, then I'll find a way to get past it. Besides, it causes tensions. Imagine if blacks were hired because they were black....who would trust a black doctor? He might be hired despite the fact he's killed 2 dozen patients....just because hes black. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) Vision towards something, I suppose. I don´t buy the vision to be in this or that rank. Once you get there (if ever you get there without a vision, of some sort different from rank), what then? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Good visions can never be achieved. My vision is to completely change the world and the way it works - somehow I doubt it will ever be achieved. If we DO achieve a vision (ie. Bill Gates), we still have to fight to maintain that vision. Bill Gates constantly engages other businesses in order to remain No. 1. He might develop a new vision (ie. Be with my family), or change visions (ie. Invent a computer that will brush teeth). Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 7, 2003, 11:31 am	#59 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Geoff, my reply to that post about minorities "doing poorly" in business ventures was in response to your interpretation of the numbers, based on the study you were quoting. You responded that you didn't believe it was entirely the fault of bias and discrimination. Now, I think I have a better view of the model you believe to be the case. But I still have some caveats:</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ("Geoff332") 1. There was no sense of even awareness of the white business man to the black person's business idea. 2. The business man was not employing anyone, therefore there were no disciminatory hiring practices. It is more likely that the new business owner would be employing the businessman, and the black person would not be a candidate for that job. 3. There was no sense of any contractual relationship, meaning that there was no demonstrable relationship that could be shown to be discriminatory. 4. There was no mention of any employees. Most business ideas don't have anyone employed, particularly when you are developing a business plan or proof of concept.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>You're talking about speculation, not a venture. Usually ventures involve going out and starting a business. Yes, in the planning phases, where nothing is nailed down, Black people ain't gonna hire White consultants and vice versa, because nothing is nailed down. I fail to see the point of the matter - if you look there and draw the dotted line to the statistical conclusion, you can only reach the presumption that minorities and women are less knowledgable in business. Which isn't a conclusion so much as yet another question. Now, if you go a step behind or a step ahead, back to business school and ahead to actually running a business, I think there is more conclusive evidence. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 7, 2003, 04:19 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Rebel, I don't have much time for this. Basically, you don't seem to have much knowledge or experience of actually starting a new business. Your responses seem to be emphasising this point more than anything else. A lot of people who start a new business don't have much knowledge or experience in running new businesses. This is the crux of the whole matter. Successful business founders don't need to know everything; they need to surround themselves with people they already know who can support them. You seem to be spending all your time talking about the formal relationships ("hire white lawyers", "hire white consultants") whereas many of the important relationships, irrespective of the stage of the business, don't involve hiring anyone. Re-orient your thinking, learn a bit more about starting businesses. Perhaps try and do it once or twice, then we might have a bsis for conversation.