As re "culturalism," this is the point I mentioned from Sowell (2020). Students admitted to good charter schools do 200+ points better on the SAT than identical kids who were IN THE CHARTER LOTTERY but not admitted. Retention rates are very similar for both groups.https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1391439171558854661 …
-
Ok - I find a lot of the "g" claims unconvincing. A gain in test scores from 770 (early 1970s Black SAT per Jensen) to 1280 involves massive gains on every skills-based section of the test. The general claim I see is that this is "not on G" due to (say) sub-scale correlations.
The IQ debate is a dead-end. If we have tangible demonstration of a 300-point SAT gain through better schools, we should put all of our efforts into replicating this everywhere. The genetics argument points to no real-world solution; it is inherently abstract and fatalistic.
-
-
Even if true, it would still be worth pursuing the best and most helpful education for all. A bigger problem is the harm as a result of a refusal to accept difference≠racism. Progs may be projecting what THEY would do if some differences were innate (ie: eugenics, again).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I disagree that the hereditarian model is 1) more abstract than competing explanations and that 2) its fatalistic implications mean that we should pay it less attention. 1) because, for instance, the hereditarian model makes specific predictions about the frequencies...
-
of IQ-associated SNPs (which are tangible things!) across ancestral populations; that is, polygenic selection should have increased the frequencies of the trait-increasing alleles in non-African populations. Caveats abound, but we are close to showing this by comparing...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
People become smarter when surrounded by smart people. In order to raise peoples’ IQs nationwide and permanently (as opposed to just in time for an IQ test) we need to raise the standards for entertainment. This is the opposite of what we’ve been doing for 20 years.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I clearly agree with Chris on this one. As a wonk, I find some of the technical debates here- does sub-scale mapped "g" matter more than the reality of overall gains (?), do we reeeeeeaaaalllly know even the top 10 genetic alleles that correlate with IQ? - interesting. But...
-
(2) What we clearly DO know is that improvements in things like diet, study culture, and education for women do regularly boost tested IQ by large amounts. The Irish IQ was 77. It's now 102. Students in the top and largest charter network post 1280s. These are real figures,
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Debating the causal structure of reality is, in my view, not a dead end. I want to know what the world is like regardless of its practical consequences, but even if we care only about practical consequences, we should want to know what causes variation in cognitive ability.
-
Yes. To paraphrase Al Gore: we still need to face inconvenient truths
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/ Since 1990, any black performance gains are typically matched by commensurate gains in other groups (w/in the *same* "environment"). The *gaps* don't close meaningfully. Small and *non-representative* success stories don't change this fact. But, yes, IQ data *is* fatalistic.
-
2/ It offers no solution to closing the gaps. But the reason that it's so important is that it offers a scientifically-robust and powerful explanation for group outcome differences, and therefore undermines the “systemic racism” thesis.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.