4 ms·

School Districts, Test Scores, and Income

19 points by oli5679 10y ago

douche 10y ago
Nobody seems to want to touch this with a ten-foot pole...
- malandrew 10y ago
  It's unfortunate how great analysis is ignored because it's politically inconvenient.
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    There's a great deal of fear that linking academic success with genetics will embolden discrimination in society. It's much easier to 'cut your losses' and overtly under-educate a certain group of people if you can legitimize that 'they won't excel anyway'.
    - oli5679 10y ago
      That's true, some of the most disgusting behaviour in history has used social darwinism as a justification for oppression. I guess I'm torn between an interest in and fear of the topic. I'm surprised that such compelling evidence is ignored in public discourse, however it could be that this is a good thing?
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Dang it... Fat fingered and downvoted. Buttons so close together on mobile. Aghhh. But I couldn't agree with you more. People only look for certain results. And surprise, we have only those kinds reported. You won't see a result showing males have naturally better mathematical (or programming) skills on average then females. I have no idea if that is true or reversed or what. But no one will study it, so we'll never know. It's as if we're scared of discovering that there could be any real differences between people, because it will cause society to crash and burn. People are people regardless of their intelligence or income or athleticism. If we realized that, we could discover more about mankind.
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
TL;DR: the apple can only fall so far from the tree.
dzdt 10y ago
The problem with this type of analysis is there is always a motivation behind it. This kind of analysis is deployed as an argument that it is okay that wealthier kids get better-funded schools with more opportunities to advance. Because (supposedly) the analysis proved the poorer kids are being held back by genetics, not the inequalities of the system. And this kind of analysis is used to justify racism. Since race is genetic, and socioeconomic outcome is correlated to genetics, then SES correlation with race is to be expected. So (the racist argument goes) racism is rational and justified, and efforts to counter it are pointless. The linked article does not go this far, true. But ask, what is the motivation for making the arguments he is making?
- vannevar 10y ago
  It's true that these kinds of analyses are often politically motivated, but if they're sound, they're sound, regardless of the motivation. My problem with them is that they focus on the wrong thing. They ignore the fact that while human traits, including intelligence, have Gaussian distributions, wealth and income have distributions closer to a power law. This suggests that there are strong, systematic amplifications of wealth that have little relation to real merit, regardless of the biological source. Compared to the differences in wealth, the measurable biological differences are in the noise. And that's what we should be analyzing.
csense 10y ago
If intelligence and success are truly largely determined by genetics: - How will our culture ever allow us to even admit the possibility? - If it's true and the truth becomes widely accepted, how do we prevent problems ranging from basic discrimination, to a push for eugenics policies, to full-on Nazi "kill all the inferior races in our glorious society"? The answer since WW2 has been basically "that's not the way it works" -- but then that means we suppress evidence that points in that direction, and so blind ourselves to the possibility that it is actually the way it works. If what the author's saying is the truth, are we better off being willfully blind to it, and avoiding the grave social problems such a truth could potentially cause if widely accepted? Or should we pursue the evidence wherever it leads? We like to think that our modern scientific society is far more ethically advanced than the primitive, superstitious idiots who put Galileo on trial -- but it seems like this issue may be an example of the same forces at work, and it seems like a lot of the people might come down on the side of suppressing unfavorable evidence. For the record, I don't really support the author's point of view. I'm just playing devil's advocate by asking yourself: If the author's right, what evidence would he need to present in order to convince you?
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  I wonder... Dogs are all the same speices, Canis lupus, yet some breeds are known to be highly trainable while others are not. What else could this be other than genetics? Dogs are mammals, aside from their proportions their bodies are nearly identical to ours. Therefore, ought it not be possible to selectively breed for humans for traits such as trainability, calmness, and emotional stability? These are all traits some dogs have been selected for.

19 points by oli5679 10y ago

douche 10y ago

Nobody seems to want to touch this with a ten-foot pole...

malandrew 10y ago
It's unfortunate how great analysis is ignored because it's politically inconvenient.
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  There's a great deal of fear that linking academic success with genetics will embolden discrimination in society. It's much easier to 'cut your losses' and overtly under-educate a certain group of people if you can legitimize that 'they won't excel anyway'.
  - oli5679 10y ago
    That's true, some of the most disgusting behaviour in history has used social darwinism as a justification for oppression. I guess I'm torn between an interest in and fear of the topic. I'm surprised that such compelling evidence is ignored in public discourse, however it could be that this is a good thing?
paulddraper 10y ago
Dang it... Fat fingered and downvoted. Buttons so close together on mobile. Aghhh. But I couldn't agree with you more. People only look for certain results. And surprise, we have only those kinds reported. You won't see a result showing males have naturally better mathematical (or programming) skills on average then females. I have no idea if that is true or reversed or what. But no one will study it, so we'll never know. It's as if we're scared of discovering that there could be any real differences between people, because it will cause society to crash and burn. People are people regardless of their intelligence or income or athleticism. If we realized that, we could discover more about mankind.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

TL;DR: the apple can only fall so far from the tree.

dzdt 10y ago

The problem with this type of analysis is there is always a motivation behind it. This kind of analysis is deployed as an argument that it is okay that wealthier kids get better-funded schools with more opportunities to advance. Because (supposedly) the analysis proved the poorer kids are being held back by genetics, not the inequalities of the system. And this kind of analysis is used to justify racism. Since race is genetic, and socioeconomic outcome is correlated to genetics, then SES correlation with race is to be expected. So (the racist argument goes) racism is rational and justified, and efforts to counter it are pointless. The linked article does not go this far, true. But ask, what is the motivation for making the arguments he is making?

vannevar 10y ago
It's true that these kinds of analyses are often politically motivated, but if they're sound, they're sound, regardless of the motivation. My problem with them is that they focus on the wrong thing. They ignore the fact that while human traits, including intelligence, have Gaussian distributions, wealth and income have distributions closer to a power law. This suggests that there are strong, systematic amplifications of wealth that have little relation to real merit, regardless of the biological source. Compared to the differences in wealth, the measurable biological differences are in the noise. And that's what we should be analyzing.

csense 10y ago

If intelligence and success are truly largely determined by genetics: - How will our culture ever allow us to even admit the possibility? - If it's true and the truth becomes widely accepted, how do we prevent problems ranging from basic discrimination, to a push for eugenics policies, to full-on Nazi "kill all the inferior races in our glorious society"? The answer since WW2 has been basically "that's not the way it works" -- but then that means we suppress evidence that points in that direction, and so blind ourselves to the possibility that it is actually the way it works. If what the author's saying is the truth, are we better off being willfully blind to it, and avoiding the grave social problems such a truth could potentially cause if widely accepted? Or should we pursue the evidence wherever it leads? We like to think that our modern scientific society is far more ethically advanced than the primitive, superstitious idiots who put Galileo on trial -- but it seems like this issue may be an example of the same forces at work, and it seems like a lot of the people might come down on the side of suppressing unfavorable evidence. For the record, I don't really support the author's point of view. I'm just playing devil's advocate by asking yourself: If the author's right, what evidence would he need to present in order to convince you?

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
I wonder... Dogs are all the same speices, Canis lupus, yet some breeds are known to be highly trainable while others are not. What else could this be other than genetics? Dogs are mammals, aside from their proportions their bodies are nearly identical to ours. Therefore, ought it not be possible to selectively breed for humans for traits such as trainability, calmness, and emotional stability? These are all traits some dogs have been selected for.