3 ms·
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 wealthi
by 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 agoIt'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.