4 ms·

Ironically, yummyfajitas definition of "intinsic" to mean "not teachers, curriculum, nor facilities" would thus include life circumstance. For example, the kid

Ironically, yummyfajitas definition of "intinsic" to mean "not teachers, curriculum, nor facilities" would thus include life circumstance. For example, the kid's quality of life outside of school. Which is demonstrably improved by helping poor kids with rent. Which I believe he is trying to argue against.

tptacek 10y ago
Is it clear to anyone else that 'yummyfajitas is implying that the kinds of students who attend poorly-performing schools are genetically incapable of academic performance? I may be misreading. I'd like a second opinion. I'd rather not assume people I'm arguing with hold revolting core beliefs. This would not be, like, the first time I'd jumped the gun on something like this: I myself hold a (probably faulty) core belief that the median HN participant is likely to host retrograde beliefs about race, which is unfair of me too.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm genuinely curious why you are asking third parties to put words into my mouth. Why not just ask me? If you want a summary, I don't share your religious faith that God ensured an identical statistical distribution of genes across all subpopulations when he created man. But Kalium's argument is not dependent on this - there are more things in the world than simply teachers, curriculum, facilities and genetics. For example, poor people might be disproportionately bad parents (perhaps they exhibit many bad behaviors which also make them poor) and this might cause their children to be disruptive in school. That's a concrete theory that's directly compatible with your secular faith in statistically identical genetic distributions, but still supports Kalium's claim.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 10y ago
    My question still stands.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Your repeated attempts to raise your status at my expense are quite amusing.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    If you do _not_ believe humans possess "identical statistical distribution of [academic performance] genes across all subpopulations" why hide such insight? It'd be interesting to hear where in the gnome the "academic performance gene" sits. And have you also "discovered" a correlation between this academic performance gene and melanin content? Or gender too? Surely you don't want to deprive us of such important "discoveries".

tptacek 10y ago

Is it clear to anyone else that 'yummyfajitas is implying that the kinds of students who attend poorly-performing schools are genetically incapable of academic performance? I may be misreading. I'd like a second opinion. I'd rather not assume people I'm arguing with hold revolting core beliefs. This would not be, like, the first time I'd jumped the gun on something like this: I myself hold a (probably faulty) core belief that the median HN participant is likely to host retrograde beliefs about race, which is unfair of me too.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm genuinely curious why you are asking third parties to put words into my mouth. Why not just ask me? If you want a summary, I don't share your religious faith that God ensured an identical statistical distribution of genes across all subpopulations when he created man. But Kalium's argument is not dependent on this - there are more things in the world than simply teachers, curriculum, facilities and genetics. For example, poor people might be disproportionately bad parents (perhaps they exhibit many bad behaviors which also make them poor) and this might cause their children to be disruptive in school. That's a concrete theory that's directly compatible with your secular faith in statistically identical genetic distributions, but still supports Kalium's claim.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 10y ago
  My question still stands.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Your repeated attempts to raise your status at my expense are quite amusing.
- whybroke 10y ago
  If you do _not_ believe humans possess "identical statistical distribution of [academic performance] genes across all subpopulations" why hide such insight? It'd be interesting to hear where in the gnome the "academic performance gene" sits. And have you also "discovered" a correlation between this academic performance gene and melanin content? Or gender too? Surely you don't want to deprive us of such important "discoveries".