3 ms·

> The point being-- the gap between scientific research on intelligence and what it means for A) society, and B) my personal life is a chasm I have no reason to

> The point being-- the gap between scientific research on intelligence and what it means for A) society, and B) my personal life is a chasm I have no reason to bridge. The problem is that well-meaning people on the left come to the table full of assumptions and intuitions about how reality works and what causes inequality, and base their policy positions on these. People on the right bring up biology because it can expose weaknesses in these assumptions and beliefs. > Looking towards the past on how (pseudo)science about intelligence has been leveraged to commit atrocities You can also look at how blank slatism and Lysenkoism were leveraged to commit atrocities in the USSR. Science and pseudo-science have been use to justify all kinds of horrible regimes. That isn't a license to ignore reality and form policy based on unfounded beliefs.

danharaj 9y ago
> That isn't a license to ignore reality and form policy based on unfounded beliefs. Did I say anything about unfounded beliefs? I didnt. I even said I accept research on intelligence. Not basing policy on X is not the same thing as basing policy on X. But I'll bite. Tell me a way that intelligence research should inform policy that isn't immediately morally repugnant.
- FancyOrangutan 9y ago
  Some aspects of school/district curriculums that shouldn't/can't be tailored to individual ability should still be tailored to the general ability of the student body. In areas with rapidly shifting demographics, this data might help inform decision making. Obviously, in almost any conceivable case, there is plenty of other, sharper data that renders the race data unnecessary; but when the almost entirely Ashkenazi school becomes 75% African refugees and chooses to put on a less lexically complex play, this research will have constructively informed policy.
- haberman 9y ago
  > Did I say anything about unfounded beliefs? I didnt. I even said I accept research on intelligence. I wasn't commenting on your personal beliefs. I was commenting on your position that certain true facts should not be spoken in a political context. To me, that is the same as saying that people should be free to make policy without being challenged if their beliefs are incorrect. > But I'll bite. Tell me a way that intelligence research should inform policy that isn't immediately morally repugnant. No Child Left Behind in the USA is (I think) widely regarded as a failed piece of legislation. It is based on the idea that the only reason kids don't succeed in school is because schools are failing them. It heavily penalized schools that can't get their achievement scores up. Intelligence research can provide one leg of a counterargument that kids are different in all kinds of ways, and proscriptively mandating equality of outcome makes for bad policy.

danharaj 9y ago

> That isn't a license to ignore reality and form policy based on unfounded beliefs. Did I say anything about unfounded beliefs? I didnt. I even said I accept research on intelligence. Not basing policy on X is not the same thing as basing policy on X. But I'll bite. Tell me a way that intelligence research should inform policy that isn't immediately morally repugnant.

FancyOrangutan 9y ago
Some aspects of school/district curriculums that shouldn't/can't be tailored to individual ability should still be tailored to the general ability of the student body. In areas with rapidly shifting demographics, this data might help inform decision making. Obviously, in almost any conceivable case, there is plenty of other, sharper data that renders the race data unnecessary; but when the almost entirely Ashkenazi school becomes 75% African refugees and chooses to put on a less lexically complex play, this research will have constructively informed policy.
haberman 9y ago
> Did I say anything about unfounded beliefs? I didnt. I even said I accept research on intelligence. I wasn't commenting on your personal beliefs. I was commenting on your position that certain true facts should not be spoken in a political context. To me, that is the same as saying that people should be free to make policy without being challenged if their beliefs are incorrect. > But I'll bite. Tell me a way that intelligence research should inform policy that isn't immediately morally repugnant. No Child Left Behind in the USA is (I think) widely regarded as a failed piece of legislation. It is based on the idea that the only reason kids don't succeed in school is because schools are failing them. It heavily penalized schools that can't get their achievement scores up. Intelligence research can provide one leg of a counterargument that kids are different in all kinds of ways, and proscriptively mandating equality of outcome makes for bad policy.