5 ms·
Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number. In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' populat
by lsd5you 16y ago
Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number.
In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).
- barrkel 16y agoHe said genetics wouldn't be so important if everyone didn't have access to decent schools. In other words, he's saying genetics is more important if the school inequality is equalized. You're actually agreeing with him.
- lsd5you 16y agoI had to reread both of these comments a couple of times, before it dawned on me why you disagreed - correctly. Since I am from the UK public school reads 'posh elite school', not 'state school' so it had an opposite sense to my thinking. As to the alleged assumption, I'm not entirely sure to what degree I am making it. I am assuming of course the same conditions as the experiments I mentioned - which were, I am fairly sure, western society in general in the last few decades. I won't pass judgement as to whether this meets the condition of decent state schools for all. In all not too sure what the point of the original observation was, it could go in both directions. The figure of 50% only makes sense given some context.