4 ms·

> They all question whether math instruction is racist; that seems like a question worth answering! The problem here is that this question is impossible to ans

> They all question whether math instruction is racist; that seems like a question worth answering! The problem here is that this question is impossible to answer rigorously without treading into areas that are career suicide. It is extremely clear that mathematical ability is directly correlated to general intelligence. Low general intelligence is going to make it harder for you to be really good at math; higher general intelligence is going to make it more possible. Instruction factors into this, but if we want to actually determine the impact of instruction, we need to have a controlled experiment - and this means necessarily controlling for intelligence, and then evaluating to determine if the supposed racist bias is as prevalent and as worrisome as commentators like yourself allege. IQ is the closest measure of general intelligence we have, and the science of psychometrics has been improving steadily over the past hundred years to be less racially biased and more independent of background and prior knowledge. However, IQ remains highly problematic, because any demographic analysis of IQ is going to reveal trends that match exactly the kinds of outcomes we see in math achievement to a tee. This has been consistent for as long as we have been measuring, and does not show any promise of disappearing any time soon. What do you do with this? Fundamentally, you have a choice: deny the IQ numbers, deny the science behind IQ research itself, continue to claim that IQ measurement itself is racist despite decades of genuine attempts to remove culture as a factor, or lastly - actually accept that the numbers are what they say they are, and stop pretending otherwise. In general, the world of academia has chosen the first option: denying the validity of the demographic information entirely, and doing everything possible to make it difficult to collect this information, study it, draw conclusions from it, or cite it in anything else. Trying to use it to form any kind of policy decision is impossible. Only the last option is honest, and only honesty can actually result in anything approaching a productive way of addressing issues in society. If you want to remove racial bias from instruction, first, it is incumbent upon you to prove that it is present; this in turn stems from honesty about what we should actually expect out of everyone.

loopz 6y ago
This sounds like frenology all over again. There are many ways to teach children, and children are different. No need to give up or never try due to some linear stats. As society we must afford to think outside the box. I don't view such worldviews as racist, just pseudointellectualism.
- core-questions 6y ago
  > This sounds like frenology all over again. Phrenology, and no, it's not at all the same. Phrenologists believed that you could determine aspects of a person's propensity towards behavior by measuring their head; psychometricians believe we can determine how intelligent someone is by using an intelligence test. If you really think these two things are at all comparable, it's hard to believe you're posting in good faith. Truly, you're doing yourself a disservice, and you're showing ignorance and disrespect toward the many social scientists, psychologists, and statisticians who have researched psychometrics and the study of general intelligence for over a century. > There are many ways to teach children, and children are different. No need to give up or never try due to some linear stats. Where is this implied in what I posted? I absolutely believe in making sure that people have access to great mathematics education; further, I don't think we should even use aggregate statistics to in any way limit the opportunities we extend to every member of society to climb that ladder if it is their calling. The problem is that there are people who expect that the constituency of mathematicians is going to be a 1:1 representative sample of the population. In fact, that's probably still "too white" for many, since that would result in 60%+ white people. In reality, the group is, will, and will always be composed of those who are able to ascend to a level of mathematical greatness that you and I and most other folks wouldn't even dream of. Any attempt to change that forcibly along the lines of racial equity is going to result in something that will make Maoist killings of intellectuals look positively honest and forthright in comparison.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Good points. For educators what should matter most is how to teach most effectively to different children. This requires thinking out of the box, but is hard to scale.

loopz 6y ago

This sounds like frenology all over again. There are many ways to teach children, and children are different. No need to give up or never try due to some linear stats. As society we must afford to think outside the box. I don't view such worldviews as racist, just pseudointellectualism.

core-questions 6y ago
> This sounds like frenology all over again. Phrenology, and no, it's not at all the same. Phrenologists believed that you could determine aspects of a person's propensity towards behavior by measuring their head; psychometricians believe we can determine how intelligent someone is by using an intelligence test. If you really think these two things are at all comparable, it's hard to believe you're posting in good faith. Truly, you're doing yourself a disservice, and you're showing ignorance and disrespect toward the many social scientists, psychologists, and statisticians who have researched psychometrics and the study of general intelligence for over a century. > There are many ways to teach children, and children are different. No need to give up or never try due to some linear stats. Where is this implied in what I posted? I absolutely believe in making sure that people have access to great mathematics education; further, I don't think we should even use aggregate statistics to in any way limit the opportunities we extend to every member of society to climb that ladder if it is their calling. The problem is that there are people who expect that the constituency of mathematicians is going to be a 1:1 representative sample of the population. In fact, that's probably still "too white" for many, since that would result in 60%+ white people. In reality, the group is, will, and will always be composed of those who are able to ascend to a level of mathematical greatness that you and I and most other folks wouldn't even dream of. Any attempt to change that forcibly along the lines of racial equity is going to result in something that will make Maoist killings of intellectuals look positively honest and forthright in comparison.
- loopz 6y ago
  Good points. For educators what should matter most is how to teach most effectively to different children. This requires thinking out of the box, but is hard to scale.