3 ms·

> Most Ivy League students weren't born smart. This seems like a wild assertion to make, and here's something by Scott Alexander that points in the other direc

• thebooktocome 3y ago
  None of the subsections in that essay do much more than “point”; in classic Scott Alexander fashion he makes a lot of noise and gestures at. . . something. . . * Privilege > “One obvious answer would be “privilege”. It’s not completely wrong; once the first talented individual makes a family rich and famous, it has a big leg up.” But this answer isn’t politically viable for him so he glosses over it. * Genetics > “The other obvious answer is “genetics!” I think this one is right, but there are some mysteries here that make it less of a slam dunk.” He spends a lot of time trying to make this one work but of course it has all the well-known problems that all the eugenicists of the past ran into (e.g., assortative mating doesn’t completely explain Ashkenazi Jews). * Education > “Overall I’m not sure I can find any commonalities in these families’ educational styles except that they were all pretty weird.” * Yudkowsky’s “Hero License” > “. . .which I have no evidence for.”
• davemp 3y ago
  That article seems incredibly hand wavy and useless. > Suppose Erasmus Darwin had a genius-level IQ of 150. Not really a strong basis for an argument if you ask me.