4 ms·
Because you end up with bad science, like (potentially) the study posted here. If you refuse to consider the role of genetics, then everything is going to look
by nostromo 3y ago
Because you end up with bad science, like (potentially) the study posted here. If you refuse to consider the role of genetics, then everything is going to look like environmental impacts.
This has a real impact on policy and investment, because we waste time on money on programs that have no chance of success.
Trying to remain ignorant isn't going to help us here, even if we have good intentions.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> because we waste time on money on programs that have no chance of success. And presumably learn from it. While wasting a lot of money and effort (and people) on programs that won't work isn't good, neither is not trying because the effect is presumed, pre hoc, to be small or non-existent. We live in a world where most people aren't enabled to achieve their potential. Figuring out that extrinsic rewards don't work to motivate behavioral changes or achievement for some people of a certain category, regardless of why, will hopefully result in the testing of other non-extrinsic-reward interventions that may work to motivate.
- concordDance 3y ago> And presumably learn from it. While it might be easier than for regular people, it's still extremely hard for a politician/academic or political faction/academic faction to admit error. It's almost always possible to come up with a reason for why something didn't work that doesn't require giving up on a centrally important idea.