3 ms·
Sowell is an extreme outlier. Anyway, the "nature vs. nurture" argument invariable avoids a simple fact: Nature has a one-time cost, nurture has an infinitely-
by mynameishere 17y ago
Sowell is an extreme outlier.
Anyway, the "nature vs. nurture" argument invariable avoids a simple fact: Nature has a one-time cost, nurture has an infinitely-ongoing cost.
I mean: Even if the left is right about schools, institutions, teachers, practices, education, etc, etc, being able to equalize the differences between people, you are essentially dividing the population into two parts:
1. Those who naturally meet a standard, and
2. Those who require 500,000 dollars worth of state intervention to meet the same standard.
- tokenadult 17y ago1. Those who naturally meet a standard, and 2. Those who require 500,000 dollars worth of state intervention to meet the same standard. What is your proposal for determining which group a person belongs to, if we accept the existence of two such disparate groups? How would your proposal take into account such known facts (from psychometric psychology) as 1) error in estimation in IQ testing, 2) individual variability in IQ over the course of childhood, 3) the influence of personal drive and motivation (acknowledged by ALL psychologists) in the expression of IQ as academic achievement, 4) the known malleability of IQ under less expensive interventions in some experimental studies of individuals and across whole societies over recent generations?