As long as we're at it, let's have a serious discussion about the IQ gap as it might contribute to achievement gap that separates, say, Chinese and South Asians, on the one hand, from lower-achieving European-Americans. Who's up for it?
This sounds like inbreeding between social Darwinism and evolutionary psychology. Serious analysis based on junk science cannot yield substantive truth, wisdom or knowledge.
I understand that, and no disrespect to you, but even the concept of IQ testing has major unresolvable problems with construct validity that has plagued it from the beginning, let alone all the other issues. I'd go so far as to say that IQ testing completely is worthless, unless all you're measuring is a person's ability to pass a culture-bound test. Not only are these tests worthless from a validity angle, they also fail to have any predictive value relative to performance--again, unless all you're measuring is standardized test-taking ability. Are amazing test-takers more likely to succeed in academics--sure! But only if all they do is take more tests. Are amazing test-takers smarter than everyone else? I think a case could be made that high-performing test takers could be LESS intelligent than other people, because the skills required to pass standardized tests require rigid, stereotyped thinking to understand and pass them. Also, even if IQ testing worked as advertised, at their very best they could only measure one facet of intelligence (analytical skills). They are silent on socioemotional intelligence, the ability to form new insights, complex abstract reasoning, creativity, etc. Einstein likely would have "failed" an IQ test, but that speaks to the failings of the test to capture the reality, not Einstein's lack of ability.
Name: Read a little about the reality of teaching in black schools. Blaming the tests and ignoring what is actually happening helps no one. We need to move disruptive students out so those who have a chance to learn can.
“The brute reality is that most kids slot themselves into academic ability bands early in life and stay there throughout schooling. We have a certain natural level of performance, gravitate towards it early on, and are likely to remain in that band relative to peers until our education ends. There is some room for wiggle, and in large populations there are always outliers. But in thousands of years of education humanity has discovered no replicable and reliable means of taking kids from one educational percentile and raising them up into another. Mobility of individual students in quantitative academic metrics relative to their peers over time is far lower than popularly believed. The children identified as the smart kids early in elementary school will, with surprising regularity, maintain that position throughout schooling. Do some kids transcend (or fall from) their early positions? Sure. But the system as a whole is quite static. Most everybody stays in about the same place relative to peers over academic careers. The consequences of this are immense, as it is this relative position, not learning itself, which is rewarded economically and socially in our society.”
He and Steve Sailer are telling us something if we are prepared to listen. Refusing to acknowledge these facts or discuss them doesn’t help in an age when the Supreme Court is upending virtually everything in the relationship between the races.
Affirmative action needs to go. Equity needs to go.
Let's go back to encouraging meritocracy.
what a great panel. Long time follower of Reilly and Maron.
We will still have to have a serious discussion about the “gap”. Something we are loath to do.
http://takimag.com/article/mind-the-gap
As long as we're at it, let's have a serious discussion about the IQ gap as it might contribute to achievement gap that separates, say, Chinese and South Asians, on the one hand, from lower-achieving European-Americans. Who's up for it?
Why not? Are you afraid of the truth?
This sounds like inbreeding between social Darwinism and evolutionary psychology. Serious analysis based on junk science cannot yield substantive truth, wisdom or knowledge.
It’s based on actual test results. The issue of environmental or genetic causes is not discussed.
I understand that, and no disrespect to you, but even the concept of IQ testing has major unresolvable problems with construct validity that has plagued it from the beginning, let alone all the other issues. I'd go so far as to say that IQ testing completely is worthless, unless all you're measuring is a person's ability to pass a culture-bound test. Not only are these tests worthless from a validity angle, they also fail to have any predictive value relative to performance--again, unless all you're measuring is standardized test-taking ability. Are amazing test-takers more likely to succeed in academics--sure! But only if all they do is take more tests. Are amazing test-takers smarter than everyone else? I think a case could be made that high-performing test takers could be LESS intelligent than other people, because the skills required to pass standardized tests require rigid, stereotyped thinking to understand and pass them. Also, even if IQ testing worked as advertised, at their very best they could only measure one facet of intelligence (analytical skills). They are silent on socioemotional intelligence, the ability to form new insights, complex abstract reasoning, creativity, etc. Einstein likely would have "failed" an IQ test, but that speaks to the failings of the test to capture the reality, not Einstein's lack of ability.
Name: Read a little about the reality of teaching in black schools. Blaming the tests and ignoring what is actually happening helps no one. We need to move disruptive students out so those who have a chance to learn can.
https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/taught-for-america
Freddie DeBoer discusses academic ability here:
“The brute reality is that most kids slot themselves into academic ability bands early in life and stay there throughout schooling. We have a certain natural level of performance, gravitate towards it early on, and are likely to remain in that band relative to peers until our education ends. There is some room for wiggle, and in large populations there are always outliers. But in thousands of years of education humanity has discovered no replicable and reliable means of taking kids from one educational percentile and raising them up into another. Mobility of individual students in quantitative academic metrics relative to their peers over time is far lower than popularly believed. The children identified as the smart kids early in elementary school will, with surprising regularity, maintain that position throughout schooling. Do some kids transcend (or fall from) their early positions? Sure. But the system as a whole is quite static. Most everybody stays in about the same place relative to peers over academic careers. The consequences of this are immense, as it is this relative position, not learning itself, which is rewarded economically and socially in our society.”
He and Steve Sailer are telling us something if we are prepared to listen. Refusing to acknowledge these facts or discuss them doesn’t help in an age when the Supreme Court is upending virtually everything in the relationship between the races.