
School Districts, Test Scores, and Income - oli5679
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/my-response-to-the-nytimes-article-on-school-districts-test-scores-and-income/
======
csense
If intelligence and success are truly largely determined by genetics:

\- How will our culture ever allow us to even admit the possibility?

\- If it's true and the truth becomes widely accepted, how do we prevent
problems ranging from basic discrimination, to a push for eugenics policies,
to full-on Nazi "kill all the inferior races in our glorious society"?

The answer since WW2 has been basically "that's not the way it works" \-- but
then that means we suppress evidence that points in that direction, and so
blind ourselves to the possibility that it is actually the way it works.

If what the author's saying is the truth, are we better off being willfully
blind to it, and avoiding the grave social problems such a truth could
potentially cause if widely accepted? Or should we pursue the evidence
wherever it leads?

We like to think that our modern scientific society is far more ethically
advanced than the primitive, superstitious idiots who put Galileo on trial --
but it seems like this issue may be an example of the same forces at work, and
it seems like a lot of the people might come down on the side of suppressing
unfavorable evidence.

For the record, I don't really support the author's point of view. I'm just
playing devil's advocate by asking yourself: If the author's right, what
evidence would he need to present in order to convince you?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I wonder... Dogs are all the same speices, Canis lupus, yet some breeds are
known to be highly trainable while others are not.

What _else_ could this be other than genetics?

Dogs are mammals, aside from their proportions their bodies are nearly
identical to ours.

Therefore, ought it not be possible to selectively breed for humans for traits
such as trainability, calmness, and emotional stability? These are all traits
some dogs have been selected for.

------
dzdt
The problem with this type of analysis is there is always a motivation behind
it.

This kind of analysis is deployed as an argument that it is okay that
wealthier kids get better-funded schools with more opportunities to advance.
Because (supposedly) the analysis proved the poorer kids are being held back
by genetics, not the inequalities of the system.

And this kind of analysis is used to justify racism. Since race is genetic,
and socioeconomic outcome is correlated to genetics, then SES correlation with
race is to be expected. So (the racist argument goes) racism is rational and
justified, and efforts to counter it are pointless.

The linked article does not go this far, true. But ask, what is the motivation
for making the arguments he is making?

~~~
vannevar
It's true that these kinds of analyses are often politically motivated, but if
they're sound, they're sound, regardless of the motivation. My problem with
them is that they focus on the wrong thing. They ignore the fact that while
human traits, including intelligence, have Gaussian distributions, wealth and
income have distributions closer to a power law. This suggests that there are
strong, systematic amplifications of wealth that have little relation to real
merit, regardless of the biological source. Compared to the differences in
wealth, the measurable biological differences are in the noise. And _that 's_
what we should be analyzing.

------
douche
Nobody seems to want to touch this with a ten-foot pole...

~~~
malandrew
It's unfortunate how great analysis is ignored because it's politically
inconvenient.

~~~
germinalphrase
There's a great deal of fear that linking academic success with genetics will
embolden discrimination in society.

It's much easier to 'cut your losses' and overtly under-educate a certain
group of people if you can legitimize that 'they won't excel anyway'.

~~~
oli5679
That's true, some of the most disgusting behaviour in history has used social
darwinism as a justification for oppression. I guess I'm torn between an
interest in and fear of the topic. I'm surprised that such compelling evidence
is ignored in public discourse, however it could be that this is a good thing?

------
dsfyu404ed
TL;DR: the apple can only fall so far from the tree.

