In other news

If you do that to all AAs, regardless of their individual intelligence, it would definitely hurt at least some of them.

It could possibly help everyone if they were given individual intelligence tests, but you need no basis in race to do that. Just give the tests to everyone of all races, and base the education on that. I assume that the countries you mention don't use race as a filter to those different educational paths.

I have to assume that anyone who isn't horribly racist realizes that there are at least some black people who are more intelligent than some white people. So everyone should be treated as individuals.

i don't know where you got the impression I would ever go by anything other than individual performance.

and btw you don't need any one time IQ test. performance in elementary school tells you the story very well already.

maybe you lack contest: in the USA liberals use the fact that average educational outcomes for some ethnicities are structurally lower (and this is an uncontroversial fact) as "proof" that the educational system needs more money to cater to their special needs and/or that the system is racist so curricula and teaching methods have to change to cater to that.

if you attempt to answer with the "banned topic" being the reason for the different educational outcomes they start screaming and ban you basically.

ofc there would be no need to discuss racial intelligence at all (wrt the educational system) if there was no attempt to use lower ethnical educational outcomes for some groups as excuses to shovel more money to teacher unions or to ruin curricula for everybody.

I mean liberals have been screaming for decades that the educational system is racist BECAUSE blacks have worse grades basically, to you know that? that's the context under which they ban the taboo topic.

they also scream society is racist BECAUSE there are fewer lawyers/physicians/engineers as a proportion of the population among some ethnicities.

again if you ban the taboo topic, they are left with the "systemic racism" explanation which they use to justify affirmative action, and DEI based hiring and positive discrimination.

do you understand the taboo topic denial underpins basically all major liberal issues related to race? it's at the basis of their entire religion?

My guy black people weren’t universally allowed to participate in public education until about 50 years ago.

Most black people in academics are first or second generation to receive any type of education

The system WAS racist you potato

You said that the (or at least a) reason being able to discuss the topic is so this education track could be implemented, but it could be easily implemented without it, just as it was in the European countries you mentioned.

You seem to think that if this was somehow proven, or at least recognized as correct, liberals would want to make the changes you suggest. I think that would be very unlikely to happen. If anything, it would more likely want them to spend even more on programs provided to AAs, as it would be obviously needed to keep them as close to par as possible.

I think its safe to say that if Oklahoma is leading the way its probably into the abyss

Actually the solution progressives have come it is even more pernicious than this. We are officially in Brave New World territory, where in the name of "equity" public schools are removing advanced/honors programs altogether.

Well I think that is a mistake, but the way things are set up now, individual school boards are allowed to and do make many stupid decisions. That's part of the reason I think decisions should not be made at the local level.

So many people seem to think that local jurisdictions know what type of education is better for children in their own districts, but then you end up with things like that.

George Bush is a progressive?

NCLB and ESSA have both been disasters but I think the reasons are that it puts all the burden on teachers while the parents fight against educating their kids tooth and nail

You know I did look into his work and I’m not seeing the race science you are ascribing to him. He wrote a single thing about race and intelligence merely arguing that we ought to be able to talk about it seriously as a scientific subject. An opinion which the most often cited person in opposition to the view, Flynn, also holds.

I know lol Quilette but this is what he said about his firing:

Another notable thing is that very few if any of the academics there had expertise in the area that they were criticizing him for, and neither did the people leading the investigation against him.

You’d think that if they are telling him his ideas are unscientific, they’d consult someone who is knowledgeable in the area that he is supposedly producing debunked science in. You’ll find that from the quote above one of the offending articles cited is supporting a view held by Flynn. He should know, when he started publishing, his position was a huge minority in the field of psychometry. He was the first person to publish a serious academic critique.

I guess I got it wrong because he was writing up racist nonsense at least as early as 2016

I'm not even sure what you are referencing. Its not why he was fired though

Some countries with a reported positive Flynn effect are Kenya, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Some countries with a reported negative Flynn effect are France, Austria, Germany, Britain, Netherlands, Finland and the United States.

I mean it's a banned topic so i can't answer with details but what happened in the countries in bold in the last 30 years that happened far less in the 50 previous years?

Neoliberalism, on top of other things the triumph of short term monetary value over long term academic pursuits.

Not a very surprising career move. Largely the same audience and blissfully free of skeptics.

Since the inception of modern social science and biology in the 1800s, the measurement of human qualities has intrigued many academics. And while such measurement and its instruments have been valuable contributions to science, they also contains many of the darkest chapters of the (supposed) enlightenment.

Phrenology, eugenics, the one-drop rule, scientific racism, forced sterilization programs are among the more well known instances that most reasonable people would agree were horrifying. That alone should teach people to tread these waters more carefully, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a lesson that appeal to people.

To make things more complicated there are plenty of instances where the water is more muddled. Biological determinism and social determinism are both areas of science where the murky waters of "this isn't exactly clear" invites in a lot of ideologues who say very specific stuff to a very specific audience.

Very often this stops being an academic debate and instead becomes a question of polemics, which is what has happened in this thread. People become furious at the notion that their strongly held and very specific convictions can't be supported by flimsy evidence and dubious interpretations. Point out that these things aren't exactly resting on bedrock, and you get accused of censorship. Obviously, in such an environment, it is easy for men and women like Noah Carl become martyrs.

For example: The notion that that we can reliably compare IQ across countries and ethnicities is dubious simply due to the inconsistency of testing and datasets. The data is, for lack of a better term, piss poor. It isn't even easy to compare across developed nations, because testing is often inconsistent, almost invariably non-representative or both.

Now, that hasn't stopped a lot of people from writing books on the subject with colorful conclusions that often omit the part about massive uncertainties. This should tell people a thing or two about those books and the people writing them.

And all of this is before we even get into a debate on the concept of IQ to begin with, which takes us into a thick hazy academic soup which is psychometrics. Start looking at IQ instruments themselves, and things get wobbly fast.

Apparently there was a sniper attack at an ICE facility in Dallas, 3 detainees shot. Sounds like the world championship belt might be back up for grabs.

wait is your base hypothesis that rightwing people attack ICE offices?

They shot detained immigrants Luciom

ok and? i suggest we wait for data, should come easily as the killer suicided so it will be known very soon who he was.

It could be a crazy of any political stripe (95%+ mental illness as he suicided immediately afterwards) but if you are a racist alt-right person you can surely find easier targets to kill because they are immigrants and you hate them basically everwhere right?

While ofc if you hate ICE agents from the left, why didn't you shoot ICE agents?

So on the face of it , it doesn't make any sense from either side right?

I was making a joke about how inappropriate the original post in the Charlie Kirk thread was so I think we are on the same page

This is why I read your posts. Where else can I get this much unintended comedy gold?

That will fly too far above the intended target for a direct hit, D

It wasn’t a career move. He was chased out of an academic position he was more than qualified for by a mob of people angry that he exhibited wrongthink. Of course, they also happened to ruin his academic reputation and force him to sue the school.

That’s not a career change that’s a witchhunt that succeeded.

He was censored. Nobody thought that his work was unscientific, it was an ad hoc justification to remove him for more reasons other than “we don’t want to deal with these activist academics and students”.

He didn’t even publish anything about race science. It was the mere insinuation that the connection between race and IQ could be a legitimate thing to study in principle that was enough to gain the ire of these people.

You realize this argument is also self-defeating? If you are someone who believes the connection between race and IQ has been shown to a high degree of accuracy to be fallacious, well by undermining the data sets you undermine that conclusion as well. So the best we can say is we don’t know if there’s a connection because of a measuring problem. Well that’s quite a ways away from people saying that there is a scientific consensus that there is no biological connection.

So I guess you’re right, that does tell you a lot about the people who would kick someone out for basically having the position that we shouldn’t rule out the possible connection. It seems to be exactly what your position reduces to.

Anyway I totally agree that it’s difficult to compare IQs across nations, but it’s also not impossible, and it’s something that Flynn himself, who is a huge skeptic of the link between race and IQ has done in order to back up his own belief that it is mostly environmental. That’s the scientific process, is to have these debates in respectable journals. If it can’t be done there and one side of a reasonable debate can’t be represented, it will cause either stagnation or just slow down progress tremendously.

Not to say Flynn is the prophet of the environmental explanation but there is a huge theoretical cost to this approach that he pointed out. By saying that IQ is not measuring anything, you’re actually going way too skeptical since it seems to have some kind of usefulness in being able to predict who will be better suited for certain intellectual tasks. We use intelligence tests that can be proxies for IQ all the time when we do placement. And this sort of radical skepticism about whether intelligence can be measured leads people to try to undermine intelligence-based placement into classes and industries.

Of course companies are not accepting this approach, but many schools have. This is a disaster because it means exceptional students can get lost in the shuffle of extracurriculars and meeting the requirements.

It’s also a disaster because if the problem really is all environmental, how are we going to control for environmental factors when studying IQ if people are undermining that it’s worth being studied in the first place. It seems at least a worthwhile question to ask even if it’s fraught with moral hazards like what you’re talking about.

Actually the left is forcing the education of the trans ideology on kindergarten to grade 6 students . I think both are wrong along with Texas and the 10 commandments

Kimmel is vilified and pulled off air for making a completely innocuous statement, yet this guy is still on the air became of idiotic FCC rules, that most other developed countries don't have about cable news.

Fox News' Jesse Watters Calls to 'Bomb' U.N., or 'Maybe Gas It,' After Broken Escalator and Teleprompter During Trump's Visit
Watters characterized the malfunctions at the U.N. headquarters on Tuesday as an "insurrection"

https://people.com/jesse-watters-calls-bomb-un-after-teleprompter-escalator-malfunctions-11816183?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_content=post

People.com

Fox News' Jesse Watters Calls to 'Bomb' U.N., or 'Maybe Gas It,' After Broken Escalator and Teleprompter During Trump's Visit