So I can’t talk about how heritable vocabulary size, or anything else, is without someone bringing up scientific racism? You’re just going to pretend a whole area of science doesn’t exist because some people are misusing it?
Curious that you become insulted when I pointed out that it was the mollusk and other ant-intellectuals out there doing that.
Again, a lot of what you are pushing for is Orwellian right wing propaganda. And as the Smithsonian and others point out, there is nothing wrong with studying inheritance, (what one has to realize is that the inheritance works the same for all so-called races) it is just wrong to plug in a social construct like race in an attempt to keep things the same. Just like the ones that justify having less Hispanics or blacks to go into higher institutions of learning with misunderstandings about inheritance.
What type of illiterate fool are you? If anyone is anti-science/intellectual it’s folks who pretend that anything that suggests that humanity is somehow not a divine exception to physical law is somehow bigoted. You leftists nuts are no different, as I’ve said many times before, than theocrats. It’s just your religion is Woke and anything that contradicts the everchanging goal posts of Woke is forbidden.
Nope, as others pointed out, your use of “woke” as a slur is you self branding yourself as a bloody fool of the right wing.
Please continue branding yourself as a fool from the right wing… you racist shithead.
Woke should be a slur. It’s anti liberty. It’s anti fact. It’s pro collectivism. It’s pro punishment and reward based on immutable biological factors. It’s a sick ideology hiding under a veneer of compassion and justice but its methodology, goals, and base premise are as destructive as class warfare was in the hands of the Soviets.
Even your ridiculous personal attacks are nothing more than a regurgitated and thoughtless vomit of words intended to do nothing more than provoke a Pavlovian response from the well-indoctrinated mob. Please continue branding yourself as a fool from the far left you brainless nut.
Please continue Governor…
…No, really, you are the one branding yourself as a certified illiterate fool by ignoring the history of the word.
But “woke” and the phrase “stay woke” had already been a part of Black communities for years, long before Black Lives Matter gained prominence. “While renewed (inter)national outcry over anti-Black police violence certainly fueled widespread and mainstream usage of the word in the present, it has a much longer history,” deandre miles-hercules, a doctoral linguistics researcher at the University of California Santa Barbara, told me.
The earliest known examples of wokeness as a concept revolve around the idea of Black consciousness “waking up” to a new reality or activist framework and dates back to the early 20th century. In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious. A few years later, the phrase “stay woke” turned up as part of a spoken afterword in the 1938 song “Scottsboro Boys,” a protest song by Blues musician Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly. The song describes the 1931 saga of a group of nine Black teenagers in Scottsboro, Arkansas, who were accused of raping two white women.
Lead Belly says at the end of an archival recording of the song that he’d met with the Scottsboro defendants’ lawyer, who introduced him to the men themselves. “I made this little song about down there,” Lead Belly says. “So I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there — best stay woke, keep their eyes open.”
Lead Belly uses “stay woke” in explicit association with Black Americans’ need to be aware of racially motivated threats and the potential dangers of white America. Lead Belly’s usage has largely stayed the common, consistent one ever since, including during one notable brush with the mainstream in 1962, via the New York Times.
What changed is that very quickly the use of the word was dropped by many of your targets as the real hive mind (the right wing) began to work to turn the word into a slur. Hence, the result seen in a very short time, it is only idiotes of the ancient Greek type like you the ones that continue to use it without noticing that the gig is up for the ones using the word like a slur.
Oh we care about the complete etymology of a word now? The original meaning is the One True Meaning to rule them all? I don’t think so.
No, it was @asahi, and you.
Wrong, I noted what the mollusk omitted to make his stupid reply “work”, that was all.
…says the fascist apologist whose contributions here are pretty much all false narratives.
We get it. The deeper into moral bankruptcy the right get, the more extreme the leftist strawmen you build have to be to justify your support for the right.
Maybe I need to start a new thread in GD to talk about the SAT, so it doesn’t get derailed by people complaining about Octopus and arguing over the word ‘woke’ for the millionth time. 
To that point, I am not too sure what the conversation had to do with the thread in the 1st place. Perhaps a good idea.
Also, appreciate the acknowledgement that, even for the Right, his presence in a discussion is nothing but a distraction.
I’m curious. What makes you describe me as the Right?
@Babale, I posted this article in the troll thread, but it makes way more sense to put it here.
It’s a much better representation of what and who I have been reading than Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson.
OK, having read the thing, and leaving out some miscellaneous comments I had that probably aren’t relevant:
First of all, here’s their conclusion:
We found evidence for a causal influence of reading ability on print exposure, consistent with previous findings from behavioural studies (Aarnoutse & van Leeuwe, 1998; Harlaar et al., 2011; Leppänen et al., 2005). Our findings refute the common belief that there is an influence of print exposure on reading ability, or that there are reciprocal influences between them.
So what the study says is that children tend to read less if they find it harder to read; and that voluntarily reading more doesn’t make it easier for them to read. The first part of that isn’t surprising; the second part might be on first glance, but it turns out that what they’re talking about is dyslexia, which can be worked around by particular teaching methods but apparently not just improved by 7 year olds practicing reading on their own.
What they’re saying is heritable is dyslexia. Which is indeed heritable, but which is not associated with any particular race or ethnic or socioeconomic group:
So dyslexia doesn’t explain differences between such groups either in college admittance or in college success or in whatever is defined by the society as “success” in later life.
The study doesn’t have anything to do with how many books are readily available to the children, with whether they’re around adults who read for pleasure, or with what vocabulary they’re exposed to: since what they’re comparing is twins who were raised together. And I don’t see what it has to do with whether the SAT’s are a useful indicator for any of those.
It’s possible that DemonTree’s area schools were so-called Grant-maintained schools, a government program from the late '80s through the late '90s where funding came directly from the government with a per-capita formula. Or at least this is what I’ve read about them online.
~Max
Most Americans don’t read a lot, not even children.
~Max
No, they are not. They are saying the amount a child voluntarily reads does not influence their reading ability, whereas reading ability does influence how much a child reads voluntarily. That may seem obvious, but it was possible it could have been the other way around; that kids who read more for whatever reason unconnected with ability read better because they get more practice. But they found no evidence for such an effect.
And they also say there is a large genetic influence on reading ability, but no shared environment influence, whereas for ‘print exposure’ there is a shared environmental influence approximately equal to the genetic one. I don’t know where you got the idea their conclusions are limited to kids with dyslexia; they looked at all ability levels.
It wasn’t meant to be, really. You asked for a study on ‘love of reading’ and that’s what I found. I can’t even remember how the subject came up, now…
I wonder if young people read more or less now, with the internet so ubiquitous. How much did you read as a child?