No Child Left Behind was initially popular. It only became controversial when it was obvious that it was failing. It was failing because the goals were impossible. Among the goals were that every student become “proficient.” Somewhere I read that proficiency meant that every student would become a B average student. Without grade inflation that cannot be achieved. Another goal was that every student would graduate from high school.
No Child Left Behind was generally assinine, I give you that. Using its failures as evidence for your thesis is…is…I lack the vocabulary. I guess I’ll have to settle for ‘stupid’.
This is nonsense. Educators have been decrying the idiocy of the law since it was enacted. True, folks outside of the profession only realized how ridiculous it was a few years after educators (and after statisticians, of course), but to say it only became controversial later is a misreading of history.
How would educators have written it?
There’s not one answer to that question, unfortunately. If I were writing it, however, I’d look very hard for some way to put parents on the hook for their children’s education. I’m not sure how to do that without leading to ways to game the system, but IME the primary difference between a child who thrives in school and a child who flounders is whether I have a working phone number for the parent [to put it in only slightly oversimplified terms].
Read earlier in the thread for more discussion on this. As Hsu reports:
Also, see Ron Unz recent comments regarding his ‘Preliminary notes on the possible sociobiological implications of the rural Chinese economy’:
None of which actually proves any sort of point.
-
NDD was positing broad scale changes over the course of a few hundred years, rather than 10000.
-
Number of sons is nice and all and it’s certainly correlated with how genes spread, but it doesn’t show that such genes actually did spread. Nor that if there were any “intelligence” genes, that those were selected for once they were dispersed in the population.
-
The article itself shows the results for a current sub-population (not even the general Chinese population) and runs a model assuming those numbers hold across a broad society and back thousands of years in time.
-
As the Hsu himself noted, “the model is overly simple, and the assumptions are speculative”.
That does not mean that the central argument is invalid. Because genes matter it is important to figure out what kind of people tend to have the largest number of children who survive and reproduce. Hsu’s articles were convincing in explaining how for many centuries those with more intelligence in China tended to be more prolific.
Those who dislike a theory will scrutinize it for any discrepancy, and use the discrepancy to reject the whole theory. One needs to be willing to look at the big picture.
I explained that the imperial exam system, to which I credit the higher average IQs of Chinese, lasted for two thousand years.
Beneficial genes do not get dispersed and absorbed. They spread because they enhance the ability of those who possess them to survive and reproduce children who in turn survive and reproduce.
We have already noted how this claim is simply false in very large populations with regression to the mean. Your ability to repeat claims that have been debunked while ignoring the evidence against such claims in the hope that the rest of us will accept them on the second or third (or tenth) pass is still utterly unpersuasive.
Oh, go smoke a stick of dynamite, why don’t you. At this point, you’re not just a tiresome idiot, you are in fact a liar.
You’ve already been told a dozen times:
- the exam did not last 2.000 years, it was in use for a little over 1.300 at best
- it wasn’t always a test of “smarts”, and at times was severely crooked
- it cannot explain the higher average IQ of Chinese, because it wasn’t a selective eugenics breeding program. Not even close to one.
These are ground facts. Not emotional appeals, not complicated science you can’t understand because you lack the scholarly background, not preferences. Facts. Historical facts you can look up any fuck where.
And yet you keep reiterating those lies of yours. You’re not fooling anyone, liar.
On several occasions I have explained why I use the term “Oriental.” “Asians” can refer to Caucasians like Arabs, or east Indians.
I don’t care how frustrated you are, direct insults, wishing death on another poster, and direct accusations of lying are all prohibited in this forum.
This is a Warning to refrain from such actions.
[ /Moderating ]
Having recently attended my 20 year reunion I can assure you that IQ is in no way correlated with successful reproduction rates in white Americans.
Established in 605 during the Sui Dynasty, the system was used only on a small scale during the Tang Dynasty. Under the Song dynasty the emperors expanded the examinations and the government school system in order to counter the influence of military aristocrats, increasing the number of those who passed the exams to more than four to five times that of the Tang. Thus the system played a key role in the emergence of the scholar-officials, who came to dominate society. Under the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty, the system contributed to the narrowness of intellectual life and the autocratic power of the emperor. The system continued with some modifications until its 1905.
It looks like you are right about one thing. Nevertheless, 1,300 years is plenty of time for the imperial exam system to have had a beneficial effect on the biological quality of the Chinese nation.
Your invective is sufficient evidence of how much you want to disbelieve the importance of genetics in making some individuals superior to others, some nations superior to others, and some races superior to others.
Of course, the use of “Oriental” allows you to play games with your own assertions, as well. You claim, on the one hand, that there are “three” races," then you shift the claims around to talking about some imaginary “Oriental” population (the one with epicanthic folds) in an effort to limit the discussion to a much smaller sub group than your original claim about there being three “races.” You duck and weave and still fail to persuade.
What matters is that during most of human evolution individuals who were most intelligent tended to have the largest number of descendants in every subsequent generation.
But it doesn’t prove it, either.
You seem to continue to misunderstand this fundamental point.
Whether or not an argument is valid, you still have to provide proof of it. While I understand you think you have proof, you don’t actually have any.
And pet theories are fine to have, but you actually have to prove them. Believable scenarios don’t constitute proof. Your example of the Imperial Exam is a perfect example.
While it is a (wildly implausible, actually) possible scenario, you haven’t shown any evidence it changes underlying genetics. Just a supposition that it does. That’s fine as a starting point, but it hardly provides any actual evidence.
In any case, the thread is itself titled “Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic”.
But you contradict yourself elsewhere when trying to explain a difference over the course of a single century:
So, apparently, “race differences” are largely genetic, except when they’re not. Care to explain the contradiction? Are race differences largely genetic or are there cases where social and economic factors overwhelm them (meaning race differences are largely NOT genetic in those cases)?
They are mutually contradictory positions, yet you seem to take them both simultaneously.
Your argument style is basically that of a gish gallop.
Further, it’s tiresome when you don’t even respond to any arguments you have no answer for.
We’ve repeatedly stated that there’s no genetic basis for grouping a portion of humanity into various races. You disagree and requested what would be accepted as the evidence for such divisions. It was provided, yet you did not provide any answer.
Here’s the example:
You’ve made several posts since then, but NONE answering this question.
So, you have your definition as to what provides genetic evidence, but you have presented no such evidence.
Care to do so now?
Apologies, I thought this was the Pit thread for some reason.