541–550 of 624 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. And test taking may not be the best criteria to judge people by.
I put in an explicit edit at the bottom of my post now to clarify – I think test prep is terrible to. The important part was cultural factors valuing STEM enough to pay for test prep, not the prep itself.
Since this is not a mix-up I make very commonly, I obviously meant "...terrible too".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
claims that performance on standardized tests is not a measure of competency That's mostly an attempt to get around this: Average US Asian IQ: 105. Average US White IQ: 99. Average US Black IQ: 85-90. Most comments focus on the black-white gap, but the Asian/non-Asian is substantial. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-scor... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Those average figures hide something pretty interesting. IQ scores are defined against a white norm of 100. They are often broken down into components, with "verbal" and "spatial visualization" components being very common. By definition, the white average is 100 on these components. Blacks have a lower average, but (compared to the white profile) they look "flat"; their reasoning scores are similar to their verbal s…
This isn't well understood, but starting with a tonal language has a major influence on how speech processing in the brain works.[1]
[1] https://theconversation.com/if-you-speak-mandarin-your-brain...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The merit-based school such as Styuvesant in NYC and Lowell in SF are both filled with rather poor Asian kids. The demographic profile of these two schools are substantially lower income than the very expensive cities they reside in. Edit: Got the names of the schools wrong.
You know that isn't an argument against what I said, right? Like, at all. It completely supports what I said.
It's literally the opposite of what you said, unless you suddenly changed your mind and agree that the merit-based schools are the best option for poor kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean that some people are lucky because they were born smart?
This is the real issue that no one wants to address.
Would it be reasonable to say that hard work should be rewarded? Well…ones propensity for hard work, it turns out, is highly heritable. Either from your genes or from your upbringing. You didn’t choose your parents, nor did you choose your upbringing. So your propensity for hard work is really just unearned privilege.
Same line of reasoning can be applied with future orientation, or smarts. People don’t deserve the fruits of their intellect, because they didn’t do anything to earn it.
I’m not sure if there is a name for this kind of absurdity, but “Achievement Fatalism” is a nice fit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a bioinformaticist. Try the 23andme algorithm, or whatever they used in the research that compared self-reported race to genetically measured ancestry. (The objective definition of your race is defined by where your ancestors come from, which, due to how babies get made, can be measured from your DNA. You can read more about this "DNA pseudo-science" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis ) College admis…
Can you refer me to the 23andme algorithm that determines race with 99.9999% parity with self-reported race? Where do they report this outcome? I'm unable to determine the algorithm or find this claim by 23andme just from the reference to '23andme algorithm.' I've been totally unable to find such claims made by 23andme, suggesting they predict 'race' with any certainty to self-reported 'race.' I know what meiosis is,…
> Say I change my mind about what race I am due to it being typically poorly defined.
But it isn't poorly defined. Your race is the combination of your parents'.
You're trying to use some college definition of race, and I don't know what sort of indoctrination made you that way, but that's not what people actually mean by race.
Like, middle easterners who are Republican might call themselves white, while politically involved Democrats might call themselves "people of color". I know two siblings who probably split down this divide. But even if they do, they're actually the same race, because they have the same parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America needs to build more colleges. Based on current wtf pricing and demand, 2xing the number might do it.
This won't fix the problem. The older/well known colleges will still be prestigious and demand for them will not reduce.
It'll take time but it will fix itself.
the problem is and always has been that the particular school you attend has too much weight, irrespective of ability or aptitude. if college admissions were high school blind then this wouldn't even matter to begin with. simply being great, regardless of which school you attend would be enough. re: TJH admissions: > In 2020, during the summer after George Floyd’s death, the Virginia state government announced that i…
why should a 4.0 student with excellent test scores have "as good a chance" as a 3.5 student with bad test scores?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you refer me to the 23andme algorithm that determines race with 99.9999% parity with self-reported race? Where do they report this outcome? I'm unable to determine the algorithm or find this claim by 23andme just from the reference to '23andme algorithm.' I've been totally unable to find such claims made by 23andme, suggesting they predict 'race' with any certainty to self-reported 'race.' I know what meiosis is,…
Like, people's self-identified race is virtually always consistent with their ancestry, except when they're mistaken, unhinged, or taking advantage of lower standards for non-whites. 23andme's proprietary algorithm might be bad at predicting whether Elizabeth Warren calls herself native american or white, even if it it caught that 1/2^n wisp of DNA, but her self-identification is made on the basis of ancestry. > Say…
>But it isn't poorly defined. Your race is the combination of your parents'.
This is circular reasoning. My race is a combination of my parents' . So my race is my parents' combined race? The fact that you resort to this fallacy makes a great case that race ISN'T well defined.
Using your own (recursive) definition (which eventually recurses all the way up to the first reproducing organism from which we came), if humans all have a common ancestor (such as some single-cellular organism), then we're all the race of whatever that common parent is. Following our 'parents' all the way up, we should finally come to the first organism(s) to exist. We'd all be the same 'race'.
>You're trying to use some college definition of race, and I don't know what sort of indoctrination made you that way, but that's not what people actually mean by race.
I'm trying to understand how I can determine what race someone is. You mention 'middle easterner.' How can I determine with 99.9999% accuracy who is a 'middle easterner.'
Your comment about 'college' 'indoctrination' is purely ad hominem fallacy, specious anti-academic attack designed to negatively portray something perceived as an educated opinion. This is coming completely out of left field and seems to be a lashing out for some sort of internal axe you have to grind.
>Like, middle easterners who are Republican might call themselves white, while politically involved Democrats might call themselves "people of color". I know two siblings who probably split down this divide. But even if they do, they're actually the same race, because they have the same parents.
This comment seems to work against the notion that self-reported race is 99.9999% predictable by DNA.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like, people's self-identified race is virtually always consistent with their ancestry, except when they're mistaken, unhinged, or taking advantage of lower standards for non-whites. 23andme's proprietary algorithm might be bad at predicting whether Elizabeth Warren calls herself native american or white, even if it it caught that 1/2^n wisp of DNA, but her self-identification is made on the basis of ancestry. > Say…
OK, so define to me then the algorithm by which I can identify each race, if it is not poorly defined as you claim. What are the 'races' and precisely how can I categorize each person in them in a well defined way. >But it isn't poorly defined. Your race is the combination of your parents'. This is circular reasoning. My race is a combination of my parents' . So my race is my parents' combined race? The fact that you…
> OK, so define to me then the algorithm
Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate.
> Your comment about 'college' 'indoctrination' is purely ad hominem fallacy,
Are you not regurgitating something you learned in college? Then where are you regurgitating it from?
It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.