When it comes to the effectiveness of after school programs in low income areas, I don’t have to rely on the news. I can sit back and actually fucking remember it. You know, that thing you do when you’ve personally experienced something.
Or hell, maybe that I live in a low income city. Or maybe that I personally know 4 teachers teaching in my low income city. Or MAYYYYYYBE because my mother is the manager of a city run afterschool program in a low income city.
You mean, like the time 144 professors co-signed a letter stating that your so-called “great book” was…well, let’s just read what they wrote again:
"As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.
We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures.[9][10]"
An entire field of scientists lined up against what you are stating, and you honestly believe we’re the ones without evidence.
I want you to support the claim that intelligence, achievement and everything we’ve talked about is not biologically driven, and is instead environmental. That there is no connection between race and IQ
There is no case to make against race and IQ because your position on race and IQ isn’t substantiated. There’s no need to disprove something that isn’t proven or even assumed.
Have you ever taken a science class in your life? Serious question.
You’re tremendously lazy - you want everyone to just assume a certain idea you want to be true without credible proof the idea is true. Doesn’t work that way.
Herein lies the problem: raj is utterly incapable of (or unwilling to) identify what constitutes “credible” proof.
He’s perfectly willing to throw up a link to anything with a title that seems to support his point du jour, but whose content often specifically contradicts the point he wants it to make. For example, hurriedly posting a link to the Wikipedia page of a “great book” that by the end of the first paragraph acknowledges that literally the entire cohort of scientists working in that area were lined up against the book’s conclusions.
Our hero, instead of judging the “credibility” of the book based upon the opinions of the experts in the field, steamrolled right through those and found the conclusion he wanted anyway.
I answered this. Race and IQ not unlike climate change is heavily politicized. People who study the interplay between race, IQ and behavioural traits are seen as modern day heretics not unlike climate change skeptics.
The modern political climate does not allow for the level of open and honest discussion.
There ya go, I guarantee ussmccds hasn’t actually read anything on the subject, he’s just reached a conclusion that he was force fed and worked backwards (links I’m certain he barely touched himself).
I mean let’s be honest, people rarely if ever criticize him because he’s on their side ideologically.
The person most in need of this advice is you. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows how little you have done in pursuit of educating yourself. You don’t even read the links you post - it’s no surprise you don’t read anything else.
