This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think boys who are slow early on in school are destined to be that way throughout life and and end up in the lower rungs of society. Relative positions do not change, and giving slow boys a boost early on is not going to change this once the effect wears off, like with with universal pre-k in which any early gains were quickly erased. Boys who grow up to be engineers, STEM jobs, etc. probably don't have this problem as much as boys who grow up to work in service sector. Even in elementary school you can identify who has potential compared to who doesn't. Boys may underperform relative to girls but struggling on the classroom to some extent suggests an IQ problem, not a sex differences problem. Hoping that intervention will remedy innate differences reminds me of people hoping that their crypto portfolios will recover. let's assume there is a 2 year difference in brain maturity between boys vs. girls..this would suggest that slow boys can make up the difference after their brains mature and perform better at school, but how often does this happen?
Or there's a bias in grading...:
More options
Context Copy link
Is classwork actually primarily measuring IQ?
My memories are that schoolwork primarily measured ‘making academics a priority’ and ‘willingness to comply with arbitrary instructions’, with actual learning a rather distant third. As any parent of small children will tell you, girls want to please their authority figures and are generally more compliant, so it doesn’t surprise me that girls do better in school than boys.
Add in that schoolteachers are pretty female and thus presumably better at working with girls, and you have multiple explanations for why girls get better grades that aren’t IQ.
I think there is some correlation . Meaning that kids who struggle probably are on net not that smart , but some smart kids may get low grades if they are bored with the work. I don't think this sub is representative of the average kid who dislikes school and then does really well later in life.
Here we see a strongly positive correlation between IQ and the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement that holds on all IQ ranges though:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-42eebfbeebd2b3735b54421ff2225f9c-lq
More options
Context Copy link
Given that IQ is chiefly a measure of academic potential I'd say probably yes. Where things get sketchy is in trying to map IQ to things like reasoning ability, social awareness, memory, erudition, etc...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What, in the sense that it's happened several times before (across the market and with individual portfolios)? That this reality can be easily shown by a 20 second google search?
Why not just use a simple and accurate metaphor like pigs flying?
Furthermore, it's not established that women have higher IQ than men, some evidence seems to suggest that men have a higher average, though higher male variance would complicate this somewhat.
nature.com/articles/nature04966
I never said they did
I chose this one because it involves hope. no one hopes pigs fly, but many parents hope their slow kids excel at life later
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When I have kids I would strongly consider holding any boys back so they are old for their class year. The impact of school mostly seems to be social conditioning and maturity helps. There are already a number of studies showing kids young for their grade are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. The only down side is the lost opportunity cost of having them start their careers a year later.
I personally was behind in school until 3rd grade when I suddenly started reading a number of grade levels higher. I would have expected effects to by reduced to zero by then but I also scored much higher on the GRE that I took for PhD applications (170/170 Math, 169/170 verbal) than I did on the SAT. Sample size of 1, but if I have kids they will be similar to me due to genetics, so thats all I need for my own choices.
you are probably a major outlier though, like most people on this sub. How many slow boys in elementary school later ace standardized tests. very few unless their IQs test high. It comes down to IQ in the end. ADHD + low /average IQ will not make a superstar later in life, just a hyperactive adult
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link