A better label for "quantitative culturalism" would probably be "the multivariate position."
In the USA, group performance gaps have generally been attributed to either genes or racism, in ~univariate fashion. These takes are wrong.
In the USA, group performance gaps have generally been attributed to either genes or racism, in ~univariate fashion. These takes are wrong.
(2) There's nothing at all wrong with including "experienced discrimination" OR an IQ proxy (not that IQ is all genetic) in models predicting - say - personal income.
But median age, region, family structure, study CULTURE, PAST discrimination, etc may all play bigger roles.
But median age, region, family structure, study CULTURE, PAST discrimination, etc may all play bigger roles.
(3) As re some responses: 1st, it might be worth checking out s/t like "Discrimination and Disparities (Sowell 2019)." There definitely is a lengthy tradition in the USA -running from phrenologists through the alt-right- of attributing the VAST majority of group gaps to genetics.
(4) But, more importantly: come on - I said "(roughly/largely) univariate," and I see a 'hereditarian' as someone who, ~by definition, thinks ONE variable explains 50-80% or more of group gaps as re IQ, etc (Jensen, Rushton).
This can't just mean "genes might play some role."
This can't just mean "genes might play some role."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
