First, America ranks 31st out of 79 more advanced countries. Not great.
Pretty cool that Estonia is the top performing European country and it doesn't put a massive emphasis on standardized tests with consequences.
I think those tests often tend to create perverse incentives for politicians, teachers and students.
This seems like a really great approach. The fact that kids pick up a ton of additional life skills and see more value in math are great bonuses.
Teachers and how courses are taught play such a huge role in how kids do. Having teachers who believe in the potential of these kids can help them get much closer to realizing that potential.
Even small changes to how schools structure math can result in big benefits.
A political point here. I think proponents and opponents of changes to how math is taught phrase things too much in terms of "racial equity".
Unfortunately, history shows that those opposed to racial equity will pick up the clue even if not phrased explicitly.
It's better for the entire world when kids learn math, reading and arithmetic and do so well. It's abominable for children to be left behind through political decisions or poor pedagogical decisions.
Ultimately those who care about all children must push through.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I made the question about me, and I stated something more firmly threatening than anything Jordan Neely was said to do. Most wouldn't justify my death for it.
I suspect the value placed on my life far exceeds that granted to his, and that's the difference.
Credit to those who don't think I deserve to be killed in my hypothetical, but also don't think there's any evidence presented justifying the killing of Jordan Neely.
I respect valuing life, including for the poor and mentally ill.
6% of people said I deserve to be killed, and while I think that's a terrifying reflection, I appreciate their response.
Don't want to be in any secluded places with people like that.
This kind of stuff has been explained to Bo many times, and he actually does get it. This is a rhetorical and political tactic though. It works by demanding that people accept the premise that race is biologically real, a position rejected by genomics and biological anthropology.
But there's also the fact that even when talking about sex, a lot of "theories" are also seen as sexist, particularly those forwarded by the EvoPsych crowd.
What's the line? Plausibility. Not just plausibility in terms of feelings, but in terms of evidence.
Those who think individuals obviously differ in innate characteristics, find the allegation of being "blank slatist" odd, not realizing that the term is now primarily used to reference rejection of specific claims about "group differences".
This significant difference in referents causes a lot of confusion and conflict. I reject many standard claims about biological race and race differences, and thus end up being labeled a blank slatist.
Many reject certain claims about inherent differences in male/female brains at conception, and that gets them labeled blank slatists.
In very few cases can we find people saying for example "every individual in my family was the same at conception", but this isn't the accusation
One really weird personal IQ test artifact: my dad only graduated high school. He has 8 descendants. 3 of them tested above 130 on professional IQ tests.
His brother managed to get a Doctor of Theology degree, was the only kid from his area to ace a standardized test, and 2 of his 3 kids also tested above 130 on an IQ test.
Another of his brothers has a grandchild who also tested above 130.
I know this sounds like a humble brag given what people think of these tests, but I'm really just thinking that I don't have set thoughts on the whole thing.
“To refer to the African population, is to refer to something that doesn’t really exist, because it’s a conglomerate of several populations, each of which is as different and as large as the ones they’re being compared to.” - @JonathanKaplan
This is a really good article on scientific racism, how they distort science to claim credibility for their belief system, and how scientists are pushing back.
This is such a difficult thing to explain to people and to help them understand.
People fundamentally believe that "individuals in group X are more like others in group X", and it's hard to convince them otherwise.