The rationalist gwern-types once again overestimating the predictive power of IQ. Also coming in with assumptions that people in poorer districts cannot have members of "remarkable enough" IQ that warrant distinction and treatment.
Disappointing thread all around. Enough HN for today.
You aren't trying. We know IQ is predictive of success. No one is saying an individual from a poorer community can't be intelligent/academically successful.
What we're saying is that we shouldn't hold someone born without the ability to be academically successful to unreasonable standards.
> What we're saying is that we shouldn't hold someone born without the ability to be academically successful to unreasonable standards.
How does this relate to improving performance at schools in poor or de-stabilized districts? There are "high IQ" individuals there that merit attention.
Yes we should address the amount of waste that these poor performing districts generate, but there is idea of a zero sum game in this thread between poorer and richer districts that encourages dismissal of solutions.
Nobody has talked about intergenerational poverty yet in this thread. Just wild.
IQ is probably the most predictive factor of success in our knowledge-first society. The catch is that IQ is a fuzzy variable: its measurements heavily depend on one's mood, the particular IQ test, the food one's eaten that day, hours slept and so on. However the highest measured IQ in ideal conditions is pretty stable.
Disappointing thread all around. Enough HN for today.