The Bell Curve: What Next?

[Anonymous No.15657507]

Now that I have your attention,
Cottrell, Jonathan M.,Newman, Daniel A.,Roisman, Glenn I (2015) determined that socioeconomic and environmental factors can widely and mostly account for achievement disparities. Most important, or at least heavily focused on in the study is maternal disadvantage, which accounts heavily for a lot of what the Bell Curve and other studies could not account for past simple socioeconomic status.

Single-parent families are on the rise in poor America, especially among minorities such as blacks and Latinos. In light of this evidence, should this be the primary vector through which to attempt to equalize the racial achievement gap? How can we get more black and Latino families to have two-parent homes in the United States?

/pol/acks need not apply

[Anonymous No.15657521]

>>15657507
Not /lit/ related.

[Anonymous No.15657564]

>>15657521
Perhaps not explicitly, but I am writing this after reading a study, and you probably have to be at least acceptably well-read on the subject (or many other subjects) to have a reasonable (e.g. not overtly racist) point of view on the matter.

But mostly, I posted here because posting this on /pol/ will result in a whopping 0 good discussion, and I think it's likely to result in at least some good discussion here. Especially considering all the literature on the subject.

[Anonymous No.15657986]

The argument that environmental factors "mostly" or "primarily" account for disparities in matters of cognitive ability and socioeconomic status and therefore (implicitly) negate the relevance of genetic factors is ultimately fallacious. In theory, all environmental factors can be manipulated, and controlling for such variables ultimately leaves the immutable genetic factors with 100% of the explanatory power of any predictive model. This possibly explains why researchers on the nurture side of the argument tend to believe genetic factors are actually insignificant or non-existent between groups (but only between individuals).

Ultimately, the question should be not "how can we uplift a population by controlling for environmental factors" but "how can we uplift a population by impacting differential reproduction". The most natural solution is to introduce positive eugenic policies that increase the reproductive success of individuals with greater cognitive ability (for example). Intuitively, attempts to equalize between populations by controlling for environmental differences are likely to have a dysgenic effect, since these attempts would disproportionately benefit those with lower socioeconomic status (and therefore, lower cognitive ability) as a rational investor into human capital would expect greater marginal returns on investments into individuals with lower income/education/family stability/etc., ceteris paribus.

[Anonymous No.15658735]

>>15657507
What do you think causes differential rates of single parenthood?

[Anonymous No.15658745]

Why? Men have everything to lose and generally not much to gain by sticking around.

[Anonymous No.15658781]

>>15657507
you idiot. more people suffer and die - better. why do you care who fucks whom and how they live? are you narcissistic faggot? of course.

[Anonymous No.15659030]

>>15658735
Hard to say exactly. Obviously school dropout rates and lack of education contribute, but ultimately, if I'm correct that adjusted for that and SES, blacks/latinos still have disproportionate single parenthood rates, culture's the obvious culprit. Obviously it's not to their advantage that their poor culture places such low emphases on education, lawfulness, stable homes, etc in general. Saying that isn't exactly feasible though.

>>15658781
What?

>>15657986
That's not a bad argument but it's not exactly feasible (or "natural"). Looking at it that way, what's the end goal?

[Anonymous No.15659082]

>>15657507
What's next, my nurture over nature OP, is to make test scores even more of a meme than they already are.

Measuring Success: Testing, Grades, and the Future of College Admissions
Are We Getting Smarter?
SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions

[Anonymous No.15660675]

>>15657507
Environmental determinists are still going to be shouting the same shit even as China genetically engineers super soldiers.

[Anonymous No.15660690]

>>15657564
>le being anti-racist makes me enlighten xD
This shit again...

[Anonymous No.15660747]

they have found some alleles correlating to intelligence already. muh
>evolution stops at the neck
is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.15661029]

>>15659030
>still have disproportionate single parenthood rates
>culture's the obvious culprit
Despite obfuscating the underlying cause by using the word 'culture', you can still not account for their environment being the way it is. We can still ask you for the underlying cause. In order to make your environmental thesis hold up you would have to point to an underlying scheme of systematic oppression which, it is safe to say no matter how many times the same slogans are repeated over and over, is non-existent. In other words: no matter how much you highlight specific instances of low socio-economic status, the only resolving cause behind the matter are disparaties in cognitive abilities. Anon answered your question already in case you missed it >>15657986