"How does a child with two educated, affluent, involved parents...." First of all, educated used to mean learned, now it just means you bought a diploma. Second, as far as 'involved parents," she had lunch with her daughter IN THE 3RD grade, witnessed first-hand the failures, then kept her daughter in that school district for another six years?? And third, this school spends $50,000 per pupil and her take-away is that the school just needs more money??
I continue to appreciate this series. Your scan of the horizon often offers perspectives I have not seen elsewhere, with much good food for thought. In this edition, I was struck, among other things, by this: “But when he argues that drug policy must take into account the impact on communities, he told me, some critics dismiss him as a reactionary. Their arguments, he said, “sound a lot more like gun rights and vaccine refusal. It’s no longer about the whole population; it’s about the subset who use drugs.” I can think of so many examples of societal/community problems where this is the case. For example, in New York City, there is such great sensitivity to the purported needs of bicyclists that the concerns of pedestrians, particularly older and disabled who are simply trying to cross the street to get to the bus or a to a shop, are dismissed outright. The problem is easily solvable: for example, the city could license bicycles, ticket them for failure to observe traffic laws (particularly for running red lights), and suspend or revoke licenses for repeat offenders. Unfortunately for the community as a whole, such suggestions are dismissed outright in many quarters as unfair to bicyclists, as if that were the only constituency that mattered.
It is worth noting that Hannah-Jones made the opposite decision that the Clintons and Obamas did when they moved into the White House. Each of the Presidential families prioritized their own children. Both caught a good deal of criticism from Left and Right for doing that. From the Left, it was the same sort of argument that Hannah-Jones made. From the Right, it was for opposition to school choice for the non-affluent. Given the resentment that Hannah-Jones has caught from her daughter, I would have to say that the Clintons and Obamas made the right choice. As an aside, in my time in the C-Suite of an urban school district, it was obvious that the energy behind the charter school movement came from black parents seeking the best for their children.
The main takeaway from Nicole Hannah-Jones' failed ideological experiment is that - aside from contributing genes - parents have zero impact on the adult IQs of their children. It's genes and peer effects. The family ("shared environment") does not matter at all. That's one of the strongest and most replicated findings of behavioral genetics.
If that seems unintuitive then consider accents. As long as children move to a new nation before age 12, they'll learn to speak without an accent. But their parents will have thick accents for their entire lives. That's the textbook example of peer effects over children. Children adopt the accents of their peers to "fit in" and avoid being teased.
A strong married family that sends their child to a school with a 70% rate of single motherhood will produce struggling children. Exactly the lesson NHJ learned. We will never close the racial achievement gap or strengthen the middle class until we as a society return to lifelong monogamy.
I'd recommend 'The Nurture Assumption' to anyone interested in this topic.
Well, if this party truly wants to go back to working people again (good luck there's no money here, however the future of the country is if one cares) to make a strong middle class again that's great again good luck.
HOWEVER, please leave the Clinton/ Obama neo con machine behind. If you don't you will fail. If they capture your movement, you will fail again badly. They are bad news. Get past them.
"How does a child with two educated, affluent, involved parents...." First of all, educated used to mean learned, now it just means you bought a diploma. Second, as far as 'involved parents," she had lunch with her daughter IN THE 3RD grade, witnessed first-hand the failures, then kept her daughter in that school district for another six years?? And third, this school spends $50,000 per pupil and her take-away is that the school just needs more money??
I continue to appreciate this series. Your scan of the horizon often offers perspectives I have not seen elsewhere, with much good food for thought. In this edition, I was struck, among other things, by this: “But when he argues that drug policy must take into account the impact on communities, he told me, some critics dismiss him as a reactionary. Their arguments, he said, “sound a lot more like gun rights and vaccine refusal. It’s no longer about the whole population; it’s about the subset who use drugs.” I can think of so many examples of societal/community problems where this is the case. For example, in New York City, there is such great sensitivity to the purported needs of bicyclists that the concerns of pedestrians, particularly older and disabled who are simply trying to cross the street to get to the bus or a to a shop, are dismissed outright. The problem is easily solvable: for example, the city could license bicycles, ticket them for failure to observe traffic laws (particularly for running red lights), and suspend or revoke licenses for repeat offenders. Unfortunately for the community as a whole, such suggestions are dismissed outright in many quarters as unfair to bicyclists, as if that were the only constituency that mattered.
It is worth noting that Hannah-Jones made the opposite decision that the Clintons and Obamas did when they moved into the White House. Each of the Presidential families prioritized their own children. Both caught a good deal of criticism from Left and Right for doing that. From the Left, it was the same sort of argument that Hannah-Jones made. From the Right, it was for opposition to school choice for the non-affluent. Given the resentment that Hannah-Jones has caught from her daughter, I would have to say that the Clintons and Obamas made the right choice. As an aside, in my time in the C-Suite of an urban school district, it was obvious that the energy behind the charter school movement came from black parents seeking the best for their children.
I like this work, but I do think that affluence comes from capitalism .
Behavioral genetics remains underrated.
The main takeaway from Nicole Hannah-Jones' failed ideological experiment is that - aside from contributing genes - parents have zero impact on the adult IQs of their children. It's genes and peer effects. The family ("shared environment") does not matter at all. That's one of the strongest and most replicated findings of behavioral genetics.
If that seems unintuitive then consider accents. As long as children move to a new nation before age 12, they'll learn to speak without an accent. But their parents will have thick accents for their entire lives. That's the textbook example of peer effects over children. Children adopt the accents of their peers to "fit in" and avoid being teased.
A strong married family that sends their child to a school with a 70% rate of single motherhood will produce struggling children. Exactly the lesson NHJ learned. We will never close the racial achievement gap or strengthen the middle class until we as a society return to lifelong monogamy.
I'd recommend 'The Nurture Assumption' to anyone interested in this topic.
Well, if this party truly wants to go back to working people again (good luck there's no money here, however the future of the country is if one cares) to make a strong middle class again that's great again good luck.
HOWEVER, please leave the Clinton/ Obama neo con machine behind. If you don't you will fail. If they capture your movement, you will fail again badly. They are bad news. Get past them.