What’s been interesting, as I’ve become more high-profile in this domain, is encountering a lot of charter school parents, and even some teachers, who happily accept that charter schools don’t have the same students as public schools; indeed, to them, that’s the whole point. These members of the charter school community will tell you that a core advantages of charter schools is the ability to give poor families the same ability to filter out the lowest-performing students as rich families do when they send their kids to pricey private schools. In this telling, certain poorly-performing students (who are called “thugs” a distressing amount of the time, including by Black parents) disrupt the learning process, tax teachers and administrators, and in general create an environment that’s not conducive to receiving a quality education. These kids, they say, bully and harass other students, have no interest in school themselves, and act as a serious impediment to real learning. The mandate that all students have both a right and an obligation to attend K-12 schools has created a world where the least motivated students obstruct the most; charters replicate the same basic exclusivity advantage that private schools have leveraged throughout the history of public schooling. There are some kids who simply don’t want to learn, or so I’m told; teachers don’t want to deal with them and students don’t want to tolerate them. So of course charters cook the admissions books. That’s a feature, not a bug.
(Freddie DeBoer)
I
I don't find this at all surprising. There is a ton of research that shows that parents cannot influence the moral and social behaviour of their children in any more past a certain age. At that point, what matters most is genetics and their peer group. Some people think that is a relief, because their children will turn out like them, just like they turned out to be like their parents.
But the peer groups is hard to control. If your child falls in with the wrong crowd, it really can have disastrous consequences. Usually it doesn't, and you hear about the shocking and unusual cases the most, but that's what parents are worried about. Parents are perhaps too worried about any particular friend being a "bad influence", but that doesn't mean that the concept as a whole is without merit. The moral character of your high school peer group matters.
II
Achievement data reveals excellence in schools every year. We mostly ignore it — and the reasons expose more about our values and incentives
I stumbled onto this post while researching for an effortpost I didn't finish. You unfortunately got to see a non-effort version of it, because that's the version I could be arsed to write. But isn't this interesting? This man won teacher of the year, found out that his efforts be be liked by his pupils and to work long hours photocopying materials didn't translate into better outcomes. Then he took a look at effective teachers, and he found that one thing that really affects outcomes is how disciplined and motivated the students are. When the lesson starts on time, and everybody does their homework, and nobody is disruptive, you can get a lot more done.
This teacher replicated that at a public school, or if you prefer, a state school.
If you think about it, "lessons start on time" is a shockingly low bar! Somehow a teacher was well-liked and thought he was reaching children, and it didn't even occur to him that the environment in his high school wasn't all that conducive to learning.
This should be a complete no-brainer, and this teacher even writes that it is achievable in a regular public school (i.e. one run by the government), but teachers seem to be completely uninterested in low-hanging fruit or obvious problems.
If charter schools are the only way to get discipline in the class room, and the only way to have lessons start on time, and if parents know this, if parents know that teachers are unwilling, unable, or lacking the capacity to even imagine how to ensure that lessons start on time, then it's no wonder parents are really interested in charter schools.
I think you need to calm down a bit isaac, in regards to the heredity thing, but yes I understand what you mean in that there is a vague progressive consensus towards feeling uncomfortable to hostile around non-blank-slateism when it is brought up in relation to people and populations of people
and I'd really wonder what all the people who have parents they cut contact with would think about the very obvious hereditarian conclusion that they are more like their parents than pretty much anyone else
Though interestingly, epigenetics, to my limited knowledge, has demonstrated that there may be a kernel or more of truth to lamarck after all.
Sorry about the delay; I was writing a reply, fell asleep, and tumblr ate it.
I thought I was being calm. The fence around the law keeps getting more fences built around it in the last couple decades.
Epigenetics do provide a scientific explanation for why heredity is not necessary or sufficient to explain traits.
Two people can both be genetically inclined to a trait that certain forms of result in behaviors negative enough that many people would prefer to never speak again with a parent who expresses those behaviors. Eg the child of an alcoholic may themselves be genetically inclined to alcoholism, but also still not want to interact with their alcoholic parent ever again. This is not generally seen as a contradiction. “I will not repeat my parents’ mistakes” is a pretty common sentiment, and isn’t a contradiction. “I know that I am inclined toward a negative tendency because I saw my parents fall into it, so I will take steps to avoid that” is also fairly common.
Epigenetics, as in the selective expression of genes - the reason a bone and a skin cell are different, despite containing the same DNA - is, of course, real. But epigenetics as in the transgenerational inheritance of trauma, or other traits leading to something akin to Lamarckism, is probably not real, at least there's no evidence of it in complex animals.
The true story of a powerful molecular process and how pseudoscience co-opted it
There's a certain kind of far-right pundit who has an extreme case of libtard envy. They will have stimulating discussions on whether Kamala Harris is "high status." This is "telling on yourself" because if Kamala Harris strikes you as a sophisticate this says much more about your social background than it does about Kamala Harris.
Qualified defense: it comes from a good political instinct, to the extent that what counts as high status is just whether one happens to be in front of the right cameras in the right light. Which it does, to the extent that the people are retarded. Which they are...
This is in stark contrast to the Poster's Project of being the voice in the wilderness with gOoD aRgUmEnTs. Very easy to be envious of the camera's power
A bit of e-racist historiography: the meme goes, now, that those who lack an inner monologue are mentally inferior. But there was a time, in e.g. certain Hakan Rotmwrt posts, when it was reversed. Mental silence was framed as more advanced, a cessation of chattering and distracting noise (cf. Schopenhauer).
I don't think the "inner monologue" implies ceaseless inner chatter any more than the capacity to speak out loud implies ceaseless verbal chatter. Inner monologue is just the harmonization of the content of thought and its form as inner sense, while a lack of inner monologue implies a formless chaos of thought.
I've met some people who can't turn it off and are exhausted by it. Not dumb people either, I'm thinking of a woman who was a veterinarian. I think the polemic was also to imply some lack of shape rotating ability, or an inability to branch out beyond logocentric thought
A bit of e-racist historiography: the meme goes, now, that those who lack an inner monologue are mentally inferior. But there was a time, in e.g. certain Hakan Rotmwrt posts, when it was reversed. Mental silence was framed as more advanced, a cessation of chattering and distracting noise (cf. Schopenhauer).
I need more fellow white people to learn about the history of "scientific" racism, eugenics, and phrenology because they are so important in understanding modern racism
I just had an extremely chilling realization and I think it ought to be noted here.
I just held the door for a Latino guy at the gas station. He has darkish skin and he's on a very beat-up bicycle. In this neighborhood, when I started working here in 2023, that made a slightly better than 50/50 chance that he'd thank me in Spanish--that's the profile of a lot of migrant laborers.
I was ready with either a "you're welcome" or "de nada" ready as needed. He said "thank you."
All by itself, no big deal.
Except it hit me in that moment that I don't remember the last time I said "de nada" to a stranger.
I'm in Arizona and the Spanish speakers are gone. Or at least no longer feel safe speaking Spanish openly to a white person.
It's warm outside and I have goosebumps in my veins.
Researchers have found that children’s cuteness or homeliness has a measurable effect on how their parents treat them. A study showed that a mother is, on average, more attentive to her baby if the baby is cute than if the baby is homely. (The cuteness of the babies was rated by independent judges—a panel of undergraduates at the University of Texas.) Although all the babies in this study were well cared for, the cute babies were looked at more, played with more, and given more affection than the homely ones.
In their report, the researchers quoted a letter written by Queen Victoria to one of her married daughters. According to the queen, who was something of an expert on babies (she had borne nine of them), “An ugly baby is a very nasty object.” Most ugly babies get better looking over time, but think about the ones who don’t. People aren’t as nice to homely children as they are to pretty ones. When homely children do something wrong, they are punished more harshly. If they don’t do anything wrong, people are quicker to think that they did. Homely children and pretty children have different experiences. They grow up in different environments.
Husbands and wives are, on average, much more alike than they would be if Cupid fired off his arrows at random. The ways in which married couples tend to resemble each other include race, religion, socioeconomic class, IQ, education, attitudes, personality characteristics, height, breadth of nose, and distance between the eyes. Married couples don’t come to look alike as they grow older: they look alike to begin with.
izzy806
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
titsay
origamiaround
gummygunk
dailybridgerton
