TA confession: I'm sorry, but most of your children (my students) are average

[Data10]

I see that you didn’t respond to any of the issues and are instead trying to make it personal. I’ll play along.

I don’t live or work in the US and nor does my children. I can afford to be impartial to this whole issue. You on the other hand can not. I don’t have the motive, means, or opportunity
…
I find this talk of bias a bit surreal.

Earlier in this thread you wrote, “My preference for Manzi’s meritocracy to Rivera’s plutocracy reveals my own bias…”, admitting a bias. Praising IQ/SAT/standardized testing in nearly all of the threads you have participated on in this forum, in some cases when standardized testing was irrelevant to the discussion, also doesn’t exactly scream impartial and unbiased.

Ignoring this, growing up in a country with a less holistic college system that has a greater emphasis on scores does not mean you are impartial. For example, I wouldn’t assume that if I want impartial views about atheism, I should go to persons who spent their lives in strong Christian families since they don’t have personal involvement in atheism. Instead the opposite is likely to be true. Similarly parents who grew up in a system where college admission is almost solely determined by gaokao score are not exactly known for their impartiality about the holistic college system with a lesser emphasis on scores.

. You on the other hand can not. I don’t have the motive, means, or opportunity, but you do, if you want to pass privilege down to the next generation.

Really, the holistic college system passes privilege to the next generation, but standardized testing does not? You are obviously aware of the correlation between standardized testing and SES, and how the holistic college system has made a point of creating a diverse class that favors admission of persons from less privileged backgrounds, in part by de-emphasizing test scores.

I notice you do that a lot. If you don’t like the result, then the study is too old, or the stat is not good. Without going into details, I can say that there are new studies that show the same thing over and over again, and that meta-analyses have shown consistent results as well. (Look at Kuncel’s talk and the Slate article again). You simply choose not to see it, which of course is your prerogative.

I am probably one of the biggest proponent of studies and backing up opinions with numbers and facts on this forum, and often particularly admire posters who do the same and generally trust such referenced posts more than opinions. The problem is not with studies in general, it is with your “studies”. You might ask yourself why are the studies so open to criticism which you can not adequately explain? Yes, part of it is being the only poster I’ve seen who references 50+ year old studies, but I get the impression that you did not even read the vast majorities of studies you have referenced in this thread and instead read an article or pro-IQ website that mentions bits of the study, then use it as a reference. Or claim a conclusion that differs from the author’s actual conclusions. In this thread, you went so far as to list a quote from the study, when it actually came from the article you read and did not appear in the study. If you don’t know the details of your study, don’t be surprised if they do not support your opinions, or if the study’s details differ from your assumptions based on the bits that were captured in the article you read.