sotonye.substack.com
SS: I make a case for drastically cutting back on education. I argue that education doesn’t achieve its desired goals. The material is irrelevant and students forget much of the material. Most information taught in schools is quickly accessible with a smartphone. Education might be warranted if it boosted cognitive ability but it appears to be increasing IQ scores rather than actual ability to think.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Seems like a bad argument. You claim that education represents an effort to "game the test". But if so, why would it increase IQ? Very few schools give lessons in how to pass an IQ test!
"Does generalize" vs "doesn't generalize" seems like a false dichotomy. It sounds like education generalizes to some degree, but not to the point of increasing "general cognitive ability". Call it an increase in "general scholarly ability" or something like that. Increasing "general scholarly ability" could still be a huge deal. Lots of important intellectual tasks probably depend on "general scholarly ability" in addition to "general cognitive ability".
BTW, I made the argument above due to my knowledge of causal graphs, which is itself something I learned in an educational context. Does my knowledge of causal graphs cause me to score higher on an IQ test? Probably not. But it does make me a better thinker and scholar.
Furthermore, your post misses an important point: Average IQ might not matter much for national prosperity. It may be the case that what matters is the IQ of the top 5% of the population. The top 5% will be over-represented in key administrative roles and in innovation clusters that drive economic growth. See https://www.institutostrom.org/en/2018/09/09/hive-mind-how-your-nations-iq-matters-so-much-more-than-your-own-interview-with-garett-jones/
So instead of discussing the impact of education on the population as a whole, perhaps we should be focused on the impact of education on the so-called "cognitive elite". I think there are a number of reasons to believe this impact is positive. In the absence of education, it seems likely to me that much of the "cognitive elite" would fail to acquire the belief that scholarship is important, get nerd sniped by computer games, and fail to develop self-discipline. Our education system teaches the "cognitive elite" to be snooty nerds who think that ability to solve tricky calculus problems is what's important in life, because they're surrounded by peers who can't solve those problems, and their ability to solve those problems makes them feel special. Without an education system, those same nerds would just be an unusually talented bicycle mechanic in an African peasant village, letting their potential go to waste.
I think the education of the cognitive elite matters a lot, because scholarship is a force multiplier on general cognitive ability. (By "force multiplier", I mean if your general cognitive ability is low, scholarship won't help much, but if it is high, scholarship can help a lot.) A few thousand years ago, humans had similar biological potential and general cognitive ability, but ancient civilizations weren't able to do cool stuff like modern civilizations -- essentially, because their wise men were focused on divining the will of the gods from sheep entrails instead of arguing about causal graphs.
Suppose we did a study in Ancient Greece which found that being tutored by Aristotle had no effect on the lives of 99% of Athenians. It seems like whatever Aristotle has to teach us cannot help Athenians with everyday tasks like farming and shopkeeping. We conclude that Aristotle is a fraud and learning from him is a waste of time. Then Alexander the Great gets tutored by Aristotle and conquers a huge fraction of the known world.
So overall my argument is something like: A country whose bureaucrats are familiar with e.g. causal graphs will make better policy than a country whose bureaucrats don't understand causal graphs. And education is a way to increase the fraction of bureaucrats who understand causal graphs. If we abandoned our commitment to education, none of our bureaucrats will understand causal graphs, and that will cause them to make bad policy, which will have bad downstream effects. I don't think this argument is refuted by your analysis.
n=1, totally rational. Genghis Khan was tutored by no philosopher, lost father early in life, had to kill with a bow to survive, and conquered greater fraction of world than Alexander, and his empire still kept expanding for decades after his death.
Genghis Khan was also known for his focus on recruiting experts from every region that he conquered. He might not have been a scholar himself, but he valued scholarship.
In any case, you are correct that small-n tells us little. I mention these examples as intuition pumps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link