The nature versus nurture battle is scientifically over.
Due to the cornucopia of research pouring out, it has become patently obvious that traits of all sorts are heritable (551 traits analyzed in this study). The study doesn’t just examine the heritability of intelligence, but a myriad of behaviors that constitute human nature. The recent attempt to push epigenetics was a rearguard action admitting the primacy of nature. The best approach the progressives have is denying biology by suppressing research, which is a possibility because progressive elites need nurture.
Human neurological uniformity (HNU) and the corresponding belief that education fixes everything, leveling the life economic outcome playing field, is an important piece to their system. It is why they shun heretics who publicly deviate from HNU immediately, no matter the achievements of champions like Dr. James Watson.
Higher status is correlated to education, which feeds the status game system where the academics (priests) grant status. Consider the nonstop messaging of 2016 that Trump supporters were uneducated. No right thinking person wants to be considered dumb, after all.
The belief in nurture means that schools at lower levels matter, as well. This funnels money to the elementary and secondary school systems, paying off the loyal progressive foot soldiers in local education and the teachers’ unions. Countless studies can show that school spending means better test scores, while ignoring the genetic elephant in the room. The ripple effect is shoveling state and federal money to disadvantaged school districts that always seem to test lower no matter the system they employ.
What nurture and the belief in schools coaching people up become is a focal point for people wanting to invest in their children, which is in itself a trait that varies across groups. “Good schools” becomes code for more whites. It has to be since freedom of association and neighborhood covenants were destroyed by the federal government and courts. Valuing education becomes the polite, safe way to keep like-minded people around. Since race and IQ are so closely correlated, it becomes the safe way to keep like-minded people via all of the other heritable traits around.
But unfortunately, this messaging eventually pushes minorities into white school districts hoping for the “good schools” nurture effect to come into play.
This is a key overlooked bit in the flow of people around our big cities. An example of the perverse effects of this can be seen in Indianapolis. Indianapolis public schools tanked decades ago, and the creep to the outer IPS schools was complete in the ’90s. Blacks were fearful of “bad whites” on the city’s south side and drifted north. This is clearly evident by The New York Times’ census population graphics. “Good whites” were welcoming to the north. On the north side, Lawrence Township was a slightly cheaper area to live in, and so city kids crept in.
In 2002, a family could move to Lawrence Township for the schools and expect a good system. As the welcoming area took in more city kids, more families gamed the attendance, and eventually Lawrence Township instituted proof of residence rules. This did not work. Lawrence Township steadily bled whites to the brand new communities just north of it in Fishers, Noblesville, and McCordsville. While having a higher economic moat, Washington Township just to Lawrence’s west is undergoing the same process. Washington Township’s high school, North Central, was the basis for Glee!. By 2030, North Central could be the setting for a reboot of Boyz In The Hood. South side townships still have strong white populations due to the worse reputation a generation ago.
Nurture marketing, when combined with the inability to restrict neighborhoods, becomes the economic moat for communities. Sure income and intelligence are correlated, but if you want to live with the in-crowd, you pay a bit more. Combined with some zoning laws, this becomes a way to limit available housing and price out the riff-raff who would love to be able to go to that school if only they could afford a home there. This becomes a payoff to the earliest of land holders in these areas. Their home equity spikes become fictitious wealth with which they can take loans against and scarf up assets, concentrating even more wealth. These towns and cities still need the demand.
The demand then also creates the odd situation where brand new subdivisions that sprout out of forests and cornfields magically all have price points that mimic the price points of suburbs that already have quality schools. The good schools crowd becomes a consumer bloc that maximizes developers’ profits. Ten acres of cornfield that become forty homes around 2200 square feet provide one amazing return on investment for the developer and home builder that got the acreage rezoned by the little municipality.
Those are very expensive. white refugee developments–all for the “good schools” that a few years ago were rural, small school districts.
If nurture were dethroned entirely, demand would subside. New England is an overwhelmingly white region of America, yet you will still hear white parents discuss the merits of one 95% white school over another 95% white school. If parents were to understand that a significant portion of the high school graduates going to Ivies from specific schools were legacy admissions, they could have a more honest appraisal of the situation. They might understand that Jimmy at Natick High will receive just as good of an education as Jimmy at Wellesley High because what mattered was Jimmy, not the money spent per student.
There is a darker reason for pushing nurture that keeps the progressives safe. The progressive coalition is a very diverse coalition with members spanning all averages in test scores. Because no teaching program can close the achievement gap, there is always a financial sop to throw to loyal political allies. There is always cover for the progressive elite to their underclass clients that they are doing all they can to help, “See look, we now spend more per student in your district than ours!” It is far harder for any coalition to explain wide disparities rather than a more homogeneous group with tighter variability.
The consequences of admitting nature rules will keep progressive elites, academics, and pundits clinging to and defending it at all costs. They will only let go when they can say they have always believed nature over nurture during the media campaign to celebrate the FDA approval of gene editing procedures.