GnothiSeauton_Fool

If anyone wants a few shots of how they recorded Boo's voice.

It seems misleading to claim that intelligence is 0% heritable. Pardon for the Wikipedia citation (it's a good overview and has peer-reviewed citations), but the evidence I've seen concludes that intelligence is probably around 50% heritable, if not more. Not to say that we should teach students to focus on heritability of intelligence, but it doesn't seem ethical to spread misinformation either.

What you're saying clearly has merit though. If I recall correctly, one of the greatest predictors of success in the Israeli Defense Forces was if the teachers/leaders believed that the recruit had high potential. The Pygmalion effect definitely exists, and is significant. However, in the original Pygmalion experiment, they were only able to get at best .3 standard deviations above the mean, with mean effect of .16 standard deviations. While that's incredibly significant, it's by no means a silver bullet.

Does a neuroscience approach give a strong enough causal link to empirical results to draw reliable and actionable conclusions? In practice, is it really a zero-dollar solution? And is the effect strong enough to "fix our educational system" as you claim?

EDIT/PS: I'm just exceptionally wary of anything that talks about a conspiracy where "the truth has been kept from you" and implies a catch-all solution to your problems.

Yes, for two reasons: One, the paradox assumes a purely self-interested voter. Voting is considered a civil responsibility not because it will help you, but because we owe it to the country and others to guide the election.

Two, there are ancillary benefits to being educated on political issues. You have a better understanding of how the country and world works, which can help you predict economic trends, the needs of customers, or even why your neighbor gets so annoyed about her taxes.