> Why on earth would this have a global impact?

The United States has been (and will be for another two or three years) the cultural center of the world. We export to everyone. That includes our mode of thinking and the mode of thought we teach our children.

> Also, according to the abstract, the US actually sustained positive gains longer than other OECD nations, except South Korea.

The oldest data presented was from the mid 70s. We'd need data going back to the turn of the last century to get a good feel for how IQ has relative to education policy changes. The time-scale they claim is ~110 years since education policy in the US started changing.

The U.S. exports norms in many sectors but not all. How many other nations are using the imperial system instead of metric? How many other nations are following our approaches to education, judging by how they're trouncing us in the PISA scores?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-student...

To understand the quality of our education system, you have to account for race. https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018-pisa-school-test-sco...

>US education policy only directly affects 3/8 of a percent of the world population

3/8? not 3/80?

Because some people on HN will use any excuse to post right-wing propaganda.

I'm curious as to how quoting people is propaganda? In essence my goal was to say "this is what a sector of the population thinks, here's some quotes showing why they think that".

Surely there is merit in sharing conclusions and reasoning for those conclusions?

What puts these personages in the same sector other than some superficial correlation in views as illustrated by pithy quotes rather than actual policies advanced? To group Dewey, Marx, and Huxley is completely fatuous, as well as pairing humanism with socialism. And what is the conclusion based on these quotes? This is begging the question. As Voltaire said, "A witty saying proves nothing."

I've been pondering your reply since I saw it yesterday. I'm bothered a great deal by "bumper sticker politics", or the "reducto ad absurdum" that seems to have taken over most political conversations.

Aside from a master's thesis, I'm unsure as to how I ought to address the philosophical claims made by the above authors.

Then it sounds like there's no point to be made, you're just cherry-picking not only quotes, but cherry-picking random historical figures, in the hopes that the reader will concoct a point. This isn't even bumper sticker politics. This is Rorschach test politics.

This sounds like you are attempting to make me responsible for the conclusions of others. While the thesis sounds interesting, I'm not in a position (either time or interest) to try and expand on the thesis that many others have set forth. I'm not cherry-picking (it wasn't my intent, at the very least), only reporting on the conclusions reported by others.

But there are no conclusions mentioned here at all, only disparate quotes hinting there is some point. You clearly shared these links and quotes to make some point, thus it is on you to elucidate, or otherwise the sharing was for naught.