Let's be honest, the reason so many people are opposed to this view is because it has been wrongfully used in the past to justify very real oppression and inequality of opportunity. At the very least, it is a very dangerous mindset historically, and even now it's not very well understood.
For example, in the study you mentioned around Korean twins, one was raised in a fairly standard Korean household while the other was tossed around the foster care system and had multitudes of setbacks given to them. And yet people will still use it as evidence that these differences are inherent and unchangeable. Do you not see how this reasoning can lead us to ignore our own blindspots and biases?
That doesn't mean that the view is factually inaccurate though does it? I think the best way to avoid oppression is to define and prohibit the practice of it, rather than measure the outcomes. This is what civil rights seems to be all about.
> differences are inherent and unchangeable
I never said that, I said that different childhood circumstances, cultural practices, and domestic environments clearly produce vastly different outcomes. I also think that using authority to standardize how children are raised would be tyrannical.
Most fundamentally, if you want to raise your children without, for instance, an emphasis on educational attainment, you should have the right to do so. Also, no one should be surprised that children raised in such circumstances don't go on to have equality of economic outcome. And no one should get bent out of shape about these facts in combination, as they are not a product of "marginalization".
Perhaps that's true if you believe that parents should be the only ones responsible for their children's fate, but that puts a lot of power in parents' hands and doesn't leave much with the kids themselves.
I think there's a middle ground between complete standardization and complete reliance on one or two individuals that prevents the worst outcomes, although it may also prevent some of the best possible outcomes. But generally getting input from a number of different sources is a good thing, and even if "authority" may not be great at comprehensive development of varied individuals, it can still set minimum standards and make sure the child isn't entirely subject to their parents' whims.
Edit: More generally, parents are responsible to a large degree for their children's fate, as the importance of domestic environment in the research repeatedly shows. The question is what (if anything) we should do about this, exactly?
Edit 2: Come to think of it, using authority over parents in this way could constitute cultural genocide, for instance as it was perpetrated by the Canadian residential school system. Funny how casually it can be suggested.
Just in case you have not noticed, we do that nowadays, to combat child abuse. Giving parents 100% unrestricted power over their children would enable horrific child abuse, selling your children for slavery etc ... Funny how casually it can be suggested.
The answer lies in the middle, as the parent post suggested :)
Child abuse is pretty well bounded and defined. Ranking of cultural values is certainly not.
And the denial of that view has historically been used to impose the most tyrannical societies that have ever existed, in the form of totalitarian communist states.
> culture, genes, cognitive abilities, etc. are inferior
No one said they are inferior, only that they seem produce different results. It's you who is characterizing these as inferior. Equality of opportunity is apparent through the fact there is no policy (that I'm aware of), explicitly targeting people by, say, race (whatever that means), and that such policies are illegal.
This fact alone however provides no guarantee of economic equality, nor was it ever intended to, nor has economic equality ever been a goal of legal equality. The reasons for economic inequality are myriad and complex, and people have devoted their entire careers to their study. Did you watch the video I linked? What do you think of Dr. Sowell's perspective?
I didn’t mention anything specifically about economic outcomes, although obviously money can have a big effect on important outcomes like nutrition and medical care.
> No one said they are inferior, only that they seem produce different results. It's you who is characterizing these as inferior.
Someone did say this. The comment I’m responding to used the terms “drastically worse outcomes” and “lesser people.” Also, I’m not here to quibble about questions like “is it really worse to be starving than to be well-fed?”
Which is why women have their own sports leagues instead of being forced to compete with men.
It is you that is injecting the idea of "inferiority". Women and children cannot compete athletically with men, and that's okay. I don't think that you would try to suggest that women's and under 18's football leagues were the result of "society being controlled by people who have concluded that these groups are genetically inferior".
How can something like that be even called a "study".
But why can't this be true? Numerous studies have shown that genetic and particularly cultural traits produce vast differences in cognitive ability. Most recently for instance in a story about Korean twins separated at birth[1].
Research also shows that these differences can account for an overwhelming majority of the disparity in outcomes. This has been an active area of research for decades, and academia isn't at all in agreement that "marginalization" is the culprit here[2].
> marginalized groups have drastically worse outcomes
Not all "marginalized groups" do though, do they? Unless you only include groups with poor outcomes in your definition of "marginalized", in which case it's a bit circular isn't it?
1. https://www.psypost.org/2022/05/psychologists-found-a-striki...
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5csE8q9mho