A group of scientists set out to study quick learners. Then they discovered they don’t exist.

Ah, bullshit.

This is another variation of the “everyone is exactly the same” go-to leftist argument. It’s fraudulent. It’s a convenient lie. My sister had zero head start on me in music (in fact, I started learning before she did). With less practice and time invested, she was better at everything to do with music than I was in three months; I’d been playing for two years at that point.

In my direct experience, I can generally learn a concept or idea in a few minutes that takes others days, weeks, years or never to learn. Even if I’ve had no exposure to it and know nothing about it in advance.

They may have already had exposure to fractions by making pancakes at home using measuring cups.

LOL. What a bunch of dipshittiness.

This is how the researchers massaged their data and the study design itself to get the result they wanted: One problem is that they define and model “learning rate” in a very specific, narrow way and apply it to a very specific kind of data, which they knew would show what they wanted it to demonstrate. And calling 2.6 vs 1.7 pp per attempt “the same” is absolute nonsense. On a log-odds scale the difference is about 2x, which is certainly non-trivial even if it’s small relative to intercept gaps.

That barely gets into all the problems with how that study was conducted. It reveals nearly nothing except exactly what they wanted us to believe (which is, of course, wrong).

Lord, what a load of fucking crap.