Joshua C. Lerner

iOS developer. If you have to ask, banana/rock. RT ≠ endorsement.

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@NielsHoven @dmoon A parent realizing homeschool is the only option https://t.co/m2ULpqKuHN

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@peterboghossian Try not pawing through your garbage to filter out recyclables and compostables, see how free you are.

[Colin Wright @SwipeWright]

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE!

We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”

But that’s not really true.

Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.

And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.

This isn’t exactly new.

In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.

Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.

The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.

And today, the problem is even worse.

We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”

But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.

That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.

And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”

That is untenable.

So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”

The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.

A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.

Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?

If yes, it gets published.

And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.

That’s how science is supposed to work.

Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.

Now it’s time for academics to use it.

Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗https://t.co/gqkDE7aaDC

[Peter Boghossian @peterboghossian]

Absolutely one of the best films I've seen in years: Pressure (2026)

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@vevortools How do I get tech support for a pool pump? Can’t get a simple answer to a part replacement question.

[Michael Strong @flowidealism]

While @rpondiscio and @Doug_Lemov are legitimately respected for their work within the standard K-12 model, it shocks me how glib they are about the misery of high school students (75% unhappy). They seem to believe it is necessary.

1. Reading Lemov’s “Teach Like a Champion,” I would have run screaming from a classroom like that, or pulled my children out. Some of us neither want nor need to have our attention so tightly controlled.

Learn math via @_MathAcademy_ and a coach; never sit in a math class again. Learn foreign language via an avatar talking; Never a class again. Socratic discussions on classic texts, absolutely. A writing coach, live or AI, yes. But I would never sit through a standard Language Arts class again. Etc.

I love learning. I hate school.

I’m sympathetic to teens who hate school.

2. So is the Pondiscio/Lemov “force them even if they hate it” approach valid for most students? 90%? 75%?

Right now it might be significant -because the standard model consists of training in passivity and dependence (see Gatto). If children are raised in environments in which “learning” is tightly controlled and largely coerced, then of course it will seem to be the case that at 14, we need to continue to control their attention and force them to do things, even if the result is prolonged unhappiness. Too bad, kids!

3. But clearly it is possible to develop teens who are ambitious, motivated, and (mostly) do what they love and love what they do. This can and should be a cultural goal not just for the professional class, but all of us.

4. The trope of the sullen, morose teen, unhappy no matter what, is a distinctive cultural outcome downstream from compulsory public high school. It is not a coincidence that this stereotype largely arose in the 50s when a majority of teens first began graduating from high school.

5. In more traditional cultures, teens took on real responsibility at a much younger age. Our evolutionary programming inclines us to engage in activities that are respected in our tribes, with young men and women going through rites of passage before being welcomed into a quasi-adult role. In farming communities prior to the 20th century, taking on adult roles was similarly standard. Forcing young people into academic classes that are often regarded as irrelevant to their future results in the malaise we see.

6. Generations of homeschooling families have produced teens who are happy and productive. High agency school models including Montessori, Acton, and Alpha are routinely producing such outcomes. I’ve seen hundreds of teens miserable in the old model flourish when put in one of these models. All of the above are showing that it is entirely possible to provide young people with an education appropriate for the 21st century, that teens love and which motivate them to perform at a high level. @jliemandt is putting serious capital and talent behind scaling this through Alpha Academy. It may be one of the best philanthropic investments in history.

7. I’m for school choice. Let the No Excuses charter chains dominate market share if that is what the market wants. But I predict that as more private chains and networks produce flourishing among teens through high agency models while providing superior preparation for life, that is ultimately where the future lies.

8. The evidence of increased suicide during the school year is clear as is the 300% increase in teen suicide since 1950. As we have more options and better data, the adolescent mental health crisis will be seen as an artifact of schooling. The malaise of adolescence that Pondiscio and Lemov take as “just teens” is evidence of a self-inflicted human flourishing crisis that began when mass compulsory high school became the norm.

9. Eliminating the harms caused by forcing teens into standard schooling in adolescence is arguably the most important public health opportunity and a prerequisite to a flourishing future.

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@CubaOrtografia Not just graduation rates, but grades themselves. Also, everyone intuitively knows Goodhart's Law is true, but still most folks refuse to accept what follows naturally from the law - the extent to which otherwise decent people will try to game the system.

[𝗖𝘂𝗯𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻 𝗛 𝗱𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗶́𝗮 @CubaOrtografia]

La Ley de Goodhart

En las aulas polvorientas de la London School of Economics, a finales de los años 70, el economista Charles Goodhart observaba con ironía cómo los gobiernos intentaban controlar la economía mediante indicadores. Una y otra vez, los mismos números que servían para medir la realidad comenzaban a deformarse en cuanto se convertían en objetivo oficial. De esa observación surgió la Ley de Goodhart, que más tarde el antropólogo Donald Campbell reforzaría con su propia formulación: cuando una medida se convierte en objetivo, deja de ser una buena medida.

La ley es cruelmente sencilla. Un indicador, ya sea toneladas de producción, porcentaje de graduados, tasa de empleo o nivel de emisiones, funciona razonablemente bien mientras permanece como señal de algo más profundo. Pero en el momento en que los incentivos se alinean para maximizar ese número, los seres humanos, astutos y adaptativos, comienzan a jugar con él. Ya no persiguen el bienestar, la calidad o la verdad; persiguen el indicador. La medida se corrompe y, con ella, la realidad que pretendía reflejar.

La historia soviética ofrece el ejemplo más grotesco y pedagógico. En los años 30, un planificador central ordenó a las fábricas de clavos cumplir una cuota anual en «número de clavos producidos». Las fábricas, ansiosas por cumplir y recibir premios, fabricaron millones de clavos diminutos, casi inútiles, que cabían por millares en una caja. El planificador, enfurecido, cambió la meta al «peso total de clavos». Al año siguiente, las fábricas produjeron unos pocos clavos gigantescos, pesados como lingotes, igualmente inútiles. En ambos casos, el indicador brillaba en los informes, pero la economía real carecía de clavos que sirvieran para clavar.

Décadas después, la izquierda post-1968 y sus herederos institucionales abrazaron con entusiasmo la lógica de los objetivos centrales. Convencidos de que la sociedad podía dirigirse como una gran fábrica, multiplicaron las metas numéricas: coeficiente de Gini para medir igualdad, porcentaje de «minorías» en plantillas y aulas, toneladas de CO₂ evitadas, número de leyes aprobadas contra tal o cual discriminación. Cada uno de estos indicadores se transformó rápidamente en objetivo sagrado.

En las universidades y empresas occidentales, la meta de «diversidad» medida por cuotas de género, raza o identidad sexual desplazó al mérito y a la competencia real. Los departamentos de recursos humanos y las oficinas de admisión aprendieron a optimizar el indicador: contrataban o admitían según proporciones visibles, aunque ello supusiera bajar estándares, inflar calificaciones o ignorar diferencias reales de preparación. El porcentaje subía, las fotografías institucionales lucían multicolores, pero la calidad educativa y la cohesión interna se degradaban. Los mejores estudiantes y profesionales comenzaban a emigrar hacia entornos menos «optimizados». El indicador triunfaba; la excelencia se marchitaba.

En el terreno energético, la obsesión por las «emisiones cero netas» convirtió las toneladas de CO₂ evitadas en el nuevo clavo soviético. Gobiernos y empresas persiguieron el número con subsidios masivos a energías intermitentes, cierres precipitados de centrales nucleares y de carbón, y prohibiciones regulatorias. El indicador mejoraba en los informes internacionales, pero la realidad entregaba precios disparatados de la electricidad, dependencia de países autoritarios para minerales y baterías, y episodios crecientes de apagones o racionamiento en países que apostaron todo al objetivo. La medida brillaba y la fiabilidad del sistema colapsaba.

El socialismo planificado clásico y sus versiones suavizadas contemporáneas comparten esta patología: quien fija el objetivo desde arriba nunca posee la información local ni los incentivos correctos que sí tienen los actores de carne y hueso. Estos últimos, racionales, responden al incentivo que se les da, no al deseo abstracto del planificador. El resultado es siempre el mismo: distorsión masiva, «producción» fantasma y un abismo cada vez mayor entre las estadísticas oficiales y la vida cotidiana.

La Ley de Goodhart sigue vigente, implacable. Cada nueva campaña que convierte un número en cruzada, sea equidad de género medida por consejeras, inclusión racial por becas o descarbonización por subsidios, repite el viejo error soviético con ropa nueva y lenguaje moralizante. Mientras tanto, la sociedad real, como aquellas fábricas de clavos, aprende a fabricar lo que se le premia, aunque ya nadie pueda usarlo.

[Justin Skycak @justinskycak]

Compounding is everything. Relationships, wealth, health, career, meaning, fulfillment … it's all built through compounding. Everything you want lies on the other side of a massive volume of compounding.

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@lyndseyfifield A 4-year-old. In "school". Think about that for a second.

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@lyndseyfifield "But how will they be socialized...?", I always hear. As if traditional school excels at this. If you're lucky, sure you may make some great friends, but this happens at any correctional institution. Standard disclaimer: I had some great teachers, and some stinkers.

[Wesley Yang @wesyang]

Transgenderism is an ongoing project of attempting to normalize a bizarre subculture built around esoteric pseudo-medical practices from the outermost fringe of human extremity and make it compulsory for every American to join that subculture and to make that subculture the mainstream culture of the Western world. One requires only the most cursory understanding of the pioneering figures responsible for the mainstreaming of transgenderism -- who they were and what their motives were -- to understand this as a matter of certainty.

It is as if ascetics who scourge themselves with whips in public or amputee fetishists began teaching their beliefs to young schoolchildren and recruiting them to join their ranks. One is forced into the strange position of referencing practices that are not more bizarre than transgenderism -- that are indeed arguably less bizarre -- to make an analogy in an attempt to restore some semblance of sanity and proportionality to our thinking about this. The normalization has already gone far enough that the whole culture suffers from vertigo where it is unable to orient itself in space or time.

Giving the same off-label cancer drugs that are used to chemically castrate adult sex offenders to pubescent children who have been brainwashed to fear the decisive stage of mental, physical, and emotional maturation that resolves gender dysphoria in children in most cases is self-evidently an act of madness and medicalized child abuse unmatched by anything in the history of modern medicine. It took the self-lobotomization of the American professional and managerial classes for our truth-seeking apparatus not to see this fact that is self-evident to any normal person with normal human instincts.

This self-lobotomization occurred across mainstream institutions of all kinds -- all it required was the incantation of a few odious euphemisms, the manipulation of rewards and punishments, and confident claims by various authorities that self-evidently ludicrous claims were in fact settled science.

Now we are in phase one of recognizing that there was never any science to any of it.

It was all a lie told by cultists who managed to infiltrate and corrupt society's knowledge-generating, certifying, and enforcement apparatus -- it was the most outrageous of all such possible lies, so outrageous that nobody could believe that anyone would attempt it, much less succeed, unless there was some actual substance behind it, some real grounds for epistemic and moral confidence. There was none.

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

I’m tired of my culture being defined as, essentially, an absence of culture. “American culture is pluralism” is an assertion that American culture is nothing. This is false. Our culture is a specific way of life created by a specific people. Our culture is honesty, honoring not just the letter but the spirit of our commitments rather than looking for loopholes, responsibility, a sense of guilt at imposing on other people, an abiding suspicion of government overreach, a desire to be left alone, open friendliness, blunt talk rather than polite euphemism, the Christian and Hellenic intellectual, spiritual, and aesthetic traditions, and much more. It is rich and specific and while there are natural Americans of non-Anglo background, they are rare outliers, usually outcasts and eccentrics in their native cultures. Most humans on Earth are not at all temperamentally suited to participate in American culture and to the extent they are allowed to come here, America becomes less American.

The people telling you that American culture is nothing, that it’s some vague bumper sticker slogan or post-1960s platitude are people who do not fit in actual American culture and so wish to eliminate it, wish to impose alienation on the American people as revenge for their own correct sense that they don’t belong here, aren’t one of us, could never be one of us.

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

2000+ math classes over 12 years, all for ~naught (but the staff and textbook publishers got paid). That this could ever happen, much less at an 8% rate, should be a scandal at every Potemkin school implicated in this tragedy.

[Justin Skycak @justinskycak]

This sounds like a joke, but it's not:

– 1 in 12 incoming UCSD freshmen don’t know middle school math,

– and the remedial math course was too advanced,

– so UCSD had to create a remedial remedial math course,

– and a quarter of the students placing into it had a perfect 4.0 GPA in their high school math courses.

That sounds so ridiculous, like something you’d read in The Onion, but it’s unfortunately real.

Here are some direct quotes from the UCSD report:

"Between 2020 and 2025, the number of students whose math skills fall below high school level increased nearly thirtyfold; moreover, 70% of those students fall below middle school levels, reaching roughly one in twelve members of the entering cohort."

"While Math 2 was designed in 2016 to remediate missing high school math knowledge, now most students had knowledge gaps that went back much further, to middle and even elementary school. To address the large number of underprepared students, the Mathematics Department redesigned Math 2 for Fall 2024 to focus entirely on elementary and middle school Common Core math subjects (grades 1-8), and introduced a new course, Math 3B, so as to cover missing high-school common core math subjects (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II or Math I, II, III; grades 9-11)."

"Few, if any, students who place into Math 2 have successfully completed an engineering degree."

"high school math grades are only very weakly linked to students’ actual math preparation."

"The correlation between the average math grade and the placement result is only around 0.25 on a scale of 0 to 1. In 2024, over 25% of the students in Math 2 had a math grade average of 4.0."

"of those who demonstrated math skills not meeting middle school levels, 94% went beyond [the minimum high school course requirement], with 42% percent completing Calculus or Precalculus."

"The pattern of high school math classes taken in many cases suggests much higher levels of math skill than the actual math skill the student often has."

"In fact, for more than two decades the Mathematics Department has found that out of all available student data, the single best predictor for math placement has been the SAT (math section) score, with the ACT score being an equally good predictor."

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

When a student receives an A or B average in high school math but can't show absolute mastery of middle school math upon arrival at college, this is academic fraud, likely involving all of the players (teachers, principals, parents, and student). Where are the deep dives into exactly how this happens? UCSD is a public institution, some of these ill-prepared students went to public K12 - the taxpayer has a right to know!

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

Go outside.

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@justinskycak Yes, but who cares about grade levels? (I know, almost everyone does.)

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

Try arguing with this. Try living without mastery or even competence in your dealings with reality. "Mastery is the best goal because the rich can't buy it, the impatient can't rush it, the privileged can't inherit it, and nobody can steal it. You can only earn it through hard work. Mastery is the ultimate status."

[Justin Skycak @justinskycak]

Hardcore skill development is one of the greatest social mobility hacks. Even if your family is not well-connected, you can make up for it by developing real skills.

Sure, you have to develop more skills than well-connected people to reach the same level of opportunity, and you’re going to have less guidance developing those skills and finding your way to the arena – but once you’re in the arena, those extra skills pay big dividends.

[Hoover Institution @HooverInst]

Hoover Senior Fellow Thomas Sowell delivers a sweeping critique of American education, affirmative action, and modern universities—drawing on his journey from Harlem classrooms to elite institutions, decades of research, and hard data. Dr. Sowell argues that ideology has too often replaced knowledge and that well-intentioned policies can harm those they aim to help, raising urgent questions about race, schooling, AI, and the future of American institutions.

Watch a new episode of @UncKnowledge with @P_M_Robinson on X:

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

"It’s about refusing to create dependencies on systems you cannot control." Or even meaningfully influence any of the time.

[Robert Bortins @TheRobertBshow]

https://t.co/lfwVTm1krK

[Joshua C. Lerner @jlerner]

@frugalbc @SahilBloom This is why folks really only can change their minds over time, in the light of new information and experiences. The brain needs time to process it all. In the heat of the moment, somehow this obvious fact is usually forgotten.