5 ms·

This is presented as if this opinion journalist found a causative relationship when he's done no such thing. He's just looking at correlations and then shoehor

This is presented as if this opinion journalist found a causative relationship when he's done no such thing. He's just looking at correlations and then shoehorning in his favorite explanations (glass floors, glass ceilings, diploma mills). Take a look at his previous articles and maybe you'll identify a trend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/matt-obrien/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/matt-obrien/

davesque 10y ago
How is that? The main thrust of the article (including the chart) comes from an academic source which doesn't appear to be opinion-based at all.
- jakeargent 10y ago
  It's not about the academic source's basis on opinion, but on correlation studies. This is your friendly reminder that correlation is not causation.
  - davesque 10y ago
    Ugh...this is your friendly reminder that a lot of people already know this and pointing it out doesn't make you look smart.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." ~ Randall Munroe
malandrew 10y ago
This is a much better analysis on social mobility: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/my-response-to-the-nytimes-article-on-school-districts-test-scores-and-income/ https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/my-r...
- ap22213 10y ago
  I skimmed it, but I didn't see much of a point except that he seems to be implying that poor people are more likely to be less intelligent (or rich people are more likely to be more intelligent). So, let's say his analysis is correct. What then? Does it mean that we should, as a society, test for intelligence early in life and subsidize incomes appropriately? Or, just let the poor suffer if they don't have the correct genes?
  - kagamine 10y ago
    It's probably not genetic. Ask any school teacher who does well in class and who struggles, who has ADHD and who concentrates for hours at a time and they will tell you diet and routine (also linked to wealth) are almost always obvious signals for success. It's not scientific, but the kids that struggle eat frozen pizza and stay up late. It could be the teachers I know finding evidence where there is none, but year after in that job by all those teachers suggests otherwise.
    - rcafdm 10y ago
      I created the blog post. That post was largely focused on academic outcomes, especially variation in various test scores and related measures of general cognitive ability (aka "intelligence"), but: 1) there is also good direct evidence that genes explain a large fraction of the systematic variation in economic outcomes. I invite you to read this https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER... (especially pg25, table 1, and compare h^2 vs c^2 ) 2) Parental involvement is unlikely to explain much of the black-white disparity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2016.1235137 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2016.123... 3) teacher observations and other casually observed bivariate correlations are heavily confounded by genes. the kids with seriously disordered lives are significantly more likely to have parents with low executive function and cognitive abilities and are more likely themselves to have low executive functioning. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/137/2/201/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/137/2/201/ 4) I am not arguing that parents/communities are entirely unimportant in all dimensions, but the role is much, much smaller than is commonly believed and it particularly has relatively little influence on cognition and closely related phenotypes. The influence of parents is more on things like educational attainment which, while significantly determined by innate ability, are probably not purely genetic (holding other things equal children of more educated parents get more education..... much more about culture/preferences than ability to afford though http://www.nber.org/papers/w22734 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22734

davesque 10y ago

How is that? The main thrust of the article (including the chart) comes from an academic source which doesn't appear to be opinion-based at all.

jakeargent 10y ago
It's not about the academic source's basis on opinion, but on correlation studies. This is your friendly reminder that correlation is not causation.
- davesque 10y ago
  Ugh...this is your friendly reminder that a lot of people already know this and pointing it out doesn't make you look smart.
- falcolas 10y ago
  "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." ~ Randall Munroe

malandrew 10y ago

This is a much better analysis on social mobility: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/my-response-to-the-nytimes-article-on-school-districts-test-scores-and-income/ https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/my-r...

ap22213 10y ago
I skimmed it, but I didn't see much of a point except that he seems to be implying that poor people are more likely to be less intelligent (or rich people are more likely to be more intelligent). So, let's say his analysis is correct. What then? Does it mean that we should, as a society, test for intelligence early in life and subsidize incomes appropriately? Or, just let the poor suffer if they don't have the correct genes?
- kagamine 10y ago
  It's probably not genetic. Ask any school teacher who does well in class and who struggles, who has ADHD and who concentrates for hours at a time and they will tell you diet and routine (also linked to wealth) are almost always obvious signals for success. It's not scientific, but the kids that struggle eat frozen pizza and stay up late. It could be the teachers I know finding evidence where there is none, but year after in that job by all those teachers suggests otherwise.
  - rcafdm 10y ago
    I created the blog post. That post was largely focused on academic outcomes, especially variation in various test scores and related measures of general cognitive ability (aka "intelligence"), but: 1) there is also good direct evidence that genes explain a large fraction of the systematic variation in economic outcomes. I invite you to read this https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER... (especially pg25, table 1, and compare h^2 vs c^2 ) 2) Parental involvement is unlikely to explain much of the black-white disparity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2016.1235137 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2016.123... 3) teacher observations and other casually observed bivariate correlations are heavily confounded by genes. the kids with seriously disordered lives are significantly more likely to have parents with low executive function and cognitive abilities and are more likely themselves to have low executive functioning. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/137/2/201/ http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/137/2/201/ 4) I am not arguing that parents/communities are entirely unimportant in all dimensions, but the role is much, much smaller than is commonly believed and it particularly has relatively little influence on cognition and closely related phenotypes. The influence of parents is more on things like educational attainment which, while significantly determined by innate ability, are probably not purely genetic (holding other things equal children of more educated parents get more education..... much more about culture/preferences than ability to afford though http://www.nber.org/papers/w22734 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22734