5 ms·
But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a wee
by blfr 10y ago
But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students," and they're staying that way.
It's also a matter of genes. Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids. Affluent parents pass high IQ and conscientiousness to their children which are critical for the rest of their lives. That's why, as anyone who skimmed the twin studies or maybe on of these new fancy GWAS can explain, rich children increasingly exit the womb better prepared to succeed in life and they stay that way. (That and the fact that we removed most of environmental instults.)
It doesn't end there either. They will also be wealthier, healthier, and live longer. "All good things tend to go together, as do all bad ones."
- jackmott 10y ago"and conscientiousness" hold up! I think it might just be a different flavor of it.
- Falling3 10y agoThat is addressed in the paper which cites a Swedish study that found only a 20% variance in earnings attributable to genetics.
- xapata 10y agoEver seen the movie "Trading Places"? In seriousness, it's frustrating that you're making such a bold assertion about causality. There are more male executives than female. Are you saying that's caused by genetics?
- awareBrah 10y agoThere are more males at a very high IQ than there are females. There are also many more males at a very low IQ than there are females. I don't know why people downvote the parent comment, just because it's not exactly fair that people aren't born equal, doesn't mean we have to just sweep it under the rug.
- xapata 10y agoWhy are you so confident that the IQ test is measuring "intelligence"? The causes of wealth, scholastic performance, etc. are quite important for policy. Therefore we should hold a higher burden of proof for causal inference on those topics than, say, the communication mechanisms of ants. It's not that folks are sweeping differences under the rug. It's that they're saying the differences might not be the things you're saying they are.
- abrahamepton 10y agoThis is one of the most HN comments ever. Without getting into the nature-vs-nurture debate for the trillionth time, "Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids" is a totally preposterous statement. Genes are certainly AN influence, but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with computers my whole life had something to do with how I got interested in computers and subsequently developed a career out of it. That's just not an option for a lot of kids, and that has zilch to do with genes. But hey, keep thinking Ayn Rand's not full of shit, Hackernews :)
- blfr 10y agoIt should be a very HN comment since I learned most of it here from 'gwern (not Ayn Rand): https://www.gwern.net/iq https://www.gwern.net/iq
- contextmattrs30 10y agoGiven the issues the social sciences have with reproducible results, that Gwern is linking more science blogs than papers, and that we know rich people have conspired to hold poor people back via laws and other self serving maneuvers I'm still going to lean into "bullshit" category When you have evidence that the supposedly smart and highly moral are guilty of oppressing an entire swath of people and you point at mostly economic markers without controlling for bad behavior by the "haves" you're just skewing your own results That rich do better within our culture, which is rigged to give the rich an advantage, it doesn't say much to whether they are truly smarter
- blfr 10y agoConscientious here means 'diligent' more than 'moral'.
- oicisdumb33 10y agoSo your entire thesis really is higher educated people are better equipped to contribute in economic affairs While poor people focus on immediate needs There's plenty of rigorous research in this area to show that being poor and struggling actually creates mental barriers to achieving success I'm going to keep leaning on that versus the blog post of some objectivist who peddles around stats to make up whatever argument fits his world view
- michael_h 10y ago> Affluent parents pass high IQ and conscientiousness I'll have to go with 'citation needed'.
- blfr 10y agoSure. Both are highly heritable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880
- michael_h 10y agoI was thinking less about the 'intelligence is partly heritable' part, and more about 'affluent people are smart and conscientious' part.
- blfr 10y agoOK. "each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000219 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607... and conscientiousness may even trump IQ when it comes to SES http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/does_personalit.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/does_personalit....
- jomamaxx 10y agoNo, the 'biggest influence' that parents have on their kids are the values, attitudes, the disposition, the care, the temperament, the focus, the self restraint and self discipline , and all the other behaviours they instil in their children by instruction or by example. After that I would say it's economic and social class. Of course genes play some role, but there's a pretty low correlation for inherited IQ anyhow.