5 ms·

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 m

by 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
  - ap22213 10y ago
    So, assuming that you've thought a bunch about this topic, what kind of policies would you recommend to address it? That is, given the genetic influence and subsequent lower quality of life, should it be considered and treated as a disease?
    - rcafdm 10y ago
      I'd recommend focusing on policy that is actually informed by a realistic assessment of the evidence regardless of your personal views/preferences. In my view, we spend a tremendous amount of money on schools (over-funding -> fancy facilities, labs, etc), pre-K, enrichment programs and the like that have approximately no effect on predictors of future success, some direct evidence suggests does nothing for income/employment, etc. I'm not fully on board with the progressive agenda (basically center right), but I'm not totally heartless either. I'd rather see that money spent on direct transfers to families. I don't believe the issues faced by lower income are purely economic though. Redistributing money will generally accomplish less (not nothing) than people think in terms of the things that are associated with poverty/low income (health, behaviors, etc). The issues are in part moral and spiritual; lack of purpose through lack of steady work, family connection, etc is an issue in some parts of the country and more money won't do much to solve them (may actually make them worse in some dimensions, especially if it encourages less work->drugs etc). We may find that we accomplish more good by keeping people engaged with some kind of work and community activity (which is why I'm opposed to minimum wage and would rather see EITC expanded)..... I also think we need to think carefully and honestly about immigration policy. Bringing in genuinely low-skill labor by the millions is not a formula for long term economic or social success. Though many of these immigrants are decent hard working people that stay employed and see large increases versus what they would have had in their home countries, their children and grandchildren tend to look and act more like equivalently skilled multi-generational citizens (similar problems in multiple dimensions). Maybe in 10-20 years genetic engineering people for intelligence and related characteristics will be feasible, probably a few more for it to become cheap and acceptable in the developed world, but I'm not quite prepared to bet the farm on that today. If it does, however the implications for the world will be staggering though (especially in the developing world..... so many problems are ultimately a result of issues here)

by ap22213 10y ago

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
- ap22213 10y ago
  So, assuming that you've thought a bunch about this topic, what kind of policies would you recommend to address it? That is, given the genetic influence and subsequent lower quality of life, should it be considered and treated as a disease?
  - rcafdm 10y ago
    I'd recommend focusing on policy that is actually informed by a realistic assessment of the evidence regardless of your personal views/preferences. In my view, we spend a tremendous amount of money on schools (over-funding -> fancy facilities, labs, etc), pre-K, enrichment programs and the like that have approximately no effect on predictors of future success, some direct evidence suggests does nothing for income/employment, etc. I'm not fully on board with the progressive agenda (basically center right), but I'm not totally heartless either. I'd rather see that money spent on direct transfers to families. I don't believe the issues faced by lower income are purely economic though. Redistributing money will generally accomplish less (not nothing) than people think in terms of the things that are associated with poverty/low income (health, behaviors, etc). The issues are in part moral and spiritual; lack of purpose through lack of steady work, family connection, etc is an issue in some parts of the country and more money won't do much to solve them (may actually make them worse in some dimensions, especially if it encourages less work->drugs etc). We may find that we accomplish more good by keeping people engaged with some kind of work and community activity (which is why I'm opposed to minimum wage and would rather see EITC expanded)..... I also think we need to think carefully and honestly about immigration policy. Bringing in genuinely low-skill labor by the millions is not a formula for long term economic or social success. Though many of these immigrants are decent hard working people that stay employed and see large increases versus what they would have had in their home countries, their children and grandchildren tend to look and act more like equivalently skilled multi-generational citizens (similar problems in multiple dimensions). Maybe in 10-20 years genetic engineering people for intelligence and related characteristics will be feasible, probably a few more for it to become cheap and acceptable in the developed world, but I'm not quite prepared to bet the farm on that today. If it does, however the implications for the world will be staggering though (especially in the developing world..... so many problems are ultimately a result of issues here)