4 ms·

This seems like kind of a low effort comment. Are you disputing any of these claims: * IQ or other measures of aptitude contribute to success in school

This seems like kind of a low effort comment. Are you disputing any of these claims: * IQ or other measures of aptitude contribute to success in school * IQ/aptitude are heritable * IQ/aptitude contribute to success in life Because those all seem sort of reasonable to me, and would explain the top comment of "wealth is the largest predictor of educational attainment", without some sort of nefarious inequality good school / bad school thing going on. I think that's what GP was getting at. I think you're arguing about magnitude of effect? That, while that's true, socioeconomic status effects educational attainment far more than natural aptitude? That also seems plausible to me, although not guaranteed to be correct. Do you have any sources on the relative effects of each contribution? I'd be curious to see.

tptacek 9y ago
SES and IQ are not orthogonal. In the limited studies we have, SES interventions generate durable IQ gains, gains substantially larger than the supposed gap between races. The grandparent comment is "not even wrong".
- losvedir 9y ago
  > interventions generate durable IQ gains Oh, really? That's awesome. I was under the impression this wasn't possible. Do you have any resources on what the interventions were? I'm interested from a selfish parental perspective...
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Start here and follow links: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-... (This only looks like a Vox article; it's actually an open letter from authoritative researchers Vox happens to be publishing.)
    - dogruck 9y ago
      I read the Vox piece, and I don't find it logical. Do you think a fair summary is "nature has a larger impact on IQ than nurture?" Note the article does concede that genetics impact IQ. Somewhat related: I find it amusing when parents talk at length about how similar their children are to themselves and to past relatives -- and then pivot to essentially argue that every individual has equal capabilities.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        You read a piece by Eric Turkheimer and Richard Nisbett and "didn't find it logical"?
- dogruck 9y ago
  I see irony when people make these simultaneous claims: 1. This test has deep bias and flaws because it shows a difference in groups 2. I know this is true because of the results of this other test that shows equality.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Those aren't contradictory statements at all.
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  The comment is not "not even wrong". In fact you are not even really disagreeing. People with high SES have children with high IQ, then those children's children also have high SES and IQ. Does it really matter if the high IQ was because of inherited genes vs inherited wealth? You both already believe that it is hereditary.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    It matters very much, because the subtext of saying that school performance is effectively hereditary is that no intervention we can come up with will improve test scores, because the problem is intrinsic to the student. That's false.
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      School performance is in fact hereditary, possibly because rich people go to fancy schools and their parents can afford to help them with homework and so on. A good intervention might be to improve the schools that poor people go to. But if poor students are just intrinsically more stupid for some biological reason, a good intervention might be to improve the schools that stupid people go to. Since it turns out the bad students are poor students, the interventions end up looking mostly the same. For example, hire more teachers to reduce class size, provide more nutritious food, or remove lead from the paint and the pipes. Just because something is "biological" doesn't mean it is immutable. In fact, as technology advances, we might end up wishing bad school performance was due to genetics so we can fix it with gene therapy instead of complicated finicky societal interventions.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        If we agree about the needed intervention but for different reasons, our debate isn't going to be very productive. I agree that schools are doing a poor job of serving black and latino students.

tptacek 9y ago

SES and IQ are not orthogonal. In the limited studies we have, SES interventions generate durable IQ gains, gains substantially larger than the supposed gap between races. The grandparent comment is "not even wrong".

losvedir 9y ago
> interventions generate durable IQ gains Oh, really? That's awesome. I was under the impression this wasn't possible. Do you have any resources on what the interventions were? I'm interested from a selfish parental perspective...
- tptacek 9y ago
  Start here and follow links: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-... (This only looks like a Vox article; it's actually an open letter from authoritative researchers Vox happens to be publishing.)
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I read the Vox piece, and I don't find it logical. Do you think a fair summary is "nature has a larger impact on IQ than nurture?" Note the article does concede that genetics impact IQ. Somewhat related: I find it amusing when parents talk at length about how similar their children are to themselves and to past relatives -- and then pivot to essentially argue that every individual has equal capabilities.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      You read a piece by Eric Turkheimer and Richard Nisbett and "didn't find it logical"?
dogruck 9y ago
I see irony when people make these simultaneous claims: 1. This test has deep bias and flaws because it shows a difference in groups 2. I know this is true because of the results of this other test that shows equality.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Those aren't contradictory statements at all.
saint_fiasco 9y ago
The comment is not "not even wrong". In fact you are not even really disagreeing. People with high SES have children with high IQ, then those children's children also have high SES and IQ. Does it really matter if the high IQ was because of inherited genes vs inherited wealth? You both already believe that it is hereditary.
- tptacek 9y ago
  It matters very much, because the subtext of saying that school performance is effectively hereditary is that no intervention we can come up with will improve test scores, because the problem is intrinsic to the student. That's false.
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    School performance is in fact hereditary, possibly because rich people go to fancy schools and their parents can afford to help them with homework and so on. A good intervention might be to improve the schools that poor people go to. But if poor students are just intrinsically more stupid for some biological reason, a good intervention might be to improve the schools that stupid people go to. Since it turns out the bad students are poor students, the interventions end up looking mostly the same. For example, hire more teachers to reduce class size, provide more nutritious food, or remove lead from the paint and the pipes. Just because something is "biological" doesn't mean it is immutable. In fact, as technology advances, we might end up wishing bad school performance was due to genetics so we can fix it with gene therapy instead of complicated finicky societal interventions.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      If we agree about the needed intervention but for different reasons, our debate isn't going to be very productive. I agree that schools are doing a poor job of serving black and latino students.