4 ms·

> Well adoption studies show that environment doesn't matter much to IQ. Really? I remember a few adoption study where they found the opposite: They measured t

by fao_ 9y ago

> Well adoption studies show that environment doesn't matter much to IQ. Really? I remember a few adoption study where they found the opposite: They measured the IQs of genetically identical twins that were adopted into different families, and found that family environment mattered a hell of a lot. I can't find the study that I remember, but here are some adjacent studies that have done similar things with similar results: http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-their-non-adopted-siblings http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-th... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612

Houshalter 9y ago
That's interesting. I don't think half siblings should be considered a representative random sample though. It may simply be that babies adopted away were more likely to be from low IQ fathers. The ncbi link seems to support my hypothesis, maybe I'm missing something.
kiliantics 9y ago
Yes, there are publications with support both ways. IQ is basically meaningless and it pains me to see it constantly brought up here.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  People who need to believe in some Randian meritocracy require cheap and easy metrics to convince themselves and sort people. If you can’t feel confident in your ability to discriminate, then you might have to question the foundations of your ideology, which is painful for many.
  - s_m_t 9y ago
    How could there possibly not be a thing like general intelligence?
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m skeptical of our ability to accurately define intelligence, never mind accurately measure it (especially with a one-size-fits-all test), but I don’t doubt its existence. Although some people do make me wonder...
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    I just love the armchair experts who come out of the woodwork whenever this topic comes up. I'm sure you can accurately psychoanalyze the hidden motives. Of a subject you haven't even read the wikipedia page on.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
Your middle link there refers to the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study [1]. That brief seems to assume the reader is familiar with the studies as otherwise it would be very easy to misunderstand what they're saying - which is not what you're saying. Their study was a large undertaking studying the differences in black/interracial/white children who were all adopted by wealthy white families in Minnesota. It found that at age 7 the difference in IQ between a adopted white child and adopted black child was 20.1 points. At age 17 this changed to 17.8 points. The difference for a half black child and a white child was 6.1 at age 7, and 8.3 at age 17. The goal of the study was to show the opposite of what it ended up showing. Consequently many individuals, including the authors of the study themselves, have tried to argue that this is not evidence of a genetic link to IQ. Arguments against it have run the gamut from environmental factors from before the children were adopted (which was at less than 1 years old in all cases) to skin color causing environmental effects. These are certainly contributing factors, however they would undermine any and all results of the study - which is indicative of an after-the-fact effort to undermine their own results. In either case, that result certainly showed nothing like "family environment mattered a hell of alot." The misunderstanding here probably comes from one questionably phrased sentence in that abstract, "Black and interracial children scored as well on IQ tests as adoptees in other studies." That is more clearly read as "Black and interracial children scored as well on IQ tests as black and interracial adoptees in other studies." In other words, they're comparing differences between 'same group' individuals and trying to see what determines the variance there. And they found that at a young age this is frequently related to environmental factors, whereas at older age genetics becomes dominant even among 'same 'group individuals. In the abstract's rather kinder phrasing, "Our interpretation of these results is that younger children are more influenced by differences among their family environments than older adolescents, who are freer to seek their own niches.".
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  I seem to be unable to edit my post. The link was to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... The study itself is paywalled. And given the decades of controversy it sparked, the Wiki entry is quite expansive.

by fao_ 9y ago

Houshalter 9y ago

That's interesting. I don't think half siblings should be considered a representative random sample though. It may simply be that babies adopted away were more likely to be from low IQ fathers. The ncbi link seems to support my hypothesis, maybe I'm missing something.

kiliantics 9y ago

Yes, there are publications with support both ways. IQ is basically meaningless and it pains me to see it constantly brought up here.

IntronExon 9y ago
People who need to believe in some Randian meritocracy require cheap and easy metrics to convince themselves and sort people. If you can’t feel confident in your ability to discriminate, then you might have to question the foundations of your ideology, which is painful for many.
- s_m_t 9y ago
  How could there possibly not be a thing like general intelligence?
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m skeptical of our ability to accurately define intelligence, never mind accurately measure it (especially with a one-size-fits-all test), but I don’t doubt its existence. Although some people do make me wonder...
- Houshalter 9y ago
  I just love the armchair experts who come out of the woodwork whenever this topic comes up. I'm sure you can accurately psychoanalyze the hidden motives. Of a subject you haven't even read the wikipedia page on.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

Your middle link there refers to the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study [1]. That brief seems to assume the reader is familiar with the studies as otherwise it would be very easy to misunderstand what they're saying - which is not what you're saying. Their study was a large undertaking studying the differences in black/interracial/white children who were all adopted by wealthy white families in Minnesota. It found that at age 7 the difference in IQ between a adopted white child and adopted black child was 20.1 points. At age 17 this changed to 17.8 points. The difference for a half black child and a white child was 6.1 at age 7, and 8.3 at age 17. The goal of the study was to show the opposite of what it ended up showing. Consequently many individuals, including the authors of the study themselves, have tried to argue that this is not evidence of a genetic link to IQ. Arguments against it have run the gamut from environmental factors from before the children were adopted (which was at less than 1 years old in all cases) to skin color causing environmental effects. These are certainly contributing factors, however they would undermine any and all results of the study - which is indicative of an after-the-fact effort to undermine their own results. In either case, that result certainly showed nothing like "family environment mattered a hell of alot." The misunderstanding here probably comes from one questionably phrased sentence in that abstract, "Black and interracial children scored as well on IQ tests as adoptees in other studies." That is more clearly read as "Black and interracial children scored as well on IQ tests as black and interracial adoptees in other studies." In other words, they're comparing differences between 'same group' individuals and trying to see what determines the variance there. And they found that at a young age this is frequently related to environmental factors, whereas at older age genetics becomes dominant even among 'same 'group individuals. In the abstract's rather kinder phrasing, "Our interpretation of these results is that younger children are more influenced by differences among their family environments than older adolescents, who are freer to seek their own niches.".

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I seem to be unable to edit my post. The link was to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption... The study itself is paywalled. And given the decades of controversy it sparked, the Wiki entry is quite expansive.