6 ms·

What exactly can genetics determine that can't be determined by direct tests of ability? I can understand that genetic tests of intelligence are relevant to the

What exactly can genetics determine that can't be determined by direct tests of ability? I can understand that genetic tests of intelligence are relevant to the debate about eugenics, since genetic tests could be done in advance and used to determine which children get born. But by the time the child comes to be educated, it seems that you could get the same information more accurately by directly testing the child's ability. You don't need to test the genetics, because you have access to the actual child. Genetic tests could give us a measure of how well a child will do in life, but in fact we already have this measure just by looking at their schoolwork. The genetics don't add anything.

jasode 9y ago
>What exactly can genetics determine that can't be determined by direct tests of ability? The article says[1] it can help determine an early intervention or optimal method of teaching before the ability is tested. By the time you test the child, it may be too late. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with the article. I'm just trying to extract the part of the article that seems relevant to your question. [1] half way down the article: “At the moment we are detecting ‘problems’ only when they are visible, and at that point they can be detrimental for the child and hard to treat,” says Smith-Woolley. “Genetics offers the potential for predicting and preventing. For example, from birth we might be able to tell if a child has many genetic variants associated with having dyslexia. So why not intervene straight away, with proven strategies, before a problem emerges?” Whether such a scheme could work for more subtle aspects of intelligence and learning – whether we could realistically and reliably use genes alone to predict them, and then tailor learning strategies to have an impact – remains far from clear.
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  That seems reasonable. I imagine colour blindness would also be very useful to detect early. It sort of argues against the position that genetics determines intelligence though. If intelligence was determined by genetics then you wouldn't think that intervening in a dyslexic child's education a couple of years earlier could make a large difference.
  - DonaldFisk 9y ago
    For example, assuming dyslexia has a strong genetic component, and that dyxlexic children have less trouble learning Italian than learning French, you could ensure that they're put in the Italian class and not the French class.
    - iguy 9y ago
      I'm unconvinced. Color blindness is easy to test for, as soon as it matters. We can do the tests where figures pop out with baby chimps right? What would change if you knew this earlier? Are we even sure that dyslexia is something more than a catch-all term for kids who have more difficulty learning to read? And either way, do we know that starting earlier, or later, would be an effective intervention? The error bars on our knowledge of such things (even for the largest samples, all kids) seem huge.
      - DonaldFisk 9y ago
        I'm not sure, which is why I hedged my words rather carefully. I'm skeptical about a dyslexia gene (or genes) myself, as writing is relatively recent and there have been only a few hundred years to select for it, but it's not my area of expertise. So, if you like, you can replace dyxlexia with condition A, Italian with subject B, and French with subject C.
      - Robin_Message 9y ago
        Dyslexia is specifically related to difficulty processing sequences; the symptoms are fairly specific, and have an obvious underlying mechanism, even if we don't understand what that mechanism is yet. It's not just difficulty learning to read.
        iguy 9y ago
        OK, don't know too much about it, don't mean to open another can of worms! But we seem to have difficulty even discerning the best ways to teach normal kids to read. Hence my skepticism that our interventions for something specific could be so well-understood that starting the intervention when we had the genetic test (rather than waiting for the classroom) would matter.
iguy 9y ago
Yes I agree, I don't think this helps us make better decisions about any one child. But I wonder for instance if we might do a lot better at judging schools, and learning what works. Right now the default position appears to be that the input to schools is uniform and thus that good/bad exam results are a measure of the school. But they aren't. If we become a bit less blank-slate about the children, maybe we can do better at figuring out what kinds of schooling work better or worse. This doesn't directly need genetic tests of anyone, but it does need a change of mindset.
swebs 9y ago
It can determine innate ability which isn't affected by environmental factors. From there we can determine a how much individuals are affected by those factors. For example, Billy and Joey were determined to have the same innate ability. Joey scored 20 points less than Billy on the standardized test. Joey also lives next to a power plant and has lead pipes in his house.
derangedHorse 9y ago
“..just by looking at their schoolwork.” This would be a very bad form of evaluation as evidenced by people with unconventional backgrounds becoming successful like Steve Jobs and some countless other smaller business owners who is say show a different type of intelligence.

jasode 9y ago

>What exactly can genetics determine that can't be determined by direct tests of ability? The article says[1] it can help determine an early intervention or optimal method of teaching before the ability is tested. By the time you test the child, it may be too late. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with the article. I'm just trying to extract the part of the article that seems relevant to your question. [1] half way down the article: “At the moment we are detecting ‘problems’ only when they are visible, and at that point they can be detrimental for the child and hard to treat,” says Smith-Woolley. “Genetics offers the potential for predicting and preventing. For example, from birth we might be able to tell if a child has many genetic variants associated with having dyslexia. So why not intervene straight away, with proven strategies, before a problem emerges?” Whether such a scheme could work for more subtle aspects of intelligence and learning – whether we could realistically and reliably use genes alone to predict them, and then tailor learning strategies to have an impact – remains far from clear.

OscarCunningham 9y ago
That seems reasonable. I imagine colour blindness would also be very useful to detect early. It sort of argues against the position that genetics determines intelligence though. If intelligence was determined by genetics then you wouldn't think that intervening in a dyslexic child's education a couple of years earlier could make a large difference.
- DonaldFisk 9y ago
  For example, assuming dyslexia has a strong genetic component, and that dyxlexic children have less trouble learning Italian than learning French, you could ensure that they're put in the Italian class and not the French class.
  - iguy 9y ago
    I'm unconvinced. Color blindness is easy to test for, as soon as it matters. We can do the tests where figures pop out with baby chimps right? What would change if you knew this earlier? Are we even sure that dyslexia is something more than a catch-all term for kids who have more difficulty learning to read? And either way, do we know that starting earlier, or later, would be an effective intervention? The error bars on our knowledge of such things (even for the largest samples, all kids) seem huge.
    - DonaldFisk 9y ago
      I'm not sure, which is why I hedged my words rather carefully. I'm skeptical about a dyslexia gene (or genes) myself, as writing is relatively recent and there have been only a few hundred years to select for it, but it's not my area of expertise. So, if you like, you can replace dyxlexia with condition A, Italian with subject B, and French with subject C.
    - Robin_Message 9y ago
      Dyslexia is specifically related to difficulty processing sequences; the symptoms are fairly specific, and have an obvious underlying mechanism, even if we don't understand what that mechanism is yet. It's not just difficulty learning to read.
      - iguy 9y ago
        OK, don't know too much about it, don't mean to open another can of worms! But we seem to have difficulty even discerning the best ways to teach normal kids to read. Hence my skepticism that our interventions for something specific could be so well-understood that starting the intervention when we had the genetic test (rather than waiting for the classroom) would matter.

iguy 9y ago

Yes I agree, I don't think this helps us make better decisions about any one child. But I wonder for instance if we might do a lot better at judging schools, and learning what works. Right now the default position appears to be that the input to schools is uniform and thus that good/bad exam results are a measure of the school. But they aren't. If we become a bit less blank-slate about the children, maybe we can do better at figuring out what kinds of schooling work better or worse. This doesn't directly need genetic tests of anyone, but it does need a change of mindset.

swebs 9y ago

It can determine innate ability which isn't affected by environmental factors. From there we can determine a how much individuals are affected by those factors. For example, Billy and Joey were determined to have the same innate ability. Joey scored 20 points less than Billy on the standardized test. Joey also lives next to a power plant and has lead pipes in his house.

derangedHorse 9y ago

“..just by looking at their schoolwork.” This would be a very bad form of evaluation as evidenced by people with unconventional backgrounds becoming successful like Steve Jobs and some countless other smaller business owners who is say show a different type of intelligence.