3 ms·

There has been many studies for a long time (several decades) which show that as far as environment matters, what matters is not so much money, but what is call

by cdavid 16y ago

There has been many studies for a long time (several decades) which show that as far as environment matters, what matters is not so much money, but what is called in sociology "cultural capital" (not sure it is the right expression in English). For example, in France (but I guess in other countries as well), children from teachers succeed much better than children from workers, even though income is not so much different. The ability to speak well, to dress well, manners, etc... matters a lot for getting high social status (through work, etc...), and they are valuable because of the inequality. If everybody has a certain quality, its value is almost zero, it is the same as resources in economy. As for the origin of measured intelligence, I would be surprised about 50 % of intelligence which could be attributed to genetics if you mean IQ (I don't see how it would be consistent with the Flynn effect, for once). But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold).

yummyfajitas 16y ago
But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold). No, it's predictive value for individual success is pretty weak. That's not the same thing. Here is a rather famous graph: http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/occupation-vs-iq.jpg http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/occupati... If 50% of current variation in IQ us caused by genetics, this does not conflict with the Flynn effect.
lsd5you 16y ago
I suppose the counter point is that teachers are 'underpaid' for their intelligence, when compared to workers. There is probably an element of that since teaching is vocational and most people entering the profession do so in the knowledge that they will not earn as much. Hence we should not be surprised that their children do better - for both cultural and genetic reasons (50-50?). The original point was about academic success, which is surely more corelated with IQ than economic success.
- cdavid 16y ago
  I think discussion about IQ, genetics and co are mostly meaningless for various reasons: the issue is extremely loaded politically, which means it is difficult to discuss about it with people who has a different opinion, and the science around it is inconclusive at best (the nature or even the reality of flynn effect is still debated, for example). This is not to say it is not interesting, but I would put it in the same camp as discussion around religion: it is possible to discuss about it, but almost impossible to do it in a reasonable manner with random people in the internet. That's why I refuse to discuss it as a matter of principle in most cases with people I don't know personally.

by cdavid 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold). No, it's predictive value for individual success is pretty weak. That's not the same thing. Here is a rather famous graph: http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/occupation-vs-iq.jpg http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/occupati... If 50% of current variation in IQ us caused by genetics, this does not conflict with the Flynn effect.

lsd5you 16y ago

I suppose the counter point is that teachers are 'underpaid' for their intelligence, when compared to workers. There is probably an element of that since teaching is vocational and most people entering the profession do so in the knowledge that they will not earn as much. Hence we should not be surprised that their children do better - for both cultural and genetic reasons (50-50?). The original point was about academic success, which is surely more corelated with IQ than economic success.

cdavid 16y ago
I think discussion about IQ, genetics and co are mostly meaningless for various reasons: the issue is extremely loaded politically, which means it is difficult to discuss about it with people who has a different opinion, and the science around it is inconclusive at best (the nature or even the reality of flynn effect is still debated, for example). This is not to say it is not interesting, but I would put it in the same camp as discussion around religion: it is possible to discuss about it, but almost impossible to do it in a reasonable manner with random people in the internet. That's why I refuse to discuss it as a matter of principle in most cases with people I don't know personally.