4 ms·
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 teachi
by 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 agoI 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.