4 ms·

> That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. In that case, the IQ measured later, say at 30, should be very different

> That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. In that case, the IQ measured later, say at 30, should be very different from the IQ measured at age 10-11. It isn't, though... It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. In other words, it is NOT utter nonsense. I have flagged you.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
> It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. Of course it does. Did you fail to verify your claim prior to making it because of genetic mental deficiency (highly unlikely) or due to environmental racism leading you to believe that it couldn't be possible (most likely). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/ shows that each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  > each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points. "we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education" 1-5 is not 5. Besides, it is contradicted by the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies (and many others). You should not misrepresent your sources. On the other hand, it is good you have started citing real research instead of Mother Jones. Ritchie is a real, serious researcher, whether he is right in this case or not.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    > 1-5 is not 5 You failed to understand the study. The 1 case is the marginal effect of a year of education on students who were about to drop out of school, which is a very special type of unmotivated population. 5 is for an additional year of compulsory "mediocre classroom" education on the entire population of students. Is your failure to understand due to genetic inability (highly unlikely) or due to your strong priors influenced by racism in development environment forcing you to conjure up a favorable interpretation for your argument (much more likely)? The Lothian Birth-Cohort studies were not designed to measure genetic differences in mental ability by race nor to measure the impact of education on mental ability, and your article does not claim it was nor draw any conclusions in that regard. It merely shows a correlation of 0.66 between mental ability at age 11 vs. age 79, which leaves a lot of variability to be explained by environment after age 11. Multiple studies have shown that intentional changes in educational environment cause large differences, with Bloom's 1-on-1 educational coaching causing the largest differences of two entire standard deviations, the difference between median and genius ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem

lern_too_spel 3y ago

> It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though. Of course it does. Did you fail to verify your claim prior to making it because of genetic mental deficiency (highly unlikely) or due to environmental racism leading you to believe that it couldn't be possible (most likely). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6088505/ shows that each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points.

peterfirefly 3y ago
> each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points. "we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education" 1-5 is not 5. Besides, it is contradicted by the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies (and many others). You should not misrepresent your sources. On the other hand, it is good you have started citing real research instead of Mother Jones. Ritchie is a real, serious researcher, whether he is right in this case or not.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  > 1-5 is not 5 You failed to understand the study. The 1 case is the marginal effect of a year of education on students who were about to drop out of school, which is a very special type of unmotivated population. 5 is for an additional year of compulsory "mediocre classroom" education on the entire population of students. Is your failure to understand due to genetic inability (highly unlikely) or due to your strong priors influenced by racism in development environment forcing you to conjure up a favorable interpretation for your argument (much more likely)? The Lothian Birth-Cohort studies were not designed to measure genetic differences in mental ability by race nor to measure the impact of education on mental ability, and your article does not claim it was nor draw any conclusions in that regard. It merely shows a correlation of 0.66 between mental ability at age 11 vs. age 79, which leaves a lot of variability to be explained by environment after age 11. Multiple studies have shown that intentional changes in educational environment cause large differences, with Bloom's 1-on-1 educational coaching causing the largest differences of two entire standard deviations, the difference between median and genius ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem