3 ms·

Did they not incorporate it with some of their children? Or what was the control?

by hattmall 3y ago

kaba0 3y ago
Every other children? Sure, it’s not a report in Science, hence the apostrophes around test.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  The part which is usually not mentioned Laszlo Polgar was himself a chess expert (publishing many books on chess) and a renowned psychologist, so very far from being just average parent. The only result we get is that training a child from early age often gives them a significant edge in some specific field over children getting trained later. But that's a result known from many other sports as well.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    I mean, the zero hypothesis for pretty much any trait should be that it has both a nurture and a nature component. We do know that results can be improved with nurture, and we also know that results can be significantly diminished as well with it (e.g. children not learning to speak by something like 5-6 years will never be able to). We only have indirect ways to measure intelligence (for example the former case of non-speaking children couldn’t complete an IQ test), so I think it is safe to assume that intelligence can be somewhat influenced by nurture as well. (Also, I believe it is more common than not for a successful person to not have their children similarly successful, even though they usually go to top, elite schools and has good genetic traits. Of course there are plenty other factors, but I do believe that it points towards to my point)
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      > I think it is safe to assume that intelligence can be somewhat influenced by nurture as well. Sure, but how does this experiment prove that? Polgar proved he can severely improve "chess IQ" if child is trained early, but how do you go from there to general intelligence?
      - kaba0 3y ago
        What is general intelligence? IQ tests also can’t measure that, but chess is definitely at least a good indicator.
        The_Colonel 3y ago
        I think there is a positive correlation between chess ability and intelligence, but being a world-class chess player doesn't indicate having "world-class intelligence". The problem is that the null hypothesis was that Polgar sisters will be highly intelligent, because their parents were highly intelligent. But we don't have indications that they would excel in any other intellectual field apart from chess.
        kaba0 3y ago
        > being a world-class chess player doesn't indicate having "world-class intelligence". I agree, but if chess ability does have a positive correlation with intelligence, isn’t that enough “proof”, as intelligence itself allows for “excelling in other intellectual fields”?

Did they not incorporate it with some of their children? Or what was the control?

kaba0 3y ago

Every other children? Sure, it’s not a report in Science, hence the apostrophes around test.

The_Colonel 3y ago
The part which is usually not mentioned Laszlo Polgar was himself a chess expert (publishing many books on chess) and a renowned psychologist, so very far from being just average parent. The only result we get is that training a child from early age often gives them a significant edge in some specific field over children getting trained later. But that's a result known from many other sports as well.
- kaba0 3y ago
  I mean, the zero hypothesis for pretty much any trait should be that it has both a nurture and a nature component. We do know that results can be improved with nurture, and we also know that results can be significantly diminished as well with it (e.g. children not learning to speak by something like 5-6 years will never be able to). We only have indirect ways to measure intelligence (for example the former case of non-speaking children couldn’t complete an IQ test), so I think it is safe to assume that intelligence can be somewhat influenced by nurture as well. (Also, I believe it is more common than not for a successful person to not have their children similarly successful, even though they usually go to top, elite schools and has good genetic traits. Of course there are plenty other factors, but I do believe that it points towards to my point)
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    > I think it is safe to assume that intelligence can be somewhat influenced by nurture as well. Sure, but how does this experiment prove that? Polgar proved he can severely improve "chess IQ" if child is trained early, but how do you go from there to general intelligence?
    - kaba0 3y ago
      What is general intelligence? IQ tests also can’t measure that, but chess is definitely at least a good indicator.
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        I think there is a positive correlation between chess ability and intelligence, but being a world-class chess player doesn't indicate having "world-class intelligence". The problem is that the null hypothesis was that Polgar sisters will be highly intelligent, because their parents were highly intelligent. But we don't have indications that they would excel in any other intellectual field apart from chess.
        kaba0 3y ago
        > being a world-class chess player doesn't indicate having "world-class intelligence". I agree, but if chess ability does have a positive correlation with intelligence, isn’t that enough “proof”, as intelligence itself allows for “excelling in other intellectual fields”?