Posted on 12/06/2008 4:48:32 AM PST by reaganaut1
In fact, I dispute the results. I know quite a few people who grew up dirt poor (I'm one of them). I personally believe it is a better foundation for preparing for life ahead. You learn how to be inventive, entertain yourself and you’re pretty sure you won't die without an air conditioner and flavored water. You know the value of a dollar and you know the only way to get one is honest work instead of waiting for an inheritance bailout one day.
It's all about genes and environment. I had two great parents who valued money only for its ability to keep us warm and fed. I was lucky enough to inherit good solid common sense and the ability to apply it to life
Either that or I’m too dumb to realize how dumb I am, who knows.
I think RKV that you are right on heredity and environment. And in our developed world most kids have a pretty good baseline for environmental factors—pollution, nutrition, schooling, etc.—so heredity plays a larger part for differences in most suburban classrooms, for example.
The most frustrating part of these studies of course is the bending over backward to overlook the hereditary component and to claim that correlation implies causation—and on ridiculously small samples at that!
Well... considering he may end up in Ohio at a computer screen, controlling armed drones thousands of miles away with a direct neural patch cord.... that good boy might end up saving the world.
If we were truly as conservative as we think we are, we wouldn't spend so much time posting on websites, using more electricity (fuel).
Let's put that in our 'brain' and test to see what roles our parents had in our DNA.
Where’s Captain Obvious when you need him?
Duh! People who succeed are often smarter than those who do not. So are their kids.
Ahh.... A timeless secret.
They should put those kind of things in a book.
: )
Yeah, but then they couldn't blame it on the government.
“Well... considering he may end up in Ohio at a computer screen, controlling armed drones thousands of miles away with a direct neural patch cord.... that good boy might end up saving the world.”
Read ‘Ender’s Game’ by Orson Scott Card
Yeah, and where was the study done.
Wasn’t this a European based test?
My mistake. It was a UK study done on US data.
“It goes beyond intelligence (ability to learn). Ambition also affects intelligence. Pre-K’s who have little stimulus from engaged parents essentially get poorly programmed brains and that can never be fixed.
In other words, sitting around the dumb, lazy people for your first five years doesn’t result in child prodigies.”
I have uncle who hardly ever worked who has eight (now grown) children. They were a low income family in which none of the first seven kids finished high school. They did live in a solid middle-class school district. He later divorced and remarried and had another boy. This kid grew up in the same environment but went on to graduate with honors in engineering at OSU. The new wife did have more ambition, she just wasn’t well formally educated (high school dropout), though she rarely missed work at a local dry cleaners for years. So, I suspect, that maternal IQ played a sustantial role in this kid’s success. Perhaps his mom’s dedication to her low paying job had some impact, too. But this kid did not have parents growing up that were terribly engaged, yet he still performed well at least academically. He is now gainfully employed and married with children of his own. I think nature plays a larger role than nurture myself. Environmental factors are important and can benefit the marginally intelligent kid but there is no substitute for a higher IQ, IMO.
reaganaut1, you are of course 100% correct, the howling of our resident “nurture over nature” posters notwithstanding.
Identical twin studies have shown intelligence is about 75% genetic/heritable. That’s just the way it is.
I suspect the scientists who are saying “Ooooh, it’s probably environment” are just giving standard PC klaptrap to the BEEB in order to make sure the diverstoid college administrators don’t shut down their research.
This subject is well researched and while the implications of the results are controversial, the science behind the results is well founded. Namely, that intelligence exists, that it is both heritable and subject to environmental influences, and in roughly equal measures. Many wish to deny these results for political and other reasons. The evidence is quite conclusive and their attempt at denial makes them appear ludicrous to the knowledgeable observer. With respect to “Who knows?” see Herrnstein and Murray’s “The Bell Curve.” It is likely available at your local library. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Correctamundo! Sample size makes a huge difference, and the fact that the authors of this piece of garbage are willing to extrapolate on so small a base says very bad things about them.
Let’s see now, my brother and I came from a poor family, I have an IQ of 141 and my brother has an IQ of 136. I guess we didn’t get the word that we are supposed to be stupid.
That is arguable.
Having a high IQ does not always correlate to achievement.
The biggest factor is unstoppable desire.
Bingo!
Regards,
Similarly, condemning the authors based on this one article from the BBC on a UK study based on US data..... says what?
“Genes are important for animals and plants, not humans. It’s true, I read it in the New York Times.
34 posted on Saturday, December 06, 2008 8:42:22 AM by ladyjane”
:)
I hope these asses were not government sponsored (sponsored by us.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.