IQ and Genetic Limitations on Educational Achievements (1 Viewer)

[Asian-American]

Greetings,

The American education system ignores the fact that each student has cognitive limitations, and as such, no amount of educational improvement will be able to make a difference in those students that are already doing the best they can. Consider programs like "Head Start" and "No Child Left Behind," it is always assumed that it's the environment that holds students back, but genetics is always ignored.

Also consider the fact that teachers are often blamed for poor student performance, instead of blaming the lack of innate cognitive abilities of the students. Basic theme: genetics is always ignored, and only the environmental aspect is ever looked at.

Here is some research on IQ and genetic limitations on educational achievements:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

Regards.

 

[Schweddy]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Excellent sources cited.

The idea of stating that hereditary differences play a role in IQ is scary.
Though strong evidence can be found, many folks would not be able to correlate the differences and would tend to place that burden on racism in context.

My personal choice would be to accept from your first link that "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes." - at more value than genetics.

Another point cited from your second link:
" The foregoing findings on g's effects have been drawn from studies conducted under a limited range of circumstances--namely, the social, economic and political conditions prevailing now and in recent decades in developed countries that allow considerable personal freedom. It is not clear whether these findings apply to populations around the world, to the extremely advantaged and disadvantaged in the developing world or, for that matter, to people living under restrictive political regimes. No one knows what research under different circumstances, in different eras or with different populations might reveal."

How can we truely see the correct representation without all the dots on the chart?

 

[Asian-American]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Thanks!

The idea of stating that hereditary differences play a role in IQ is scary.
Though strong evidence can be found, many folks would not be able to correlate the differences and would tend to place that burden on racism in context.

If you mean people would link the study of ethnic group differences in intelligence to racism, I've noticed that also: it's a very touchy subject and one where people don't really like to look at from an objective and detached position.

My personal choice would be to accept from your first link that "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes." - at more value than genetics.

It is my understanding that twin studies are used to derrive the heritablity estimates of IQ, and they range from .4 to .8 (lower in childhood, but reaching .8 by adulthood).

How can we truely see the correct representation without all the dots on the chart?

Well, I am no expert, but there seems to be many sources of research that give us a definite answer to the heritablity and value of IQ. For example, twin studies are really good sources: identical twins raised apart have extremely close IQs. Also, adopted children have IQs closer to their biological parents than their adopted ones. Plus, the actual biological factors affecting IQ have been identified: overall brain size, gray matter volume, speed of nerve conduction, glucose metabolism rate, average evoked potentials, the thickness of Mylean Sheath (wrong spelling), reaction rate. These aspects are heritable: for example, gray matter volume has heritability rate at about .8 or .9.

Also consider China: a poor communist nation for so long, yet the population has a very high IQ average at 100, two points higher than the U.S.A., the world's richest country.

So, many other examples like this seem to help.

 

[shuamort]

I think one relevant point was listed in A-A's first source:

That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter

But oddly, this is refuted in the second site given:

A second big surprise for intelligence experts was the discovery that environments shared by siblings have little to do with IQ. Many people still mistakenly believe that social, psychological and economic differences among families create lasting and marked differences in IQ. Behavioral geneticists refer to such environmental effects as "shared" because they are common to siblings who grow up together. Research has shown that although shared environments do have a modest influence on IQ in childhood, their effects dissipate by adolescence. The IQs of adopted children, for example, lose all resemblance to those of their adoptive family members and become more like the IQs of the biological parents they have never known. Such findings suggest that siblings either do not share influential aspects of the rearing environment or do not experience them in the same way. Much behavioral genetics research currently focuses on the still mysterious processes by which environments make members of a household less alike.

The third link seems to just be someone's C.V. and the fourth is another's personal bibliography.

 

[Asian-American]

The third link seems to just be someone's C.V. and the fourth is another's personal bibliography.

Actually, you will see an archive of their articles available in PDF format, all on IQ research.

A few additional links to IQ research:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/
http://www.douance.org/qi/brandbook.htm

Regards.

 

[shuamort]

Actually, you will see an archive of their articles available in PDF format, all on IQ research.

A few additional links to IQ research:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/
http://www.douance.org/qi/brandbook.htm

Regards.

Alright, so what is the debate here? I see we've got a derth of information, some of it contradicting itself. Are we talkingabout IQ, genetics, and environment, and how they inter-relate with Bush's No Child Left Behind act?

 

[Asian-American]

Alright, so what is the debate here? I see we've got a derth of information, some of it contradicting itself. Are we talkingabout IQ, genetics, and environment, and how they inter-relate with Bush's No Child Left Behind act?

My argument is that the American educational system should restructure itself to one that takes into account genetic limitations on educational achievements of individual students. That means, understanding that it is a waste of resources to spend lots of money on individual students that simply cannot improve due to IQ constraints.

Second, if we come to understand that intelligence is more genetic than environment, instead of only trying to improve the environment, we will have to also put efforts into improving genetic health as well.

 

[Squawker]

My argument is that the American educational system should restructure itself to one that takes into account genetic limitations on educational achievements of individual students. That means, understanding that it is a waste of resources to spend lots of money on individual students that simply cannot improve due to IQ constraints.

Second, if we come to understand that intelligence is more genetic than environment, instead of only trying to improve the environment, we will have to also put efforts into improving genetic health as well

We spend an enormous amount of money on "special ed" kids that shouldn't be in the public system. That could be fixed, but how would you suggest improving genetic health?

 

[Pacridge]

We spend an enormous amount of money on "special ed" kids that shouldn't be in the public system. That could be fixed, but how would you suggest improving genetic health?

And where should those Special Ed kids be and who should pay for it?

 

[Cinnamon]

And where should those Special Ed kids be and who should pay for it?

The parents.
Or insurance companies which could sell "child-rearing insurance". Premiums could be determined by the genetics, habits, parental skills, and other factors that would affect the cost of child rearing. Intelligent, knowledgable, skilled parents with great genetics, no child-harming habits and good socio-economic resources could get very low premiums. Ignorant parents with bad genetics, low intelligence, bad substance habits, and bad socio-economics would face either very high premiums or they could chance it without insurance. In the latter case, if the child requires very expensive treatments and education then either charities step in or the parents and child do without. That would be huge disincentive to have more "special needs" children. The converse is what we have now -- drug addicted, low-IQ parents with bad genetics have few worries because government will pick up the tab.

 

[Rev.]

The parents.
Or insurance companies which could sell "child-rearing insurance". Premiums could be determined by the genetics, habits, parental skills, and other factors that would affect the cost of child rearing. Intelligent, knowledgable, skilled parents with great genetics, no child-harming habits and good socio-economic resources could get very low premiums. Ignorant parents with bad genetics, low intelligence, bad substance habits, and bad socio-economics would face either very high premiums or they could chance it without insurance. In the latter case, if the child requires very expensive treatments and education then either charities step in or the parents and child do without. That would be huge disincentive to have more "special needs" children. The converse is what we have now -- drug addicted, low-IQ parents with bad genetics have few worries because government will pick up the tab.

What a hugely contraversial and offensive thing to say! Very un-PC!

There is the fact that some special needs can't be anticipated. You can screen prenatally for Down Syndrome or Trisomy X or Spina Bifida. But Cerebral Palsy is often caused by birth injury. There in no screening tools in existance for autism, which occurs in 1 out of every 166 children--higher than all other developmental disabilities combined. Furthermore, birth control is objectionable to some on moral grounds. Food for thought.

 

[laska]

Everyone born in this world can grow in truth and light(intelligence). Those people that may seem ignorant may be much more advanced in other areas such as being not asses.

 

[vergiss]

Everyone born in this world can grow in truth and light(intelligence). Those people that may seem ignorant may be much more advanced in other areas such as being not asses.

Actually, people suck.

 

[George_Washington]

Actually, people suck.

Care to eleborate on that brillant statement?

 

[robin]

It's absurd to say genes do not determine the innate aspects of our intelligence.
As absurd as saying our hair or eye colour isn't determined by our genes.
We are our genes.

 

[George_Washington]

It's absurd to say genes do not determine the innate aspects of our intelligence.
As absurd as saying our hair or eye colour isn't determined by our genes.
We are our genes.

So you really think we could put together people with a so called, "superior" group of genes and then we'll have geniuses that will make huge discoveries in various fields? I don't think it would end up like that.

 

[nkgupta80]

So you really think we could put together people with a so called, "superior" group of genes and then we'll have geniuses that will make huge discoveries in various fields? I don't think it would end up like that.

gene's certainly affect our innate abilities and the limits of our intellect/skills. Although in the general populations, such differences are minor and we adapt accordinly, we see the extremes in prodigies and mentally-deficient people.

Musical prodigies, mathematical geniuses, or maybe mentally deficient people are proof of how genes play a role in your brain development, intellect, and resulting skills.

 

[robin]

So you really think we could put together people with a so called, "superior" group of genes and then we'll have geniuses that will make huge discoveries in various fields? I don't think it would end up like that.

That's not what I said. You have extrapolated what I said.
Clearly the possibility exists that humans can be selected for intelligence. If they were then people wouldn't read into posts something that wasn't there :lol:
Intelligence is hereditable like everything else is.
How else could it have evolved?

 

[nope]

Did you know that a child gets more intelligent if you give him fat food until the age of 4 and vice versa? Only a bit. But especially insufficient food can decrease the Intelligence of young kids.

 

[UtahBill]

IQ tests are not an issue to be compared to ethnic background unless the differences are substantial. A few points up or down does not matter when we are trying to determine what curriculum will best suit the needs of the child, society, the nation, or whether that child will add to the economy, or take from it.

Educational achievement is only one of many indicators as to whether a child will be useful in society. Surely the dumb jock who bats .400 has contributed a lot to the economy by entertaining the sports fanatics who are willing to pony up the big bucks to watch him swing the bat. Gotta wonder, tho, who is the dumb one in that situation? Is it the guy who can hit the ball but can't compute his own batting average, or the hundreds of sports fans who throw money at him?