Asian-American
New member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
vauge said:Welcome to Debate Politics!
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.
How can we truely see the correct representation without all the dots on the chart?
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
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.
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 said: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 said: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?
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?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 said: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?
The parents.Pacridge said:And where should those Special Ed kids be and who should pay for it?
Cinnamon said: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.
laska said: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 said:Actually, people suck.
robin said: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 said: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.George_Washington said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?