• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Math+Reading 75% Genetic

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Another Study consistent with the fact that IQ/Academic performance/life outcomes are genetic/Nature more than Nurture.
The study is Not 100% airtight in that respect, but is quite consistent with both familial and perhaps racial IQ.
The only thing I find surprising is that these Un-PC conclusions are being studied and uttered by MSM science and outlets. In the age of Biotech, PC will have to be swallowed, or at least adjusted.
This story from Australian Public TV, SBS

Maths and reading skills found to be 75 per cent genetic | SBS News
New research shows Genes are more Important in explaining differences in academic performance than teachers and schools.
By Madeleine King - 15 March 2016

Australian research into the academic performance of twins in NAPLAN tests has revealed that skills in maths, reading and spelling are up to 75% genetic. Genetics also had a 50% impact on writing skills.

In stark contrast, the influence of teachers and schools on students was only found to be around 5%, when looking at why children performed better or worse than their peers.

The research has been conducted by Emeritus Professor Brian Byrne and colleagues at the Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders, and the University of New England. Byrne is a guest on this week's episode of Insight, sharing his views on how research into twins can deepen our understanding of the general population. The research will shortly be published in full, with much of the peer review process complete. Some parts of the study have already been published.
[......]
The results were surprising.
Families, teachers and schools had a much more modest contribution when explaining the difference in academic performance of children in the same grade or class. The majority of difference between students’ abilities in literacy and numeracy were instead attributable to their Genetic make-up.

Writing skills were the least influenced by genetics – only about 50 per cent.
Genetic influences on reading, spelling and mathematics abilities were found to be between 50-75%.
The findings back up earlier research done in the UK.".."​

A Few of us already knew IQ (which is highly correlative with academic performance/SAT/etc) was about 75% Heritable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ

[......]A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish identical/fraternal twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability, however it also varies based on the trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only 0.40 for memory tests; in contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[18]
In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about ¾ as a figure held by the majority of studies.[21]​

So the New research hardly a shock for me, but is to ie, 'blank-slate liberals,' or at least it's News that has to finally be acknowledged.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
PC will have to be swallowed, or at least adjusted.
Click to expand...

I really hope we can just completely sh** can it some day..
 
I bet those studies were done by white people.
 
Some people are just born stupid. I'm sorry, but there's really not much of a better way to put it. :shrug:

While I wouldn't say that we should run away from that fact, I wouldn't say that it is an excuse for teachers to stop trying to reach "problem" students either. Even "stupid" people have their uses... if trained properly.

Hell! Some people who might initially be branded as "stupid" ultimately turn out to have other talents, just as worthwhile - if not more so - than raw IQ. The world is a big place, after all.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Some people are just born stupid. I'm sorry, but there's really not much of a better way to put it. :shrug:
Click to expand...
to some degree i also recognize that two low IQ parents are more likely going to raise a low IQ child than a high IQ couple. but that low IQ outcome is not necessarily a result of innate genetic makeup. it could also result because the low IQ parents likely offered a less enriched learning atmosphere for their child when compared to the high IQ couple

While I wouldn't say that we should run away from that fact, I wouldn't say that it is an excuse for teachers to stop trying to reach "problem" students either. Even "stupid" people have their uses... if trained properly.
Click to expand...
we should make a strong effort to educate every child
but not necessarily in the same classrooms at the same time. and unfortunately, a well intended effort to 'mainstream' students with mental and/or behavioral barriers, has effectively eliminated the 'ability grouping' the students, which would improve our education system over night
when using the present assembly line educational approach in our schools, the students learn at the rate of the slowest student in the room; much like an assembly line cannot move faster than its slowest employee allows
this causes the quick learning students to soon lose interest

Hell! Some people who might initially be branded as "stupid" ultimately turn out to have other talents, just as worthwhile - if not more so - than raw IQ. The world is a big place, after all.
Click to expand...
but notice our public high schools are designed as a college prep mechanism. discouraging for the student who is without the aptitude and/or interest and/or means to pursue a college education. we should look at the german system's approach to placing students on school tracks that will prepare them for their careers

there are two situations that cause me to believe intellect is more a product of nurture than nature. native American kids prior to school age test a bit higher than average on the IQ scale. however, before leaving elementary school, they are far behind the average academically. students from high poverty locales test at the same rate of students from affluent communities when school year academic growth is measured. however, the affluent kids tend to go to camp, and speciality schools, and enjoy vacations that provide substantial enrichment. the poor kids - not so much. so after 12 years of this summer enrichment not enjoyed by their fellow students from modest means, the affluent students test significantly higher. the school is not the cause of that differential. their nurturing, their difference in enriching opportunities appears to be the reason for the profound difference after 12 years of differing enrichment exposures
 
Another problem with the line of research is that IQ itself is a dubious measurement of "intelligence." IQ tests emphasize certain skills over others. For example: spatial orientation. A person able to mentally rotate objects accurately will score better than one who struggles with that. I'm good at that, but is it because I'm smart or is it because I'm a pilot and perform spatial orientation tasks daily?
 

you are likely a pilot to some degree because you possess superior spacial reasoning abilities
 
justabubba said:
you are likely a pilot to some degree because you possess superior spacial reasoning abilities
Click to expand...

No, im a pilot because I like airplanes and big, open skies. My first job was at age 13 and I swore I'd never work in an office building again.

Those skills were learned, not innate.
 
Deuce said:
No, im a pilot because I like airplanes and big, open skies. My first job was at age 13 and I swore I'd never work in an office building again.

Those skills were learned, not innate.
Click to expand...

The ability to learn, and to grasp certain concepts was however most likely innate.
 
truthatallcost said:
The ability to learn, and to grasp certain concepts was however most likely innate.
Click to expand...

While natural aptitude certainly exists, essentially any skill will improve with practice. How fast the skill develops and how far you are able to push the skill certainly rely substantially on natural talent, but what we are measuring is the skill itself. If I trained every single day I'd never swim like Michael Phelps, but what if he never trained? If the man never swam a day in his life, even his natural swimming aptitude probably wouldn't match my years of training. My lap times would be better.

So how the hell do we know if I'm naturally good at spatial orientation, or if I just practiced it a lot and became good at it?
 

And the IQ test measures the natural skill you have in relation to certain mental tasks.
It doesn't measure motivation or drive, which you had to have in order to train for your profession.

People who score low in spatial orientation would likely never have the mental curiosity or drive to pursue a career that requires that skill.

I think someone has to have natural ability in something in order to then have the motivation and interest to study it and improve at it.
 
Math+Reading 75% Genetic
Click to expand...

possibly, but it's hard to say. i've credited a lot of my own educational successes to my parents teaching me to read by age 3. genetics is certainly a significant part of it, but it's still a question of hardware (genetics) / software / OS (nurture/ education.) regardless of how it splits, education and the timing of that education are incredibly important.
 
Not really.
IQ does measure intelligence, and the Potential for being successful in a/most given areas.
There is 'Spatial intelligence/IQ' (Google) and it's a component of most IQ tests.
When people speak of IQ, the main thing being measured is g/'g factor,' general Intelligence/the ability to think and solve any concept/abstract ideas. (Google again please)


moot said:
I bet those studies were done by White people.
Click to expand...
Backfire time.
That would be an excellent bet on ANY paper, especially one done in Australia! The other main ethnic group there -Aboriginals- have one of the lowest IQs on the Planet: app 60.
I don't think they/or-any have Ever done a paper on anything, nor will they for the foreseeable future.
Australia has spent Hundreds of Millions on edu/remedial edu for them for decades and - let's be candid - it just can't be done because Again...
The IQ/mental potential just isn't there. Not close.
That may even be why this paper came out OF Australia.
 
Last edited:

I don't agree that this is what the IQ test does.
 
Interesting findings, and not all that surprising IMO.

I'd just warn against putting too much emphasis on intelligence, as even when it's an important factor, other factors shouldn't be ignored. I assume the correlation between achievements and IQ is the stronger, the better/more inclusive the education system is.

Or, in other words: Even high IQ people will underachieve way below their potential, when not given the opportunity for training and education. So the importance of good education shouldn't be underestimated.

Many jobs on the market don't require people to be Einsteins; in many cases, a slight deficit in IQ can probably be made up with training and experience (even if the according people learn less quickly than others).
 
Moot said:
I bet those studies were done by white people.
Click to expand...

I believe running to the racial is a ploy of the intelligent to divert the less so.

Those with very high intellects have a ridiculous advantage over even the average. We can have our way with the below average.

So a great way to keep that obfuscated is to make it about race, when racial IQ differences are clearly more about being differently minded. Like there are different kinds of geniuses.

No one seems to consider that even in groups who score lower than average on IQ tests (flawed as they are) there are individuals who are far above average.

And the far above average are kinda dangerous to everyone else.
 

I'm the same way. The question is were you always that way?

I've always annoyed others with the facility with which I learn new things. Start a new job and be up to speed first day when others take weeks or months if ever. My parents and teachers never knew how to handle me.

High performance brains are real, measurement and origin are the issues. I suspect real time brain scans will flesh the subject out.
 
So blacks might just be less smart than whites......got it.
 

Seems to me that the populations that score lower than whites are less evolutionarily removed from the hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

I would bet that they would score higher on situational awareness than European whites, for example, maybe pattern recognition as well. I don't think standard IQ tests test for those.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So blacks might just be less smart than whites......got it.
Click to expand...

Which would be another faulty conclusion; even if it's true that blacks are on average 15 IQ points less than whites on average, the IQ variation is still much larger within any given population (IIRC, 96% of the people show an IQ variation of 60 points). Which means even if true, it doesn't allow for conclusions about any given individual.

So let's assume you're white and have an average IQ of 100; and the spike of the blacks' bell curve is at 85 -- that would still mean that ... uh, someone help me calculating bell curve distributions (ideally someone with a high IQ )... roughly 20%-30% of blacks are more intelligent than you (measured by IQ).
 
German guy said:
Even high IQ people will underachieve way below their potential, when not given the opportunity for training and education. So the importance of good education shouldn't be underestimated.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I'd also point out that IQ isn't necessarially a great indicator of a willingness to put in effort and/or delay gratification.

It's very possible that a kid who tests out at some ridiculously high IQ might settle for being a janitor and a kid with a low IQ, who you might expect to become a janitor, if given the opportunity will buckle down and study real hard, pay his dues climbing the employment ladder, and contribute to society in surprising ways.

I've also read studies (or articles discussing studies) which demonstrate a correlation between high intelligence and greater than average incidence of mental illness or substance abuse.

There's a lot more to this than "Joe has a high IQ, Joe is more valuable than a kid with a lower average IQ".
 

Fine but my point is that the mantra " all racial groups are all equal, we are all the same, and anyone who says different is a defective person" has to go. I have seen too many families where all the kids are bright or all the kids are stupid for me to put it all on class or parenting, I have believed for a long time that genetics are very important. I am a reality based person so I want to know the truth as apposed to what we have now where political necessity drives the conclusions, as in "I believe we are all equal, so therefor we have to be all equal, and if you say otherwise then I hate you".
 
This study does not conclusively address nature versus nuture.
 

Agreed. IQ alone does say some things, but by far not all things about achievements.
 

Yes.

It seems like the left has a similar problem with science when it comes to this topic, as the right has when it comes to global warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…