Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#21

Post by peteretep »

ars wrote: post #18
peteretep wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a d…

The usefulness is if you see a deficiency in a student (or anyone) you can properly understand the reason for it. When you understand the reason you have a chance at actually making things better. I.e. use the data after seeing the performance of someone, rather than using it to predict their performance.

    > When you understand the reason
This right here is the problem.

Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you absolutely no information about any specific case, and the green-skinned child gets special treatment to bring them up to scratch, where the blue-skinned child gets written off as "she's achieving less well because blue-skinned children do".

That's the problem, and that's why people in "polite societies" ignore these studies.

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#22

Post by peteretep »

vixen99 wrote: post #20
peteretep wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a d…

However let's say the figure is 50%. Does the argument still follow? At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay attention? For instance, would anyone want to increase the chance of a violent encounter occurring in their workplace. Fortunately we can relax because these supposed assumptions currently belong in fairy land. 'Popularist'. Isn't it better to spell out what is meant here rather than use a word often by…

    > 'Popularist'. Isn't it better to spell out what is
    > meant here
You're welcome to substitute the word "facile" if you've imbued "popularist" with too much meaning.

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#23

Post by peteretep »

mrmffh wrote: post #16
peteretep wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a d…

Ignoring reality is the worst possible option. Regarding your assertion, judging an individual by their collective group average is wrong. I'm a big proponent of research in this area - because I want to change it. For e.g. Black Americans have an IQ, on average, 15 points lower than white Americans. I want more research on this area, so it can be improved. Calling people racists (without evidence) shuts down any mea…

    > I want more research on this area, so it can be
    > improved
Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people.

Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it might be.

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#25

Post by mrmffh »

peteretep wrote: post #23
mrmffh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring reality is the worst possible option. Regarding your assertion, judging an individual by their collective group average is wrong. I'm a big proponent of research in this area - because I want to change it. For e.g. Black Americans have an IQ, on average, 15 points lower than white Americans. I want more research on this area, so it can be improved. Calling people racists (without evidence) shuts down any mea…

> I want more research on this area, so it can be > improved Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people. Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it…

On what evidence can you say that more research won't/can't help?

[1 SD is not a 'small difference'. (2 SD's if you compare to Ashkenazic Jews).]

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#26

Post by peteretep »

mrmffh wrote: post #25
peteretep wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want more research on this area, so it can be > improved Somehow it sounds more obviously ridiculous when you rephrase it and start looking for "solutions" to improving the intelligence of all white people. Small differences between very large, heterogenous populations gives you virtually no predictive power about individuals or how to help them, but do facilitate subtle and overt racism, however well-meaning it…

On what evidence can you say that more research won't/can't help? [1 SD is not a 'small difference'. (2 SD's if you compare to Ashkenazic Jews).]

    > On what evidence can you say that more research
    > won't/can't help
On what basis can you say it will? These studies have known drawbacks in that they serve as a rallying point for all sorts of discrimination masquerading as high-minded discourse, and we're yet to see a benefit so far, so the burden of proof here is on you.

At least part of the problem here is given two children / job-applicants / defendants / whatever, who are absolutely identical in every way except for a specific cosmetic phenotype, what possible justification is there for treating them differently based on correlation between that phenotype and some other characteristic over a large population?

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#27

Post by peteretep »

vixen99 wrote: post #20
peteretep wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a d…

However let's say the figure is 50%. Does the argument still follow? At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay attention? For instance, would anyone want to increase the chance of a violent encounter occurring in their workplace. Fortunately we can relax because these supposed assumptions currently belong in fairy land. 'Popularist'. Isn't it better to spell out what is meant here rather than use a word often by…

    > However let's say the figure is 50%.
It's not.

   > Does the argument still follow?
Yes. Given two people with similar academic achievements and no history of violence, discriminating between them is ridiculous. Treating individuals different based solely on their skin colour would still have no scientific or logical basis, as you'll still have many many stupid and violent green skinners, and peaceful and intelligent blue skinners.

All that the "studies" will do is discourage natural bigots from looking at the traits of an individual.

    > At what % would we inevitably be forced to pay
    > attention?
At the point where you could reliably extrapolate about a given individual based on their skin colour more accurately than you could based on their personal history to date.

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#28

Post by mhuffman »

peteretep wrote: post #21
ars wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usefulness is if you see a deficiency in a student (or anyone) you can properly understand the reason for it. When you understand the reason you have a chance at actually making things better. I.e. use the data after seeing the performance of someone, rather than using it to predict their performance.

> When you understand the reason This right here is the problem. Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you absolutely no information about any specific case, and the green-skinned child gets special treatment to bring them up to scratch, where the blue-skinned child gets written off as "she's achieving less well because blue-skinned children do". That's the problem, an…

You realize there is not a small amount of data regarding racial IQ differences right? It is (was) one of the most studied social science fields before it fell out of fashion.

You also seem to want to reduce something to skin-color that has been scientifically identified as more than skin color.

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#29

Post by peteretep »

mhuffman wrote: post #28
peteretep wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you understand the reason This right here is the problem. Armed with a small amount of data about information over a population on average gives you absolutely no information about any specific case, and the green-skinned child gets special treatment to bring them up to scratch, where the blue-skinned child gets written off as "she's achieving less well because blue-skinned children do". That's the problem, an…

You realize there is not a small amount of data regarding racial IQ differences right? It is (was) one of the most studied social science fields before it fell out of fashion. You also seem to want to reduce something to skin-color that has been scientifically identified as more than skin color.

Please could up explain the point you're trying to make? The first sentence suggests that you think my point is lack of evidence is a problem, the second suggests you think my argument relies on one specific factor rather than being generalisable to all.

Re: Genetic link between family SES and children's educational achievement

#30

Post by robryk »

peteretep wrote: post #14
caseysoftware wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bell Curve (1994) talked about the intellectual stratification that is happening in society. The author and resulting research was called "racist" and has been shouted down time and time again but much of what you say is discussed in the book. He shows correlation between intelligence and [income, parent's socioeconomic status (SES), job security/unemployment, educational attainment, and tons of other things]. Th…

> the book is generally forbidden to be discussed in > "polite" company The problem with studies like this - and also ones that for example attempt to show race-linked differences in "positive factors" - is that they're pretty useless for anything other than the uneducated using as a blunt discrimination tool. Let's say you live in a society where there are blue and green people. A study shows a genetic basis for a d…

> It's precisely because there's almost no practical use for studies like these (...)

Let's say that green people have a higher rate of suicide attempts when they have mental illness X. This is very useful knowledge -- this means that one should treat X in green people more aggresively, because it's more dangerous for them.

Let's say that green people are more likely to suffer from alcoholism. This is very important for green people themselves (they might prefer being teetolaters for that reason) and for organisations that try to prevent alcoholism -- they should target green people more in order to be more effective at decreasing the number of alcoholics.

I can go on and provide such examples. Do you consider that in these cases there is still almost no practical use, that these examples are thought up and in real life you don't get such or something else?

Post reply on HN