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

31–40 of 56 posts

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

#31

Post by mhuffman »

peteretep wrote: post #29
mhuffman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, there are two points:

1) Your point is based on ignoring often repeated and consistent (over decades) science; and

2) I think your argument generalizes something (to skin color) that is very specific (I.Q.)

I will go further and say that I think you are being disingenuous about reducing the problems that affect different races to simply skin color.

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

#32

Post by asddddd »

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…

In that scenario, assuming a 50/50 population split of blue/green people, should you aim for having 50% of each employed at your company or are you justified in hiring fewer blue employees?

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

#33

Post by peteretep »

robryk wrote: post #30
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…

> 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…

    > This is very useful 
    > knowledge -- this means that
    > one should treat X in green
    > people more aggresively, 
    > because it's more dangerous
    > for them.
No you shouldn't, you should asses each patient individually, especially if - as per say qualification for a job - this fact is discernible by actually examining the person. Otherwise you will let a small 10% increase in likelihood for one group blind you to the needs of another.

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

#34

Post by peteretep »

mhuffman wrote: post #31
peteretep wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, there are two points: 1) Your point is based on ignoring often repeated and consistent (over decades) science; and 2) I think your argument generalizes something (to skin color) that is very specific (I.Q.) I will go further and say that I think you are being disingenuous about reducing the problems that affect different races to simply skin color.

1) I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's unimportant for any practical purpose, and the only people who seem to get excited about it are people with an existing axe to grind, which is why it's not generally discussed in the op's "polite" society.

2) The article this conversation is attached to is specifically genetics related.

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

#35

Post by peteretep »

asddddd wrote: post #32
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…

In that scenario, assuming a 50/50 population split of blue/green people, should you aim for having 50% of each employed at your company or are you justified in hiring fewer blue employees?

For a 10% difference? Unless you are employing a huge workforce where intelligence and peacefulness are the key features, I think you should be aiming for 50%. There are vanishingly few professions where you'll notice a 10% difference in IQ.

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

#36

Post by mhuffman »

peteretep wrote: post #34
mhuffman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are two points: 1) Your point is based on ignoring often repeated and consistent (over decades) science; and 2) I think your argument generalizes something (to skin color) that is very specific (I.Q.) I will go further and say that I think you are being disingenuous about reducing the problems that affect different races to simply skin color.

1) I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's unimportant for any practical purpose, and the only people who seem to get excited about it are people with an existing axe to grind, which is why it's not generally discussed in the op's "polite" society. 2) The article this conversation is attached to is specifically genetics related.

1) It is very important as it has been found to directly relate to educational achievement and later SES. The fact that "polite" society turns a blind eye does not make have less of an impact.

2) Yes, but the comment you were replying to (and made) was not.

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

#37

Post by nitrogen »

peteretep wrote: post #26
mrmffh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 / what…

You are all over this thread putting words in people's mouths instead of discussing what they are actually saying. You are even painting an entire class of study with a broad brush in a guilt-by-association way. Are you sure that's actually helping your case and the conversation here?

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

#38

Post by vixen99 »

peteretep wrote: post #22
vixen99 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's much better! Of course I don't matter a jot but many folk who do (some EU leaders for instance) evidently believe 'populist' (as a word of derision - your implication, surely?) is indeed imbued with rich meaning of the kind they would prefer not to to spell out since their argument would then fall to bits.

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

#39

Post by specialist »

j15t wrote: post #17
gxs wrote: post #3

I have always wondered what exactly is going on in society: People in the US, more so than other countries, have a plausible chance of going to college, even if it takes going in to massive debt. Then, they will go on to find a mate who is likely also college educated, and in a similar income bracket. Over time, doesn't this mean that we're breeding (for lack of a better term) a class of people who are a) capable of…

I think you'll find that birthrates are negatively correlated with education level, so globally the reverse is happening (with regards to your breeding theory). But more generally, the reason why evolution works is because organisms are not equal (mutation and crossover are random). I don't expect that this will stop any time soon.

IIRC, birthrate (in the developing world?) is correlated with female empowerment. Small stuff like when females have educational and economic opportunities, are not utterly dependent on their males counterparts, have basic humans, etc.

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

#40

Post by specialist »

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…

Thank you for doing yeoman's work here.
Post reply on HN