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

Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

files.eric.ed.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#41

Post by toyg »

bglazer wrote: post #37
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

The problem with this is that it is utterly ahistorical. Like it completely ignores every observation you could make about how wealth was historically allocated.

Ah, but .

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#42

Post by toyg »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #40
bglazer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is that it is utterly ahistorical. Like it completely ignores every observation you could make about how wealth was historically allocated.

I mean, I just laid out how you end up with wealth dynasties. And this effect is observable in any population, it's not unique to the US, much less the the West.

If you think wealthy people are particularly smart in Europe, I have a few bridges you can handily take home.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#43

Post by 2devnull »

silverquiet wrote: post #36
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.

You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which as you rightly point out isn’t really equal. But it’s the only possibility. Equality of outcome denies free will.

[1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a plateau. Pretending that plateau doesn’t exist is one of humanities biggest problems. It’s a costly lie that doesn’t serve anyone but certain professional groups.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#44

Post by Manuel_D »

silverquiet wrote: post #36
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.

That's not what equality of opportunity is referring to. It's about removing barriers and discrimination that would lead someone with equal or greater abilities to do worse than someone else with the same or lower abilities.

The phrase, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome" explicitly acknowledges that equality of opportunity will not yield equality of outcome. In part, because of the unequal distribution of talent that you point out.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#45

Post by dgfitz »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #35
TMWNN wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The emperor is walking around naked, and virtually all of academia is terrified to acknowledge it (namely step 5). Right there is the solution to 50 years of sociological fumbling to avoid saying "Intelligence has a strong genetic component, and we are not all born with equal mental capabilities" Bien-pensants will tell us to the bitter end "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" But they are aware of…

I have no interest in bringing race into this because of the wide genetic difference between groups that common people would label as being the same "race". Genetically there is wide diversity even within relatively small geographical areas.

Edit: grammar

Humans and mice have 85% commonality in their DNA.

More to the point, humans have between 99.6 and 99.9 commonality in their genetics. Even more interesting (quoted directly from below) " impossible to draw discrete genetic boundaries around human groups."

Your point is not accurate.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

> Humans are remarkably genetically similar, sharing approximately 99.6%-99.9% of their genetic code with one another. We nonetheless see wide individual variation in phenotype, which arises from both genetic differences and complex gene-environment interactions. The vast majority of this genetic variation occurs within groups; very little genetic variation differentiates between groups. Crucially, the between-group genetic differences that do exist do not map onto socially recognized categories of race. Furthermore, although human populations show some genetic clustering across geographic space, human genetic variation is "clinal", or continuous. This, in addition to the fact that different traits vary on different clines, makes it impossible to draw discrete genetic boundaries around human groups. Finally, insights from ancient DNA are revealing that no human population is "pure" – all populations represent a long history of migration and mixing.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#46

Post by rtkwe »

silverquiet wrote: post #36
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.

The use of equality of opportunity there is about making sure a kid has the chance to perform as well as they can regardless of where they happen to be born and the socioeconomic status of their parents because today where you're born has a lot to do with how good of a school you get into unless your parents are well off enough to go private or have the time and energy to get you into a magnet/charter program that can bypass the geographic destiny of property and income tax levels.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#47

Post by toasterlovin »

bglazer wrote: post #37
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

The problem with this is that it is utterly ahistorical. Like it completely ignores every observation you could make about how wealth was historically allocated.

The Industrial Revolution is ahistorical.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#48

Post by ahartmetz »

silverquiet wrote: post #36
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.

Equality of opportunity means in a strict sense external factors, in an even stricter sense things that can be changed by policy. Otherwise, it would be asking for all people to be born with the same mental processing potential. Which is absurd, which I guess is your point. But it isn't that absurd if you define opportunity as "things society can actually do for the individual".

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#49

Post by Workaccount2 »

toyg wrote: post #42
Workaccount2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I just laid out how you end up with wealth dynasties. And this effect is observable in any population, it's not unique to the US, much less the the West.

If you think wealthy people are particularly smart in Europe, I have a few bridges you can handily take home.

My point would be that non-wealthy people in Europe are even less intelligent on the whole.

Re: Socioeconomic status and the relationship between the SAT and GPA (2009) [pdf]

#50

Post by [deleted] »

silverquiet wrote: post #36
Workaccount2 wrote: post #25

1.) Intelligent people befriend other intelligent people. 2.) Intelligent people get higher paying jobs. 3.) Intelligent people live in wealthier areas. 4.) Intelligent people marry other intelligent people. 5.) Intelligent people birth intelligent children. 6.) Intelligent people use their intelligence to augment their kid's intelligence. 7.) Intelligent kids go to step 1.) The emperor is walking around naked, and v…

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN