11–20 of 65 posts
He needs this straw man for the article to work at all. In fact, the belief that IQ is "overwhelmingly inherited" is considered socially repugnant, and has been for some time. All of the things he lists are just duplicates or variations on things we've already been doing, and mostly failing at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've often wondered how much diet plays a role in "mental acuity." When he referred to poor children being adopted into upper middle class families that was the first thing that came to mind.
It's a very big role, especially in early childhood. As the parent points out iodized salt is a big one, another is omega 3 oils.
Wait, is IQ important or not?
Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held He needs this straw man for the article to work at all. In fact, the belief that IQ is "overwhelmingly inherited" is considered socially repugnant, and has been for some time. All of the things he lists are just duplicates or variations on things we've already been doing, and mostly failing at.
Wait, is IQ important or not?
IQ is very important, or at least intelligence is and IQ is the best way we have of trying to measure it. The Bell Curve is a pretty interesting book and it talks about all the things that IQ is correlated with.
Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held He needs this straw man for the article to work at all. In fact, the belief that IQ is "overwhelmingly inherited" is considered socially repugnant, and has been for some time. All of the things he lists are just duplicates or variations on things we've already been doing, and mostly failing at.
socially repugnant has nothing to do with science. the data says parent IQ is highly correlated with offspring IQ.
Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held He needs this straw man for the article to work at all. In fact, the belief that IQ is "overwhelmingly inherited" is considered socially repugnant, and has been for some time. All of the things he lists are just duplicates or variations on things we've already been doing, and mostly failing at.
socially repugnant has nothing to do with science. the data says parent IQ is highly correlated with offspring IQ.
Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held He needs this straw man for the article to work at all. In fact, the belief that IQ is "overwhelmingly inherited" is considered socially repugnant, and has been for some time. All of the things he lists are just duplicates or variations on things we've already been doing, and mostly failing at.
socially repugnant has nothing to do with science. the data says parent IQ is highly correlated with offspring IQ.
What's the significance of that in relation to the book review submitted here?