271–280 of 292 posts
30 million words fewer in 3 years?? That's 27397 words per day... at 12 waking hours per day for a child it's about 38 words per minute - I find it hard to believe.
Hold up! Hey, who's been putting out their Kools on my floor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adult vocabulary is a strong predictor of adult IQ just as child vocabulary is, but I wouldn't recommend studying vocabulary to get smarter. Being "a predictor" says nothing about being a cause; smarter kids know more words because they're smarter, but the "predictor" relationship is established at the point of "smarter kids know more words". I am informed (by a Chinese teenager, so possibly not perfectly reliably) t…
You missed the point. The psychologist had specialized in child development. His claim was that receptive vocabulary in grade school children was the single best predictor that was known for their IQ and tests scores in high school and presumably beyond. Studying vocabulary as an adult is probably not going to get you very far. But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.…
This isn't true. For example, IQ as a 20 year old is a better predictor of IQ in high school than receptive vocabulary in grade school is. It happens that it's hard to observe the IQ at age 20 of a child who isn't 20 yet, but that doesn't change the strength of the predictor.
> But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
You provide no support for this other than the fact that a large vocabulary at a young age is indicative of a high IQ later. However, a large vocabulary later is also indicative of a high IQ later. Applying the same logic, you should conclude that being exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're old is just as good (if not better!).
If you don't think studying vocabulary as an adult will get you very far, why do you think studying it as a child is different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the point. The psychologist had specialized in child development. His claim was that receptive vocabulary in grade school children was the single best predictor that was known for their IQ and tests scores in high school and presumably beyond. Studying vocabulary as an adult is probably not going to get you very far. But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.…
> His claim was that receptive vocabulary in grade school children was the single best predictor that was known for their IQ and tests scores in high school and presumably beyond. This isn't true. For example, IQ as a 20 year old is a better predictor of IQ in high school than receptive vocabulary in grade school is. It happens that it's hard to observe the IQ at age 20 of a child who isn't 20 yet, but that doesn't c…
A predictor is something that you can measure and make predictions from in advance. Therefore by definition the eventual IQ at age 20 is not a predictor of future IQ for grade school children.
Now can we dispense with the semantic games?
> But having been exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're young seems to be a good thing.
You provide no support for this other than the fact that a large vocabulary at a young age is indicative of a high IQ later. However, a large vocabulary later is also indicative of a high IQ later. Applying the same logic, you should conclude that being exposed to a lot of vocabulary when you're old is just as good (if not better!).
Not indicative, predictive.
Receptive vocabulary is part of IQ. So of course having a large receptive vocabulary helps your IQ. But children with a large receptive vocabulary when young tend to have future increases in other mental abilities. By contrast children who show high abilities in other areas when young do not show the same improvement.
The theory that I was told is that children who can understand complex verbal things find it easier to learn from our education system. And children can't learn to use complex language without first understanding it.
If you don't think studying vocabulary as an adult will get you very far, why do you think studying it as a child is different?
The research on development that I've encountered indicate that there are specific developmental periods where we are particularly receptive, and where our abilities tend to increase suddenly. Starting with a large receptive vocabulary seems to position you well to make the most of these.
When you're older, studying vocabulary is unlikely to be bad for you. But you don't have the same developmental spurts ahead to try to maximize. Furthermore vocabulary is less likely to be a barrier for adults than children.
For example my son right now loves ants. He is learning things about ants that other children his age would have trouble with because he understands words they don't. But he doesn't have a better vocabulary than most adults. Any literate adult who wants to learn what he is learning about ants can simply pick up material on ants and read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you define success strictly in terms of reproductive fitness. By that standard, two of the heroes of hners, pg and Steve jobs, are abject failures, while a crack whore who has eight kids who were taken away by cps is a paragon of success.
Paul Graham and Steve Jobs are/were both fathers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. There's an upper limit to the survival value of intelligence. Not to oversimplify, but that limit is reached when the person says, "What? I should add to the world's problems by having children?" In all seriousness, the fact that the average I.Q. is located where it is, tells us that's the outcome natural selection blindly chose. And natural selection is always right.
Sure, if you define success strictly in terms of reproductive fitness. By that standard, two of the heroes of hners, pg and Steve jobs, are abject failures, while a crack whore who has eight kids who were taken away by cps is a paragon of success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul Graham and Steve Jobs are/were both fathers.
I thought jobs was a father of one, but a quick look on wiki shows I was mistaken. But I'm pretty sure pg is, and probably always will be at his age and the age of h his wife. One child is better than none but still fails from a reproductive fitness point of view. You only pass on half of your genome to each kid, so it takes two just to break even, let alone succeed. If that's your definition of success.
In modern times, ideas are more influential than children. If you doubt this, try to tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look charming in group photographs.
Would you rather have two children, or influence the thinking of a million people -- and their children? Which has the greatest effect on evolution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you define success strictly in terms of reproductive fitness. By that standard, two of the heroes of hners, pg and Steve jobs, are abject failures, while a crack whore who has eight kids who were taken away by cps is a paragon of success.
Paul Graham and Steve Jobs are/were both fathers.
Just for the record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed.
And you dare to pontificate on this topic on HN while not even knowing the basics. Here, since you apparently are completely inept and mind-killed: in Google, punch in 'Gould fraud'. The very first link is to a Nature.com page: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_f...
The basics of IQ testing and its many misuses? Gould didn't invent this topic, and he doesn't define it. You remarks about Gould and IQ testing remind me of the creationists who think evolution was Darwin's private fantasy. If you take away Gould entirely, you still have any number of terrible examples of misuse of IQ testing for racist and other deplorable objectives.
Obviously psychologists are defensive about IQ testing (they should be), and Gould made himself an easy target. But this substitutes substance with ad hominem, a mode of argument you appear to prefer.