I think a definition on this would be good, "intelligence" is such a broad word.
Intelligence And/Or Ability Is Hereditary. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter hit patel
- Start date
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
"your personal experience" trumps science then?
I know very tall people, who are a stark contrast to their families. Therefore, height is 100% influenced by environment.
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
IQ is an appropriate measure due to its predictive powers.
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,908
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
uh yeah whatever
controlling for IQ alone accounts for differences in income (and essentially all other SE-outcomes)
you can slice "intelligence" any way you want but unless it can predict stuff its a useless measure, at least as far as these topics are concerned
controlling for IQ alone accounts for differences in income (and essentially all other SE-outcomes)
you can slice "intelligence" any way you want but unless it can predict stuff its a useless measure, at least as far as these topics are concerned
enigma_1
~~~~ Miss Cricket ~~~~
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
enigma_1
~~~~ Miss Cricket ~~~~
How can an opinion be wrong? And why are you arguing with me? I have nothing against you
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
you know what you didHow can an opinion be wrong? And why are you arguing with me? I have nothing against you
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,908
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
no you cannot "whatever" a study that essentially debunks IQ as a myth in terms of it's capacity to measure intelligence
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,908
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
yes it is and no that is not an argument so maybe come up with something better please
as for IQ being a strong predictor of income
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DeNeveOswald_PNAS2012.pdf
this study here takes into account numerous factors that show notions such as self-esteem etc. are far better predictors and IQ is of limited relevance relative to other such factors (in fact it has pretty much the same correlation with income as height)
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
can you quote what you think supports your argument
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,908
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
why not just read the article yourself, that is why i posted it
or is your precious IQ too insignificant to read
i can't quote anything because literally the *entire* discussion at the end states it
Last edited:
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
thats a poor study
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/murray_income_iq.pdf
I did read it and I dont see how you came to the conclusion about it that you did
also "intelligence" is defined in a way that is not necessarily the best for this kind of question
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,908
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
how is it a poor study
not to mention it's from 2012 (unlike your 1998 one), and takes into account many more factors that could influence income
the entire discussion is about how the "g" being a unitary measure is inadequate for measuring intelligence, i fail to see how it can be expressed in any more obvious a manner
also for your study i found this on the glorious interwebz
"In fact, the literature doesn’t say this. Someone gave me a link to an article by Charles Murray, “Income Inequality and IQ” (link to pdf file), but none of the findings in that article contradict my findings that high IQ doesn’t result in higher income after educational credentials are accounted for.
Charles Murray’s points, which are entirely supported by the GSS data, are that (1) IQ by itself is correlated with higher income; (2) IQ is correlated with higher educational attainment; (3) higher educational attainment is correlated with higher income. Clearly the means by which IQ correlates with higher income is through educational credentials; smarter people are more likely to get a college degree or a graduate degree. This is what the GSS data shows. But it’s the credential that employers seem to value and not the employee’s intelligence.
Murray’s article also has some confusing stuff about the correlation between IQ and occupational prestige. Occupational prestige is not the same thing as income. I can think of plenty of comparisons where the higher prestige job has lower pay. Most college professors are not especially well paid, but the occupation has a very high prestige. When comparing low IQ and high IQ people in the same income bracket, the high IQ person will more likely be in a more prestigious profession, so therefore IQ will have a higher correlation with prestige than it does with actual income."
Last edited:
Kiraken
RISK EVERYTHING
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,908
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
i can also copy pasta this critique again from the interwebz of that study you linked
"But Murray still hasn’t managed to answer the academic community’s chief complaint: His theory does not adequately account for the role social environment plays in determining one’s lot in life.
As you may recall, in The Bell Curve Herrnstein and Murray used an extremely crude measure of social background, then contrasted its effects with those of a test of mental skills given to most of the sample in late adolescence. Murray claims his new study answers this criticism: "The Bell Curve’s method of controlling for SES [socioeconomic status] and the sibling method of controlling for everything in the family background yield interpretations of the independent role of IQ on income that are substantively indistinguishable," he writes. But the test Murray uses, the Armed Forces Qualification Test, is not an environment-free measure of intelligence, so it does not identify "the independent role of IQ." Scores on the afqt have been shown to vary significantly with the quantity and quality of education to which a young person has been exposed.
Moreover, comparing siblings, while helpful, does not come close to "controlling for everything in the family background." Environments can differ within families, too—because of differences in the sex, personality, or birth order of the children, for example. In any case, Murray’s conclusion—that improving the environments of unrelated children will do little to reduce inequality—is a non sequitur. Finding a correlation between intelligence and success within families says nothing about the extent to which inequality in a population is driven by differences between families. After all, incomes are much more equal among siblings than among unrelated individuals, which attests to the equality-enhancing effects of a common family environment. Variance in IQ explains at most one-fifth of the variance of incomes; so, most inequality is caused by other factors. It is by now well-established that, holding ability constant, more education raises earnings, and well-designed, early childhood interventions can improve later-life outcomes for disadvantaged youths in a cost-effective way. But Murray seems utterly unfazed by these results."
lol sounds like a much lambasted study by the looks of it
"But Murray still hasn’t managed to answer the academic community’s chief complaint: His theory does not adequately account for the role social environment plays in determining one’s lot in life.
As you may recall, in The Bell Curve Herrnstein and Murray used an extremely crude measure of social background, then contrasted its effects with those of a test of mental skills given to most of the sample in late adolescence. Murray claims his new study answers this criticism: "The Bell Curve’s method of controlling for SES [socioeconomic status] and the sibling method of controlling for everything in the family background yield interpretations of the independent role of IQ on income that are substantively indistinguishable," he writes. But the test Murray uses, the Armed Forces Qualification Test, is not an environment-free measure of intelligence, so it does not identify "the independent role of IQ." Scores on the afqt have been shown to vary significantly with the quantity and quality of education to which a young person has been exposed.
Moreover, comparing siblings, while helpful, does not come close to "controlling for everything in the family background." Environments can differ within families, too—because of differences in the sex, personality, or birth order of the children, for example. In any case, Murray’s conclusion—that improving the environments of unrelated children will do little to reduce inequality—is a non sequitur. Finding a correlation between intelligence and success within families says nothing about the extent to which inequality in a population is driven by differences between families. After all, incomes are much more equal among siblings than among unrelated individuals, which attests to the equality-enhancing effects of a common family environment. Variance in IQ explains at most one-fifth of the variance of incomes; so, most inequality is caused by other factors. It is by now well-established that, holding ability constant, more education raises earnings, and well-designed, early childhood interventions can improve later-life outcomes for disadvantaged youths in a cost-effective way. But Murray seems utterly unfazed by these results."
lol sounds like a much lambasted study by the looks of it
wannaspoon
ремове кебаб
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
- Uni Grad
- 2014
^ agreed...
yes, read one and only one scientific opinion, or, watch some douchebag on youtube and don't question his rationale... You've posted the same fucking video twice... don't take everything science gives you as gospel...
hit patel
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 568
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2014
- Uni Grad
- 2018
Yes I would add it but the thread wouldnt show the option. But then ofc it would make the results invalid.