tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1778306286960485513.post3906279982727056350..comments2014-01-22T23:46:14.381-08:00Comments on EduThink: Zombie theories of genetic intelligenceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15141803608536760618noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1778306286960485513.post-67290040318886124202014-01-02T15:14:24.386-08:002014-01-02T15:14:24.386-08:00So many questions raised, and so few answered in a...So many questions raised, and so few answered in a meaningful manner by this research.<br />Here's a conundrum. What would happen if everyone received the same (let's call it 'ideal') education and social experiences? <br />Would all have the same IQ, cognitive ability, test scores, or other measure of ability? I think not. Would their be winners and (relative) losers? Yes<br />Just like the analogy with height and nutrition, and any other COMPLEX trait, there would be a normal(ish) distribution of whatever discriminative ability parameter was being measured with a very major genetic contribution. Putting an accurate number on this is tricky and probably unhelpful.<br />The ability e.g. of IQ of the whole population would be expected to change with an altered environment (e.g. training for the test, or building specific skills) without a genetic drift, but what about relative ability for the same parameter? Flynn effect an irrelevant red herring. But what about pure cognitive ability?<br />Would the centile of the child match that of the parents for that parameter? Not necessarily and expect a very loose correlation based on mean of parental centiles (just like height). And accept massive deviations from this mean in both directions. Did I mention that we are dealing with COMPLEX traits?<br />We have Darwinistic processes going on (no, not natural selection at this point but natural variation) with rather more sinister Galtonesque interpretations of the data for political means.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1778306286960485513.post-13478313792189626222013-12-21T11:34:01.155-08:002013-12-21T11:34:01.155-08:00"The latest study, by Robert Plomin’s team in..."The latest study, by Robert Plomin’s team in London, uses GCSE results. Its calculations are based on the ‘equal environments’ myth: i.e. that all siblings have identical experiences. This is demonstrably untrue since identical twins are often persuaded into dressing the same or doing things together. They are likely to be in the same class, have the same maths teachers, work together on homework and so on."<br /><br />As I understand it the studies compared identical and non-identical twins. I can see no real reason why the former would be more likely to be in the same class, have the same teacher or work together than the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com