[extropy-chat] Educational Environments (was Re: it's all understandable, except)

[Lee Corbin]

Samantha writes

> ...Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> Since Eugen wrote, a number of people have chimed
>> in to agree. I ask, where is the evidence that the key
>> problems are current educational environments or poor
>> parenting?  Are there studies?
> 
> What is the worth of these studies though?  How has their
> methodology been vetted?

The IQ studies are extremely solid. Again, I suggest people
read the Amazon reviews of "The g-Factor" over and over
until they ceased to be shocked by them.

I infer that the Judith Rich Harris studies are absolutely solid
too. She makes a terrific case in her book "The Nurture 
Assumption", and it's a fact that the researchers all applaud.
See "The Blank Slate" by Pinker for a summary, or, I'm 
sure web references exist.

>> The studies---your anecdotes aside---report what I said they did,
>> namely that it's genes 50%, peers 50%, parents 0%, and schools, 0%.
>> (I should add, to be careful, that these are determinants of adult
>> personality.  But I think that it applies to contributing technically
>> to society too.)
> 
> This seems highly unlikely and suspicious.  How would genes be that  
> well separated out from environmental factors[?].

It's marvelous to read about, say in "The g-Factor" how cleverly
it can be done. There are all manner of ingenious studies crafted
by numerous researchers over the last century, and by comparing
them, a great deal can be deduced. Moreover, it all paints the
same picture.

So something similar must be arousing the admiration of the academics
who support Judith Rich Harris.

> In environmental factors how exactly would the contribution from
> parents and schools be teased out so cleanly from that of peers?

One huge tool is twin-studies of course.  It's amazing how many
there have been. Also, very clever studies have shown that SES
does not at all strongly contribute to IQ.  As I'm reading Jensen,
I'm really impressed with his open-mindedness and thorough
testing of alternate hypotheses. 

> It looks a good deal too pat on the face of it, doesn't it?

I confess that I had more reservations---yes, it does look pat---
before I read "The g-Factor" than after.  And Jensen's is by no
means the only book.  There are horror stories about how hard
it is to find a publisher.  After "The Bell Curve", they're all
scared to death.

>> And furthermore, contrary to what Eugen states, the limiting factor
>> *is* what is between the ears.  Researchers on intelligence admit,
>> however, that intelligence is like money.  It really doesn't matter
>> how much you have so long as you have enough.
>>
>> But the overwhelming part of the populace does *not* have enough
>> cognitive ability, not enough for today's technical needs.
> 
> So, a bit down the road we can fix that, yes?

We hope.  First. people have to admit it's a problem. Even if
they did---which they do not---we are talking what? the usual
thirty years for anything to happen?

Lee