Good genes beat good homes as guide to pupils’ school Success

Times Online ^ | 6 November 2005 | David Smith and Abul Taher

[shrinkermd]

NATURE not nurture is the main determinant of how well children perform at school and university, according to a study to be published this week

[SauronOfMordor]

They are not saying that every adopted person will be a failure, but that as a whole adopted children in wealthy families do not do as well in school as their biological counterparts.

More precisely, they are likely to have performance levels closer to their biological parents than their adoptive parents. In most, but not all, cases the biological parents will have had lower IQs than the adopting parents

[shrinkermd]

It is hard to disagree with your pessimism; however, I do believe there is an underlying, oblique acceptance of inherited differences.

You usually see this when these folks are discussing human nature and intelligence in general and not IQ specifically. In the 1920s Terman and others were bitterly attacked in all the major media for being "undemocratic." The thought was because people vary in intelligence and part of this is heritable, then a democracy can never succeed.

The other part of the problem is envy. Envy differs from the other deadly sins in that it has no "normal" counterpart. We all need some level of pride, food, anger, sex, money and rest but we do not need envy. Chaucer in the "Parson's Tale" outline the dynamics of envy in a clear and compelling fashion. People seldom admit to "real envy" but they will admit to "petty envy" such as I envy your--fill the blank in.

What we are facing is a basic human failing not easily remedied by education albeit we should try. It is noteworthy in the consultation room people will discuss their sex life without hesitation: not true for their intelligence or their bank balance.

[JohnnyZ]

Economics + sociology + statistics = BS

They found that genes and home environment both contribute to scholastic success. (What a shock.) Any 75-25 or other split between the importance of the two is pretty much meaningless since you're comparing apples and oranges. Ten points of IQ is equivalent to ..... how much family income, love, and standards? It's an arbitrary measure any way you slice it.

[VOA]

bump

[sweetliberty]

They apparently neglected to factor in a key ingredient and that is under what circumstances were the children adopted? Were these children placed for adoption as newborns or were tbey children who were removed from parents due to abuse and neglect. In the latter case, these children have had a bad start to begin with. A significant number, if not most, have suffered sensory deprivations for months or even years and have failed to bond with parents. Many of them are the products of drug addicted parents and/or women who used while pregnant. As a result, the vast majority of these children have at least some developmental delays which may never be fully overcome.

If one is going to make a generalized statement about adopted children having inferior genes, it should at least be qualified in light of specific variables.

[null and void]

Good point!

[308MBR]

Do you reckon eugenics might have a kernel of truth? Look into Edward O. Wilson's work.

[JohnnyZ]

I would welcome an explanation for:

1) The antipathy here toward a finding that essentially just says that some people have natural abilities others don't--which is common sense, I figure.

Did you expect people to react with anything BUT antipathy when a couple of academics tells us something we already know?

2) The visceral rejection of that finding on grounds that are irrelevant to the survey

Studies like this are widely panned by right-thinking people, since A) they don't discover anything we didn't already know and B) the conclusions they jump to beyond the obvious are sketchy and poorly supported. There is natural ability -- sure. Natural ability is 75%, home environment is 25% -- yeah, sure, why don't I read your study and discover exactly what logical leaps you made to arrive at that guess, or maybe I just know by experience that you made a grand claim that doesn't have support or doesn't mean anything and I won't waste time reading your stupid study.

[308MBR]

It takes a village to raise an IDIOT!

[GSlob]

There is a lot of info to be gleaned even from the twins who were not separately adopted, but grew up in the same family - and this sample is much bigger. On identical twins one could see what part of IQ variation is provided by strictly individual experiences; on nonidentical twins, after correction for individual variation, one could see what part of the residual variation is due to 50% genetic difference.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Did you expect people to react with anything BUT antipathy when a couple of academics tells us something we already know?"

Put that way, it's easy to answer no, but the fact is that most "science" is so geared to telling us what we know to be demonstrably false one would think that people here would welcome this. It's certainly not a 'water wet, sky blue' finding, but reinforces the notion that there is such a thing as excellence, even if the ability to achieve it is somewhat inborn.

"Studies like this are widely panned by right-thinking people, since A) they don't discover anything we didn't already know and B) the conclusions they jump to beyond the obvious are sketchy and poorly supported. There is natural ability -- sure. Natural ability is 75%, home environment is 25% -- yeah, sure, why don't I read your study and discover exactly what logical leaps you made to arrive at that guess, or maybe I just know by experience that you made a grand claim that doesn't have support or doesn't mean anything and I won't waste time reading your stupid study."

That 75/25% conclusion is underexplained by the article, I agree. But you're missing my point, which is that the science of the study seems solid--the researchers came to their conclusion by comparing how well adopted children did at school when they were brought up alongside parents’ biological children, so the relative effects of genes and the home environment were then separated out. This wasn't some biased 'interview the adoptee society's handpicked kids' or 'call up the anti-adoptee forum for a few loser kids' study, on its face. And the response here by 'right-thinking people' is completely off the charts in NOT responding at all to the science, but tossing out silly comments like how great Colonel Sanders did. That's completely irrelevant to the study, which found that adoptees were AS A GROUP less likely to be successful, not that adoptees were personally doomed and should quit now!

I just don't understand why people couldn't consider the study instead of being so awfully hurt in their response to it. Is it so wrong that some are gifted and others are not? Are even FR denizens eager to have those blessed by God in some fashion shackled or shocked into mediocrity as Vonnegut envisioned in Harrison Bergeron?

By the way, you can download the study here. I haven't read the details yet.

[nmh]

I do believe the genes are a HUGE influence but nurture is also a powerful force. The ideal is the best of both.

[nmh]

I do believe the genes are a HUGE influence but nurture is also a powerful force. The ideal is the best of both.

Another way of putting it is where you start out in life is not necessarily where you will end up. Even "stupid" people can get lucky with perseverance and encouragement directed the right way.

[LibertarianInExile]

Oops, that was a prior study on a similar topic. I think this is the real survey.

[L98Fiero]

I agree. Genes probably determine an individuals level of intelligence, meaning capacity and speed of learning but environment builds a person's work ethic and drive, IMO. I've known successful people who were morons and extremely intelligent people who were losers and vice versa.

[LibertarianInExile]

"You usually see this when these folks are discussing human nature and intelligence in general and not IQ specifically. In the 1920s Terman and others were bitterly attacked in all the major media for being "undemocratic." The thought was because people vary in intelligence and part of this is heritable, then a democracy can never succeed."

---I understand that view, but obviously I disagree. Democracy hinges on the notion that people from all walks of life decide better than some particular class might. While diversity is generally a load of crap, the amalgamated masses use their combined knowledge to bet the odds and set the odds in places like Tradesports and are usually right. I see no reason democracy wouldn't be equally effective in predicting who will be the better leader from the choices given, regardless of who was purely 'intelligent' and who wasn't in that society. I didn't vote for John Kerry, which was the right call, and there are plenty here who'd leap to call me dumb as a brick. 8)

"The other part of the problem is envy. Envy differs from the other deadly sins in that it has no "normal" counterpart. We all need some level of pride, food, anger, sex, money and rest but we do not need envy. Chaucer in the "Parson's Tale" outline the dynamics of envy in a clear and compelling fashion. People seldom admit to "real envy" but they will admit to "petty envy" such as I envy your--fill the blank in."

---You must envy my dashing good looks and sparkling wit. 8) No, I understand that motivation. But what I don't understand is why envy would translate to what seems a thinly disguised fear of this sort of study here. Do people, even on FR, think that knowing this would translate to a Gattaca-esque eugenics regime? Having skimmed the study, I couldn't find any 75-25% statements, either, as the article touts. This study just seemed to me to say that the relationship between intelligence and heredity is stronger than income and intelligence. Maybe I better reread it. But I don't know why people would so disdain the idea that nature plays a big role in intelligence. Are they afraid they're on the short list of gettin' put down for being dumb? That won't happen in my lifetime or anyone else's, if only because darn near everyone I know has someone whose genes might be a bit suspect up the family tree (damn you, Uncle Elvin!). And it's just a study--that it may even be the truth doesn't mean that it'll be used in any way to begin with. Witness the application of the Biblical Golden Rule worldwide.

"What we are facing is a basic human failing not easily remedied by education albeit we should try. It is noteworthy in the consultation room people will discuss their sex life without hesitation: not true for their intelligence or their bank balance."

---Not everyone, of course--I'm poor, and dumb, and I don't want to discuss MY sex life at all. But that's mostly because I don't want other men to feel less endowed. 8)

[Dianna]

Nevertheless, I believe we should continue to throw more and more money at the public education system.(/sarc)

I agree that there are some children who don't benefit as much as others from schooling. Perhaps, looking at it from a coldly logical point of view, one could see this as a waste of resources. However, the idea of weeding out children of low IQ parents, or lazy parents and leaving them to their own devices is abhorrent. It is unAmerican.

Here, we give children the chance. We give children the benefit of the doubt. We do everything we can to provide them with a baseline of knowledge so that they can TRY to succeed, try to be independent and determine their own futures. I believe it is our duty as citizens to help each other fulfill the promises of the Declaration of Independence.

[I got the rope]

Thanks for posting the studies. I'm going read them tonight.

There are two main fallacies in this 100 year argument for hereditarian theory of intelligence.

The clearest fallacy is the one that reifies test scores and takes them as measures of an entity called intelligence.

BTTT for later.

[LibertarianInExile]

"There are two main fallacies in this 100 year argument for hereditarian theory of intelligence. The clearest fallacy is the one that reifies test scores and takes them as measures of an entity called intelligence."

ABSOLUTELY an assumption to pierce if you are logically assaulting this survey's conclusions. And you point it out immediately. Thank you for taking that role on instead of sidestepping this as so many have.

It is certainly arguable whether or not intelligence is something that can be 'tested' for with an IQ test, or judged on the basis of scholastic performance, or heck, with whatever metrics are picked. But I think that there is some utility to test scores in judging a baseline level of 'intelligence,' and I think at the very least, even if you don't agree that this indicates ACTUAL intelligence is hereditary, this form of 'intelligence' certainly seems to have been shown to predominantly pass through birth, on the basis of the study. That alone would be worthy of further review.

[in hoc signo vinces]

It would seem so. I don't think anyone ever doubted that there was some shred of truth in the Eugenics work...but the methods and procedures of going about determining the results were somewhat unsettling.

It's not a PC subject...hahahahaha...by any stretch of the imagination.