A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IQ and what it means in adulthood



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old November 13th 07, 08:22 PM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:02 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Anyway, it would probably help if I gave the context here - the debate
was about the studies showing a correlation between breastfeeding and
increased IQ, and - if that association is real and not due to a
confounder - what it means in practice. I must say I was never terribly
impressed by the kind of numbers I was hearing - in the studies being
discussed, the average difference was seven IQ points, which just didn't
really sound like that much in practice to me. But the question came
up, and it got me wondering whether I was right about that or not.


A recent article in the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1001271_3.html
said

"A recent study by Scottish researchers asked whether the higher IQs
seen in breast-fed children are the result of the breast milk they got
or some other factor. By comparing the IQs of sibling pairs in which
one was breast-fed and the other not, it found that breast milk is
irrelevant to IQ and that the mother's IQ explains both the decision
to breast-feed and her children's IQ."

I don't what study is being referred to. A finding that breast milk is
irrelevant to IQ certainly contradicts conventional wisdom.


I seem to recall that some of the earlier studies on
preemies had random assignment, but that was a long time ago
so I might be misremembering.

The other thing is that I think it's been likely
all along that the IQ advantages to breastfeeding operate
mostly at the margins--in children who, for one reason or
another, are at a disadvantage. We also already know that
parental IQ is a big factor. (I think it's interesting to
wonder what would happen if paternal IQ were taken into
account in a similar study.) So, I would expect that parental
IQ would overwhelm a smaller effect that operates primarily
at the margins. These sorts of effects are hard to detect.
Also, as with most studies of breastfeeding, since duration
of breastfeeding is so low in general, it's an open question
whether it would make more of a difference if, say, breastfeeding
according to WHO guidelines would increase the effect of
breastfeeding on IQ.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #42  
Old November 13th 07, 08:47 PM posted to misc.kids
Beliavsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

On Nov 13, 8:22 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Families living in poverty, or even close to it, have been excluded.
The parents in my sample also stayed together for at least the first
seven years of the younger sibling's life.


Again, skewing the sample based on assuming the
anticipated results hold true. You're supposed to *test*
these things, not build them into your research design..


The second exclusion makes sense to me, because parents divorcing
changes the environment for the children, and Murray is trying to
control for environment.

How much difference did IQ make? Earned income is a good place to
begin. In 1993, when we took our most recent look at them, members of
the sample were aged 28-36. That year, the bright siblings earned
almost double the average of the dull: £22,400 compared to £11,800.
The normals were in the middle, averaging £16,800.


And did they take birth order into effect? Quite a
few studies now seem to show sizeable birth order effects
on earnings, type of occupation, and risk tolerance (along
with small IQ differences). Clearly a confound, and one
that might explain a decent chunk of the results independently
of IQ.
Put together birth order issues and the odds that
a child with normal or above IQ parents and siblings would
have low IQ without any other disability that might also
affect earnings or success, and you've got some holes you
could drive a truck through.


I don't know of evidence that birth-order effects are nearly as large
as the IQ effects Murray found, and one economist found that the
effect "makes essentially no difference" (see below). In general, many
critics of IQ researchers dislike the conclusions of the research, so
they magnify, deliberately or not, the importance of any
methodological defects they perceive. I think that is what you and
toto have done.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...rth_order.html
The Birth Order Illusion
Bryan Caplan

Once one of my wife's law professors polled her class on birth order.
"How many of you are first-borns?" Two-thirds of the students raised
their hands. Clear evidence that first-borns are achievers, right?

Hardly. An alternative hypothesis is that law students come from
affluent families with few kids. Imagine that birth order has nothing
to do with law school attendance. If half the students are only
children, and half come from two-child homes, then three-quarters will
be first-borns.

I decided to race these hypotheses using the General Social Survey. If
you regress real income on birth order, you get the same pattern as my
wife's law school class. The first-born averages $1900 more than the
second-born, who averages $1900 more than the third-born, and so on.

However, if you regress real income on birth order AND family size,
you get a totally different picture. Birth order makes essentially no
difference (in fact, the sign reverses), but average income falls by
about $2400/child in your family. First-born only child? You'll make
more than average. First-child child in a big family? You'll do no
better than the fifth-born child - maybe a little worse!

Does this show that big families hurt incomes? Possibly, but the
simpler story is more plausible: Poor people have more kids, and kids
of poor people tend to be poor themselves.

  #43  
Old November 13th 07, 09:09 PM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:22 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Families living in poverty, or even close to it, have been excluded.
The parents in my sample also stayed together for at least the first
seven years of the younger sibling's life.

Again, skewing the sample based on assuming the
anticipated results hold true. You're supposed to *test*
these things, not build them into your research design..


The second exclusion makes sense to me, because parents divorcing
changes the environment for the children, and Murray is trying to
control for environment.


But it introduces a confound in that IQ and divorce
may be related. One should at least include and run the
tests and report any differences and the degree of confounding,
if any.

How much difference did IQ make? Earned income is a good place to
begin. In 1993, when we took our most recent look at them, members of
the sample were aged 28-36. That year, the bright siblings earned
almost double the average of the dull: £22,400 compared to £11,800.
The normals were in the middle, averaging £16,800.

And did they take birth order into effect? Quite a
few studies now seem to show sizeable birth order effects
on earnings, type of occupation, and risk tolerance (along
with small IQ differences). Clearly a confound, and one
that might explain a decent chunk of the results independently
of IQ.
Put together birth order issues and the odds that
a child with normal or above IQ parents and siblings would
have low IQ without any other disability that might also
affect earnings or success, and you've got some holes you
could drive a truck through.


I don't know of evidence that birth-order effects are nearly as large
as the IQ effects Murray found, and one economist found that the
effect "makes essentially no difference" (see below). In general, many
critics of IQ researchers dislike the conclusions of the research, so
they magnify, deliberately or not, the importance of any
methodological defects they perceive. I think that is what you and
toto have done.


I don't think you can handwave away methodolgical
issues quite so easily. There are a lot of people with
agendas out there doing research, and there's a lot of
poor quality research. Careful review of methodology and
good literature reviews are the only thing that stand
between acting on poor quality information and high quality
information.
No one is arguing that IQ is irrelevant, but you
have posted some very poor quality (not to mention
controversial) studies to support exaggerated claims of
IQ being the driving force behind success by a variety of
measures. I, for one, would not bet the farm on those
predictions. I have some very high IQ kids. There is
no guarantee that they will be successful or productive
just because they're smart. In fact, among their high
IQ schoolmates, there are obvious examples of underachievers
and students with poor work habits who may well struggle
if they don't shape up. Studies of gifted kids are replete
with examples of underachievers and even miserable failures
(if you define success as being a productive member of
society able to support one's self and one's family).
Heck, I've got a whole branch of the more distant family who
are shining examples of highly intelligent folks who
are failures according to just about any measure. The
infamous Terman study of the highly gifted found nowhere
near the proportion of highly successful folks they
initially expected to find. Slice it any way you like,
and it's clear that at some point, IQ is an advantage,
but it's nowhere near determinative of success or happiness.
So, when one puts on one's parental hat (this is, after
all, a parenting newsgroup) and asks what
factors one needs to influence in order to provide
children with the best start in life, coughing up some
high-IQ gametes just isn't anywhere near enough.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...rth_order.html
The Birth Order Illusion
Bryan Caplan


However, if you regress real income on birth order AND family size,
you get a totally different picture. Birth order makes essentially no
difference (in fact, the sign reverses), but average income falls by
about $2400/child in your family. First-born only child? You'll make
more than average. First-child child in a big family? You'll do no
better than the fifth-born child - maybe a little worse!

Does this show that big families hurt incomes? Possibly, but the
simpler story is more plausible: Poor people have more kids, and kids
of poor people tend to be poor themselves.


If you look a little more, you will find many studies
that *do* show a birth order effect, even after controlling
for family size. You'll also find some studies that show
no effect for either factor, and some that show a birth
order effect with no family size effect. If you look at
what is said by those who follow the literature, most seem
to be placing their bets on birth order having some
significant effect in addition to other likely factors.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #44  
Old November 13th 07, 11:40 PM posted to misc.kids
Caledonia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 255
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

On Nov 13, 7:57 am, enigma wrote:
"Welches" wrote :

That might be a difficult one to show as I suspect that
generally if one child is breastfed there's a good chance
that siblings are breastfed to a greater or lesser extent.


that's not a good assumption to make. my older brother was
breastfed until 5 months or so, when he bit mom. neither i nor
my younger brother ever got a chance to breastfeed after
that...

You've also got the argument of nurture as well, as if a
parent did well at school, they probably have more
resources to call on to help their children/want to help
their children. I think there was some research done to
show that ability maths is a recessive gene, which means
that my children don't have any chance of not being
mathematical without mutation, but my dad's mathematical
ability came out of nowhere.


now that's interesting. i had some difficulties with math, but
mostly with how it was being taught, not the actual math (once
explained *properly*, the light dawned & i was good at it). my
father's father, father & brothers are very good at math. my
SO is good at math. did i just miss the recessive math gene?
am i a 'carrier', so my son will get the gene (since his dad
has the math gene)? hmmm.

Lastly, of course, we haven't seen any definition of
'success' yet.


heh. i have an IQ of 137. i'm a farmer.
i dated a guy at MIT who was pretty close to my IQ. he had a
dual major in math & philosophy. my dad asked him at dinner
once what he planned to do with that dual major. BFs reply was
a thoughtful "Well, there's really only two things i *could*
do with a dual in math & philosophy. I can either teach, or
become a farmer..."
i wonder which he did...
lee


Interesting. A guy in my high school's G&T program ended up getting a
PhD in Philosophy from Princeton, and he found the best fit to be
landscaping maintenance at a cemetery, which gives him time to think
in a relatively quiet setting.

I'm too easily inclined to anthropomorphizing, and am too much of a
carnivore, hence farming would be a bad fit for me.

Once I turned 20 (a few decades ago) I realized that the whole
advantage gained by 'achieving' in school is because said achievements
offer one more choices in life. That's my story as a 'SAHM volunteer,'
and I'm sticking with it. [The only thing I really missed for a while
was leading large teams of people, and then -- hey! -- realized that I
could do that as a volunteer, only now I have to pay for the markers
and flipcharts.]

Caledonia


  #45  
Old November 14th 07, 12:20 AM posted to misc.kids
Beliavsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

On Nov 13, 5:40 pm, Caledonia wrote:

Interesting. A guy in my high school's G&T program ended up getting a
PhD in Philosophy from Princeton, and he found the best fit to be
landscaping maintenance at a cemetery, which gives him time to think
in a relatively quiet setting.

I'm too easily inclined to anthropomorphizing, and am too much of a
carnivore, hence farming would be a bad fit for me.

Once I turned 20 (a few decades ago) I realized that the whole
advantage gained by 'achieving' in school is because said achievements
offer one more choices in life. That's my story as a 'SAHM volunteer,'
and I'm sticking with it.


In particular, high-achieving females (HAFs) can attend good
universities and join companies where they can meet and marry high-
achieving men who stay in the work force and earn good money, thus
enabling the HAFs to be SAHMs, work part-time, or work at a low-paying
but fulfilling job. This seems like the predominant pattern for the
many high-IQ female regulars of this ng. I will want my daughter to
get a good education primarily for this reason, rather than the
possibility of her having a high-powered career (which is negatively
correlated with the probability of her having a large family).

  #46  
Old November 14th 07, 12:59 AM posted to misc.kids
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote:

In particular, high-achieving females (HAFs) can attend good
universities and join companies where they can meet and marry high-
achieving men who stay in the work force and earn good money, thus
enabling the HAFs to be SAHMs, work part-time, or work at a low-paying
but fulfilling job. This seems like the predominant pattern for the
many high-IQ female regulars of this ng. I will want my daughter to
get a good education primarily for this reason, rather than the
possibility of her having a high-powered career (which is negatively
correlated with the probability of her having a large family).


If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

  #47  
Old November 14th 07, 01:10 AM posted to misc.kids
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

In article , Sarah Vaughan says...

Beliavsky wrote:

In particular, high-achieving females (HAFs) can attend good
universities and join companies where they can meet and marry high-
achieving men who stay in the work force and earn good money, thus
enabling the HAFs to be SAHMs, work part-time, or work at a low-paying
but fulfilling job. This seems like the predominant pattern for the
many high-IQ female regulars of this ng. I will want my daughter to
get a good education primarily for this reason, rather than the
possibility of her having a high-powered career (which is negatively
correlated with the probability of her having a large family).


If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.


Hear hear!

Every word of it.

Banty

  #48  
Old November 14th 07, 01:20 AM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Beliavsky wrote:

In particular, high-achieving females (HAFs) can attend good
universities and join companies where they can meet and marry high-
achieving men who stay in the work force and earn good money, thus
enabling the HAFs to be SAHMs, work part-time, or work at a low-paying
but fulfilling job. This seems like the predominant pattern for the
many high-IQ female regulars of this ng. I will want my daughter to
get a good education primarily for this reason, rather than the
possibility of her having a high-powered career (which is negatively
correlated with the probability of her having a large family).


If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.


No kidding. I would not want my daughter to read
in a newsgroup someday that in my opinion, her utility
to me lay "primarily" in her ability to produce high status
grandkids for me. shudder

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #49  
Old November 14th 07, 02:31 AM posted to misc.kids
enigma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 447
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote in
ups.com:

On Nov 13, 5:40 pm, Caledonia wrote:

Interesting. A guy in my high school's G&T program ended
up getting a PhD in Philosophy from Princeton, and he
found the best fit to be landscaping maintenance at a
cemetery, which gives him time to think in a relatively
quiet setting.

I'm too easily inclined to anthropomorphizing, and am too
much of a carnivore, hence farming would be a bad fit for
me.

Once I turned 20 (a few decades ago) I realized that the
whole advantage gained by 'achieving' in school is because
said achievements offer one more choices in life. That's
my story as a 'SAHM volunteer,' and I'm sticking with it.


In particular, high-achieving females (HAFs) can attend
good universities and join companies where they can meet
and marry high- achieving men who stay in the work force
and earn good money, thus enabling the HAFs to be SAHMs,
work part-time, or work at a low-paying but fulfilling job.
This seems like the predominant pattern for the many
high-IQ female regulars of this ng. I will want my daughter
to get a good education primarily for this reason, rather
than the possibility of her having a high-powered career
(which is negatively correlated with the probability of her
having a large family).


ugh. that sounds rather like sending a daughter to college to
get her MRS. degree. that's what middle class girls did in the
60s & 70s. college wasn't to get you a good career. it was to
find a husband with good prospect of supporting you in the
manner to which you'd like to become accustomed.
i knew several women like that in college. one dumped a very
nice young man when she found out he intended to be a research
doctor (as opposed to a surgeon, which makes more money). a
bit shallow for my taste.
lee who majored in ag. over the objections of family
  #50  
Old November 14th 07, 03:54 PM posted to misc.kids
Beliavsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

On Nov 13, 7:20 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.


No kidding. I would not want my daughter to read
in a newsgroup someday that in my opinion, her utility
to me lay "primarily" in her ability to produce high status
grandkids for me. shudder


It's not a matter of status, and it would not be mostly for my sake.
Since I think more intelligent people create benefits for society,
based on the research I have cited, I will try to encourage my kids to
marry smart and good people and have lots of kids. I'm not sure how to
accomplish that, but I have plenty of time to think about it.

On average, less intelligent and responsible people have more kids
than their opposites, and that's a bad thing for society. Some people
worry about global warming. I worry about this.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weirdly Low OGTT Means... What? Andrea Phillips Pregnancy 6 March 29th 06 06:05 PM
Earliest Memories Remembered During Adulthood Radium General 20 March 26th 06 12:41 AM
State may cut money for helping foster children make transition to adulthood wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 March 25th 04 05:48 PM
Bleeding not sure if it means mc ! Lyndsey Blythe Pregnancy 13 November 3rd 03 04:19 PM
Reaching adulthood is daunting prospect for foster children Wex Wimpy Twins & Triplets 1 June 26th 03 05:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.