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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 25th 06 11:41 PM |
State may cut money for helping foster children make transition to adulthood | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 25th 04 04:48 PM |
Bleeding not sure if it means mc ! | Lyndsey Blythe | Pregnancy | 13 | November 3rd 03 03:19 PM |
Reaching adulthood is daunting prospect for foster children | Wex Wimpy | Twins & Triplets | 1 | June 26th 03 05:08 AM |