Some folk, are not going to like this . . . "the genetics of intelligence"


Some folk, are not going to like this . . . "the genetics of intelligence"

We can be certain that (most of) our parents did the very best that they could for us. It is presumed that most of us, are doing - have done - the very best for our own children. However . .

This sensibly reasoned, factually supported, scientific study, does establish that who we are, and what we are doing, was already 80% determined . . . when we were born . . .

The program referred to, is from BBC Radio 4. Full acknowledgment is given to the BBC's copyright.

Rather than <copy&paste> the whole BBC introduction, those interested will have to <click-to-expand> the "quote" box below, to see if it is interesting enough for them to listen to this evening, or on i-Player at a later date.
Professor Robert Plomin talks to Jim Al-Khalili about what makes some people smarter than others and why he's fed up with the genetics of intelligence being ignored. Born and raised in Chicago, Robert sat countless intelligence tests at his inner city Catholic school. College was an attractive option mainly because it seemed to pay well. Now he's one of the most cited psychologists in the world. He specialized in behavioural genetics in the mid seventies when the focus in mainstream psychology was very much on our nurture rather than our nature, and genetics was virtually taboo. But he persisted, conducting several large adoption studies and later twin studies. In 1995 he launched the biggest longitudinal twin study in the UK, the TED study of ten thousand pairs of twins which continues to this day. In this study and in his other work, he's shown consistently that genetic influences on intelligence are highly significant, much more so than what school you go to, your teachers or home environment. If only the genetic differences between children were fully acknowledged, he believes education could be transformed and parents might stop giving themselves such a hard time.

There is the opportunity to hear it (again), Tuesday 20OCT2015, at 21:30, on BBC Radio 4

BBC Radio 4 - The Life Scientific, Robert Plomin
 
Somewhat to the consternation of those intent on manipulating society, it does establish that only a mere 20% of what we are all capable of achieving , is influenced by our teachers or home environment.

Whilst that 20% should not be ignored, it does/should raise the question why a previous government set a target of 80% of the population going to “University” . . . (or, re-badged Polytechnic).

Rather than trying to justify Grammar Schools, and the “selection” process that such a system requires, the author states - quite sensibly - that if those capable of academic success by their own resources (intelligence) were identified and placed in appropriate schools, then full concentration and attention could then be given to the others who would benefit from a more focused and appropriate tutoring directed at developing and supporting their skills and intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Somewhat to the consternation of those intent on manipulating society, it does establish that a only mere 20% of what we are all capable of achieving , is influenced by our teachers or home environment.

Whilst that 20% should not be ignored, it does/should raise the question why a previous government set a target of 80% of the population going to “University” . . . (or, re-badged Polytechnic).

Rather than trying to justify Grammar Schools, and the “selection” process that such a system requires, the author states - quite sensibly - that if those capable of academic success by their own resources (intelligence) were identified and placed in appropriate schools, then full concentration and attention could then be given to the others who would benefit from a more focused and appropriate tutoring directed at developing and supporting their skills and intelligence.
Except the system didn't require that, because Labour killed the Grammar school in the 70s and refused to create any more in the 90s.
 
Somewhat to the consternation of those intent on manipulating society, it does establish that a only mere 20% of what we are all capable of achieving , is influenced by our teachers or home environment.

Whilst that 20% should not be ignored, it does/should raise the question why a previous government set a target of 80% of the population going to “University” . . . (or, re-badged Polytechnic).

Rather than trying to justify Grammar Schools, and the “selection” process that such a system requires, the author states - quite sensibly - that if those capable of academic success by their own resources (intelligence) were identified and placed in appropriate schools, then full concentration and attention could then be given to the others who would benefit from a more focused and appropriate tutoring directed at developing and supporting their skills and intelligence.

Government forcing 80% of the population into debt before they have got a proper career/ job under their belt.

Workers with large debts be it mortgage or student ect make compliant citizens.

Most people don't give a shit now about the big issues and the silent majority stay just that, silent.
 
Government forcing 80% of the population into debt before they have got a proper career/ job under their belt.

Workers with large debts be it mortgage or student ect make compliant citizens.

Most people don't give a shit now about the big issues and the silent majority stay just that, silent.
It's not debt, it's an investment that you do not have to pay back if you do not earn enough. Saying that, Blair's wish that everyone deserves a place in Uni. was a load of bollocks. Only those with the aptitude deserve to go to uni. and not the aptitude to do a crap degree like Meeja Studies and the like!
 
It's not debt, it's an investment that you do not have to pay back if you do not earn enough. Saying that, Blair's wish that everyone deserves a place in Uni. was a load of bollocks. Only those with the aptitude deserve to go to uni. and not the aptitude to do a crap degree like Meeja Studies and the like!

When higher education places became a commodity the majority of shit degree students got sold magic beans

Along with insanity "starter" house prices this debt will cause social change felt for generations
 
It's not debt, it's an investment that you do not have to pay back if you do not earn enough. Saying that, Blair's wish that everyone deserves a place in Uni. was a load of bollocks. Only those with the aptitude deserve to go to uni. and not the aptitude to do a crap degree like Meeja Studies and the like!
I've heard that before. I called it bolleaux then, and I will continue to call it bolleaux.
Investments tend to attract some form of interest in return: student loans attract positive compound interest from the day the first payment drops into the student's account.
The only argument for saying the money does not have to be paid back is for those who have no aspiration to get on.
 
I've heard that before. I called it bolleaux then, and I will continue to call it bolleaux.
Investments tend to attract some form of interest in return: student loans attract positive compound interest from the day the first payment drops into the student's account.
The only argument for saying the money does not have to be paid back is for those who have no aspiration to get on.
Yet is not counted as a debt when applying for credit etc. It can also be avoided by working abroad for 4 years. Very few student loans are paid back in full, whether that be because the student has little or no aspiration, fecks off abroad or gets married pops a sprog and never get back to work.
 
"No shit Sherlock" springs to mind when pondering why most of us are cleverer than the average chimp, our nearest genetic cousins.

BUT academic achievement can depend on more than intelligence, so while a genetic link may be proven it isn't an absolute that it's to intelligence plain 'n simple.

It'd be nice to see some more detail on the study's metrics - 20% of nurture could take you a long way along the bell curve.
 
The earlier false hope of academic, managerial, or proffesional, well paid employment, offered by easy, greater, access to a "university", will undoubtedly, inevitably, lead to frustration and resentment.
 
The earlier false hope of academic, managerial, or professional well-paid employment, offered by easy, greater access to a "university", will undoubtedly, and inevitably, lead to frustration and resentment.
You need to work on your grammar and prose. I take it you weren't accepted into uni., no?


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
"No shit Sherlock" springs to mind when pondering why most of us are cleverer than the average chimp, our nearest genetic cousins.

BUT academic achievement can depend on more than intelligence, so while a genetic link may be proven it isn't an absolute that it's to intelligence plain 'n simple.

It'd be nice to see some more detail on the study's metrics - 20% of nurture could take you a long way along the bell curve.
I have no connection to the BBC (other than listening to a lot of R4, and shouting at the usual content); and, I have no connection to the boffin concerned. I was however so surprised at the BBC even "allowing" this broadcast, that I thought it deserving of a wider audience, and further discussion. You may find the broadcast interesting and informative.
 
So far everyone has missed the giant invisible elephant sitting in this thread - when this data is applied to race and gender. There seems to be a common statistic at home and abroad which suggests there may be variations of intelligence due to race.

Obviously you lot are genetically thicker than me for missing something so blindingly obvious, sig heil etc.
 
I've forgotten more than I remember from the nature/nurture debate - in the mid-late eighties, the emphasis was very much on nurture as the deciding factor, but I remember whiling a couple of days away in the library and coming to the conclusion that the overriding 'experiments' 'proving' nurture to be the (by far) dominant factor were rarely replicable and I don't remember seeing any that used pre-hoc statistical analysis on the raw data, always post-hoc (in other words, have a good shufty at your raw data and then decide how you're going to process it statistically to achieve the outcome you want).

Looking at other experiments from the past (back to Victorian times) showed that the debate usually came down in favour of nature, with environment rather than nurture (housing, even which suburb you lived in) being a more decisive factor than teachers, colleagues, siblings etc.

This is interesting, because he's going against the trend, but you have to remember what the debate is used for politically - if you say that nurture is the decisive factor, then you have a better argument for much of the public sector activities, facilities, etc and their availability to all. If you say it's all down to nature, then why bother with fluffy stuff - it won't make a difference.

Psychologists will continue this kind of debate because it is essentially unwinnable, and therefore keeps them gainfully occupied. They should all go off and whore themselves to the altar of conning people advertising, like wot I did. :)
 

LmH

Old-Salt
The earlier false hope of academic, managerial, or proffesional, well paid employment, offered by easy, greater, access to a "university", will undoubtedly, inevitably, lead to frustration and resentment.

It will slap a few lives, that is certain.
 
I have no connection to the BBC (other than listening to a lot of R4, and shouting at the usual content); and, I have no connection to the boffin concerned. I was however so surprised at the BBC even "allowing" this broadcast, that I thought it deserving of a wider audience, and further discussion. You may find the broadcast interesting and informative.
Already have, hence my comments. I'm not surprised at all by the been airing it. As Jim Ukeleli said himself, the hypothesis is politically neutral, it's what policies you make from it.
 
So far everyone has missed the giant invisible elephant sitting in this thread - when this data is applied to race and gender. There seems to be a common statistic at home and abroad which suggests there may be variations of intelligence due to race.

Obviously you lot are genetically thicker than me for missing something so blindingly obvious, sig heil etc.
I did hear of a study, ultimately abandoned before conclusion, on Asperger's / High Functioning Autistic young adults to measure intelligence differences (cognitive processing, rather than the MENSA style tests) between genders, as autistic people place little value on social norms and trends, fashion, what others think of them, 'fitting in' and so on. I did wonder why it was abandoned...

As for race - worms, can thereof, opener at the ready. Nah, I'll pop the opener back in the drawer for now...
 
Yet is not counted as a debt when applying for credit etc. It can also be avoided by working abroad for 4 years. Very few student loans are paid back in full, whether that be because the student has little or no aspiration, fecks off abroad or gets married pops a sprog and never get back to work.
It is, nevertheless, a debt, inasmuch as it it is money that has to / should be repaid to the lender. The fact that the debt doesn't count as such in a credit report is just political jiggery- pokery/ linguistic juggling to avoid the obvious political problems once people figured out what it really meant.
 
I did hear of a study, ultimately abandoned before conclusion, on Asperger's / High Functioning Autistic young adults to measure intelligence differences (cognitive processing, rather than the MENSA style tests) between genders, as autistic people place little value on social norms and trends, fashion, what others think of them, 'fitting in' and so on. I did wonder why it was abandoned...

As for race - worms, can thereof, opener at the ready. Nah, I'll pop the opener back in the drawer for now...

I didn't like their line of questioning...
 
Top