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

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
What a load of codswallop. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. The science of epigenetics throws a real monkey's wrench in his whole theory.

No it doesn't. His studies are controlled for epigenetic factors.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
As if we really understand the epigenetic "factors" one of course being human will and determination. Oh, the arrogance of science that sets itself up as God!

Err, are you serious? We don't need to understand the factors to control for them when we're assessing the extent of inheritance.
 

shibusa2

On ROPS
On ROPs
Err, are you serious? We don't need to understand the factors to control for them when we're assessing the extent of inheritance.

Yes, very serious. If we don't understand them then we don't really know what we are controlling for. Here's a controversy for you to ponder: is the mind separate from the brain or a result of brain activities?

 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Yes, very serious. If we don't understand them then we don't really know what we are controlling for. Here's a controversy for you to ponder: is the mind separate from the brain or a result of brain activities?


Yes we do. He's controlling for all environmental factors and looking at the extent of inheritance. It's relatively simple.

I studied the mind/brain problem extensively at university and came to the conclusion that the brain is entirely responsible for what we experience as the mind. The implications that has for free will are depressing.
 
No half way house there then?
Why would there be? Facts aren't open to negotiation nor do they bend to comforting ideology.

The grammar school system in its modern form was around for about a hundred years before it became compulsory and state funded. It made no difference to social mobility whatsoever in that time. Adopting compulsory, state-funded education did as it did in every other country that tried it regardless of what system they used. That strongly suggests the grammar system is not the panacea its advocates would have us believe.

Selectivity ignoring the 80-plus% of its existence that it failed miserably to allow bright but poor kids to achieve anything isn't going to produce good education policy.
 
Why would there be? Facts aren't open to negotiation nor do they bend to comforting ideology.

The grammar school system in its modern form was around for about a hundred years before it became compulsory and state funded. It made no difference to social mobility whatsoever in that time. Adopting compulsory, state-funded education did as it did in every other country that tried it regardless of what system they used. That strongly suggests the grammar system is not the panacea its advocates would have us believe.

Selectivity ignoring the 80-plus% of its existence that it failed miserably to allow bright but poor kids to achieve anything isn't going to produce good education policy.
It was a rather tongue in cheek comment. However contrast and compare this country then and now. Spot the essential difference. We make less and less perhaps? Lets not forget that before the education acts it was limited by grace and favour as the last thing the elites wanted was an educated public. What it wanted was a capable workforce.
 
However contrast and compare this country then and now. Spot the essential difference.
Compulsory state-funded education for all.

Had the difference been the grammar school system, we'd have seen a difference with the introduction of grammar schooling and not a century later; nor would non-grammar education be showing the best results globally.

Yet time and again we keep hearing that the way forward is to reintroduce a system that made marginal difference for a scant 20 years out of the 120 it was in use for. It's mind-boggling.
 
Compulsory state-funded education for all.

Had the difference been the grammar school system, we'd have seen a difference with the introduction of grammar schooling and not a century later; nor would non-grammar education be showing the best results globally.

Yet time and again we keep hearing that the way forward is to reintroduce a system that made marginal difference for a scant 20 years out of the 120 it was in use for. It's mind-boggling.

Again, that's down to what the country wants the children to achieve. Britain isn't child friendly, unless they can send them to to a low pay work, long hour concept,[ which is hardly productive] bring back the cotton mills would be ideal. No matter what you teach children here, there isn't the need for it. They hardly come out of English lit speaking like Chaucer-innit, they don't need maths- it's all calculators and they hardly need to read, everything is pictograms. This brings the desire to achieve back to those who have money and want to keep it and the system is geared to providing that.

If Labour had been really interested in education it could have changed so much-all it did was tinker round the edges but it was run by champagne socialists who had mainly been to university from privileged backgrounds who had no clue, who meant well, but had little imagination.
The only grudging praise I will give is the concept of the OU adult education which is scarcely treated the same as the Ivy league or Oxbridge but which should have been given far more scope. It's left to the individual but with little formal impetus and that is directly linked to the employment system.
 
Yes we do. He's controlling for all environmental factors and looking at the extent of inheritance. It's relatively simple.

I studied the mind/brain problem extensively at university and came to the conclusion that the brain is entirely responsible for what we experience as the mind. The implications that has for free will are depressing.

Sadly, I have been dealing with relatives with neurological problems recently, and from that experience I agree with you. It takes very little change in blood chemistry to affect the brain function, and from there you can see massive changes in personality, memory function, and mood, but which the patient can't recall any of 24 hours later.

The 'mind' is software running on a squishy wetware computer with very narrow tolerances in temperature and nutrition. Exceed those tolerances and the 'mind' changes, both consciously and sub consciously, and 'intelligence' is merely a function of 'mind'.

I'm aware of various studies on changes in nutrition and vitamin intake on the behaviour and 'intelligence' of prison populations that argue for this as well.
For instance:

Influence of supplementary vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids on the antisocial behaviour of young adult prisoners | The British Journal of Psychiatry
 
Yes we do. He's controlling for all environmental factors and looking at the extent of inheritance. It's relatively simple.

I studied the mind/brain problem extensively at university and came to the conclusion that the brain is entirely responsible for what we experience as the mind. The implications that has for free will are depressing.


You should check the AYR thread, they discuss free will at length in there.

The Bible | Page 1069 | Army Rumour Service
 
As if we really understand the epigenetic "factors" one of course being human will and determination. Oh, the arrogance of science that sets itself up as God!
But in your first post here you seemed to think that they were significant and presumably understood:

The science of epigenetics throws a real monkey's wrench in his whole theory.

and now when it is pointed out that they were taken into account, all of a sudden they aren't relevant? Make your mind up!
 

shibusa2

On ROPS
On ROPs
But in your first post here you seemed to think that they were significant and presumably understood:



and now when it is pointed out that they were taken into account, all of a sudden they aren't relevant? Make your mind up!

I can't make up my mind about science. I have a love-hate relationships with it.
 

Salute

Old-Salt
My view has always been that

Reaching Potential = Nature (Intelligence) + Incentive (upbringing/self motivation) + Education/Experience

A failure in any of those departments will result in lower acheivement against potential. To that end, I favour the Grammar School concept because it (in theory) provides a high quality of education to those that have the Intelligence to make the most of it, without the costs involved in private schooling. This should make it accessible to all and it does.

So why doesn't it have a meaningful impact on social mobility? Well, there are Nature and Incentive to consider.

I'm sterotyping massively here but your average Joe & Jane from Benifits Street, or even Jack & Gill from Working Class Drive probably doesn't pass on lots of academic brain cells to their offspring and so their 'innate' abililty to get into Grammar School already puts the vast majority from those classes on the backfoot. Secondly, Incentive. I grew up in an area where the majorty of people fell into the Benefits and Working classes. Most of the people I went to school with (over 70%), had absolutely no ambition to push themselves. The only reason they went to school was because they had to. They never paid attention in class and certainly didn't put any effort in at home. This was purely becuase their parents didn't teach them about the value of education, to have ambition or that they could make a better life for themselves. Even some of my mates, who were more intelligent than me, have ended going nowhere in life - purely because they weren't taught to even try.

This obviously isn't true of everyone in those classes but it goes a way to explaining why Grammar Schools aren't great at improving social mobility.

Caveat: This is my experience, I'm not an academic in this area.
 
My view has always been that

Reaching Potential = Nature (Intelligence) + Incentive (upbringing/self motivation) + Education/Experience

A failure in any of those departments will result in lower acheivement against potential. To that end, I favour the Grammar School concept because it (in theory) provides a high quality of education to those that have the Intelligence to make the most of it, without the costs involved in private schooling. This should make it accessible to all and it does.

So why doesn't it have a meaningful impact on social mobility? Well, there are Nature and Incentive to consider.

I'm sterotyping massively here but your average Joe & Jane from Benifits Street, or even Jack & Gill from Working Class Drive probably doesn't pass on lots of academic brain cells to their offspring and so their 'innate' abililty to get into Grammar School already puts the vast majority from those classes on the backfoot. Secondly, Incentive. I grew up in an area where the majorty of people fell into the Benefits and Working classes. Most of the people I went to school with (over 70%), had absolutely no ambition to push themselves. The only reason they went to school was because they had to. They never paid attention in class and certainly didn't put any effort in at home. This was purely becuase their parents didn't teach them about the value of education, to have ambition or that they could make a better life for themselves. Even some of my mates, who were more intelligent than me, have ended going nowhere in life - purely because they weren't taught to even try.

This obviously isn't true of everyone in those classes but it goes a way to explaining why Grammar Schools aren't great at improving social mobility.

Caveat: This is my experience, I'm not an academic in this area.
Goes along with my experiences.
And I am also not an academic even if my grammar school education tried to make me one.
Life had far more to offer.
 

shibusa2

On ROPS
On ROPs
Then try not to use it to back up your arguments! It makes you look rather silly!

Not at all. It's all about understanding and recognising the limitation of science. It's a useful tool if used correctly rather than some infallible oracle that people like Richard Dawkins seem to promote.
 

Latest Threads

Top