Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j1z86q5 wrote

I wonder if you'd get the same results in 18 year olds, or with a more complete PGS model.

There's good evidence that the SES x heritability interaction is transient, and fades at about age 10, which is the upper limit of their study population. Given that SES was the first factor they pulled out of their PCA, they've got a known transient phenomenon as the primary driver of their data.

To boot, the increase in heritability of cognitive ability by age is often hypothesized to be a G x E interaction, and looking at 18 year olds could inform that question - if it is, you might expect the effects of education to be wider at 18, when heritability peaks and levels off, than it is at 9 when a lot of things other than heritability are driving.

It might be that schooling doesn't boost or attenuate genetic advantages or disadvantages in 8 year old because everyone is capable of extracting value from the education we offter to 8 year olds. But maybe not so for a 12 grade education, when some fraction of students will be so hoplessly lost that they might as well not even be there.

175

Badroadrash101 t1_j1zuayk wrote

The data also shows that children whose parents were high achievers aka smart, created home environments that benefited their offspring in schooling. These children performed better in school as a result of genetics and environment. Since the age range of the study is confined, it is possible the effect can lessen or remain. Anecdotally, young adult high achievers tend to have parents who are as well.

81

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j20ai0p wrote

>The data also shows that children whose parents were high achievers aka smart, created home environments that benefited their offspring in schooling.

Yes; shared environment impacts EA and IQ in 10 year olds , but seems to have no role on the variance in EA and IQ by adulthood - by which time 70% of the variance is heritable and probably genetic.

29

SerialStateLineXer t1_j1zo0xb wrote

>I wonder if you'd get the same results in 18 year olds, or with a more complete PGS model

You'd definitely see genetics play a much larger role. There's a huge amount of missing heritability in PGS models, i.e. they explain only a small portion of the heritability that we know is there from twin studies. As a result, studies like this underestimate the effects of genetics and overestimate the effects of SES.

28

FelsensteinsMonster t1_j1zsi73 wrote

This makes a lot of assumptions about estimates from twins being accurate and ignores that the ostensible predictive gains between a 1 million sample education GWAS and a 3 million sample GWAS was mostly lost when confounders were accounted for. If anything the poor quality of polygenic scores will make non-genetic factors appear genetic in these kinds of models

8

Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j1zxlzq wrote

>1 million sample education GWAS and a 3 million sample GWAS was mostly lost when confounders were accounted for

Oooo for EA? I didn't see that one. Got the paper handy?

I got stock in 23&Me that I may need to sell if GWAS is gonna cap out at 0.1 on everything.

9

Strange-Ad1209 t1_j1z5crr wrote

Schooling provides Knowledge, not Intelligence.

112

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j1z7yea wrote

Yes; Stuart Ritchie has found education impacts specific ability rather than general ability (intelligence).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25775112/

58

louislinaris t1_j1zdrfp wrote

Look into theories of intelligence. Some include fluid vs. Crystallized intelligence, where fluid can be thought of a brain horse power and crystallized is merely knowledge and skills. Because we use tests to measure intelligence, test taking skill and knowledge of specific item types translates into measured intelligence

37

rumpleforeskins t1_j1zis9s wrote

Yeah. I don't know much specific about this topic, but it always struck me that if general intelligence describes things like pattern recognition and problem solving ability, I'm almost certain those things can be practiced and improved, and therefore people can increase their "intelligence". Eg you can learn to break down big problems into smaller problems, and you can learn reading techniques that improve comprehension and speed.

"Intelligence" is a weird thing. I've always found it easier to just focus on "being good at" this or or that.

20

Victra_au_Julii t1_j1zz6ep wrote

> I'm almost certain those things can be practiced and improved

What leads you to believe this?

7

rumpleforeskins t1_j20xn9a wrote

Do you have a different experience/opinion? You reckon it's hardcoded at birth?

1

rumpleforeskins t1_j20x803 wrote

Because you can learn techniques to improve these very things. Eg a computer science class will teach you how to think generally about problems and assess time/space complexity, and will show you how to break down big problems into small ones, which is a generally applicable skill, not just for writing code.

Reading courses can teach you techniques to broaden your reading width and anchor on word segments rather than whole words. It can teach you to read the first and last sentence of a paragraph first and then summarize what you just read after each paragraph so you improve retention and concept abstraction, both of which are generally useful skills.

SAT prep course can teach you how to use process of elimination to invalidate potential answers and reduce the set possible solutions. That is a generalizable skill that helps with executive problem solving more broadly.

If you're looking for citations im afraid I can't provide those off the top of my head (like I said I don't study intelligence). But intuitively I'd venture that many of the things we attribute to intelligence are just skills like the ones I mention above that have been practiced or happen to be specific talents of individuals, and are in many cases ones that can be practiced and improved.

−1

imagine_that t1_j21bhp4 wrote

Right, those specific skills can be improved. And yet, even in the application of those 'meta skills' onto *new* problem sets, between people, you can kinda still see differences in speed, totality of application of the meta skill onto the new problem set and fine tune adjustment of differing implications.

Sometimes it just takes less for some people to wield meta skills more robustly compared to others.

10

rumpleforeskins t1_j21xbbx wrote

Good point. I guess that's a good way to point out "intelligence"--given that two people learn the same meta skills, one may still outperform the other when applying those new skills in a new test. Perhaps they're exhibiting greater general intelligence. ¯\_(:|)_/¯

I'm definitely speaking from intuition, so I hope I've made that clear enough.

3

nowyouseemenowyoudo2 t1_j21h1t9 wrote

You’d be wrong though. As a psychologist who has administered the WAIS and WISC, there’s no way to ‘practice’ to improve fluid intelligence.

The test-retest validity is extremely high because it has to be, any IQ test you can train for is not a real IQ test. Also, any IQ test which you can take without a qualified administrator is not a real IQ test.

I had to study for years to become qualified to administer them, and only then was I able to access the materials and be supervised in their use.

The things you are talking about are not fluid intelligence. Your intuition about this is wrong.

9

WillCode4Cats t1_j21nswx wrote

What are your opinions on the subject of IQ?

My main gripe with the tests (I took a WAIS-IV) is that there are potentially many variables that are not accounted for when taking the test, thus I feel that anyone’s result is just a snapshot of that person’s “intelligence” at that point in time, but the value is not static except for perhaps in the best of conditions where many of the variables have the same values.

What I mean is, what if someone stayed up for 48 hours and took a test? Do you believe this would impact one’s score? How about longer than 48 hours? What if they did not eat properly, are extremely stressed, etc.?

It’s why I have a hard time when psychologist try to warp qualitative data into quantitative results. Take height, for example. In any of the variables I listed above, a full grown adult’s height would remain static. That is because it is a quantitative result — unlike IQ.

I understand how much research has been conducted on IQ and it’s validity, but I would like to see more data and research from neurology than the soft sciences.

5

rumpleforeskins t1_j21xpx5 wrote

I see! Good to know. I'm glad I issued the disclaimer that I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

It's an interesting subject.

4

louislinaris t1_j21p9za wrote

Agree. And this acquired knowledge can be divided into declarative knowledge (knowing what) and procedural knowledge (knowing how/ skill)

5

Cynical_lemonade t1_j1zz69x wrote

So I'm not stupid my brain is just a diesel; more torque than horsepower and hard to start in the morning.

3

o2lsports t1_j20odbi wrote

This is incorrect. School isn’t just about memorizing facts. Effective teaching creates new neural pathways related to critical thinking and problem-solving. Also known as, drum roll, intelligence.

15

Strange-Ad1209 t1_j20v0sr wrote

Knowledge isn't about memorizing anything. Proper schooling teaches how to take information and apply it, that is what is known as knowledge, the ability to apply information to problem solving. Intelligence exists whether or not someone has attended formal education or not.

Natives of many lands for instance are extremely intelligent but may have never had any formal schooling except in what they learn from elders in day to day survival. Real World Problem solving approaches by the people who've had no formal education is often far more efficient and straight forward than methods employed by Ph.D's (which is why many Ph.D's are called Piled Higher and Deeper types by Engineers... 8-) )

As a retired Engineering instructor some of my best students had to unlearn a lot of rote memorization they'd been exposed to in so called High Schools but that was my purpose in sticking with the Associate and Bachelor's level students so they could unlearn the bad methods and begin to apply third order learning to solve the types of unpredictable problems presented in real world engineering projects.

10

dangil t1_j1zxek2 wrote

No. It teaches you how to think

13

Tioben t1_j20bp60 wrote

Same thing. Intelligence is just generalized knowledge about patterns that may or may not be functional in a given physical or social context.

2

ReddJudicata t1_j22eq90 wrote

That’s actually not what these data show for for subsets of intelligence tested. Read the paper.

1

Yerwun t1_j21u6cz wrote

Mmm nope. Someone who's been to school is going to do much better on an IQ test, on average, than someone with no education.

0

acvdk t1_j22p4i8 wrote

It may also teach you how to do well on tests that purport to measure intelligence, especially if you aren’t very smart. The SAT correlates strongly with IQ, but it isn’t particularly hard for someone to raise their score from the 20th to 30th percentile with study. Going from the 94th to 98th is nearly impossible though regardless of effort.

0

lumberjack_jeff t1_j1z99y5 wrote

This is a weird study. I would like to know where they found high socioeconomic status 9-11 year olds who lacked schooling.

74

Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j1znayr wrote

They took advantage of the fact that schools are set up with enrollments cutoffs. So kids of the same age will have different amounts of schooling.

Say the enrollment cutoff is turning 5 before September 1st.

A kid born August 30 will have 10 months of schooling on their 6th birthday.

A kid born September 2nd will have 1 day of schooling on their 6th birthday.

Test them both on their 6th birthday, and all else being equal, the difference is the effect of 10 months of schooling.

56

lumberjack_jeff t1_j1zrlzf wrote

Well then yes. It stands to reason that a fourth grader will do better on most any test than a third grader.

Is that what they're studying?

12

Vito_The_Magnificent t1_j1zvmdm wrote

No, they were studying if kids from rich families get more out of education than kids from poor families and if kids who are genetically predisposed to be smarter than average get more from schooling than kids who are predisposed to be dummer than average.

But to do that you have to seprate the effects of age from the effects of spending time in school.

20

Sixial t1_j1zwn02 wrote

Are there any comparisons of how they tested at the end of that grade?

The younger may have the ability to learn more, but the older may have ability to mature and focus more.

9

FelsensteinsMonster t1_j1zswyi wrote

Misleading way to describe the lack of a significant interaction term. The main effect of schooling was larger than both SES and the polygenic score, implying that it could exacerbate or ameliorate IQ gaps “caused” by differences in either factor

16

NormP t1_j201k41 wrote

Have wondered whether schooling raises intelligence, or whether intelligence drives an urge to get more schooling.

On the one hand, it could be akin to mental body-building. There's no doubt that bodybuilders are stronger. On the other hand, intelligence gives life a boring sameness. That sameness is countered by seeking new things to learn about.

So maybe it's both, mental exercise and entertainment.

14

InnerCityTrendy t1_j2101bs wrote

Didn't Watson almost lose his Nobel prize over commenting that intelligence has a large genetic component?

5

i_have_thick_loads OP t1_j216v0c wrote

This is what i could find on Wikipedia:

Cold Harbor Springs Laboratory (CHSL)

>James D. Watson, shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins in 1962 for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.[45] From 1968 to 1993 Watson served as the CSHL Director. In 2007 the CSHL suspended him for his support for scientific racism but after he issued a public apology he was allowed to retain honorary titles, though he was relieved his leadership and managerial roles.[46] In 2019 CSHL rescinded his honorary titles after he made public remarks again suggesting IQ and race were related, comments which CSHL viewed as a reversal of the apology he gave in 2007.[47] In 2020 the Watson School of Biological Sciences (WSBS) was renamed to delete any reference to him.[48]

9

Strange-Ad1209 t1_j21608k wrote

Knowledge isn't about memorizing anything. Proper schooling teaches how to take information and apply it, that is what is known as knowledge, the ability to apply information to problem solving. Intelligence exists whether or not someone has attended formal education or not.

Natives of many lands for instance are extremely intelligent but may have never had any formal schooling except in what they learn from elders in day to day survival. Real World Problem solving approaches by the people who've had no formal education is often far more efficient and straight forward than methods employed by Ph.D's (which is why many Ph.D's are called Piled Higher and Deeper types by Engineers... 8-) )

As a retired Engineering instructor some of my best students had to unlearn a lot of rote memorization they'd been exposed to in so called High Schools but that was my purpose in sticking with the Associate and Bachelor's level students so they could unlearn the bad methods and begin to apply third order learning to solve the types of unpredictable problems presented in real world engineering projects.

5

DisgruntledGoose27 t1_j21p64v wrote

I think a lot of the socioeconomic difference is related to community. In cities that geographically separate social classes through exclusionary zoning mobility is drastically reduced.

2

AutoModerator t1_j1ywbaq wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

PaulSnow t1_j1zaf9d wrote

I would like to know how schooling kids is going to change social economics of kids? That's more a parent thing. How long was this study run?

I did scan through the study and read the abstract and introduction twice. But on a phone I could have missed some points.

1

nacestar t1_j20i5e2 wrote

What I hear you saying is that getting rich is more important than getting an education. So selling your children's bodies will do more for them than sending them to school? Can you even believe anything you read on the internet anymore?

1

PMzyox t1_j214bli wrote

I read somewhere once that there’s a reason they don’t generally teach legalese in K12. It levels the playing field

1

SolarDor t1_j21rso1 wrote

I need to know if the comma in the title is incorrect! There is no subject following the punctuation.

1

best_protect_Ya_Neck t1_j252srr wrote

Location is a very heavy thing that will screw over kids as well. If they have access to martial arts, a gymnasium, tracks for bikes, a good shooting range, studios to paint in, ect, a good community that cares about the kids and try to involve themselves, example a good boxer, may be old or young, but would giv boxing lessons. Stuff to keep kids busy makes them stay away from the boredom which usually leads to drugs and mischief. It's sad to say but it's true, personal experience is my proof, never mind listening to others that got the same stick.

Kids need a hobby, a good hobby they like, actually like, and want to get better at it. Those are the kids who are go getters... Yet they just need a decent environment.

If that's not accessible because you live rural, then make them appreciate nature. Teach them how to survive in the woods, go hiking, camping, hunting, if you have money get an ATV.

Boredom is always the killer. And kids get bored fast.

1

mental-floss t1_j20tcqi wrote

Did OP post under the wrong account? Seems sort of odd but I won’t question anyone who supports science.

−1

GoddessOfFire71 t1_j20uvo2 wrote

So are they saying 100k for college doesn't make you better off?

−2

insaneintheblain t1_j216ffm wrote

Intelligence as mentioned here is the ability to ‘solve puzzles’ - to apply memorised information to solve known problems - a tiny subsection of Intelligence. A chicken can be taught to peck a prescribed number of times in exchange for a reward.

Any real progress to intelligence must necessarily be self-initiated and happen outside of the confines of the educational system.

The educational system isn’t your friend - the educational system is the system’s friend.

−4

Dedelelelo t1_j21hpp8 wrote

Everything in life is a puzzle and if that puzzle solving ability u speak of is well ingrained it does have positive impacts on the kids outside of the academic realm/ system whatever u call it.

4

insaneintheblain t1_j21n0i2 wrote

"The universities do not teach all things, so a doctor must seek out old wives, gipsies, sorcerers, wandering tribes, old robbers, and such outlaws and take lessons from them." - Paracelsus

Do you ever question your certainty?

Edit: I guess you don’t. I guess you can’t… and that’s my point.

−3

Any_Monitor5224 t1_j1zqkmg wrote

I frankly don’t think intelligence is the driver of improving one’s socioeconomic status any more. It is more so the ability to be strategic. Use your strengths in a way that is rewarded by society and fulfilling to you.

There are plenty of highly intelligent people who live very below average lives and vice versa.

Particularly for lower SES kids I’d be more interested in their life outcomes than their intelligence. If we can show they get smarter, but they still can’t improve their lot in life - what’s the value?

−6

gunnervi t1_j2031ro wrote

There have always been highly intelligent people who fall to be upwardly mobile. People who just never had the opportunities, or whose courses in life were derailed by tragedy or bigotry.

12

ThrowbackPie t1_j21cxie wrote

From my own experience (assuming the many people in my life calling me smart are correct), I think decision-making is a huge part of it too. I have poor decision-making skills despite my possible intelligence.

3

enigmaroboto t1_j20aj7w wrote

A students work for B students at companies founded by C students

−7

Cognitive_Dissonant t1_j20f1vr wrote

While I'm sure this happens, statistically GPA is predictive of future income, so the reverse hierarchy is probably more likely. See here for example:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/eej.2014.22

16

gunnervi t1_j214jhd wrote

It could easily be that B and C students are overrepresented amongst "the elites" but grades are still a good predictor of future income. Like, there just aren't that many billionaires, even if like half of them were C students I doubt it would meaningfully affect the median income of C students nationwide.

In fact I would very much expect the grades vs income distribution to be much flatter for the upper classes simply because their income is largely based on "already being rich, powerful, and connected" rather than succeeding in a pseudo-meritocratic competition.

1

OrganicPumpkin9156 t1_j202qyz wrote

No amount of schooling or learning is going to change other people's minds about where you fit in their mythical hierarchy. I learned that the hard way, and it ruined my life.

−6

CoysCircleJerk t1_j20as37 wrote

This “hierarchy” doesn’t seem particularly “mythical” given it’s impact on your life

11

OrganicPumpkin9156 t1_j20b732 wrote

The hierarchy is mythical; the assault and abuse its religious adherents resort to to enforce it is not.

0

CoysCircleJerk t1_j20umif wrote

Honestly don’t know which hierarchy we’re talking about, but I don’t really understand the concept of a “mythical hierarchy” - they’re social constructs.

If I was to put a bunch of babies in a bubble and raise them to adulthood, isolated completely from the rest of society, rewarding those who are the best at art (random example) with more food and material goods, they would almost certainly create a hierarchy around artistry.

The point I’m trying to make here is hierarchies can’t be be real, fake, mythical, etc. They either exist or they don’t and are determined by society, mostly based on environmental factors.

8

OrganicPumpkin9156 t1_j22fakb wrote

Then how do you explain the fact that so many people recognize that no human being is inherently better than another, and that most advantages in life are at least partially due to the random lottery of birth circumstances?

Any belief in some form of "natural, unavoidable" hierarchy is purely a manifestation of narcissism or other cluster-B disorder.

1

CoysCircleJerk t1_j24u9rx wrote

> Then how do you explain the fact that so many people recognize that no human being is inherently better than another.

You’ll have to be more specific here, as this could mean a whole lot of things, but if we’re talking about skill/talent, humans are most definitely not created equal.

> and that most advantages in life are at least partially due to the random lottery of birth circumstances?

Yup, 100%. Humans are shaped by nature (genetics) and nurture (upbringing), neither of which we control - that’s life though and something every human has to accept. That said, I still believe humans have the agency to shape their lives, although only to an extent. As the saying goes, “life’s not fair”.

I don’t really understand what either of your above points have to do with hierarchies though. They don’t have to be fair to exist.

> Any belief in some form of "natural, unavoidable" hierarchy is purely a manifestation of narcissism or other cluster-B disorder.

This is essentially my point - there is no such thing as a “natural” hierarchy, just as there’s no such thing as a “mythical” hierarchy. I do, however, believe certain hierarchies are extremely likely to develop due to the current societal landscape and the tendency of human beings to organize themselves in this structure.

Hierarchies among humans exist everywhere, in every community. Some are immediately obvious, while others are more subtle. Unfortunately, I think you’ll have to accept this, just as almost all humans have for thousands of years.

1

OrganicPumpkin9156 t1_j24wluc wrote

> You’ll have to be more specific here, as this could mean a whole lot of things, but if we’re talking about skill/talent, humans are most definitely not created equal.

I'm talking about basic human beings, regardless of gained skill. Also, what skills one can gain is highly dependent on birth fortunes.

> That said, I still believe humans have the agency to shape their lives, although only to an extent. As the saying goes, “life’s not fair”.

What you're disregarding is that other people also have agency to disrupt the live of any person they come in contact with - and they will purely out of unchecked malice. People won't maliciously interfere with another's life only if there is a credible threat of punishment for doing so. No punishment? A crowd will hack away at a person until he or she is chunks.

> Hierarchies among humans exist everywhere, in every community. Some are immediately obvious, while others are more subtle. Unfortunately, I think you’ll have to accept this, just as almost all humans have for thousands of years.

Hierarchies destroy the people trapped in them. Hierarchies are one reason why communities die. Humans aren't "accepting" this so much as they are trapped and suffering under them, with little means of escape.

1

CoysCircleJerk t1_j25c5uo wrote

> I'm talking about basic human beings, regardless of gained skill. Also, what skills one can gain is highly dependent on birth fortunes.

Again, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this (I.e. what does “basic human beings” mean), but even removing learned skills, humans are still not created equal e.g. raw/natural athleticism, physical attractiveness (or at least what society perceives as attractive - this can change between different societies/time periods), intelligence, etc. I guess this is sort of what you’re getting at with “what skills one can gain is highly dependent on birth fortunes”? Just to be clear, I’m not arguing with you on this. We all have different starting points in life based on our natural talent (genetics) and upbringing.

> What you're disregarding is that other people also have agency to disrupt the live of any person they come in contact with - and they will purely out of unchecked malice. People won't maliciously interfere with another's life only if there is a credible threat of punishment for doing so. No punishment? A crowd will hack away at a person until he or she is chunks.

Yes, human beings can be extremely mean (this is not limited to just hierarchies though). I don’t disagree with you - I’m not making any statements about the morality of human beings or hierarchies.

More relevantly though, how does one enforce rules via punishment without hierarchy?

> People won't maliciously interfere with another's life only if there is a credible threat of punishment for doing so. No punishment? A crowd will hack away at a person until he or she is chunks.

I disagree with this - yes, some people are just mean spirited, but plenty of people aren’t, even without any risk of punishment. As for the “crowd” bit, what you’re referring to is mob mentality which is sort of a separate human phenomenon and causes humans to act in a number of abnormal ways - this is sort of related to hierarchies, but not directly, as mob mentality can exist outside of the context of hierarchies.

> Hierarchies destroy the people trapped in them. Hierarchies are one reason why communities die. Humans aren't "accepting" this so much as they are trapped and suffering under them, with little means of escape.

Again, I’m not trying to make any moral claims about hierarchies - they certainly are used as a mechanism to oppress. That said, I think hierarchies are essential for large scale societies/communities to function properly - a company, for instance, where everyone has equal influence/decision making power would be absolute chaos and highly inefficient.

This ability to organize ourselves in large societies/communities is one of the main reasons anthropologists believe homo sapiens beat out all other “homo” variants - it’s literally in our nature.

1

OrganicPumpkin9156 t1_j260g50 wrote

> I disagree with this - yes, some people are just mean spirited, but plenty of people aren’t, even without any risk of punishment.

I've never encountered these people; people will transform into cruel monsters as soon as I walk into a room, without me saying word.

> As for the “crowd” bit, what you’re referring to is mob mentality which is sort of a separate human phenomenon and causes humans to act in a number of abnormal ways - this is sort of related to hierarchies, but not directly, as mob mentality can exist outside of the context of hierarchies.

Fair enough, but every person's opinion of me seems to come directly from bigoted social norms, as the behavior the exhibit echoes bigoted behavior toward others exactly.

> I think hierarchies are essential for large scale societies/communities to function properly - a company, for instance, where everyone has equal influence/decision making power would be absolute chaos and highly inefficient.

But what price efficiency? I'd rather be free to do as I please (as long as I harm no others) without unjust punishment even if it costs a little more. I've been paying great sums all my life only to be terrorized wherever I go as it is. I'm not saving any resources through this hierarchy - only the top saves; the bottom bears all the costs.

> This ability to organize ourselves in large societies/communities is one of the main reasons anthropologists believe homo sapiens beat out all other “homo” variants - it’s literally in our nature.

That's done at the cost of ruthlessly stamping out any individual thought. Only group thinkers are allowed in the group.

1