The Scarr-Rowe interaction refers to heritability of IQ: very high at
the upper end of the socioeconomic scale, very low at the lower end. 
You can see it in this paper, in Figure 3, for "A" (additive genetic
variance) versus shared and unshared environment:

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.9014&rep=rep1&type=pdf>

The usual interpretation is that people at the upper end of SES have
the pleasure of being able to *express* their genetic differences in
IQ, while those at the bottom do not.

Seems like a natural fit for a study of the "heritability" of
educational achievement.

--David

----- Original Message -----
From:
 "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>

To:
"Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Cc:

Sent:
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:43:27 -0400
Subject:
Re: [tips] The Genetic Theory of Educational Achievement Is about 90%
Horse Manure!

          Hi David:

Please explain what a Scarr-Rowe interaction is and why it may be a
rookie mistake not to take it into account.  Your link
summary/abstract does not clarify the issue.

I fear that this discussion may be headed into a descending spiral
where the label n@zi will be used.

Best regards to all.

Ken

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.
                 [email protected] [1]
Professor
Department of Psychology
         http://www.psych.appstate.edu [2]
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 25, 2018, at 7:21 PM, David <[email protected] [3]> wrote:

 

 More troublingly, I'm not seeing any indication that they
investigators accounted for a Scarr-Rowe interaction.  Rookie
mistake.  That interaction should've been the *first* thing they
looked for.  Otherwise, as Eric Turkheimer has argued, they might be
better off not estimating "heritability" at all
<http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-18633-009 [4]>.
--David Epstein  [email protected] [5]

----- Original Message -----
From:
 "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected] [6]>

To:
"Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected] [7]>
Sent:
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:29:27 -0400
Subject:
Re: [tips] The Genetic Theory of Educational Achievement Is about 90%
Horse Manure!

Household income is incredibly highly skewed. Assuming they
obliviously used a linear coefficient to obtain the 7% figure, it is
probably a severe under-estimate of the true size of the effect. 

Chris
 …..
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773897°, 
-79.503667°

[email protected] [8]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo [9]
………………………………...

On Jul 25, 2018, at 1:58 PM, Michael Palij <[email protected] [10]> wrote:

 
 At least for White Europeans.  A masive study using genomic info as
a
predictor of educational achievement showed that genes accounted for
only about 11% of the difference in years of education.

The Scientist Mag has a layperson friendly description of the study
published in the journal  "Nature Genetics". See:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/genes-explain-about-11-percent-of-differences-in-years-of-education-64552
[11] 

There are links in the article to additional sources.

So, I guess this pretty much undermines "g" or single factor theories
of intelligence (assuming intelligence drives educational achievement
as certain theorists assert).  In addition, household income accounts
for only 7% of the variance in the differences which some might
consider
a unexpected low amount.  I guess this all goes to show that your
genetic ancestry (sorry Galton) nor wealth/poverty are the most
important factors in academic acheivemnt, like getting a Ph.D.
or other advanced degree.

Now, I just hope the results are replicable. ;-)

-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected] [12]

P.S.  To Miguel:  don't worry about the tipos. ;-)

        ---

        You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] [13].

        To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13524.94845a3ed9806f1cef14973830dd8c39&n=T&l=tips&o=52578
[14]

        (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is
broken)

        or send a blank email to
leave-52578-13524.94845a3ed9806f1cef14973830dd8...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[15] 

        --- 

        You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] [16]. 

        To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13160.a3a8185b610d2c5e39015f64972c8705&n=T&l=tips&o=52579
[17] 

        (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is
broken) 

        or send a blank email to
leave-52579-13160.a3a8185b610d2c5e39015f64972c8...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[18] 



Links:
------
[1] mailto:[email protected]
[2] http://www.psych.appstate.edu
[3] mailto:[email protected]
[4] http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-18633-009
[5] mailto:[email protected]
[6] mailto:[email protected]
[7] mailto:[email protected]
[8] mailto:[email protected]
[9] http://www.yorku.ca/christo
[10] mailto:[email protected]
[11]
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/genes-explain-about-11-percent-of-differences-in-years-of-education-64552
[12] mailto:[email protected]
[13] mailto:[email protected]
[14]
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13524.94845a3ed9806f1cef14973830dd8c39&amp;n=T&amp;l=tips&amp;o=52578
[15]
mailto:leave-52578-13524.94845a3ed9806f1cef14973830dd8...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[16] mailto:[email protected]
[17]
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13160.a3a8185b610d2c5e39015f64972c8705&amp;n=T&amp;l=tips&amp;o=52579
[18]
mailto:leave-52579-13160.a3a8185b610d2c5e39015f64972c8...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=52581
or send a blank email to 
leave-52581-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to