Note: technically ‘heritability’ does not imply a genetic mechanism. — it simply refers to occurrence across generations, which could equally be due to common environments and would account for the socioeconomic scale data.
> On Jul 25, 2018, at 7:01 PM, David <da...@neverdave.com> wrote: > > 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)" > <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> > To:"Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> > 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. steel...@appstate.edu > <mailto:steel...@appstate.edu> > Professor > Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu > <http://www.psych.appstate.edu/> > Appalachian State University > Boone, NC 28608 > USA > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Jul 25, 2018, at 7:21 PM, David <da...@neverdave.com > <mailto:da...@neverdave.com>> 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 > <http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-18633-009>>. > > --David Epstein > da...@neverdave.com <mailto:da...@neverdave.com> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu <mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>> > To:"Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu <mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>> > 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° > > chri...@yorku.ca <mailto:chri...@yorku.ca> > http://www.yorku.ca/christo <http://www.yorku.ca/christo> > ………………………………... > > On Jul 25, 2018, at 1:58 PM, Michael Palij <m...@nyu.edu > <mailto:m...@nyu.edu>> 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 > > <https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/genes-explain-about-11-percent-of-differences-in-years-of-education-64552> > > 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 > m...@nyu.edu <mailto:m...@nyu.edu> > > P.S. To Miguel: don't worry about the tipos. ;-) > Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=52583 or send a blank email to leave-52583-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
