> Studies get published if they survive peer review, and publications have citations. Citations, please?
Not to offend you, but we have had this exact same discussion a few times. If you remember correctly the last time I gave you a bunch of citations which you apparently did not take to heart. We had the discussion 170 and 200 days ago. The same discussion follows the exact same trend with you quoting a bunch of stuff out of Flynn’s books.
Here is the link to the discussion on the same topic that we had 173 days ago with a bunch of citations:
Discussion 170 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=566205
> Because Flynn does his homework and makes unassailable research findings that are published in the best journals. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind."
Yes. And Arthur Jensen also said sarcastically that they have to go all the way to New Zealand to find someone that published papers opposing his with any credibility. Flynn may have noticed some interesting trends in IQ tests – but that doesn’t make him a specialist in psychometrics.
> Because I have Pinker's book at hand, I checked his chapter on the issue, and Pinker says, "The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families." The environment in the world at large does matter, and it matters for a lot. Pinker is forced to acknowledge this because that is what the research shows. It is regrettable that Pinker fails to cite the articles that establish the difference between heritability and mutability ("malleability") directly in the text of his book, but I will cite those here.
I did not refer to Pinker’s book about the whole intelligence debate, but to the debate that certain social scientists wants to warp science because they are scared of the truth (the is instead of the ought to). As for Pinker’s personal views on intelligence – he is not a specialist in the field.
> "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."
In all fairness, I don’t think that to measure the difference in height between a first world country and a country with yearly hunger and severe malnutrition is fair. This will be at a huge peak in differences between heights because there was a severe famine in 1995. So, what you are saying is that it is surprising that people who suffered malnutrition and disease as children do not have the same height? Is this really news?
I would really love to have this debate again with you (since you are clearly interested in the field). Unfortunately I have a big deadline coming up and I can’t waste 6 hours reading papers.
Maybe post the article again in two months and we can have a proper debate? ;)
If you remember correctly the last time I gave you a bunch of citations which you apparently did not take to heart.
I remembered the earlier screen name better than the more recent screen name that you are using here, but thanks for pointing out that you are the same person in both threads.
and I enjoy having what diplomats call a "frank exchange of views" with anyone else who enjoys reading about this subject. What I'm not seeing thus far is any experimentally verified proof that IQ/g/academic achievement/whatever is of interest is surely not malleable in the individual case. Rather, what I see repeatedly in the literature are surprising examples of environmental variables having much more power than they were expected to have, both across whole societies over time and in particular individual cases even with haphazard rather than planned environmental variation. But too often there is a leap from the statement that a trait is heritable to the incorrect and invalid conclusion that the trait is not malleable. I have seen that happen often in online discussion since 1992. What discordant identical twins, comparisons between neighboring countries, and other lines of evidence show is what the twin researchers say those lines of evidence show in their new 2009 paper: "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 218.
Comments
> Studies get published if they survive peer review, and publications have citations. Citations, please?
Not to offend you, but we have had this exact same discussion a few times. If you remember correctly the last time I gave you a bunch of citations which you apparently did not take to heart. We had the discussion 170 and 200 days ago. The same discussion follows the exact same trend with you quoting a bunch of stuff out of Flynn’s books.
Here is the link to the discussion on the same topic that we had 173 days ago with a bunch of citations: Discussion 170 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=566205
Discussion 208 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=513957
> Because Flynn does his homework and makes unassailable research findings that are published in the best journals. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind."
Yes. And Arthur Jensen also said sarcastically that they have to go all the way to New Zealand to find someone that published papers opposing his with any credibility. Flynn may have noticed some interesting trends in IQ tests – but that doesn’t make him a specialist in psychometrics.
> Because I have Pinker's book at hand, I checked his chapter on the issue, and Pinker says, "The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families." The environment in the world at large does matter, and it matters for a lot. Pinker is forced to acknowledge this because that is what the research shows. It is regrettable that Pinker fails to cite the articles that establish the difference between heritability and mutability ("malleability") directly in the text of his book, but I will cite those here.
I did not refer to Pinker’s book about the whole intelligence debate, but to the debate that certain social scientists wants to warp science because they are scared of the truth (the is instead of the ought to). As for Pinker’s personal views on intelligence – he is not a specialist in the field.
> "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."
In all fairness, I don’t think that to measure the difference in height between a first world country and a country with yearly hunger and severe malnutrition is fair. This will be at a huge peak in differences between heights because there was a severe famine in 1995. So, what you are saying is that it is surprising that people who suffered malnutrition and disease as children do not have the same height? Is this really news?
I would really love to have this debate again with you (since you are clearly interested in the field). Unfortunately I have a big deadline coming up and I can’t waste 6 hours reading papers.
Maybe post the article again in two months and we can have a proper debate? ;)
If you remember correctly the last time I gave you a bunch of citations which you apparently did not take to heart.
I remembered the earlier screen name better than the more recent screen name that you are using here, but thanks for pointing out that you are the same person in both threads.
I'm still learning about this subject,
http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...
and I enjoy having what diplomats call a "frank exchange of views" with anyone else who enjoys reading about this subject. What I'm not seeing thus far is any experimentally verified proof that IQ/g/academic achievement/whatever is of interest is surely not malleable in the individual case. Rather, what I see repeatedly in the literature are surprising examples of environmental variables having much more power than they were expected to have, both across whole societies over time and in particular individual cases even with haphazard rather than planned environmental variation. But too often there is a leap from the statement that a trait is heritable to the incorrect and invalid conclusion that the trait is not malleable. I have seen that happen often in online discussion since 1992. What discordant identical twins, comparisons between neighboring countries, and other lines of evidence show is what the twin researchers say those lines of evidence show in their new 2009 paper: "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 218.