"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:uh7us3da9vf11qlu6daefud0if0drl3sbi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>But groups have distributions of IQ. From the standpoint
>>of anyone who understands probability, it would be a
>>major surprise if two natural groups had the same distribution.
>
> Individuals are not groups, and there is nothing "natural" about the
> groups in question.
>
>>The evidence is strong that IQ is largely genetic,
>
> The evidence is equally strong that it is not largely genetic, and it
> is also strong that IQ isn't really measuring "intelligence".
>
> lojbab
One experiment that would never happen, but which I'd like to see, would
be
to randomly reassign babies at birth, without regard to race or SES
background of the parents.
My guess, based on the adopted children I've had in class, including those
adopted cross-racially, is that most children would be within a very close
range of IQ to their adopted parents, barring disabling conditions.
From what I've seen, whatever is valued by parents will be what is valued
by
children, and will often be where a young child shows "talent". A parent
who
loves s****ts, and who is throwing balls at his son before the child's eyes
even focus, probably will, at age 4-5, have a child who loves s****ts and
considers himself an athlete, and who seems advanced compared to many
children their age. I've noticed that the parents who check out books for
themselves at the library are the ones who have children who eagerly pull
books from the shelf, sit down and start to read, while those who only
check
out children's books have much more reluctant readers. And the top two
Suzuki students in our program last semester are the two foster/adopted
daughters of our string coordinator, both of whom are of a minority race
not
known for classical music excellence, and both of whom were born drug
addicted. But by age 4, both girls devoutly WANTED to play violin-and have
succeeded at it far beyond the children who started life with much better
genetic backgrounds.
Only a subset of things that parents can value and encourage lead to high
scores on IQ tests; therefore only the children of parents who value those
things will tend to do well on IQ tests. Most middle and upper class
caucasian parents, and most Asian immigrant families tend to value things
which lead to high scores on IQ tests, doing well in traditional education
settings, and a long-term, professional lifestyle. And most of these
families have the financial wherewithal to sup****t what they value.
If you don't value such things yourself, and/or you don't have the
resources
to demonstrate that you value them (even if you value reading, if you're
working 2 jobs, it's unlikely that your child will ever get to go to the
library with you or see you read a book), your children are unlikely to
value them, and therefore, are unlikely to build those skills. And the
cycle
continues for another generation.
|
