<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss</a></p>
<p>No. Just that a poor environment can depress IQ testing results.</p>
<p>“By my calculation, if we were to push early childhood education and bolster schools in poor neighborhoods,”</p>
<p>What is his definition of early childhood education? Tax Payers are already paying for pre-K.</p>
<p>Bolster schools in poor neighborhood? How about bolstering attitudes of kids and their no-good parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm. I went to two different elementary schools as a kid - one that was rich, white, and suburban, and one that was poor, black, and inner-city. It was pretty obvious to me from observing my classmates, and listening to them talk, which set of kids placed more value on getting an education…and it wasn’t the ones who had grown up with socioeconomic privilege and took it for granted.</p>
<p>IQ is not nearly as much nuture as it is NATURE
in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink, they found that IQ and success in school had more to do with your parents than your environment.
IE-a kid growing up in a household full of books but never reads is likely to be more succesful than a kid with a library card who reads all the time
WHY?
the kid with the house full of books is probably wealthy, thus his parents are probably intelligent, which is passed to the kkid</p>
<p>the kid with the library card tends to be poor with less intelligent parents, thus he does more poorly</p>
<p>Kids also tend to score far closer to their natural parents than adoptive ones in several studies</p>
<p>We’re not going far as a civilization if we conclude that a person’s worth is decided at birth. And we’re also not going far if a significant proportion of parents don’t value their children’s education. JMHO of course.</p>
<p>And IQ is not the sole, or even perhaps the most important, determinant of success in life.</p>
<p>
Huh? Genetics controls for a huge number of outcomes. Having good genes can make your life much easier. A girl at the 10th percentile versus one at the 90th percentile in beauty? Do we even need to say which one is going to have the easier life, all else being equal? The man who is tall, dark, and handsome? </p>
<p>Please. Genetics rules our society. And yes, there is a genetic component to intelligence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not often long for the “good old days” but I do wish that people stop equating wealth with intelligence. The two can be very close together or they can be miles apart. </p>
<p>Of course, I’d be even happier if the very limited IQ test stopped being treated as if it were the Holy Grail.</p>
<p>Two of the biggest reasons lower income urban kids don’t do well in school are not really nature or nurture (unless we mean nurturing by the world):</p>
<p>high lead levels–affect abilities to concentrate, pay attention, in some cases to think</p>
<p>high asthma rates–causing high absenteeism, hospital stays, exhaustion and miserableness even when in school, leading again to inability to concentrate and pay attention.</p>
<p>Fix those and you’d go a long way to fixing urban school success.</p>
<p>I strongly believe that formal education before 7-8 years of age is total waste of time. There are plenty of countries that starts at this age with no reguirement or testing to enter 1st grade (no need to be able to read, for example) that have consistently higher scores on International competition than american kids. You can start them at 10, if you wish, what is more important is what you teach and how you teach. American elementary school is extremely boring and largely wasted experience for vast majority of kids. The thing that they learn very well in elementary school is that they hate it. It does not have to be that way. It could be challenging and fun and give them solid background. In all 13 years is way too long with dismal results at the end. 10 is plenty as long as it is taught at the proper level which should be much higher than current. The funny part of it is that it is not needed to be developed from scratch. We can take any successful educational program that already exists in a world and adapt it to our needs.</p>
<p>As a mother of non identical triplets, I have to say that my experience is that each of my kids was born with a distinct temperment which has had a lot to do with how well they do in the world (school & beyond). In the early years they got as equal of care as could be–there wasn’t really time to get too individual. They do have different iq’s but what really separates them is their innate ability to work hard (or not) and also social and organizational skills. Those traits have been very consistant in each child from very early on. Of course, we’ve tried to modify /teach improvement but the basic trends of each personality remain fairly constant.</p>
<p>hmmm… I am guessing the misspelling was deliberate as a joke?</p>
<p>As the parent of adopted children, I can tell you that there are truly times where nurture CANNOT overcome nature.</p>
<p>My two S’s, just less than three years apart in age, raised in the same home,school,church, nurtured in the same fashion all their lives are complete polar opposites in just about every way.</p>
<p>It puzzles me why it is taboo to assert that intelligence (as measured by the IQ test) can be inherited. If a tall, athletic man fathers a tall, athletic basketball star, neighbors say “he gets that from his dad”. If a couple with musical talent has children with musical talent, people say “those kids come from a musical family”. In each example, there is a genetic component and (likely) a nurture component. </p>
<p>So why is it not PC to believe that the rocket scientist and MD down the street would produce offspring with a good probability of higher-than-average IQ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“the” IQ test? (is there only ONE universal way to measure “intelligence” that will never change over time?). I think in general we have become very suspicious of IQ tests and of what they are measuring and as a result we have come to question our reasons for measuring IQ. When we talk about “intelligence” and “IQ” we still do not really know WHAT we are even talking about; there are currently a variety of “IQ” tests that can give different results for the same individual. A few decades ago, Howard Gardner came up with the concept of “multiple inteliigences” and more recently we have been exploring the importance of emotional and social intelligence - but how do these fit into our definition of intelligence as defined by traditional IQ tests? Is the athletic star with a lower IQ less intelligent than the math whiz with a higher IQ but who may completely lack social intelligence? </p>
<p>There is also a very real concern that IQ testing could easily be used (and has been used) to slot individuals into certain tracks (eg college vs vocational tracks) which in turn, can greatly determine (limit) one’s career selection and earning potential. In the past, we have seen class and race biases in this process and it is not at all clear to many that we have yet overcome these biases. This kind of pre-determined “biology is destiny” goes against everything we have been taught to believe about the US, as the land of opportunity where anyone can be successful and what matters is what we do with the gifts we are either born with or develop. (which is why many talented individuals - sports players, musicians, movie stars, etc -who even though they may not have been successful in school, ARE able to achieve great success using their talents. Heck, in the past we have even elected presidents who appear to be lacking in several “intelligences”!).</p>
<p>And, sadly, it seems likely that the “rocket scientist” down the street may now be more likely to produce offspring with autism/Asperger’s… ;)</p>
<p>Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times had an article that addressed this issue. (In short, the authors of the study both not Jewish, found that Jews had a greater number of inherited genetic defects such as Tay Sachs…etc. IF the offspring didn’t carry the mutated gene from mother and father it seems that the surviving children have higher IQs.) Nature…nurture? See Saturday’s Los Angeles Times.</p>
<p>Note: I do not work for the Los Angeles Times. I have no vested interest in the story. Interesting conclusions…not pc in anyway.</p>
<p>
Umm, IQ is already <em>heavily</em> selected for in all career tracks. And yes, for the vast majority of people, biology is going to be their destiny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sunnyflorida, could you please explain what you mean?</p>