@Ali1302
“So my correlations are superficial but your correlations are always considered a causation? Were talking about the difference in IQ since IQ is highly variable during adolescence and for children socioeconomic factors could play a strong part in determining IQ.”
If my correlations are superficial, than your correlations are even more superficial. For predictive models of the SAT, you can’t just use something as narrow as income, since all the other significant variables (Mainly IQ) get absorbed by the stochastic process and bias your regression coefficients.
There is also a very low goodness-of-fit in your model for single-variate regressions.
The reason why income is not statistically significant/has no predictive power in a good model of SAT scores is because poor students with high IQs also end up with very similar SAT scores of rich kids with the same IQ. The model adapts to this discrepancy and income becomes statistically insignificant at all confidence intervals.
The correlation between SAT and income is a very shallow one, as income is a proxy variable for intelligence.
Something as complicated as SAT/IQ/intelligence prediction models is not something a common high school student should argue about, as it goes far beyond the education of a typical high schooler.
At best, high schoolers learn about simple correlations and univariate regressions in their algebra classes, but that is too simple for good models.
When you get to college, try to take a graduate-level econometrics class and you’ll understand why you are wrong.
“I don’t buy the length of maturation argument here but the fact that kids have a higher IQ than adults strongly proves the Flynn effect true. Also you say IQ becomes more genetically controlled so as to acknowledge that during adolescence and childhood IQ is highly variable due to non-genetic factors such as the environment I believe IQ is determined at this stage then stabilizes at the age of 16. This has been proven by numerous studies.”
Total intelligence as an adult = Rate of maturation multiplied by the length of maturation.
A slightly lower rate of maturation with a longer duration results in higher overall intelligence compared to a slightly faster rate of maturation but lower duration.
A 10-year-old child with a 122 IQ does not make him/her smarter than a 100 IQ 22-year-old adult. IQs are standardized to their age group. Children also take much easier intelligence exams that narrow the standard deviation of range of raw scores.
The issue is when the 100+ IQ 10-year-old stagnates at 14 while the 90-100 IQ 10-year-old continues growing well into his 20s. In adulthood, the 100+ IQ 10-year-old ends up with a 90 IQ in an adult IQ test while the 90-100 IQ child could end up with an adult IQ of 120+. This is one strong explanation for the accelerating increase in IQ gap between races as they age.
“Biggest load of rubbish ever. This is your belief/theory not fact and your example provides no strong evidence. First why would a kid from a wealthy family be adopted by poor parents? I would say this is a pretty rare, so not representative enough. Also if the kid was raised in a high income home to begin with the study is flawed. I would say your example is not representative of the general population. You cannot seriously make an argument that eliminates the environment, there are so many studies that prove the role of the environment during childhood an even a small role during adulthood that your suggestion is silly. The availability of resources, nutrition and living in a stimulating environment effect intelligence. IQ varies greatly due to the environment during adolescence and childhood and then stabilizes at the age of 16 onwards.”
Of course, almost everything in science is a theory. The only thing we argue about is which theories sound plausible.
The reason why income can’t predict SAT scores once you account for IQ is that poor children with similar IQs to rich kids end up with similar SAT scores.
Of course, if you’re then arguing that IQ is influenced by income/environment, I would say that your position is still implausible, as children who have never met their biological parents trace the SAT/IQ scores of their biological parents.
Considering the evidence, my position is more credible.
“How the hell do you know whether they do or do not try hard? Keep making stupid statements to prove your point.”
In Stuyvesant, half the Asians there like me didn’t try hard and got 2200+ on the SAT.
“Your personal beliefs=fact. It’s not the environment by the way according to you its “luck” like winning the lottery.
I can’t begin to tell you how ignorant and false a lot of your statements are but you seem to be convinced that what you believe is true so I guess there is no point telling you. Also the SAT although it strongly correlates with IQ isn’t completely determined by IQ and I supposed you used “luck” to explain this?”
My personal beliefs are shaped by rigorous empirical evidence and looking at all arguments from both sides.
You, on the other hand, only look at flawed data from Mickey Mouse studies from the anti-SAT camp that I thoroughly debunked.
People like you come up with your own theories and try to find data and studies that match your preconceived beliefs, which is why I don’t take your arguments seriously.
My way is the scientific way; your way is the backwards scientific way.
Also, the “luck” portion is part of the stochastic process of a model - Random variations. Please take a graduate-level course in statistical analysis before confronting me with flawed data from politically-charged groups.
), bad luck there but the student that won the prize only used income in his model ignoring all other socioeconomic factors aswell as cost of living. Wealth would probably have a much stronger correlation than income as proven by many studies, I wouldn’t assume either you or your friend were right here.