My case is that developmental, dynamical systems have evolved. We use cultural, biological, and psychological tools. Now people in lower classes have less access to cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the tests.
-
-
Where? Where is the genetic evidence that poor people are poor because they're dumb? SAT scores are achievement tests not IQ tests and don't lend credence to anything.
-
Most of what SAT scores measure is intelligence. They might even be better than IQ tests at that. Lots of evidence here, and I don't think this even includes the recent genetic association studies. Althyp has has also written some well-referenced articles.http://archive.is/ecnfW
-
The 'facts' can be explained by item analysis and selection which make up test http://construction.How does the SAT,which is an aptitude test, test 'intelligence'? Correlations with it and 'IQ' tests are built in.
-
College grades and job performance correlate at .05 6 years after college graduation. Some good predictor...
-
You can't effectively compare college grades across colleges and even across majors.
-
Here's the source. Page 4. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=marketing_papers … Thats the fact of the matter. Even then job performance and IQ correlation is low.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And the idea that intelligence doesn't help survival is crazy. Only in modern societies might it not be selected for, but that is an artifact of the welfare state and the last 150 years
-
So then if intelligence is useful in an evolutionary sense then variation in intelligence will be selected against since natural selection lowers genetic variation in traits important for survival. It
-
Intelligence is also costly and has different value in different environments. Strength is obviously a good trait for survival, too, but there's plenty of variation in it.
-
How does it have different value in different environments? The point of bringing up genetic variation is the sky-high heritability of IQ which is due to the flawed twin method. Controlled breeding studies don't show any heritability estimates that high for animals
-
Therefore it's the method we use to find the heritability that's flawed. Intelligence should have a low variation since it's a trait important for survival. See Ronald Fisher and others who have corroborated this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Genetic and Phenotypic variation in humans across the globe were established WAY before social class. Class stratification is a recent occurrence
-
I don't know what your point is, but hierarchy has always existed, even in small tribes and non-human animals.
-
Arguing against the contention that current class structure is based upon genetic "inferiority" and "superiority." Class is largely not merit-based. Before the state, social hierarchy was mainly based upon individual ability, age and sex, but now it is inherited wealth and status
-
Variation of individual ability is often inherited. It's called genetics.
-
Genes aren't the only things inherited. New definitions don't use that terminology.
-
Class is at least partly merit-based. Depending on customs of marriage & inheritance, inherited wealth usually dissipates within a few generations. Even under primogeniture, two stupid heirs in a row, or one very stupid heir, can dissipate even the vastest of inherited fortunes.
-
...And unless there's a very rigid caste system, there are always new people rising into a class. These tend to be exceptional in ambition, energy and intelligence, because these traits tend to be needed, in order to rise.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.