Damn lies and statistics, though. Being poor does not cause lower IQ, nor does lower IQ cause you to be poor. However, you'll find a lot of lower IQ people at poverty level. You can't guarantee that any college candidate that is poor is not going to excel, so poverty, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, should have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance into any organization, assuming that everything else is equal, which it isn't. Unfortunately clothing, shared experience and knowledge, language, etc. significantly influence testing and decisions.
No, there's actually a good amount of evidence that poverty does in fact cause low IQs. For instance the divergence between the IQs of East Germans and West Germans during the partition, and the way they converged again after the Cold War.
It is true that people with low IQs will tend to become poorer (though conscientiousness is often a bigger factor), but reversion to the mean should limit the impact of that in the children of poor people.
EDIT: Here's a rather in depth article on the topic: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-...
There's tons of evidence that at a population level wealth is the main driver of IQ differences, though genetics does play a large role at the individual level.
Correlation between A and B does not imply causation from A to B, but it does imply causation there is some causation somewhere, from A to B or B to A or something more complicated. In those cases we have to step down a level and look at the particular mechanisms.
We can see some very good mechanisms for how a low IQ might cause poverty in most cases, but the specific reason I mentioned the East/West Germany situation is that it precludes any of the normal ways that people can sort themselves into poverty - it wasn't as if there was any huge migration in Germany that made all the smarter people end up on the west side of the divide. Can you provide a causal mechanism other than poverty->low IQ that could explain that?
Or how about all the immigrants from rural Ireland that had significantly lower IQs than the residents of the cities they immigrated into, but whose children and descendants had substantially the same IQs as other residents of those cities?
There's really a mountain of evidence that the causality here runs both ways.
Personally, I believe (!) in a causal chain like this: Poor people dream smaller (hopelessness,knowledge) -> less ambition (in school, career, wealth) -> less motivation (e.g. in IQ tests) -> envy -> aggression against wealthy people
Also what does "poverty" mean here? "Lack of basic resources", then practically nobody is poor in Germany due to our welfare system. Statistics use "less than 60% of average income" or something like that. Then we will never eliminate poverty, anyways.
To "solve" poverty I believe the big question is how to inspire people that it is possible to improve their situation? How to provide hope to poor people? In Germany I think it is intellectually realistic that anybody can improve, but people do not believe it. Essentially, (in the wealthy western world) poverty is not a technical problem, but rather an emotional one.
I do not care about IQ much. I do not know my own IQ. Since I am currently pursuing a PhD I am probably above average, but who really cares? Studies show that IQ predicts academic success, so it means something for high-education jobs. For creative tasks it's useless. Effectively, the IQ of a child only provides a hint about future career choices, but not about success or wealth.
First, it is indeed true that modern Germany has a fairly generous social welfare system and you could certainly argue that nobody in Germany is really poor today. But as you might know, during the Cold War Germany was partitioned into two separate countries, and while welfare programs were present back then did exist they didn't actually transfer money between the two countries. And since West Germany was much richer than East Germany, this meant that everyone in East Germany was relatively poor. Back when West Germany was much wealthier than East Germany the inhabitants had higher IQs than East Germans, but nowadays this is no longer true. Hence, evidence that wealth causes IQ differences.
Now, it might be that communism was crushing the hope of East Germans or something. That could also explain this particular difference. But we can measure social mobility and people's beliefs in social mobility across countries and see if it makes a difference. And as far as I can tell it doesn't, since social mobility and believe in social mobility are lower in most places today than they were in 1960, but the Flynn effect[1] continues to march on.
Having beliefs is nice and complex beliefs like those put us humans way above the vast majority of the lifeforms on this planet. But as someone pursing a PhD I would hope that you would examine the implications of your beliefs and test those implications against reality.
And IQ does have predictive power with respect to income[2], though not as strongly as other factors.
So the kids in the study were selected because their parents were poor, and the average IQ of the kids in the study was around 80. That certainly signals a correlation, and since these are kids and don't have agency over their economic situation, it suggests a direction of causation too.
Logically money should have no direct affect on intellectual capacity (e.g. see my other argument about taking the money away and giving it to someone else).
In this case, I think the causation is in the other direction. Over time, people with less intellectual capacity will be less successful, and therefore poorer. That is rational. The other direction is irrational.
> Logically money should have no direct affect on intellectual capacity
If intellectual capacity was purely genetic, this would make some sense. You can't buy better genes for yourself or your children. [1] However, intellectual capacity is demonstrably affected by a variety of environmental factors, including early nutrition, that themselves are strongly influenced by wealth, so we've got pretty good ideas of some of the mechanisms by which wealth influences intellectual capacity.
> In this case, I think the causation is in the other direction. Over time, people with less intellectual capacity will be less successful, and therefore poorer. That is rational. The other direction is irrational.
I think you are confusing "rationality" with fit to your preferred, non-evidence-based, model of the way the world should work.
[1] Well, except that wealth affects mate selection opportunities, so, even with purely genetic intellectual capacity, wealth could plausibly have some influence.
Where do you pull "40 point IQ difference" from? The gap between these impoverished kids and normal is only 20 points. And that is easily explainable with nutrition, stimulation, and education.
Independently, the estimated difference between average IQ in the mid-30s and today is 20 points. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect for verification. In that time period the main things that have changed are nutrition, stimulation and education.
So there you have it. Two unrelated analyses of completely different things finding that nutrition, stimulation and education can explain 20 point IQ differences between otherwise similar populations.
It depends on how you ascribe causation to hereditary factors. Does it make sense to say that a 4 year old is poor because of his low IQ? I don't think so, because a 4 year old has no agency over his economic circumstances.
Does it make sense to say that a 4 year old is poor because of his low IQ?
No.
But it does make sense to say that a 4 year old is both poor and has a low IQ because his parents do. And this applies whether you believe that his low IQ is due to heredity or a poor environment caused by his parents.
I actually don't believe at a micro-level that causation comes into play at all. I was responding to the statement that at a macro-level there is probability of causation, and it is more rational that poverty is caused by stupidity than poverty causes stupidity. The latter is nonsense.
Part of the IQ test includes vocabulary, and it's not that much of a leap to say that more highly-educated people have a broader, deeper vocabulary, even when controlled for cultural effects. A smaller vocabulary will give you a lower IQ. There are likely to be other factors affected by exposure to wider experiences than you might not get when impoverished; for example, in general, the more you handle numbers, the better you get at manipulating them.
Highly educated people might also have higher innate intelligence, which allows them to pick up words easier and develop larger vocabularies. Let's not forget that IQ has been shown to be significantly heritable by adoption studies.
Attending college increases pre-college IQ scores a mean of just under 20 points (I don't recall the precise number from the study now, I remember it was between 15 and 20). That's not "smarter people get into college" - that's before-and-after on the same subjects.
Growing up wealthy entails a lot more advantages than four years of courses, at that.
I would like to see that study if you can find it. IQ is generally believed to become more genetic (that is, environmental effects start to wear off) as people get older.
Sorry, I hit up Google Scholar trying to find it but had no luck. It's not my field of expertise, so I don't know the proper jargon to throw in to get the right search results.
I think if you take the babies of the smartest X% people in the world and raise them in poverty then yes, their average IQ will be lower than if they were raised in a middle class household.
Poverty means you have to skip meals, you can't afford books, you go to a school were there aren't enough teachers and so on... Those are all things that have an influence the intellectual development of a person.
You are confusing intelligence with intellectual capacity (IQ).
IQ is the ability for a child to do exemplary things with his/her mind.
Intelligence is building upon that.
Being poor does not make you have lower IQ, nor does it make you less intelligent. A large number of the poor have come up from the depths and are very intelligent people.
> A large number of the poor have come up from the depths and are very intelligent people.
I like to consider myself one of those people.
But I have to say, I can't imagine how my IQ would have stayed the same as I got older if I had not at least been able to eat regularly, drink clean water, make medical check-ups, etc.
I get what you have been implying, which is that a person's theoretical intellectual capability is not necessarily tied to their current intellectual capability. But the brain is an adaptive organ, not a monolith that comes out of the womb fully-formed.
It's at least possible (and likely, IMO) that there are various 'gates' in the development of the brain where if pre-requisites for development are not met, that the opportunity for that natural development gets closed off as the brain moves onto further forms of modification and maintenance of its neural net.
At some point the brain has to switch over from adolescent development to adult 'maintenance programming'. If you are resource-constrained during that adolescent phase it may be difficult to catch back up, even in a resource surplus as an adult. This would show as a lower IQ (even on an ideal IQ test), even though a higher IQ could have been achieved with proper 'care & feeding' as a child.
You don't seem like an idiot but all your comments in this thread seem to be making the same obvious error.
"Being raised in poverty" is a broad term that means all kinds of things, you seem to think it is merely a measure of wealth. This myopic view is why you're so very very wrong.
IQ not intelligence. IQ is meant to be a measure of intellectual capacity. It is nonsensical to say that someone is unable to be intelligent because they are poor.
Let's talk about intelligence, though. Lets say that everyone had the same intellectual capacity, but we still saw the same descrepancy in how well they did on standardized tests. Having little to eat and poor schools do not keep a child from learning from others. There is ready access to the internet through libraries in the U.S. with a wealth of information online, and a lot of books on the shelves there also. If you take away all genetic factors (tendency towards aggression, lower intellectual capacity, etc.) and environmental factors (is the child worried about being shot, peer pressure to join a gang or get into drugs or alcohol, etc.), then in the end it is more about parenting and community, not about poverty. If we were able to teach good parenting skills, social skills, and ethics adequately in schools, and help them develop sense of community, then many of the problems (unrelated to genetics) related to intelligence being lower would go away. I hope if anyone takes home anything from what I'm saying, it is that you can't throw money at a problem like this. Welfare can make things much worse (misusing food funds for drugs, setting up a cycle of dependence on government funds, etc.), but welfare is a perfectly logical solution to lack of money. We made that mistake before, and can't have a whole new generation of people buying into that statist crap.
However, back to the study. Genetic problems with IQ cannot be solved by money, period. Also, being poor does not make you have lower potential for intelligence. That has been my point all over this thread.
> Welfare can make things much worse (misusing food funds for drugs, setting up a cycle of dependence on government funds, etc.), but welfare is a perfectly logical solution to lack of money. We made that mistake before, and can't have a whole new generation of people buying into that statist crap.
Except that welfare actually works, and despite the fact that poor people are in general poor money managers, a marginal income that improves some environmental variables goes a lon way towards improving intelligence. Especially when it translates to greater food availability.
Food availability is a solved problem in the United States. Portraying it as a problem takes resources away from real problems which need to be solved.
If you take it merely as a question of caloric intake you're right. If you're talking about the cost of high-quality and nutrient-rich food, there's a long way to go. The massive subsidizing of junk food through corn subsidies does not help, but if you try getting those calories through vegetables and quality meat you may find it's out of reach for many people, and that does have an impact on intelligence and development, especially when those cheap calories lead to obesity, diabetes, and other complications.
Unless every fast food restaurant is outlawed and shutdown and all crap food is outlawed and removed from the shelves of every store in the U.S., you are not going to stop anyone (low income or not) from eating it.
And for those on WIC, while many crap items aren't on the WIC list, parents can still abuse it by buying things like only Cheerios for their kids to eat instead of veggies, etc. And yes, regardless of welfare, Obesity and diabetes are going to remain very common among the poor in the U.S.
...especially when those cheap calories lead to obesity, diabetes, and other complications.
If you are purchasing too many calories, you are wasting money that could be spent on veggies.
Poor parents raising their children badly is a real problem that should be solved if we want to improve the next generation. One possible solution is to constrain the food choices of the poor - replace food stamps with food boxes and fill the box with only healthy options.
This is already done through the WIC program. If you look at the shelves in the grocery store, you'll see the WIC label on certain foods. It does not stop poor food choices. The only way to make it work would be to shutdown all fast food restaurant and pull all crap off the shelves in the store, and that will never happen. Anything that can be abused to get more caloric intake for less money will be abused.
> Having little to eat and poor schools do not keep a child from learning from others. There is ready access to the internet through libraries in the U.S. with a wealth of information online, and a lot of books on the shelves there also. If you take away all genetic factors (tendency towards aggression, lower intellectual capacity, etc.) and environmental factors (is the child worried about being shot, peer pressure to join a gang or get into drugs or alcohol, etc.), then in the end it is more about parenting and community, not about poverty.
I appreciate that you are trying really hard to make an argument, but you literally have no idea what you are talking about.
I appreciate that you are trying to refute my argument, but just saying that someone does not know what they are talking about has got to be one of the least intelligent ways of doing so. Explain to me exactly how I am wrong. I see no other comments by you in this thread, so I have no idea what you are thinking. I'm not a mind reader.
This conversation is now a day old. Given current levels of attention spans, I am not sure that a response at this time would be useful, but nonetheless, you are right and I do owe you one.
First, I should point out that I speak from experience: I have been one of those poor children and have known many of them. I have experienced not having enough to eat and attended poor schools. Fortunately for me, these experiences were relatively short lived. However, because of those experiences, I retain a keen interest in the state of poverty, poor people, and how they live. Now, on to your points.
> Having little to eat and poor schools do not keep a child from learning from others. There is ready access to the internet through libraries in the U.S. with a wealth of information online, and a lot of books on the shelves there also.
Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it. The greater problem, however, is the issue of hunger; it is very hard to concentrate or develop one's self in a hungry state. Adults can, and do learn, to deal with the state of hunger but children do not. A hungry child is only interested in one thing and when the state of hunger persists, will adapt, however they must, to a life of hunger. That generally means they will make what we would consider poor choices.
> If you take away all genetic factors (tendency towards aggression, lower intellectual capacity, etc.)
Tarring poor people (or any other sort, for that matter) with some sort of genetic failing is a convenient way to explain why they are less successful than you are, but unfortunately sidesteps a whole set of other reasons (historical, social, political, geographic) than generally has a far greater impact on one's life than genes. I was born in Africa and was lucky enough to have parents who eventually ended up in the United States where I availed myself of the opportunities, etc. I am proud of my intellect and have achieved much because of it, but I would never claim that I succeeded merely because of it. I have met many smart people who were simply not as lucky as I have been to make that claim.
> and environmental factors (is the child worried about being shot, peer pressure to join a gang or get into drugs or alcohol, etc.), then in the end it is more about parenting and community, not about poverty.
Here, the combination of factors listed seem to point to an urban American child. Problem is, there are many poor children in other countries who do not face these same pressures and yet, still have the same outcomes.
Parenting helps a lot. Community helps a lot. But if the lack of them were the problem, we'd see far less poverty than we do.
I'm afraid I've gone on for too long and will have lost some readers, but I hope this better explains my earlier posting and why I claimed that you did not speak from a knowledgeable position.
> Obviously there are exceptions, but most poor schools do not have internet access for the students or computers for them. If they do have a library, it is generally inadequate and most are not encouraged to use it.
I appreciate your response, but I believe that your experience is based of your childhood in Africa. In our local county library we probably have 30-40 computers available for free internet access. This was not the case 10 years ago, so perhaps you should visit the public library in the area of the U.S. where you believe that there is a lack of internet access and I would be surprised if at least one computer is there with internet access that could be used. I would bet that there is, and I doubt people would be discouraged from using it.
> Tarring poor people (or any other sort, for that matter) with some sort of genetic failing is a convenient way to explain why they are less successful than you are...
You missed my point entirely, I'm afraid. I don't think that poverty is genetically linked to lack of success. Poverty is not genetic. What I was saying was that if you have a group of people that are less intelligent because they are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent, then that group has a greater likelihood of being less successful and therefore poorer.
> Here, the combination of factors listed seem to point to an urban American child.
Everything I've been arguing about is about the U.S. I am definitely not speaking about Africa or other parts of the world, and I'm sorry that you took it that way. I think that there are a lot of places in the world in worse condition than in the U.S. I am only making the arguments I make here because throwing money at poverty does not help. It must be applied with care and education and guidance are even more important, at least when people are willing to listen and be taught. Unfortunately, some cultures and peoples are not interested in changing.
My responses are based knowledge of poverty in many parts of the world. I mentioned my childhood in Africa because my knowledge of it is deeper than that of most people discussing the issue. In addition, as I mentioned, I have a keen interest in the topic beyond my personal experiences.
The question of why poor people don't take advantage of the amenities available to them or, in other words, pull themselves up by their bootstraps (in this case, using computers with free internet access) does come up. The answer is that some do. But it is not the solution for everyone, just as it is not the solution for the rest of society. You might and I would, but I am an exception and would not expect others to follow the same paths I have.
On the issue of genetics, I understand you to be saying that only the stupid are poor. Sorry, genetics don't work that way and poor people aren't all stupid. There is just as much variation in their ranks as in others.
In any case, I think further discussion of the topic would be unproductive so I'll stop here.
> Sorry, genetics don't work that way and poor people aren't all stupid.
If you reread what I've said in multiple places in this topic, I don't think that at all. In fact, that is why I started arguing with the initial post. To summarize:
1. Being poor does not make you stupid.
2. Giving money to the poor is best handled by an organization that can ensure the money is not being abused. In the U.S., the cost of adequate administration of aid to the poor is not possible, and they do such a poor job at it that welfare is abused to the point that it is hurtful to the poor because it keeps them down and dependent on the government or worse it keeps them using drugs. Charities such as the Catholic church which gives more money and time than any other organization including the Red Cross are better fit to do this, however the growth and acceptance of atheism/child abuse by priests/the economy/several other rights (gay right to marry, pro-choice, wanting openly-gay/female priests) issues continue to lower giving without a similarly efficient organization (nuns who work for room/board without families) getting those funds.
3. I understand that not all have the opportunities I've described (libraries, computers), and I think they should. It is more common in the U.S., and one of the main reasons it isn't used as much or in the right way is due to parenting and community. I think that we need to spend more time working on all of that, not just using the welfare system (which in the U.S. is a bureaucratic mess that is unable to effectively manage how funding is allocated).
btw- just to be clear, I think that Africa deserves a lot more aid that it is getting, and the the U.S. has a lot of areas that could use more money- one of our largest cities, Detroit, just went bankrupt. And with atheism spreading through government, entertainment, and media support, the money given by the world's largest charity, the Catholic church, has started to go down because fewer are giving, which will affect the entire world. We definitely don't need to stop giving. We need to start giving. But the progressive, statist agenda in the U.S. unintentionally adds layers and layers of bureaucracy that poorly administer this money. I would be in favor of putting more money towards U.S. teachers (which should not be tenured but should be higher paid) and education in-general, and even smart housing programs that don't colocate the poor, but not welfare.
IQ is not abstract 'perfect world' capacity. It's a reflection of how well developed your brain actually is (to the limits of what areas it can measure). Without nutrition, the brain doesn't build actual neural capacity, and the IQ is lower than well-fed peers.
Since this effect is so rapid (~100 years), it is unlikely be due to genetic changes. It's pretty clear that developmental and social factors are playing into IQ test results. Both of these are negatively affected by being born into a low income family (less access to food, learning materials, mentors, other IQ individuals, etc.).
Consider the elements of an IQ test: vocabulary, pattern recognition, mathematics, abstract logic. What kind of environment would you think is more likely to teach children the things they need to do well on an IQ test?
Nope. By "math" I was referring to number sequences (which number comes next...), as opposed to geometric patterns (which shape comes next...); by "vocab" I was referring to analogical questions (a is to b as c is to __).
If SATs are readily accepted to be affected by poverty, I fail to understand why IQ tests wouldn't be also.
Because IQ tests are administered across races, cultures, languages, education levels, and even age, and are normalized across these factors.
Obviously for vocab, a Chinese person would fail if they don't understand English, so they'd translate it. For a poor American, the vocab skills required on an IQ test are pretty basic.
Also, the modern SAT tests are stated by CollegeBoard[1] to NOT correlate to IQ anymore. They correlate to education.
You're conflating a test for knowledge vs a test for cognitive ability.
American Psychological Association, 2003
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx
"People in Western cultures, he suggests, tend to view intelligence as a means for individuals to devise categories and to engage in rational debate, while people in Eastern cultures see it as a way for members of a community to recognize contradiction and complexity and to play their social roles successfully."
"Over the past several years, Sternberg and Grigorenko also have investigated concepts of intelligence in Africa. Among the Luo people in rural Kenya, Grigorenko and her collaborators have found that ideas about intelligence consist of four broad concepts: rieko, which largely corresponds to the Western idea of academic intelligence, but also includes specific skills; luoro, which includes social qualities like respect, responsibility and consideration; paro, or practical thinking; and winjo, or comprehension. Only one of the four--rieko--is correlated with traditional Western measures of intelligence."
"They also agree with studies in a number of countries, both industrialized and nonindustrialized, that suggest that people who are unable to solve complex problems in the abstract can often solve them when they are presented in a familiar context."
"Many psychologists believe that the idea that a test can be completely absent of cultural bias--a recurrent hope of test developers in the 20th century--is contradicted by the weight of the evidence. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is one of several nonverbal intelligence tests that were originally advertised as "culture free," but are now recognized as culturally loaded."
"The researchers also claim that African IQ test scores cannot be interpreted in terms of lower intelligence levels, as these scores have different psychometric characteristics than western IQ test scores. Until now, the incomparability of Western and African IQ scores had never been systematically proven."
University of North Carolina, current curriculum
http://www.unc.edu/~rooney/iq.htm
"In school settings, psychologists often joke that IQ is what IQ tests measure. There is a lot of truth to this adage. Ideally, IQ tests sample a wide range of experiences and they measure a person’s ability to apply learned information in new and different ways. They do not measure capacity or potential. They do provide information about cognitive skills at a given point in time.
Because IQ tests chiefly measure success in school, they are value-laden. Scores provide a statistical indication of the extent to which a person has critical schools and information, but they should not be directly equated with intelligence. Test scores are a useful index of ability, but they may reflect test-taking sophistication, personality, and attitudinal characteristics as well as learned and innate ability (Plomin, 1989)."
Further Evidence That IQ Does Not Measure Intelligence
http://io9.com/5959058/further-evidence-that-iq-does-not-measure-intelligence
"But some thinkers cling to the idea that IQ measures an inborn intelligence that transcends culture and schooling. If that's true, one would expect that the most abstract, "culture free" elements of IQ testing wouldn't be subject to the Flynn Effect. But they are."
"In modern cultures, more emphasis is being placed on abstraction. Students learn algebra at an earlier age than they used to, for instance, but in addition our everyday lives are full of abstractions."
The Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, UCSD
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Cole/iq.html
"This point was made very explicitly by a Kpelle anthropological acquaintance of mine who was versed in the more esoteric aspects of Kpelle secret societies and medicine (or magic, according to American stereotypes). We had been talking about what it means to be intelligent in Kpelle society (the most appropriate term is translated as "clever"). "Can you be a clever farmer?" I asked. "No," came the reply. "You can be a hardworking farmer, or you can be a lucky farmer, but we couldn't say that someone is a clever farmer. Everyone knows how to farm. We use 'clever' when we talk about the way someone gets other people to help him. Some people always win arguments. Some people know how to deal with strangers. Some people know powerful medicine. These are the things we talk about as clever.""
Poverty Lowers IQ
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/5-5-96/povertyiq.html
"Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators."
""The study strongly suggests that economic and learning environments of the home are the most powerful predictors of racial IQ differences in 5-year-olds," said Brooks-Gunn."
Book Review
http://bryanappleyard.com/flynns-iq/
"Human potential at birth is unchanged; we are not, in any fundamental sense, becoming a smarter species. But the way we live has changed. IQ tests were first established in the 19th century at a time when daily life was concrete and practical. The tests, however, had to be abstract to make them culturally neutral. People, therefore, found them harder because they were unaccustomed to such modes of thought."
"People became better at IQ tests and, steadily, the scores rose. So IQ scores are meaningless unless their date and social norms are taken into account."
(Note that this is a review of a book authored by James R Flynn, the discoverer of the Flynn Effect in IQ measurements. Previous HN commentary on this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4461038)
--
I could pretty easily come up with a lot more like this. Or, you could strike up a conversation with HN user tokenadult, who is knowledgeable on the subject.
Either way, IQ tests are readily accepted now not to be a test for cognitive ability, and more researchers are adopting the view that it is impossible to separate cultural and environmental influences (and thus knowledge) from any other innate factors in IQ tests.
You really shouldn't assume that the people you're talking to don't know what they mean.
you are proving him right by copy and pasting results of a google trawl without any analysis or apparent understanding. "IQ tests are readily accepted now not to be a test for cognitive ability" is a bizarrely strong claim and so is the idea that it is "impossible to separate cultural and environmental influences". I think it's pretty clear that you are just looking for material to support pre-existing assumptions.
Is the concept of 'causes' so hard? Severe lack of money, over a period of years, causes bad nutrition which causes development to be impaired.
This causation takes time.
The amount of money at a specific moment is meaningless because it's 0% of the experimental window. Look at the average and compare it to food and necessity prices.
In other words, do I think the removal of something posited to be developmentally advantageous would lower IQ after the developmental period had passed?
"This is a population who is in need of early identification and support services. Consistent with previous research, our data suggest that children who grow up in low income households and who have experienced neglect are at risk for difficulties with cognitive and academic achievement. The importance of these findings cannot be overstated given that appropriate early assessments and interventions may help change developmental trajectories and long-term outcomes."
Pretty sure growing up in poverty can negatively influence access to mentally stimulating things. Not saying that the number on the bank account directly influences IQ, but tackling poverty would probably have ripples in the school system too.
This is going in a bad direction for sure now, but here is this thing:
Some people, regardless of race, have lower intellectual capacity. That is what IQ tests try to measure, but fail to do completely because a lot is still based on education and experience that is difficult to factor out of the tests.
A greater number of those people that have less intellectual capacity are not going to be as financially successful. Unless you just make them. And that "making" them is as temporary as the funds that keep going to them. That is NOT to say that we should not feed the poor and hungry. We should! And, we should try to educate them more, because they need more help. However, that is charity. People deserve love, food, and shelter. But, we are not able to "bring up" people to a level that cannot be sustained because they don't have the intellectual capacity. That is why welfare fails and is taken advantage of. Unless you have some sort of medicine or medical treatment that can make people with less intellectual capacity have greater intellectual capacity to even everyone out, then it should be considered charity to help the poor- not some sort of way to make everyone smarter.
I get your point, I just don't think that "intellectual capacity" is really the limiting factor here. Education is a place where we really can make the pie bigger for everyone I think. And economics isn't zero-sum, we can at least try to make sure people can have 3 meals a day.
Also, I'm not completely convinced of the amount of importance of intellect by birth. But that's more of an opinion I hold, I have no evidence to back it up.
Except that intellectual capacity is evidently not the main factor in determining the poverty level of people; it's certainly among one of the variables, but the fact that poor people are better off in some systems and countries rather than others and social mobility also varies substantially, it means that there's a ton of things that can work as government policy to improve the situation.
Can't agree more with your first sentence and it's very depressing.
Relatives purchased tickets for a show for me and my son to go to featuring fighting robots. He was extremely stimulated by it, not surprisingly, and I so want to capture that enthusiasm towards some engineering (make a robot).
Without the wealthier relatives that stimulation wouldn't have been there. Without wealthier parents he's not going to (in short term at least) have access to resources to develop towards the potential educational outcomes from that experience.
Taking a world view we must be in the top reaches of wealth too I'd imagine. Sad.
