[dwater]

"Education only camouflages stupidity, it does not remove it."

You are arguing that low intelligence is innate, unchangeable. Which sounds very much like saying stupidity is genetic.

[dennis_jeeves2]

Yes, it is innate, with a high degree of heritability. No one questions physical traits are innate, but some how when it comes to IQ it become highly contested...

Why, do think otherwise?

[tptacek]

You are using the word "heritable" as evidence for the "innateness" of a trait. "Innate" can mean multiple things, but the implication here is that it implies genetic determinism. Heritability statistics do not establish genetic determinism and, for intelligence, there's now substantial evidence in the other direction.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>You are using the word "heritable" as evidence for the "innateness" of a trait.

Hmm... not quite... ( 2 different things with overlaps, and remember I never used the term genetic)

>there's now substantial evidence in the other direction.

Links, please. ( would be surprised if it overturned all past observations)

[tptacek]

Before I do that, can you confirm for me what you believe "heritability" to mean?

[dennis_jeeves2]

Heritability: Black kid born to black parents. The blackness is heritable

Innate: Albino kid born to black parents ( mutation, etc..) So here Albinism is innate to kid but not inherited.

That's a black and white definition ( for the sake of conversation). There can be intermediate states. For example even if the kid's skin is black there can be variation in skin tone, so slight mutation, but still largely inherited.

[tptacek]

Heritability is the ratio of genetic variance to phenotypical variance. How heritable do you think the number of fingers on your hand is?

[paulryanrogers]

Trying to quantify genetics and intelligence is fraught because of history and ethics. We cannot put one twin in a box of food and water and the other in schools of varying quality. We also cannot clone Einstein and put them in various schools then test them.

Everyone has to live and grow within unjust societies. Some groups will suffer from racism, others may benefit. So it's going to be hard to prove much of anything without a lot of twins and decades of natural experiments.

The eugenics movements and Nazi experiments have also made the whole subject taboo.

Finally IQ is quite arbitrary and the tests evolve over time too.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>The eugenics movements and Nazi experiments have also made the whole subject taboo.

I know this.

>Finally IQ is quite arbitrary and the tests evolve over time too.

The IQ test may be flawed, but is the concept flawed?

Can you see any downside in not acknowledging differing intelligence among individuals?

(we know the downside of acknowledging it - right from the Natzis, to individuals who may not try hard enough to achieve something)

And oh well - there are both twin studying and studies on kid adopted by their non-biological parent. Given the taboo, it may not be easy to find them.