A lot of actor’s have children that grow up to be actors because they hung out with actors growing up. A lot of politicians have children who grow up to be politicians because they hung out with politicians growing up. A lot of ex-convicts have children that grow up to be ex-convicts because they hung out with ex-convicts growing up. Access to resources, or lack of them, seem to have a huge impact on human potential. I often wonder how many of our characteristics are truly innate, and not just learned or trained. Nature or Nurture? An argument for nature undercuts the idea that education and good opportunities should be made available to everyone.
I often wonder how many of our characteristics are truly innate, and not just learned or trained.
In the case of IQ this has been well established. There’s some variance due to nurture, but the bulk of it is nature. For example, very young children adopted by high IQ couples, and raised with a focus on intellectual matters, still demonstrate an IQ much closer to that of their lower-IQ biological mother than to that of their adoptive parents.
This isn’t to say that being raised by high IQ parents has no consequences. These children learn several personal and cultural skills in an environment that nurtures their abilities, and therefore manage to, for example, obtain a bachelor’s degree with a much higher likelihood than average for for their origin groups, meaning their Big 5 “Conscientiousness” trait did grow remarkably.
In terms of their raw IQ, though, other than the increase due to better nutrition, no, nurture has no effect, unfortunately.
An argument for nature undercuts the idea that education and good opportunities should be made available to everyone.
Not really. And “is” doesn’t determine an “ought”. It can easily be argued, to the contrary, that precisely because low IQ individuals need more institutional support compared to high IQ individuals, they should receive a much better tailored education and much better vocational opportunities, as high IQ individuals are much more likely to solve what they need solved on their own without, or with bare minimum, external aid.
That’s not entirely true. Whether or not something “is” known to work or to fail often determines whether you “ought” to do it.
The IQ research cuts against the grain of our culture’s belief in equality and hard work, so nobody really likes it and even mentioning IQ in many contexts is socially dangerous. However, the IQ research is generally considered to be the strongest and most conclusive body of evidence in the social sciences. Trying to equalize the effects of IQ using education doesn’t work.
Whether or not something “is” known to work or to fail often determines whether you “ought” to do it.
Not at all. Knowing that doing X causes Y only informs that if you want result Y, the way to achieve that is by doing X. It doesn’t tell you whether Y is desirable or not.
Hence, if a society wants maximum productive efficiency, and allocating more resources to their most intelligent members is the most effective way to achieve that, then yes, allocating more resources for them, and less for less gifted individuals, is the way to go. On the flip side, if a society wants, let’s say, to maximize equality of outcomes among its members, then they’ll completely ignore that means, and look for the method that will provide that outcome.
The decision about the “ought”, then, is what truly determines which “is” will be chosen, not the other way around.
That’s true, but in the actual case society(1) wants to maximize equality of outcomes among its members, and we’ve spent decades looking for a method that will provide that outcome, and nothing we’ve come up with works(2). You might think we “ought” to be doing that, but the judgement is now between “we should continue to pursue this value, knowing that it’s never worked before and we have no reason to believe that it will start working any time soon” and “we should pursue other values that seem to be achievable”—which is a very different judgement.
(1) or the segment thereof that controls education policy
(2) There are a lot of marginal claims of questionable statistical and practical significance that never seem to scale up, but “nothing works” is a reasonable summary.
A lot of actor’s have children that grow up to be actors because they hung out with actors growing up. A lot of politicians have children who grow up to be politicians because they hung out with politicians growing up. A lot of ex-convicts have children that grow up to be ex-convicts because they hung out with ex-convicts growing up. Access to resources, or lack of them, seem to have a huge impact on human potential. I often wonder how many of our characteristics are truly innate, and not just learned or trained. Nature or Nurture? An argument for nature undercuts the idea that education and good opportunities should be made available to everyone.
In the case of IQ this has been well established. There’s some variance due to nurture, but the bulk of it is nature. For example, very young children adopted by high IQ couples, and raised with a focus on intellectual matters, still demonstrate an IQ much closer to that of their lower-IQ biological mother than to that of their adoptive parents.
This isn’t to say that being raised by high IQ parents has no consequences. These children learn several personal and cultural skills in an environment that nurtures their abilities, and therefore manage to, for example, obtain a bachelor’s degree with a much higher likelihood than average for for their origin groups, meaning their Big 5 “Conscientiousness” trait did grow remarkably.
In terms of their raw IQ, though, other than the increase due to better nutrition, no, nurture has no effect, unfortunately.
Not really. And “is” doesn’t determine an “ought”. It can easily be argued, to the contrary, that precisely because low IQ individuals need more institutional support compared to high IQ individuals, they should receive a much better tailored education and much better vocational opportunities, as high IQ individuals are much more likely to solve what they need solved on their own without, or with bare minimum, external aid.
And “is” doesn’t determine an “ought”.
That’s not entirely true. Whether or not something “is” known to work or to fail often determines whether you “ought” to do it.
The IQ research cuts against the grain of our culture’s belief in equality and hard work, so nobody really likes it and even mentioning IQ in many contexts is socially dangerous. However, the IQ research is generally considered to be the strongest and most conclusive body of evidence in the social sciences. Trying to equalize the effects of IQ using education doesn’t work.
Not at all. Knowing that doing X causes Y only informs that if you want result Y, the way to achieve that is by doing X. It doesn’t tell you whether Y is desirable or not.
Hence, if a society wants maximum productive efficiency, and allocating more resources to their most intelligent members is the most effective way to achieve that, then yes, allocating more resources for them, and less for less gifted individuals, is the way to go. On the flip side, if a society wants, let’s say, to maximize equality of outcomes among its members, then they’ll completely ignore that means, and look for the method that will provide that outcome.
The decision about the “ought”, then, is what truly determines which “is” will be chosen, not the other way around.
That’s true, but in the actual case society(1) wants to maximize equality of outcomes among its members, and we’ve spent decades looking for a method that will provide that outcome, and nothing we’ve come up with works(2). You might think we “ought” to be doing that, but the judgement is now between “we should continue to pursue this value, knowing that it’s never worked before and we have no reason to believe that it will start working any time soon” and “we should pursue other values that seem to be achievable”—which is a very different judgement.
(1) or the segment thereof that controls education policy
(2) There are a lot of marginal claims of questionable statistical and practical significance that never seem to scale up, but “nothing works” is a reasonable summary.