IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education. It also turns out to be quite stable... and doesn't really go up if somebody goes all the way to a bachelor's degree.
This means that your education excuse either isn't true at all (most likely) or that it has really, really important, huge, big, great confounders (highly unlikely).
Your height figure tells me that there really isn't much of a height difference between whites and blacks in the US. There is a clear (but small) height difference between age cohorts but it is utterly dwarfed by the differences between age cohorts in South Korea and Japan (and by the height differences between North Korea and South Korea).
This means that your nutrition excuse either isn't true at all (most likely) or that it has really, really important, huge, big, great confounders (highly unlikely).
Or maybe Watson was on to something, whether we like or not. You clearly don't, I don't either, and I am pretty sure Watson doesn't like it one bit either.
> IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education.
That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11. I've personally seen kids reading books independently at the age of two (because their parents taught them, not because their genes made them know how to read). Yes, black two year olds can do this too: https://abc7ny.com/2-year-old-mensa-american-kashe-quest-iq-.... By the time they're 11, they're doing college level mathematics. The intelligence gap is vast versus cousins who were not brought up the same way.
Even today, black children have higher childhood exposure to lead and higher incidence of iodine deficiency, both of which have large impacts on IQ. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33394180/
Despite the strong evidence against it, white men (like you and Watson) are much more likely to believe in large genetic differences in intelligence by race, and that is either due to genetic mental deficiency among white men (highly unlikely) or racism in developmental environment (most likely).
> That's utter nonsense that children have not had much education at the age of 10-11.
In that case, the IQ measured later, say at 30, should be very different from the IQ measured at age 10-11. It isn't, though...
It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though.
> It should also go up (a lot) if the kid ends up with lots of education compared to a child with the same childhood score that doesn't end up with lots of education. It doesn't, though.
Of course it does. Did you fail to verify your claim prior to making it because of genetic mental deficiency (highly unlikely) or due to environmental racism leading you to believe that it couldn't be possible (most likely).
> each additional year of mediocre classroom education is worth ~5 IQ points.
"we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education"
1-5 is not 5. Besides, it is contradicted by the Lothian Birth-Cohort Studies (and many others).
You should not misrepresent your sources. On the other hand, it is good you have started citing real research instead of Mother Jones. Ritchie is a real, serious researcher, whether he is right in this case or not.
You failed to understand the study. The 1 case is the marginal effect of a year of education on students who were about to drop out of school, which is a very special type of unmotivated population. 5 is for an additional year of compulsory "mediocre classroom" education on the entire population of students. Is your failure to understand due to genetic inability (highly unlikely) or due to your strong priors influenced by racism in development environment forcing you to conjure up a favorable interpretation for your argument (much more likely)?
The Lothian Birth-Cohort studies were not designed to measure genetic differences in mental ability by race nor to measure the impact of education on mental ability, and your article does not claim it was nor draw any conclusions in that regard. It merely shows a correlation of 0.66 between mental ability at age 11 vs. age 79, which leaves a lot of variability to be explained by environment after age 11. Multiple studies have shown that intentional changes in educational environment cause large differences, with Bloom's 1-on-1 educational coaching causing the largest differences of two entire standard deviations, the difference between median and genius ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothian_birth-cohort_studies
IQ can be measured quite well at the age of 10-11, before the children have had much education. It also turns out to be quite stable... and doesn't really go up if somebody goes all the way to a bachelor's degree.
This means that your education excuse either isn't true at all (most likely) or that it has really, really important, huge, big, great confounders (highly unlikely).
Your height figure tells me that there really isn't much of a height difference between whites and blacks in the US. There is a clear (but small) height difference between age cohorts but it is utterly dwarfed by the differences between age cohorts in South Korea and Japan (and by the height differences between North Korea and South Korea).
This means that your nutrition excuse either isn't true at all (most likely) or that it has really, really important, huge, big, great confounders (highly unlikely).
Or maybe Watson was on to something, whether we like or not. You clearly don't, I don't either, and I am pretty sure Watson doesn't like it one bit either.