Comments on: Deconstructing nature-vs-nurture charts http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: alibeamish http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6289 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:38:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6289 Taller people earn more. so do attractive people. Also physics professors make less than sucessful builders or salesmen, though not higher in IQ.

]]>
By: Jon H http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6269 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:04:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6269 Is age at adoption considered? I’d think there’d be a possibility of subtle long-lasting psychological issues with a child adopted after infancy, especially if they bounced among foster parents.

Self-confidence might be lower, for instance.

]]>
By: Brad Ford http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6234 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:45:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6234 My neighbors adopted a little girl knowing she would never work or live independantly. No amount of nuture was ever going to overcome her severe disabilities.

While nurture certainly matters, it cannot compensate for nature’s victims. If the number of adoptees in the sample who are “special needs” children outnumber the number of “special needs” children in the non-adoptee sample, it could dramatically impact the numbers in the chart.

]]>
By: Dave http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6219 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:29:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6219 Again? Nurture beats nature as was proven long ago (Lerner, Lowe 1953)

]]>
By: Alex Tabarrok http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6215 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:38:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6215 Felix, look at the graph carefully! Mike’s revisions make the difference in the income effect on biological versus adopted children even *larger*. Note that across the range the income of biological children triples, from 30k to nearly 90k, while that of adopted children increases negligibly from 50k to 60k.

Mike also doesn’t seem to know that there are dozens of studies with different data from different countries showing the same thing – I just picked a particularly easy study to understand.

]]>
By: drewbie http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6214 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:37:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6214 Reading some of the comments on the links, I’m surprised at how many people equate IQs with being smart. The IQ is a measure of an individual’s ability to learn. A hard working student with a lower IQ will be much more successful in school and life than a lazy student who could learn easily with a little effort.

]]>
By: dvictr http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6205 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:21:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6205 the way i understand economics, being ‘well off’ has more to do with propensity to save than a persons’ intelligence quotient.

the pelosi liberal types want to feed you that nickel and dimed poo with an arogance of eugenics. hard work still pays off. stop having kids and eating mcdonalds- too expensive, a box of pasta still cost less than a buck

]]>
By: Jim http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6197 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:52:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6197 This gets me thinking about genetics and income distribution…

Here’s a question for folks in favor of uber-progressive tax regimes to level the income/wealth playing field.

Let’s say the amount of genetic “IQ” material is fixed for all of society and that genetics advances have made it easy to identify and allocate IQ genes.

Question: Would you support an IQ tax of, say 5%, that takes a little IQ (eg genetic material) from folks with the best IQ genetics to help out those that are less fortunate? (Just for fun, assume that taking the genetic material from the “haves” makes them 5% less smart.)

Jim

]]>
By: Tyler Cowen http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/comment-page-1/#comment-6194 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:36:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/02/deconstructing-nature-vs-nurture-charts/#comment-6194 Felix, that was Alex’s post, not mine…

]]>