10 ms·

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). I

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.

rayiner 13y ago
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.
- bittired 13y ago
  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.
- btilly 13y ago
  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.
JshWright 13y ago
How could it not have an impact on intellectual capacity? Good nutrition, stimulation, and education are all important during development. This things are all much easier to access when you have more money.
- bittired 13y ago
  > Good nutrition, stimulation, and education are all important during development. But not so important that they would have a 40 point IQ difference. If it is, show me the studies confirming that.
  - Steko 13y ago
    Did you just pull "40 points" out of thin air because there are plenty of studies showing economic causes for smaller differences?
  - mkessy 13y ago
    I'm sorry, but you need to do the basic research yourself. It has been consistently shown in the science. Here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14599 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14599 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_poverty#Developed_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_poverty#Developed_countri... Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/poverty-impact-children-study http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/poverty-impact... I could go on for some time...
  - nullc 13y ago
    If your nutrition is poor enough you will be dead. It is well established that dead people necessarily have low IQs. Q.E.D.
  - btilly 13y ago
    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. To start look at http://www.thewayforwardproject.org/file_uploads/Gen10%20IQ%20of%20children%20growing%20up%20in%20children's%20homes.pdf http://www.thewayforwardproject.org/file_uploads/Gen10%20IQ%... for a meta analysis of thousands of studies finding that the IQ difference between growing up in an orphanage and foster care averaging 20 points. Independently, the estimated difference between average IQ in the mid-30s and today is 20 points. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect 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.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> 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.

rayiner 13y ago

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.

bittired 13y ago
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.
btilly 13y ago
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.

JshWright 13y ago

How could it not have an impact on intellectual capacity? Good nutrition, stimulation, and education are all important during development. This things are all much easier to access when you have more money.

bittired 13y ago
> Good nutrition, stimulation, and education are all important during development. But not so important that they would have a 40 point IQ difference. If it is, show me the studies confirming that.
- Steko 13y ago
  Did you just pull "40 points" out of thin air because there are plenty of studies showing economic causes for smaller differences?
- mkessy 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but you need to do the basic research yourself. It has been consistently shown in the science. Here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14599 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14599 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_poverty#Developed_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_poverty#Developed_countri... Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/poverty-impact-children-study http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/poverty-impact... I could go on for some time...
- nullc 13y ago
  If your nutrition is poor enough you will be dead. It is well established that dead people necessarily have low IQs. Q.E.D.
- btilly 13y ago
  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. To start look at http://www.thewayforwardproject.org/file_uploads/Gen10%20IQ%20of%20children%20growing%20up%20in%20children's%20homes.pdf http://www.thewayforwardproject.org/file_uploads/Gen10%20IQ%... for a meta analysis of thousands of studies finding that the IQ difference between growing up in an orphanage and foster care averaging 20 points. Independently, the estimated difference between average IQ in the mid-30s and today is 20 points. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect 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.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> 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.