pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 12 Dec \ parent \ on: 25% of Americans Can Barely Read (_The Economist_) BooksAndArticles
why would those numbers change?
why would genes be less important today vs 20 years ago?
my source was Pinker's How the Mind Works which was first published in 1996
edit:
have you seen crime stats since 1960? no change in demographics
what's the probability that the effect size of whatever-studies-included-in-2002-book got the exact correct dimensions of the universe? If I tried to find a meta study of twin-separation studies from the last 5-10 years, would I get identical breakdowns?
reply
The conclusions would be the same: genes are more important than environment.
How many more studies about genes vs environment do we need?
Its not like anything additional will be ground breaking
Conclusion: basketball players are tall because they are freaks of nature. Growing up in a tall environment is immaterial
reply
not at all what I'm saying.
Discovering a fixed distance, say to the moon or sun, or length of the U.S-Canadian border doesn't require any more studies; once we've found it, it's done; let's move on.
But estimates about ephemeral relationships in the socio-biological sphere don't have that property; we can get more precise figures with additional research (larger samples, better longevity, better stats); techniques can show different results; and more importantly, reality itself can shift.
Maybe it was 50:50 at some point, maybe it's 70:30 in the modern world (information, globalization blah-blah).
So I was asking a rather simple question since you seems to have strong views on this: using that as a proxy for having-looked-into-the-weeds, are those 50:45:5 still roughly the leading estimates for nature vs nurture question?
reply