25 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesI also know several PhDs who play basketball, but that's because I play basketball. Is there really a stereotype? It's the first time I've heard about it!
that's the point I was trying to make.
it seems like the sports that have the most intelligent people (at least stereotypically) are often the ones that require the least amount of it. Hence my idea that there are two major "types" of intelligence. One devoted to formal systems (IQ-type), and the other devoted to rapidly making many decisions at once is sort are lacking because it might lead to taboo discussions about "racial differences".
I also think causality in the second stereotype (if true) runs the other way. Someone who is awkward in social situations will probably be more driven by introspective work and so go more into research. This may lead to more socially awkward people being into research, but not necessarily that more intelligent people are more introspective or socially awkward.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by Palynkaas I've said -- lots of questions here that would be worth looking at scientifically. What studies have been done in this area?
I also know several PhDs who play basketball, but that's because I play basketball. Is there really a stereotype? It's the first time I've heard about it!
I also think causality in the second stereotype runs the other way. Someone who is awkward in social situations will probably be more driven by introspective work and so go more into research. Th ...[text shortened]... but not necessarily that more intelligent people are more introspective or socially awkward.
Or is it taboo to conduct studies that compare IQ (or some other intelligence measure) among different groups of people? Is the whole idea of gathering IQ scores a taboo thing?
25 Sep 09
4 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo, what I'm saying has nothing to do with dealing with intelligence, but about drawing too many conclusions based on a stereotype. I'd definitely be interested in seeing such results (despite thinking IQ is a bad proxy for what I perceive as intelligence).
as I've said -- lots of questions here that would be worth looking at scientifically. What studies have been done in this area?
Or is it taboo to conduct studies that compare IQ (or some other intelligence measure) among different groups of people? Is the whole idea of gathering IQ scores a taboo thing?
PS: Fabian once accused me (and the Portuguese culture) as being misogynist because I'm open to the possibility that intelligence is not equal (on average) between men and women, due purely to the fact that the brains are typically different. It didn't seem to matter to him that I said I had no idea about which one I expected to be more intelligent. So I'm definitely not one that shies away from these issues due to PC.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by Palynkabut your anecdote does get at the problem.
No, what I'm saying has nothing to do with dealing with intelligence, but about drawing too many conclusions based on a stereotype. I'd definitely be interested in seeing such results (despite thinking IQ is a bad proxy for what I perceive as intelligence).
PS: Fabian once accused me (and the Portuguese culture) as being misogynist because I'm open to the ...[text shortened]... be more intelligent. So I'm definitely not one that shies away from these issues due to PC.
You were accused of being "misogynist" when you simply suggested that you were open-minded on this topic. Imagine the gauntlet facing someone daring to actually study it. And imagine the earthquakes should such a study find actual significant differences.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesI agree to some extent, but there are also historical cases where under the mantle of "scientific studies" a lot of racist propaganda was spread (like the infamous 'Bell Curve'😉. So I'm fine with having a bit more pressure on such studies to ensure they are indeed correct methodologically. This pressure may go to far or not, but (again) I couldn't say where we stand.
but your anecdote does get at the problem.
You were accused of being "misogynist" when you simply suggested that you were open-minded on this topic. Imagine the gauntlet facing someone daring to actually study it. And imagine the earthquakes should such a study find actual significant differences.
25 Sep 09
I read Bell Curve. The controversy that ensued from it is actually a great illustration of why researchers find it wise to avoid studying many intelligence issues.
The main point was that intelligence (as measured by IQ) was a much better predictor of various measures of "success" than things like "education" or parent's "socioeconomic status". Almost all of the studies they cited involved comparisons among different white people - deliberately avoiding the "race issue". Unfortunately the authors decided to bring up race at the very end, almost as an afterthought, and the resulting uproar distracted from what the book was really about.
I found it to be very interesting because it kind of blows up the great myths about how a "college education" by itself is this magic key to success.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesTheir methodology was too poor for any of their points to merit consideration. So it doesn't blow any myths. It's just a terrible piece of empirical analysis that would not pass peer-review.
I read Bell Curve. The controversy that ensued from it is actually a great illustration of why researchers find it wise to avoid studying many intelligence issues.
The main point was that intelligence (as measured by IQ) was a much better predictor of various measures of "success" than things like "education" or parent's "socioeconomic status". Almost ...[text shortened]... e great myths about how a "college education" by itself is this magic key to success.
25 Sep 09
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaBut it might have spawned better studies by someone else. The problem wasn't that the peers rejected it - but that the message got muddled by a lot of fuss over race.
Their methodology was too poor for any of their points to merit consideration. So it doesn't blow any myths. It's just a terrible piece of empirical analysis that would not pass peer-review.
You always hear stuff like "people who graduate from from college make $50,000 more per year than people who only graduated from high school". The assumption being that college is the full cause of this - and thus justifying the insane tuitions that colleges currently charge.
But if you were to factor out other things like a person's level of intelligence, willingness to work hard, etc - the actual benefits of college would probably turn out to be a lot less - and a lot of people might realize it's not worth paying $25,000-yr for college. And a lot of employers might be more willing to consider candidates without a full college education. Obviously, none of this would sit well with the folks who run the colleges.
I've always wondered if we wouldn't be better off if the traditional 4-yr bachelor's degree was eliminated completely and students went directly from high school to a variety of grad schools and trade schools or even directly into a career. Each of these schools would have to admit people based on specific standards - something more specific than just having served time at some university.
25 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat message? The one supported on bad empirical analysis?
But it might have spawned better studies by someone else. The problem wasn't that the peers rejected it - but that the message got muddled by a lot of fuss over race.
You always hear stuff like "people who graduate from from college make $50,000 more per year than people who only graduated from high school". The assumption being that college is the fu ...[text shortened]... ic standards - something more specific than just having served time at some university.
Anyway, you're obviously correct on the mistake that such back-of-the-envelope calculations. It's a classic case of omitted variable-bias (something that also plagued 'Bell Curve', which overestimated the importance of the 'intelligence' factor).
I'm sure there are studies out there that measured this using a more complete battery of controls. Unfortunately, I'm not a labour economist so I cannot readily name a paper, but I'm sure the ton of literature on skill-biased technological change has addressed it as it focuses on skilled/unskilled wage inequality.
25 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaBut how much of this literature has an impact on the way the average person sees things?
What message? The one supported on bad empirical analysis?
Anyway, you're obviously correct on the mistake that such back-of-the-envelope calculations. It's a classic case of omitted variable-bias (something that also plagued 'Bell Curve', which overestimated the importance of the 'intelligence' factor).
I'm sure there are studies out there that measur chnological change has addressed it as it focuses on skilled/unskilled wage inequality.
The decision of whether to send your kid to college, and how much money you're willing to spend on it, is one of the most important decisions parents have to make. If you believe that college is going to allow your child to earn an extra $50,000 per yr, you'd likely feel justified paying the tuition. But what if it was only an extra $20,000 - or just an extra $5000-yr?
What if almost all the benefits of college could be distilled into a one or two-year program? How many people would still want to pay for years three and four?
The average person isn't going to wade through the literature of labor economics - they probably wouldn't understand much of it if they did. Are there any books out there written for the common person that make a good argument as to how much a college education is actually worth?
25 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesI guess even if there are books out there, the average person won't read them anyway. Probably not a lot of fuss is being made about it because most probably it still pays to go to college. I imagine if it didn't, there would be a ton of economists writing about it as such type of anti-common sense results are very appreciated in the field.
But how much of this literature has an impact on the way the average person sees things?
The decision of whether to send your kid to college, and how much money you're willing to spend on it, is one of the most important decisions parents have to make. If you believe that college is going to allow your child to earn an extra $50,000 per yr, you'd like ommon person that make a good argument as to how much a college education is actually worth?
25 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI think a very strong case could be made for reducing the 4-yr program to only 2 yrs.
I guess even if there are books out there, the average person won't read them anyway. Probably not a lot of fuss is being made about it because most probably it still pays to go to college. I imagine if it didn't, there would be a ton of economists writing about it as such type of anti-common sense results are very appreciated in the field.
When I was in college, most majors consisted of somewhere between 30-40 credits. So that leaves 80-90 credits worth of stuff you're not majoring in. Distill that down to 20 credits or so worth of basic requirements, and you end up with 60 credits. Seems like there's a good two years worth of stuff in there that isn't going to make you any better off career-wise. I do understand that certain majors like engineering would be an exception.
But it seems that it would be even better if the various graduate schools and trade schools could just specify what courses they wanted as prerequisites and students could just take those classes. Various businesses could do likewise. This would eliminate the need to hand out diplomas - just hand out certificates for each class that was completed. It would also eliminate the need for students to be officially "accepted" to a given college. Let people just sign up for whatever class they want at whatever college they want. Charge a fee for each class.
I'd be surprised if nobody in the economics field has proposed something like this. Perhaps challenging the traditional education models is even more taboo than talking about race?