Slashdot Mirror
Genes Don't Just Predict Intelligence, But Also How Well You Do In School
sciencehabit writes: If you sailed through school with high grades and perfect test scores, you probably did it with traits beyond sheer smarts. A new study of more than 6000 pairs of twins finds that academic achievement is influenced by genes affecting motivation, personality, confidence, and dozens of other traits, in addition to those that shape intelligence (abstract). The results may lead to new ways to improve childhood education.
That's because cultural context is impossible to escape, not because intelligence is a meaningless concept. It is, for instance, very very difficult to compare the Euro and the Dollar in value terms: one Euro will buy more in some countries than in others, one Dollar will buy more in some states than in others, and the quoted international exchange rate is subject to major fluctuations that have nothing to do with the relative value of the currencies per se. But that doesn't make "money" a meaningless concept. Equally, you may not be able to give the same IQ test to people in two widely separated cultures, but you can sure give each of them an IQ test for their own culture and measure their intelligence. Your remaining problem is just to figure out the "exchange rate" between the IQ points in each group, which may be very hard indeed if the cultures are so different, but it remains a measurement problem and doesn't become some deep conceptual hurdle over whether or not intelligence even exists.
How often do twins have different socio-economic backgrounds?
Almost every time they're adopted by different families?
Most twin studies are done on adopted children for exactly that reason, to check the influence of non-genetic factors (e.g. socioeconomic background). There are a large number of such studies in Sweden, because their policies lead to an especially high number of split-twin adoptions.
The article is misleading as all fuck.
Motivation is hormonal: extra testosterone will lead a man to develop more as a jock, trying to impress women, perhaps going onto the football team, whatever. Different balances of various hormones and different sensitivities of neural receptors will, likewise, lead a man to seek to impress his peers (and women) by feats of intelligence; or lead a man to seek any other thing he wants--not just women--by sheer exertion of effort.
In other words: shit is hard, and your mood-influencing biochemical factors will manipulate how much you value an outcome, and thus how much effort you're willing to invest. More value means more effort, and more effort means better results. That's motivation.
Accepting that and then quickly setting it aside as assumption, we don't get "genetic factors for intelligence". Everyone is exactly as intelligent as a human, unless they're brain damaged by disease or defect. Any child, any adult, properly motivated, with proper practice and effort, can be a genius. It is just that simple.
The human memory works by association. Some folks have obscenely good natural memories; they often develop strategies or possess involuntary synesthesias which associate information in unusual ways--numbers to shapes and ideas, sounds to colors, and so on. Others achieve and even surpass the same memories as these people by employing mnemonics strategies to mimic and improve upon these natural talents and defects (synesthesia can be interesting and useful, but also debilitating--a strong synesthete can get a lot of visual imagery when reading, and thus not understand wtf is being said).
Because the human memory works by association, it becomes easier to know more when you know a lot already. If I were to teach your kids hard-core botany, they would be confused as living hell; but I could teach them to grow plants from seed, and teach them the same botanical principles. I could teach them how a plant seed germinates by releasing water-soluble enzymes to break down starch into sugars, illustrating this by breaking open a grain of flour and corn and by growing a seed. I could teach them about the plant's nutrient needs and biochemical processes, showing how it changes colors and becomes sick as I remove various nutrients from its soil or hydroponics feed. They would see and understand the plant, and come to know about its basic processes.
Just as I could use a graphical and demonstrative guide to teach your kids complex biological concepts, I could use their new knowledge of those concepts to teach them deeper and more complex topics. Similarly, I could use your worldly knowledge to teach you much more complex things--they would make sense to you because of all the things you already know. This is how memory works; and learning is memory, for you cannot understand what you don't know, and you cannot know what you don't remember.
The question is: are your kids interested in the growth of seeds? If so, are they interested in all this technical bullshit about amylase enzymes and photosynthesis and the potassium cycle and nitrogen fermentation? If they aren't sufficiently motivated, it will be hard to get them to learn; that doesn't mean they're stupid, but that they don't fucking care.
Building on these base concepts, we have mnemonics (the mind palace, the mnemonic major system, the Person-Action-Object system, acrostics, acronyms) and study methods (SQ3R, SQW3R). By using study methods like SQW3R, a student can strongly learn new textbook information in less time.
The method of SQW3R is to Survey, Question, Write, Read, Recite, Review (would that we could reverse those last two--Survey, Question, Write, Read, Review, Recite; but Recite before Review, or forget what you once knew): survey the topics, headings, the summaries, the graphics; create questions from this material; write down questions and minor notes about what you know and want to know; read, considering the questions as you read;
Support my political activism on Patreon.