yet another POLITICAL TEST

[#Oda#]

Just want to say before: I had edited my reply before I saw your post, so what you quote is a little different now in my comment.

Do you believe that IQ/Intelligence is a primarily inheritable trait?
I think this is what it all comes down to.

Yes, that‘s where all comes down, true, and not only within this issue.

If we believe that most traits are genetically determinated, then poor parents will more likely create environments that are not beneficial for their offspring, okay, and what can we do about it? Nothing, but accept that every society in human history had, has and will have a class of poor, uneducated, unabled.
There will be cases of unfortunate individuals that have potential that will never be recognized by society or their family and that potential will never be facilitated.

This maybe sounds a little cheap, but until now I follow the proposition, saying that environment and genetics in general are about 50/50 in importance, referred to the summary of traits. As to intelligence (or IQ, which is far more special and changing in measuring methods), I have on mind that it‘s somewhat different - more genetics - but it depends on which kind of intelligence you have your focus on.
I also think that there always will be a class of poorer, uneducated, unabled.

But in all honesty, in our country and education system there is everything covered to help and foster students from a less fortunate socio economic background.
.....

Just quick and short to our school system: I say, it‘s bad and hasn‘t become better during the last 40 years.

[Kess]

(Where were all your critical questions regarding the quoted study?) Not at all. This is why there is to be made an ARBITRARY selection in big numbers. In big numbers you can assume these traits to be average.

To understand the relationship between intelligence
and financial status this research analyzes publicly
available data (www.bls.gov/nls) that were gathered as
part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979
cohort (NLSY79).

The NLSY79 is a very large randomly selected
nationally representative U.S. panel survey that is
primarily funded by the government's Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The survey has questioned the same
group of young baby boomers 21 times between 1979
and 2004. Young baby boomers are individuals born
between 1957 and 1964 and are the tail end of the spike
in births that began after World War II. General details
about the survey are found in Zagorsky (1997). While
NLSY79 data start in 1979, this research focuses on the
2004 survey which contains both the latest financial data
and the first fielding of financial distress questions.
This research uses as its base 7403 respondents who
both answered the 2004 survey and have an IQ test score
from earlier rounds. In 2004 these respondents ranged in
age from 33 to 41 years old, with the average being
almost 37. The sample was split almost evenly between
men (50.7%) and women (49.3%). Like the U.S.
population, the majority of the sample was white
(79.5%) but both African-Americans (14.2%) and
Hispanics (6.3%) are represented.

⁤Random selection is better than arbitrary selection. It helps minimize bias in the results. When you choose things randomly, everyone has an equal chance of being selected, reducing the influence of personal preferences or preconceived notions. This ensures the sample reflects the actual population more accurately. The findings from a randomly selected sample can then be applied more confidently to a broader group, as the results are more generalizable. Random selection is fair as it gives everyone an equal opportunity to be chosen, which is important in research and other situations where you want to avoid giving unfair advantages.

A random sample is achieved through random selection, in which each member of the population is equally likely to be chosen as part of the sample. Let’s say we start with a population of 300 students enrolled in introductory psychology classes at a university. Assuming we want to select a random sample of 30 students, how should we go about it? We do not want to get all of the students by simply going to one 30-person section of introductory psychology because depending on the instructor and the time of day of the class, there could be biases in who registered for this section. For example, if it’s an early morning class, it could represent students who like to get up early or those who registered for classes so late that nothing else was available. Thus, these students would not be representative of all students in introductory psychology. Generating a random sample can be accomplished by using a table of random numbers, such as that provided in Appendix A (Table A.1). When using a random numbers table, the researcher chooses a starting place arbitrarily. After the starting point is determined, the researcher looks at the Descriptive Methods ■ ■ 95 number—say, a 6—counts down six people in the population, and chooses the sixth person to be in the sample. The researcher continues in this manner by looking at the next number in the table, counting down through the population, and including the appropriately numbered person in the sample. For our sample, we would continue this process until we had selected a sample of 30 people. A random sample can be generated in other ways—for example, by computer or by pulling names randomly out of a hat. The point is that in random sampling, each member of the population is equally likely to be chosen as part of the sample.

One concern is whether the group of people who participate in the study (the sample) is representative of all of the people about whom the study is meant to generalize (the population). This concern can usually be overcome through random sampling. A random sample is achieved when, through random selection, each member of the population is equally likely to be chosen as part of the sample.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.bgs.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/attachment/2017-11-30/Research%20Methods%20and%20Statistics%20by%20Sherr i%20L.%20Jackson.pdf

[rothaer]

Random selection is better than arbitrary selection. (...)

I meant random selection when I said arbitrary selection. A language issue. My bad.

[Kess]

The numbers we get from correlation range from -1 to 1. A value close to 1 suggests a strong positive relationship, meaning both variables tend to increase together. A value near -1 indicates a strong negative relationship, where one variable decreases as the other increases.

For now, I will be referring to Figure 1. The author seems to think the connection between IQ and income is weak and not worth much attention, which is a subjective opinion. Here's the thing though: the correlation coefficient for IQ and income is just below 0.3. Now, that might not sound super high, but it's actually quite notable, especially when you consider all the other factors that could influence income, which we were discussing earlier. While perfection shouldn't be expected in the figure, a discernible pattern persists, with most data points clustering relatively close to the hypothetical perfect line.

"this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after
holding a variety of factors constant."

That is countered right here.

[Aldaris]

"this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after
holding a variety of factors constant."

That is countered right here.

Man, I was referring to a different article in there. The same one I've been referring to during our whole discussion.

[Kess]

Man, I was referring to a different article in there. The same one I've been referring to during our whole discussion.

I'm confused. Can you post the article you are referring to?

[Aldaris]

I'm confused. Can you post the article you are referring to?

It's true that I was referring to multiple articles during the discussion - my bad. I meant the data you quoted in here:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7946690

I couldn't find that quote there. But it doesn't even matter. Correlation just below 0,3 is pretty high in this context either way.

[Kess]

It's true that I was referring to multiple articles during the discussion - my bad. I meant the data you quoted in here:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7946690

I couldn't find that quote there. But it doesn't even matter. Correlation just below 0,3 is pretty high in this context either way.

It simply isn't.

[CosmoLady]

I couldn't find that quote there. But it doesn't even matter. Correlation just below 0,3 is pretty high in this context either way.

It simply isn't.

Splitting hairs now? Obviously there is some connection between intelligence and income, anyone can see that.

A small tumor, a medium tumor, a large tumor, who cares?

[Mixdguy17]

Double