First, this post convinced me to become an annual subscriber. Bravo!
Second, on the Protzko paper, which I skimmed during my lunch, I wonder if I'm interpreting it correctly as follows? It's not that environmental impacts are small, they in fact can be significant, but that they don't persist once the intervention ends. Thus, for example, Head Start programs have real, measurable benefits for children but those events fade once the child exits the program. If it were possible to keep the child in Head Start programs throughout their education, those effects would be significant the entire time? Therefore, the focus on environmental impacts, since your and I can't change our genetics, should be on persistent and maintainable environmental changes.
You might compare this to a diet. As long as you're on the diet, you will remain a healthy weight. As soon as you quit the diet, you will rapidly regain weight. Therefore, the most effective diets are not those that let you lose weight most quickly but those that are most maintainable, with the ideal diet becoming infinitely maintainable and basically a lifestyle change. Or, to use classical music as a pseudo-example, it works, but it has no permanent effect, therefore you should play classical music all the time.
Also, on the Egeland paper, I really like the layout of Lakatos' system, especially the empirical parts which focus on generating real predictions. But when I started to read into the paper, it felt like sniping at other articles and scholars. The whole idea of research being derived from a central thesis or only able to be generated from a single "hard core" felt very arbitrary. However, I'm far from a specialist on these matters. I'd appreciate anyone more familiar with the field telling me whether the Lakatos system and examples brought were really useful or just kind of cover to attack other theories.
I see the point. In fact I believe academic performance is not only a IQ test, but also a test on the capacity to learn the academic knowledge, which is not exactly a IQ test.
Perhaps we can argue also that IQ tests are not very diversified, and academic performance is a more diversified and uncorrelated test ...
I believe the high correlation of 0,58 between IQ and "academic performance in primary education" is a kind of tautology because IQ test is an academic performance ...
Interesting study estimating intelligence from FMRI scans
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/412056v1
First, this post convinced me to become an annual subscriber. Bravo!
Second, on the Protzko paper, which I skimmed during my lunch, I wonder if I'm interpreting it correctly as follows? It's not that environmental impacts are small, they in fact can be significant, but that they don't persist once the intervention ends. Thus, for example, Head Start programs have real, measurable benefits for children but those events fade once the child exits the program. If it were possible to keep the child in Head Start programs throughout their education, those effects would be significant the entire time? Therefore, the focus on environmental impacts, since your and I can't change our genetics, should be on persistent and maintainable environmental changes.
You might compare this to a diet. As long as you're on the diet, you will remain a healthy weight. As soon as you quit the diet, you will rapidly regain weight. Therefore, the most effective diets are not those that let you lose weight most quickly but those that are most maintainable, with the ideal diet becoming infinitely maintainable and basically a lifestyle change. Or, to use classical music as a pseudo-example, it works, but it has no permanent effect, therefore you should play classical music all the time.
Also, on the Egeland paper, I really like the layout of Lakatos' system, especially the empirical parts which focus on generating real predictions. But when I started to read into the paper, it felt like sniping at other articles and scholars. The whole idea of research being derived from a central thesis or only able to be generated from a single "hard core" felt very arbitrary. However, I'm far from a specialist on these matters. I'd appreciate anyone more familiar with the field telling me whether the Lakatos system and examples brought were really useful or just kind of cover to attack other theories.
I see the point. In fact I believe academic performance is not only a IQ test, but also a test on the capacity to learn the academic knowledge, which is not exactly a IQ test.
Perhaps we can argue also that IQ tests are not very diversified, and academic performance is a more diversified and uncorrelated test ...
I believe the high correlation of 0,58 between IQ and "academic performance in primary education" is a kind of tautology because IQ test is an academic performance ...