Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Plainly untrue; the total wealth of the world was less than half what it is today one human lifespan ago. The vast majority of the world's wealth must be the result of income.

    Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all. Income which is related to what class you are born into.

    If it was easy to escape poverty, then we would see wealth become more evenly distributed. This does not happen.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    That's broadly the opposite conclusion to empirical twin studies. Heritability of adult IQ seems to be 50-100%.
    Heritability does not equal genetics. Richard Bentall in "Doctoring the Mind" (referring to a paper by Turkheimer) points out that heritability of IQ is higher in wealthier families and lower in poorer families. Which is the opposite of what you would expect if intelligence was genetic.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    This is less well supported than IQ at least because there is no clear way of measuring personality traits. But personality-related outcomes (criminality, obesity, propensity to be long-term employer, etc.) track IQ with a high correlation constant.
    They also track with poverty. Its well known that poverty adversely affects intellectual development
    http://www.ioe.ac.uk/64555.html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8560214
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its also well known that poverty adversly affects mental health and poor people are more likely to suffer from psychosis (longitudinal studies having demolished the social drift hypothesis).

    No, you're arguing against the evidence for political reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all. Income which is related to what class you are born into.
    Clearly not if you move class. And it's exactly related to what you said because you said wealth, not income.

    If it was easy to escape poverty, then we would see wealth become more evenly distributed. This does not happen.
    Not necessarily, it would only require that rich people also become poor sometimes. And this does happen also.

    Heritability does not equal genetics. Richard Bentall in "Doctoring the Mind" (referring to a paper by Turkheimer) points out that heritability of IQ is higher in wealthier families and lower in poorer families. Which is the opposite of what you would expect if intelligence was genetic.
    Why would we expect heritability of IQ to be higher for rich people than poor people if it were genetic? Surely it just would be the same.

    I think this evidence is fairly clear that IQ is significantly heritable with some environmental impact that is only very significant at extremely low levels of income (ie. low enough that there is not a stable food supply). Twin studies within "normal" first world families have shown little or no difference.

    They also track with poverty. Its well known that poverty adversely affects intellectual development
    http://www.ioe.ac.uk/64555.html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8560214
    The first study just assumes achievement differences are environmental and reasons backwards, the second is talking about a third world country.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by College_Dropout)
    Use less electric
    No mobile
    No bus
    No toiletries
    The question was if you can live off £53, not if you can live off £53 while maintaining luxurys.
    You have to have a mobile for employers to phone you, or at least a landline which can be more expensive. You would also probably need internet to look for jobs.
    Carrying shopping for miles while walking is going to be pretty difficult. Particularly if it's raining. Also to the job centre, and to job interviews. You're not going to get the job if you turn up soaking wet. A decent umbrella can cost around £10...
    Toiletries are essential. Unless you think that a job is going to be given to the person with greasy hair who smells because they can't wash. Or a woman who would have to spend 5 days a month on the loo/in the shower or whatever while she has a period because sanitary products are classed as toiletries (and they're also pretty expensive and have VAT on them, although not at the full rate). And you can get quite cheap toiletries in some places but using a sub-standard shampoo often means you have to wash your hair twice as often which means you'd probably have been better off buying the expensive stuff, if you get a cheap soap you'll probably have to supplement it with a moisturiser or have your skin crack and get sore because it's really dry...

    I don't think you know what a luxury is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Clearly not if you move class. And it's exactly related to what you said because you said wealth, not income.


    Not necessarily, it would only require that rich people also become poor sometimes. And this does happen also.
    If what you say is true, we would still expect wealth to become more evenly distributed, but what we actually see is it being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    Why would we expect heritability of IQ to be higher for rich people than poor people if it were genetic? Surely it just would be the same.
    Exactly.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    I think this evidence is fairly clear that IQ is significantly heritable with some environmental impact that is only very significant at extremely low levels of income (ie. low enough that there is not a stable food supply). Twin studies within "normal" first world families have shown little or no difference.
    Not true. Longitudinal studies have shown that poverty adversely affects IQ. Its also known that emotional factors influence IQ. None of this is particularly controversial.



    (Original post by Observatory)
    The first study just assumes achievement differences are environmental and reasons backwards, the second is talking about a third world country.
    You haven't even read the studies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: the influence of social and family risk factors.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8436039

    Intelligence Quotient Scores of 4-Year-Old Children: Social-Environmental Risk Factors
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...79/3/343.short

    Brooks-Gunn, J, Klebanov, P, & Duncan, G 1996, 'Ethnic differences in children's intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics', Child Development, 67, 2, pp. 396-408

    Gottlieb, G, & Blair, C 2004, 'How early experience matters in intellectual development in the case of poverty', Prevention Science, 5, 4, pp. 245-252




    Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)

    Turkheimer, E, Haley, A, Waldron, M, D'Onofrio, B, & Gottesman, I 2003, 'Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children', Psychological Science, 14, 6, pp. 623-628, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 April 2013.








    There's loads of studies that show the adverse effects of poverty on intelligence. As I said, this is not remotely controversial, its well established in psychology.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    100% no way I could live off £53 a week.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    5 grams of heroin, a can of Dr. Pepper and a pot noodle.
    Ask the shop to fill the pot noodle up for you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Let's be honest, the '£53 a week' isn't £53 at all.

    1. The bottom rate of JSA is now £56.25.

    2. Once you sign on, you also qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit and free NHS prescriptions/dental care.

    The '£53 a week' is just what the claimant receives in cash, when in reality it's far higher. If I didn't have to worry about rent, council tax and healthcare then '£53 a week' is easy - I was on less than £30 a week in my second year of uni, '£53 a week' would have been lovely.

    No doubt I'll be negged to hell and back for pointing this out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What's wrong with walking or maybe save up for a bicycle.
    (Original post by james1211)
    Depends. Stuff like the bus can get very expensive.

    A bus pass for a week for me is £20.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JJMS)
    5 grams of heroin, a can of Dr. Pepper and a pot noodle.
    Ask the shop to fill the pot noodle up for you.
    5 grams of heroin is about £250
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    Let's be honest, the '£53 a week' isn't £53 at all.

    1. The bottom rate of JSA is now £56.25.

    2. Once you sign on, you also qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit and free NHS prescriptions/dental care.

    The '£53 a week' is just what the claimant receives in cash, when in reality it's far higher. If I didn't have to worry about rent, council tax and healthcare then '£53 a week' is easy - I was on less than £30 a week in my second year of uni, '£53 a week' would have been lovely.

    No doubt I'll be negged to hell and back for pointing this out.
    Water, gas, electric, telephone, public transport, clothes, shoes...

    It can be done for a short while. Its easier to do when there is an end in sight (like being a student). Living on that little for months, a year, two years with no end in sight?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathslive101)
    What's wrong with walking or maybe save up for a bicycle.
    It would take me an hour and a half to walk and a bicycle is hopeless when it's wet. You can't exactly make a great impression at work when youre drenched and muddy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    If what you say is true, we would still expect wealth to become more evenly distributed, but what we actually see is it being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
    This is just wrong. Here are two perfectly consistent possibilities where income inequality increases even though the poor person moves up in socio-economic class:

    -------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
    Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £200k/yr
    Person B -- £100k/yr -- £2,000/yr


    -------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
    Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £100k/yr
    Person B -- £100k/yr -- £5m/yr

    Exactly.

    Not true. Longitudinal studies have shown that poverty adversely affects IQ. Its also known that emotional factors influence IQ. None of this is particularly controversial.
    You're missing the point: I grant that environment may have some effect, which is accentuated at extremes, but there is also a 50-100% heritable component. It doesn't have to be 100% to be relevant. Even studies that claim particularly low heritable components rarely go below 50%.

    You haven't even read the studies.
    How do you think you know that? Could you quote specific passages that contradict my interpretation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Water, gas, electric, telephone, public transport, clothes, shoes...

    It can be done for a short while. Its easier to do when there is an end in sight (like being a student). Living on that little for months, a year, two years with no end in sight?
    Hmm, you've got me on that one, I didn't consider that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This is just wrong. Here are two perfectly consistent possibilities where income inequality increases even though the poor person moves up in socio-economic class:

    -------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
    Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £200k/yr
    Person B -- £100k/yr -- £2,000/yr


    -------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
    Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £100k/yr
    Person B -- £100k/yr -- £5m/yr

    What? That doesn't even make any sense. You're flailing. We see wealth and resources concentrated in fewer hands. No amount of flailing will get us away from this fact.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    You're missing the point: I grant that environment may have some effect, which is accentuated at extremes, but there is also a 50-100% heritable component. It doesn't have to be 100% to be relevant. Even studies that claim particularly low heritable components rarely go below 50%.
    You're missing the point that heritability is not the same as genetics. There are also many flaws with heritability studies, not least that they tend to miss gene x interactions. You're also making the fundamental error that heritabilty estimates translate directly to percentages of heritable components. It doesn't. The calculation of h2 is the percentage of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes given certain assumptions. If the environment is highly variable (like socioeconomic background), then its value will vary. Like in my point about heritability of IQ in richer or poorer families.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    How do you think you know that? Could you quote specific passages that contradict my interpretation.
    Because I didn't link to the full papers. Did you read the full papers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, blimey, even something like height is an interaction between genes and environment! The idea that genes determine things completely is really not taken seriously by anyone any more, except for people who cling onto the idea for political reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What? That doesn't even make any sense. You're flailing. We see wealth and resources concentrated in fewer hands. No amount of flailing will get us away from this fact.
    The point being, even if this is true (kinda but not really) it isn't incompatible with what I said being true.

    You're missing the point that heritability is not the same as genetics. There are also many flaws with heritability studies, not least that they tend to miss gene x interactions. You're also making the fundamental error that heritabilty estimates translate directly to percentages of heritable components. It doesn't. The calculation of h2 is the percentage of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes given certain assumptions. If the environment is highly variable (like socioeconomic background), then its value will vary. Like in my point about heritability of IQ in richer or poorer families.
    There are studies where the environment is explicitly controlled for, ie. twin studies where genetically identical twins are adopted by families with different incomes. It remains possible that pre-birth environment could have an effect, but that's it. There are also studies that try to correct for this, and still find a large genetic component.

    Because I didn't link to the full papers. Did you read the full papers?
    The full text is linked directly from both pages. Did you even read them before linking the abstracts?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    You have to have a mobile for employers to phone you, or at least a landline which can be more expensive. You would also probably need internet to look for jobs.
    Carrying shopping for miles while walking is going to be pretty difficult. Particularly if it's raining. Also to the job centre, and to job interviews. You're not going to get the job if you turn up soaking wet. A decent umbrella can cost around £10...
    Toiletries are essential. Unless you think that a job is going to be given to the person with greasy hair who smells because they can't wash. Or a woman who would have to spend 5 days a month on the loo/in the shower or whatever while she has a period because sanitary products are classed as toiletries (and they're also pretty expensive and have VAT on them, although not at the full rate). And you can get quite cheap toiletries in some places but using a sub-standard shampoo often means you have to wash your hair twice as often which means you'd probably have been better off buying the expensive stuff, if you get a cheap soap you'll probably have to supplement it with a moisturiser or have your skin crack and get sore because it's really dry...

    I don't think you know what a luxury is.
    Would you die if you didnt have any of the above? The question was if you can live off it. I dont think you understand what the question was.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As a student I live off about maybe 60 a week not including bills.
    It would be easy to cut down on things and live on 53 a week, but I don't think I could include bills in that easily...

    internet is at the cheapest 10 - 15 a month
    mobile for me is 15 a month

    so that's already about 8 a week which is doable, but water electricity and gas are probably a lot, and I couldn't afford that.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.