Reply to: Rich kids brighter than poor kids shocker!

[TimberWolf]

I wouldn’t put good odds on the likes of Charles or any of his silver spooned progeny obtaining mathematics or physics PhD’s, or by the same token the offspring of Ozzie Osborne and the other rich and famous, e.g. football stars, doing great academically. What's the point. I once read that our walks in life are ‘chosen’ through laziness. For example some of us come into IT or study because we find this easier to do than playing football. Nature, nature, encouragement, drive and necessity are probably some of the necessary ingredients to being 'clever'.

[Bagpuss]

Exactly. And they take an interest because they realise the worth and value of a good education. And the reason they realise that is because they are brighter..............................(heads for air-raid shelter before flak arrives!)

If brighter is more aware of the value of education, then I agree with you. I don't agree that poorer people have thicker children, they just don't progress to their full potential, I don't think that is because of money, it's lack of parental support. However I know you like to stir......

[shaunbhoy]

the major reason kids from better off backgrounds do better: their parents take an interest.

Exactly. And they take an interest because they realise the worth and value of a good education. And the reason they realise that is because they are brighter..............................(heads for air-raid shelter before flak arrives!)

[threaded]

Perhaps they are confusing money with taking an interest

Very good point Bagpuss. That in a nutshell is the major reason kids from better off backgrounds do better: their parents take an interest.

[Bagpuss]

In short, what it boils down to is that it will be used by NL to justify taxing the middle classes more to "level the playing field".

Perhaps they are confusing money with taking an interest

[shaunbhoy]

It doesn't say that at all, if you read the article, it says the less than averagely intelligent from better backgrounds progress further than those of similar or the same intelligence from poor backgrounds. It does not say richer people have brighter children. It implies background will help a child develop to it's full potential, thus implying two children of the same intelligence will diverge thanks to the financial background effect, they were as intelligent at birth

The article also says those of very high intelligence from poor backgrounds often fail to reach their potential

In short, what it boils down to is that it will be used by NL to justify taxing the middle classes more to "level the playing field".

[Bagpuss]

What the report is saying is that intelligent people tend to come from better off families. It is not saying "therefore all poor people are stupid". Your reactions reveal more about your own anxieties and prejudices (as to be fair do the other reactions that try to be serious) than they do about the theory itself.

It doesn't say that at all, if you read the article, it says the less than averagely intelligent from better backgrounds progress further than those of similar or the same intelligence from poor backgrounds. It does not say richer people have brighter children. It implies background will help a child develop to it's full potential, thus implying two children of the same intelligence will diverge thanks to the financial background effect, they were as intelligent at birth

The article also says those of very high intelligence from poor backgrounds often fail to reach their potential

[DodgyAgent]

We'll have a little less of the talking sense in this thread if you don't mind.

sorry

[shaunbhoy]

We'll have a little less of the talking sense in this thread if you don't mind.

Yeah! I didn't go to the trouble of igniting this whole stramash to have some f00ker trying to explain it rationally!

[threaded]

Whilst you are correct your exceptions do not disprove the rule. What the report is saying is that intelligent people tend to come from better off families. It is not saying "therefore all poor people are stupid". Your reactions reveal more about your own anxieties and prejudices (as to be fair do the other reactions that try to be serious) than they do about the theory itself.

We'll have a little less of the talking sense in this thread if you don't mind.

[DodgyAgent]

How do we get these conclusions when scientists themselves can't make their mind up on what constitutes intelligence, or where it comes from vis-a-vis genetics, environment, sheer chance I'm not sure.

If we're saying middle class people are more intelligent then afraid I have to disagree, I'm met plenty of braindead middle class people in my time (Circles I seem to mingle in these days). In fact there's a whole newspaper devoted to them (The daily mail). They just go to better schools. Go to countries where educational standards aren;t as defined by your background as the UK and you'll find that the discrepancies are far less than in the UK.

Even the researchers report quoted comes to the same conclusions - but hey SB on the CUK board says differently so it must be true (If there was ever a more convincing proof required than gaging what SB believes to be true and picking the opposite, I've yet to encounter it).

Whilst you are correct your exceptions do not disprove the rule. What the report is saying is that intelligent people tend to come from better off families. It is not saying "therefore all poor people are stupid". Your reactions reveal more about your own anxieties and prejudices (as to be fair do the other reactions that try to be serious) than they do about the theory itself.

[speling bee]

wooly

woolly

Or perhaps your parents came from the wrong side of the tracks?

[shaunbhoy]

I prefer picking on you, squirrels are far too intelligent!

For you obviously.

Btw, any truth in the rumour that although your job can be performed remotely, they prefer to send you out on site as they can't stand you being in the office?

No truth in either contention. Talking of people not being able to stand you, how many divorces is that now then?

[shaunbhoy]

Blah blah blah.....ooops working class chip falls off shoulder...blah blah blah....
We live in a scientific age. Generally speaking scientists start out without the answer and then provide one based on observation.

You pays your money and you choose the "scientists" that agree with your own gut feelings snaw. Would these be the same sort of scientists that predicted an Ice Age 30 years ago that have now revamped their figures to show Global Warming then?
This whole debate hinges on rather wooly definitions relating to what constitutes "bright". You are constantly attempting to deflect it away from that.
We all know people from underprivileged backgrounds that have come good, but to do so they have punched above their weight given the tools they were blessed with rather than anything else. Similarly many privileged people feel far less inclined to put huge effort in to bettering themselves because they see little need, being already in the comfort zone they seek materially.
That disinclination does not negate the fact that were they to put their mind to it they could not outperform those from lesser intellectual backgrounds.
It obviously offends your working class sensibilities to have these truths aired so publicly, but there you have it.
I don't feel fettered by the same PC constraints that seem to hamper you, sorry if that rankles.

PS Just for you and all my other fans.........

[Churchill]

Stick to molesting squirrels and posting stuff that gets you banned numbnuts!
It would have sailed over your head anyway.

I prefer picking on you, squirrels are far too intelligent!

Btw, any truth in the rumour that although your job can be performed remotely, they prefer to send you out on site as they can't stand you being in the office?