I am interested in the part about education raising IQ. It sounds like you have extensively researched the subject and I have not, so I'm not looking for a debate. However, I found Bryan Caplan's position in The Case Against Education to be convincing and it fit with my intuitions.
Here is my position, which is basically the same as his:
1. In the early grades we learn important things like reading, writing, and basic math. However, by the time students get to high school and beyond they will not remember much of what they are taught, if they even learn it to begin with. Also, most of it is not very important from a practical standpoint.
2. The value of higher education is mainly signaling - a college degree looks good to employers, and also grants social status. However, I certainly don't remember anything I learned in college (I'm 35 now) and I doubt it would be very useful even if I did.
As for arguments in favor of education (in and of itself, not as signaling), it seems like they can either be direct or indirect. An example of a direct benefit would be taking French in high school and later being fluent in French as a result of the classes. This is almost never the case for any subject. An indirect benefit would be something like a long term increase in IQ, which seems to be the position taken here.
I would be interested in hearing counter-arguments against the position I summarized.
I always felt that the bee waggle “signalling” where the pollen is to other bees sounded preposterous. How can they (the researchers) know what the bees’ intention is?
There's nothing "embarrassing for psychology" about the Marshmallow Test study. So one particular test of self-control has no predictive validity. There's still a ton of evidence that self-control, measured in other ways, tells us something meaningful about later development.
I've done that too. Hopefully students take home the deeper message about frontal lobe maturation and other contributors to growing self-control, along with what those changes genuinely do predict. I hope they also get that the science continues to evolve.
With regards to Francesca Gino, have you seen her response to the allegations? It's not just a bland denial, it goes into details and seemed to find some significant flaws in Data Colada's work. I'm definitely more sympathetic to her after reading it.
The "reversal of autism" paper isn't even a study. It's just a post-hoc description of two children who tested high on autism and then tested lower a few months later, and a description of the quack naturopathic remedies that their parents subjected them to in between.
Good one for my interests this month, thanks. Hopefully you are working on another book. I got into some of this stuff at a time when the best text was called Clinical Epidemiology. I’m also pretty attuned to the propensity of even well-meaning folks to mess up in non-parametric methods and use crap software - forget the intentional fraud.
But I am old and young voices are needed. I enjoy your podcasts with TC. Thanks. All the best, John.
I've just started reading your blog posts and I really appreciate them as I'm very interested in psychology, psychiatry and the replication crisis. However, as I often have to give up on cherished theories when I hear about new failed replications or flawed studies, I would like to suggest that you start a second newsletter with research from these fields with high quality and interesting results to balance out the disappointments ;-).
I am interested in the part about education raising IQ. It sounds like you have extensively researched the subject and I have not, so I'm not looking for a debate. However, I found Bryan Caplan's position in The Case Against Education to be convincing and it fit with my intuitions.
Here is my position, which is basically the same as his:
1. In the early grades we learn important things like reading, writing, and basic math. However, by the time students get to high school and beyond they will not remember much of what they are taught, if they even learn it to begin with. Also, most of it is not very important from a practical standpoint.
2. The value of higher education is mainly signaling - a college degree looks good to employers, and also grants social status. However, I certainly don't remember anything I learned in college (I'm 35 now) and I doubt it would be very useful even if I did.
As for arguments in favor of education (in and of itself, not as signaling), it seems like they can either be direct or indirect. An example of a direct benefit would be taking French in high school and later being fluent in French as a result of the classes. This is almost never the case for any subject. An indirect benefit would be something like a long term increase in IQ, which seems to be the position taken here.
I would be interested in hearing counter-arguments against the position I summarized.
Wondering if the studies show might take a look at (what seems to me...) the amazing "make your own meta-analyses" — https://consensus.app ?
Recently just got some serious funding! I've been using it for a few years now.
I always felt that the bee waggle “signalling” where the pollen is to other bees sounded preposterous. How can they (the researchers) know what the bees’ intention is?
There's nothing "embarrassing for psychology" about the Marshmallow Test study. So one particular test of self-control has no predictive validity. There's still a ton of evidence that self-control, measured in other ways, tells us something meaningful about later development.
It is embarrassing because lots of academics including myself have taught at as if its a real thing for decades.
I've done that too. Hopefully students take home the deeper message about frontal lobe maturation and other contributors to growing self-control, along with what those changes genuinely do predict. I hope they also get that the science continues to evolve.
With regards to Francesca Gino, have you seen her response to the allegations? It's not just a bland denial, it goes into details and seemed to find some significant flaws in Data Colada's work. I'm definitely more sympathetic to her after reading it.
https://www.francesca-v-harvard.org/data-colada-post-1
The "reversal of autism" paper isn't even a study. It's just a post-hoc description of two children who tested high on autism and then tested lower a few months later, and a description of the quack naturopathic remedies that their parents subjected them to in between.
Good one for my interests this month, thanks. Hopefully you are working on another book. I got into some of this stuff at a time when the best text was called Clinical Epidemiology. I’m also pretty attuned to the propensity of even well-meaning folks to mess up in non-parametric methods and use crap software - forget the intentional fraud.
But I am old and young voices are needed. I enjoy your podcasts with TC. Thanks. All the best, John.
get Mu Yang on the show
I've just started reading your blog posts and I really appreciate them as I'm very interested in psychology, psychiatry and the replication crisis. However, as I often have to give up on cherished theories when I hear about new failed replications or flawed studies, I would like to suggest that you start a second newsletter with research from these fields with high quality and interesting results to balance out the disappointments ;-).