Hacker News Reader

Comment by VladKovac | Hacker News Reader

Guys before you take this too seriously, PNAS is a publication repeatedly criticized by stats experts like Andrew Gelman. NHST techniques are bad, and there are many papers showing almost zero effects of education.

Plus your prior on this should be pretty low given Turkheimer's 3 laws of behavioural genetics. Especially since education is more like a shared environment variable rather than a unique environment variable.

View on HN

You shouldn't invoke Turkheimer's three laws paper (which is a good paper) to make a statement with which Turkheimer would disagree. Turkheimer certainly agrees with the factual observation that formal education (which is part of the environment not necessarily shared by siblings in the same family) can raise IQ. You can look up a paper on which he is a co-author for more details. (I correspond with Turkheimer from time to time, and know many of his co-authors and colleagues.)

The link to the paper here is from Eric Turkheimer's faculty webpage at the University of Virginia, which I visit often to read his latest publications.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for...

Turkheimer's laws are not the property of the man himself! I think it's pretty safe to say there's no clear winner on what the effects of schooling is on the margin at least.

You're right to correct me on school being part of the nonshared environment that's my mistake, you probably know more than me how complicated it is to extract meaning from the nonshared environment. Also the temporary nature of the improvements are very confusing. Thanks for the paper.

Here's a summary by SSC (not really an expert but worth reading): https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/19/teachers-much-more-tha...

Professor Gelman's preferred term is "PPNAS". You mustn't forget the prestige.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com