There is no reason to control for those, and doing so would be an 'Everest regression': "controlling for altitude, Mount Everest is actually warm today". What you are asking for is like reading about IQ and income and saying "ah, but did they control for education?" Controlling is not magic pixie dust.
that thing that literally raises the measured IQ number?
you know that practice can raise your score, right
clearly we're talking about the impact on IQ of whatever factors we make up to describe IQ, and obviously, and provenly, education (and therefore the ability to get education) is in play here, which gwern's glib rebuttal ignores
The point stands however: controlling for educational background is a thing you can do in such a study as according to the factors I pointed to, and gwern's glib comment is wrong
Your suggestion - with this fringe talk about "the sociologist's fallacy - is to eliminate any explanation from any study which does not assign success to invariant psychological metrics.
Then what exactly do you think you are doing when you rant about how they didn't control for it?
> Your suggestion - with this fringe talk about "the sociologist's fallacy - is to eliminate any explanation from any study which does not assign success to invariant psychological metrics.
Nothing fringe about it, I'm afraid. This is well-understood in the statistics fields like causality you seem so loathe to actually learn about.
The point is: when you control for something and then go on to make causal claims, you are not making a minor tweak. You are assuming an extremely implausible causal model and making strong inferences from there about what are real causes and what are not. You have entirely failed to argue for a causal model which would justify simply controlling away family background etc, and it seems from how your comments handwave it away in favor of nothingburgers, you don't even understand what you're arguing for.
And that's not relevant anyway. Are you trying to suggest people only get into SMPY because their parents made them practice the SAT? In the 1970s and 1980s, hardly anyone would have even heard of SMPY before their kids took the test in school.
and predict results pretty well too
Nor does zip code predict remotely as well as IQ.