In response to:

Jensen and Flynn

Words Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 11:22 AM
I've read a number of books and articles on this subject. I had to make some placement decisions for my son when he was in grade school, so I took the time to do some research. One of the things that needs to be explained is why many of the people with a very high IQ are firstborn children, or only children. If it were only genes wouldn't the siblings sometimes have the same or a higher IQ? Clearly there is some environmental influence that is happening to the first child that is not always happening to the subsequent children. Although most of the stuff I read indicated that sibling are usually within the same range.
True Conservative! Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 11:37 AM
Sure, the first born gets a lot more adult attention which influences the ability to take IQ tests. It probably doesn't influence the native intelligence, though.

Anyone who has followed the decades-long controversies over the role of genes in IQ scores will recognize the names of the two leading advocates of opposite conclusions on that subject-- Professor Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley and Professor James R. Flynn, an American expatriate at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

What is so unusual in the academic world of today is that Professor Flynn's latest book, "Are We Getting Smarter?" is dedicated to Arthur Jensen, whose integrity he praises, even as he opposes his conclusions. That is what scholarship and science are...

Related Tags: Intelligence