PDA

View Full Version : Genes Influence Reading Skills: Study


Fade the Butcher
02-11-2006, 12:00 AM
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411419/658322

Genetics can play a bigger role in determining a child's reading ability than teaching, an Australian researcher says.

An international study showed some children were born with "an unfortunate deal of the genetic deck" when it comes to reading skills, said study co-author Brian Byrne, professor of psychology at the University of New England in northern NSW.

No "magic bullet" of encouragement and tutoring would fully improve their reading abilities, he said.

Published in the latest issue of the British-based Journal of Research in Reading, the study showed the influence of parents reading to their children diminished significantly a year or so after they started school.

"The home environment doesn't leave its mark much on children as they start to go through school, which is surprising to a lot of people," Byrne said.

"What seems to determine most of the differences amongst children, just in the normal school setting in terms of their reading skills, are genetics."

The research examined more than 600 pairs of identical and non-identical twins in Australia, the United States, Norway and Sweden from different racial and socio-economic backgrounds.

Byrne said bed-time stories early in a child's life, encouragement to read and remedial teaching would never totally make up for a child's genetic "bad deal".

"It just reinforces the idea that teaching is going to need to be more intensive for some children and it's probably going to have to be continued for a fair bit of their early schooling," he said.

"There's no single magic bullet that's going to fix their kids up."

Byrne said good genes for reading did not wholly determine a child's intelligence or success at school.

"We are not saying that genes are the whole story by any means and maybe account for something like 70% of the variability amongst children.

"This leaves a fair chunk left over for parent-encouraged activities and school-encouraged activities," he said.

The formulation of tests which would determine whether children needed extra help was still some years away, Byrne said.

Péter
02-11-2006, 03:52 AM
I don't mean to brag, but my eight-year-old sister now has the pleasure of being able to read in two languages. :D

Fade the Butcher
02-11-2006, 10:18 AM
Kamandi: No, if we start them on early cognitive intervention programs. . . .

Kamandi
02-11-2006, 04:39 PM
Fade, do we need to have a little discussion about Jensen's Error? :)

Fade the Butcher
02-11-2006, 04:40 PM
Hook, Line, Sinker. It didn't take 24 hours!

Kamandi
02-11-2006, 06:42 PM
Guilty as charged. :D

Gorilla
02-19-2006, 09:29 AM
Guilty as charged. :D

Fade is right handed, although he did cut right forearm with a machete with his left arm in a camping accident.

Nordicist
02-19-2006, 12:31 PM
Jensen and Rushton in a recent academic paper have said that programmes such as "head-start" are worthless in terms of improving IQ scores.

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

BaronBloodSpawn
02-19-2006, 10:04 PM
you bet genes influence every skill! a mix of what you do and choose in life and your genes are your chances for everything

Kamandi
02-20-2006, 02:32 AM
Jensen and Rushton in a recent academic paper have said that programmes such as "head-start" are worthless in terms of improving IQ scores.
If I recall correctly, Rushton's typically evasive response to Nesbitt's demonstration that in fact more comprehensive programs were successful in doing so, and that reading scores for minorities had been progressively increasing according to the national testing data, was to suggest that a study of blacks in the workplace "proved" they were still inferior in such g-loaded skills.

Apparently, Mr. Rushton was hoping that we would fail to recall that the workplace is hardly a random sample of the population, a employees are subjected to a selection process before hire. :rolleyes:

That's a good example of why Rushton has no credibility.

Kamandi
02-20-2006, 02:33 AM
you bet genes influence every skill! a mix of what you do and choose in life and your genes are your chances for everything
And the proof that this dogma is so is...?

BaronBloodSpawn
11-17-2007, 10:55 PM
And the proof that this dogma is so is...?
How high your IQ is determines how fast you learn new things and your reasoning and visual memory skills, this determines how well you learn to do things and according to statistics just what kind of career you land yourself in....and according to intelligence studies involving chimps and also research from people like Dr.Richard Lynn, a huge chunk of your IQ is proven to be genetic.:deadhorse: :viking: :nopity:


sorry for the extremely late comeback....I lost my password and had lots of work to do :thanks:

Kamandi
11-17-2007, 11:25 PM
.and according to intelligence studies involving chimps and also research from people like Dr.Richard Lynn, a huge chunk of your IQ is proven to be genetic.:deadhorse: :viking: :nopity:
^^ Jensen's Error.

No one's proven that any portion of your IQ as an individual is necessarily genetic. The heritiability of IQ is the proportion of the variability of IQ in a sample that can be attributed to genetics, not the proportion of anyone's intelligence that's genetic.

You also can't reverse-engineer the heritability of any skill from genetics simply because some component of intelligence test performance may be influenced by genes. We currently don't know how much genetics influences or doesn't influence most cognitive skills and certainly not your "chances in life."

BaronBloodSpawn
11-17-2007, 11:37 PM
^^ Jensen's Error.

No one's proven that any portion of your IQ as an individual is necessarily genetic. The heritiability of IQ is the proportion of the variability of IQ in a sample that can be attributed to genetics, not the proportion of anyone's intelligence that's genetic.

You also can't reverse-engineer the heritability of any skill from genetics simply because some component of intelligence test performance may be influenced by genes. We currently don't know how much genetics influences or doesn't influence most cognitive skills and certainly not your "chances in life."

So it must not be a portion of IQ thats genetic but some visual memory skills and similar skills tested in the intelligence tests....that still doesn't change the fact that some mental skills are genetic and thats going to have some influence on some of what you learn and do.

Kamandi
11-17-2007, 11:41 PM
We don't know that some mental skills are genetic; we know that variability in performance across samples for some large-scale global cognitive skills seems to have genetic influence.

That says nothing about whether cognitive skills in individuals are "genetic" and what proportion of skill is genetic vs. environmental.

Choppy deroute
11-18-2007, 02:11 AM
^^ Jensen's Error.

No one's proven that any portion of your IQ as an individual is necessarily genetic. The heritiability of IQ is the proportion of the variability of IQ in a sample that can be attributed to genetics, not the proportion of anyone's intelligence that's genetic.

You also can't reverse-engineer the heritability of any skill from genetics simply because some component of intelligence test performance may be influenced by genes. We currently don't know how much genetics influences or doesn't influence most cognitive skills and certainly not your "chances in life."

And were pray tell does Jensen state such a thing?

Kamandi
11-18-2007, 02:41 AM
Most famously, in his 1969 article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" published in the Harvard Educational Review

Ahknaton
11-18-2007, 02:58 AM
We don't know that some mental skills are genetic; we know that variability in performance across samples for some large-scale global cognitive skills seems to have genetic influence.

That says nothing about whether cognitive skills in individuals are "genetic" and what proportion of skill is genetic vs. environmental.
I think he's using "cognitive" and "mental" interchangeably.