Re: Public Schools

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

James A. Donald wrote:
> Phil Fraering <pgf@acadian.net> writes:
> >> > Without vouchers, you don't say anything about the intelligence 
> >> > of
> >> > your test subjects; to a _very_ large degree, intelligence isn't
> >> > genetic. Or

> Bag of shit wrote:
> >> That's the political correct thing to say, but do you have any
> >> scientific evidence to support this claim?

> At 11:19 PM 9/25/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > People have argued for genetic disposition to certain things, and I
> > think they are sometimes (most times?) confused [...]
> [Lots of meaningless hand waving hot air deleted]
> 
> The key basic test of the power of genes is studies of identical
> twins raised in different families.
> They have near identical IQ's, and a wide range of
> very similar behavior.
> Identical twins raised in different families are more
> similar than identical twins raised in the same family,
> probably because of deliberate attempts to differentiate
> themselves.
> Except in the case of extreme environmental pressures --
> starvation, neglect, and the like, genes count for
> just about everything, and environment for almost
> nothing.

Please excuse my bluntness, but you obviously get your info out of a 
book, whereas I get mine from actual experience, which I can demonstrate 
quite well.  Your identical twins example means nothing, as it's totally 
likely that: 1) Few identical twins separated early are really available 
for study and  2) Far fewer yet would have a substantially different 
environment awaiting them.  This is one test you'd certainly have to do 
purposely (separating them, that is).

Your testimonial of IQ's is equally dubious, excepting you should come 
up with a test that measures actual intelligence.

The "wide range of similar behavior" puts the torch to your argument.
If you want to argue that the twins would grow nearly always to the same 
height, I could allow that (but still argue the point), but behavior?
Please!