Stuart_Armstrong comments on Why Don’t We Apply What We Know About Twins to Everybody Else? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (26)
Freakonomics looked at this, coming up with some interesting conclusions. For one thing, reading to your children didn't seem to have any effect on education scores, but owning books did (did the babies inherit book-reading genes?). Another example: adopted children tended to conform to the lifestyle predicted by their biological parents, not their adoptive parents, in regards to crime and income (which implies some uncomfortable ideas about poverty and class). I don't remember the exact details of their analysis, but the general approach was to take commonly accepted statistical measurements and check for correlations. The most specious claim in the book (AFAIK) was that legalized abortion leads to lowered crime-rate twenty years down the road; while this is probably true, I don't think the evidence demonstrates anything beyond correlation. His chapter on babies, though, was pretty good.
I've only met one pair of twins who were distinctively divergent (though both were in the military), but I believe they were fraternal.
I have a nit-pick with these studies, which I haven't seen addressed: they show that a much larger part of the variance of results results from the birth parents than from the adopted parents.
However, the variance in birth parents' IQ seems to be much larger than the variance in adopting parents IQ; has this been corrected for?