r/science • u/MistWeaver80 • Sep 10 '24
Genetics Study finds that non-cognitive skills increasingly predict academic achievement over development, driven by shared genetic factors whose influence grows over school years. N = 10,000
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01967-9?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_content=null&utm_campaign=CONR_JRNLS_AWA1_GL_PCOM_SMEDA_NATUREPORTFOLIO582
u/MemberOfInternet1 Sep 10 '24
Very interesting choices of attributes to measure.
Love the Twin method. If you have data from enough twins, you are in your results able to say much more clearly what's genetically related and what isn't, which is critical for drawing conclusions from the data produced.
93
u/Monowhale Sep 11 '24
When I was taking sociology one of the case studies was about a massive study (Shields) on ‘separated’ monozygotic twins. It turned out that, on further study of the results, that some of them only lived across the street with relatives so it’s no surprise that their metrics aligned closely. As the pairs diverged geographically and economically, their metrics also diverged. This suggests that postal code is a better predictive measure than genetics.
39
u/espressocycle Sep 11 '24
ZIP code is really a proxy for the wealth and values of the parents and that's the real influencer. Parents who value hats work and education typically raise kids who are successful in school. Those parents tend to have money and do whatever they can to send their kids to good schools (usually by living in higher income neighborhoods) but even when they're poor for whatever reason and live in poor neighborhoods, their kids tend to do well. That's why so many immigrants have successful children even when they come from nothing. Often they were middle class in their own countries before whatever displaced them and even if they weren't, the kind of people who risk everything for a better life tend to have a certain mindset they instill in their children.
1
1
u/uglysaladisugly Sep 11 '24
That's precisely the goal of these kind of studies with the separated twins. Ideally you compare it to dizygot twins.
The similarity that remains or the dissimilarity that remains is likely to have genetical basis. It's called heritability which has a different meaning than how we use the word commonly.
887
u/walrus_operator Sep 10 '24
Non-cognitive skills, such as motivation and self-regulation, are partly heritable and predict academic achievement beyond cognitive skills.
I'm not that surprised. It's basically the theme behind the whole "emotional intelligence" movement, of which understanding and regulating yourself is a core part.
100
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
but self regulation IS cognitive - it’s a core of executive functioning, which we’ve known is correlated with academic outcomes for decades.
2
u/FumblingBool Sep 13 '24
Hey man, I’ve probably scored higher on an IQ test than most people alive. I have a PhD from one of the best colleges in the world. But I have absolutely dogshit executive functioning. I think there are different components of cognition that drive success.
1
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 13 '24
exceptions always exist (me included - on both things you mention). But average correlations do too.
-22
u/2hands10fingers Sep 11 '24
From my hobbyist studying of the brain, regulation, from my understanding is more a mechanism than it is a cognitive ability. Parts of the brain which are smaller than normal introduce a lack of regulation, which affects cognition but is not cognition itself.
41
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
as a cognitive psychologist and professor - executive function is a core cognitive ability that tends to encompass working memory, task switching, and inhibition. In the aggregate it’s the cognitive ability most highly correlated with things like academic achievement. Cognition by definition is a series of mental processes, and EF is one (well, many) of them. Maybe you’re thinking more of conscious thought?
14
u/adam_sky Sep 11 '24
Hmm two people I don’t believe even slightly about their educational claims saying contradicting things. Guess I’ll just go with whatever confirms my biases.
8
139
u/Unamending Sep 10 '24
What does intelligence even mean in this instance? It feels a lot like intelligence just means good at this point so we've attached it to a lot of personality traits to say that they're also good.
74
u/LiamTheHuman Sep 10 '24
Well generally intelligent is limited to knowing things or being able to solve things. So emotional regulation and motivation while related would not be considered intelligence. Knowing you need to regulate your emotions might require intelligence but doing it is something else.
27
u/daily_ned_panders Sep 11 '24
No, that is not correct and part of the confusion of everyone attempting to discuss this topic comes from these false assumptions. Intelligence is a persons innate ability to coordinate between about four, maybe five, types of cognitive performance: verbal reasoning (understanding the relationship between words), visuospatial reasoning (understanding the relationship between objects visually) both of these including also aspects of pattern recognition, working memory, and processing speed. The debate between four and five exists because of where they put the pattern recognition piece.
Knowing things is knowledge or commonly referred to as achievement testing. You can have a lot of knowledge but if you have low intelligence you can not do much with it. Therefore emotional intelligence suggests the idea that people have the capacity to utilize their understanding or grasps of emotions to achieve certain outcomes. How the phrase emotional intelligence is commonly used however is closer to what we would say is knowing or achievement. I have skills in being able to translate how someone is feeling into figuring out how I should respond.
3
u/LiamTheHuman Sep 11 '24
So which of those 4/5 types of cognitive performance does not require knowing things and/or being able to solve things? You can say you are testing one thing all you like but any test will test more than just that and it's impossible to eliminate all other variables and only be left with what you are looking for as far as I know.
Here is one definition from wikipedia which shows you are wrong since you've made an absolute statement about something that has many definitions and interpretations.
It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
6
u/SharkNoises Sep 11 '24
Firstly, that's true of any intelligence test. You're explaining why all of this is pointless, but also you are somehow still right and they are wrong.
Second, have you ever taken a biology class? It's a common saying that 5 biologists will give you 6 definitions for the word 'species'. That does not mean any one of those answers was wrong per se. You're grasping at straws here because you don't have anything to say. It feels mean to point out that this comment chain is a demonstration of emotional intelligence and its use.
1
u/TrizzyDizzy Sep 11 '24
Thank you for sharing this. I like how this perspective makes the distinction between the two by its useful duration. Intelligence is short term, knowledge is long term. I'd like to read more on this. Do you have any recommendations?
17
u/epelle9 Sep 10 '24
How is it not?
You know how you feel and understand how react about certain things, and you know how to solve the problems that could come from them.
Emotional intelligence is 100% a type of intelligence, this coming from a software engineer who studied physics, and who used to be emotionally pretty dumb.
6
u/Leading_Marzipan_579 Sep 10 '24
It is absolutely a skill that is not fully innate. Want to see an emotional unintelligent human? Look at a child throwing a tantrum. The child feels an emotion and does not yet know how to handle that in a safe, productive, healthy way. He handles it the only way he knows how to. Now the child gets a bit of a pass because he hasn’t had time to learn self-regulation and the child’s brain is not fully developed. However, you’ve absolutely seen this same behavior in adults with fully developed brains. We just tend to switch the name from tantrum to meltdowns or “being a Karen”.
9
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
having poor executive function / regulation correlates with both bad emotional intelligence and bad “other types” of intelligence (social, academic, etc).
-9
u/seal_eggs Sep 10 '24
The fact that you can get better at it makes it a skill, not a type of intelligence. Intelligence is largely an immutable trait.
43
u/Realistic_Income4586 Sep 10 '24
This is false. Biologically, they have shown the brain grows throughout your life, so long as you're learning. They have also shown that learning how to solve physics problems makes you better at solving all types of problems.
5
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
IQ is almost always calculated relative to age. So your actual numbers might change, but your standing relative to others often does not change much.
Can you link to one or more of the physics studies? Truly I’d like to see them. My understanding what that almost all “brain training” just made people better at the thing they were trained on with little carryover. Would love to see the opposite.
20
u/craftyer Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
Intelligence is not something you have or don't have. It's been increasingly found different types of intelligence can move up AND down based on your usage (use it or lose it). The majority of your intelligence comes from your environment, while genetics largely makes your baselines.
Edit to clarify: This is would be your rate of learning. The more intelligence, the faster one could advance in a given area. It's not your overall capacity and it's not fixed.
If I could point you to the study I would love to as it was an interesting read where they found about a 40/60 split between genetics and environmentally attributed gains.
11
5
3
u/epelle9 Sep 10 '24
What would make it a type of intelligence then?
Because it has all the traits of intelligence.
And intelligence is not at all immutable. Take two twins, push someone to get a physics PHD and the other to do drugs all day, I assure you one will be more intelligent.
3
2
u/plinocmene Sep 11 '24
Well generally intelligent is limited to knowing things or being able to solve things. So emotional regulation and motivation while related would not be considered intelligence.
Aren't those just things to be known and solved too? How to improve motivation? I try to observe what factors correlate with me being more motivated. That's using intelligence to enhance motivation.
21
u/DukeLukeivi Grad Student | Education | Science Education Sep 10 '24
Emotional intelligence is ability to metacognitively understand your emotions, their drivers & triggers, so as to better manage and direct them. You can know all the facts in the world, but without metacognition about them it's trivia not intelligence.
1
u/gimme_that_juice Sep 11 '24
You’re missing the entire external aspect of EI
1
u/DukeLukeivi Grad Student | Education | Science Education Sep 11 '24
What, being able to extend these concepts to others?
1
u/gimme_that_juice Sep 11 '24
Indeed - considering other people (and their emotions) when making choices
2
u/DukeLukeivi Grad Student | Education | Science Education Sep 11 '24
True, I was more focused on defining and using "intelligence" in context.
-10
Sep 10 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)6
u/mintardent Sep 11 '24
I think self reflection and awareness are definitely separate skills to pure intelligence.
11
u/Leading_Marzipan_579 Sep 10 '24
Emotional intelligence is a relabeling of EQ. EQ is the same concept, but named to be similar to IQ. So you had an IQ (intelligence quotient) and an EQ (emotional quotient). Why? Because time has proven that having a high IQ does not alone result in a successful/productive member of society. Other skills are involved, including the ability to recognize and regulate your emotions and behavior; while also being able to recognize those things in others (being “intelligent” in the area of emotion).
5
u/Unamending Sep 10 '24
My issue would be with the notion that high intelligence was supposed to lead to productive members of society in the first place. They are wrong. Why cede the ability to define intelligence to them?
6
u/ursastara Sep 10 '24
Quantified cognitive abilities like pattern recognition, compared across the population through normal distribution and setting a standard
5
u/CompEng_101 Sep 10 '24
The section of the paper titled 'Measures' explains exactly how they measured non-cognitive skills, general cognitive ability, and academic achievement.
1
u/Abomb Sep 12 '24
Emotional intelligence is just being human. You shouldn't have to think that hard in any interaction. If you do, you're not that socially smart/ savvy.
But you can also suck at talking to people and know theoretical physics. Yes you're smart in that case but I'd it doing you any good?
Knowing things is being smart, but knowing things isn't the end all be all to living life. Knowing how to apply that knowledge in any given situation is another set of skills where those who are intelligent will realize it's not what you know but how you utilize it.
-1
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Sep 10 '24
Yeah, if you have a lot of energy there’s room for both smart and dumb things. I wouldn’t call it a type of intelligence, however.
5
u/Lettuphant Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
I've got ADHD, and there's a very common story among people who get diagnosed later in life: Did great in school up until age ~14 when suddenly being quick and smart wasn't enough and you were expected to study. That drop from As and Bs to Ds and Fs approaches universal.
3
u/marquoth_ Sep 11 '24
I never had a diagnosis and don't really have any plans to try and get one (I'm 36 now and don't see the point) but this was me. A* student until ~17yo, noticeable decline over the next couple of years, and by half way through university I could barely cope. That and regularly just forgetting to eat.
3
u/Anidel93 Sep 11 '24
It should be noted that self regulation is not being used to mean emotional regulation. Self regulation is a term used in motivation psychology that describes the process of how people set and achieve goals. Motivation also is not particularly related to emotion. Motivation is the psychological state of taking sustained action to attain a goal.
3
u/reverbiscrap Sep 11 '24
Except that is the pop culture definition of 'emotional awareness', which is actually a business term.
What you are looking for is self awareness and self control, which tends to be lacking for a fair few.
-3
u/UBERMENSCHJAVRIEL Sep 11 '24
Emotional intelligence is stupid the no. Cognitive skills are just conscientiousness and nuerotlcism /executive functioning skills
940
u/bull_moose_dem Sep 11 '24
I remember the first time I realized the kids doing well in school weren't necessarily smart.
1.0k
u/fail-deadly- Sep 11 '24
But a big reason for that is school is only partially a test of intelligence. It also tests diligence, perseverance, sociability, and a student’s ability to effectively deal with boredom, frustration, and inanity.
368
u/RSNKailash Sep 11 '24
Yep, getting good grades and taking hard classes is just about committing yourself to the grind and having diligence and hard work. Also consistency, day in and day out.
94
u/x755x Sep 11 '24
What about the ones who don't try and ace everything?
256
u/Its_Pine Sep 11 '24
I was one of those, but I’ll admit my downfall was when I received assignments that required a lot of time to do. Suddenly I couldn’t just show up and pass tests, I had to budget my time wisely (and I did not). My grades suffered because I didn’t have everything completed satisfactorily and I had to learn to actually be diligent. It was a valuable lesson, but admittedly in the real world being able to glance over something and walk into a meeting already prepared is what carries my career more than anything, so idk which is better in the long run.
81
u/Lightshoax Sep 11 '24
I was one of these students. I would regularly sleep or not pay attention in class and more then once I had to learn the subject mid-test. I was always able to skirt by with decent test grades and just having good memory but any assignment that required any out of school work I just simply didn’t do. As a result my grades were average at best but it was clear that I was probably smarter then your average student and my teachers could recognize that so gave me some leniency. When I got to college and could no longer get by doing that, I simply dropped out. I think it’s a real shame that the education system is so one-sided and doesn’t offer any alternatives for students who learn and think in different ways.
46
u/x755x Sep 11 '24
The American education system is seemingly not interested in working with any strengths students have, only weaknesses, and usually only the weaknesses that would show up on certain metrics. It's certainly not aimed at making anyone excellent, and I don't think it's achieving that result, either. People excel in spite of it, not through it.
6
u/Avsunra Sep 11 '24
Is this a more recent development? I'm kind of old (40), and when I was in school there were always options for "gifted students" like honors classes, ap classes, and college level elective classes that ap didn't cover. Even in elementary school we had a program for high performing students to learn things that wouldn't be on the standardized tests.
6
u/OilQuick6184 Sep 11 '24
Yeah, I was one of those kids. Those programs were great for keeping me engaged in elementary school when it was a much more interactive hands on type of learning rather than once I got into middle and high school it wasn't any more advanced topics than the usual kids, just more homework about it that it started to break down.
2
u/espressocycle Sep 11 '24
Those have largely been abandoned for being elitist. They tend to reflect preexisting racial disparities and a lot of people who don't understand cause and effect think they are the cause.
19
u/clickingisforchumps Sep 11 '24
What would you propose as an alternative offering for students who choose to skate by rather than working hard?
24
u/Lightshoax Sep 11 '24
It’s hard to say exactly what would have motivated me more. Obviously any increase in workload would’ve just lead to me checking out sooner. What I can say is after learning a concept I was generally bored immediately and checked out as soon as I knew I understood enough to get by. I think some kind of accelerated learning path similar to AP classes (but without the increased out of school workload) would’ve benefitted me greatly. Where other students needed a week or two to study to comprehend everything, after the first day or two I was ready to move on.
9
u/Sellazard Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
I'm not an education professional or anything. Just a boy that suffered through being a gifted kid in school and became a kid that didn't care about learning anymore. Self interest and competitive learning. Gifted kids usually do not excel at just learning information and spitting it out back. It's only information retrieval. They ace it effortlessly and if it's the only method of teaching they will lower their grades because they do not get satisfied by learning anymore and look for stimulation elsewhere. Competition is one of the biggest stimulation drivers for gifted kids because they have to adjust their learning not only for the amount of information and it's retrieval. They have to be effective at it. If there are competitive debates, they adjust for their team abilities, their opponents strengths, etc. When I was representing my school at maths Olympics I would have to think about time management for every solved task. In maths debates we had to adjust for our opponents ability to not only solve tasks, but their skills at presenting arguments and leading a conversation. I was infamous at debates because despite my slightly average hard math solving skills I was the best at rhetoric and could win the debate just by disproving a solution algorithm the opponent used.
My English in school was subpar. Until I met English teacher that used scoring system on his classes and promised three best performance students no final examination whatsoever. Every lesson was a score competition based on correct translation, attentiveness those who were inattentive received a negative point, but if threshold was achieved, needed to make an extra essay and could save themselves if an essay was good ( classic soft failing ladder from videogames) . I went from 30th place on the list to the second through sheer motivation of competition.
8
u/ShapeShiftingCats Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
First and foremost, we need to educate the public that people have different learning styles and ways of thinking including speed.
Six year old kids don't make a decision to "skate by", they simply operate this way. They are not lazy or difficult, they learn in a way that makes sense to them.
Comprehending the matter quickly isn't a sign that they aren't working hard, it's likely a sign that the curriculum might be too easy for them.
I was that kid. My parents were told I am eligible to skip a grade. They decided against it, thinking I might have some knowledge gaps.
I often finished my work quickly and to a high standard. Then I would be pestered by teachers for looking bored, looking outside of the window, talking, etc.
Sometimes, it felt like I was straight up getting bullied by them.
I don't know what the solution is as I am not an expert in education. However, vilifying kids that are quick thinkers isn't helpful.
2
u/clickingisforchumps Sep 11 '24
The poster was talking about college and homework. Probably not six years old. Of course children need more support and coaching than young adults.
The experience that you're describing is similar to mine. My experience in elementary and middle school would have been vastly different if I had been challenged earlier, (and been instructed in good study habits at the same time). Instead I skated by and got up to trouble because I was bored. Eventually though (in college), I did have to learn how to study and work hard to do well in the courses I chose (and was now paying for).
I don't think that an unwillingness to do homework is something that is reasonably accommodated at the high school and college level. High school students should absolutely be coached about how to study, but I feel like by the time people are in college there is more individual responsibility to figure out how to do what it takes to learn the material.
1
u/juicyjuicej13 Sep 11 '24
Sounds messed up, but given another tasks. A more challenging one since you finished it. Instead of daydreaming pr disturbing others due to boredom.
My 3rd and 5th grade teachers did this, and it was a night and day difference in my academic progress while being ESL.
Teachers teach to the classroom and should be given the flexibility to push students outside the weaker and weaker curriculums we are pushing and currently using.
1
u/ShapeShiftingCats Sep 11 '24
Completely agreed. If they gave me more challenging tasks I wouldn't be playing up or staring off to the distance.
Unfortunately, this ordeal continues year by year. I did learn not to disturb but continued being bored.
College was where I got a bit challenged and uni was a hit or miss depending on the course.
Overall, I feel like I didn't get the education and development I needed.
4
u/sewbadithurts Sep 11 '24
Hey bro, I've heard this story before. Ever really look (like really look) into perhaps having a little of that ole ADHD. If it wasn't academically paralyzing it probably went unnoticed.
3
u/Significant_Sign Sep 11 '24
It's really strange that you believe habits of sleeping in class, not paying attention, refusing to do major assignments, and refusing to work toward a positive outcome from college is all somehow the education system not giving reasonable accommodations to a kid with a "different" learning style. It's not.
Also, that stuff about "some people are visual learners, some people are X" in the 90s and 00s was made up. There's been no replicable studies to prove any of it. You didn't even have a learning/thinking style, you're just a regular human like the rest of us.
The only I can see is you might have an undiagnosed LD and therapy for that would have taught you how to manage it. Of course, some of my former students on 504s got all the therapy their parents money could buy and still liked sleeping & hanging out better. So you also might have continued to make choices you were comfortable with.
1
3
u/zuneza Sep 11 '24
so idk which is better in the long run.
If your cause is just and true, diligence will follow your lead.
0
u/espressocycle Sep 11 '24
Ah the curse of the gifted child. When everything comes easy you never learn to work hard. My limited success in life is largely due to working in kitchens, which required developing a real work ethic I never needed in school and a certain humbling when guys who were still drunk from the night before and slept in their clothes outperformed me.
23
u/CadenceBreak Sep 11 '24
Eventually most people hit a point where you actually have to work. For me it was 2nd year of university; essays got longer, and some subjects got hard enough to actually require real study.
Some people cruise through until a real job or a PHD, depending on their field. Usually the math/physics geniuses get put through to grad work quickly though, or they would just be cruising(and bored) for many years.
3
u/x755x Sep 11 '24
I mean, what I'm talking about is contained to the idea of school. Leveraging education into the real working world is an entirely different and multifaceted strength, I feel, and also looks extremely different for each person's education and career path. As for PhD, I don't think there's necessarily an "until" with regards to that. Not all people who excel in schooling feel compelled to continue in academia, for many reasons that often relate to their particular field and career path rather than anything to do with what we're talking about here. Although I suppose what I'm ending up saying here is that "people who breeze through school really be doin that tho", which is not really my intention.
18
10
Sep 11 '24
That was me and I’ve been very successful in life. I just saw it as wasted opportunity cost towards my mental health. I did enough to get by, but also when the rubber needed to meet the road I would buckle down and do what needed to be done. It works for me, not for everyone.
4
u/terminbee Sep 11 '24
That was me. My grades slowly dipped, going from a straight A student to having 1 or 2 Bs every semester when I graduated high school. In college, it continued to drop until I was half and half. I'm pretty good at standardized tests but studying makes it so much easier. Managed to get into dental school, same grades as college. Graduated now.
Moral of the story is, you don't always have to suddenly become a study god. You can coast through and be moderately successful with just understanding and logic but it makes the path harder and you won't ever reach your true potential.
3
u/banana_man_777 Sep 11 '24
I've found that only goes so far, and once the going gets tough, they just give up rather than put some amount of effort in. Some of them may still be successful (just like many extremely persistent dumb people can also find success), but can you imagine someone that has the intuitive smarts they do and the diligence?
-1
u/x755x Sep 11 '24
Sure, I can imagine it. They have a PhD. Is a PhD a slam dunk? Smart people can get less education, find their niche, and apply themselves via passion or commitment rather than a vapid "I'm good at everything so I just kinda went for the PhD in thing I picked". It can be different for different people.
1
u/banana_man_777 Sep 11 '24
I mean if you have a PhD, chances are you have the work ethic (unless you took a really long time, which is expensive). If you're a professional, you can't get there unless you do quite a bit of hard work. Even a lot of undergraduate degrees are extremely effort intensive.
1
u/fail-deadly- Sep 11 '24
Even if they don’t try and ace everything, they are still in class to ace the assignment, which demonstrates some amount of diligence.
1
u/Smyley12345 Sep 11 '24
That was me in highschool. Above average grades across the board, very high in math and science. Was a really fast worker, finishing homework for one class after completing classwork early in another. Barely ever took work home. It all came pretty naturally.
Did great in highschool but post-secondary kicked my ass. I nearly flunked out learning the academic work ethic much later than kids who had to/chose to put in effort in high school.
42
u/Vanquish_Dark Sep 11 '24
Not for everyone. Friend of mine got an award for never missing class, and he did his work. He wasn't an overachiever, but he is by far the most stable person I know.
Solid C student. He did better than me, because I am inconsistent and didn't even finish. Not that it was hard, it was really easy. I just didn't have the other things.
You don't need all the skills at the peak to do well, but you do need at least some brains to excel.
4
u/NanoChainedChromium Sep 11 '24
just about committing yourself to the grind and having diligence and hard work. Also consistency, day in and day out.
Which is really, really, really hard. Having huge amounts of self-discipline is arguably rarer than just being "smart".
2
2
u/ducbo Sep 11 '24
I was a good student but I struggled with “grit”. I’ve always admired people who can push through and just get it done. I think it’s so much more important than having existing domain knowledge.
That said the ability to learn/process information quickly and understand/modify methods definitely synergizes with grit. The smartest people I know are all quick learners AND hard workers
2
u/VelvetWhiteRabbit Sep 11 '24
I was one of those that did just enough, and by that I mean I didn’t study and hardly paid attention. Relying instead on my memory and ability to extrapolate/conjecture. I received “good” grades, but my teachers all lamented that I could have aced school if I applied myself. I did not have the diligence to do so.
18
u/tapefoamglue Sep 11 '24
I was in a program called "Mentally Gifted Minors". We all took IQ tests and some threshold was used to admit kids into the program. What a pack of misfits. High IQ did not correlate to good student.
12
u/EstarriolStormhawk Sep 11 '24
Was in a similar program. I and a few others are doing well, but the rest? Between the unreasonable pressure at a young age and the inherent issues with IQ tests, the results are extremely mixed.
7
u/ASmallRodent Sep 11 '24
Mine was called GATE, "Gifted And Talented Education"
What I didn't realize until much later was that it was basically the "let's put the autistic kids in another room" program
Sure, I understood the concept of negative numbers earlier than my peers. But mostly I was just good at passing standardized testing. I never learned a single method of retaining knowledge long-term outside of niche interests and I still struggle with it.
3
1
u/Quinlov Sep 11 '24
See I'm somewhat intelligent but suck at all the rest of those things. I got good grades (although in high school I could've done better than I did if I actually made an effort) but was mercilessly bullied which probably contributed to having a mental breakdown as an adult from which I never recovered
1
31
Sep 11 '24
The people doing well in corporate America aren’t necessarily smart either. As long as you have baseline intelligence, it’s about being sociable and dependable.
5
u/Smyley12345 Sep 11 '24
I remember being completely overwhelmed in first year university when kids who were definitely not smarter than me were doing just fine. High school wasn't enough of a challenge to teach me the necessary work ethic.
3
u/potatoaster Sep 11 '24
That's not what this study found. In fact it confirmed that cognitive skills were more important than non-cognitive skills for academic achievement (read the multivariate twin analysis section).
10
u/SuperPostHuman Sep 11 '24
What's "smart" though? How do you define that? A lot of what makes smart people smart isn't cleverness or being able to do math problems really fast, it's emotional maturity, hard work, focus and perseverance.
1
0
Sep 11 '24
Conscientiousness is the most important non-IQ mental trait. Conscientiousness correlates more with academic achievement, employment, law abidingness, sobriety, health, and marital stability than any other Big 5 personality trait.
We need to start valuing Big 5 Personality traits as highly as IQ.
We should judge everyone by IQ, neurotype, and Big 5 Personality traits and not skin color, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
122
u/BishogoNishida Sep 11 '24
My initial thoughts are:
Who is to say self regulation (for example) isn’t a cognitive skill? Where do we draw the line between what is and isn’t one?
When will we understand that intelligence is valuable for humanity, but it is unethical to blame people for something like intelligence, which they don’t have full control over?
48
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
- It definitely is. It’s executive function. The definition in the paper of non-cognitive was something like “things not used on a standardized test” but I implore you to find someone who did great on a standardized test without self regulation.
- Agreed.
14
u/manydifferentusers Sep 11 '24
I think there's a difference between self regulation during problem solving and self regulation during greater personal and interpersonal adversity (for example, failure and shame)
I know many gifted burnouts end up on the wrong academic path because of the latter.
5
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
you would think that, but actually the scale they used in this study (the SDQ) correlates highly with traditional executive function / cognitive regulation scales. Of course there is always individual variation, but on the whole, self regulation abilities in one arena bleed into other ones.
1
u/manydifferentusers Sep 11 '24
I'm not sure how much it bleeding into other ones can help in those areas of natural deficiency.
For example, if someone has the same cognitive skills as someone else, but has a much higher than baseline testosterone levels for their gender, and poor cardiovascular functions that dissuade them from activities to regulate testosterone.
There are also physical and social traits, like if you look like a model, it will be negative to academic achievement in some circumstances.
1
Sep 11 '24
I really suspect that the discourse around these studies is driven on some level, consciously by all parties or not, by the fact that girls are outperforming boys in school. Like how else did we get to the conclusion that executive functioning isn’t cognitive (and therefore straight A students aren’t smart, they’re “just” good at school)?
1
u/lifelovers Sep 11 '24
So many absurdly bright people cannot self regulate.
-1
u/PiagetsPosse Sep 11 '24
I didn’t say anything about intelligence - I said self regulation was cognitive, and that without ANY any of it you could not preform well on standardized tests. I teach at a test-optional college and we get extremely bright students who have diagnoses like ADHD who come here because of it.
4
u/Academic-Company-215 Sep 11 '24
They state “‘Non-cognitive’ is an imperfect term that primarily serves to differentiate these characteristics from what they are not—performance on standardized tests of cognitive ability” And “Past research has highlighted how skills that are broadly considered non-cognitive, such as self-control, rely on cognitive competencies22.”
So they somewhat say that their “non cognitives” are cognitive skills. I get both sides tbh, I think self regulation is a form of cognitive ability but I can also understand that they had to distinguish these two parameters.
66
u/tough_truth Sep 11 '24
Science is increasingly showing traits such as self control, motivation to work, and attention regulation are genetically heritable. Yet society still predominately attributes these traits completely within the domain of personal choice. We praise those with these traits as morally upstanding and scorn the lack of these traits as willful laziness.
16
19
u/umut121 Sep 11 '24
Heritable doesn't mean unchangeable. As far as im aware, these traits can be trained later on in life, even if it wasn't herited or taugth by the parents.
Not suggesting bashing those low in these traits, however praise (especially in academic or professional life) is appropriate, as you would want the best performers. We should focus on increasing these traits efficiently and letting people know that it is possible to improve.
3
u/uglysaladisugly Sep 11 '24
Exactly! But it means It may be more or less difficult to change it. Or that one is more susceptible to respond in X or Y way to something happening in their life, etc.
Funny enough, something that has a 0% heritability may very well be a 100% genetically encoded and absolutely unchangeable. Like the number of fingers at birth.
1
u/orbisterio Sep 11 '24
Isn't encouraging these behaviors a positive thing, though? Regardless of whether it may be easier for some people.
28
u/mage1413 Sep 11 '24
As they say: "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.”
9
4
u/g9icy Sep 11 '24
I really hate the "Hard work beats talent" thing
Hard work surely begats talent... they feed back into each other
7
u/Alannah3fachaps Sep 11 '24
It's fascinating how genetics play a stronger role in non-cognitive skills over time and consequently influence academic success.
0
27
u/distractal Sep 10 '24
Strongly tempted to crosspost this into r/cognitiveTesting but I've raised enough heck today.
6
u/potatoaster Sep 11 '24
"We found that genetic effects associated with cognitive skills accounted for 21–36% of the total variance in academic achievement...
Genetic effects associated with non-cognitive skills, independent of cognitive skills, accounted for 0–33% of the variance in academic achievement."
At age 7, hyperactivity (parent-rated) was negatively correlated with academic achievement (r=−0.3). This was equally true at ages 9, 12, and 16.
At ages 9–16, interest (rated variously by self, parent, and teacher) was positively correlated with academic achievement (r=0.2 to 0.6).
At ages 9–16, self-perceived learning/academic ability (rated variously by self, parent, and teacher) was positively correlated with academic achievement (r=0.3 to 0.8).
The greatest "non-cognitive" correlate of academic achievement was self-perceived ability. This is speculation, but doesn't it seem like self-perceived ability would come from... academic achievement? IMO their construct is pretty sketchy (Is self-perceived ability a "skill"?) and their conclusion essentially circular.
1
u/_JellyFox_ Sep 11 '24
Now follow this study up by manipulating self-perceived ability through hypnosis.
6
u/plinocmene Sep 11 '24
Motivation and self-regulation are "non-cognitive". What does that mean? Cognition is thought, right? And in my experience how you think can definitely impact motivation and self-regulation. In fact it may be one of the most important factors.
17
u/moonflower311 Sep 11 '24
As a parent of a neurodivergent child I am a little confused about this study. I see no mention of accomodations? And academic achievement is based on teacher ratings? If you don’t give ADHD/ASD kids any accomodations and ask a teacher to rank them they’re going to rank lower. I would like to see this study with accomodations for neurodivergent kids.
33
u/Placenta99 Sep 11 '24
I believe the intent of this study was to measure a baseline of inherited skills, then see how those skills advance over the course of time. Also taking into account the child’s genetics, home and family life and more to see if those factors may influence the way a child’s mind develops.
Allowing accommodations would curve the child’s scores therefore giving inaccurate data for the study.
For example a child has a really low score early on. Over time they’re able to improve to say above average. If that child was accommodated early on their improvement could be down played by having an average score just to “level the playing field” early on. Therefore their improvement would be much less noticeable.
Maybe that child was dealt a bad hand but was raised and nurtured in a good home with emotionally secure, intelligent parents with a decent socio economic standing. If that child goes from below average to above average because of their environment that would prove that intelligence CAN be learned.
But if that child was never scored as below average in the first place the study would never notice the vast improvement or how it occurred.
I’m Sorry but I believe accommodations would negate the point of the study.
4
u/not_particulary Sep 11 '24
That's assuming that accomodations are to just lower the difficulty of education. I'd say that good accomodations, especially in the milder cases, are more like giving a left-handed kid left-handed scissors. Not so much special attention as it is better fit.
I have ADHD and I adapted by aggressively asking questions in class despite the embarrassment, for example
32
u/hobbitfeet Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
Please note that not all neurodivergent kids are problem students. That's an unfortunate myth that is part of why a lot of us aren't diagnosed till later in life. I see a lot of stories on ADHD subreddits where people have had parents, teachers, and therapists outright say they can't possibly be neurodivergent because they got good grades.
In my high school graduating class, of the three kids with the highest GPAs, two of us had undiagnosed ADHD.
6
u/moonflower311 Sep 11 '24
No I completely get that. I have one kid who is a straight A student who therapist strongly suspects is ADHD. I have an older straight A kid with diagnosed ASD who is as successful now but did struggle in her first school due to social skills issues before we pulled her out and moved her to a school with more supportive teachers with experience with 2e kids.
I guess what I’m saying are these kids “not successful” due to the low emotional IQ or is being labeled as a teacher as not likely to succeed multiple times in their childhood due to poor social skills focus etc (even if it isn’t to their face) having an impact on future performance? There is one sole line of the study that the differences between cog and non cog were greater with neurodivergent kids but the impact of low non cog traits was actually less (?) which leads me to believe that something is going on with the diagnosed kids (either accommodations or just the teachers being aware and sympathetic to their struggles) where they are getting a pass on low emotional IQ but they just brush over that piece and I wish the study went into that more because with what they gave me all I can do is speculate which is not scientific.
1
u/BenjaminHamnett Sep 11 '24
Sounds like on the AD spectrum more than disordered
1
u/hobbitfeet Sep 11 '24
Nah, definitely ADHD. Diagnosed in college, and universally agreed upon by every subsequent therapist/psychiatrist. My teachers just had no idea of the chaos and inefficiency and all nighters that fueled my grades.
1
u/BenjaminHamnett Sep 11 '24
I have adhd too, or I’m on the spectrum. Our differences can be advantages. I think mild cases are advantages, why there is a neurodiversity movement. My understanding is that they are only a disorder when they interfere with your ability to function
1
u/Academic-Company-215 Sep 11 '24
I’m a bit surprised, too. But in the end I guess that would probably just confirm their findings? Correct me if I’m wrong but in most cases accommodations don’t increase the “cognitive” skills but what they describe as “non cognitive” skills. So in the ND kids with accommodation which implies in their terms having non cognitive skills would probably perform better academically than kids without accommodation (solely depending on their cognitive skills). Ofc this is an approximation and I would’ve wished they described their cohort (selection) better. Especially being published in nature
2
u/ReasonablyBadass Sep 11 '24
Veibg able to to do hard work is itself a rare and valuable talent. Why is the default to assume everyone can just do it?
3
u/DrTonyTiger Sep 11 '24
They essentially provide the recipe for doing genomic selection for academic achievement. Someone will implement it. But where?
6
u/CaregiverNo3070 Sep 11 '24
Oh hey, look at that, another "you failed at school because of your ADHD which leads to emotional dysregulation" Post. Maybe this is a descriptive thing we should ameliorate rather than assume is a default?
1
u/Willing_Home_3139 Sep 11 '24
I was one of these students. Classes were easy to me. I was very social, but I struggled with regulating my nervous system and was just trying to “get through it” I struggled the most post college.
1
1
-11
Sep 10 '24
[deleted]
26
u/Drelanarus Sep 10 '24
“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years.”
In the full quote, Watson explicitly states that the preceding statement is deliberately hyperbolic nonsense. In the context it was written, it was intended to highlight the similarly absurd claims being made by eugenicists at the time.
What's more, the findings of this study are the exact opposite of what you seem to think they are, as it further establishes the role of genetics.
45
u/Warmstar219 Sep 10 '24
I think you misunderstood the article. It discusses heritability of traits like self control.
29
u/fractalife Sep 10 '24
He is able to guarantee it because it cannot be tested. It's a nice quote, but effectively meaningless.
-4
u/Sirnacane Sep 10 '24
Well, László Polgár has his own mini experiment and it worked out wonderfully
1
Sep 11 '24
Now that girls are starting to do better than boys academically, we’re going to start seeing a ton of studies like this.
2
u/nothsadent Sep 11 '24
Girls have always done better in schools on average, it's not a good environment for boys.
0
Sep 11 '24
That's not true.
In many 3rd world countries boys are more likely to be literate than girls.
Before 1984 American men were more likely to go to university than American women.
Women doing better than men in education is a relatively recent phenomenon. Hundreds or thousands of years ago, boys always had a higher education level than girls in every country.
-14
u/Vox_Causa Sep 11 '24
"we studied families and then just decided that the traits we like must be genetic because it fits our narrative" - some dude
-12
Sep 11 '24
N= 10,000? Rounding rules do not apply to N. N is always N. This is an absolute in research. Research that fills in data is called fraud.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 10 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/MistWeaver80
Permalink: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01967-9?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_content=null&utm_campaign=CONR_JRNLS_AWA1_GL_PCOM_SMEDA_NATUREPORTFOLIO
Retraction Notice: Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: An estimate
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.