TangoMan meinte am 31. Aug, 02:55:
Heckman - Ten Years Later
We wrote about Heckman's research since his critique of The Bell Curve here. Note the following points:1. he grants that IQ is a measure of cognitive ability
2. in fact, he uses IQ interchangeably with cognition and cognitive skill
3. he grants that IQ is not easily altered
4. he grants that it is important
Also, see Heckman's recent paper, the conclusion of which reads:
Minority deficits in cognitive and noncognitive skills emerge early and then widen. Unequal schooling, neighborhoods, and peers may account for this differential growth in skills, but the main story in the data is not about growth rates but rather about the size of early deficits. Hispanic children start with cognitive and noncognitive deficits similar to those of black children. They also grow up in similarly disadvantaged environments and are likely to attend schools of similar quality. Hispanics complete much less schooling than blacks. Nevertheless, the ability growth by years of schooling is much higher for Hispanics than for blacks. By the time they reach adulthood, Hispanics have significantly higher test scores than do blacks. Conditional on test scores, there is no evidence of an important Hispanic-white wage gap. Our analysis of the Hispanic data illuminates the traditional study of black-white differences and casts doubt on many conventional explanations of these differences since they do not apply to Hispanics, who also suffer from many of the same disadvantages. The failure of the Hispanic-white gap to widen with schooling or age casts doubt on the claim that poor schools and bad neighborhoods are the reasons for the slow growth rate of black test scores.Regarding your link to the related Heckman posting, and the reference to econometrics, have you by chance seen the Jones & Schneider 1330 IQ regressions paper?
HedgeFundGuy antwortete am 31. Aug, 04:26:
Economists still won't touch IQ
I know several labor economists, and they all know that things like the AFQT trump most other variables in explaining things in panel data sets. But there is simply no appetite for this strand of inquiry. You could be 100% right and neatly explain 10 "puzzles" with one swoop, but the right people (editors at the top journals) would find the work objectionable on some minor grounds they don't apply to other more tenuous hypotheses. The axiom of equality is too strong. Expecting economists to discover IQ links to economic phenomena would be like expecting someone in the Education Department to praise homeschooling.
Mahalanobis antwortete am 31. Aug, 04:58:
I haven't read the
Jones & Schneider paper yet, but I'll take a look at it soon. I'm a little bit wary for two reasons:1. see my post on Proxying Human Capital and Abiola's reply (Didn't you guys from Gene Expression once clash with Abiola on your blog?)
2. Growth regressions are really fragil and one can ask whether they make any sense at all. Some time ago I have written a short summary/handout on The Neoclassical Growth Model and the Hypothesis of β-convergence. Awful, ey? And I didn't even mention such things as measurement error and misspecification.
There are a couple of papers I have to read before being able to enter the discussion. Jesus, Andrew Gelman one refered to this wide ranging article by Flynn... still didn't find the time to read it.. ;-D.