It's worth pointing out that even if it's true that environment may not increase someone's measured intelligence (as evidenced by someone's performance going up when in a controlled, artificial environment, and then going back down when removed from that environment), it's certainly possible for someone's measured intelligence to decrease due to environment (lead poisoning, other substances, repeated head trauma).
Where that point gets political is if people believe that the "environment" commonly surrounding certain socio-economic populations is the natural baseline for that population, or instead an environment that is depressing their likely natural performance.
Like, if you move someone from their status quo, then is that putting them in an artificial environment that ultimately will not help? Or is that removing them from an artificial environment that is artificially depressing their performance, thereby giving them a permanent relative boost when you move them?
Where it gets even more political is when people believe that certain disadvantaged environments are "natural" specifically because the intelligence of that population leads them there.
Thanks for this. I'm (perhaps unduly) annoyed that this article went with "Just as important, intelligence is profoundly shaped by the environment." 50/50 genes/environment has become a safe way to avoid outrage, but as far as I know it's not something any actual academics believe - genes and environment cause qualitatively different effects with substantially different variance. (Environment in particular appears strongly capped on upside.) Summarizing that as "just as important" is sloppy and unhelpful, even without taking a politicized stance.
Where that point gets political is if people believe that the "environment" commonly surrounding certain socio-economic populations is the natural baseline for that population, or instead an environment that is depressing their likely natural performance.
Like, if you move someone from their status quo, then is that putting them in an artificial environment that ultimately will not help? Or is that removing them from an artificial environment that is artificially depressing their performance, thereby giving them a permanent relative boost when you move them?
Where it gets even more political is when people believe that certain disadvantaged environments are "natural" specifically because the intelligence of that population leads them there.