Hello There, Guest!  
1 2 3 4 5 11 Next   

[ODP] Increasing inequality in general intelligence and socioeconomic status as a res

#1
Title:
Increasing inequality in general intelligence and socioeconomic status as a result of immigration in Denmark 1980-2014

Authors:
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Bo Tranberg

Abstract:
We argue that if immigrants have a different mean general intelligence (g) than the host country and if immigrants generally retain their level of mean g, then immigration will increase the standard deviation of g. We further argue that inequality in g is an important cause of social inequality, so increasing it will increase social inequality.

We build a model to analyze change in the mean and standard deviation of g over time and use it on data from Denmark. The simplest model, which assumes no immigrant gains in g, shows that g has fallen from 97.1 to 96.4 and the standard deviation has increased from 15.04 to 15.40 in the time span 1980 to 2014 due to immigration.

Files:
PDF: https://osf.io/dei73/
Other files: https://osf.io/r5a2x/files/
 Reply
#2
MH:

Quote: I think you should write "better correlate" if it's a correlation analysis. By saying this, you make clear that you are talking about correlations, and people will never get confused about if it's correlation or regression.

Changed the word from "predictor" to "correlate" when the context was correlations as opposed to MR.

Revision #6
https://osf.io/dei73/
 Reply
#3
Is there any empirical data for SD trends over time? You cite a study of the IQ in 2003, but no cohort-based studies of changes in SD.

g should be italicized in a paper. "Authors" as a plural should not have an apostrophe (as on p. 4). "Gini" (as in "Gini coefficient") should be capitalized.
 Reply
#4
The army has data, but they are not public.

One could try the PISA data. These are scholastic, not g data. PISA is also affected by changes in the exclusion rate and schooling practices.

Anyway, the PISA data are:

Code:
source("merger.R")

DF.mega = read.mega("Megadataset_v1.8.csv")

DF.pisaSD = DF.mega[,seq(29,61,2)]
t(DF.pisaSD["DNK",])


Code:
DNK
Math00SD     87.00000
Read00SD     98.00000
Sci00SD     103.00000
Math03SD    103.00000
Read03SD     88.00000
Sci03SD     102.00000
Sci06SD      93.13443
Read06SD     89.26528
Math06SD     84.81061
Read09SD     83.58587
Math09SD     87.01057
Sci09SD      91.91580
Finance12SD        NA
Math12SD     82.09977
Read12SD     85.61966
Sci12SD      92.66652
CPS12SD      92.31454


Results are all over the place. PISA SD's are not very stable from year to year. Too much noise or exclusion rate changes or something.

I prefer not to bother with italicization of g.
Changed "author's" to "authors".
Changed all "gini"s to "Gini"s.
 Reply
#5
It's not all over the place. For reading and science, SDs tend to decrease over time. It's clearly different from the pattern displayed in figure 6. Although PISA is not intelligence test, I wasn't expecting this.
 Reply
#6
1) "Fifth, comparisons between full-siblings living together show that"

should be reared/raised together

2) "to calculate the composing of populations"

Composing? Rephrase.

3) "we show the out using step sizes of"

Show the outPUT?

4) "Adding two normal distributions together with different means always results in a greater SD."

Wouldn't the SDs of the distributions have to be similar for that to be true?

5) You should add some descriptive statistics on the countries of origin of the immigrant population in Denmark.
 Reply
#7
Dallliard, I must have forgotten about this post of yours.

Quote: 1) "Fifth, comparisons between full-siblings living together show that"

should be reared/raised together

Changed to "reared".

Quote: 2) "to calculate the composing of populations"
Composing? Rephrase.

Changed to "to calculate the aggregation of populations".

Quote: 3) "we show the out using step sizes of"
Show the outPUT?

Fixed.

Quote: 4) "Adding two normal distributions together with different means always results in a greater SD."

Wouldn't the SDs of the distributions have to be similar for that to be true?

Changed to "Adding two equal sized, equal SD normal distributions together with different means always results in a greater SD.".

We have been trying to prove this theorem deductively, but it is not easy. We consulted some mathematicians who were also unable to prove it. It is easy to show by illustration of course.

Quote: 5) You should add some descriptive statistics on the countries of origin of the immigrant population in Denmark.

I can add a table in the appendix with their relative size over select years. Is that what you desire? E.g. percent of the population by each country of origin 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010?

-

New revision added: https://osf.io/dei73/ dated 14th Nov. 2014. #7
 Reply
#8
(2014-Nov-14, 09:50:51)Emil Wrote: Dallliard, I must have forgotten about this post of yours.

Quote: 1) "Fifth, comparisons between full-siblings living together show that"

should be reared/raised together

Changed to "reared".

Quote: 2) "to calculate the composing of populations"
Composing? Rephrase.

Changed to "to calculate the aggregation of populations".

Quote: 3) "we show the out using step sizes of"
Show the outPUT?

Fixed.

Quote: 4) "Adding two normal distributions together with different means always results in a greater SD."

Wouldn't the SDs of the distributions have to be similar for that to be true?

Changed to "Adding two equal sized, equal SD normal distributions together with different means always results in a greater SD.".

We have been trying to prove this theorem deductively, but it is not easy. We consulted some mathematicians who were also unable to prove it. It is easy to show by illustration of course.

Quote: 5) You should add some descriptive statistics on the countries of origin of the immigrant population in Denmark.

I can add a table in the appendix with their relative size over select years. Is that what you desire? E.g. percent of the population by each country of origin 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010?

-

New revision added: https://osf.io/dei73/, dated 14th Nov. 2014. #7


Delete the comma from the link
 Reply
#9
Introduction. Constant Danes population size could be due to lowered mortality due to increased lifespan. You should also plot number of deaths or death rate against year in figure 2.
Population t+1= Populationt+Naturalincreaset+Netmigrationt
Naturalincreaset= Birthst+Deathst
This model should be incorporated in the paper.
“The reason for the apparent paradox is that there is a constant conversion of people from the
’foreign origin’ category to the ’Danish origin’ category”
You cannot state this if you do not include the number of deaths in your demographic model.
Section 4.3. > I would like to see this tested on an existing population with long lasting and widespread migration history, such as the US. How did the SD in IQ or average height in the US change over the last 100 years or so? Is it higher than countries with more homogeneous ethnic background, such as Iceland or Finland?
For example we know the ethnic composition of White Americans (e.g. 25% German, 10 % Irish, etc.) and the average heights and SDs of the European countries from which they descend. This will enable you to test your model.
 Reply
#10
Duxide,

Thank you for reviewing our paper.

Quote: Introduction. Constant Danes population size could be due to lowered mortality due to increased lifespan. You should also plot number of deaths or death rate against year in figure 2.
Population t+1= Populationt+Naturalincreaset+Netmigrationt
Naturalincreaset= Birthst+Deathst
This model should be incorporated in the paper.

We don't want to get into more complex modeling. It is possible to have constant population size only if average lifespan increase quite a bit every year. This doesn't happen, altho it increases a bit.

Quote:“The reason for the apparent paradox is that there is a constant conversion of people from the
’foreign origin’ category to the ’Danish origin’ category”
You cannot state this if you do not include the number of deaths in your demographic model.

Sure we can. The reason it happens is quite obvious from the legalistic definition of "country of origin" that the DST employs. If you desire more complex modeling, you should look up Nyborg's paper. His predictions were wrong however since he used UN birth rates for immigrants in Denmark, not adjusting for the fact that they decline sharply once they get here and in the second generation especially. For that reason his predictions are too pessimistic.

Quote: Section 4.3. > I would like to see this tested on an existing population with long lasting and widespread migration history, such as the US. How did the SD in IQ or average height in the US change over the last 100 years or so? Is it higher than countries with more homogeneous ethnic background, such as Iceland or Finland?

For example we know the ethnic composition of White Americans (e.g. 25% German, 10 % Irish, etc.) and the average heights and SDs of the European countries from which they descend. This will enable you to test your model.

If you have links to data useful for that purpose, that would be good. However, it is for another study. In this one we tried to model the SD of g using population level data. There is only one real datapoint to compare against (2003 army data) and the model fits nicely with it both in terms of the mean and the SD.

This seems to be another case of the reviewer wanting the paper to be about something other than it is. It is not reasonable to demand a new complex analysis of deaths for the simple claim that conversion of people from "foreign origin" to "Danish origin" is happening. This is plainly obvious from the definition. A child born to 1 genetic Dane and 1 foreign origin will be counted at 1 "Danish origin" in their data. That person would of course be 50% Danish genetically, but since s/he is counted as 1, it introduces error in estimates such as ours.
 Reply
1 2 3 4 5 11 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)