HN Books @HNBooksMonth

If intelligence, conscientiousness, grit, drive, determination, etc were as visible as height, it would be immediately obvious why some people succeed and others fail. These traits are not evenly distributed. Some have them in spades, others don't.

The real myth is that "everyone has the capacity for success," and people who don't have success are "kept down by the system." These are feel good stories. If the only thing keeping everyone from eudaimonia is a broken system, then we fix the system and, presto, everything is great.

The hard pill to swallow is that differential life outcomes stem largely from differential capacities.

https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...

To develop mental models you need to start at the ground floor, with understanding basic human nature.

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...

Because it's factually wrong. Biology matters, and I'm not trying to bring in concepts like race (which is a total intellectual disaster, since the term refers to multiple concepts that mean radically different things). Many studies do not account for simple heredity, when adoption studies have already shown that traits like IQ and even personality are heritable to some degree (1). There are genetic correlations with intelligence, aggression, etc that are difficult to untangle but undeniably real.

Humans are incredibly unique animals, but you are still a biological machine and your brain is not a piece of magic pixie dust. Without getting into the free will debate, biology does not determine behavior but does influence it heavily.

Edit: I'm not denying the existence of culture or social norms. These matter, but are also undoubtedly linked to the biological machinery of the human animal. Human society is an evolutionary result (2).

Second edit: It's very easy to find evidence that the social evolution of humans is a biological process. Here is one of my favorite papers on the self-domestication of the human species (3).

1: https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...

2: https://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancest...

3: http://resources.seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jwhorley/Gracili...

You've heard nonsense. Please read some of the literature on intelligence research (1). Steven Pinker has also written a great book on why the ideas of the blank slate and social constructivism are purely ideological and do not hold up to analysis (2).

IQ is a very strong metric predictor of pretty much every aspect of personal success, from successful marriages to income to academic achievement to interpersonal skills. By no means is the relationship deterministic, but that isn't what we mean by predictors. (Many other psychological metrics, like the nonsensical "emotional intelligence", predict nothing when IQ is included in the mix.)

1: https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-F...

2: https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...

> For example, it selectively cites a tiny corner of the > research literature, conveniently ignoring the mountains > of evidence that don't fit the stated thesis.

You really should provide some sort of reference on that claim.

I would say, that the consensus among psychologists in academia is the opposite of what you suggest: A majority of those people would admit that genes have a significant influence on differences in human behaviour, interests, capabilities etc.

Haidt & Jussim, May 16, 2016, Hard Truths about Race on Campus. Wall Street Journal. http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.p...

Jussim, L. (2017). Why do Girls Tend to Prefer Non-STEM Careers? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

Jussim, L. (2017). Gender Bias in STEM or Biased Claims of Gender Bias? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/ge...

Ceci & Williams (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157-3162. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3157.full

Duarte et al (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430, e130 https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/D...

Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate. New York: Penguin Books https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...

Wang et al (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice in careers in science, technology, engineering and math. Psychological Science, 24, 770-775. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612458937

Williams & Ceci (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 5360-5365. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

(this list was copied from http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... I have myself read 'The Blank Slate' by Steven Pinker. A very recommendable book)

⬐ popra

So given the "consensus" that "genes have a significant influence on differences in human behaviour, interests, capabilities etc.", you're basically saying that a significant and spontaneous, yet undetected, mutation appeared in the human female population, during the '80s [1] ?

[1] https://m.imgur.com/t/the_more_you_know/pkZPrOI

⬐ Certhas

I don't have time for an in depth response, but:

> A majority of those people would admit that genes have a significant influence on differences in human behaviour, interests, capabilities etc.

This is in no way in contradiction with anything I said. I specifically said the majority of the gender patterns we see are cultural. Not anything else.

I did not say either that "All human differences are cultural." nor that "All gender differences are cultural."

If you enjoy The Blank Slate, then you might be interested in reading Pinker debate with Spelke:

https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.htm...

Almost certainly not. Stephen Pinker has a whole book discussing not only why not, but why some people are willing to ignore both evidence and reason in order to believe it anyway: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/01420...)

⬐ astazangasta

Unfortunately Pinker is as guilty of just-so stories and easy essentialism as those he criticizes. What fraction of modern Americans are dying in wars again? Be wary of 'human nature'. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/11/25/what-comes-natu...

⬐ narag

The idea that people can't be forced to arbitrary behaviour is not the same as the idea that people's minds are rigid. Also modern war is not what it used to. You need huge organization, funds and convincing people to risk their lives.

Except maybe in the USA, that patriotic feeling is no longer prevalent in first world countries. And that with professional armies. What happened last time you had forced draft? Was it Vietnam?

You'd need a huge amount of money for propaganda that would fire back anyway. A sensible percentage of population sees the (usually economic) interests through the justifications.

⬐ anigbrowl

An existential threat would hcange that in short order. Terrorism involving the destruction of planes, trains, or individual buildings makes people angry and afraid, but if an actual state were to launch a conventional war I think you'd have no problem re-instituting a draft even in democracies. Of course in many countries a sufficiently serious attack would raise the prospect of nuclear retaliation; a nuclear capability is an economic substitute for conscription.

⬐ sudont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

⬐ None

None

⬐ Harris1246

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

⬐ ajarmst

Wow, that's one of the most egregious and intricately constructed straw man attacks I've ever seen. It's above and beyond the New Yorker's ordinary standard of belittlement and misrepresentation. Thank you. <Edit>Heh. I just noticed the other commenter who added a link to a description of the tu quoque falacy, which is brilliant. I agree that Pinker can often be a bit facile, and he does tend to caricaturize his opponents (although invariably using their own words to do it). But this takedown piece attributes ideas and attitudes to Pinker that are not only not in evidence, but which are frankly and directly contradicted in the actual text of the book.</edit>

⬐ astazangasta

Care to elaborate, or are we just going to trade claims of logical fallacies all day (please kill me first)? Pinker is the prime exponent of a field (evolutionary psychology) widely regarded by other scientists as a pseudo-science. When I had him as a lecturer, his own TAs would ridicule the shoddy claims he made in lecture behind his back (e.g. that old one about how men prefer blondes because it reminds them of the savannah, I kid you not) and encouraged us to think critically about them.

Pinker is a great writer, and he's exposed a lot of people to new ideas. Many of those ideas are extremely bad and have little basis in evidence. He's also in dangerous territory alongside assholes like Charles Murray and the Thornhills.

⬐ peterfirefly

Are you talking about Randy Thornhill? In that case, who is the other Thornhill?

I'd like to know because if you don't like them then they are probably worth reading.

⬐ ajarmst

"To say that music is the product of a gene for “art-making,” naturally selected to impress potential mates—which is one of the things Pinker believes." No, it's not. "Pinker doesn't care much for art, though." Assumes facts not in evidence. "It's O.K. to rewire people's “natural” sense of a just price or the movement of a subatomic particle, in other words, but it's a waste of time to tinker with their untutored notions of gender difference." Snidely misrepresents Pinker's thesis, which is simply that gender differences are real, are a product of evolution, and that an assumption that gender differences are social constructs is dangerous and wrong. "He argues, for example, that democracy, the rule of law, and women's reproductive freedom are all products of evolution." No, he doesn't. Would anyone? That's all in just a few lines. I don't really have the time or intestinal fortitude to give you a whole line-by-line refutation. Maybe just read what Pinker wrote, instead of this hatchet job?

A final note, as I think we're both growing bored with this, but if you find accusations of logical fallacy so tedious, perhaps avoid making statements like "He's also in dangerous territory alongside assholes like Charles Murray and the Thornhills."

Well, there's only one truth. It's perfectly plausible that one set of ideas (conservative ideas) could be less scientific than another set (liberal ideas).

However, ideology can influence us, since we are not perfect at science. Without the strong objective feedback of the hard sciences, social psychology is particularly vulnerable.

The bias alleged in this article actually starts to look more plausible when you consider the history of social psychology and related fields. Back in the 1970s, it was taboo to mention ANY innate qualities of human nature. Gender was purely a social construction. Babies were identical in every way--people were different only because of their upbringing. Prominent biologists like E.O. Wilson who argued genes might play a role were attacked and demonized. Nothing could contradict this doctrine of the blank slate -- that we're born perfectly malleable. I highly recommend Steven Pinker's 2002 book, titled "The Blank Slate" [0] which brilliantly debunks this theory, and lays out the best characterization of human nature I've ever come across. Seriously, read this book, it is a masterpiece.

Anyway, from what I've read recently, it seems many fields like social psychology are still captive to lesser versions of the blank slate fallacy. Human nature is not as malleable as they think. Our instincts are still there (gotta eat, sleep, procreate), and even "higher" areas of the brain for things like language, emotion, and thought seem to be heavily innate (to think at all requires machinery, and there are many ways to craft that machinery). Also, genes really are more important than most seem to realize. The twin and adoption studies show that the majority of variation among people in intelligence and personality is due to genes. How your parents treated you and brought you up has almost no effect by the time you are an adult in important metrics like IQ and personality tests. Smart people are largely born smart.

These sort of "deterministic" ideas fly in the face of traditional liberal values. Topics like gender discrimination and societal inequality are undermined by these ideas, so that provides a reason for a liberal thinker to push back against them.

If the gender gap in computer science is due more to innate differences in interest than to discrimination, and if inequality of income is due more to innate differences in talent than differences in opportunity, then that makes it harder to argue for reform. I believe thinking along these lines is the major cause for bias today.

So yes, I agree social psychology is quite biased. In the future, we will look back with horror at how we let politics and ideology interfere with science.

[0]http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/01420...

You raise a good point. Wikipedia's policy of NPOV (neutral point-of-view) effectively means "mainstream"; while I grant that "controversy" on this subject exists in the mainstream, I believe in this case the mainstream is unhinged from reality. Thus, on this point, so is Wikipedia. [1]

Given the dramatically different reproductive incentives for women (one egg per month for ~25 years, 9 months of pregnancy plus lactation, etc.) and men (millions of sperm per week and potentially no more than a few minutes' commitment), biologically determined cognitive and behavioral differences are obviously the null hypothesis. In other words, the burden of proof is on those who claim that women and men don't exhibit cognitive dimorphism. Does this strike you as the "mainstream" view? For example, there are many who claim (or, much more often, merely imply) that women and men must on average be equally well-suited to engineering. Are such people routinely called out by NPR and the New York Times to produce evidence to support their position? Um, no. So, we can see that the mainstream is in error: even if it turns that there is such evidence, the mainstream doesn't generally demand it. (Indeed, those who do demand it risk censure for their beliefs.)

A survey of different cultures around the world tends to confirm the null hypothesis: a belief that women and men have different natures is a human universal. [2] For a rigorous account of the positive case that women and men differ in their cognitive and behavioral characteristics, I can recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. [3] If you're short on time, see his TED talk for a quick overview. [4]

[1]: If creationism were mainstream, Wikipedia would claim a "controversy" over evolution. Indeed, many creationists make just such a claim. This doesn't make them right.

[2]: http://humanuniversals.com/human-universals/

[3]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/01420...

[4]: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_b...

⬐ dalke

I'm not the one who started by pointing to Wikipedia. ;)

"the burden of proof is on those who claim that women and men don't exhibit cognitive dimorphism"

As for example Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons, and Carol Nagy Jacklin, eds. The psychology of sex differences. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 1974? And the additional analysis by Janet Hyde in papers like "How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using! w² and d.." American Psychologist 36.8 (1981): 892? (Plus more recent work. Those citations come from the full paper behind the link I posted previously, which lists many more references.)

There's a century of work on this topic. Some say there are differences, others say there aren't any. The ones that say there are differences don't seem to be that reproducible. There's publication bias as well - someone finds a difference, but when the test is repeated the difference decreases or even disappears. This is expected for the reasons behind http://xkcd.com/882/ and elaborated in that 1974 reference as:

> We shall return now to the importance of the null hypothesis - to point with some alarm to the tendency for isolated positive findings to sweep through the literature, while findings of no difference, or even later findings of opposite results, are ignored. Studies with nonreplicable[sic] positive findings are reprinted in books of readings, cited in textbooks, and used to buttress theories about the nature of the development of sex typing.

along with a quote about their hypothesis for why beliefs about cognitive sex persist:

> An ancient truth is worth stating here: if a generalization about a group of people is believed, whenever a member of that group behaves in the expected way the observer notes it and his belief is confirmed and strengthened; when a member of the group behaves in a way that is not consistent with the observer's expectations, the instance is likely to pass unnoticed, and the observer's generalized belief is protected from disconfirmation. We believe that this well-documented process occurs continually in relation to the expected and perceived behavior of males and females, and results in the perpetuation of myths that would otherwise die out under the impact of negative evidence.

Or there's papers like Feingold, Alan. "Cognitive gender differences are disappearing." American Psychologist 43.2 (1988): 95. If cognitive gender differences are innate, and easily measurable, then there wouldn't be a change over time. That there's a decrease says they are either not innate or not easily measurable.

You wrote: "So, we can see that the mainstream is in error: even if it turns that there is such evidence, the mainstream doesn't generally demand it. (Indeed, those who do demand it risk censure for their beliefs.)"

Are you kidding me? There's a bajillion people who say there's evidence for cognitive sex differences. Here's one citation:

> '"Educational systems could be improved by acknowledging that, in general, boys and girls are different," said David Geary, MU professor of psychological science. "For example, in trying to close the sex gap in math scores, the reading gap was left behind. ..."' Quote from http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0313-internati... . Author's home page http://psychology.missouri.edu/gearyd .

How has this person been censured?

The paper is freely available. It points out that there are measured sex differences, and in hypothesis #3 that it might be "biological in origin, see pp.291–294, pp.411–412 of [10]", but "At this point, we have no definite answer to what can explain the correlation, which means that it requires further study."

And that's the issue - there is evidence of differences, but there isn't strong or significant evidence that those differences are biological in nature. But it's very easy to see the difference and assume it must be biological.

I see that you reference popular science books and lectures as basis for your decisions. Moreover, all of those resources came from a single person. That is not rigorous. Pinker could be misinterpreting the data and you wouldn't know.

Where is the primary data? How are the experiments done? What confounding effects might be in the data? How reproducible is it? Can you point me to some of the peer reviewed literature?

I looked at the 'human universals' link. It immediately made me distrustful, since the first one is "environment, adjustments to". All life adjusts to the environment, so this isn't particularly special for humans. It's like saying that eating and defecating are human universals; while true, I note they aren't on the list.

But there's easily things in there which are not universal. My cousin doesn't prefer sweets. There are people who feel no pain (congenital analgesia). Those without thumbs/hands/arms have no thumb sucking. Yet those people are obviously human. More likely, these "universals" are not actually universal, no?

Or take "males dominate public/political realm"? How universal can that be given that Andorra and Rwanda have respectively 50% and 56% female parliamentarians? If there ever is a country with a majority of female politicians across all levels, would this mean Pinker's universals hypothesis is completely false? Or would the list be adjusted to fit whatever is the current conditions?

⬐ lexcorvus

I appreciate your detailed response. As you might guess, I find many points of disagreement, but rather than belabor the matter with an enumeration of such points, let me just note that my comment wasn't a dissertation, so accusations of a lack of rigor are misplaced. In particular, my purpose in citing Pinker was to point you to an accessible introduction to the subject, not to do a comprehensive literature review. Moreover, what you dismiss as a "popular science book" has hundreds of footnotes to refereed publications. Take a look at it—you might be surprised at what you find.

⬐ dalke

As you yourself have implied, creationist books also have 'hundreds of footnotes to refereed publications.' ;)

I have a hard time trusting Pinker's views, or most of the work of evolutionary psychology. They in general do not seem to understand evolution. That is, they seem to think that everything is an adaptive result of specific evolution, and don't consider the idea that some mechanisms are neutral with respect to selection. I also believe they have make conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

My own experiments with genetic algorithms show just how much crap there can be, which has nothing to do with evolutionary fitness. But I at best dabble in evolutionary biology (my own work is related to small-molecule chemistry, and my training is in structural biophysics, so only tangentially related to evolution).

Instead, see http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/28/tackling-p... and http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/15/when-in-do... for the comments of an evolutionary biologist commenting on evolutionary psychology, and on Pinker in specific.

"Take a look at [them]—you might be surprised at what you find." ;)

Quoting from the latter:

> Have I ever said that we shouldn’t study gender or racial differences? No. We know there are going to be differences. The catch is that they have to be studied very, very well, with rigor and careful analysis, because they are socially loaded and because science has a deeply deplorable history of using poor methods to reach bad conclusions that are used as ideological props for the status quo.

The first of those links has 654 comments, with all sorts of viewpoints ... and a number of references, like from #516:

> In this paper, we use meta-analysis to analyze gender differences in recent studies of mathematics performance. First, we meta-analyzed data from 242 studies published between 1990 and 2007, representing the testing of 1,286,350 people. Overall, d = .05, indicating no gender difference, and VR = 1.08, indicating nearly equal male and female variances. Second, we analyzed data from large data sets based on probability sampling of U.S. adolescents over the past 20 years: the NLSY, NELS88, LSAY, and NAEP. Effect sizes for the gender difference ranged between −0.15 and +0.22. Variance ratios ranged from 0.88 to 1.34. Taken together these findings support the view that males and females perform similarly in mathematics.

The paper is online for free at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057475/ , and it highlights the difficulties of doing this research:

> These stereotypes are of concern for several reasons. First, in the language of cognitive social learning theory, stereotypes can influence competency beliefs or self-efficacy; correlational research does indeed show that parents' and teachers' stereotypes about gender and mathematics predict children's perceptions of their own abilities, even with actual mathematics performance controlled (Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Frome & Eccles, 1998; Keller, 2001; Tiedemann, 2000). ... A second concern is that stereotypes can have a deleterious effect on actual performance. Stereotype threat effects (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995) have been found for women in mathematics. ... Stereotypes play a role in policy decisions as well as personal decision-making. For example, schools and states may base decisions to offer single-sex mathematics classes on the belief that these gender differences exist (Arms, 2007).

Note that these two confounding cultural effects are not genetic, and seemingly much stronger than any biologically-based difference which might exist.

  The twins' father, Walker Inman, 57, lumbered from the 
  mansion, his tattooed sleeves visible under a black T-
  shirt, drinking his morning rum ... He'd been full of 
  dangerous mischief since he was a child. As a 13-year-old 
  orphan in 1965 taken in by his aunt Doris Duke, Walker – 
  then called "Skipper" – had romped around her lavish 
  14,000-square-foot Hawaiian estate without regard for 
  property or propriety

That single word "orphan" is the most important part of this article. The reason this piece is so bizarre is that the sorts of traits that allow you to build great fortunes in business[1] are anti-correlated with those that result in becoming a tattooed, drunk, abusive, morbidly obese, criminally-inclined drug addict. Put another way, the kind of guy who would build up a fortune like that would be unlikely to have a biological son like this. In America we're supposed to pretend that DNA doesn't matter, and that you can only pass down looks/height and not brains/behavior, but reality doesn't work like that [2,3,4]. Babies put up for adoption at birth in particular tend to disproportionately be children of parents with low impulse control and mental disorders, and at least some of that appears to be due to the genetics of the parents above and beyond the orphanage conditions [5]. Sounds harsh, but good to know if you're considering adopting.

[1] Celebrities and athletes are of course excluded from this sentence. They don't become wealthy through scaling businesses/managing people, and as such have a much higher incidence of behavioral issues. Many NBA and NFL athletes are bankrupt after a few years out of the league, in fact.

[2] http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf

[3] http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/01420...

[4] http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/kalthoff/bio346/PDF/PowerPo...

[5] http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1737667,00.ht...

  The Minnesota psychologist and her colleagues found that 
  disparity could be due as often to innate factors such as 
  perinatal care or his birth parents' genes. "The 
  deleterious effects may quite possibly have come before the 
  adoption ever took place," Keyes, the study's lead 
  researcher, says.

⬐ GuiA

The excerpt you cite is from the first 5% of the article. Have you read the whole thing? There is more than enough evidence in this piece to show that nurture was very much a factor here, regardless of whether nature was or not.

⬐ hollerith

>That single word "orphan" is the most important part of this article.

Are you sure you are not conflating the concepts "orphan" and "adopted"?

⬐ bendoernberg

Both tattoos and obesity are inextricably tied in with social class; as a general rule, the very wealthy are far less likely to become obese or get tattoos, for a variety of reasons. That leaves "drunk" and "drug addict"; what's your basis for claiming that the children of wealthy businessmen are unlikely to have substance abuse problems?

⬐ None

None

⬐ azernik

Did you read any of the bits in between your ellipses?

  ...stinking rich from three trust funds: one from his
  father, Walker Inman Sr., heir to an Atlanta cotton
  fortune and stepson to American Tobacco Company founder
  "Buck" Duke; one from his mother, Georgia Fagan; the third
  from his grandmother, Buck's widow Nanaline Duke, who left
  the bulk of her $45 million estate to her little grandson.

The money involved was made by people with the same genes as Walter Inman, Jr.

⬐ temphn

You know what, looks like you're right on this one and I am wrong. It wasn't clear on a first read whether they were saying "his father" as in "his biological father" or "his adoptive father", but on a second read you're right. I still think the statements hold in their generality but clearly not in this specific case.

⬐ wavefunction

And his father also died from "consumption" or "getting too fucked up too often" disease.

I've had some exposure to the "very wealthy" and they're just as fucked up at a rate as someone you might find in the trailer park tradition. It's often a factor of luck.

⬐ Amadou

Consumption is a synonym for tuberculosis, nothing else.

  “As always, the children who are most at risk are exactly 
  the very many children in our society who have the fewest
  resources,” Alison Gopnik, a psychologist at the
  University of California, said in an e-mail.

Indeed. And such "at-risk" children often inherit genes predisposing them to exactly the kinds of issues the studies uncover (and blame on watching too much TV). The problem is that most of these studies don't control for genes; there's no way to tell if TV-watching is the source of the problems or if it's the genes of the parents who let their babies watch lots of TV. Until the studies are re-done while controlling for genes, the conclusions (and the corresponding recommendations) are useless.

Parents who read a lot to their children have children who grow up to be more verbal. But parents who read a lot to their children also tend to pass on genes for verbal fluency. Studies that adequately control for genes show that reading to children does virtually nothing for their verbal ability—it's all in the genes, and in random events over which the parents have no control. See http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_b... and http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/01... for more.