Investing in a nanny state for social returns

By Razib Khan | July 28, 2010 10:13 am

Jonah Lehrer has a post up, How Preschool Changes the Brain over at Frontal Cortex. He reports on a paper, Investing in our young people, which has been around for about 5 years. The top line of it is this, an investment in a $2,500/year (inflation adjusted) pre-school program in the early 1960s seems to have been effective in improving the life outcomes of at-risk low SES young black Americans tracked over their lives up to the age of 40. Their measured I.Q.s were not initially high, 85-75, 15th to the 5th percentile (though the median black American IQ is ~85, so not so low within ethnic group). They did gain an initial I.Q. boost, but like most of these programs that boost disappeared over time. But in terms of their non-cognitive skills there remained an appreciable effect which impact their life outcomes. What were these non-cognitive skills? To me they resemble classical bourgeois values rooted in low time preference. Willing to be a “grind,” work hard and forgo short-term pleasures and not cave in to impulses with short-term gains and long-term costs.

Here’s a figure from the paper which I’ve reedited with labels:


heckman

Intuitively we understand this. Through experience we know of this. There are individuals with high intellectual aptitudes who lack self-control. Who do not succeed in life because of poor life choices. There are individuals with mediocre intellectual aptitudes who achieve a certain amount of comfort and prestige in their life because of their rock solid focus on their goals. By analogy an old under-powered computer with Ubuntu installed on it running Open Office will still perform at a higher level in achieving productivity goals than a high-powered computer which is loaded with Windows riddled with spyware and mostly running games which require a lot of computational muscle power beyond the specs of the box.

My main question is one of interpretation: is the change in non-cognitive skill portfolio due to intervention at a “critical period” in a neurobiological sense? The authors make explicit analogy to language. If children are exposed to a language before the age of 12 they generally can learn and speak it without an accent with marginal effort. Severely abused, or in rarer cases “feral children,” who are not exposed to language at all in their formative years, may remain unable to speak fluently in any language for the rest of their years after recontact with mainstream society. This is likely a function of the biological aspect of language acquisition and learning. Or at least that is the contemporary consensus.

Does this apply to non-cognitive skills? I am moderately skeptical, though my attitude here is provisional at best. Through the pre-prints the authors take a methodological individualistic perspective. Individuals invest in their skills, and the earlier they invest in their skills the more positive feedback loops can emerge so that their skills can mature, extend and sharpen. There’s clearly something to this. But the focus on family environment and such in the paper makes me a touch skeptical. There is a large behavior genetic literature which suggests that family environment, “shared environment,” is not very predictive of long term outcomes. Rather, “non-shared environment” explained about 1/2 of the outcomes for many behavioral traits (the balance is genetic variation).

In The Nurture Assumption Judith Rich Harris argued that the non-shared environment really referred to peer groups. Again, the analogy to language is illustrative. Children do not speak with the accent of their parents, they speak with the accent of their peer groups. There is an exception to this: autistic children (or, children who consciously want to have a particular affect). Though I was not explicit, this is the sort of dynamic I was indicating when I suggested that culture matters in saving. Different cultures have different norms, values, and frameworks in which you can express your personality predispositions. In genetic terminology I’m talking about a norm of reaction.

Quickly skimming through the original paper which Jonah Lehrer’s post was based on (and skipping over the guts of the economic modeling) I was unclear if there was a long-term peer group effect, as they didn’t seem to explore this possibility. Perhaps instead of a critical period in a neurobiological sense, what we’re seeing here is the emergence of specific peer groups which reinforce and buffer individuals in decision making and goal setting? Perhaps the original intervention resulted in the emergence of a new subculture within the low SES black community of Ypsilanti, Michigan?

Life outcomes can vary a great deal based simply on social norms.

Chart5

In terms of the bottom line this may not change the policy conclusion that much. The operational outcome of a given policy may be the same even if the means by which the outcomes are realized differ. That being said, I probably does matter on the margins if the effect is due to individual level biological changes vs. group level norm shifts when it comes to details of policy formation.

Image Credit: CDC

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Behavior Genetics
  • miko

    “is the change in non-cognitive skill portfolio due to intervention at a “critical period” in a neurobiological sense?”

    With almost anyone but you, Razib, I would suspect a slip into dualism here. In what sense could a systematic behavioral change, “cognitive” or not, be non-neurobiological?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    good point. i’m assuming here that the model they’re presenting is like language. once you gain these skills, you can’t lose them unless you are physically injured (brain damage). OTOH, with peer group effects you can reverse the effect by changing peer groups.

  • dan

    critical periods! yes, need more of these Razib. I’m very interested in all the new info coming out on critical periods of neural development.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Investing in a nanny state for social returns | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine -- Topsy.com

  • toto

    Coincidence! The NYT discusses recent work that seems to support similar conclusions: pre-school environment actually does influence late-life outcomes.

    IIUC, they looked at long-term effects of kindergarten schooling. Having a good kindergarten environment has strong positive effect in early childhood, but these effects fade out, in terms of test score, by late adolescence (this was known). But apparently, the effects re-remerge with a vengeance later in life, and affect all kinds of life outcomes – who goes to college, how much they earn, etc.

    Apparently it’s not yet peer-reviewed, so maybe there’s no there there. Still, I found the coincidence amusing.

    There is a large behavior genetic literature which suggests that family environment, “shared environment,” is not very predictive of long term outcomes.

    But how much of it is based on adoption studies that regard adoptive parents as a random sample of the population, or twin studies which assume that any difference in correlation between MZ and DZ twins must be genetic in origin?

    /contrarian

  • Pingback: The Moral Liberal

  • gaddeswarup

    There is report by Emily Hanford on Perry Preschool Program with a summary here:
    http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/preschool/index.html
    The early organizers seem very commited people and seem to be interested in cognitive development :
    ““I would do whatever we needed to do,” says former teacher Evelyn Moore, “to prove that this many African-American children were not retarded.”

    “We tried everything,” says former teacher Louise Derman-Sparks.

    Their idea was to focus on cognitive development, but to do it all through hands-on activities and play.”
    I wonder whether role models played a part in the development.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »