Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do You Think Intelligence Is Inherited Or Learned?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#18 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 30 August 2014 - 11:57 PM

The point is that one of them has a younger sister. The other has an older sister. This creates an entirely different dynamic for each. Further, parents behave differently with successive children because they learn about how one raises children through experience. Each child is treated differently.



#19 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 01:09 AM

Don't sweat it, dude. One day when you have kids of your own you'll understand my point.

#20 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 04:45 PM

I don't have kids. I have two adults and two grandchildren. There is a wealth of research showing that 1) parents treat each child differently and 2) the position in the sequence of children has an influence on their character and development. We are governed by Nature and Nurture.



#21 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 08:12 AM

Did your wife battle giving birth to adults?

#22 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4189 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 09:06 AM

Borseun, I don't see why you think that the fact of either having an older or younger sibling does not affect the kids.



#23 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 02:47 AM

Of course it does. It didn't say it didn't. But Eclogite's comment about having adults begged for it. Goodness gracious me - I haven't been around for years. What a humourless place this turned into. Will the last guy to leave please switch off the lights.

#24 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 04:56 AM

Boerseun, it is good to have you back, but I think you may be misreading these exchanges. Or, I am.

 

I will make a case for my humour being intact - though not necessarily of good quality - by the fact that I refer to myself as having adults, not children, since it is a long time since they could be called that.

 

Your humourous remark  about "giving birth to adults" was not, I think, what sanctus was commenting on. In your earlier posts you seem to insist that nurture has very little to do with intelligence and use the fact that your two daughers are quite different as evidence. You then seem to dispute what, to my knowledge, is a well established fact, that character development is greatly influenced, in different ways, by the presence of older or younger siblings.

 

You seemed serious in this belief and that is what I and I think sanctus are challenging you on.



#25 mongoman

mongoman

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 12:31 AM

I believe we have all heard of the "late bloomers". A person doesn't do well in school, but later in life becomes a successful "whatever". In considering the history and evoution of man, what prompted one of our ancesters to pick up a stone and use it as a tool? That doesn't smack of inherited intelligence. This leads me to think that intelligence is learned. Certainly the characteristics of the parents are passed down, and probably plays an mportant part in the mental as well as physical development of the off-spring.


Edited by mongoman, 03 September 2014 - 12:31 AM.


#26 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4189 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 02:11 AM

Sorry to disappoint you both (Eclogite and Borseun). I was referring to both things:

1) the seeming denial of influence of the siblings

2) The post which I read more as being annoyed rather than humurous.

 

I interpreted wrong, my bad. But Borseun, you know me well/long enough, I still have the same humour as years back (this does not imply that I have some, just that the level did not change :-)) and judging the whole level of humour based on my post is a great honour to me, but I think it is not very accurate:-) Eg. the standard deviation of  the humour level would be very ill defined (although being zero) :-D



#27 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 05:38 AM

I believe we have all heard of the "late bloomers". A person doesn't do well in school, but later in life becomes a successful "whatever". In considering the history and evoution of man, what prompted one of our ancesters to pick up a stone and use it as a tool? That doesn't smack of inherited intelligence. This leads me to think that intelligence is learned. Certainly the characteristics of the parents are passed down, and probably plays an mportant part in the mental as well as physical development of the off-spring.

I do not follow your logic. How can someone 'learn' the intelligence to know what to do with a stone?

 

However, one can have a heightened curiosity (one aspect of intelligence) and an ability to combine apparently disparate ideas (another aspect of intelligence) both of which could be heritable. Of course, they could also have learned how best to use these abilities.

 

Your logic of using late-bloomers appears flawed. I'll take the opposite tack: we all know of those child geniueses who do advanced math when they are seven, or write a symphony when they are four. Obviously intelligence is inherited.

 

Of course, neither view is correct. Intelligence is controlled both by genetics and the environment. There is a wealth of research that supports this view. Denying it would require a similar amount of contrary research.

 

I recommend this book for a balanced and insightful discussion of the topic.

 

Matt Riddley Nature versus Nurture Harper Collins 2003 ISBN:0-06-000678-1



#28 ErlyRisa

ErlyRisa

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 439 posts

Posted 08 September 2014 - 07:07 AM

It's sad that those, that are newly accustomed to a technology (Genes), find it easy to attribute (what was once basic knowledge), thier thoughts of the environment as a workable PRODUCT!

 

What I am saying is that, just because you know how too spell the word Gene...don't over use it.

 

eg. It MUST be in the Genes!? - a very common comment worked by the western masses (for at least my life time) too easily...When it is obvious that they (masses) are absolutely and utterly WRONG!.

 

I have state b/f, and will state again (People)^1 ... that the same people looking for the "happy" gene...are also just helping other people find the "gay" gene...ab surdum.

 

 

1, Sorry Now I'm being glib, and openly pronounced. (Of course the spelling of People, would not highlight the way in which I thought the word, and the association too it being used by the Broadcasting system too create the use of the word in context , eg. Peeps, peeeeepol!, etc ... by being glib about it's spelling, and writing it without FULL CONTEXT, the reader has many avenues of thought ___especial that which is stressed for time, too have not read the word in context in the first place. This I find to be akin too the God Dillema,,,,what is the written word? Should you be completely open and completly contectual for ALL too comprehend? - NO!!, they should go to get SCHOOLed.)



#29 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 10 September 2014 - 08:24 AM

One only has to look at history, to see there have always been intelligent people. The state of the art of knowledge impacts how well they can make use of their intelligence. There is both a nature and nurture element. 

 

If you lived at a time when the earth was flat, but had an IQ of 180, one can still look pretty dumb based on modern standards of science and inferences. That genius may infer and extrapolate using soft premises (for our time) and conclude falsely, based on this state of the art.

 

On the other hand, if you were average in IQ, but had access to insider information or data, you can look like a genius to those who lack this knowledge. If the geniuses lack this data, they can look dumb, not getting in on the ground floor. 

 

Our base intelligence is genetic,  while our contextual IQ is connected to knowledge. In college, there are many geniuses, with the best state of the art, information allowing him/her to appear even smarter than the outsider with the same IQ. Or one may be super smart, like Einstein, but in areas like fashion, where his knowledge is thin, due to lack of interest, he can appear dumb. If Einstein had wanted to become a fashion leader, he would need more knowledge, so his innate IQ would shine in fashion. 

 

The only place where there is a level playing field for intelligence and knowledge is outside the box. This is where all have limited data and nobody has inside information.


Edited by HydrogenBond, 10 September 2014 - 08:27 AM.


#30 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 10 September 2014 - 09:48 AM

Oh well, the 'nature vs nurture' debate is older than... well, something really, really old. And a winner is yet to come to the fore.

The title for this specific thread, however, plainly asks what your personal opinion regarding the matter would be. And in my opinion, your genetic inheritance lays the foundation upon which you build your percieved intelligence. If the genetic component is lacking, no amount of brain-gymnastics will turn the situation around. As Raccoon said in his post, you can't fix stupid.

True, that.

But it makes me think - why, then, would evolution select for stupid people? Pardon my lack of political correctness - let's call them 'intellectually challenged', if it will make them feel any better. You know the type. They normally turn out to be politicians and accountants. Boring, stupid idiots. Why would evolution encumber us with them? Remember, there's no specific direction in which evolution is shaping humans - as far as evolution is concerned, a stupid human is as good as a smart one at birth. It depends on how that brainpower or lack thereof will shape up to the environment, at least until that particular individual has a few tequilas too many and get to share his genetic information in the back seat of a smelly car parked in a dark alley.

And here's my take on it. Don't take it for the holy truth, however. It's my THOUGHTS - as asked for in the OP:

Brains is obviously beneficial to the individual. But our evolution isn't a product of the individual as it is product of our gene pool, that slitherling mass of human flesh we call our friends, family, lovers, neighbours, et al. The individual might have brains running out of his ears and might be the cleverest sonofabitch since Einstein, but his brains might very well be the end of him. A new method or trick or something that he's trying out because it makes perfect sense in his galactic-sized brain might explode in his face and remove his genes from the equation.

Enter stupid people, stage left. Stupid people who won't invent new! exciting! things like fire, or the wheel, serve as a moderator in the gene pool. They apply the brakes slightly so that new cultural inventions that was thought out by somebody currently lying in a pool of his own blood have time to diffuse through the cultural 'gene-pool'.

I don't know. I'm tired, my eyeballs are crossing over and I've got a printing deadline in two hours. I'm just rambling. Indulge me. Be that as it may, I think there might be something to it. Evolution needs stupidity to keep the clever guys from destroying everything, even if only by accident.

#31 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 10 September 2014 - 01:12 PM

Bell curves. Your intellectually challenged individuals are only intellectually challenged relative to people who are smarter than them. They are still a hell of a lot smarter than a daffodil, a toad, or a lemming.



#32 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 13 September 2014 - 08:54 AM

Enter stupid people, stage left. Stupid people who won't invent new! exciting! things like fire, or the wheel, serve as a moderator in the gene pool. They apply the brakes slightly so that new cultural inventions that was thought out by somebody currently lying in a pool of his own blood have time to diffuse through the cultural 'gene-pool'.

 

The smartest people, in general, have  fewer children. In terms of the theory of natural selection and breeding rights, this implies the smart don't see themselves as the naturally selected, or else they would have the most offspring like in nature. 

 

The instinct of the smart is not to depend on their genes, but on the money and means they have with respect to nurturing children. This high level of nurture will compensate for poor genes, with fewer children allowing the nurture to be more concentrated. The poor person has to depend on genes because cultural nurture is not at the same level of advantage. 

 

In the olden days gone by, the royalty have more ways to nurture their children and therefore can compensate for less than premium genes. The poor did not have the same access to cultural nurture but had to depend on genes and instinctive nurture. The path of the poor appears to have selective advantage, which is why the poor are the dominant demographics. It would almost imply nature come first. While the royalty showed with enough nurture, the opposite can also work. However, this will not have selective advantage in nature, due to being too resource intensive, to be viable for all. Only a small group gets to use excess resource for an IQ boost that is free, if natural. 


Edited by HydrogenBond, 13 September 2014 - 09:01 AM.


#33 Speedjohn

Speedjohn

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 04:36 AM

An ability to perceive information and to apply it, is intelligence.It totally depends on surrounding,a person chooses to live in.All siblings in a particular family have not same level of intelligence.



#34 KevinTiangco

KevinTiangco

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 11:28 PM

For me it's all about yourself, parents show us how to be intelligent and we adopt it.