Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By JennLonhon
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By NNet
  • 3 Post By epidecus

Thread: IQ - genetic or behavioral?

  1. #1 IQ - genetic or behavioral? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Is IQ more genetic or more behavioral?

    I've read reports that identical twins with the same DNA can have IQs varying by as much as 24 points, so this seems to indicate that behavior is the bigger factor.

    But others, usually racists, claim that IQ is in your DNA, but I haven't seen any real evidence for this.

    Then others say that it's 50/50, but that seems like a made up speculative number from no where.

    So what's the biggest factor influencing IQ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I recommend an excellent book called Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridley. He elegantly answers your question, demonstrating with an excellent range of references that both genetics and the environment in which they are expressed together determine IQ. He does not say it is 50:50, but neither factor is dominant.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Imo it's both, highly intelligent people are likely to get smart kids. You can boost your IQ trhough learning.

    Don't know the %/%, it matters not imo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    genetics give you the potential, and environment gives you what you actually become. A very high genetic-intelligence child in a very stupid environment will, ultimately, be stupid simply because the child doesn't have any leg up on their potential IQ.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Intelligence is nuture and nature.

    Genetics in the human body that program the mind to be able to deal with more difficult tasks and challenges seems to be bred within many of us, and many of those potentials not being made.

    However, the correlation between smart parents having smart children is more akin to the like of their parents being smart around the child, which rubs off on them so to speak.

    Pretty logical thesis if you ask me. No doubt the two are intertwinned and affect children in different ways depending on the nuture and nature that is given the child, and as such I would say the IQ of a human being is defined as:

    25% Nature
    75% Nuture

    In my own personal opinion, not backed up by scientific evidence or empircal data, rather common sense and logic along with a couple of years of psychology education
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Imo it's both, highly intelligent people are likely to get smart kids. You can boost your IQ trhough learning.

    Don't know the %/%, it matters not imo.
    I don't think this is true. A lot of the greatest scientists, geniuses, and inventors seem to come from either poor families or normal families, or broken families.

    Newton was an abandoned farm boy from a broken family, he was slow at studies and failed a scholarship exam.

    Faraday was poor and uneducated, never went to high school or college or had any education after age 13.

    It seems like if you come from a family perceived as intelligent, you'll most likely be in an environment making you intelligent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime
    Intelligence is nuture and nature.

    Genetics in the human body that program the mind to be able to deal with more difficult tasks and challenges seems to be bred within many of us, and many of those potentials not being made.

    However, the correlation between smart parents having smart children is more akin to the like of their parents being smart around the child, which rubs off on them so to speak.

    Pretty logical thesis if you ask me. No doubt the two are intertwinned and affect children in different ways depending on the nuture and nature that is given the child, and as such I would say the IQ of a human being is defined as:

    25% Nature
    75% Nuture

    In my own personal opinion, not backed up by scientific evidence or empircal data, rather common sense and logic along with a couple of years of psychology education
    Well I still don't get you calculated those numbers, but it seems like this question is also connected to the brain-mind question, brain size and intelligence, and other things connecting intelligence to brain structure

    But some people with the highest IQs have relatively small brains, so brain size doesn't seem to matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    14
    I think that it's a mixture. In my opinion, stimulation of the brain (toys when you're a toddler, puzzles, studying, etc) while it's still growing and genetics affect it.
    I think it's probably (a complete guess) 40% genetics. But parents who are smart will know to stimulate their baby and make their child study and learn, therefore "passing on" intelligence.

    I have known many people around my age who are not terribly brilliant but who have successful parents. Why? I think because the parents are so busy being smart they don't have time to make sure their child receives the stimulation necessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Imo it's both, highly intelligent people are likely to get smart kids. You can boost your IQ trhough learning.

    Don't know the %/%, it matters not imo.
    I don't think this is true. A lot of the greatest scientists, geniuses, and inventors seem to come from either poor families or normal families, or broken families.

    Newton was an abandoned farm boy from a broken family, he was slow at studies and failed a scholarship exam.

    Faraday was poor and uneducated, never went to high school or college or had any education after age 13.

    It seems like if you come from a family perceived as intelligent, you'll most likely be in an environment making you intelligent
    Those are probaly due to mutation, I also know plenty who comes from poor families and are brilliant, but I think you are sidestepping in the topic at hand, it isn't about enviroment we'r talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Imo it's both, highly intelligent people are likely to get smart kids. You can boost your IQ trhough learning.

    Don't know the %/%, it matters not imo.
    I don't think this is true. A lot of the greatest scientists, geniuses, and inventors seem to come from either poor families or normal families, or broken families.

    Newton was an abandoned farm boy from a broken family, he was slow at studies and failed a scholarship exam.

    Faraday was poor and uneducated, never went to high school or college or had any education after age 13.

    It seems like if you come from a family perceived as intelligent, you'll most likely be in an environment making you intelligent
    Those are probaly due to mutation, I also know plenty who comes from poor families and are brilliant, but I think you are sidestepping in the topic at hand, it isn't about enviroment we'r talking about.
    Due to a mutation? That's unlikely.

    Which topic am I sidestepping? The environments didn't really favor lots of scientists, so how did they end up becoming great scientists?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Imo it's both, highly intelligent people are likely to get smart kids. You can boost your IQ trhough learning.

    Don't know the %/%, it matters not imo.
    I don't think this is true. A lot of the greatest scientists, geniuses, and inventors seem to come from either poor families or normal families, or broken families.

    Newton was an abandoned farm boy from a broken family, he was slow at studies and failed a scholarship exam.

    Faraday was poor and uneducated, never went to high school or college or had any education after age 13.

    It seems like if you come from a family perceived as intelligent, you'll most likely be in an environment making you intelligent
    Those are probaly due to mutation, I also know plenty who comes from poor families and are brilliant, but I think you are sidestepping in the topic at hand, it isn't about enviroment we'r talking about.
    Due to a mutation? That's unlikely.

    Which topic am I sidestepping? The environments didn't really favor lots of scientists, so how did they end up becoming great scientists?
    When a sperm will fertelize an egg, the genes will randomly interact, thereby make random mutations resulting in chances of abnormaleties outside the expected frames.

    Ie: it is expected that a child will have a certain height, IQ, body mass ..etc, but the factor of random mutation can cause abnormaleties to this.

    Also from fertelization and henchforth there are the factor of spontanious mutation of the genom.

    I would suggest you read up more on the subject.

    Besides, geniouses has the selfteaching factor, alongside with selfmotivation ..etc, whereas normal people doesn't, thus imo it's a sidestep from the initial question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    This topic already ran through perhaps a dozen pages, few months ago. My contribution then was to bring up birth conditions, especially the brain-sculpting, mass-neuron-killing ordeal of a baby's head through the birth canal. That is kinda genetic and environmental. The arrangement of mother's pelvis, and the diameter of baby's head attained at term is largely genetic. Different populations seem to have evolved their own strategies for maximizing the delivered mass of undamaged brain tissue. However environment surely plays a part here too: just look at any C-section newborn head. MRI it and you won't see any hemorrhaging either.

    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    some people with the highest IQs have relatively small brains, so brain size doesn't seem to matter.
    Yes, that I think illustrates one birth strategy. Vaginal births normally allow a regrettable amount of damage (a fraction of which would kill an adult) perhaps gambling on quantity over quality, but smaller-head babies deliver relatively unscathed, so better quality brains.

    Of course in this thread we're talking about geniuses and retards. Abnormal brains. How do brains begin to grow abnormally?

    It is very well accepted that birth conditions predict retardation. Complicated births get a lot of attention. I wonder about the birth conditions of geniuses? Anecdotally I know one genius who was C-sectioned... also epileptic... :? I think her mother was using a lot of street drugs during pregnancy.

    I think we can assume having your blood oxygen dwindle while your brain is compressed through a bent tube narrower than your head --- a significant normalizer. Some damaged tissue is normal! As mentioned, just which trade-offs are made depends on birth strategy (genetics). The unborn brain may be like an unfinished slab of sculpture, in that it should have some material removed to become a real work of art.

    I find this line personally engaging, because I was delivered premature and rapidly on account of my tiny head; then put into an incubator, not the ideal environment for continuing to grow a healthy brain. And then my son was born a month late with freaking enormous brain, that must have sustained quite the headache. Midwives were confident in this delivery because "she has an Asian birth canal." And all his mother's side have huge heads.

    Note that in above anecdote mother's genes affect baby's brain even if the baby is a (genetic) carbon copy of the father. Could certain mother/father/daughter/son combinations mesh well to yield better brains? If so, couldn't this limit geniuses to at least skip generations, or even be a "one-shot" culmination of contributing genes?



    Suppose the overriding concern in reproduction is to deliver the best brain possible. Say the advantage of a great brain outweighs all else. Also say you're cruel as life and don't mind making sacrifices. What strategy would you evolve?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: IQ - genetic or behavioral? 
    Forum Junior JennLonhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Is IQ more genetic or more behavioral?

    I've read reports that identical twins with the same DNA can have IQs varying by as much as 24 points, so this seems to indicate that behavior is the bigger factor.

    But others, usually racists, claim that IQ is in your DNA, but I haven't seen any real evidence for this.

    Then others say that it's 50/50, but that seems like a made up speculative number from no where.

    So what's the biggest factor influencing IQ?
    It is said and generally accepted that genetics has 60% influence in IQ (40% to 80%). The rest is behavioral. And these are the results I learn in school about Intelligence:

    Same person tested twice - 0,87
    Identical twins raised together - 0,86
    Identical twins raised separately - 0,76
    Non-identical twins raised together - 0,55
    Non - identical twins raised separately - 0,47
    Biological brothers/sisters - 0,47
    Parents and children living together - 0,40
    Parents and children living separately - 0,31
    Adopted children living together - 0,00
    No - relatives living separately - 0,00

    This is a table of connection between IQ in people with various blood connections

    Now, about behavioral factors, they are important too, but look at it his way:
    If Einstein was born in some village god knows where, where they don't even know how to write, he wouldn't have proper environment to develop his IQ. On the other hand, he was born in Europe in a stimulating environment and he was able to develop his IQ better.
    Now picture someone whose IQ is 80 maybe. Even if he's born in the most stimulating environment, he won't be able to do anything more for his IQ.
    So, summary, genetics gives you certain potential that will develop better or worse depending on the environment you're raised in.
    sculptor likes this.
    "Be the change you want to see in the world"
    Mahatma Gandhi

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
    Jimmy Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    When a sperm will fertelize an egg, the genes will randomly interact, thereby make random mutations resulting in chances of abnormaleties outside the expected frames.
    You need to revisit your understanding of mutations. It is seriously flawed. The random mix of alleles during the fusion of two gametes to form a zygote is independent from mutation; it is not the same thing as mutation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    When a sperm will fertelize an egg, the genes will randomly interact, thereby make random mutations resulting in chances of abnormaleties outside the expected frames.

    Ie: it is expected that a child will have a certain height, IQ, body mass ..etc, but the factor of random mutation can cause abnormaleties to this.

    Also from fertelization and henchforth there are the factor of spontanious mutation of the genom.

    I would suggest you read up more on the subject.

    Besides, geniouses has the selfteaching factor, alongside with selfmotivation ..etc, whereas normal people doesn't, thus imo it's a sidestep from the initial question.
    There you go again, claiming all sorts of things with an exaggerated air of authority. I had previously told you that things don't work like that in a scientific discussion. Ophiolite has highlighted another glaring misunderstanding on your part. I don't expect you to own up to it though. Will you prove me wrong?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    random mutations resulting in modified DNA (and subsequently, new proteins and phenotypes). This mutation, recombination, and the fact that the two chromosome sets ultimately come from either a grandmother or a grandfather on each parental side account for the genetic dissimilarity of siblings.
    Gamete ..link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    HexHammer, you are either being dishonest or ignorant. Both conditions are correctable. If you are being ignorant the following explanation may help you understand where you are going wrong. If you are being dishonest, this public display of your dishonesty may discourage you from future infringements.

    Let's look at the full quote from the wikipedia article.
    Additionally, base pairs in chromosomes often undergo random mutations resulting in modified DNA (and subsequently, new proteins and phenotypes). This mutation, recombination, and the fact that the two chromosome sets ultimately come from either a grandmother or a grandfather on each parental side account for the genetic dissimilarity of siblings.

    The mutations are a discrete event occurring in the germ cells. At some point after that mutation, and unconnected with it except for the fact that the same gametes are involved, we have recombination of those gametes to produce a zygote from which an embryo will grow. That is the meaning of the quoted paragraph. It confirms that your apparent understanding of mutation is deeply flawed. Do I need to expand on this further to demonstrate that this is so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The mutations are a discrete event occurring in the germ cells. At some point after that mutation, and unconnected with it except for the fact that the same gametes are involved, we have recombination of those gametes to produce a zygote from which an embryo will grow. That is the meaning of the quoted paragraph. It confirms that your apparent understanding of mutation is deeply flawed. Do I need to expand on this further to demonstrate that this is so?
    Yes, I'm sure you'r speaking the ultimate truth, but could you do me a big fat favor? Please quote some fancy site for the last piece of convincing evidence instead of "interpeting".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Yes, I'm sure you'r speaking the ultimate truth, but could you do me a big fat favor? Please quote some fancy site for the last piece of convincing evidence instead of "interpeting".
    While I'm doing your research for you why don't you consult any basic textbook on biology? This is is not rocket science, or especially difficult biology. Now admittedly you don't know me from Adam, but for your background information any facts I post are exactly that.... facts. I express opinions, or controversial interpretations as such, either explicitly, or implicitly. Granted, you should check everything you read on the internet, but that is the point...You should check it, not ask me to do you a big fat favour and carry out your education for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Yes, I'm sure you'r speaking the ultimate truth, but could you do me a big fat favor? Please quote some fancy site for the last piece of convincing evidence instead of "interpeting".
    While I'm doing your research for you why don't you consult any basic textbook on biology? This is is not rocket science, or especially difficult biology. Now admittedly you don't know me from Adam, but for your background information any facts I post are exactly that.... facts. I express opinions, or controversial interpretations as such, either explicitly, or implicitly. Granted, you should check everything you read on the internet, but that is the point...You should check it, not ask me to do you a big fat favour and carry out your education for you.
    I belive all I asked you to do, is to back up your divine claims with documented facts, mr Divinity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    HexHammer, honestly, what is your problem? Is it impossible for you to keep yourself from resorting to infantile mocking arrogance every time someone dare call you on something? I called your actions childish earlier. How old are you?

    You made a claim and supported it with a link you clearly misunderstood and Ophiolite corrected you. You are wrong. It helps noone if you refuse correction.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    I belive all I asked you to do, is to back up your divine claims with documented facts, mr Divinity.
    I understand you are quite young and have a limited education. (This is evident from your inability to right properly structured sentences, or spell words correctly.) I suspect, however, that you would like to learn. Why else would you come on a science forum?

    If you had a basic grounding in biology you would realise that I am not making divine claims, or speaking from some position of authority (real or imagined). I am simply stating facts that should be familiar with the biology taught in the second year of high school. It is not usual, on a science forum, to ask for confirmation of such basic facts. Unusual claims should be justified, or supported by appropriate references to standard textbooks, or peer reviewed research papers. My statements regarding mutation did not fall into the category of 'unusual statements', but that of 'common knowledge'.

    As Kalster has suggested you might find it a more productive experience on this forum if you lost the attitude and opened your mind a little.

    Since you seem to like Wikipedia here are some thoughts. From the wikipedia article on mutation we have this (the opening sentence):
    Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.

    As you can see there is absolutely no suggestion that mutations can arise by the random mixing of genes, as you suggested. It will be difficult to find a text that states this explicitly, for the same reason it will be difficult to find one that states that mutations do not arise as a consequence of the lunar tides.

    Is this now sufficient to convince you of your error, so that we can move on, or do you require more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Ophiolite

    I have relyed on faulty information, and I stand corrected. Thanks for taking you time to provide evidence. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Excellent. Thank you for your reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    28
    .



    The first claim is that IQ tests actually measure intelligence. This is not the case......The IQ test is a prehistoric construct in pseudo-psychology, whose very history—derived from historiometric studies and other pseudosciences—if people bothered to notice, is besieged with contradictory assumptions and fallacies. It attempts to establish what constitutes human “intelligence”, and claims that true intelligence--an unfathomably complex mechanism--is measurable based on primitive, qualitative notions. In my view, IQ tests have nothing to do with measuring intelligence but are a socio-cultural construct, (a particularly Western societal one) fabricated in an attempt to drive a wedge between social classes, and between different societies and cultures. One striking observation known as the “Flynn effect” is partially responsible for linking “intelligence” measured by IQ tests, to the environment.

    The Flynn Effect is an observation taken from data from most industrial nations that reveal IQ gains ranging from 5 to 25 points in a single generation, every susequent generation. Some of the largest gains occur on culturally reduced tests and tests of fluid intelligence. The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather correlate with a weak causal link to one or two forms of what certain parts of western society see as “intelligence”. The Flynn Effect, if you cared to study it, has an environmental origin and is caused by changes within society: early schooling, longer schooling, the improvement of life conditions, urbanisation, nutritional improvement, etc…. all of which are indicators of upper social status within western society.

    The Flynn effect clearly demonstrates that activities during early schooling are often focussed on resolving problems that are directly associated with IQ tests. Which, on a long term favours an individual’s development of procedures necessary to correctly answer problems in IQ tests—research reveals a correlation between the percentage of university participants and an increase in IQ scores. As a result, IQ tests are unconsciously fixated on what certain parts of western society considers “intelligent”.

    Looking at IQ tests in society, the system unconsciously, or consciously provides an advantage to a faction of society (upper-class) while actively discriminating others (lower-class), based on a socially (environmental) fabricated advantage they have over others. It is always biased in their favour, and there is nothing genetic about IQ scores, as much as they try to convince of otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    We can moot the IQ testing debate by saying intelligent is the opposite of retarded.

    A significant and thoroughly tested reason to perform Caesarian section is to reduce the risk of retardation. Now, when a country is running 30% C-section deliveries, this must impact rates of adult retardation. However the perceived need for C-section depends on the mother's birth canal and some other genetic/ethnic factors. It also depends on lifestyle of the mother, her age, etc.

    A 35 year old caucasian professional is very likely to have a C-section delivery.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Intelligence is never mastered unless one is willing to reconsider his or her own preconcieved notions of the world. It's basically a progession from intellectual childhood to adulthood. I was once an ego-driven, smart-ass "know-it-all" and one day I woke up and realized that I truly understoood little about the things that really mattered like the origin of life and Renaissance thought which led to so many of the scientific discoveries of the 18th century and beyond. I am now obsessed with what some scientists refer to as "deep history" (evolutionary origins of life) and even though I've read several books about the subject I still know so little. Even after a few semesters of biology..I still know little...the only way to learn is to err and correct, err and correct, err and correct...acknowledge that professors and textbooks are your greatest source of knowledge and realize that it's easy to lose the forest for the trees when you lack peripheral vision. I commend you for admitting that you were wrong Hex. Remember, pursuing knowledge is hard work. Stay in school and keep your head up. Earn a PhD and then be cocky. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Well I still don't get you calculated those numbers, but it seems like this question is also connected to the brain-mind question, brain size and intelligence, and other things connecting intelligence to brain structure

    But some people with the highest IQs have relatively small brains, so brain size doesn't seem to matter.
    I didn't calculate I made those numbers up off the top of my head. Moment brain fart Science I call it (MBFS for short).

    Intelligence shouldnt really be measured by brain size. Look at how intelligent the Stegosaurus was in the age of the dinosaurs. It was clever, knew how to defend itself and use tactics to protect itself and it had a tiny brain for its size.

    I believe intelligence is actually measured by how much information the brain processes in a certain amount of time. I read that drawing increases brain productivity by 95%, in mens health I believe.

    Suffice to say, I was very young and was playing games like Sonic the hedgehog and also used to draw. I have the capacity to think big in terms of spatial and mechanical thought, yet the most obvious under-your-nose items that my mind processes, seems to go un-noticed.

    Your question was interesting, and mind provacating. See? You made me now have to create a time machine, go back and bring you a stegosauras' brain for you to tinker with. You happy now? 8)
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    If you look at human beings across the planet, it seems as though things like height are fixed in individuals by genetics.

    But actual research, by people like John Komlos, shows otherwise - that height varies among different kinds of people not by genetics but by environment - that Chinese people are the same height, genetically, as Bantu people, for example. That Japanese and Swedish people are the same genetic height.

    But it's still true that relatively short parents, within a culture, will have relatively short children - all else being equal.

    It would not be surprising to find "intelligence", whatever that really is, to have as least as complex a relationship with genetics and environment as height does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1
    I took a class that looked into this. I was told that intelligence was about 70-75% based on genes. This was shown in twin studies, where the twins were seperated and living in didfferent conditions. Regardless of this environmental change, both twins had similiar IQ scores.

    After saying this, environment can play a role on IQ for example, the fetus' development (drugs that the mother may take, or health problems), as well as the home they grow up in can determine if they exceed expectations, or fall back on their normal level of development. If no one nurtures their potential, achieving it is very hard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3
    Genes and environment play most part in achievement.

    Strictly speaking about genes, I hear 1/3 of the gifted will fail, 1/3 will settle in the middle, 1/3 will achieve.

    Now something must be taken into consideration. Half of the gifted population is said to come from a good socio-economic background, and the other half from a disadvantaged population.

    Lewis Terman studied failure in the gifted population and blamed environment (family) for underachievement.

    IQ tests were first created to detect the mentally challenged, then quickly became the tool of choice to detect giftedness, but for most people IQ tests are of no use.

    The public's fascination for IQ tests is misplaced, and has a lot to do with the Lake Wobegon effect. Google it.

    Also, watch Penn & Teller's latest episode, about self esteem.

    Best regards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe10
    The public's fascination for IQ tests is misplaced, and has a lot to do with the Lake Wobegon effect. Google it.
    What do you mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2
    My understanding is that your genetics determines your range. You could have a predetermined range of 70-130, your environment then determines where in the range you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe10
    Genes and environment play most part in achievement.

    Strictly speaking about genes, I hear 1/3 of the gifted will fail, 1/3 will settle in the middle, 1/3 will achieve.

    Now something must be taken into consideration. Half of the gifted population is said to come from a good socio-economic background, and the other half from a disadvantaged population.

    Lewis Terman studied failure in the gifted population and blamed environment (family) for underachievement.

    IQ tests were first created to detect the mentally challenged, then quickly became the tool of choice to detect giftedness, but for most people IQ tests are of no use.

    The public's fascination for IQ tests is misplaced, and has a lot to do with the Lake Wobegon effect. Google it.

    Also, watch Penn & Teller's latest episode, about self esteem.

    Best regards.
    In looking into your 'Lake Wobegon effect", I had quite an interesting site emerge; Changing Minds, and while I still need to investigate it further, I do feel it is well worthy a bookmark.

    As for the IQ - first things first!

    Whilst an IQ result might appear to some extent an effective tool in 2010, particularly for those of us who seek to promote themselves as ‘better’ than another, it would appear to me that someone really needs to define the essential of this– intelligence - for us all! What exactly are we looking at?

    For mine, this is much like the term ‘life’ – everyone experiences it daily (whilst they can) and has the expectation they know exactly what it’s all about, yet has it been sufficiently defined along scientific – consistently verifiable lines? Has the definition we accept been weighed against another and found to be more applicable/appropriate?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Genetic or behavior 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Imo it's both, highly intelligent people are likely to get smart kids. You can boost your IQ trhough learning.

    Don't know the %/%, it matters not imo.
    I don't think this is true. A lot of the greatest scientists, geniuses, and inventors seem to come from either poor families or normal families, or broken families.

    Newton was an abandoned farm boy from a broken family, he was slow at studies and failed a scholarship exam.

    Faraday was poor and uneducated, never went to high school or college or had any education after age 13.

    It seems like if you come from a family perceived as intelligent, you'll most likely be in an environment making you intelligent
    The fact that a child came from a broken family does not mean that his/her parents were genetically stupid. The genetics are similar to firmware in the computer. You can write very good program for very bad computer. It will operate probably slower than the same program on very good computer.

    We are born with certain abilities. It is the environment's task to write trees of programs using our born abilities as foundation.

    It is possible that both Newton and Faraday would achieve even better results if they were born in OK families. On the other hand it may be that exactly because they were in trouble forced them to use their abilities to the maximum to fight their complex inferiority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Genetic or behavior 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by pavelgur
    The fact that a child came from a broken family does not mean that his/her parents were genetically stupid. The genetics are similar to firmware in the computer. You can write very good program for very bad computer. It will operate probably slower than the same program on very good computer.

    We are born with certain abilities. It is the environment's task to write trees of programs using our born abilities as foundation.

    It is possible that both Newton and Faraday would achieve even better results if they were born in OK families. On the other hand it may be that exactly because they were in trouble forced them to use their abilities to the maximum to fight their complex inferiority.
    Ehhhh, yes yes, no no, uhmmm.

    1) you can't train a child to be a prodigy savant, that's purely genetics.

    2) people does not always know that they possess a genious area of intellgect, I'v seen a couple of people score very low in highschoo and other higher learning institutions, but suddenly found an area of expertize where they would unfold their genious and make patents get headhunted by big corps, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    I have to disagree. No prodigy becomes such unless the proper training and guidance have been acquired. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was fascinated by the piano but he was taught by his father. Yes, he had a genetic predisposition in place, but he practiced for hours on end to the point that some might consider him obsessed. If the training and guidance had not been in place, he may not have become a prodigy at all.

    So, in a sense, you can train a child to be a prodigy. It's just that you can't train any child to be a prodigy. The child needs drive, focus and genuine interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    I have to disagree. No prodigy becomes such unless the proper training and guidance have been acquired. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was fascinated by the piano but he was taught by his father. Yes, he had a genetic predisposition in place, but he practiced for hours on end to the point that some might consider him obsessed. If the training and guidance had not been in place, he may not have become a prodigy at all.

    So, in a sense, you can train a child to be a prodigy. It's just that you can't train any child to be a prodigy. The child needs drive, focus and genuine interest.
    No prodigy savant are born with any inherent skill, they just can't sit down and play any instrument or paint like Micheangelo ..etc. I find your argument invalid and oddly selfcontradicting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    I have to disagree. No prodigy becomes such unless the proper training and guidance have been acquired. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was fascinated by the piano but he was taught by his father. Yes, he had a genetic predisposition in place, but he practiced for hours on end to the point that some might consider him obsessed. If the training and guidance had not been in place, he may not have become a prodigy at all.

    So, in a sense, you can train a child to be a prodigy. It's just that you can't train any child to be a prodigy. The child needs drive, focus and genuine interest.
    No prodigy savant are born with any inherent skill, they just can't sit down and play any instrument or paint like Micheangelo ..etc. I find your argument invalid and oddly selfcontradicting.
    I'm a bit confused. Basically, I said that predispositions exist, but greatness comes out of hard work (and after hard work) when paired with a predisposition. I don't see where I made a contradicting statement. I see that my closing paragraph may be misleading, though. I did not mean to imply that prodigious individuals are born with inherent skill. I only meant to say that they are born with tendencies that produce their fascinations which allow them to devote themselves to ... whatever it is they want to do. Mozart to music, for instance.

    My point is that you, HexHammer, are right about the fact that no one is born with skill, but I argue that some are born with something that sets their potential astronomically high. More importantly, that potential will not be reached on its own. It requires hard work, acquisition of skill, to reach.

    I think I am arguing on your side for the most part, HexHammer. Although, you seem to be bordering contradiction as well. In the post before mine, you claimed that prodigy status is based purely on genetics, but then you reply to me with a remark in agreement with my point which you proceed to consider invalid. Careful...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    My good TheDr.Spo, you are ofcause right in the training part, that any prodigy savant has to train in order to reach their full potential.

    I hope that clears out our misunderstandings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Hate my country
    Posts
    29
    Both are the factors. But environment is the bigger factor. Genetically you can have better brains (simply and primitively said), but if you will grow in a society, where you will not think, you can even degrade. However, if you are born average person, and you will be thinking and doing stuff for 20 years, you will probably get to a high IQ level or something like that. So environment can change you more, than genes. Of course if you was born as an average person, you won't be able to be as smart, as a person, who was born with high IQ, even if you try hard.

    P.S. that's my opinion half, half scientific stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Sorry if anything I say was already said. Maybe DNA is important to intelligence indirectly. More intelligent parents will teach their kids better. In a way, smartness "genes" (not really genes, just knowledge passed on) are spread throughout communities. Intelligence also depends not entirely on environment. It depends on the style of thinking someone uses, so DNA is important in that respect, as well as earlier learning. Einstein might not have been a genious, but instead was obsessed with physics, so he could have been unintelligent in some ways. In case some of this was confusing, environment and genetics interact, and intelligence depends on those interactions.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Sorry if anything I say was already said.
    And you win the necro-thread reincarnation award for 2012 (replying to a 2+-year old post).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You know... I've never understood what the big deal is about 'thread necromancy.' It often brings things back that have interesting comments and content. The threads aren't there to be forgotten- so what's the big deal?
    epidecus likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne View Post
    Is IQ more genetic or more behavioral?

    I've read reports that identical twins with the same DNA can have IQs varying by as much as 24 points, so this seems to indicate that behavior is the bigger factor.

    But others, usually racists, claim that IQ is in your DNA, but I haven't seen any real evidence for this.

    Then others say that it's 50/50, but that seems like a made up speculative number from no where.

    So what's the biggest factor influencing IQ?

    Well if I had to guess I would say it's probarbly a bit of both, I say guess because this whole nature versus nurture debate has being going on for years. I suppose some of the best experiments would be to use identical twins and expose them to different enviroments with different types of food and education, with contrasting experiments with people of different genetic makeups brought up in exactly the same eviroment also given the same food and education etc.., these types of experiments might help to give us a clearer picture of what is actually going on, of course this is quite problematic because even if it were possible to conduct such experiments over a long period of time, which in itself is extremely doubtful, to then replicate the experiments with significant numbers would be just about impossible. This of course is one of the major problems with research that requires human beings as test subjects.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The really great thing about some new members, is that they actually read the old threads, and bring their discussions up for the rest of us.

    especially when they have something new to add to the thread:
    well done,
    thanx
    .............
    oh yeh,
    IQ
    nature well beyond nurture
    mostly (bad) nurture, by parents or retarded education systems dampens genious to mediocracy

    there is an old saying that expressed genious is 1/10 ability, and 9/10 hard work
    if you ain't got the initial 10% the best you can hope for is second tier
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Sorry if anything I say was already said.
    And you win the necro-thread reincarnation award for 2012 (replying to a 2+-year old post).
    Yup, I get bored.
    Ascended and sculptor like this.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    5
    I believed it's not only in genetic or DNA, IQ can be attained by will. Nothing's impossible if we wanted and if we are dedicated enough to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by orthlefoxxe View Post
    I believed it's not only in genetic or DNA, IQ can be attained by will. Nothing's impossible if we wanted and if we are dedicated enough to do it.
    Yeah, I feel a lot smarter when I'm stressed.
    And the scientific reason for that is that stress hormones cause neurons to have lower thresholds, so they fire more easily (not a good thing in non-stressful situations.) Also, if it finds a way to fix the stress dopamine is released, causing the brain to quantify the idea which would fix stress as "good idea".
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    It's in the psychology. Also something interesting, adrenaline somehow improves my cognitive abilities (stress). I have had a very stressful childhood, and yet I am called a genies. i also notice that my siblings who enjoy exercising ignorant endeavors, ignorant bliss, they resemble qualities that of uneducated children only before seen in videos in 3rd world countries. they are NOT anywhere near genius.

    \

    also my house is poor, we live in Tucson AZ, the education system is poor here and full of bs, and rather then 75% nurture like one guy here said, I probably got ~25% from family and the other 75% was nurture from the GREAT GOOGLE.COM.

    Oh THIS POST IS TWO YEARS OLD. wonderful.
    Last edited by Japith; December 15th, 2012 at 11:42 PM.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    26
    can anyone point me to a reliable iq test that i can take i never did a serious iq test and would like to know my official iq even though i dnt think it represents the real core of human intelligence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Z@T@RA18 View Post
    can anyone point me to a reliable iq test that i can take i never did a serious iq test and would like to know my official iq even though i dnt think it represents the real core of human intelligence.
    IQ doesn't really matter, it just gives people a label. What matters is decision making and creativity, methinks. What also matters is how emotionally intelligent ("spirityness"/motivation) you are, which will let you get through huge failures and make something out of what you have left, if you happen to fail hugely ever.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Z@T@RA18 View Post
    can anyone point me to a reliable iq test that i can take i never did a serious iq test and would like to know my official iq even though i dnt think it represents the real core of human intelligence.
    The Wechsler is probably the most common test; its designed and considered most accurate for the IQ range of 90% of the population.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    Does anyone else dislike the title of this thread? To me, "genetic" and "behavioral" don't sound like they're on the same spectrum here. I feel more comfortable with genetic vs environmental, if that might clear up the topic at hand.
    Lynx_Fox, Neverfly and NNet like this.
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2
    I think it's mostly genetic just looking at some of the families I know, but not entirely. Nutrition, schooling, especially early age, also has its sway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Speaking of early age, it looks like the kindie/preschool year should be the big focus, not just the general toddler early childhood period.

    Childhood stimulation key to brain development, study finds | Science | The Guardian
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •