Intelligence, Nature or Nurture?

[Insigna]

I was having an argument with a friend today and I was wondering what you all think about nurture versus nature when it comes to intelligence. Could intelligence or perhaps the ability or speed at with which someone learns be genetically inherited? How does one account for certain groups of people being more intelligence than others. How it could be that many aspects like looks voice, vision, hair, diseases and so many other things are inherited yet intelligence is absolutely not. Is it so hard to imagine that intelligence inherited.

 

[Perfection]

There certainly is a genetic componant to intelligence. Twin and adoption studies have demonstrated that genes play an important role (I wish I had my introductory psychology textbook with me, it could provide you with better data). However, the environment can also have significant effects on intelligence.

In reality it's important not to think of intelligence as nautre vs. nurture but as the synergistic outcome of both.

 

[Aramazd]

What Perf said. I think that nurture is a bit more important, but that is just my opinion

 

[taper]

Assuming no genetic extremes, I think nuture is way more important than nature. Smart parents generally have smart kids, but I believe this is from the way they're raised.

In my case, both parents have college degrees, and stressed education all my life. They read to us almost every night, and all three kids in my family still read as much as possible. My older sister is an optometrist, I just stared my Master's degree in engineering, and my little sister started college this year.

 

[Fifty]

I completely agree with perfection.

 

[ybbor]

I believe Time put it best by concluding that "nature was designed for nurture"

 

[Perfection]

Assuming no genetic extremes, I think nuture is way more important than nature. Smart parents generally have smart kids, but I believe this is from the way they're raised.

In my case, both parents have college degrees, and stressed education all my life. They read to us almost every night, and all three kids in my family still read as much as possible. My older sister is an optometrist, I just stared my Master's degree in engineering, and my little sister started college this year.

It's important that you do not equate education with intelligence.

 

[Insigna]

So if we agree that genes are partly responsible for intelligence than it would stand to reason that certain groups of people are genetically smarter than others. Certainly it would vary form person to person but as with everything else, like height and looks, certain groups would be blessed with, on average, more intelligence than others.

 

[Perfection]

So if we agree that genes are partly responsible for intelligence than it would stand to reason that certain groups of people are genetically smarter than others. Certainly it would vary form person to person but as with everything else, like height and looks, certain groups would be blessed with, on average, more intelligence than others.

Ah, I suspected this may lead there.

The relative genetic intelligence for human groups is immeasurably small. The genetic diversity within groups is far greater than that among them. Intelligence particularly so. Tests that have tried to measure relative intergroup genetic intelligence usually come back false or have nongenetic explinations

 

[I am the Future]

There certainly is a genetic componant to intelligence. Twin and adoption studies have demonstrated that genes play an important role (I wish I had my introductory psychology textbook with me, it could provide you with better data). However, the environment can also have significant effects on intelligence.

In reality it's important not to think of intelligence as nautre vs. nurture but as the synergistic outcome of both.

Not ike I am the first to do this but, What he Said^

 

[taper]

It's important that you do not equate education with intelligence.

If my post came off that way, it's not what I meant. I'm TA'ing a lab this semester, and I can tell which students are booksmart, which ones actually know what's going on, and which ones probably won't graduate.

Everyone in my family is curious and willing to try new things, more than most people I know. I think that is a sign of intelligence, because we're actively learning, not simply memorizing what other people have done.

 

[Mark1031]

Typical estimates are about 70-80% heritability (genetic) for IQ. The remaining nurture component is not really nuture at all. It is unshared environment (ie. events unique to the individual rather than say parenting). This could be anything from random in utero developmental effects (likely I think) to a fight you had with someone in 8th grade (unlikely I think).

 

[bad_ronald]

The relative genetic intelligence for human groups is immeasurably small.

This simply isn't true; it is indeed measurable and significant.

The genetic diversity within groups is far greater than that among them. Intelligence particularly so.

Though true, this doesn't negate the value of measuring intergroup differences.

Tests that have tried to measure relative intergroup genetic intelligence usually come back false or have nongenetic explinations

Please post links to the studies which have "come back false" or if you so dare, post links with robust proof of non-genetic explanations to the exclusion of genetic ones.

So if we agree that genes are partly responsible for intelligence than it would stand to reason that certain groups of people are genetically smarter than others. Certainly it would vary form person to person but as with everything else, like height and looks, certain groups would be blessed with, on average, more intelligence than others.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Narz]

I'd say about 95% nature and 5% nurture.

 

[Narz]

This question is like asking about height. Again it's about 95% nature (save for massive malnutrition/starvation).

 

[Souron]

I would think that inteligence itself is purely genetic. However, applied inteligence requires some knowlege and skills that can be learned. Practical inteligence and linear thinking can be taught to some degree, but true intelect is genetic.

 

[Azkonus]

the ability or speed at with which someone learns be genetically inherited?

I know people who sleeps all day but gets the top points on Math tests. Though these people are not necessarily be good at other courses. Some of them code unbelievable Fortran programs but suck at chemistry. I guess ability or speed which someone learns highly depend on his interest at the subject.

Mozart may suck as a chess player.

Kasparov may suck as a musician.

 

[Souron]

Assuming no genetic extremes, I think nuture is way more important than nature. Smart parents generally have smart kids, but I believe this is from the way they're raised.

In my case, both parents have college degrees, and stressed education all my life. They read to us almost every night, and all three kids in my family still read as much as possible. My older sister is an optometrist, I just stared my Master's degree in engineering, and my little sister started college this year.

But your not measureing intelect, your measuring scientific prowess, which is not the same thing. Cirtaintly someone with a smart, rich parents has a higher potencial to succeed in any academic work, but academic work is not a measure of true inteligence. Half the time it's not even based on inteligence at all, but memorisation, which is a compleatly different part of th brain.

 

[Azkonus]

This question is like asking about height. Again it's about 95% nature (save for massive malnutrition/starvation).

start weightlifting, get lots of caffeine beginning with age 8 then you can say bye to that 95 %

 

[Birdjaguar]

Typical estimates are about 70-80% heritability (genetic) for IQ. The remaining nurture component is not really nuture at all. It is unshared environment (ie. events unique to the individual rather than say parenting). This could be anything from random in utero developmental effects (likely I think) to a fight you had with someone in 8th grade (unlikely I think).

I have to agree with Mark on this. And with Perf's remark on diversity within a group being greater than the diversity between gorups.