Intelligence, Nature or Nurture?

[cgannon64]

This whole discussion is rather depressing when you realize that, whether it's nature or nurture or both, you have no reason to really be proud of your intelligence.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I suspect it is BOTH

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

There have been population studies that demonstrate that intelligence is most definitely genetic. A child is born with intelligence that is about averaged of his parents. Example: Mother of IQ 200 and father of IQ 100 = Child of IQ 150. However, having intelligence is no guarantee that you will use it. If you are uneducated or lazy, your intelligence will not amount you to anything. Some cultures prize intellectual achievements more than others, so you may see a disproportionate amount of those people with successfull careers in these fields. Some examples I can think of are Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Russians, and Germans.

 

[Abaddon]

All studies have shown its a mixture of the two, and for obvious reasons

 

[Souron]

There have been population studies that demonstrate that intelligence is most definitely genetic. A child is born with intelligence that is about averaged of his parents. Example: Mother of IQ 200 and father of IQ 100 = Child of IQ 150. However, having intelligence is no guarantee that you will use it. If you are uneducated or lazy, your intelligence will not amount you to anything. Some cultures prize intellectual achievements more than others, so you may see a disproportionate amount of those people with successfull careers in these fields. Some examples I can think of are Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Russians, and Germans.

I agree with everything but the math. Genetic are not that simple.

 

[Gothmog]

The studies Mark points to are reasonably definitive in showing that there is a large heritable component to IQ.

cgannon wrote:

This whole discussion is rather depressing when you realize that, whether it's nature or nurture or both, you have no reason to really be proud of your intelligence.

Or believe in Free Will … eh?

bad_ronald wrote:

I'll just add that in one adoption study where children with one White and one Black parent who were assumed to be entirely Black by their adoptive parents had average IQs higher than the adopted children with two Black parents, which is probably the best proof to date.

I’m betting this is not statistically significant, though I haven’t seen the study… nor have you offered it. For me that means at least a 95% confidence interval (preferably 99%), I’m betting this one doesn’t even get one sigma (68% confidence).

But let me reiterate that heredity of intelligence says nothing about the larger issue of race. That is certain groups may be blessed (or cursed) with a higher average intelligence than others… but how do we define those groups? And why do we define them that way?

Depending on the shape of the distribution a subset of that distribution may not share the mean value of the larger group. In fact the only time it will reliably share the same statistics is if it is a normal distribution, and then only if the subset is picked randomly.

It is very likely that there are certain alleles or allele combinations that contribute to phenotypic intelligence. It is next to impossible that one ‘race’ has that allele or combination of allele’s to the exclusion of all other ‘races’.

You claim that intergroup differences are measurable and significant but don’t offer any explanation. What groups? How were they picked? How was g measured? Can g even be measured?

 

[vyapti]

I would say that intelligence is mostly nature. Application of intelligence is mostly nurture.

 

[Narz]

I would say that intelligence is mostly nature. Application of intelligence is mostly nurture.

I can (mostly) concur with that.

 

[Eli]

I would say that intelligence is mostly nature. Application of intelligence is mostly nurture.

Exactly. A person with an IQ of 200 can spend most of their day watching soap operas while a person with an IQ of 100 can spend all day on reading, learning and improving himself. Who is smarter? Definitely the latter.

 

[El_Machinae]

As well, we have to distinguish between the genetics and the womb. I have a feeling that a lot of people have excellent potential when it comes to genetics, but the development in the womb and the early years can make a huge difference (hormones and stimuli).

But people with IQ in the outlier region usually can blame their birth conditions more than their upbringing, I'd think.