<i>is how smart you can be realted to genetics?</i> Very probably, but genetics is far from the whole story. Most human traits are neither nature nor nurture, but a combination of both.
You bet James R also proves a good point and he is correct, it is a mixture of genes and environment. But look at it this way. People are born with a certain "amount" of intellectual potential. So being smart is indeed genetic. But the person ultimately decides how much of this potential he will expose and use. This is where the environment plays a role, if the person challenges himself in an environment then he will reach his "potential." Here is a very good analogy: Say that a person's intelligence is measured in cups. A person born with a LARGE cup is smart. But the trick is, it depends how long that cup stays under a faucet for him to utilize his intellectual potential, the longer he stays under the faucet the more he is using his genes. But they are some people born with small cups and they simply cannot reach the potential of the person born with the large cup. It is simple genetics, you inherited your "intellectual potential" The environment plays the role of whether or not you unleash it.
iew , whats that ? sound like pseudo-science created by your own psychology to me Yes . There is a diffenrece of the ammount/quality of intellect a person HAS and CAN HAVE . I agree with this , perhaps because of different reasons . U should c capabillity and useage just as hardware and software . It is the biological material of the brain that decides the capabillity , while it is the mind that creates the ammount/quality of intellect out of it . Now genetics would decide on this brain-tissue creation , but the capabillities genetics already created (for all of us) , are so immense and far from used , i would say genetics is pretty much irellevant . Wither its nature-nurture , is also explained by this theory . It is nature through genetics whitch decides the capabillity , and , well i wouldnt call it nurture , but a self-development of the mind (helped by self & others in experiences etc) , whithc decides on how exaclty the intellect is created . I totally agree with you here , except for one thing . The difference of cups , or intellectual potential , or capabillity , is far from relevant . This is because , lets say we use 10 , we have all about 2000 . So if another has 1000 or 2000 wouldnt matter , we're all only using about 10-15 . Ofcourse the numbers rnt accurate probably , but the point gets across i hope . I believe the difference in intellect is not a matter of potential , that would be the case comparing a human to a duck probably , but in human-human compare , its all "utilizing the capabillty" that creates intellect differences
I agree with you also, but I want to point another thing out. I achieved a SAT Math score of 800 by studying and understanding the material. Without studying I received a 680. Now there are people out there, the no matter what, how, and how much they study, they simply cannot break the 700 threshold. It's sad and it is true. That is "intellectual potential." Their potential limits them at <700 or maybe even <600. They simply say they do not understand the math, they just can't--they are limited. That is what I mean by the size of the cups.
C i cant agree with you on that I believe anyone can achieve any score A next level of potency would be the handicapped , and then the animals . An average joe is capable of the same things as einstein . Well then we disagree on the cup thing , because these inetlectual potentials i simply call psychologic , nothing more and nothing less . Joe average might even achieve the advanced intellect that comes along with teleporting oneself (i dunno) , his chances are just as good as yours , it is perhaps his psychology that doesnt allow him , not his intelligence , he has enough braincells working for him . So we simply differ in opinion , u believe this border to be real , i say its psychological thus illusionairy . Made up by man himself . And i can prove it : I smoke LOTS of :m: u know how much of braincells i wasted by that ? do i care ? u know why not ? cuz i was never gonna use them in my life ever . Now that is because im stuck at 10 while we speak of thousands . And what does this logically imply . It implies that my potential of intellect is quite higher , there are braincells enough ......why isnt it working then ? and u know what we say about things we cant explain physically ........its a psychological matter yup
SAT relates to IQ level. You aren't certainly saying everyone in the entire world can achieve an 800 score, do you? We all know that is impossible.
Im not familliar with the term SAT , i am with IQ though . No relevant compare between IQ and intelligence can be made , the system is quite ridiciouless really , it shows more how one would manage on an educational(college-university) level would manage , than how intelligent he is And yes i believe if u r not menatlly retarded , u can achieve 800 , and alot more than that . Its ridiciouless to assume such amazing differences caused by biological cappacity since the biol;ogical cappacaties are so exteremly immense there's not a sould in the world who reached 25% of its potential even . If we'r all using so little....please , what are we talking man , 800-tests.....just like that this can be done . Its psychology that determines onligal thought-processes , its psychology that creates ignorance , and psychology can smply be overwon by creating consciousness . This way u start an intellect increasing-proces whitch none of us has seen the end of , and idiot can get there . U tell me why this wouldnt be possible ? Tell me how it is not psychology that determines ignorance but biological cappabillity ? There is one other possibillity , whitch might give ur point some meaning . Lets say there are these 10 cells , and each cells has it sown function . Now u posses millions of em , u just use these 10 , and all these 10 are specified for educational/academical intelligence , whitch is shown in iq tests , or mathematical intelligence as is shown in some math test . If u happen to miss these specific cells , then yes , ur right , u wouldnt make it , and the problem is biological . But thats assuming all the other cells u got left are useless for such a purpose , whitch doesnt make alot of sense does it ?
Let's make it more simple, since nature is related. It's quite hard to measure intelligence and a simple # on some test doesn't accurately measure intelligence. But some people can only jump so high, it is the structure of their bones and muscles. We know this for a fact, even if they train their hardest person A can't jump 10 feet in the air like person B. That is what I mean. The problem is we can't measure intelligence since it encompasses so many areas. But we can measure muscle strentgh, the potential of how high a human can jump and the threshold time for the 1-mile run time. I hope you understand my point.
I agree iot is quite hard to measure intelligence , and i would say almost all "tests" are hilarious even by attempting it . Iq is a joke . So u say lets measure the capabillity , to what u compare muscle strength . I agree with you here , but there is a big problem with this , whitch points out to what i sayd earlier . Indeed muscles-measure to easure jump-potential , would probable give a nice indication , since we are on the max of the use of those muscles when we are making that jumpt . But with braintissue and intelligence its a totally different thing . Its like were the most muscled people ever , but we cant seem to jump even 1/100 of what we should . And since we're all at such a great difference (some at 1/100 ,others 2/100 etc) , the diffenerce in intelligence has little to do with our cappacity . Its hw we use the cappacity , if all would be used we vould probably become weightless even and other crazy stuff like that . Thats why such a measurements is useless , cuz u measure mine and u say well....its 2000 . U measure another and u say......well , its 2500 . But when my intellect is just being used up to 100 and his up to 50 ......... whats the use of knowing he has 2500 capacity while i have 2000 ?
Well, I guess we know not to listen to you since 800 is the HIGHEST score possible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Personally I don't believe the theory of we use only "10% of our brain" and so on. It has not been proven and there is almost no evidence for it. That theory is inconsistent with Evolution. As proposed by Lamarck, the evolutionary idea of use and disuse, which describes how the body parts of organisms can develop with increased usage, while unused parts weaken. *If* we use our brains only 10% of the time, then what do you think? Evolution is an efficient process, it will get rid of unused and unnecessary systems in the body during gradual change. It won't evolve an ant that can withstand 1,000 tons of pressure if the ant will never need to. Same as it won't evolve humans to having 1000 "units" of intelligence while all humans would only use 100 "units" of intelligence when they don't need the other 900 "units." quotations used to make a point, of course you can't have "units of intelligence" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I understand this concept of efficient use by evolution , whitch implies not only make when need , but also throw out when dont need anymore . I agree this might be very likely , but then only in such a time-stretch that it would be irellevent for the discussion right here , and thats wheither intelligence differs in cappacity or in use (relevantly) Such a time-stretch would be one in whitch we havent thrown out all the stuff yet (were working on it) at least more then enough if not all (just started) is still left . If we would take a look at the brain , and its potential , i dont think we can actually say that a relevent ammount is used , ofcourse this isnt measured or proven yet , but it CAN be logically deducted . What i base my argument on (the difference in use and not cappacity) , is the current situation on knowledge of the brain . There exacly lies the problem of "not proven we only use 10%(or something)" . Its because we absolutely have not the slightest clue on what does what , but for a very very small part . We know for instance , cell a does thing b . But thing b (contraction of certain muscles i dunno) , is not that big of a deal . We have billions of these braincells who can do something (i dunno if this is exactly how it works , with cells doing things , but its the system that counts) , and we know lets say 100 . So we know what certain cells can achieve , and we can estimate the potential of such a cell . The question is , if we would give (correctly or incorrectly doesnt matter) all those cells the functions we know they "might "have (we can know what can be done , we just dont know what does it) , in the same proportion/way/system as the cells we do know of , how far would we get . Id say till about 10.000 , if we know 100 now . But how many do we have , millions/billions . I dont think we even could "make up" enough functions to give those cells . I think this shows that it is safe to assume that we dont use our entire brain , since we couldnt even make up functions for our brain to have so volumous is it , not to mention actually "having" them .
