Yes, you could write extensively on the topic, but I'm guessing you won't for a simple reason: you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Here, you're just rehashing the same BS that you already said. You're basically whining like a child, "But environment matters more!" And you're not using scientific studies or methodology to back it up. You just want me to take your word for it. That's not arguing. Parents don't have the same IQs as their children because they do not share the same genome. They share a number of genes (A child contains 50% of each of his parent's genes, whereas an identical twin contains 100% of his twin's genes; if we postulate that IQ is inherited--transmitted through DNA--we would expect that identical twins would have very similar IQs. In fact, this is what is found to be true in the real world. Can you tell me why identical twins have near identical IQs? Do you think it's a magical coincidence? Answer that for me please.), which is why parental IQ has predictive value of the child's IQ. Now, just because I'm saying genetics matter a whole hell of a lot doesn't mean I don't think that environment doesn't matter; it does. And it can have a huge impact. But most of the time, and especially in first world countries, environment typically has little effect on development of IQ by the time the individual is an adult. It amazes me how fiercely many of you Sciforumers cling to ignorance about this stuff. You're all smart people. Just stop caring. Stop letting your emotions get in the way and just let the learning flow. It's not like the information I'm revealing in this thread is controversial--well, at least in the field of psychometrics. It's not like I'm trying to get you guys to believe in something wacky. This is actually very mainstream stuff. It's ridiculous that I have to defend science like I am in a place called Sciforums. Just read it. Please--for the love of knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq
Okay, you had this coming. My assertion on why Environment matters more than genetics, even in fuckin first world nations. For the millionth time. 1 There is NO scientific evidence that babies have I.Qs, babies can't even talk, and babies don't even know that they are babies. Everything a baby knows is learned by its parents and its little surroundings, the foundations for his cognitive development, NOT genetics. Yes, humans do carry hereditary genes, but it’s not as relevant as you are making it to be. Genes will only show you the door; it’s up to the user to walk through the door and right of passage. Sociology also has a great influence on what we think, how we think, and why we think, which all coupled together is the basis for the identification of self. Sociology has a great influence on humans because man is a social animal, and he can’t see his genes, but he experiences his environment everyday. The magnitude of sociology cannot be stressed enough. A few years back, sociologist drew an experiment on how confident humans were, based on their understanding of certain simple things. They put an unsuspected man in a room with 5 other people and asked him to identify a bottle of coke amongst 2 other different bottles. The 5 other people were working for the sociologists. The unsuspected man pointed at the bottle several times and said “that’s the coke bottle”, while all the other 5 people said there was no coke bottle in the room. The experiment was repeated several times. Guess what the man started saying, “there is no coke bottle”. This conclusive argument is that every individual is a temporal node of series of transferred memes by the society, and highlights the power of the relationships of early childhood development. 2 Yes, first world citizens live in a more stable environment, but that doesn’t mean they can control it, there is a difference. Genetic traits also skip generations in first world countries; first world countries also have retarded children, and first world countries still NEED to work hard to control their environment to a satisfactory state. America is a first world country, and the average black man is called a minority, not from birth but from social formulations. Some black men grow up to think this way, they roam around the cities seeing white people in certain places and doing certain things, and black people vice verse, then he begins to think in according to the norm. Even the intellectual black doctors think in similar patterns, but some who aren’t lucky enough end up in unfavorable conditions. I know a girl who’s parents did not go to school, but she is a fine mathematician. How do you explain this? Do you still need scientific proof ? And what about physical intelligence? First world countries are lacking in physical intelligence because the automatic machines do all the work for them, its not in white people's genes to be bad at sports. Third world citizens have lower I.Q because their society is infrastructured in the same way, and a lot of why their society is relatively backwards can be traced to societal issues such as colonialism, economy, and even peripherals such as favoritism. 3 We are man, we are not animals, and we are able to change our destiny right down to the phenotype. Your mum didn’t give you enough breast, you get a boob implant. You weight half a ton, you can get a liposuction. You hate to be a skin color; you can get your skin altered like the pop singer Michael Jackson. You want to be Astronaut; you can go to the engineering and aeronautics school in Florida. You want to give birth to an athlete; just find a good sperm donor agency. We are men, we control our own destiny, and we can even alter our own genes through researchers in genes and technology. There is no end to the practicability of choice and the influence of the environment. 4 Evolution. Human race and its differences were formed by isolation of culture, climate, altitude, and even proximity to water and dry desert. This environment made great impact on what men understood and how men understood them. Arguably they were passed from one generation to the next, but not by genes, but by culture. Not all human ideas are conveyed by genes, in fact very little at all. A good example is the renaissance period, nobody started it on through genes, we just woke on one evolutionary day and decided to feel a deeper appreciation for things. And you can guess how many enormous discoveries were made throughout this period. The appreciation of women, art, life, science, e.t.c. Humanity was another study that just came from nowhere, it started with Erasmus of Amsterdam, and in it we found a little bit more of ourselves and our nature. We began to show more appreciation towards humans, where humans live, the condition of humans, e.t.c. Nobody thought us that. And today America is at war in Iraq on the state of humanity. The first few written laws of human history were by an Egyptian king, but he claims he got them from a God, not genes. Today, written laws have manifested into an actual profession by some. In conclusion, the fascination of genetics is pointless. As we go on into the future and we hope even more advances in genetic engineering, genes will be so irrelevant and customized that they will be the new…”Jeans” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus
Genes irrelevant. Gotcha. I’ll inform the U.N. immediately… . Either that or there is an incentive to ‘go along with the herd’. Your man doesn’t deny the coke bottle because he doesn’t think it’s there, he does so because he’s wondering whether everyone else in the room is nuts, and if they are (and he has some pretty good evidence that they might be), maybe they are a threat to him if he doesn’t shut his yap hole. Hence, there is no coke bottle.
I agree with you that genes are probably less important than environment, but...I wouldn't say a fascination with genetics is pointless. You can't deny that different things come easier to different people. Just because I happen to be smarter than one of my friends doesn't mean that I've tried harder at anything.
Chatha, I know you probably think you proved your point--that genes don't matter; however, you didn't. Moreover, I am baffled as to how somebody who can speak proper English can have the thought logic that you do. I'm going to try and explain my bafflement to you now. I don't think anybody said people learn things through genes. That is a complete and silly idea for anyone to have--not to mention a non-sequitur from you. I think it is likely that you may be one of those who doesn't know the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Moreover, your point is that genetics don't matter, yet they provide us with instincts to suckle in the presence of a teat. They provide us with the instincts to cry when in need. They provide us with instincts to avert pain. And you think these things don't matter? Of course our conditioning has an influence on what we learn. How could it not? Furthermore, it doesn't say anything about how genes aren't important when it comes to IQ. Here, you're saying that relationships matter to us a lot. I never said they don't. I have never even once said that environment doesn't matter--just that overall, environment doesn't have much to do with our adult intelligence. What you're talking about here is that environment matters... but you don't specify in what way. Sure, environment may determine your socialization (obviously), preferences about some things, politics, etc. As animals, we humans are flexible in the things we can do--in the thoughts we carry out, the ideologies we uphold, how we react in different situations, etc. This flexibility is what makes us wonderfully successful. But it doesn't mean that genes do not influence our intelligence. No sir. How do I explain it? First, how the hell do I know that she didn't have intelligent parents? Did you just assume they weren't intelligent because they weren't educated? Second, how do I know what a "fine mathematician is"? Third, and I've already explained this, even if you do have stupid parents, it doesn't mean that you're absolutely going to be a stupid person; if you have stupid parents, it only means it's likely that you're going to grow into a stupid adult. That's all it means. Parents and their spawn do not share the same genome. Honestly. How many times do I have to say this? Is this stuff really that complicated for you? What is physical intelligence? I looked it up and couldn't find anything. I'm guessing it's something you coined yourself. Actually, please don't explain it. I'm not interested. White people are bad at sports? Perhaps the problems such as colonialism and economy are symptoms of a bigger problem: low IQ. Wrong. We are man and we are animals. Yes. You did a superb job at explaining that we can change ourselves. This, however doesn't mean that genes don't matter. After all, if it weren't for our genes, we wouldn't have to change ourselves to begin with! This whole time you've been trying to make your point that genes don't matter by explaining the different ways in which many of our behaviors and socialization are determined by environment, which is, by the way, obvious and axiomatic. You don't even seem to know how silly your arguments are. You don't even know what you're arguing, it appears. You're just confused as all hell, trying your damned best to avoid reality. Again, your arguments did absolutely nothing to show that intelligence is not influenced by genes. I am completely baffled as to how you think you did. I am baffled as to how you can even write proper English. Another important factor is geography. So very few ideas are conveyed through genes? That means that, according to you, some ideas are passed through genes. Could you give me some examples? Yes. I'm mocking you. There are no ideas that are passed through genes. You are incredibly naive. I don't know how anybody could think the things you do. You, truly are a baffling character. But you speak correct English, for the most part. If anything you have that! I see that as an admiral quality and it fills me with (false?) hope. So I must press on! Really? You're going to tell me that the first few written laws of human history weren't written by genes?! Omg, that's amazing! I never would have guessed that! I guess that means I was wrong all along and that genes hardly matter at all! Thank you! I feel so enlightened and alive now! Here, you've contradicted yourself. You're saying that as genetic engineering advances, genes are going to be increasingly irrelevant. Here, you're exemplifying how truly and profoundly confused you are. If anything, genetic engineering advances will only increase the relevancy of genes. I think the point you were struggling to try to make was that as genetic engineering advances, we will be decreasingly as the mercy of our genes, because we will be able to change them. That would be a much better way to put it. However, it doesn't mean that genes are not important, which is what your whole post was about. How unfortunate. Once again, you are terribly confused. You seem to equate genetic determinacy with inflexibility. You then made the point, extensively that we humans, are flexible animals (and we are animals), which are capable of learning and transmitting information one generation to another--not through genes. I wouldn't, nor would anybody who knows what they're talking about, deny this. But you seem to think that just because we're flexible we are not determined by our genes at all and that genes are completely irrelevant. You are making a gigantic, monumentous leap here. It is in fact, wrong and unwarranted. And you can't back it up. That is why you haven't. Let me repeat my point here that you seem to be missing: genetic determinacy does not mean or imply inflexibility.
Anyway, if genetics doesn't influence intelligence, wouldn't we expect that the IQs of identical twins wouldn't be any different from the IQs of, say, normal siblings? But through the means of extensive identical twin studies, we have found that identical twins have nearly identical IQs. Identical! Their scores correlate so damn highly, it's on par with a single person taking an IQ test twice. How the heck do you reconcile this with your views? Nobody so far has been able to explain this.
This thread is getting ridiculous and you are only now trying to prolong the arguement for the sake of it. You have been going around here calling people names and trying to make a point that seems senseless. You are now making a fool out of yourself. Maybe home school is not the option for you, why don't you try to read about evolutionary science. Very rarely do I ever talk from my ass without backing it up. Man came from singlecelled bacteria, which is relatively retarded compared to all multicelled organismns. Now tell me, where did the intelligent gene come from? If you can explain how something can come from nothing, and attribute it to genes, we will regard you a nobel laurent. How can intelligent gene come from retarded gene? And even if man did not come from bacteria, we know for a fact that early man societies were retarded, he couldn't even make fire, but today he can make aeroplanes and nuclear ships. So tell me, where did he possibly get the intelligence I.Q from? If I.Q was inherited, there will be no aeroplanes, no microwave, no computers, no marriage ceremony, no radio, no clocks, no books, no education, no roads, no cars, e.t.c. We would all be living the the stone age today. I think for the sake of all the great inventions alone, we should say intelligence is 90 percent more influencial than genes. Then you say first world can control their enviroment, try not to be fuckin stupid. First world controling their enviroment, they indirectly control their genes, you conviniently left that part out. Genes are part of the enviroment, genes are not from an unknown dimension of the universe. And even if man was created by God, it doesn't make the event of evolution mutually exclusive, we know for sure that all man was retarded at some point earlier. evolution is probably God's way of upgrades. Gos is an entirely different debate that should probably start with the religious sub forums. So Francois, or whatever your name is, get a science text book and stop draging me and everyone else in this senseless debate. learn about relationships and what a gene is. Moderators, lock this thread.
scientific and technological progress is a result of cultural evolution. This does not mean individual intelligence can not be inherited.
So should diseases and retardation. Do you know of any gene responsible for transfering intelligence from parent to offspring? Why don't you ever try to back your ideas up with something. As far as I know scientists have not discovered a gene responsible for conveying and transfering maternal intelligence. Why don't you tell us which gene is responsible for this, and demonstrate it, and I promise I will shut up. I will nominate you for a nobel prize if you do. You keep coming up with this baboon stories but never explain yourself. What exactly do you think I.Q is, you think that I.Q test you take over the internet is the real judgement of I.Q. I can give you an I.Q test in chemistry, an I.Q test in biology, and I.Q test in physics, and I.Q test in civilization, an I.Q test in art and humanity, an I.Q test in econ and finance, an I.Q test in African studies, an I.Q test in sociology, Law, medicine, sports, media and design, computers, astro physics, geograpy, physiology, mathematics, shapes and structures, e.t.c. So you see, intelligence is relative. The I.Q test we generally take are for general intelligence, people who pass those tests doesn't mean they will pass other spesific tests, and as long as you are healthy there is no reason why you can't pass the general I.Q tests. I bet you Albert Einstien will readily fail some of these tests if unprepared for it, and thats also depends on his interest. I took my first I.Q test ever and I scored 116, I took the same test again and scored 126, and if I had taken the same test again I may score even higher. To me, repeating a test and scoring higher is probably an actual sign of intelligence, it means you are not insane and learn from mistakes. That my friends...is intelligence. Intelligence is 90% enviromental as long as you are healthy. There are people naturally born with better memories and brain speed and these people probably never had anybody in their lineage that intelligent, thats enviromental factor for you, the account of every dimunitive and malignant factor influencing the physiology, NOT the genes, the job of he genes is just to house this results. Genes don't have a mind of thier own, they are a function of the enviroment. What we inherit from our parents is like a box. Some boxes are bigger than others, which means better brain cognition and intelligence, but we never inherit the actual information in the box. I am sure there are genes influencing cognition ability, but like I said, a lot of all that is part of the "healthiness" of the individual, which is determined by enviromental factors. Here's a link to what you gene ethusiasts probably seek. http://www.physorg.com/news65413253.html - scientist identify intelligent gene
The only people who think IQ is not inherited are those who fear for their own heritage. That's pathetic and dishonest. Let's have an honest debate, for once.
I think you are mixing up things here. A gene for intelligence is not the same as 'intelligence being capable of being inherited'. You don't need to identify a gene for intelligence to establish that intelligence can be inherited. There is also not a gene for a penis. Still 50% have one. Here is a direct repost from another thread: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1178614&postcount=53 Actually in the past I have taken up a position for and against intelligence being inherited. That's possible because you can find proper scientific studies (not crap internet links) suggesting both. Hence the truth is in the middle. Intelligence is a genetic trait. And intelligence is influenced by the environment (in humans).
If I.Q was inherited, we would never make cars, radios, aeroplanes, microwaves, e.t.c. Remember that man came from bacteria, which relatively has no I.Q. And even if man did not come from bacteria, we know for sure all men used to be relatively retarded. So, infoterror, I.Q is not biologicaly inherited. You are the one confused with the definition of intelligence and the human physiology. Of cause intelligence is inherited, but that is not the discussion. Technically all humans inherit intelligence because they inherit the ability to solve and store information, that is a given; all organisms reproduce and duplicate. This is what we mean by "healthiness", all living things are given predisposed mechanisms to help them survive. However, the organism or specie itself is at the mercy of the enviroment, the enviroment is the last resort, the same way the central bank is the last resort to all commercial banks. Furthermore, the enviroment determines gene mutation and phenotypes, which manipulates the intelligence. A high I.Q woman can mistakenly drink alchohol at gestation and give birth to a low I.Q offspring, and she may not even drink at all and still give birth to a retard. The problem you are having to deal with is that you think enviromental conditions have to be extreme to become a factor. Guess what? thats not viable to a conclusion. I know fire can burn my skin, and there is no such thing as extreme fire, just fire. In the same token, there is no such thing as extreme enviroment, an extreme enviroment is still an enviroment. Years ago the Earth was ravaged with nothing but volcanoes and magma, thats just the Earth being the Earth. Also, by manipulating the enviroment, we indirectly control our own gene and destiny. Even with all these manipulation, genes are still not consistent; parents still give birth to deformed children, retarded children, children with variable I.Q's, e.t.c. The discussion is whether enviroment or genes is more influencial. And I say, given the vast enviromental influence on mutation, the vast enviro-cultural influence on early childhood development, and the vast cultural influence on what exactly we call intelligence, then the enviroment is more influencial than predisposed genetic makeup.
I never said intelligence cannot be inherited, I only said it is influenced by the enviroment more, since the intelligence itself is inconsistent. Why else do we think everybody is of different intelligence? To say intelligence is 50% inherited is to put an exact quantification of intelligence and what intelligence should be. I have an I.Q of about 130, my friend who's taking masters in physics has a higher I.Q but I can't remember. However I know far more about countries and their capitals than he does. How do you classify that? It doesn't end there, I can also play football far better than him. So you see, its all relative when it comes to intelligence, provided health is constant. What is not relative and can NEVER be inconsitent is the enviro-cultural factor. What the geneticist say is inherited is what the teacher says is ill interest, provided health is constant. However the geneticist and the school teacher are a product of the socio-cultural enviroment. Tell me, if someone is born with no legs, or looses his legs later in life, or never exercises, how can he run away from a vicious dog about to attack him? If you can't solve such a basic problem, don't you think there is a problem with you insinuating physical retardation?
In terms of physical intelligence, yes. Physical retardation is similar to mental retardation. I just took another online I.Q test and I scored 96, though I wasn't really serious with it. So I have gone from 116 to 126, to 96(laughs). Either my genes are playing tricks on me or ...you be the judge. Like I said, physical and mental intelligence is 90% conditioning. So much for the accuracy of genes.
An article I thought you may consider http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeat_lessons20001220 By Richard Rothstein
It can be influenced by the environment, but its potential capacity is genetically determined. That much is clear despite reason posturing from certain so-called Scientists.
That is a load of kaka. You are spinning the topic. Yes, the potential capacity is sort of genetically determined, though there is no scientific evidence for that, and the genes itself is determined by enviromental evolution. Its like someone born skinny and having a limit to physical athletics, he can always train and recondition his body. Genetics is not accurate and its sort of irrelevant. So there you are, enviroment determines the genes and genes determines the individual. Simple as that. There will never be a thourough exam to define and accurately rate intelligence. The smartest man in Kenya is probably the dumbest in the U.K, though the fastest marathon runner in the U.K is probably the slowest in Kenya. Intelligence is relative. Stop fooling yourself with unscientific jargon. Between surfing the internet and playing chess online I took another I.Q test and scored 109, you be the judge. This is my last contribution to this thread. "Motion is a manifestation of evolution, which itself is intelligence"
I know I said I have posted my last post here but I just feel I need to emphasize further. Inheritance is unenlightened man's poor and favorite excuse. A long time ago Kings and Queens ruled on the pretence and doctrine of heredity, they even took it further by claiming they were direct descendants or ordained directly by divine deities. Queen Elizabeth I of England is among these absolute monarchies. Of cause all these ideas were not true, and because the societies drenched themselves in these idle philosophies they never tried to establish a democracy. Heredity was cave man's idea of explaining the unknown amongst individuals, and even in Africa, India, and some other places today there is more emphasis on heredity than others. Many people got over others in the name of heredity, which is backwards to say the least. Of cause heredity limits or overestimates the potential capacity of the individual, which is not true according to human evolution. Most of these estimates are a result of society's need to put a price and measure on an individual, sort of the same way man possessed slaves or inherited wives. All men are created equal as long as they are healthy. I was reading an article on this topic where the writer compared intelligence to playing cards, a player at a poker table. Everybody is given a good hand or a bad hand, but that is not the point, the point is how well you play your cards. The table you choose to play is also important, the same way Kobe Bryant is more intelligent than the average man and woman. I.Q test are still the best way to read intelligence, but that doesn't change the fact that genes are susceptible to the environment. Even if individual X is actually cloned, I will sill lay emphasis on environment and conditioning, afterall individual X in this case is a product of an artificial process and environment. We are smarter than genes.
