Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by francois, Dec 8, 2006.
Part of the test is finding the link.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
All that basically says is that genes determine certain brain matter. That is not my argument. I don't even care if genes truly determine intelligence. My point is that genes are determined by the environment, because man is...and has long been...a product of the environment. This point is emphasized further with the fact that inherited traits including intelligence traits skip generations. What part of this simple relationship don't you understand?
And your link is not a scientific proof of determining intellectual capacity or potential, it only highlights the inheritence of brain matter, sort of like an educated guess. Do you understand the meaning of scientific proof? A scientific proof is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Of the two twins, both are still subject to enviroment, nobody knows what they could become or how smart they will be, it still beckons on their socio-cultural interaction and how each would view life. On the contrary, what science and countless experiments proves is that intelligence is a function of early childhood and adolescence enviroment. Genes, which are responsible for brain matter, is a function of the enviroment. Even In some cases where twins actually live very similar lives, they end up having different I.Q's and different interests. Everybody inherits their physiology, that is not the point, the point is how well or badly you use that physiology. As long as you are healthy, everybody is created equal. Final contribution to this thread.
If you don't care, why were you "arguing" about it before?
Furthermore, if you don't care about that, why are you even "participating" in this thread? That's what this thread is about. Didn't you get the memo?
You are confused here. Man, as your current form in which you walk around in, is the product of genes. The genotype determines the phenotype. The genotype determines the phenotype of the brain. Later this phenotype is adjusted by the process of learning and modification based on input. Some parts are very much reworked. Some hardly at all.
This genotype evolved due to environmental pressures over time. That doesn't mean that the environment determins your phenotype. That's work of the past. Once you get to a certain developmental stage your brain is reworked by interactions with the environment. In our species more so than in some others, but this does not change the fact that the genotype has a large influence on our brain structure. But also does the learning. To deny either is in my humble opinion not wise.
You state that intelligence is inherited here. Whether or not it skips a generation doesn't detract from the point that it is inherited.
Learning does not increase intelligence, only knowledge. Potential is defined by genetics.
Depends on the definition of intelligence.
LOL. I never gave a crap about genotype, read all my posts carefully; I gave 1 million accounts on the fact that the environment influences the genes. Infact I will give you another now.
“…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…”
“…Also, by manipulating the enviroment, we indirectly control our own gene and destiny…”
“…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…”
“…an intelligent woman can mistakenly drink alchohol at gestation and give birth to a lower I.Q or retarded baby…”
You have to rephrase your opening post and intention for this thread. What exactly do you want to know. Which factor overides the other? or is it whether I.Q is inherited or not? You have to make yourself clear. I'll tell you right now, nobody inherits I.Q, I.Q is determined by a test. What you inherit is a very good or average or bad gray matter, neurons, myelin, e.t.c. The relationship of the physiology to the intelligence and potential is directly proportional, no question about that, everybody knows that. You are right. I only took it further.
You are actually making my point here. The fact of the matter is that you can NEVER change the fact that genes are a function of evolution. We did not evolve from bacteria because of genes alone; we did because of the conditions of the environment. If the environment had been constant we won’t all be here today walking and talking erect. Rats also have genes too, why can’t they be like us? I never said genes are not inherited, I said they were inconsistent and inconsistent because the environment is more powerful and influential. It’s like having a president and a governor. Most people would probably see the municipal governor more often, but that doesn’t change the fact that the president can override the governors jurisdiction. Everybody knows you will inherit your mother or fathers eyes, but how bright is another issue, people with sickle cell usually have yellowish eyes. Paying attention to the facts is what scientific knowledge is about, its how to arrive at convincing laws or theories. Gravity is not observed on other planets but that doesn't mean its not a fundamental reason, it doesn't mean body's are NOT subject to space time. Yes, genes are responsible for potential, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. But we know for a scientific fact that genes are a product of evolution, which by the way is a process that never ends, its not discrete. Until there is no single retardation, physically limited, or unusually super smart human, the environment is still very much at large in deciding our fate. A single nut bolt can send a whole transportation bridge collapsing, what part of all this is so hard to understand?
Learning does not increase intelligence, that’s a new one. A good way to spit in the face of your kindergarten teacher, school teacher, and all other influences that helped you come this far. I’ll have to write this one down. I agree potential is defined by genes though, which in turn is defined by socio-cultural environment. This argument is basically a fight between evolution and genes. Have you heard of the human genome project. First of all we are all 99% the same genetically. Scientists can map out genes responsible for virtually process and rearrange them. When the adventures of the Genome project is fully realized, the fascination with genes overriding evolution will be totally and finally buried. You be the judge.
I would probably say yes that IQ is partially inherited, but then the question becomes to what extent is IQ malleable and how important is it really?
The great thing about IQ inheritance is that it implies that the mind is in part if not completely material, which implies that most likely the mind is very complex machine, which implies that it can, in principle, be emulated (Alan Turing's universal computing machine). So as long as you can perform the operations of the universal computing machine you will be able to emulate the mind, specifically a high IQ mind. So if a person's mind can be emulated then the ideas and problem solving ability available to high IQ individuals will be available to people with supposedly lower IQ's. Obviously this is only possible theoretically, in practice we don't have access to the cognitive algorithm, so the best we can do is emulate our guess of the high IQ cognitive algorithm. Yet as our knowledge of the brain increases one day we will be able to access the cognitive algorithm.
The problem is that simply because someone has a high IQ does not imply that they will make important contributions to society look at the article by the New York Times called prodigy puzzle, simply type "prodigy puzzle" in the google search engine and click on the 6th link.
If one reads the above article one finds that neither William Shockley or Luis Alvarez were deemed prodigies yet both won Nobel prizes, while none of the Termite individuals won a Nobel. This goes to show that sheer intelligence does not guarantee important contributions to society. People might say this is building a straw man of high IQ individuals, yet what should we expect from high IQ individuals? If nothing then why is it so important? If something then the above article shows it is not guaranteed. A side question might be why is it that most child geniuses don't become adult geniuses?
It appears to me that high IQ individuals are good at learning preexisting knowledge and solving problems within a paradigm, but when it comes to solving problems that require the construction of a new paradigm or a new idea, IQ is insufficient. The problem is that we can never know when a problem requires the construction of a new paradigm or idea, until it is solved. Also we can never know what prerequisite knowledge must be sufficiently developed in order for a problem to be solved. It could be that in order to solve a problem, another unknown field of study or uncreated field of study must be sufficiently developed, the problem is that we can't predict what field of study or how sufficiently developed, or what the time line is. So no matter how smart you are you might be at the right place at the wrong time.
I think it is better to judge a person's actual performance in a field of study rather than their IQ.
Okay, you're going to start with the LOLs now, right? You never gave a crap about genotype? Guy, nobody ever argued that genes are not a function of environment. It's like you're pretending that someone has said, "Genes aren't shaped by environment" And then you're like, "Yes they are! LOL" But here's the thing--nobody said genes aren't a function of the environment! In other words, you're arguing against nobody. You're like one of those crazies who talks to himself on the subway.
And second, if you don't care about the genes, why did you say these things?
How could it be construed otherwise from these statements that you don't think intelligence is inherited?
And you directly contradict yourself.
Please don't answer to this at all. I'm not interested in your nonsense anymore.
So why did you start this thread, francois
Because of the disparity between what most people believe to be the case regarding the heritability of IQ and what is mainstream knowledge in psychology/psychometrics.
The argument is not black and white. Do you want to believe the mainstream or do you want to read about the relationship, or do you want the pull your own prick. In a way both sides are correct, but one side is a function of the other, whether it happens or not. Thats just my own little attitude towards the I.Q.
Chatha, what does that even mean? This argument is not black and white. You are the most vague person in the world. I suspect you use vagueness to compensate for your lack of ability to demonstrate a coherent thought. Or perhaps, it's just a necessary, direct consequence.
Look... are you arguing that intelligence has a genetic cause? are you arguing that intelligence does not have a genetic cause? If you're arguing neither, please shut the hell up. I have no problem with arguing but, let's please keep it on topic.
Well I'm sorry if my argument turned vague, its probably because I have repeated myself a million zillion times.
Yes, you've been repeating arguments that neither have no bearing on this thread, nor have any bearing or relevance to anybody else's arguments or observations from this thread. I hereby dub you the Sciforums Schitzo. You argue things against imaginaries. You quote people's writing and write a bunch of stuff that's unrelated and you somehow think you're debunking them.
If you're not interested in arguing the heritability of intelligent/IQ, then do not participate.
Oh please, you don't know anything about science and relationships, you think you are a science student. You think everybody in the world doesn't know that I.Q is inherited given the ideal conditions? Put a cork in it will ya. You keep on ranting left right and center but brought absolutely nothing on the table. You started a thread and expected everybody to follow your small minded rhetoric. You couldn't even defend your position much of the time, and now you choose to compensate yourself by calling people names after the debate. Do you think you are intelligent? What intelligent thing have you said all thread? Don't make me laugh. You are stupid and you are boring, and you are immature. You sarted this thread with a foolish predisposed agenda. So fuck off
How fuckin stupid are you. You are so clouded in your little deluded mind that you can't even see the point. Take two twins who have identical brain develoment from birth. If they live different types of lives and development, their I.Q will differ. The amount of I.Q difference is directly proportional to the kind of seperate lives they live. There are many practical examples of this nature in real life. You are probably the most stupid or slowest member on sciforums. In science, the theory is formulated based on the constants, not the latter. Do you know why the number 3200 has only two significant figures? Because it can be written as 32 x 10 to power 2. We don't give significance to any number that can change. So Francois, maybe its you who has been avoiding some reading.
Oh boy... feeling a bit emotional today, huh?
I never pretended anything. I never pretended to be a scientist nor a "science student"--I never even pretended to be intelligent. I'm just stating the facts and I'm arguing. That's what this site is for... you know? Arguing, debating, disagreeing.
Yes, I think everybody in the world doesn't know that IQ is inherited, given the ideal conditions. Do you think everybody in the world knows that IQ is inherited under ideal conditions? Do you dare say yes?
There are many people who will say flat out--as we have seen several times--that IQ is not inherited. It's pretty senseless and emotional--which we can expect from people who are more emotional than intellectual. Once one of those persons look at the data, instantly their stance changes from "Genes have no bearing whatsoever on intelligence" to "Genes have some [small] bearing on intelligence," not so much because it's true, but because it's safer and it gives them some protection from ridicule. In reality, genes do not determine intelligence to a small degree; when one looks at the data and science fair and square, he cannot help but realize that genes are a major determining factor. In first world countries the heritability of IQ is estimated at somewhere around .8. Put differently, IQ is 80% inherited in first world countries.
Honestly, nobody really did. Chatha was starting to get in the right direction, talking about the Flynn effect and environmental causes of IQ though. Most of his contributions were just complete inane nonsense, non-sequiturs and strawmen.
It's not ot really my rhetoric. Like I said many times, this is mainstream psychology/psychometrics. This is stuff that's known in science bro. I'm just trying to get people up to speed. Science does violence to common sense and conventional wisdom. What is common knowledge often clashes with what is simply known in science. This is one of those cases and I think it's simply remarkable what people will say even in a science website.
Give me an example of something I could not defend.
There are times when it is very difficult to refrain from name calling. I don't really recall calling anyone names in this thread. But I definitely remember mocking the shit out of Chatha. But only because he very much deserved it. Did you read some of the things he said? The only reason I refrained from mocking him at times was because I didn't think I could possibly do as good a job at making him seem stupid as he.
By the sound of it, you could use a good laugh. And maybe even a hug. Oh, come here, you!
You're very likable, intellectually stimulating, interesting, mature, definitely not overemotional, uhmm, interesting, uh, likable, good looking, sock-sniffing, sexually arousing, uhm, and a good, uh, all-around chap. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Yeah, to inform people of what science says about the heritability of IQ. Yep, science is an evil thing. Be scared.
(Pinky and the Brain. Didn't you watch? Oh, nevermind.)
Separate names with a comma.