Intelligence - Inborn or Developed?

[Loredoctor]

To be fair, IQ is a measure of the construct 'intelligence'. So it's a scale, not intelligence, but a scale. The same way you might measure steam pressure to determine temperature of water.

As for IQ tests, I used two extensively for my thesis and they work well. Many tests do 'tap' into different aspects of intelligence. For instance, processing speed is a great indicator of intelligence/IQ, having a coefficient of around .70 (I think). Tests which are culturally-based tend to be regarded as good tests of knowledge (Gc), whereas speed of processing tests are good measures of reasoning and less affected by culture and environment.

[variol son]

I'm on steroids for my breathing - they must be what's doing this to me.

I guess the influence of the identical environmental influence wanes.

It is odd, because I gather from Cattell's modification of Spearman's theory (which Loremaster mentioned in depth) that fulid intelligence (Gf) or the ability to reason and solve problems in novel domains peaks young, whereas crystallised intelligence (Gc) or mental ability derived from previous experience increases until approximately age 50.

Or, put simply, genes give way to environment. this seems to contradict the heritability coefficient findings. Hmmm.

Michael will be able to explain it.

[Avatar]

Very interesting LM. I can see how that works. Knowledge is not intelligence either. Reaosning however might be a good measure.

--A

[Loredoctor]

Or, put simply, genes give way to environment. this seems to contradict the heritability coefficient findings. Hmmm.

I wouldn't say that it contradicts. You have to realise that with the coefficient that there is some variance that does not explain or contribute to the heritability relationship. Square the coefficient and you get the variance that heritability does explain. Now, if you factor in environmental variabless, like schooling, interesting things can happen. One such statistical tool is partitioning out the variance explained by genetics, or environment. Partitioning out genetics will show the variance explained by environment and other factors. BUT this will not affect genetics and IQ relationship, as that only factors in those two variables.

[Avatar]

So Vs is right in saying that while genes and environment both have an affect, as Gc increases, environment becomes more determining?

I could see that. I can certainly accept that genetics are responsible for the way that your brain is laid out at first, then early environment "fixes" that, then later environment can have an effect on altering it.

--A

[Loredoctor]

I could see that. I can certainly accept that genetics are responsible for the way that your brain is laid out at first, then early environment "fixes" that, then later environment can have an effect on altering it.

--A

That's it; you've hit it spot on.

[Avatar]

I have? Cool. Chalk one up for common sense.

So effectively, none of those things are solely responsible for either intelligence, or the way your mind works. They're interrelated parts of a whole. Genetics doesn't cast in stone your intelligence, and environment alone isn't responsible for it, nor can you have whatever you want regardless of your upbringing and inherited characteristics?

That suits me. I don't think that heritability is the "be all and end all," but I'm certainly not blind to its affect in predisposing you toward a certain course/trait/whatever.

--A

[Loredoctor]

I have? Cool. Chalk one up for common sense.

So effectively, none of those things are solely responsible for either intelligence, or the way your mind works. They're interrelated parts of a whole. Genetics doesn't cast in stone your intelligence, and environment alone isn't responsible for it, nor can you have whatever you want regardless of your upbringing and inherited characteristics?

That suits me. I don't think that heritability is the "be all and end all," but I'm certainly not blind to its affect in predisposing you toward a certain course/trait/whatever.

--A

Excellent post, my friend. Excellent post.

[Avatar]

Why thank you. *bows*

--A

[Loredoctor]

The predisposing line was exceptional - and I'm not just being nice. It's my driving philosophy behind psych - esp in regards to drug use.

[Avatar]

As long as we're agreed that a predisposition is all that it is. Everybody has the ability to overcome that predisposition through an effort of will, training or desire.

That's not to say that it's easy, not at all. But it is possible.

--A

[Loredoctor]

True, but some predispositions one cannot overcome - for instance, MS.

[Avatar]

Hm, I'm talking more about psychological predisposition than physical ones.

In terms of the physical, I'd class it more as a probability than a predisposition. Although I agree that a genetic predisposition to a psychological trait is not "medically" different from one to a physical trait, it is the psychological ones that are open to alteration.

If you have a genetic predisposition to a physical defect, then no, of course you can't do much about it, it's hard-wired into your genes, giving you an X probability of falling prey to it, which you're unlikely to be able to affect. (Of course, in some cases, you could still, for example by leading a healthier lifestyle if you're "predisposed" to heart disease.)

--A

[Loredoctor]

Ahhh okay sorry about that.

[Avatar]

No need to be sorry, I think it's important to be clear. I just hadn't thought of predisposition as a physical issue as well as a psychological one, whereas it can clearly apply to both.

--A

[KAY1]

I think that it is definitely a mixture. There are some people who are born with the capability to be more intelligent than others. Your environment then has a major influence over how much of this intelligence is developed.

I believe though that a person born with less intelligence capabilities than another person will only be able to reach a certain level of intelligence no matter how much education,/training etc they later receive. I think of intelligence as a capacity for learning more than anything. Some people you can teach until you are blue in the face and they just can't understand whereas some people have had limited schooling but show a greater ability to understand and pick up new information.

[Avatar]

While that's true as far as it goes, my own feeling about the people who you can try to teach until you're blue in the face has tended to be that it is the failing of the teacher.

All you have to do is to reduce the concept to components small enough to understand, or terms that are meaningful to them. There must be some way of expressing it in terms that the "pupil" can grasp...

I dunno...just an opinion.

--A

[KAY1]

I do actually agree with that as I once moved house as a teenager and had to change schools. The same subject I had been unable to grasp at the first school I picked up easily at the second due to the different teaching methods.

I still maintain that there is a limit to which methods etc can affect you though. I still think that each person is different in the information they can learn. Of course it can also depend on whether or not you are referring to intelligence in an academic sense or in day to day life. For exaple a friend of mine is always saying that many people who are classed as intelligent and go to university etc have absolutely no 'common-sense' at all! They can answer plenty of questions on tests, but stick them in a house where they have to take care of the domestic chores, paying bills etc they would fall flat. In many cases intelligence can be objective but I think there are plenty of people who really are stupid. Sounds harsh, but it is true.

[Avatar]

Perfectly true. Common sense has never been my strongest point, I'll admit.

But does it have anything to do with intelligence?

--A

[Marv]

Loremaster, as far as i could keep up with your post/thesis( ) it occoured to me that much of the tests, or at least what was being tested, to determine intelligence were extremely relavent to high class sports people. particularly in sports like hockey, soccer and rugby football.
visual processing and speed of processing are two things that are needed/essential to perform in high speed, cluttered sports like those.

so, is it fair to say that much of the jocular criticism aimed at their levels of intelligence is mis-guided?