An interesting question, I find. Is intelligence inborn or does it depend on what you go through in life? I sometime find myself speaking to people who seem to have very little intelligence at all - and sometimes people's who's intelligence excels mine. And I sometimes think that the people who appear to give off very little intelligence e.g. my cousins boyfriend, has no job, failed all his G.C.S.E exams - is a thief and a burglar, does weed, and is, to me, stupid. And I think to myself, "there's no way this guy would ever be intelligent, no matter what upbringing he was given." And there are people so smart that I think would always excel.
So what do you think? Is intelligent inborn or developed?
Intelligence - Inborn or Developed?
Moderator: Fist and Faith
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
I will enjoy this!-
Alynna Lis Eachann
- Lord
- Posts: 3060
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 8:23 pm
- Location: Maryland, my Maryland
My 2 cents: It's a proven fact that mental stimulation at an early age builds neural pathways that provide for intelligence (or advanced thinking, whatever you want to call it) as a child grows up. It's been recently proven true in dogs, too. It's the reason "wild" or neglected children almost always grow up developmentaly challenged, and why animals that are around people are often smarter or more clever than wild ones. So intelligence is partly nurture. But there are also geniuses who have very advanced mental abilities but received little or no extraordinary mental stimulation as children. Therefore intelligence is partly nature as well, and there is only so much in the way of information that a given brain can process, based on genetics.
So, how much intelligence can we reasonably expect from an average individual under average circumstances? And what kind of intelligence are we talking about? Common sense is a form of intelligence based on instinct, but a person with plenty of common sense will not necessarily have above-average intelligence. Likewise, an individual with two PhDs and an IQ of 180 may lack the barest shred of common sense and might actually die because of a stupid mistake that our common sense-endowed friend would never make. Who's more intelligent?
I would argue that intelligence can be divided into further subgroups, but I'm at work, and it wouldn't be intelligent to write a thesis on this while I'm supposed to be processing agricultural certification applications.
So, how much intelligence can we reasonably expect from an average individual under average circumstances? And what kind of intelligence are we talking about? Common sense is a form of intelligence based on instinct, but a person with plenty of common sense will not necessarily have above-average intelligence. Likewise, an individual with two PhDs and an IQ of 180 may lack the barest shred of common sense and might actually die because of a stupid mistake that our common sense-endowed friend would never make. Who's more intelligent?
I would argue that intelligence can be divided into further subgroups, but I'm at work, and it wouldn't be intelligent to write a thesis on this while I'm supposed to be processing agricultural certification applications.
"We probably could have saved ourselves, but we were too damned lazy to try very hard... and too damn cheap." - Kurt Vonnegut
"Now if you remember all great paintings have an element of tragedy to them. Uh, for instance if you remember from last week, the unicorn was stuck on the aircraft carrier and couldn't get off. That was very sad. " - Kids in the Hall
"Now if you remember all great paintings have an element of tragedy to them. Uh, for instance if you remember from last week, the unicorn was stuck on the aircraft carrier and couldn't get off. That was very sad. " - Kids in the Hall
-
The Laughing Man
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9033
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:56 pm
- Location: LMAO
define:intelligence
this one seems to be the most "generic" to me....The capacity to create constructively for the purpose of evolutionary gain. The ability to recognize that which is useful and that which is not, in the creation of internal and external change. Degree of sophistication in the manipulation of fact and materials on a progressive basis.
-
Worm of Despite
- Lord
- Posts: 9546
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 7:46 pm
- Location: Rome, GA
- Contact:
I think it's a mix of both. I didn't pop out of the womb knowing intrinsically how to play an electric keyboard by ear. It takes practice, experience; I know I'll get rusty if I spend time away from the ol' piano. But still! There's people who seem completely unable to play by ear AT ALL; they have to learn music theory, read the notes, etc. until they can begin to play competently.
I think this is because of genetics; it gives a proclivity to certain things, such that one might take more quickly to writing a story than riding a bike. Or maybe someone likes to end the day with an oatmeal stout, rather than a cigar and a glass of wine. I believe there's a template we're born with: maybe someone is dealt "creative" cards at birth, and so they acquire a taste for painting more easily than someone with a tact for business and the stock exchange. I dunno. I could be all wrong, as always. All I know with certainty is that I love ice cream.
I think this is because of genetics; it gives a proclivity to certain things, such that one might take more quickly to writing a story than riding a bike. Or maybe someone likes to end the day with an oatmeal stout, rather than a cigar and a glass of wine. I believe there's a template we're born with: maybe someone is dealt "creative" cards at birth, and so they acquire a taste for painting more easily than someone with a tact for business and the stock exchange. I dunno. I could be all wrong, as always. All I know with certainty is that I love ice cream.
"I support the destruction of the Think-Tank." - Avatar, August 2008
-
The Laughing Man
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9033
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:56 pm
- Location: LMAO
Seems like we all agree each of us is born with a different version, and amount, but what is it, basically? Is it the capacity, as in how much, or ability, as in how well, we are able to know and learn? And consider as well that a persons degree of intelligence is commonly measured by how well he is able to display, or convey, this intelligence to others....
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
One has to consider what intelligence is. That's a heated topic of its own, so I'll just mention a few models of intelligence and add my opinion.
There's one model of intelligence called G. Spearman first identified g, or general intelligence, when it was found that test items correlated with each other. Spearman argued that the items were all correlated with one another because they were all correlated with g. Underlying general intelligence ability accounted for performance on the items on a test. For instance, items correlate with one another because high g ability would result in an individual scoring high on one set of items and high on another. Spearman argued that g permeates performance on every intelligence task, and suggested that there were two possible factors for individual differences in g. First, g might reflect the amount of mental effort individuals apply to tasks. Second, people varied in g depending upon how they differed in the three principles of cognition: apprehension of experience, education of relations and education of correlates.
However, some have argued (Baron) that g is a statistical anomaly. For instance, items correlate with one another because of one or more common abilities (e.g. speed and effort, retrieval and accuracy of retrieval from memory). They do not emerge in analysis because there are so many of them and because other factors emerge which are measured more purely. Measuring these abilities would result in no g factor emerging.
When removing the effect of g from item correlations Spearman revealed that groups of items still correlated with each other. For instance, on some tests general information and vocabulary items tend to correlate. Other items, such as visual tests correlate as well. Spearman argued that the correlations could be explained by group factors, because items that measure verbal comprehension tend to correlate highly; individuals who are skilled in this ability tend to score high on items that measure it. Tests that measure a range of abilities (verbal, reasoning, visual, etc.) will show such factors emerging. Importantly, the items of the test will cluster but not correlate with items belonging to other factors. Thus, it appears that intelligence may be made up of several abilities or components, and a number of theories have arisen to explain this.
Thurstone applied factor analysis to test data and found that a set of factors emerged. Seven factors were identified and he labeled these as primary mental abilities of intelligence. Verbal comprehension contained items measuring vocabulary and reading comprehension. Verbal fluency contained items measuring the production of words. Mathematical items loaded on to a factor called Number. Items measuring manipulation of symbols and geometric designs correlated highly together, suggesting a fourth factor, Spatial Visualisation. The Memory factor contained items measuring recall-memory. A Reasoning factor was comprised of items measuring analogies and sequencing problems. Finally, items that measured fast identification of symbols loaded on to a factor identified as Perceptual Speed. S Therefore, there is support for a componential model of intelligence.
Cattell'sl Gf-Gc theory is a hierarchical model of human intelligence as it states that there are a number of levels of human abilities. The first level or Stratum-I abilities involves specific items or specialised abilities . These abilities are gained during development so that they represent particular strategies. The narrow abilities at stratum-I are often inter-correlated, suggesting a similarity of abilities. A broad factor or Stratum-II ability is hypothesised to account for that the narrow abilities are related. The stratum-II level represents a higher-order ability that is believed to influence performance on the stratum-I abilities. For instance, skilled performance in stratum-I abilities of inductive and quantitative reasoning may be due to a broad skilled reasoning ability. In this sense, Cattell goes against the concept of a single general factor (g). Instead, he argues that intelligence is made up of two broad abilities, Gf and Gc.
Skills of communication, depth of cultural knowledge and the ability to apply this knowledge, and the level of interconnectedness of this knowledge are influenced by an individual’s level of crystallised intelligence (Gc). In factor analysis, test items that measure knowledge and vocabulary tend to correlate together and only load on one factor that suggests broad knowledge ability. Performance on these items requires stored knowledge, not so much reasoning ability. Cattell argued that an individual’s skill in Gc is reflected in his or her level of education and acculturation. Horn and Cattell also suggest that personality factors such as motivation to learn affect Gc.
Reasoning ability (Gf) is the stratum-II ability that accounts for performance on test items such as abstract and inductive reasoning, drawing inferences, analogies, concept formation and effectiveness in problem solving strategies. Test items that show adaptation to new situations and require no knowledge to solve tend to correlate and load on to this factor. As such, it is possible to test Gf ability in anyone, whereas Gc tests require the test to be culturally specific to the examinees. Unlike Gc, ability in Gf does not require a level of education or acculturation. Instead, neurological efficiency and biological factors influence Gf ability. While there is no stratum-III or g ability in the Gf-Gc model, some associate Gf with g due to an underlying biological basis. Horn and Cattell suggested that Gf and Gc are related conceptually, as Gc is seen as an indication of how much an individual has appropriated cultural knowledge, but the capacity to acquire that knowledge is dependent upon Gf (understanding what it means).
Horn expanded Gf-Gc theory to include more stratum-II abilities. The ability to generate, analyse, store and manipulate visual patterns is referred to as Visual Processing, or Gv. Speed of Processing (Gv) is the ability to effortlessly and automatically perform cognitive tasks. Tests that measure Gs include items that require little cognitive effort to complete, but are tested on how many items can be completed within a time limit. Many more abilities have been added since Horn expanded the model; Gsm (Short-Term Memory), Ga (Auditory Processing), Gt (Decision/Reaction Time).
As it has been found reasoning declines with age but crystallised intelligence increases it has been suggested that the components are real. So reasoning may be acquired - or inbuilt - and hence why some people are poor at reasoning, whereas others are good at storing facts over time. The latter explains knowledgeable people. So knowledge-intelligence grows and is not inborn (as Gc is better in adults than in children), and reasoning could possibly be developed early on (as studies have shown it plateaus in late teens) then declines (in old age).
Edit: Yes this is all my writing - some of it was copied and pasted from my thesis.
There's one model of intelligence called G. Spearman first identified g, or general intelligence, when it was found that test items correlated with each other. Spearman argued that the items were all correlated with one another because they were all correlated with g. Underlying general intelligence ability accounted for performance on the items on a test. For instance, items correlate with one another because high g ability would result in an individual scoring high on one set of items and high on another. Spearman argued that g permeates performance on every intelligence task, and suggested that there were two possible factors for individual differences in g. First, g might reflect the amount of mental effort individuals apply to tasks. Second, people varied in g depending upon how they differed in the three principles of cognition: apprehension of experience, education of relations and education of correlates.
However, some have argued (Baron) that g is a statistical anomaly. For instance, items correlate with one another because of one or more common abilities (e.g. speed and effort, retrieval and accuracy of retrieval from memory). They do not emerge in analysis because there are so many of them and because other factors emerge which are measured more purely. Measuring these abilities would result in no g factor emerging.
When removing the effect of g from item correlations Spearman revealed that groups of items still correlated with each other. For instance, on some tests general information and vocabulary items tend to correlate. Other items, such as visual tests correlate as well. Spearman argued that the correlations could be explained by group factors, because items that measure verbal comprehension tend to correlate highly; individuals who are skilled in this ability tend to score high on items that measure it. Tests that measure a range of abilities (verbal, reasoning, visual, etc.) will show such factors emerging. Importantly, the items of the test will cluster but not correlate with items belonging to other factors. Thus, it appears that intelligence may be made up of several abilities or components, and a number of theories have arisen to explain this.
Thurstone applied factor analysis to test data and found that a set of factors emerged. Seven factors were identified and he labeled these as primary mental abilities of intelligence. Verbal comprehension contained items measuring vocabulary and reading comprehension. Verbal fluency contained items measuring the production of words. Mathematical items loaded on to a factor called Number. Items measuring manipulation of symbols and geometric designs correlated highly together, suggesting a fourth factor, Spatial Visualisation. The Memory factor contained items measuring recall-memory. A Reasoning factor was comprised of items measuring analogies and sequencing problems. Finally, items that measured fast identification of symbols loaded on to a factor identified as Perceptual Speed. S Therefore, there is support for a componential model of intelligence.
Cattell'sl Gf-Gc theory is a hierarchical model of human intelligence as it states that there are a number of levels of human abilities. The first level or Stratum-I abilities involves specific items or specialised abilities . These abilities are gained during development so that they represent particular strategies. The narrow abilities at stratum-I are often inter-correlated, suggesting a similarity of abilities. A broad factor or Stratum-II ability is hypothesised to account for that the narrow abilities are related. The stratum-II level represents a higher-order ability that is believed to influence performance on the stratum-I abilities. For instance, skilled performance in stratum-I abilities of inductive and quantitative reasoning may be due to a broad skilled reasoning ability. In this sense, Cattell goes against the concept of a single general factor (g). Instead, he argues that intelligence is made up of two broad abilities, Gf and Gc.
Skills of communication, depth of cultural knowledge and the ability to apply this knowledge, and the level of interconnectedness of this knowledge are influenced by an individual’s level of crystallised intelligence (Gc). In factor analysis, test items that measure knowledge and vocabulary tend to correlate together and only load on one factor that suggests broad knowledge ability. Performance on these items requires stored knowledge, not so much reasoning ability. Cattell argued that an individual’s skill in Gc is reflected in his or her level of education and acculturation. Horn and Cattell also suggest that personality factors such as motivation to learn affect Gc.
Reasoning ability (Gf) is the stratum-II ability that accounts for performance on test items such as abstract and inductive reasoning, drawing inferences, analogies, concept formation and effectiveness in problem solving strategies. Test items that show adaptation to new situations and require no knowledge to solve tend to correlate and load on to this factor. As such, it is possible to test Gf ability in anyone, whereas Gc tests require the test to be culturally specific to the examinees. Unlike Gc, ability in Gf does not require a level of education or acculturation. Instead, neurological efficiency and biological factors influence Gf ability. While there is no stratum-III or g ability in the Gf-Gc model, some associate Gf with g due to an underlying biological basis. Horn and Cattell suggested that Gf and Gc are related conceptually, as Gc is seen as an indication of how much an individual has appropriated cultural knowledge, but the capacity to acquire that knowledge is dependent upon Gf (understanding what it means).
Horn expanded Gf-Gc theory to include more stratum-II abilities. The ability to generate, analyse, store and manipulate visual patterns is referred to as Visual Processing, or Gv. Speed of Processing (Gv) is the ability to effortlessly and automatically perform cognitive tasks. Tests that measure Gs include items that require little cognitive effort to complete, but are tested on how many items can be completed within a time limit. Many more abilities have been added since Horn expanded the model; Gsm (Short-Term Memory), Ga (Auditory Processing), Gt (Decision/Reaction Time).
As it has been found reasoning declines with age but crystallised intelligence increases it has been suggested that the components are real. So reasoning may be acquired - or inbuilt - and hence why some people are poor at reasoning, whereas others are good at storing facts over time. The latter explains knowledgeable people. So knowledge-intelligence grows and is not inborn (as Gc is better in adults than in children), and reasoning could possibly be developed early on (as studies have shown it plateaus in late teens) then declines (in old age).
Edit: Yes this is all my writing - some of it was copied and pasted from my thesis.
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
Sure. Make sure you have plenty of anti-oxidants in your diet, as well.sgtnull wrote:the fish thing does concern me. since i don't eat dead animal, will a supplement give the same benefit?
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
Interesting posts all, and a very interesting topic Darth.
I really do think that nurture plays a more crucial role than nature, although I'm not willing to discount the effect of genetics. I'm certainly in favour of the idea of genetic predisposition, as mentioned by Foul, but I think that, if you start early enough, and teach well enough, you can instill the outcomes in practically anyone.
--A
I really do think that nurture plays a more crucial role than nature, although I'm not willing to discount the effect of genetics. I'm certainly in favour of the idea of genetic predisposition, as mentioned by Foul, but I think that, if you start early enough, and teach well enough, you can instill the outcomes in practically anyone.
--A
-
duchess of malfi
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:20 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520
IQ is inherited, suggests twin study
15:12 05 November 2001
Genes have a very strong influence over how certain parts of our brains develop, scientists in the US and Finland have found. And the parts most influenced are those that govern our cognitive ability. In short, you inherit your IQ.
Paul Thompson at the University of California at Los Angeles and his colleagues used MRI to scan the brains of 10 pairs of identical and 10 pairs of fraternal twins. Identical twins have identical genes, whereas fraternal twins sharing on average half their genes. The twins shared environments, means researchers can separate genetic and environmental factors.
The researchers found that certain regions of the brain were highly heritable. These included language areas, known as Broca's and Wernicke's areas, and the frontal region, which, among other things, plays a huge role in cognition.
In identical twins, these areas showed a 95 to 100 per cent correlation between one twin and the other - they were essentially the same. The frontal structure, says Thompson, appears to be as highly influenced by genes as the most highly influenced trait we know of - fingerprints.
"It's extraordinary how similar they are," he says. The finding suggests that environment - their own personal experiences, what they learned in life, who they knew - played a negligible role in shaping it.
Fraternal twins were near-identical in Wernicke's area, showing about 60 to 70 per cent correlation, but were less similar in other areas, . Random pairs of people would be expected to have no correlation.
Intellectual function
The study was all the more interesting in that it found that not only was this gray matter highly heritable, but it affected overall intelligence as well. "We found that differences in frontal gray matter were significantly linked with differences in intellectual function," the authors write.
The volunteers each took a battery of tests that examined 17 separate abilities, including verbal and spatial working memory, attention tasks, verbal knowledge, motor speed and visuospatial ability.
These tests hone in on what's known as "g", the common element measured by IQ tests. People who do well on one of these tests tend to do well on them all, says Thompson.
It is not known what exactly "g" is. But these new findings suggest that "g" is not just a statistical abstraction, but rather, that it has a biological substrate in the brain, says Robert Plomin, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. Plomin has spent eight years looking for genes behind "g". "I'm convinced that there are genes," he says, a lot of them, each with a small effect.
Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University in Boston questions whether "g" should really be called intelligence. "G" picks up on abilities such as being able to abstract rules or figure out how to order things according to rules. "It's the kind of intelligence you need to do well in school," he says. "Not what you need to do well in life."
Journal reference: Nature Neuroscience (DOI: 10.1038/nn758)
Love as thou wilt.
-
variol son
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:07 pm
- Location: New Zealand
Ah, but as my lecturer said in our Intelligence and Reasoning lecture last week, IQ is not intelligence.
While it is often used to measure intelligence, it actually measures the individuals performance on a set of tasks relative to others of the same age and culture at the time in history when the test was standardised. I'm not sure when the commonly used Stanford-Binet test was last standardised, but I believe that we are on the third edition.
Relative contributions of genetics and the environment to IQ can be determined using the heritability coefficient, which is the variance in IQ test scores due to genes over the total variance in IQ test scores (variance due to genes and variance due to environmental factors).
Tests similar to the one in duchess' article showed a heritability coefficient of 0.46 for participants aged 12 to 15. Therefore, almost half (46%) of the variability in IQ scores of children and teenagers was due to genetic differences between individuals.
This heritability coefficient rose to 0.86 when the participants became adults and left home, possibly because when young adults left home environmental influences waned and so consequently genetics contributed more.
In answer to Avatar's question, when looking at identical twins raised apart (so the genes are the same but the environment is different) the heritability coefficient was 0.73 among adults. In all cases, there seems to be a strong genetic component to IQ at least, if not intelligence.
My lecturer did mention however that such experiments are usually carried out almost solely among white middle class people and that the variance is likely to be greater, and therefore the heritability coefficient lower, if a wider range of people were included in the group of participants.
Michael will correct any "bad psychology".
While it is often used to measure intelligence, it actually measures the individuals performance on a set of tasks relative to others of the same age and culture at the time in history when the test was standardised. I'm not sure when the commonly used Stanford-Binet test was last standardised, but I believe that we are on the third edition.
Relative contributions of genetics and the environment to IQ can be determined using the heritability coefficient, which is the variance in IQ test scores due to genes over the total variance in IQ test scores (variance due to genes and variance due to environmental factors).
Tests similar to the one in duchess' article showed a heritability coefficient of 0.46 for participants aged 12 to 15. Therefore, almost half (46%) of the variability in IQ scores of children and teenagers was due to genetic differences between individuals.
This heritability coefficient rose to 0.86 when the participants became adults and left home, possibly because when young adults left home environmental influences waned and so consequently genetics contributed more.
In answer to Avatar's question, when looking at identical twins raised apart (so the genes are the same but the environment is different) the heritability coefficient was 0.73 among adults. In all cases, there seems to be a strong genetic component to IQ at least, if not intelligence.
My lecturer did mention however that such experiments are usually carried out almost solely among white middle class people and that the variance is likely to be greater, and therefore the heritability coefficient lower, if a wider range of people were included in the group of participants.
Michael will correct any "bad psychology".
You do not hear, and so you cannot be redeemed.
In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.
He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.
In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.
He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
Wow, posted in the 'Tank and the Close on the same day? 
You feeling OK Vs? Whatever it is, keep taking it...
Great post, thanks. But why should environmental influences wane? They're still in an environment...
And an excellent point about IQ and intelligence. I've always been suspicious of IQ tests myself.
--A
You feeling OK Vs? Whatever it is, keep taking it... Great post, thanks. But why should environmental influences wane? They're still in an environment...
And an excellent point about IQ and intelligence. I've always been suspicious of IQ tests myself.
--A