There is no way to test whether people are born with a certain level of intelligence or not because they can always learn new things.
Unless there is a point where a person has so much information that he/she cannot learn anymore, we cannot determine the maximum level of intellectual capacity of that person.
So I think people can become more clever by learning new things.
But the argument was never that people are born with intelligence. Obviously children aren't born with knowledge of past prime ministers, or algebraic formulae. That's just absurd. The real argument is that certain individuals learn more easily, and have a higher cognitive capacity to learn than others because of their genetic make-up.
Go take BIO 101, and go read up on genetics, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
I didn't say everyone giving all of their effort can be Steven Hawking, because everyone's effort is different, its not different because of biology, its different for social and internal reasons.
i have taken 101 lol and 202
what exactly did i say wrong?
If I followed your way of thinking, i could say that every "normal" human can be an athlete of Michael Phelps calibre if they grew up in the same environment he did. Obviously that argument is flawed because every body is built differently due to genetic variation right? Now what makes you think every "normal" brain is the exact same? and has the same ability to learn?
But the argument was never that people are born with intelligence. Obviously children aren't born with knowledge of past prime ministers, or algebraic formulae. That's just absurd. The real argument is that certain individuals learn more easily, and have a higher cognitive capacity to learn than others because of their genetic make-up.
lol you never know, i saw an article the other day that said it might me possible for memories to be stored on dna, look up deep dna memories theory
hmm.. i'm surprised this hasn't come up yet but has anyone wondered that people we perceive as stupid is actually really smart? for instance.. given that the world is filled with people that possess a certain level of intelligence.. the only way for "smart people" to make sense to them if they have the capacity to what these people are saying.. so if someone is actually really REALLY smart but can't explain or demonstrate it in a way that everyday people can understand.. they're seen as the less intellectual? =\
is anyone getting what i'm saying here or am i sounding like a dorkhead? =S
so yeah.. i'd like to believe that we can become cleverer with age and experience (cause i'm a dumb person and if this is all the intelligence i have.. it's going to make me a sad sad person) but i've also seen people who are "naturally gifted" and can also understand where the argument of intelligence being a social construct is coming from.. honestly.. i really don't know where i stand on this..
There's probably enough smart people (and there's always the media) around who can understand what you're saying and be capable of dumbing it down at the same time that you don't have to do it yourself. Even then, the situation should be very rare anyways because you need to have a general, broad understanding in order to work with all the detailed and advanced mathematics, "dumbing down" is essentially just giving people increasingly approximate versions of the actual concept, or increasingly approximate analogies where the case may be.
But then you're basing your theory on the assumption that, if one is born without some form of genetic abnormality that directly hinders learning (Down Syndrome, etc.), then we put them into the arbitrary category of "normal", and all of these "normal" people have the exact same potential as everybody else?
First of all, being "normal" is also a social construct. Secondly, the main point is, there are slight biological and genetic variations that can always affect the way people learn. Besides, I think the point lazyguy was trying to make was that if you look at the size of brains across species, let's say, rhesus monkeys vs chimps, vs humans, you will see that the prefrontal cortex of humans is much larger. And it has been shown that the frontal lobe is related to planning and goal directed behavior, as well as problem-solving skills. Plus, the lateral prefrontal cortex is the site of working memory.
My point is, if one child is born with a slightly smaller frontal/pre-frontal cortex, it would undoubtedly affect the way they learn, and as a result, their overall intelligence.
Your point is valid, but not in the way lazyguy forumated it at all. The validity of studies comparing animals to humans is confounded beyond belief. Aggression in mice compared to aggression in human studies for example. If someone wants to compare the effect of diseases in animals it is one thing, comparing behavioural patterns across species is another. If we want to compare human behaviour to ape behaviour, why not just throw fruit flies in the equation if we want to use the human genome as our validator.
What about brain plasticity? If you look at the case studies of feral and severely negelcted children they have lost the ability to progress and their brain shapes are warped. Thus, if they were born with a certain ability to learn it has been entirely curtailed by nurture.
I still don't think normal people have the same ability as all other normal people to excel in life. We're obviously arguing over something none of us can prove, but consider what I mentioned before about the concept of effort. No one can prove when someone is giving their all, and what their innate ability is. Different people are interested in different things, some people are going to give more effort to some things than others.
My example of the essay again. In first year first semester I got two C-'s, I went online did my research and next semester I haven't gotten below a B+ in the last three years. I do not in any way like writing essays, and I wasn't given some gift to write essays. A posteriori factors affected my ability. The assertion that I am biologically pre-disposes to learn this is just not overwhelmingly evident in this example. I can read, and I have basic logic skills, and that is all I attribute it to. Now whether we want to claim my ability to read and reason are biologically predisposed is another argument, an argument that keeps going on til infinity.
Think of all the times you've just given no effort to something, or even slacked off. How can you even gauge a concept like intelligence, when you can't measure all the different aspects. The fact is we cant measure innate ability or any manifestation of it like intelligence.
The only thing that may lead me to doubt my own assertion would be instinct in humans. Where people know how to do things without being taught, such as reproduction or eating. In my entire time in school though the only instinctual urges I've read of are: staying alive via sustenance, sexual reproduction, and avoidance of imminent physical harm. The ability to be a better learner than others is entirely relative, and would not exist beyond comparison to other people. Using brain plasticity again, when people learn the physical features of their brain change, if the ability to learn were genetic then wouldn't natural selection eventually give birth to people not requiring them to have any kind of nurture?
I don't have a definition of intelligence, and I think IQ and Intelligence are words that are not functionally valid and or circular in logic.
Definition of intelligence: "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." This definition in itself claims that people are born with different levels of intelligence. The definition in itself is circular, its assertion is measured by itself.
If you wanted to say " 'so and so' is good at (particular activity)" I would agree with that as a definition of ability, as opposed to intelligence. Although in this case one is measuring mental strength as opposed to a physical activity, but isn't there mental skills involved in physical acts as well??? If you wanted to so and so is naturally a better runner than so and so, I would buy into that as well--in this scenario nature is defined by physical structures that are measurable, although nurture plays a large role.
I don't have a definition of intelligence, and I think IQ and Intelligence are words that are not functionally valid and or circular in logic.
Definition of intelligence: "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." This definition in itself claims that people are born with different levels of intelligence. The definition in itself is circular, its assertion is measured by itself.
If you wanted to say " 'so and so' is good at (particular activity)" I would agree with that as a definition of ability, as opposed to intelligence. Although in this case one is measuring mental strength as opposed to a physical activity, but isn't there mental skills involved in physical acts as well??? If you wanted to so and so is naturally a better runner than so and so, I would buy into that as well--in this scenario nature is defined by physical structures that are measurable, although nurture plays a large role.
i really don't see why you're drawing a distinction between mental ability and physical ability. everything you think is the result of physical properties changing within your brain. Once you accept that we are born with innate physical differences, the only valid conclusion is that we therefore have different mental capabilities, whatever scale you use to measure it.
I've never met two humans who were exactly identical in all physical aspects, so I think it is silly to assume that the entire population of humans is identical in their aptitude for learning or understanding. I completely understand iVamp's notion that no two people's natural intellect could be compared due to so many variables inside their own head. But I disagree that this somehow means that no natural intellect exists. You presented the example of asian students who do well (which is true) based on parental pressure. However, I know many of these students and I still do far better GPA wise than they do for much less effort. Your example of the Arts and essays are not a good example of intellect, because so much of the process is to learn the "tricks" to do well. I think math and science is a far better measure of raw intellect because you either understand it or you don't, its a 0 or a 1. It can be plainly seen that some students just don't have the same natural ability to grasp difficult concepts as others. Plenty of times I have gone to a study group completely unprepared and end up teaching the material to the group after a single review (despite them preparing the study sheets and reading ahead of time). Some people just can't "get it" as others can. I would be highly skeptical that this has nothing to do with genetic predisposition.
For one, the term intelligence is a social construct, how can people be born with an artificial quality?
No, it isn't; in fact, that's merely a politically correct statement whose outdated nature is only now becoming apparent. An IQ score is by far the best predictor of academic and life success.
How do you explain the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have IQ scores a whole standard deviation above that of Western Europeans (this roughly comes out to a 112-115 average for Ashkenazi Jews)? How do you explain that approximately 30% of Nobel Prize laureates are of Ashkenazi Jewish extraction (while composing less than 3% of the American population)? Effort? Hard work? Parental pressure? No, or at least not only. There is only so much variation that environmental factors can explain, the rest is simply nature-based.
iVamp;42233 said:
By saying people are born with a different level of intelligence is basically throwing out the entire concept of learning.
No, it doesn't. Everyone can learn; some of us learn faster; some of us retain more information; some of us have a propensity for maths, some for language, and others for creativity (how any of these clearly discernible differences between levels of intelligence is socially constructed is beyond me). The fact of the matter is that some people are able to do more with the same information as others (i.e. all other things being equal, genetics will have to explain some difference in intelligence or learning ability).
Ultimately, the basis for intelligence is both genetic and environmental, yet more genetic than environmental than society (or you) is willing to admit (given that anytime innate abilities are discussed controversy arises).
P.S.: Just because a testable definition of intelligence doesn't exist does not mean that some more or less agreed-upon concept of intelligence doesn't exist.
Comments
Unless there is a point where a person has so much information that he/she cannot learn anymore, we cannot determine the maximum level of intellectual capacity of that person.
So I think people can become more clever by learning new things.
what exactly did i say wrong?
If I followed your way of thinking, i could say that every "normal" human can be an athlete of Michael Phelps calibre if they grew up in the same environment he did. Obviously that argument is flawed because every body is built differently due to genetic variation right? Now what makes you think every "normal" brain is the exact same? and has the same ability to learn?
What about brain plasticity? If you look at the case studies of feral and severely negelcted children they have lost the ability to progress and their brain shapes are warped. Thus, if they were born with a certain ability to learn it has been entirely curtailed by nurture.
I still don't think normal people have the same ability as all other normal people to excel in life. We're obviously arguing over something none of us can prove, but consider what I mentioned before about the concept of effort. No one can prove when someone is giving their all, and what their innate ability is. Different people are interested in different things, some people are going to give more effort to some things than others.
My example of the essay again. In first year first semester I got two C-'s, I went online did my research and next semester I haven't gotten below a B+ in the last three years. I do not in any way like writing essays, and I wasn't given some gift to write essays. A posteriori factors affected my ability. The assertion that I am biologically pre-disposes to learn this is just not overwhelmingly evident in this example. I can read, and I have basic logic skills, and that is all I attribute it to. Now whether we want to claim my ability to read and reason are biologically predisposed is another argument, an argument that keeps going on til infinity.
Think of all the times you've just given no effort to something, or even slacked off. How can you even gauge a concept like intelligence, when you can't measure all the different aspects. The fact is we cant measure innate ability or any manifestation of it like intelligence.
The only thing that may lead me to doubt my own assertion would be instinct in humans. Where people know how to do things without being taught, such as reproduction or eating. In my entire time in school though the only instinctual urges I've read of are: staying alive via sustenance, sexual reproduction, and avoidance of imminent physical harm. The ability to be a better learner than others is entirely relative, and would not exist beyond comparison to other people. Using brain plasticity again, when people learn the physical features of their brain change, if the ability to learn were genetic then wouldn't natural selection eventually give birth to people not requiring them to have any kind of nurture?
what's your definition of "intelligence" anyways?
Definition of intelligence: "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." This definition in itself claims that people are born with different levels of intelligence. The definition in itself is circular, its assertion is measured by itself.
If you wanted to say " 'so and so' is good at (particular activity)" I would agree with that as a definition of ability, as opposed to intelligence. Although in this case one is measuring mental strength as opposed to a physical activity, but isn't there mental skills involved in physical acts as well??? If you wanted to so and so is naturally a better runner than so and so, I would buy into that as well--in this scenario nature is defined by physical structures that are measurable, although nurture plays a large role.
by listening to anything primexx says
Nature and nurture, baby!
How do you explain the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have IQ scores a whole standard deviation above that of Western Europeans (this roughly comes out to a 112-115 average for Ashkenazi Jews)? How do you explain that approximately 30% of Nobel Prize laureates are of Ashkenazi Jewish extraction (while composing less than 3% of the American population)? Effort? Hard work? Parental pressure? No, or at least not only. There is only so much variation that environmental factors can explain, the rest is simply nature-based. No, it doesn't. Everyone can learn; some of us learn faster; some of us retain more information; some of us have a propensity for maths, some for language, and others for creativity (how any of these clearly discernible differences between levels of intelligence is socially constructed is beyond me). The fact of the matter is that some people are able to do more with the same information as others (i.e. all other things being equal, genetics will have to explain some difference in intelligence or learning ability).
Ultimately, the basis for intelligence is both genetic and environmental, yet more genetic than environmental than society (or you) is willing to admit (given that anytime innate abilities are discussed controversy arises).
P.S.: Just because a testable definition of intelligence doesn't exist does not mean that some more or less agreed-upon concept of intelligence doesn't exist.
"Intelligence is what you're born with. Knowledge is what you gain."