What is intelligence?

[macjay18]

I am sure there are more than a few people on here that have various University degrees and maybe the odd doctorate out there but does that define intelligence? Most would say no, it only shows that they are knowledgeable in one (or a few) particular fields.

Intelligence can be defined as a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom.

I worked with a guy recently...a very smart individual on paper and very well read, but i asked him to stack something up for me- he did as he was told but stacked it all uneven and I said to him 'why didnt you stack it, so the boxes were sitting on their widest point rather than their narrow side'? He replied he didnt think of that and...moments later they collapsed.

Common sense is an important component of intelligence i believe. Now common sense is a funny one, when i was growing up i thought I lacked some of this thing called common sense, I would often do stupid things the wrong way because i didnt stop and think. After I left university and was working an internship in Civil Engineering I was asked to do a year on the ground working in construction- I thought great, i will do it. In construction and been one of the only guys without a criminal record (we were doing asphalt) I was on the barrow all do lugging asphalt and if I did a mistake or didnt think about what i was doing I would get yelled at and spittal would often land in my face, some of these guys would get very aggressive at minor things. So eventually i stopped i would think about everything i was doing, i would slow down and take everything in around me and eventually i stopped making mistakes. Sometimes though common sense isnt common- if you have no familiarity how is it common to you?

What are your definitions of intelligence? There are alot of people on here that write with eloquence and seem intelligent, (whereas I just free-type and dont check my grammar or spelling) so what are your thoughts?

[BeardedOne]

Good question, citing example. I know a lot of stoopid people with diplomas on their walls. A doctorate doesn't necessarily mean you're intelligent, just smart. My cat is smart, but she can't do basic math and therefore comes up a bit shy on the intelligence scale (Though I have reason to believe that she'd score higher than I would).

I'm interested in seeing some of the replies here. Perhaps some explanation as to how a friend of mine can analyze military and political history in finite terms yet he can't balance a checkbook to save his life. Or lawyers and judges with exemplary careers that have trouble spelling 'tort' and pen entire briefs sans paragraphs, punctuation, and capitalization. Or MacGiver-like mechanics and engineers who electrocute themselves by changing a lightbulb.

[SarahG]

If we take intelligence to be the acquisition and application of knowledge- then that doesn't stipulate the knowledge be diverse.

So someone can be unbelievably intelligent (that is, knowing alot and knowing how to use that knowledge) in one area, while having virtually no such knowledge in other areas.

Think about all the geniuses in history like say, Tesla who were undeniably intelligent, but not exactly intelligent when dealing with say- social knowledge. I.e. you're "eccentric inventor"

Hughes is another example that comes to mind like that. Brilliant guy.... not so much when it comes to dealing with people.

[AngelinaTorres]

First of all i want to tell that my english is not very good but i will try to do my best. I translated all your posts and here is some ideas :

The intelligence does not depend on genetics, because we use an average of only 10% of our brain capacity. What counts is our ability to fully utilize the possibilities of our mind.
The important thing is how we process and organize information, which we interpret our experiences, and more broadly, how we represent reality.

Do not make his decision based on that of others, and do not take for granted what is said or suggested by the media, advertising, politicians. Make use of your free will and your discernment. Always ask yourself the question what YOU think, depending on your vision and what you really feel. While simultaneously being open and tolerant towards other views or perceptions.

He whose mind does not produce any independent thinking and does nothing other than what is discharged is virtually "no value". Functionally, it is a "container".


Many people think in black and white, ie on a binary: good or bad, true or false, 1 or 0. The consequences of thinking are binary dualism, the lack of nuance, intolerance, and ultimately violence and wars.
But the ideal is to achieve reality show IN COLOR.


To mark their league, men like to talk cars or other technology and thus avoid the intimate subjects. Proud of their knowledge, they rarely boast of being zero in math. For many women, it is rather a luxury to have never understood the abstract theories or be overtaken by technology! In contrast, women are moving easily on discussions of a psychological nature: they excel, and manage to assert itself in this area considered frivolous by the men, who often wait for word that leads to action!

"Men have a better sense of direction than women"! You've probably already heard that statement! And you say it is anything (if you're a woman) or conversely that it is true (if you're a man). Science has also raised the question ... And it seems the thesis of a better sense of orientation in humans. This would in effect a better perception of 3D and would thus be better able to move. This is linked to an action of male hormones in brain development, which would promote the development of the right hemisphere. But this part of the brain is particularly responsible for spatial orientation

[macjay18]

In contrast, women are moving easily on discussions of a psychological nature: they excel, and manage to assert itself in this area considered frivolous by the men, who often wait for word that leads to action!


Where do transsexuals fit into these things..like for example a woman by nature is better at dealing with conflicts and evaluating a situation, they say most of these traits are genetic.

Does it mean that once again you have best of both worlds, they can evaluate situations etc like a man would and like a woman would? I guess it is variable.

[slinky]

In general I find discussions like this one to be coming from those lacking in formal education as an excuse as why intelligence can't be measured by University Degrees, SAT scores, etc.

[fordly66]

I have to disagree with some people on this subject. I do think intelligence is inherited (genetics). Also intelligence and knowledge are two separate things. Intelligence you are born with, knowledge is acquired. It is also true that people who are really knowledgeable about a certain subject or field are sometimes lacking in common sense. It's like they are almost programmed to excel in their field. Some people are born with an inept ability to learn things, i.e. mechanics, science. Some breeds of dogs are bred to have certain traits, like retrieving or herding. It's amazing what they pick up in such a short time. Now is that intelligence, well kind of. It was inherited, and they excel on a certain subject. The knowledge is acquired easily. I think that is the way it is for humans as well. Overall, I think intelligence is your ability to easily acquire knowledge.

[SarahG]

I have to disagree with some people on this subject. I do think intelligence is inherited (genetics). Also intelligence and knowledge are two separate things. Intelligence you are born with, knowledge is acquired. It is also true that people who are really knowledgeable about a certain subject or field are sometimes lacking in common sense. It's like they are almost programmed to excel in their field. Some people are born with an inept ability to learn things, i.e. mechanics, science. Some breeds of dogs are bred to have certain traits, like retrieving or herding. It's amazing what they pick up in such a short time. Now is that intelligence, well kind of. It was inherited, and they excel on a certain subject. The knowledge is acquired easily. I think that is the way it is for humans as well. Overall, I think intelligence is your ability to easily acquire knowledge.

Genetics can play a role, but then again so can the environment (think the effects of lead poisoning).

[rockabilly]

I'm smart enough to know that i don't know everything.

[tommymageeshemales2]

"...knowledge is knowing tomatoes are fruit. wisdom is knowing not to put them in a fruit salad..."

yeah, yeah, yeah, intelligence is knowing not to start a thread like this because in the next couple of hours it will be hijacked by morons who write eloquently, or more to the point, write a lot and are almost certainly not Degree holders.

For what it's worth I concur with fordly66's comments.

But the Duke brothers of Trading Places (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LgQyxS4-Os) have touched upon this nature vs nurture debate before. And of the two, I have to say I agree more with Randy than "heyyyy Mortay".

[AngelinaTorres]

Where do transsexuals fit into these things..like for example a woman by nature is better at dealing with conflicts and evaluating a situation, they say most of these traits are genetic.

Does it mean that once again you have best of both worlds, they can evaluate situations etc like a man would and like a woman would? I guess it is variable.

Transexuals can't fit into these things ??
it's just my ideas don't feel offended




I have to disagree with some people on this subject. I do think intelligence is inherited (genetics). Also intelligence and knowledge are two separate things. Intelligence you are born with, knowledge is acquired. It is also true that people who are really knowledgeable about a certain subject or field are sometimes lacking in common sense. It's like they are almost programmed to excel in their field. Some people are born with an inept ability to learn things, i.e. mechanics, science. Some breeds of dogs are bred to have certain traits, like retrieving or herding. It's amazing what they pick up in such a short time. Now is that intelligence, well kind of. It was inherited, and they excel on a certain subject. The knowledge is acquired easily. I think that is the way it is for humans as well. Overall, I think intelligence is your ability to easily acquire knowledge.

Heredity has an influence on the ability of animals to find a solution? The answer seems to be yes, if you believe the RC TRYON research on rats. The work involved studying statistically the genetic influence on the ability of rats to find their way through a maze. We came across them on one hand the rats were the least errors and the other rats which were the most mistakes. In doing so until the eighth generation, we obtained differences become more significant in the results between those descended from the most able to find their way and those who descended from the less skilled. The rats were well handled and heard high in the same way. This work undoubtedly support the thesis of the innate abilities to solve problems are transmitted genetically in rats. But is it the same for men?

You describe any intelligence would be far too long and too wide, it would be like picking up all the water from the Pacific with a spoon!



I'm smart enough to know that i don't know everything

LOL

[trish]

Few of us have difficulty recognizing intelligent behavior. We can fairly readily judge within a context when someone’s action was clever or wise or simply within expected norms. The difficulty is judging whether an individual is intelligent, or predicting whether their actions would be intelligent in other contexts. Some AI researchers, cognitive scientists and psychologists prefer only to apply the adjective “intelligent” to behaviors and hold that applying it to an agent is a category mistake. Indeed even implemented programs can behave intelligently though few people would say they are intelligent. A somewhat related question, which perhaps leans on the agent rather than its behavior, is, “What is consciousness?”

[buckjohnson]

AT and Trish.

This thread is way too intelligent for me. Is being naked intellgent? If so, post some intelligence!!!!!!

[tommymageeshemales2]

Hook, line and sinker - what did I tell you macjay18?


A somewhat related question, which perhaps leans on the agent rather than its behavior, is, “What is consciousness?”

Read Descartes, you'll find more answers from him than the HA forum, let's be honest. See Buckjohnson and Rockabilly's posts as an example (sorry fellas, no disrespect meant. Some people use this as a forum to affect intelligence, others have no airs or graces. Based on your own admissions you would probably be deemed "others".)

[AngelinaTorres]

I don't think Tommy.
I'll just say people who communicate to be better understood and understanding others

[trish]

Happy not to disappoint. The Cartesian philosophy of mind has produced so many intractible conundrums, some modern philosohers regard it a dead end. Since we're dropping names, may I recommend Wittgenstein?

[rockabilly]

I've never claimed to be a genius but i do enjoy playing the fool.
No offence taken Tommy.

[tommymageeshemales2]

Descartes is hardly a name drop, especially when the question is "what is consciousness". In fact, depending on the circles you run in, bringing him up could be seen as old hat.

Anyway, philosophers concluding something is a dead end, that must be a first.

Hey Angelina, I'm not sure what you're point is. I know English isn't your most comfortable language, but could you try to explain again - please?

[Bobzz]

This is a very good question. Trying to define intelligence is to some degree like a paraphrasing of the Supreme Court's definition of pornography ... namely, you'll know it when you see it. For me, it's been helpful to think about the qualitative and quantitative differences between intelligence and genius, as a means of trying to define intelligence. Intelligence seems to be the ability to put together related factual information in patterns that are easily recognized and understood both by other so-called intelligent and not so intelligent people.

Genius, on the other hand, seems to be the ability to combine random and unrelated streams of factual information in such a way that most intelligent people would not. Even when confronted with these combinations many intelligent people simply do not get it the first or second time around.

[BeardedOne]

In general I find discussions like this one to be coming from those lacking in formal education as an excuse as why intelligence can't be measured by University Degrees, SAT scores, etc.

Yet I sometimes describe my neighbors as "Slinkys" because they have no genuine purpose in life, but I'd get a moderate amount of satisfaction from pushing them down a flight of stairs. :P :lol:

No offense...Just sayin'.

[AngelinaTorres]

Hey Angelina, I'm not sure what you're point is. I know English isn't your most comfortable language, but could you try to explain again - please?

Oups sorry

You said


Based on your own admissions you would probably be deemed "others".)

I just wanted to say in my post that we are just people talkin about some things to better know who we are, understand our way of being and try to understand each of us

I hope I am not wrong and clearly understand your post :)

[GroobyKrissy]

I think intelligence, as it relates to the most widely accepted definition, is simply the ability to remember and use knowledge in an appropriate manner.

That is, knowledge would be knowing 1+1+1+1=4.

Intelligence would be the ability to use that information to produce the correct number when someone hands you five oranges and asks you to give four oranges back. Once you start equating intelligence with logic, consciousness, and etc. then you've started a whole other discussion.

[BeardedOne]

yeah, yeah, yeah, intelligence is knowing not to start a thread like this because in the next couple of hours it will be hijacked by morons who write eloquently, or more to the point, write a lot and are almost certainly not Degree holders.

Um...That would be me. <Raising hand> :oops:

Angelina! Welcome to the discussion. Haven't seen you in a while.


For me, it's been helpful to think about the qualitative and quantitative differences between intelligence and genius, as a means of trying to define intelligence. Intelligence seems to be the ability to put together related factual information in patterns that are easily recognized and understood both by other so-called intelligent and not so intelligent people.

I'm taking notes. Many people, over the years, have told me that I am a genius/fascinating/incredibly intelligent, yet none have offered concrete evidence of such. To paraphrase a popular comment: If I'm a genius, why ain't I rich?

Even Antonio Meucci failed to profit from his greatest invention.

[trish]

Angelina argues from the results of one research program that intelligence, whatever it is, is heritable. I agree. Just looking at the phylogenetic tree gives us evidence that some aspects of the ability to produce intelligent behavior within contexts is probably heritable. If various behaviors are, for example, species specific, then they must have been past on from parent to progeny. One the other hand, it would seem other aspects of intelligence are learned. Take language. Very young children are probably hard wired to learn language. Chomsky has argued persuasively that we are born with an innate ability to understand grammar. Nevertheless, we still, each of us, need to be taught a specific language. Insofar a[s] speaking fluently is intelligent behavior, it’s a behavior that’s both inherited and taught.

Hi BeardedOne. I always find your posts intelligent and witty. But you give it away for free. Hence, no money :(

[JamesHunt]

What are your definitions of intelligence?

Abstract creativity in problem solving.

[AngelinaTorres]

Angelina! Welcome to the discussion. Haven't seen you in a while.

Thank u, Yes 1 year ago, but i'm back :)


Angelina argues from the results of one research program that intelligence, whatever it is, is heritable. I agree. Just looking at the phylogenetic tree gives us evidence that some aspects of the ability to produce intelligent behavior within contexts is probably heritable. If various behaviors are, for example, species specific, then they must have been past on from parent to progeny. One the other hand, it would seem other aspects of intelligence are learned. Take language. Very young children are probably hard wired to learn language. Chomsky has argued persuasively that we are born with an innate ability to understand grammar. Nevertheless, we still, each of us, need to be taught a specific language. Insofar a speaking fluently is intelligent behavior, it’s a behavior that’s both inherited and taught.

I agree with you.
I don't develop your post because at this time I don't have all my faculties (4am) LOL
But you are right !

[scroller]

I worked with a guy recently...a very smart individual on paper and very well read, but i asked him to stack something up for me- he did as he was told but stacked it all uneven and I said to him 'why didnt you stack it, so the boxes were sitting on their widest point rather than their narrow side'?

So your measure of a "very smart individual" is some dude you've got stacking boxes for you. Really.

[JamesHunt]

I worked with a guy recently...a very smart individual on paper and very well read, but i asked him to stack something up for me- he did as he was told but stacked it all uneven and I said to him 'why didnt you stack it, so the boxes were sitting on their widest point rather than their narrow side'?

So your measure of a "very smart individual" is some dude you've got stacking boxes for you. Really.

the dude wasn't thinking outside the box, lol :lol:

[atx]

People who study intelligence don't even call it intelligence. It's called the g factor.

[paulgutierrez]

True intelligence deals mostly with logic, critical thinking, deep thinking, and NOT acquired wisdom. Scientists have proven that most of your intelligence is actually inherited genetically. Environment does help, but it's nature over nurture.

[trish]

Scientist don't even have an acceptable measure of intelligence or a general way of determining which behaviors are learned as opposed to inherited. How could they have proven that most of your intelligence is inherited? Logic and critical thinking are subjects that are taught. People many of aspects of logical and critical thought and get better with practice and effort. With sufficient practice, the application of logic can become second nature.

[atx]

There's acceptable measures. Most individual differences are explained by genetic variance. You can teach specific skills, but you can't teach general intelligence. If people could they would.

[paulgutierrez]

Scientist don't even have an acceptable measure of intelligence or a general way of determining which behaviors are learned as opposed to inherited. How could they have proven that most of your intelligence is inherited? Logic and critical thinking are subjects that are taught. People many of aspects of logical and critical thought and get better with practice and effort. With sufficient practice, the application of logic can become second nature.
Sorry twin studies prove otherwise.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/12/us/study-raises-the-estimate-of-inherited-intelligence.html?sec=health

But nah, some people really do just "got it" and some people don't. Discrete math and computer science deals with a lot of logic. I will always remember TA'ing for Intro to Computer Programming the people that didn't get it and will never get it. Sure you can show them how to do one program and they'll remember JUST how to do that one problem, but it won't do much for their own natural ingenuity to solve and discover solutions to other problems. In my opinion math and computer science really shed light on the whole nature vs. nurture debate. Some people are just born stupid and there's nothing anyone can do to change it.

[trish]

No need to be sorry. Interesting article.
Still I think we have to be careful in categorizing certain sorts of skills as innate or not. Logic is just a set of rules. Even a computer can be programmed to follow them. So too can a person. We do teach people logic all the time, and with proper instruction, they do internalize the rules and learn to think more logically.

[JamesHunt]

Logic is just a set of rules. Even a computer can be programmed to follow them. So too can a person.

But a computer/logic will never be creative in the abstract sense :wink:

[rockabilly]

Any theories on genetic memory? :shrug:

[JamesHunt]

Any theories on genetic memory? :shrug:

Yeah, I used to be "Fatty" Arbuckle in a previous life :lol:

[rockabilly]

Call it instinct if you want but i find genetic memory to be interesting.

[trish]

Logic is just a set of rules. Even a computer can be programmed to follow them. So too can a person.

But a computer/logic will never be creative in the abstract sense :wink:

True. But that's partly my point. A large part of logic is non-creative, rule governed reasoning that most people nevertheless take to be intelligent, which can indeed be taught. Of course there are other aspects of logic which cannot be taught. The general theory of first order logic is undecidable and consequently some forms of reasoning require creative input. But there's no direct evidence that reasoning within first order systems is restricted to only those humans with the appropriate genetic make-up.

Rockabilly asks about the theory of genetic memory. Never mind the theory for now, is there any concrete evidence that it even exists?

[rockabilly]

You could argue that it exists in the animal kingdom. Birds fly south , salmon swim upstream to spawn and sea turtles swim back to the shores of their birth to lay eggs.
Some call it instinct but what is instinct? Do humans have this as well ? A common fear when you are young is of the dark ... why? Maybe early man knew that being in the dark was dangerous for them w/ predators around and that fear has been passed down genetically. I dont link this to past life regression , that is a different thing .

[JamesHunt]

Logic is just a set of rules. Even a computer can be programmed to follow them. So too can a person.

But a computer/logic will never be creative in the abstract sense :wink:

True. But that's partly my point. A large part of logic is non-creative, rule governed reasoning that most people nevertheless take to be intelligent, which can indeed be taught. Of course there are other aspects of logic which cannot be taught. The general theory of first order logic is undecidable and consequently some forms of reasoning require creative input. But there's no direct evidence that reasoning within first order systems is restricted to only those humans with the appropriate genetic make-up.

Rockabilly asks about the theory of genetic memory. Never mind the theory for now, is there any concrete evidence that it even exists?

The apple fell on Newtons head. Who in the 17th century would be bright enough to realize that throwing the fucker parallel to the Earths horizon would make it orbit like planets do? That's what I call creative abstract thought.

[Teydyn]

Who in the 17th century would be bright enough to realize that throwing the fucker parallel to the Earths horizon would make it orbit like planets do? That's what I call creative abstract thought.
Thats not about being bright, its about knowledge.

"We are Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of Giants"

I am sure that Newton would be more then smart enough for todays high end math & physics. Once he learned all the new stuff we (ok, the math & physics profs) know.

[trish]

Perhaps Leibniz would have seen if Newton hadn't. But that's not the point. I'm not claiming there are no hereditary components to intelligence. I just question the claim that of [MOST] our intelligence is hereditary. I don't even know what it means at this point to say most is hereditary. If you were told 75% of human intelligence were hereditary what would that mean to you? Would it mean 75% of your IQ points were inheredited and 25% of the points you earned through learning? Does that make sense? How does one make sense of the claim? How is intelligence really to be quantified?

Is it really the case that creative behaviors can't be learned? Some great jazz artists will tell you they worked hard learning to improvise. Others will tell you it's a gift. Creativity activity is too is both.

[EDITS are in square brackets]

[transmaven]

I don't even know what it means at this point to say most is hereditary. If you were told 75% of human intelligence were hereditary what would that mean to you? Would it mean 75% of your IQ points were inheredited and 25% of the points you earned through learning?

Earlier you mentioned Wittgenstein. He made an interesting point when he asked readers to think about the following phrase: "stand roughly there." We all know, as it were, *exactly* what that phrase means. Because the meaning is not something magically "out there," somehow separate from our daily use of language. We *all* have a rough, ready and sufficient idea of what it would mean to say that "most of intelligence is the result of genetic factors." Every competent speaker of English understands what you've written above.

If you're saying we lack a formal definition of the natural language term "intelligence," then I would agree. I'd also point out that we don't require a formal definition. And we shouldn't expect natural language terms to be *suddenly defined* by scientific theories either. That is, more data is not going to get us any closer to a formal definition of the term "intelligence." And again, that's fine since we don't need that kind of definition.

It's a great benefit of natural language that it has so much scope and elasticity, and that it evolves over time. Too many people press for definition when they shd. rather respect the fortuitous vagueness of language. Maybe it's in this elastic space that that other elusive term "creativity" arises.

[macjay18]

The stacking of the boxes was an example (in relation to the common sense thing) and more to the point problem solving in the real world. Speaking of problem solving etc, how important is an IQ. And yes I have a couple of degrees but that doesnt mean im smart, it just means i have specialised in my fields.

[trish]

I agree, transmaven, with your understanding of that passage from Wittgenstein. I do, however, think that if we're going to make statements that are somewhat quantitative (e.g. statements like, "most of our intelligence is inherited") then we need to know by what measure the statement is made. In the case of intelligence, we don't even have a rough idea of what it means to say more than 50% of our intelligence is inherited.

On a side point, it can happen that some complex of behaviors which is pre-wired within us (i.e. inherited) is regarded in the current context as being intelligent, yet in the future, the context can change and the same inherited behavior is no longer intelligent. Think of the behaviors that lead to global climate change. It may be that in some instances true intelligence is the capacity to look around and learn from what you see, and to break away from inherited behaviors and wired thought processes.

[Bobzz]

Any theories on genetic memory? :shrug:

Yeah, I used to be "Fatty" Arbuckle in a previous life :lol:

Now THAT'S both funny and intelligent!

[muhmuh]

The apple fell on Newtons head. Who in the 17th century would be bright enough to realize that throwing the fucker parallel to the Earths horizon would make it orbit like planets do? That's what I call creative abstract thought.

"Gravity would have been apparent to me without the apple."


I'm not claiming there are no hereditary components to intelligence. I just question the claim that of our intelligence is hereditary. I don't even know what it means at this point to say most is hereditary.

what exactly are we arguing? whether intelligence is hereditary in a broad scale (eg humans inherit more intelligence than bonobos (on second thought living life in a jungle that feeds you easily spending all day having sex is smarter than what we do all day long)) or if intelligence is hereditary in the sense that you can figure your own iq out by drawing punnett squares (huh... the things you can learn from comics are amazing sometimes) and feeding in the iqs of your parents and grandparents?

[trish]

Sorry Muhmuh, my bad. I meant to write:

I'm not claiming there are no hereditary components to intelligence. I just question the claim that MOST of our intelligence is hereditary. I don't even know what it means at this point to say most is hereditary.

[MrF]

IMHO, one thing that makes intelligence hard to define is that there are many different kinds of intelligence: people have different combinations of talents. For example, someone very good at math might not have a good ability for dealing with people, or vice versa. My definition would be that if you're good at something you're intelligent in a particular way.

Regarding the heritability of IQ, I seem to remember there were twin studies that tried to demonstrate this. The "percentage" is a correlation coefficient with genetic similarity which I think it can be defined precisely.

[muhmuh]

I don't even know what it means at this point to say most is hereditary.

hmm good question
from what i know about cognitive development the hereditary part should boil down to the brains speed at building new connections ie some people just learn much quicker than others

[atx]

I just question the claim that of [MOST] our intelligence is hereditary. I don't even know what it means at this point to say most is hereditary. If you were told 75% of human intelligence were hereditary what would that mean to you? Would it mean 75% of your IQ points were inheredited and 25% of the points you earned through learning? Does that make sense? How does one make sense of the claim? How is intelligence really to be quantified?



[EDITS are in square brackets][/quote]

It means that 75% of individual differences in intelligence is explained by genetic factors. It has nothing to do with percentage of IQ points inherited.

[trish]

What is a difference in intelligence? Between two people? Between a person and the mean? The median? What's an example of a difference? How do we know we've counted all the differences? Before you can form a percentage you need to know the total. How do we decide which differences are genetic and which aren't? Is it always clear cut? Etc.

[buckjohnson]

What is a difference in intelligence? Between two people? Between a person and the mean? The median? What's an example of a difference? How do we know we've counted all the differences? Before you can form a percentage you need to know the total. How do we decide which differences are genetic and which aren't? Is it always clear cut? Etc.


Trish.. Great post.

[yosi]

So eventually i stopped i would think about everything i was doing, i would slow down and take everything in around me and eventually i stopped making mistakes.

so what are your thoughts?


In the end of the day , the best lessons in life , are our mistakes.

without them we never learn .

the biggest mistake is to stop admitting of doing them :wink:

What is intelligence?

it has nothing to do with a diploma on the wall 8)

[muhmuh]

How do we decide which differences are genetic and which aren't? Is it always clear cut? Etc.

having slep on this ive decided that there is probably no such thing as genetic intelligence
intelligence is the ability of neurons to form meaningful networks and perform work with the connections theyve built
the building process is goverend by inputs the brain gets from outside (although as mentioned earlier theres probably a genetic difference in how fast networks form) so theres no intelligence without stimulation of the brain to organise itself

[atx]

What is a difference in intelligence? Between two people? Between a person and the mean? The median? What's an example of a difference? How do we know we've counted all the differences? Before you can form a percentage you need to know the total. How do we decide which differences are genetic and which aren't? Is it always clear cut? Etc.

There is a whole literature out there in behavior genetics. Look at identical twins (clones) raised apart, raised together, children who are unrelated raised together, fraternal twins etc. The pattern of findings is consistent, and expected. (and I should say similar studies in schizophrenia etc. have provided great insight).

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference. It's the variance (so variation around the mean). 75% of that variance is explained by genetics, 25% other factors, like non-shared environmental factors. The findings in these studies are so consistent that it's not even interesting to study any longer.

[trish]

What is a difference in intelligence? Between two people? Between a person and the mean? The median? What's an example of a difference? How do we know we've counted all the differences? Before you can form a percentage you need to know the total. How do we decide which differences are genetic and which aren't? Is it always clear cut? Etc.

There is a whole literature out there in behavior genetics. Look at identical twins (clones) raised apart, raised together, children who are unrelated raised together, fraternal twins etc. The pattern of findings is consistent, and expected. (and I should say similar studies in schizophrenia etc. have provided great insight).

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference. It's the variance (so variation around the mean). 75% of that variance is explained by genetics, 25% other factors, like non-shared environmental factors. The findings in these studies are so consistent that it's not even interesting to study any longer.

I don't mean anything by "difference" in this context. I was wondering what you meant, and saying its a "the variance (so variation around the mean" doesn't help. The variance of what distribution? The mean of what distribution?

[MrF]

I think what atx is driving at is essentially what I was writing, too. There is a thing called a correlation coefficient (CE), which has a clear definition (but I won't bore the forum by giving it). A typical number might be CE = 0.75 or 75%. So that's where a statement like "75% genetic" comes from, I think.

From the twin studies, for example, identical twins who were raised separately were found to have very similar IQs (a large CE), while "genetically less-related" siblings had lower CE. What is "genetically less-related", etc, is all defined in the literature. Now, I'm not here to defend the twin studies nor am I an expert by any means. I'm just pointing out there is a body of research out there one can try to look up if interested.

One problem with this, in my opinion, is it assumes a simple parameter (IQ) can characterize intelligence. Somehow IQ is correlated with success in technically oriented societies, so there is some meaning to it, but I don't think intelligence is a single parameter, and there are many different kinds of intelligence as I said earlier.

[trish]

Okay, I see that you guys were talking about hereditary aspects of performance on IQ tests. My concern is, "How does one measure the hereditary aspects of intelligence?" The former is quantifiable. The latter may not be.

[atx]

You're right. That's a major misconception about heritability (and not just intelligence, but for any trait...eg. height). It doesn't mean that if you are 6 feet tall, 5 feet, 10 inches is from genes and 2 are from the environment. It means that a percentage of individual differences in height is because of differences in genes, and the other is differences in environment.

[JamesHunt]

I do believe hereditary genes do play a part, but like the lottery, there's a 1 in a million chance that offspring hits the jackpot

[phobun]

I do believe hereditary genes do play a part, but like the lottery, there's a 1 in a million chance that offspring hits the jackpot
On both counts, that's why you're stuck in council housing.