Victor: Once again, IQ is hereditary and not something you just "learn". It's a system of measurement to check first and foremost things one should grasp without an education. Such as shapes, forms and patterns.
Senegal and North Korea?
- Thread starter Starseeker
- Start date
Lionel Lark
First time out of the vault
Dragula are you saying social variables hardly have any effect on a groups performance on an IQ test, or perhaps no effect at all?
Lionel Lark
First time out of the vault
And from that article you conclude what?
That social variables have very little to do with it.
Lionel Lark
First time out of the vault
Considering different studies have produced different values of heritability, I'd have to say that to so confidently dismiss the significance of social variables is out of place.
"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"
Gives heritability a value of 0.45 for children and 0.75 under and after adolence".
A newer study ("Genetic influence on human psychological traits - A survey") gives 0.85 for adults.
If we assume that heritability is logistically distributed over age it would be quite easy to calculate a value which could make some sense independent of age.
The point being it would always be under 1.00, it would be of course in the greater half line of [0,1] which reflects that IQ is to a somewhat great extent hereditary.
However, heritability is not independent of the social variables and vice versa (socioeconomic standing of your family etc.), so even with a high heritability value it says little of to which extent social variables effect the performance on IQ tests.
Summary:
Heritability factor is significant.
This does not immediately imply that social factors are insignificant.
(They are not mutually exclusive.)
"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"
Gives heritability a value of 0.45 for children and 0.75 under and after adolence".
A newer study ("Genetic influence on human psychological traits - A survey") gives 0.85 for adults.
If we assume that heritability is logistically distributed over age it would be quite easy to calculate a value which could make some sense independent of age.
The point being it would always be under 1.00, it would be of course in the greater half line of [0,1] which reflects that IQ is to a somewhat great extent hereditary.
However, heritability is not independent of the social variables and vice versa (socioeconomic standing of your family etc.), so even with a high heritability value it says little of to which extent social variables effect the performance on IQ tests.
Summary:
Heritability factor is significant.
This does not immediately imply that social factors are insignificant.
(They are not mutually exclusive.)
I'm certain social factors influence if you evolve and use the IQ you have been gifted with, but I do not think it makes a different on the amount.
A child is born with 150 IQ, the social environment allow that child to develop and use it at an early age, but the social environment will never change the number, it will always be 150.
A child is born with 150 IQ, the social environment allow that child to develop and use it at an early age, but the social environment will never change the number, it will always be 150.
I think big D is more or less talking about the biological limits of your mind which indeed are hereditary. Hence why a chimpanzee doesnt possess the same intelectual capacity compared to a usual human. Its comparable to a physical limit where some people can inherently run faster, push more weight or get a better physical shape in general ~ I for example can push a lot more weights and get much stronger compared a rather skinny friend but I will struggle to achieve his endurance. The genes play a very big role in that. And its a fact that regardless how hard you train you can not push this limit beyond this limit without certain agents or changes but those usualy hurt the body pretty badly at some point.
How much this hereditary factors though play a role in the human inteligence is still something which is seeing lot of reasearch. So I would be always cautious with any claims. Particularly in relation with IQ tests.
How much this hereditary factors though play a role in the human inteligence is still something which is seeing lot of reasearch. So I would be always cautious with any claims. Particularly in relation with IQ tests.
@ Lionel + Dragula
No. That's Bell-Curve-Crap. The fact that the book sold well and made controversial statements close to scientific racism doesn’t mean its true. Murrays studies is based on questionable assumptions and has methodological errors. This has been pointed out by tons of other scientists after analyzing his work.
If a scientist makes controversial statements like that, with a conclusion that he should know racists around the world will hold up like a flag, he better makes damn sure his methods are flawless. Murray did not.
Yet the whole world, thanks to the effort of publishers, internet and papers now knows that it has been "proven" that IQ is hereditary (genetic) and that black people are less intelligent than white ones.
No. That's Bell-Curve-Crap. The fact that the book sold well and made controversial statements close to scientific racism doesn’t mean its true. Murrays studies is based on questionable assumptions and has methodological errors. This has been pointed out by tons of other scientists after analyzing his work.
If a scientist makes controversial statements like that, with a conclusion that he should know racists around the world will hold up like a flag, he better makes damn sure his methods are flawless. Murray did not.
Yet the whole world, thanks to the effort of publishers, internet and papers now knows that it has been "proven" that IQ is hereditary (genetic) and that black people are less intelligent than white ones.
Dragula said:
Uhm… guess I got worked up a bit by that hereditary-business and what some people make of it. Mea culpa and my apologies.
The third link strikes me as a bit odd if they want to see if intelligence is genetic and not social. If you want to eliminate social influences it seems a bad idea to compile the research-group by 50 kids that are all part of a special talent search program. That’s a social influence right there. But there is not enough info about that. Do you have a link to the study itself?
Dicks research (first Link) seems to be some kind of follow-up to Plomins, refining the genetic research side of it. Sadly with too small a group to be statistically relevant but I'm sure that gal got the money/time for more research after that paper.
Taking your Links into consideration, where some scientists, at least one of them apparently an expert in this field, both say that their research "might" point to a link between genes and intelligence and "in time help researchers understand the nature of intelligence" I think we are far from the point to state "intelligence is hereditary" as a fact.
Gosh, we are so far off topic we would not see it with a telescope.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Blah Blah BLAH! All this talk about IQ bull shit.
There real topic at hand is that we now have a NEW big fucking Eye sore on the face of the earth.
That is one ugly statue.
There real topic at hand is that we now have a NEW big fucking Eye sore on the face of the earth.
That is one ugly statue.
and a sign of lack of inteligence 