[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 58 KB, 600x923, 4573-735309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4161009 No.4161009 [Reply] [Original]

A question for /sci/

Is intelligence hereditary or environmental?

Discuss

>> No.4161038
File: 175 KB, 374x452, r56790.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4161038

no no no op that's not how you do it. You have to start with a eugenics thread and let them come to this argument on their own. If you just come out with it no one will bite

>> No.4161037

capacity for intelligence is widely accepted to be genetic, actual application of intelligence is environmental.

>> No.4161039

There are several kinds of skills that one can relate to "intelligence". Your question is too vague.

>> No.4161041

Like all interesting questions of human biology, both.

>> No.4161052

Well, know a family who's parents met while working as engineers and scientists for NASA. They have four children, all of whom have brains the size of god damn planets.

>> No.4161061

>>4161052
3 of them being autistic

>> No.4161063

environmental. It's related to what your parents have planned for you, and how well you responded to that plan.

>> No.4161084

>>4161037
What do you mean application is environmental but capacity is genetic? Capacity puts boundaries on its application
>>4161038
I'm not here to troll, I want to know what people on this board think.
>>4161039
Intelligence is an idea which we come across in all human cultures, having the same definition more or less. It's you who wants to keep it a loosely-defined term
>>4161041
Obviously both, the question is how much of it is each part?
>>4161063
How do you explain the black-white gap which has remained constant or the minnesota transracial adoption study which showed that there are innate differences despite the environment? Can you back up your idea with facts?

>> No.4161093

>>4161084
yes, my parents are far from being amongst the smartest, yet, I am one of the few chosen.
If biology is science, then you have to admit this automatically excludes any only-genetical factors.

>> No.4161101

>>4161093
You said it's strictly environmental, I didn't say it's strictly genetic. Do you have any facts to back this up other than anecdotal evidence?

>> No.4161105

>>4161101
oh boy here we go.

>> No.4161110

>>4161101
no you asked if it was genetical or environmental, which implicitly asks us to chose strictly one of the two.
I chose environmental because I had a counter example.
You got your answer, now gtfo.

>> No.4161134

>>4161110
>Discuss
Do you know what the verb above means? I hope you do.
>no you asked if it was genetical or environmental, which implicitly asks us to chose strictly one of the two.
That's what you thought with your "you're either with us or against us" black-white mentality
>I chose environmental because I had a counter example.
Well you don't have anything apart from "This one time in band camp bla bla bla"

One more try, do you have any evidence to back your assertion?

>> No.4161150

Genetics and environment are inextricably intertwined. Multitude of factors. You're born with your given abilities, it's due to your environment that epigenetic changes arise.

Just because you're born with an IQ one SD below the mean, does not mean that you will be an adult with a lower than average IQ. Think of it as being born with a potential range. The major determinant is your environment. With that said, the range is also finite; and although I cannot substantiate this claim, I would be hard pressed in believing that one's environment is not responsible for a deviation of a SD in IQ.

>> No.4161156

>>4161150
Derp. Few errors. You can understand what I meant.

>> No.4161163

>>4161150
If you could give % to genes/environment, what numbers would you give?

>> No.4161165

Before throwing this at us, please tell us your definition of intelligence.

Every human is "intelligent". IF you are talking about being smart, well that is education. And that is only environmental. Note that family is also part of the environment, which causes a gap between children with different kind of families. However, it is not only these families that educate you: you spend a lot of time in schools, just for the very reason that you gain knowledge skills from another environment than your family.

Any other insights?Rebuttals?

>> No.4161170

>>4161163
No idea. Their relationship is complex and (afaik) not fully understood. Let's say 50/50. Google some MZ twins studies and that should show you. The MTFS would be a nice starting point.

>> No.4161173

>>4161165

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

>> No.4161181

>>4161009

It is clearly both. But to what extent, that is the question I am not sure a scientific consensus exist for.

>> No.4161185

>>4161165
>tell us your definition of intelligence.
Cognitive ability. What else could I mean? Intelligence has a clear definition, it's not a malleable buzzword.

>Every human is "intelligent". IF you are talking about being smart, well that is education. And that is only environmental.
Intelligent is a synonym for smart.
Can you provide any evidence for your argument, that being intelligent is strictly environmental?

>> No.4161187

>>4161165
Intelligence is commonly referred to as IQ. Much more goes into it than that. It's near impossible to define intelligence since we do not wholly understand what it is comprised of.

I would personally argue that adaptability, creativity, memory, and one's cognitive 'speed/clock' are hallmarks of intelligence. The rest doesn't mean much for me. At the end of the day, attempting to define intelligence only results in semantic circle jerk

>> No.4161195

>>4161187
>I would personally argue that adaptability, creativity, memory, and one's cognitive 'speed/clock'
Aren't these part of general cognition? I mean they're all conscious mental processes.

>> No.4161206

of course it's hereditary, you can't teach your dog mathematics anymore than a human can will themselves into growing wings and flying away

>> No.4161215

>>4161195
I'm talking about one's innate ability to perform such tasks. I'm not really willing to define what they mean to me and how they come to form what I perceive as intelligence.

>> No.4161240

OP here, what I've learned from this thread so far is the following:

Intelligence is a hot potato for /sci/ and that people who think it is strictly/majorly environmental have no evidence to back their assertions.

Feel free to change my views on the matter

>> No.4161257

>>4161240
I'm >>4161150
What else do you need to know? All the info is there for you on Google.

>> No.4161263

>>Can you provide any evidence for your argument, that being intelligent is strictly environmental?
Pardon, bad choice of words of me.
My point was that the study "Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study" doesn't account for the environment of the children. You skin color however somewhat dictates your environment, so one could say that indeed intelligence is influenced by your composition of genes, but for another reason than inheritance.

My claim is based on my observations.
I wish I could present you a study that observes the development of black and white kids constantly for several years, but afaik there is none? So no, I cannot present you such proof. Sorry

>> No.4161267

>>4161263
There's plenty of research on that topic. Institutional and explicit racism is of significant influence.

>> No.4161271

>>4161257
You say that you have the ability to move up or down a SD from your starting point but you are also limited by your genes but it is more environmental than genetic? Isn't this sort of doublethink? Also do you have evidence for any of this?

>google
Searching blindly will mostly waste my time. I thought people here knew their stuff and could pinpoint me to a few studies, instead of getting mad when asked for facts, like this tripfag here >>4161110 .

>> No.4161280

>>4161263
>My point was that the study "Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study" doesn't account for the environment of the children.
What do you mean it doesn't account for the environment of the children, where do you base that?

>I wish I could present you a study that observes the development of black and white kids constantly for several years, but afaik there is none?
Well there is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

>>4161267
>There's plenty of research on that topic
How about you show it to us?

>> No.4161282

>>4161271
You're born with an IQ range. This is the result of your genes. Your environment will shape your mind so that either you're at the lower, or upper end of the range. Do bear in mind that there are epigenetic effects.

I did point you to MZ studies and the MTFS

Here are my other posts
>>4161170
>>4161187
>>4161215
>>4161257
>>4161267

In short, I will not do your homework for you but I will point you in the right direction.

>> No.4161283

>Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
Protip: the study is entirely discredited. Go read the wiki page on it.

>> No.4161288

>>4161280

"Well there is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study."

lol no because the people don't treat them the same, so the environment ain't the same!
The environment thesis is basically non-falsifiable because it's just about impossible to give them the same environment.

Monozygotic twins are better in this regard. Female MZ twins probably show more difference because of their two XX chromosomes.

>> No.4161296

>>4161283
You mean there are various interpretations of it since it proved the opposite of what the researchers had in mind?

I wouldn't call that discredited

>> No.4161297

its genetics if your thinking about black people.
its environmental if your thinking about asian people.

>> No.4161299

>>4161296
No, more like how they didn't practice proper statistics and didn't account for reporting bias and other biases. The non-sexy things.

>> No.4161304

Wine is produced from grapes but if the grapes don't experience the proper series of events that won't help you.


Nurture shapes potential.

>> No.4161313

>>4161288
>>4161299
>The environment thesis is basically non-falsifiable because it's just about impossible to give them the same environment.
No true scotsman basically?

>twin studies
What I've found so far is that MZ twins raised together have a 0.85 correlation and same twins reared apart have a 0.75 correlation in IQ scores. Since the genetic makeup is the same, doesn't this put more emphasis on the genes rather than the environment?

>> No.4161322

>>4161313
To properly show genetics vs environment, you would need a black dominant culture with roughly the same standard of living and culture, with same education and diet, as the USA, without the anti-black culture elements. Then do the IQ tests.

Finally, the minnesota transracial adoption study is bullshit. Stop citing it. It's fundamentally flawed.

Unfortunately, it is quite hard to falsify.

However, genetic analysis shows a very small distance between different humans, which supports the idea that it's environment.

Finally, the

>> No.4161328

>>4161206
>you can't teach your dog mathematics

>http://www.metacafe.com/watch/21958/maggie_the_mathematic_dog/

Bracing for mad.

>> No.4161332

Look at the MTFS, not the MTAS

>> No.4161336

>>4161322
>To properly show genetics vs environment, you would need a black dominant culture with roughly the same standard of living and culture, with same education and diet, as the USA, without the anti-black culture elements. Then do the IQ tests.
>anti black culture elements
Which are those elements?
>a black dominant culture with roughly the same standard of living
Why is this needed ? Is there an inherent bias in against non-whites in modern culture? This isn't the 1930s you know.

>genetic analysis shows a very small distance between different humans, which supports the idea that it's environment.
And the difference between chimps and humans genetic makeup is 2% but you wouldn't say that this small distance is explained by the environment. What is the distance between different human races really?

>> No.4161339

>>4161336
>? Is there an inherent bias in against non-whites in modern culture? This isn't the 1930s you know.
You are truly naive if you think this.

Protip: Segregation ended in the 60s, or later, not the 30s, you idiot.

>> No.4161341

>>4161336
>What is the distance between different human races really?
The genetic distance between any two humans is smaller than the distance commonly between 2 chimps in the same social group.

>> No.4161352

>>4161322
>without the anti-black culture elements.

Don't think that will help, it's not an anti-black bias.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3325737

>> No.4161363

>>4161341
Yeah sure but what IS the distance? I don't want to know if it's more than between two zebras or two giraffes.

>>4161339
>You are truly naive if you think this.
Would you like to point them out? If they are so easy to observe it should be piece of cake, much easier than giving historical protips.

>>4161332
I'm looking at this paper titled, "Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota study of twins reared apart." right now and their conclusions are:
1) General intelligence or IQ is strongly affected by genetic factors (they give a number of 70% which they say is not inconsistent with previous studies)
2)The institutions and practices of modern Western society do not greatly constrain the development of individual differences in psychological traits
3)MZA twins are so similar in psychological traits because their identical genomes make it probable that their effective environments are similar. Meaning that genetic makeup has an effect on the environment as well, for example they say that infants with different temperaments elicit different responses.

http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring05/hicksb/psy3135/bouchard_1990.pdf

>> No.4161378

>>4161363
Segregation was alive and well in the 1960s. It's is clearly demonstrable that blacks are netly treated worse in hiring and housing decisions, among other places. Stop being an idiot.

>> No.4161389

>>4161378
>It's is clearly demonstrable that blacks are netly treated worse in hiring and housing decisions, among other places.
Ever heard of affirmative action and section 8 housing?
>Stop being an idiot.
Whatever retard, do you have any data that shows this institutionalized racism since it's "clearly demonstrable"?

>> No.4161450

>>4161322
>>4161378
Why are you people so silent?

>> No.4161540

>>4161009
both, a bacteria is intelligent? (hereditary)
if you trap a baby in a dark box and feed it and nurture it till adulthood, depriving it of any stimulus, he wouldn't be intelligent.

>> No.4161550

>>4161540
it would die. babies that aren't touched just die. doesn't matter if they get food and water.

>> No.4161558
File: 4 KB, 126x126, 1288126652145.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4161558

Every failure of every black man that has happened in the last 10,000 years was due to institutionalized racism.
Every company that doesn't have 20% black people is racist. Regardless of how qualified the black applicants they got were.

>> No.4161643

>>4161550
There was a case of a girl that was locked in a closet for 10 years of her life, strapped to a chair and the only words she could say were "please no more". After 8 years of intensive treatment she could only speak rudimentary english. I don't have the source I just remember reading it in a psychology text book.

>> No.4163126

OP here commencing round 2.

Give it your best try

>> No.4163268
File: 80 KB, 595x394, 1324099733214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4163268

>>4163126
No one? What a bunch of brainwashed egalitarian faggots

I thought this board was smart but it's more like INTJ MASTURR RES PUR SAIENS ATHIEST

>> No.4163926

Both

>> No.4163949

Both, but mainly environment. People who grow up in wealthy housholds (with presumably smart parents) are more likely to be smart because they have more tools to learn accessible to them, while say, someone born in the ghetto will have failure parents, and not have as many tools, so he will most likely end up considered less intelligent.

>> No.4163958

lol, nature vs. nurture. Phych 101

>> No.4164001

>>4161052
Don't know what brain size has to do with intelligence, but funny image nonetheless.

>> No.4164009

>>4161150
I happen to believe that also humans have the ability to become geniuses by pure willpower and training alone. We just need to tap into this potential. However, I'd imagine that few people would actually succeed in doing this without the aid of machines / drugs.

>> No.4164010

>>4161150
this.

read this for more info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene%E2%80%93environment_interaction