LDAR Is intelligence inherited or acquired?

[SuicideIsTheOnlyWay]

Just feel my dumb sandcel genes makes difficult to learn everything

Plus I readed a scientific article years ago that said 70% of intelligence is inherited

Thus black pilling intelligence

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

A mentally-retarded young boy will be mentally-retarded if raised by STEM scientists.

 

[starcrapoo]

Mostly inherited, I heard from a psychologist giving a lecture on youtube, cant remember his name, said that it is around 80% inherited.

 

[Jmax]

Maximum potential for intelligence is inherited; beyond this environment may lower activated potential = actual intelligence.

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

You will never become a physicist if you don't have the innate ability for mathematics and understanding abstract logic. If you ever wondered why some people effortlessly grasp hard concepts and have a natural propensity for learning while you struggle, it is because of thousands of small genes responsible for intelligence at play.

All of the grandchildren from my paternal side received excellence certificates in school.

 

[SuicideIsTheOnlyWay]

It is 90% inherited and 10% environmental.

You will never become a physicist if you don't have the innate ability for mathematics and understanding abstract logic. If you ever wondered why some people effortlessly grasp hard concepts and have a natural propensity for learning while you struggle, it is because of thousands of small genes responsible for intelligence at play.

Environment is also important in shaping intellect, but nowhere near as important as genes that make or break your intelligence. We share 99.5 percent of the same three billion DNA base pairs and 15 million DNA differences that separate us genetically. Our genetic differences change the cellular properties associated with intelligence and how our brain works on a molecular level.

If your parents are low IQ then you are also likely low IQ.

Thanks a lot for detailed explanation .

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

Thanks a lot for detailed explanation .

AnonyAnonymous Join Date: 2013-06-23 Post Count: 6332

#158554741Tuesday, March 24, 2015 11:23 AM CDT Ah yes, the typical argument regarding "Vocabulary" is equivalent to a significant degree of intelligence. If we consider the two categories of intelligence, "Crystallized"(The ability to memorize and recall information) and "Fluid"(The innate ability to reason logically independent of complete information.), It soon becomes apparent that although utilizing terms with greater complexity does not necessary indicate a greater degree of "Fluid" intelligence, It does indicate an increased degree of "Crystallized" knowledge, which indirectly improves "Fluid" intelligence itself and promotes further cognitive function. If you find the idea of someone utilizing appropriate terminology they prefer on a website as "repulsive", I'd highly suggest that you cease to read their responses.

 

[Yvel_]

both

 

[pulp]

Your environment gives you most of your information so I'd say acquired unless you're a retard

 

[Asgard]

A mentally-retarded young boy will be mentally-retarded if raised by STEM scientists.

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

You are intelligent.

You are of decent intelligence.

 

[298r651]

It isnt even up for debate, in the 1900s there was a huge, decades long academic debate over the question of nature vs nurture with regards to intelligence. To this day, many deny the facts because they don't fit in with their ideological or political beliefs, but there is practically no doubt that intelligence is for the most part inherited.

There was a school of thought known as Behavioralism. Behavioralism was basically an ancestor ideology to modern leftist/sjw beliefs. They tried desperately to prove intellect is based on learning and that it could be modulated by chanes in environmental factors. The actual data and studies show this to be false. The idea that improved education would lead to a corresponding increase in intelligence proved to be woefully incorrect.

The only way you can reasonably argue in good faith that intelligence isnt inherited is by arguing against the validity of IQ and g score, but what we typically consider to be human intelligence is very closely associated with IQ. And IQ is with near certainty inherited.

If you want to read more on this, the two books I recommend are
- The Bell Curve and
- The Neuroscience of intelligence by Richard Haier

The Bell Curve is mostly about public policy, and how differences in intelligence demonstrably results in different outcomes, the Neuroscience of Intelligence is a more technical overview of IQ, why it is a valid measure, and the overwhelming evidence that it is a result of genetics, not upbringing. Notably, they tracked down different sets of identical twins that were brought up separately and saw that they had very similar IQ despite drastically different childhoods. For example, 1 twin was adopted by a wealthy family and had access to an elite tier education, the other raised in poverty and instability, low income poor schools. Despite this, they still had nearly identical results when they were tested for intelligence.

These two books were very eye opening for me, before reading them I thought IQ was BS. Now I understand that I was incorrect. Insofar as IQ is equivalent to intelligence, intelligence is inherited, not acquired.

 

[298r651]

Pardon my ignorance, but do you think genetic engineering will eliminate the gap in intelligence between races so that everyone is on equal footing? Assuming that it becomes an accessible option for the average person within the next hundred years or so.

Absolutely. In fact that was one of the primary topics discussed in the 2nd book I mentioned. I am paraphrasing, but the gist of his argument was that
1) We have an abundance of information that indicates differences in ntelligence are a result of genetic variation and
2) Despite this evidence, it is seen as a political and social faux pas to actually address this evidence
And so by refusing to acknowledge the reality of intelligence, we limit our ability to seek an effective solution. It's such a controversial topic that it is often difficult for intelligence researchers to find funding and support. He discussed some of the recent promising discoveries and the possibility of honing in on the specific genes that seem to play a role in intelligence. Genetic engineering to me seems the most promising avenue.

 

[298r651]

The Neuroscience Of Intelligence : Richard J. Haier : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that...

archive.org

Found a link for anyone interested.

 

[Emba]

Yeah, sandcels discovered astronomy.

Fucking wetbacks!

 

[strange_to_be]

There are adoption studies that show the children's grades correlate with their biological parents grades and not their adoptive parents grades.

Steve Job's grandfather was an Iranian millionaire but his father and mother were grad students that gave him up because they had him when they were still young. Steve Jobs went to a family that was not college-educated and not wealthy, and of course he ended up a billionaire never knowing his biological parents. Moreover, he has a biological sister by the same parents and they did not meet until he was 27 and she was 25. That sister's name is Mona Simpson and she's written 6 novels and has degrees from Berkeley and Columbia university. She also married a simpson's writer and homer's mother is named after her.

In contrast to Steve Job's biological author professor sister, I've pasted a picture below of his adoptive sister Patty Jobs in front of their childhood home.

From his Wikipedia I see two more relatives with Wikipedia pages. Bassma Al Jandaly and Malek Jandali. A journalist and a pianist. You should be able to tell if they're blood relations or not if you have good reading comprehension.

 

[strange_to_be]

Absolutely. In fact that was one of the primary topics discussed in the 2nd book I mentioned. I am paraphrasing, but the gist of his argument was that
1) We have an abundance of information that indicates differences in ntelligence are a result of genetic variation and
2) Despite this evidence, it is seen as a political and social faux pas to actually address this evidence
And so by refusing to acknowledge the reality of intelligence, we limit our ability to seek an effective solution. It's such a controversial topic that it is often difficult for intelligence researchers to find funding and support. He discussed some of the recent promising discoveries and the possibility of honing in on the specific genes that seem to play a role in intelligence. Genetic engineering to me seems the most promising avenue.

Why would we want a society of geniuses though? Most people are truck drivers, retail, Human Resource people, nurses etc. You think they whine now about things being unfair, just wait until the people whining are whining because they really do have the ability to do more rather than just being resentful.

 

[298r651]

Why would we want a society of geniuses though? Most people are truck drivers, retail, Human Resource people, nurses etc. You think they whine now about things being unfair, just wait until the people whining are whining because they really do have the ability to do more rather than just being resentful.

The idea of a society of geniuses is something I've been led to and thought over many times. I'm not sure what such a thing would look like. I imagine there would be a potential decrease in violent crimes that are high risk low reward (armed robbery for example), but there would likely be an increase in other types of crimes. It's hard to predict with any real certainty though, IQ is correlated to certain behaviors, but it would likely manifest in different and unfamiliar forms if everyone in the population were to exceed a certain threshold. Also it is difficult to say if new ideologies and such would arise in such a population.

There is indeed that fact that every society thus far relies largely on the reality of some individuals sacrifice more than they gain, and it is certainly true that this process works smoother when the exploited members of society are unaware of the fact that they are getting a raw deal. That being said, even today many still contribute to maintaining the status quo even though they are conscious of the fact that they are getting screwed over (although maybe they dont always realize the fullest extent of the exploitation), so it could work. Some people may still choose to engage in those jobs out of a sense of honor, ego, religious belief, or any other spook/cope. Intelligent people are still people, and are still susceptible to many of the same flaws.

There is also the possibility that automation or technological advances would reduce or entirely remove the need for much of the manual labor workforce.

It is difficult to say what a high IQ society would look like, but it would definitely be something very different than the current system. Maybe in such a society, each individual would be far more mercenary and self interested, or more accurately, far more capable of attaining their goals through adoption of effective strategies, and thus harder to exploit. Most likely there would be a requirement for far more constraints placed to keep the game unfair and to keep the lower status groups down. Or things would need to be designed such that theres incentive to engage in behaviors that are mutually beneficial (although this eventually runs into a wall due to mutually exclusive, conflicting interests). Or hey, maybe everyone works together and creates a utopia (lol). Its a fun thing to think about.

A fun last point is that IQ is not an absolute measure but a relative one, so technically if you raised everyone's IQ to what is currently 130, then an IQ of 130 would just be 100 in this new population.

 

[298r651]

It's hard to predict with any real certainty though, IQ is correlated to certain behaviors, but it would likely manifest in different and unfamiliar forms if everyone in the population were to exceed a certain threshold.

To elaborate further, what I mean by this is: all of the data we have right now on the outcome variation stratified by IQ have been collected from population where those with higher IQs were behaving in a world where they also interact and engage with people of lower IQs. The correlations we associate with higher IQ is not collected in a vaccum. So any decisions a higher IQ individual makes currently is dependent on the existence of others around them that are less intelligent. With an evened out playing field it is impossible to say with any certainty how things would play out.

A simple example: people with higher IQs are less likely to be involved in fatal car accidents. The likely reason is that they are superior at maneuvering through traffic and have improved decision making abilities. But the way they drive is dependent also on how they react to other drivers on the road. But that data came from a world where they were more intelligent than the majority of other drivers. It is not easy to determine if that would still be the case in a situation where every other driver is also of a relatively similar intelligence.

Personally I would think with everyone having increased intelligence it's likely there would be less fatal car accidents in general, but thats only one simple example.

It's a lot harder to say when we consider the more complex and nuanced ways that the behavior and presence of less intelligent people effects the currently observed outcomes for those of higher IQ.

 

[Nigerlozi]

A mentally-retarded young boy will be mentally-retarded if raised by STEM scientists.

 

[NiggerMan]

Well yes you need genetics and hardwork to reach the top spot in any field but I don't understand why people concern themselves with reaching the top spot? Every beginner dreams of reaching the top spot and when they realise they can't they just give up. To me, this shows they weren't passionate about their field in the first place, they were simply infatuated with the idea of pursuing that field.
If you genuinely like something then get this genetic thing out of your system. You goal should be to know more, be better than your present self. Otherwise you will just burn out and won't get anywhere.

 

[tomi45bg]

It’s all genetics it’s over for autistcels like us

 

[67InchesSubhuman]

80% Inherited
20% Acquired