So given that intelligence is almost entirely environmental, how come we don't further emphasize education for the betterment of humanity?
So given that intelligence is almost entirely environmental, how come we don't...
How bored are you to be baiting this hard on Veeky Forums?
Reasoning from a false assumption.
Intelligence is SOMEWHAT environmental.
Educating everyone up to whatever level they can absorb would be good for humanity -- but bad for those who benefit from keeping people ignorant, and they're the ones making the decisions.
retards can't get intelligent. They were lots of poor uneducated inventors. Enviroment is nothing to intelligence.
Intelligence is SOMEWHAT environmental.
20% is less than somewhat, I'd say more like "slightly".
In theory, you can't make people more intelligent (although as Indians and Chinese know, you can teach them how to score high on IQ tests, which is a different matter entirely), but poor environments can stunt brain development.
Moleti Mariacarla, Trimarchi Francesco, et. al. Thyroid. February 2016, 26(2): 296-305. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2015.0336
Overall, the prevalence of borderline or defective cognitive function was more than threefold higher in the children of mothers not using iodized salt than of those mothers using it (76.9% vs. 23.1%, odds ratio 7.667 [CI 2.365–24.856], χ2=12.65; p=0.0001).
Yousafzai, Aisha K et al. Effects of responsive stimulation and nutrition interventions on children's development and growth at age 4 years in a disadvantaged population in Pakistan: a longitudinal follow-up of a cluster-randomised factorial effectiveness trial. The Lancet Global Health , Volume 4 , Issue 8 , e548 - e558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30100-0
1302 mother–child dyads were re-enrolled between Jan 1, 2013, and March 31, 2013, all of whom were followed up at 4 years of age. Children who received responsive stimulation (with or without enhanced nutrition) had significantly higher cognition, language, and motor skills at 4 years of age than children who did not receive responsive stimulation.
Intelligence SHOULD be mostly genetic but for example if you grew up in Flint cooking, cleaning, and showering with lead-water every day, for you it would be environmental.
Thus, the intelligentsia, the leaders of men, see the value in making sure everyone has access to education, health care, etc. so we don't miss the next Ramanujan.
But there are some provincial idiots actively working against the betterment of humanity for no real reason other than "Daddy said the brown people are bad", maybe in another 20 years after all the Jim Crow bigots are dead and out of the government we'll see some progress.
You're right, humanity would be better off if we educated squirrels. That way squirrels can be almost as smart as we are!
taking bait this obvious
There are far more wealthy educated inventors than poor, uneducated ones. I think that tells you something and not that "they are born rich and intelligent because their ancestors are intelligent".
for your failures*
intelligence is almost entirely environmental
given that intelligence is almost entirely environmental
Stop lying. This is false. You know it's false. I'd go as far as to say 90% of the people that say that they believe this actually believe it's false. Your feelings are not fact.
So then why aren't those kids that were raised by wolves solving differential equations right now?
Clearly because we didn't teach the wolves how to solve them.
So then it is environmental after all. Who would have guessed?
Well yeah, otherwise intelligence would be totally unquantifiable you retard.
it's environmental AND genetic.
IQ tests don't exist
IQ tests aren't accurate measure of intelligence
t. desperate low IQ brainlet
Be advised, if you already believe that intelligence is due all or mostly to the environment, new neuroscience facts might be difficult to accept.
Denial is a common response when new information conflicts with prior beliefs. The older you are, the more impervious your beliefs may be. Santiago Ramon Cajal (1852– 1934), the father of neuroscience, once wrote, “Nothing inspires more reverence and awe in me than an old man who knows how to change his mind” (Cajal, 1924). Students have no excuse. "
If IQ doesn't represent your ability to perform any kind of useful skill, then what does it measure and why should we care?
Your ability to pick up skills quicker and with less study. We should care because some people will reach levels others couldn't in a lifetime.
So given that intelligence is almost entirely genetical
The absolute state of IQfags.
Your ability to pick up skills quicker and with less study.
That's a skill that can be trained with practice too. You have a vested interest to keep IQ vague and unquantifiable so that you can feel good about it despite being a below-average achiever.
That's a skill that can be trained with practice too
Source: Your ass
And I'm not a below-average achiever by any stretch buddy. Perhaps look into fixing your own life instead of projecting?
Tell us your accomplishments.
no child left behind
Education isnt seen essential in the USA
I do research and TA for a top uni as an undergrad, but I can't help but notice you shifted completely from the point of the argument. Insecurity, perhaps?
No, the burden of proof is on you because you're the one making illogical claims. So you mean to tell me that if your parents died in a car accident and you were adopted by a couple of black crack addicts in the ghetto, you would be in the exact same position you are now?
So you mean to tell me that if your parents died in a car accident and you were adopted by a couple of black crack addicts in the ghetto, you would be in the exact same position you are now?
No, but I would be as smart as I am now. And would end up being better off than a hypothetical less intelligent other in an identical situation.
No, but I would be as smart as I am now.
Great, so what would that look like? Selling drugs? Banging hoes? My point is that if IQ doesn't measure skills then it isn't a useful metric.
Then you literally started out your OP incorrectly, and should have dropped everything before the comma.
there is only one person who could possibly disagree with me
This thread is going to be nothing but arguing over the false dilemma of nature vs nurture by morons that don't understand genetics. This should all you need to answer your question.
Because U.S. politicians believe all students who want to attend college should sell their soul to the devil
It's 50% you fucking morons
pulling numbers out of your ass
People tend to have the same socioeconomic backgrounds through generations, that's simple.
Separated twins are not common, really low sample.
What's your source for the 50% number?
The rich and powerful dont actually want an educated populace, which why public education only ever shows up in any effective capacity in democracies.
I might even go so far as to suggest you could determine how healthy a given democracy is by the quality of its public education.
separated twins aren't uncommon and there have been at least a hundred studies conducted on them just on the topic of intelligence
you can deny the facts all you want, but the fact remains that intelligence is largely genetic
you pulling 50% out of your ass with nothing to back it up shows that you are in denial
I don't really have a strong position in this debate, but I just wanted to pop in to point out that hereditary!=genetic. The "heredity" statistic we use in medicine is not purely a function of biology but rather dependent on the population and the environment.
It's 50% you fucking morons.
Lmao. Did you derived that number from the fact that you either are intelligent or aren't?
I also think it's somewhat genetic and somewhat environmental, but we have no way to prove such a thing right now, maybe on our lifetimes, tho
I'm not following here, are you guys screwing around?
At any rate, why do we still keep talking about this in Veeky Forums of all places. How many times do we have to debate with rocks here, before we just ignore them. Because I'm kinda growing tired of having to explain the basics every single time, and that clearly benefits no-one.
IQ is over 80% genetic, and is has an incredibly strong correlation with status and wealth. And no, I'm not going to fucking find your sources for you once again, go and do at least a minimal effort and educate yourself before you start this BS.
That IQ matters, and matters significantly, isn't opinion. It's not about "muh feelings" or whatever else retard crap you might come up with. It's fact. Measured and statistically proven, over and over.
IQ isn't about defining the millions of characteristics that make a person. The millions of characteristics are largely defined by a simple set of pattern recognition skills, and IQ tests seek to measure that skill. So depending on the difference in IQ some people learn things orders of magnitude faster than others, and can grasp things that others can never understand even with a lifetime of effort.
Compare someone with Down's Syndrome (average upper IQ of around 70) and a normie with an IQ of 100. The Down's needs exponentially more time to grasp things that are immediately obvious to the normie, and will realistically never be able to understand a fraction of all the things the normie does. Then compare the normie to someone in the 99%:th percentile, of an IQ of 140 for instance, and it's a similar difference. Then take the 140 and compare that to 160 and above.
Don't take the example literally, but I'm sure you get the idea. Or not. You kinda seem like you won't. I don't care though, do with it what you will.
This question is an obvious /pol/ positional bait and switch.
Don't respond to it.
So given that intelligence is almost entirely environmental
teach a cow trigonometry, and we'll talk.