Do genetics really determine how intelligent you are? Or just lay the foundation for your potential...

True

downs is a disease
and being rich or poor in the west has no effect on IQ

Studies have shown that the "percentage" of your intelligence attributable to genetics differs whether you are low-income or high-income. I'm not sure how useful percentages are when talking about stuff like this.

>and being rich or poor in the west has no effect on IQ
That's demonstrably false. Did you even base that statement on any kind of research?

Like almost every single feature of you, you are predisposed to how intelligent you are by genetics, with the environment influencing to a certain degree that feature. Intelligence is pretty difficult to measure so its hard to say to what extent it is a result of genetic or environmental factors

?
It's completely fucking true
You think having gold plated cutlery and a more expensive house magically increases your IQ?

Rich people have higher IQ's because they are smarter, ergo more wealthy on average

> Do genetics really determine how intelligent you are?

I think so, or at least think this is most likely.

> You aren't born a bodybuilder too after all.

No, but you are genetically better/worse at building muscle. The analogy would be that intelligence is your potential to build muscles and having large muscles is having lots of knowledge. With lots of intelligence it is easier (and you are therefore more likely) to gain knowledge.

So you're saying you think nutrition and stress have no negative effect on early childhood brain development? Or are you saying you think the West is just so advanced, that no one in it is "really" poor enough that they suffer for it?

>The analogy would be that intelligence is your potential to build muscles and having large muscles is having lots of knowledge. With lots of intelligence it is easier (and you are therefore more likely) to gain knowledge.
Wew lad, IQ meme taken to the extreme.

Protip: there are a lot of variables involved. IQ is one, but a very incomplete picture. It's a picture you'd get from basing your complete understanding of intelligence on savants.

> Roughnecks are dim but I will be fair to observe the asvab is a defacto IQ test that keeps the retarded sub30%ile out

It is. The AFQT is literally just the SAT and puts people into groups based on desirability (I think like 5-7 groups, but I don't remember). I haven't taken the official test yet, but I've taken an indicator. The AFQT is an arithmetic, reading comprehension, word knowledge, and mathematics (a bit more problem solving focused) test that spits out your percentile. I need to get something like 80%+ to be eligible for OCS, but I'm not worried because I killed the indicator test.

Genes only determine the size of neocortex. The rest is up to you.

>IQ meme
The reduction of ability to solve particular problems to the problem-solving ability in general is the biggest fallacy in cognitive science.

> Protip: there are a lot of variables involved. IQ is one

IQ is an estimate of intelligence. It isn't a component. Additionally, being very intelligent doesn't mean you will be successful or even knowledgeable, but you are more likely to be. Because IQ is an imperfect indicator of intelligence, knowledge will leak into it, so that is where the environmental factor comes in. It will affect IQ (because IQ is only a proxy for intelligence, and therefore imperfect), but not intelligence itself.

Think you meant AFQT IQ test, right?

This. IQ is a measure of how good you are at taking an IQ test.

>do genetics determine your abilities?

Yes and no... Think of it this way. Your genetics are kind of like your hardware, while abilities are sort of like software. Having better hardware certainly makes it easier to run certain software... After all, a computer from the 1980s won't be able to run Windows 10.
But you could only have a computer from the 1980s and do more with it than someone with a modern computer. They might have the better hardware but if all they download is games and use all of their computational power for graphics, they aren't really getting any smarter. Meanwhile, with your 1980s computer, you can use basic programs to do some pretty cool science.

I guess my point is, genetics definitely play a big role, but someone with great genetics isn't necessarily smarter, they just have better hardware. But if you're using your hardware more productively and putting it to good use and making some pretty kickass software, then you're the smart one.

From what I've seen it has a mixture of both. It sets the preset amount of potential with a little alteration up or down. I've met plenty of naturally smart people who did nothing with it and people I knew who were fucking retarded in high school pulling off really intelligent feats.

>Do genetics really determine how intelligent you are?
No I think environment while growing up plays huge roll on it.

Intelligence is mostly a meme. Stop thinking of yourself as having "essential qualities" and instead work on accomplishing tangible things.

it's just a prank bro

You just confused intelligence with education.

Yes genetics is the primary indicator of intelligence, the rest is based on many things in your formative years.

OP never mentioned IQ.

That analogy is pretty shit because knowledge (software) =/= intelligence and human intelligence isn't as fixed as hardware performance of a computer. You get narurally more intelligent until you are done with puberty for example.
Get your Vsauce analogies out of here.

No I didn't but you are. Education, knowledge, etc. are not genetically based (though with higher intelligence, they are easy to build). This is analogous to being a bodybuilder because this isn't genetic. However, intelligence (the ease with which you pick up this information/build muscle), is most likely genetic.

>You get narurally more intelligent until you are done with puberty for example.
No you can't. Intelligence is the quality, not a quantity. Intelligence is the ability to (learn how to) solve problems of some degree of complexity.

youtube.com/watch?v=mDntbGRPeEU

>Intelligence is the quality, not a quantity.
That was absolutely pointless to say.
You DO become more intelligent and peak in your early twenties.

youtube.com/watch?v=vpnA5rBamP8

You might have more information about particular system, but that doesn't mean that your intelligence capabilites are increased. You still operate with that information the same way as always.

Thinking about this shit depresses me every day as a Joe Average 100 IQ scrub. How the hell do you even get over it?

>No I didn't but you are.
I'm not and your following explanation was redundant. You were assigning the wrong things to each other.
As an example. You said having large muscles is the same as having a lot of knowledge. That's not true and already showed you confused intelligence with education.
You can be stupid and have a lot of knowledge too and you will still be stupid. You will only be more educated know. And you can be very smart and have no knowledge at all,

Intelligence and strength are attributes. Your genetic potential makes you enhance those attributes faster. You become stronger, you become more intelligent. Being very strong gives you the ability to carry heavier things. Being very intelligent gives you the ability to process and store knowledge faster. It also makes you solve problems faster.
The point is, knowledge is and stays only a separate side thing to intelligence.

I'm not reasoning anything here with information or knowledge. Your intelligence capabilities aren't increased in a quick period of time, but using your brain a lot will make you more intelligent over time, just as much as lifting weights will make you stronger over time. You are training and enhancing your abilities.
And I don't know how often I have to repeat the scientific fact that from birth until the end of puberty you do become more intelligent, which is another thing besides what I just said.

>but using your brain a lot will make you more intelligent over time, just as much as lifting weights will make you stronger over time. You are training and enhancing your abilities.
Lolwut. You are only "traininig" your brain to solve a particular problem. And how you do that is just memorize a typical solution patterns. Like in chess game you memorize the best moves, or in physics you memorize how to solve typical problems etc. This knowledge won't help you in any other fields.

Again with that insecure kid.

There will be always more successful people than you. So they will have better skills and looks than you.

Start from the beginning. Relearn undergrad Maths and formula sciences with rigor.

Start studying and this is what most of you stupid kids think.
>I need to study this calculus shit, what a pain!
>just study the questions, man!
>just study what are they going to ask you, man!
>just forget about past errors, and don't try to have a solid base knowledge, man!
>You are going to have great marks!

But illiterates dont get out of book learning what the more skilled do. Training isn't a panacea you're advocating it like a bootstrop conservative to avoid the realness of trait disparity.

Illiterates=Not knowledge
Illiterates are not neccesary idiots.

>Training isn't a panacea you're advocating it like a bootstrop conservative to avoid the realness of trait disparity.
I'm not saying everyone is the same, but I know for sure every kid waste its potential, because he thinks "just doing that, in this way, I would have millions of dollars!".

My parents exposed me to many factors and stimulations, so I could read at the age of 3.
The result of the training is actually more effective when the kid is 1-7 yo. Then it's more difficult to change its behavior and ambitions.

Keep those useless IQ threads up. There is no production on those.

The future is the brain research, not some psychology pseudo-science circlejerk.

Whatever they call it now to make obscure for civies

>You aren't born a bodybuilder too after all. You work to become one. It's just that genetically some people are inclined to make greater progress than others even when they train equally as much.

you have answered your own question. Genetics can make it easier to learn and grow but if you are raised as a feral child you will still be as dumb as an ape regardless of genetics.

>You aren't born a bodybuilder too after all. You work to become one.

Veeky Forums here, you become bodybuilder by taking more steroids. If you feel like you are too small you can always take more steroids

Okay so there has been several gene groupings related to intelligence although generally they have only been identified as affecting specific personality traits such as perseverance or curiosity. More so there has been heavy linkage between intelligence and mental illness which would imply a genetic or epigenetic factor. So the statement "intelligence is determined by genetics" may be ostensibly true it is by no means a good way to measure ones actual capability or capacity. GATTACA comes to mind, a man who has been given the genetic equivalent of a pinto attempts to become an astronaut and through his obsessive desire achieves his goal.

There have been many MANY studies into what actual makes a person smart or capable of innovation and intuition. A good number have discovered an interesting connection between how intelligence is perceived by a person and their actual intelligence regardless of their perceived personal intelligence. What they discovered is that a person that believes intelligence is a static thing determined the moment they leave the womb has a lower overall intelligence while the group that subscribed to the idea that intelligence is fluid and one is capable of growing it like a garden were smarter. I fall into the later group personally which may introduce a bias but I've found the more I learn the faster I learn.

This view has treated me well in learning most anything, this is despite the fact that I have dysgraphia which has resulted in me never having handwriting better then a 4th grader despite years of practice. So what I'm trying to say is that the truth is a little column A a little column B but regardless of if you were born with the brain of a super autist capable of beating out a supercomputer or an inbred fool who can't count his chickens before or after they hatch it's a better idea to view intelligence as something that can be expanded.

>implying free will doesn't exist

downsyndrom is a syndrom NOT a disease

Whether it does or does not is irrelevant to the fact that humans will exchange information that alters their behavior. Free will is tangential, but it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

>steroids
Enjoy your pea sized testicles.

iq has a genetic reaction range of 20 points or so

where this span is on the scale is genetic

where you end up is about environment and circumstance

I peak in my early twenties? So it's going to drop from here on?
Are you fucking stupid or what? You start peaking from there on

Good advice user. This is what I needed to hear.

How much can you improve your intelligence in your 20s when you have not done any math so far?

Mixed breeding helps lower probabilities of homozygous autismo.

small price to pay if you wanna leave humanity behind

You train and enhance pattern recognition in general by doing those tasks. Has nothing to do with knowledge.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04

test

Hello there, sir. Veeky Forumsizen here. It's true that bodybuilders work hard to get big but genetics determine how big you can possibly get. Its a genetic limit. So maybe there is a genetic thing where you can get intellegent to a certain extent. Who knows, I'm just a huge retard.

not genetics. the latest research on intelligence shows that a handful of genes as being associated with it; and their effect is very small.

there are a lot of people involved in making such conclusions. overall, the prevailing idea in intelligence research is that half of it is heritable.

a lot of it comes down to choices, and most choices are far removed from our hands.

It's completely based on genetics, like height and looks are. The only caveat is malnutrition or other developmental deficiencies.

Like you are saying, everyone is born with their potential: people who are great at something get good really, really fast—like two or three years of training until they are near world-class in their skill. Nothing can compete with that. Two people who put the same hours in walk away with very different results—fact. Knowledge doesn't compensate for a general lack of intelligence. There are no books or methods of studying that will allow you to match someone more genetically capable than yourself, sorry.

Intelligence tests are also a meme. They have been designed to show a gender parity, which is ridiculous because observation alone shows women to be inferior in every mental proclivity known to man. IQ tests aren't static, either; they are shown to correlate highly with education level. Literally nothing will make you a genius... other than being born one. It's okay, though, as genius is notoriously alienating, as in almost a social maladaptation like retardation or physical disabilities (although many unlucky people are maladaptive without any genius, so there is that).