Is intelligence heritable? Why shouldnt it be? Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
Is selling the lie that anybody can be as intelligent as anyone else necessary for social cohesion?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
newscientist.com
nature.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
nature.com
twitter.com
define intelligence
>social cohesion
back to
It's not that, it's that everyone had the chance to test to see how intelligent they really are, instead of being judged by their benefactors
Also consider that most adults with docked mental ability have it from a disease or injury they're kids won't be born with
>Is intelligence heritable? Why shouldnt it be? Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
Because 'intelligence' is kind of a bullshit concept that's half completely subjective and half dependent on educational background.
Assuming that some trait exists (without any clear definition of what that trait really is) and then assuming it's heritable is pretty much Lamarckian-tier retarded.
Don't get me started on the whole idea of 'IQ tests'.
Low IQ brainlet xD!!
It isn't fully heritable.
It is to a greater degree than the societal norm will allow you to openly state, though.
IQ is about 80% heritable according to twin studies.
>social cohesion?
Most people are capable of real genius until they are wrangled into the herd mentality and put out to pasture in the great project we call civilization, which IMO is self domestication. So yeah, now more than ever the tard must belong to the same herd as the genius to make the farm work. Extremes at both ends of the spectrum are tossed and what we have is the greatness of obedience, compliance and mediocrity.
dont cut yourself with that edge bro
Yes. Muh feels. Because it's hard for people to accept a rational world instead of a spiritual one. It's the same reason why religion is so attractive and enticing.
No.
I response in dank memes and dank memes accessories.
>Is intelligence heritable?
What else do you think it is ? Where else would you get intelligence from ?
Education. You're not born with knowledge nor how to solve for their problems. The whole premise of inheritable intelligence is flawed in a way /pol/ assumes white people are smart and everyone else is not. Intelligence has some genetic factors but in general it is believed to have more environmental than genetic influences. Just take what you know now and go back 20 years(I hope you're older than 20). Ask that little kid if he knows what you know. Can he solve through sheer intelligence in problem solving and deduction.
Knowledge != Intelligence
Read the last part. That's what I meant by intelligence. Can you solve it with no knowledge whatsoever just using your intelligence. This is where the whole debate about inheritable intelligence is stuck at with people arguing for one side and the other side. Einstein solved his own problems through his education in maths but most of his work is based of Riemann geometry.
>can't shitpost without crying about some other board
Why do SJWtards always have to make their appereance so obvious ? Why are you on a science board without a highschool education first ?
>The whole premise of inheritable intelligence is flawed
Yeah, they are assigned randomly while we were carried by storks right ?
A sharp edge is critical to escape from the pasture. How will you ever think for yourself in there?
user your intelligence determines how easy school is to you. For a genius no effort is required, for a smart guy they can party all day still get straight As, for an average guy they have to study alot, for an idiot they can try as hard they want but they will always fuck up their grades.
Intelligence is the rate at which your brain processes and analyzes new information that is why we call smart people fast and dumb people slow because it takes their brains longer to full process concepts compared to smart people
You idiot.
In vain you're intelligent if when you're young - you're told that life is hard, and struggle is in vain, evil exists, God is real etc...
+ if there is no proper emotional care from parents until age of 3 - the brain goes into regression.
+ again parents don't let their kids explore, even weighting rocks to make a judgement improves brain at early age parents are like: NO no caca - drop that down, just sit and do nothing you piece of shit.
>Low IQ brainlet xD!!
I scored 140 on the Stanford-Binet, so my criticisms of IQ tests don't come from insecurity about my own performance on them.
and I'm Barrack Obama ;)
>140 IQ
>nog
I don't think so mr president
Let me be clear...
... Ooga booga my fellow americans, I ask you, where the white women at?
thats just sexist man. you generalize women by a color ?
>why shouldn't it be
I don't think that's the correct question to ask. Our speculation should be grounded in information, not our impose expectation of the subject.
First we must define what is meant by intelligence. Studying humans is very impractical because 1. there is a large amount of variation between each individual, 2. it takes a considerable amount of time to study humans (their age must be taken into account depending on what you want to study), 3. it'll take a lot of manpower and money to study a random group of people with the appropriate control groups.
As for why it's controversial to say that smart people produce smart offspring, etc. I think it's just a statement that doesn't take into account the other variables that people are subjected to. The quality and availability of education, the parenting of the individual, and their own willingness to learn all play a part in what can be measured in a study.
Hi guys, /pol/ here, hope you're having a lovely day.
SHUT UP WITH THE FACTS
SHUT UP
WITH
THE FACTS
youtube.com
Richard is a funny guy.
Most people can be as smart as most other people.
It just takes them a lot longer, and most of them aren't determined (also genetic) enough, so they give up.
>Is intelligence heritable?
If by "intelligence" you mean "g factor" then yes, it is heritable to a large degree, this is probably the most replicated result in behavioural sciences. Anyone unaware of it either didn't bother informing himself or is wilfully ignorant.
>Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
For the same reason Big Bang theory was controversial among Marxist physicists in the USSR, it contradicts principal tenets of dominant ideology (in the West, specifically, there is nothing controversial about making this statement in, for example, China or Japan).
>Is selling the lie that anybody can be as intelligent as anyone else necessary for social cohesion?
Absolutely not, cohesive societies existed for millennia before the modern Western idea of blank slate even existed.
...
I don't doubt this; however, the question is: have these individuals simply not developed their powers of logical reasoning (IQ tests are essentially informal and formal logical reasoning tests) or do they have some kind of inherent deficiency?
Culture and education could allow for significant discrepancies in the development of logical reasoning skills between ethnic groups.
So, we can't know for sure that this is genetic.
Although, I'm not overtly against the idea that it is.
At this point in time I couldn't care less to be perfectly honest, but if someone did manage to work it out I’d be interested to know.
>so my criticisms of IQ tests don't come from insecurity
Comes from your crippling autism.
t. 154 IQ via Stanford-Binet
do you think that everybody is capable of being as smart as einstein with the same upbringing and education?
Not so fast brainlet.
t. 155 IQ via Stanford-Binet
No. My parents were dumbfucks, so as their parents. I am a genius.
Stupid map, americans are dumbfucks and belong to red, that's how you see map is false.
The really infuriating thing is, americans aren't stupid.
They just choose to act on superstition and feelings instead of knowledge.
The culture is broken.
>Is intelligence heritable?
Yes
>Why shouldnt it be?
Well it is and there is nothing that anyone can do about it
>Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
Because it hurts peoples feelings. For some reason a lot of people are hung up on intelligence, or rather their IQ score, as the ultimate defining feature of character. Only when we can genetically engineer the population to have an average IQ of 125 or higher will people stop giving a fuck and realize there are more important aspects to care about.
Is selling the lie that anybody can be as intelligent as anyone else necessary for social cohesion?
no
Because letting people believe that "intelligence"(whatever the hell that's suppose to mean) is heritable leads to IDIOTS using it as justification for idiotic plans.
Short people can get tall children, it just doesn't happen very often.
That's a boogeyman you created by yourself.
It's odd how misguided and stupid the majority of people are. They believe a child is the average of two parents in all traits or bounces between the two.
Similar to the fact most people have complete false understandings of the most basic of concepts.
It's fucking amazing how completely stupid humanity is.
>Is intelligence heritable?
No, but IQ is.
>Why shouldnt it be.
Saying intellect is inheritable isnt really something thats falsifiable considering you're trying to place defining characteristics on mental functions something which you cant actually see taking place.
Because you cant see the actual function you cant apply the scientific method in any meaningful way. Any test you were given would only be a rough approximation of underlying nuances. Sadly this is the true problem with psychology in general. Theres simply too many variables and no proper methods of experimentation to make any reasonable conclusions.
I think logical reasoning and common sense fall under 'intelligence', which I think are traits often passed down from your parents. My father is an engineer and my mother an artist. As you can guess, one thinks with their head, the other their heart. I'm a very logical and thoughtful person thanks to my dad, but strangely, excel at both maths and art.
> Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
Because it isn't always 1:1, two smart adults don't always produce a smart child and two dumb adults don't always produce a dumb child.
That's how you always have that occasional kid genius that blows 90% of first world kids out of the water from some dank part of Nigeria or India. While you have those mentally disabled/ autistic kids who some how have IQs similar to tribal African or Australian populations but are less "able" than them (seriously 1st world person from america or japan with an IQ of 60 needs constant care while a khoisan person in south africa with the same IQ can hunt and track big game no problem).
Intelligence maybe heritable but it isn't always guaranteed. Also it's not always guaranteed that you are going to get highly "marketable" intelligence either.
For instance being a genius/ highly intelligent in the literature arts today means almost nothing and you be on average better off going into medicine or engineering despite neither being your strong suit. Just because both have better job prospects, health coverage and retirement.
> Is selling the lie that anybody can be as intelligent as anyone else necessary for social cohesion?
The true lie is all "highly intelligent" people are equal in the eyes of society and the economy.
>The true lie is all "highly intelligent" people are equal in the eyes of society and the economy.
can you expand on this?
>two intelligent adults make an intelligent baby
What kind of fucking voodoo biology class you faggot took growing up? It well documented that intelligent is not passed down. It a random trait. Look at the female NASA software engineer who coded the guidance systems for the apollo 11 module. Her daughter is an actress/artist. By this thread logic she should have been a super genius. This is why Veeky Forums makes fun posters like OP because they don't see their inherit bias and how flawed their outlook on intelligence is in general. This is just some /pol/baiter in disguise.
are you retarded?
Who did she marry?
What if she had other children?
Is her daughter an incredible artist?
You criticise other people's logic, yet fail to use any yourself.
>It a random trait
lol do you really believe this? Please post some evidence supporting your claim. And no "hey look this really successful person had a child who isn't as successful" isn't evidence
define what you mean by "define"
>Child of someone in a STEM field wanted to be an actress/artist, and is therefore not intelligent
A better argument would have been that your own parents were intelligent.
Nothings evidence cause the hypothesis isnt refutable.
I.E ITS NOT SCIENCE
Sure, there are basically two sides to the issue of inequality among the highly intelligent.
The first side is the type of society they happen to exist in (i.e. the ongoing philosophies, cultural traditions, the particular state/ era). Depending on when/where you live your type of high intelligence may not exactly jive well with the society. A good example of this would be with Galileo where his critical understanding/ push of astronomy put him in the line of direct fire with the church. It didn't matter if his ideas had merit, what matter was that he was going against the grain. Meanwhile Descartes around the same time frame was pushing ideas in metaphysics that were arguably even more bold and against the grain of the church but because it was more of the mind and not the structural integrity of nature itself he didn't get put on trial for it.
The second side is the type of economy that exist during a certain time. Which stems from the example I brought earlier. Currently today fields such as medicine, engineering and computer science are top tier in terms of career and financial prospects. But not every highly intelligent person who has high academic marks or +120 IQs are necessary good at these fields.
But because the current economy has placed said fields as high worth it is on average better to go into these kind of jobs rather than pursue literature, music and fine arts because the security just isn't there. Arguably I'd even include mathematics too because unless you intend to pursue an applied version in accounting or cs, the pursuit of the pure version could put you in a mediocre research or teaching position within a tough job market. Where you are stuck trying to publish your work in a flood others trying to get recognized for half or a third of the salary your fellow engineer or doctor is making despite being just as intelligent as them.
> Is intelligence heritable?
Yes
> Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
Because people value intelligence, it's the single best predicator at performance in life. Nothing comes close than perhaps industriousness. People boast their lack of math skills all the time but if you call them idiots they'd jump on you, go figure.
> Is selling the lie that anybody can be as intelligent as anyone else necessary for social cohesion?
Not really, that's why culture and tradition is there. I wouldn't mind seeing less social cohesion tho.
It's not only raw processing power tho, there's also recalling from memory, memory consolidation and a whole lot of other factors that go into that. Look up the "g factor" from
>Why shouldnt [intelligence] be [inheritable]?
Some (low) level of intelligence seems to be
inheritable, but the higher level of your "smart
people" appears not.
If I'm reading this right...it's okay to attribute differences in intelligence between say humans and chimpanzees to hereditary but its not okay to attribute different levels of intelligence among individual humans to hereditary.
Why?
IQ is the best test we have out there for reaction time and pattern recognition.
Ias it perfect?
No.
Can it be inaccurate?
Yes.
But to say there's no such thing as an objective form of heritable intelligence is fucking ridiculous. Are gibbons just as intelligent as humans? Do they have the same pattern-recognition, reaction-time and problem-solving ability? No. Therefore, there must be a heritable trait.
because then it makes dumb kids feel bad and dumb parents feel worse
>You're not born with knowledge nor how to solve for their problems.
So then how did the genus Homo gain a better intelligence then the genus Pan?
inb4 families of geniuses (eg Curie family) occurring is just blind luck.
>it's okay to attribute differences in
>intelligence between say humans
>and chimpanzees to hereditary
You mean "heredity".
>but its not okay to attribute different levels
>of intelligence among individual humans
>to hereditary
Different species, different levels...
... and again, it's "heredity".
>IQ is the best test we have
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?
>Are gibbons just as intelligent as humans? Do they have the same pattern-recognition, reaction-time and problem-solving ability?
>No.
Prove this statement
Oh wait you cant see what theyre thinking so you cant faggot :^)
newscientist.com
nature.com
Inheritable in both humans AND chimpanzees
>but muh humanity is different muh tabula rasa
kys
>Why is it considered controversial to say that smart people beget smart children while the stupid produce stupid children?
because there are enough instances of smart people coming from dumb people to make it a generalization. people find generalizations offensive.
>newscientist.com
>intelligence researchers
What do i have to study in college to join in on this pseudoscience
youtube.com
youtube.com
Intelligence isn't linear.
>Inheritable in both humans...
So you claim, without evidence,
while there is much evidence for
the counter-claim.
Just give it up, user.
>gibbons versus humans
different species
different measures of intelligence
give it up, user
>testing an experimentation is pseudoscience
>feel good bullshit twitter posts about equality is science
you are not going to college kid
>Is intelligence heritable?
is brain size inherited ?
are cognitive abilities inherited ?
are genetics inherited ?
is your eye color inherited ?
is your height inherited ?
Do you think any of your genetical, physical and chemical properties are randomly assinged by a magic 8 ball ?
What a stupid fucking question.
The trick is how much is the result of epigenetic factors as well as the parenting habits of intelligent people. I accept the assertion that part of intelligence can be attributed to strictly gene based groupings. The biggest problem here is what is defined as intelligence. There is also a case for linkages between types of intelligence both positive and negative. A genius artist may require a low problem solving intelligence to maximize creativity and capability to recognize emotional states and express them. A good artist may have great problem solving abilities as well if the non-genetic factors align properly but in order to maximize it genetically there would probably be repression of different avenues of intelligence. Then you also get into the realm of all the genetic traits that are linked to intelligence and severe mental illnesses, at what point do the draw backs overwhelm the added intelligence making the "I'm smart but too lazy to do anything" people that are pretty much just euphoric idiots.
So yeah I understand why the studies are shaky because in order to truly gauge even just IQ you'd need a large pool of twins, separated at birth and raised by different people, as well as adjusting for socieo-economic factors and possible interactions with mind altering substances ie. getting into the pills when they are 4 or going into football in highschool and getting a thousand concussions.
>brain size, cognitive abilities
>genetics, eye color
>height
The topic is "intelligence",
try to focus fgt pls.
We know that intelligence, brain size, cognitive abilities, linguistic skills and basically everything related to brain is inherited from your parents genes.
What else is there to discuss ?
A counter point to the whole genes are deterministic of intelligence. A suite of 25 different genes and epigenetic factors may by themselves or in any combination besides having all 25 results in a child of average to below average intelligence. Suddenly though they have a child that is an absolute genius beyond all expectations. There could be millions of these interactions that we are incapable of properly quantifying because it could require thousands of specific mutations or phenotypes that we aren't gonna get a big enough sample size of to make it statistically significant and therefore recognizable. It may even be that those with the smart genes we recognize have a ceiling of an IQ of like 130 or something.
For one, intelligence is tricky to measure. And even if it could, how do you disentangle nature from nurture? Smart people may value intelligence more and have the resources to raise a smarter child. I'm not aware of any study that conclusively shows it to be one way or the other.
The question is if its inheritable, not how its effected by other factors. And since everything about the brain you can come up with that intelligence is based on is inherited by your parents genes, it leaves no room for speculation. Unless you think we were carried by storks or something.
When people claim that differences in average intelligence amongst subgroups of people must be genetic. Other non-genetic effects begin to manifest at this level so it's not so obvious.
>Other non-genetic effects begin to manifest
like ?
Nutrition, hormonal affects by parents, epigenetic factors as a result of environmental stress, nurturing of parents, learning to play an instrument, exercise and concussions. Just to name a few.
Shit I misspelled, whatever doesn't change content.
They're near to extinction. Man is on the cusp of reaching another planet. We make fire. They do not. We make mongolian scrimshaw forums. They do not.
Access to various resources (food, education, preventative medicine), culture, climate...
But seriously, what is the context of question "is it inheritable?" No one is arguing that brains don't develop via genetics at a basic level (like...having a brain). But it's not clear that it operates significantly at the level of differences in intelligence (however you want to measure it) between human subgroups. OP suggests this in the third question. I'm not aware of any research that definitively shows this otherwise.
We were the same species 14 million years ago.
So what happened? How did one species become differentiated from another? Same reason we became differentiated physically; because traits are heritable.
These don't change the fact that intelligence inherited. Also aside from nutrition there is no evidence that they effect intelligence but your behaviour and hormones maybe.
He was being facetious.
>behaviour and hormones
And those in turn affect how you react to various opportunities in life which could bolster or dampen your overall "intelligence."
>at a basic level
Genes are the only factor that makes you who you are, from the head to the toe. You're trying to ignore a very basic fact and fill some other vague things with no credible basis to make it sound like a viable argument against inherited intelligence.
>different species have clear cut and dry heritable differences in intelligence
>certain inbred lines of dog (breed) have clear differences in intelligence that are clearly heritable
>intelligence is totally random and not heritable among human individuals.
wat.jpg
Shush, if you took some classes in genetics and cellular biology you'd realize how silly this is.
Genes are a bio meme from the human genome project years.
>the only factor
Lolably false. en.wikipedia.org
And if you don't care for that, here's a hot topic in biology today: nature.com
Intelligence can be defined as the speed at which one can learn and complete any given set of tasks. There are many variations of intelligence, visual/spatial/verbal/mathmatical. Most people cannot understand that piece of the puzzle. Many only look at one sphere (professionals in academia) without examining the many others that tangibly exist.
>It is estimated that genes contribute about 20–40% of the variance in intelligence in childhood and about 80% in old age. Thus the environment and its interaction with genes account for a high proportion of the variation in intelligence seen in groups of young children, and for a small proportion of the variation observed in groups of mature adults
80% of your adult intelligence is genetic. Not exactly a good case to be made that's it environmental...
There are several insurmountable walls to this question at the moment.
What is it mean to be intelligent?
Is the study conducted truly accurate? It's social science which is to regular studies throwing a dart in a dark room filled with fans on at full blast to try and hit a 3 inch target is to throwing a dart through a brightly lit room to hit a 15 inch target.
What are the actual markers for intelligence? As it may require many different groupings of genes that make a person dumb separately but a genius when all together.
We need more neuroscience before this will work out.
Does, shit grammar.
The claim was that genetics was the ONLY factor. Pic related.
>80% of your adult intelligence is genetic.
Your reading comprehension needs work. It's saying that the environment's interaction with genes at older ages is mitigated such that genes account for 80% of the variability seen in that age group. And even then, you're quoting some unsourced number in the summary of the wiki. Read the actual studies.