Are some people born smarter?

[Aldebaran]

it's cleverer not smarter

Actually, it is neither. The thread title is somewhat misleading.

salaam

 

[Aldebaran]

If we can accept that some are born with innate 'disabilities', why would we expect that everyone else is born with identical capabilities? Surely there are those that are born with innate abilities, too.

Yes, but I'm still trying to fully answer the question why for so many people this seems to be such a sensitive issue.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I was watching a prog on this the other day and one of the kids, all of them were home taught, was much cleverer than his dad already. And he was only 7! In fact he scored 170 on his IQ test, so is cleverer than almost anyone.

How can that be down to his environment?

You can boost your IQ score by around 10 points as an adult just by practicing the type of questions a bit. Test after test have shown it to be true. Doing the same practice with a child, especially that young, will result in a far greater relative change in score. Again there's loads of studies showing the same effect with after school tuition type groups and the same studies showing the effect wears off if the extra tuition is stopped.

Don't forget that IQ is age weighted, so while the 7 year old may get a higher IQ score than it's dad, it won't have gotten more questions right (probably). IQ is a pretty shit measure of how smart someone is, it's a brilliant way of testing how well you do at IQ tests.

In terms of intelligence in general: There's undoubtably a genetic component to it, but a very large fraction of it, probably the majority of it, is down to enviroment.

 

[118118]

Around 50% of the variation of wage and job status in the popultaion varies with IQ. I doubt thats quite as meaningful as it could seem wrt 'intelligence', but it says something and I don't like it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Around 50% of the variation of wage and job status in the popultaion varies with IQ. I doubt thats quite as meaningful as it could seem wrt 'intelligence', but it says something and I don't like it.

Studies have been done on this, you get a good correlation between IQ and earnings, but you also get just as good a correlation between how well off the family is and earnings. Bet you like that fact even less.

 

[danny la rouge]

There are studies that show various intelligence testing is very culture/class-centric. In other words, the way the test is framed is biased towards a particular social group.

One example I found myself was a reading/vocabulary comprehension test for pre school children in which a word was read to the child, and the child was then invited to indicate which of four pictures best represented the word. I carried out the test with kids from the Raploch area of Stirling, and they all failed one word. "Greet". Because in one of the pictures there was a sad face. The correct picture was two people shaking hands.

No Middle Class kids from SE England would misidentify that, but working class Scots kids know that 'greeting' means 'crying'.

These tests are riven with such ethnocentrism, to which the setters are blind.

 

[trashpony]

There are studies that show various intelligence testing is very culture/class-centric. In other words, the way the test is framed is biased towards a particular social group.

One example I found myself was a reading/vocabulary comprehension test for pre school children in which a word was read to the child, and the child was then invited to indicate which of four pictures best represented the word. I carried out the test with kids from the Raploch area of Stirling, and they all failed one word. "Greet". Because in one of the pictures there was a sad face. The correct picture was two people shaking hands.

No Middle Class kids from SE England would misidentify that, but working class Scots kids know that 'greeting' means 'crying'.

These tests are riven with such ethnocentrism, to which the setters are blind.

When my nephew was about 2 1/2, the health visitor came to see him and did various word quizzes on him to test his development. One of the things she asked him to do was get a hairbrush out of a box of stuff she'd brought with her. Neither my sister or her husband ever use a hairbrush so he didn't know what it was. She said that she was worried about his speech development.

 

[danny la rouge]

She said that she was worried about his speech development.

We had a similar experience. It was an iron. We never iron anything ever, so my daughter hadn't seen one, never mind a toy one.

That's what happens when people with a small amount of knowledge are put in charge of Importantant Testing. They put too much emphasis on the Important Test.

 

[118118]

Bet you like that fact even less.

Tbh it affects me less!

Wrt cultural bias: afiak there have been big steps to try and correct this. To say that iq doesn't mean anything is to be swimming against the tide a bit. I mean e.g. the amonut of psychological study there has been into individual differences is probably obscene.

 

[lobster]

On which tests? SATs? All that is implying is that the parents are better teachers.

I think it's really naive to assume that we are all blank slates who would be equal if we just got the perfect environment (chemical, nutritional, weather and parenting) mastered. If we can accept that some are born with innate 'disabilities', why would we expect that everyone else is born with identical capabilities? Surely there are those that are born with innate abilities, too.

A home environment is one to one, if a child could get one to one at school, she/he would have the chance to be smarter. Its been mentioned in previous posts that so and so , including a distant relative of mine that was taught at home got his gcse at around 10. You can get much more done in smaller time with one to one education.
Of course if the parents teach there children rubbish there are not going to be any smarter than a child at a school with 1 teacher to many children, more likely the opposite.

You do have a good second point, which actually i agree with, my original post was "What about Asperger syndrome ? A lot of people with it are extremely bright." the question mark after syndrome was more of a thinking out loud comment, that yes some people with different genes , which a disability really is have the ability to learn more than people without it.

Or to put it another way Asperger syndrome is a smart gene ability rather than a disability. But of course the argument used against calling Asperger syndrome a ability is that there are smart people who are very sociable too.

Anyway i do agree with you that people can be born with enhanced abilities.

 

[catrina]

I don't know much about Asperger's, but I think I remember reading that with autism, some people have way above average non-verbal reasoning skills, but verbal reasoning (as tested with standard psychometric tests) is usually well below average.

The verbal portion of the IQ test is very culturally biased, but I don't know about the non-verbal section (maths, puzzle matching, number recall), I think there is some validity in there, although experience will also play a role. It's just one measure of assessing people's ability to abstract, which I think is one definition of 'smartness' (as opposed to one's actual knowledge gained through formal education).

Anyway, a large part of psychological research is conducted on well-educated 18-22 year old students getting course credit and/or money for their participation at university.

 

[iguzza]

Actually, it is neither. The thread title is somewhat misleading.

salaam

should it read ".........smarter than others."?

 

[Aldebaran]

should it read ".........smarter than others."?

No, it should be "........with capabilities that deviate from what is considered the (normal) norm".

The answer is yes.

salaam.

 

[iguzza]

you're too clever for this thread

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm extremely harmless and completely innocent.

salaam.

 

[iguzza]

.....salaam to you aswell

 

[rhys gethin]

Or can you make yourself smart by reading books?

Is there a limit to how much you can learn from reading books, compared to what someone with a "natural ability" is able to achieve?

Is there such thing as "natural ability"?

Should people try hard to make themselves the best at something, or should they be "happy with their lot"?

If everyone tries their best, to make themselves succeed as far as possible, is this necessarily good for society?

I realised there were several parts to this OP.

Learning and ability (to do something - what?) are quite different things, though there is inevitably some overlap between their effects.

There are all sorts of natural abilities. Capitalism rewards some, cares nothing for others.

Everyone should try to use and improve abilities for the common good. Why would anyone want to be 'best'? Are we seeking the Fastest Gun in the West or something? People should please themselves about being happy with their lot, depending on those selves and that lot.

What is 'success' in your book? If you want to succeed in being the best thief you will not help 'society': if you want to be a good doctor, you might.

 

[8ball]

There's a massive genetic component to intelligence but the interactions between genetic and environmental cues are complex.

As for whether some people are 'born smarter' - well, all newborn babies are pretty dumb as far as I can tell. Give one a Rubik's cube and find out for yourself.

 

[Balbi]

Disclaimer: Babies found having chewed parts of a Rubik's cube on the advice of 8ball are of no concern or responsibility to U75.

(i'll be back to add more later)

 

[Idaho]

Of course there are elements of both in nature and nurture. You can make lots of improvements to your intelligence through learning and practice. But some will be born with an advantage - ability to learn faster, hold mathmatical concepts, better memory, etc.

 

[Spion]

But some will be born with an advantage - ability to learn faster, hold mathmatical concepts, better memory, etc.

What's the proof of this?

 

[Aldebaran]

What's the proof of this?

What do you consider normal?

salaam.

 

[Idaho]

What's the proof of this?

Why would you need specific proof? It seems bizzare to think that height, weight, eyesight, hearing, etc, etc all have a genetic component and that the various strands that make up intelligence do not.

Of course it is impossible to prove directly that there is innate advantages of intelligence before cultural and societal influences occur, but as a common sense position I think it should be accepted without proof to the contrary.

Intelligence is made up of so many factors - memory, empathy, mathmatical skill (a sub heading with numerous sections), communication skills (same here), etc, and I can't see why these features of our brains are in no way affected by the genetic make-up of the brain.

 

[Giles]

Clearly there is a major genetic component to intelligence.

I am not going to even get into the pointless "debate" about the flaws in formal IQ testing, but to suggest that everyone is as bright as everyone else is, well, stupid.

People are born different in all sorts of ways - some people are natural at sports, some have very good memory, some don't, some are generally clever, or clever in a particular way, etc.

I can't believe that anyone honestly believes that people are born intellectually the same.

Giles..

 

[8ball]

I can't believe that anyone honestly believes that people are born intellectually the same.

I think it's something they tell you if you do a sociology degree

 

[Aldebaran]

Clearly there is a major genetic component to intelligence.

I heard this argument repeated many times and I am inclined to believe it. Abnormality can be traced back when looking at my genealogy (which on father's side goes down to the time of the Prophet, but as historian I need to have reservations with regard to such long lines). No need for modern "IQ test" results there, but it would be an interesting experiment if it could be done post-mortem

I can't believe that anyone honestly believes that people are born intellectually the same.

To me such idea equals with stubbornly holding onto the idea that all people are born with equal opportunities "to make something of their life".

I would like to know what people - generally- consider a "normal intellect" and how they then can make me like that if we are all born equally wired in the brain section.

salaam.

 

[dash]

I don't know what IQ is meant to be exactly but everyday experience suggests some people are a bit more on the ball than others, and commonsense suggests that a proportion of such differences must be inherited - otherwise, how would brains have evolved in the first place?

 

[rhys gethin]

The point is not whether people are different but whether they should be rewarded differently for, say, having red hair or a stutter. If people are given what they need and contribute according to their abilities, who cares about their height, weight, nose-size or intelligence?

 

[catrina]

I think what we reward is the component of human nature that comes more down to culture than innate instincts, and that is what's very interesting.

Evolutionary psychologists would have us believe that we are machines built to predict the genomes of and conquer members of the opposite sex who will give us the most genetically robust offspring, but that's clearly not what humans do. We are so completely trend-driven in this respect that one wonders how we manage to procreate in the first place!

 

[dash]

People are born different in all sorts of ways - some people are natural at sports

Just a little observation re sports and intelligence.

Popular wisdom has it that football players tend not to be academically very bright, in contrast to certain other sports such as rowing and cycling which attract a disproportionate number of people with some higher education under their belts.

But I reckon football is more mentally demanding to play in some ways than the nerdy sports of rowing and cycling. There's more going on at once, more things to keep track of.