Is intelligence determined genetically?

[Black Sheep]

Meaning the ability to understand, deduce, infer, etc
I dunno if that's a correct definition, so feel free to correct moi.

Considering that critical thinking skills are something taught, aren't they determined by education?

[¿Que?]

In terms of education, a lot of things can impact the capacity for any particular student to learn. However, the golden rule of sociology of education, in my opinion, is the negative correlation between poverty and academic achievement. That's not to say that if you are poor you are automatically doomed to fail, however, it does decrease the probability of success, if I'm not mistaken, substantially.

So no, it's material conditions.

[NewSocialist]

Most of the pyschological studies I've read suggest it's a combination of innate potential and environment (nutrition, education, parental nuturing, culture). Researchers don't agree which is more influential.

In psychology, there is also a pretty big debate between the "g factor" hardliners and advocates of "multiple intelligences."

[agnixie]

Nutrition tends to be pretty huge in that - it correlates far more than heredity. And of course there's been this hijacking of things like IQ to turn learning ability (which is what it tried to measure, even if it's still not that good an indicator - the creator knew some of the limitations already) into the canonical meaning of intelligence.

[tobbinator]

As far as I know, It is mostly determined by the environment you're brought up in, as well as how you were raised as a child.

For example someone brought up in a more hardworking, lower class society will be generally better when it comes to manual labour and practical thinking, whereas someone brought up in a higher class society would generally be better when it comes to logical thought.

[Luisrah]

Most of the pyschological studies I've read suggest it's a combination of innate potential and environment (nutrition, education, parental nuturing, culture). Researchers don't agree which is more influential.

In psychology, there is also a pretty big debate between the "g factor" hardliners and advocates of "multiple intelligences."

Very very true.
I think the two are intimately related.

It is true that your brain may be more developped than someone else's, but that's just the potential.
If you don't exercise your brain, even if it's a super machine, you won't be intelligent.
And even if your brain isn't ''that good'', and you recieve good education and exercise it, you will be intelligent.

[ZeroNowhere]

Does Tony Iommi have riff-genes?

Really, though, I think that the word 'intelligence' is far too multifaceted in usage to be represented by a simple scalar quantity which is determined by various factors.

[gorillafuck]

It's a combination of genetics and environment. For example, kids that are encouraged to play instruments at a young age develop better cognitive abilities. But genetics definitely do play a role.

[IndependentCitizen]

I refuse to believe genetics has anything to do with it, material deprivation makes much more sense.

I want to know how a upper class student is genetically more intelligent than a working class student...

But if there's scientific evidence, shoot my way, I'm doing Sociology A-level, and we're doing education ATM.

[NewSocialist]

I refuse to believe genetics has anything to do with it, material deprivation makes much more sense.

I want to know how a upper class student is genetically more intelligent than a working class student...

But if there's scientific evidence, shoot my way, I'm doing Sociology A-level, and we're doing education ATM.

The correlation between IQ and social class is very weak, so no one is saying an upper class student is smarter than a working class student (expect for right-wing idiots with an agenda to push, like Charles Murray). But no psychologist or intelligence researcher I'm aware of denies there is a genetic factor to intelligence -including James Flynn. Read through the references on wikipedia's article on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[gorillafuck]

I refuse to believe genetics has anything to do with it, material deprivation makes much more sense.It's well acknowledged that biology effects personality. I don't see why intelligence would be exempt from that.

[¿Que?]

It's well acknowledged that biology effects personality. I don't see why intelligence would be exempt from that.
So how do you explain women consistently performing poorer than men on mathematics standardized tests. Are women (on average) genetically predisposed to poorer math skills than men? My hunch says no...

[gorillafuck]

So how do you explain women consistently performing poorer than men on mathematics standardized tests. Are women (on average) genetically predisposed to poorer math skills than men? My hunch says no...If you read what I said, I very explicitly said that environment does influence. That does not mean that biology does not influence intelligence.


Really, though, I think that the word 'intelligence' is far too multifaceted in usage to be represented by a simple scalar quantity which is determined by various factors.You're right. Biology affects our brains in general, not just one ambiguous concept of intelligence. But I do not know what word to use besides intelligence.

[¿Que?]

If you read what I said, I very explicitly said that environment does influence. That does not mean that biology does not influence intelligence.

Right, so you're saying biology does play a role. That's all that I was asking. Let's suppose you could control for environmental variables and isolate the genetic causes for intelligence you propose. Do you think women would still do worse in math. Again, my hunch is no. But think about it, IF the answer is no, where does that leave genetics?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Right, so you're saying biology does play a role. That's all that I was asking. Let's suppose you could control for environmental variables and isolate the genetic causes for intelligence you propose. Do you think women would still do worse in math. Again, my hunch is no. But think about it, IF the answer is no, where does that leave genetics?

What does your rambling have anything to do with genetic-led intelligence? You appear to be quite against the idea that genetics lead to anything, thus only the environment is responsible for thoughts, actions, emotions, etc. I could be wrong in this assumption of you, but you sure haven't provided a better means of expressing what exactly you believe other than what I've asserted.

Either way, there's a very large possibility that intelligence is derived through a bio-social means. It's more than likely, though, that gene's will play as a predisposition, rather than predetermination, which'll then conflict with environmental/social conditions. This doesn't mean that intelligence is acquired through this process alone, but don't be simplistic and completely disregard genes as obsolete units.

[¿Que?]

What does your rambling have anything to do with genetic-led intelligence? You appear to be quite against the idea that genetics lead to anything, thus only the environment is responsible for thoughts, actions, emotions, etc. I could be wrong in this assumption of you, but you sure haven't provided a better means of expressing what exactly you believe other than what I've asserted.

Either way, there's a very large possibility that intelligence is derived through a bio-social means. It's more than likely, though, that gene's will play as a predisposition, rather than predetermination, which'll then conflict with environmental/social conditions. This doesn't mean that intelligence is acquired through this process alone, but don't be simplistic and completely disregard genes as obsolete units.
Excuse my ramblings, I think I'm asking a legitimate question. Let me make it more formal, so that there is less ambiguity and less misunderstanding, because it seems that neither you nor Zeekloid want to answer my question.

First off, I am not looking at individual processes but in terms of population statistics. That does have some limitations and we can discuss that if you like.

But my question is rather simple and to the point, and deserves an answer aside from "it's both environment and genetics."

As a sociology professor once told me, if you look at the bell curve of math scores for men and women, the two shapes should be identical (that's why it's a bell curve, right?). However, the difference is not in distribution, but in averages. Most scores will lie in the middle of the bell curve, but the overall average for women is slightly lower than men.

If this were there is any genetic effect (any whatsoever), then controlling for environmental factors would raise the average for both men and women and a discrepancy would remain. This is only a thought experiment, though. You can't control for every variable possible, obviously. But as a thought experiment we have three options. 1. The discrepancy favors men 2. the discrepancy favors women or 3. There is no discrepancy.

The problem is that if such an experiment yielded any results but 3, then we could say such and such gender is genetically predisposed to do worse in math than the other.

That's all I was saying, and it's pretty solid logic if you ask me.

[gorillafuck]

Right, so you're saying biology does play a role. That's all that I was asking. Let's suppose you could control for environmental variables and isolate the genetic causes for intelligence you propose. Do you think women would still do worse in math. Again, my hunch is no. But think about it, IF the answer is no, where does that leave genetics?Probably a "no". But I don't think men and women have different capabilities in math in general, so a no to that question wouldn't mean that. Men and women having the same math capabilities doesn't disprove that biology plays a role in intelligence.

[¿Que?]

Probably a "no". But I don't think men and women have different capabilities in math in general, so a no to that question wouldn't mean that. Men and women having the same math capabilities doesn't disprove that biology plays a role in intelligence.
Well, obviously biology plays a role in intelligence. Our brains after all are biological. What I'm asking, though, is does biology play a role in explaining gender, sex, race, ethnicity and other statistically significant differences in educational achievement, standardized tests etc. The answer I think is probably no.

Possibly, on an individual level, you may find better explanatory powers from genetics or biology. But as far as populations go, there is no reason to believe, on average, any particular group of human beings would be more intelligent than others.

This is an important distinction, I think. So to clarify, genetics plays absolutely no role in determining or predisposing population intelligence as measured by different indicators (educational achievement, standardized tests, etc).

EDIT: One caveat. Except when environment affects people genetically the above holds true.

[¿Que?]

But I don't think men and women have different capabilities in math in general, so a no to that question wouldn't mean that.
Regarding this statement, I'm not sure what you mean. It has been shown that average math scores are lower for women, blacks and Latinos/as. I don't think this can be explained genetically. That's all I'm saying.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Possibly, on an individual level, you may find better explanatory powers from genetics or biology. But as far as populations go, there is no reason to believe, on average, any particular group of human beings would be more intelligent than others.

Wouldn't that be determined whether or not that differing population of people differ genetically to others? Obviously women differ from men on a genetic level. So why would genetics not play into this?

[¿Que?]

Wouldn't that be determined whether or not that differing population of people differ genetically to others? Obviously women differ from men on a genetic level. So why would genetics not play into this?
Except that such a population would be defined by the genetic traits that predispose them to perform better at certain tasks. It's like saying there are populations that differ on the amount of toes they have, and then put all the people with a genetic deformity to grow an extra toe into that population. Except that such a group is entirely constructed by social processes. Basically, you can take any genetic characteristic and make a "population" out of it, but what does that prove?

[Ocean Seal]

Its impossible to isolate genetic influence from societal influence. Personally IQ shows how well you are classically trained in the century old British academic tradition. If you spend more time in intellectually stimulating environments you have a higher change of having a high 'intelligence'. So no I don't believe that intelligence is genetic nor do I believe that it can be quantified meaningfully or the criteria for it can be determined objectively.