Intelligence: 70% Empirical, 30% Genetic inheritance

[seventeethdecember2016]

I read about such a claim recently. Is this actually authentic, or are they just looking to gain goodie points with right-wingers?

[~Spectre]

They're just looking to gain goodie points with right-wingers.

[Comrade Trollface]

Defining, let alone quantifying, intelligence is such a sticky thing that any general claim involving percentages pings my 'extraordinary claim' radar like crazy.

[Caj]

There isn't any real, scientifically valid way to measure to what degree intelligence is environmental and to what degree it is genetic, especially not to the precision of percentages.

[~Spectre]

Moreover, there's no scientific proof that "intelligence" exist at all, as a single measurable quantity. Let alone how to measure it.

It's called reification. We use the term "intelligence" in every day language to mean various things, but that doesn't mean it's a concrete thing. It's like the word "justice". We use it, but that doesn't mean you can measure "justice".

[Ocean Seal]

I read about such a claim recently. Is this actually authentic, or are they just looking to gain goodie points with right-wingers?
Intelligence is really hard to define, and its pretty absurd to make a claim as to how much of it has to do with genetics/learning and if you do chances are you are pointing to some pretty ridiculous strawman 'scientific' arguments. Generally bullshit that can be quantified but doesn't actually tell you anything.

[electrostal]

Judging by the title (which corresponds to how Mao valorized Stalin BTW ), I'd say no.
Such claims seem absurd, as other posters noted.

[Kenco Smooth]

As some users have highlighted intelligence is an extremely slippery term and no single definition will ever really capture what we mean by it. That said g, which is the variable measured by IQ tests, is a good indicator for what it is (putting aside definitional issues as mentioned and competing models such as notions of emotional intelligence, etc.) It's one of the most repeated findings in psychology and stands up well across multiple tests and is one of the most successful predictors of academic and job success around. Whether you want to call it intelligence or g (I lean to the latter) the construct stands head and shoulders over any rival.

The claim of a 30% genetic role is both misleading and wrong. Misleading as it doesn't properly address what these measurements mean. It is impossible to say how much of an individuals displayed g is down to genetics or environment. Even if we ignored issues of interaction between these two influences there'd simply be no way of measuring it and I doubt there will be for a long, long time if ever. What such figures refer to is the genetic influence on population variability. Basically that means if we have a group of people how much of the difference in their individual g scores is down to genetics. This can be measured using twin studies and familial data. Wrong as large scale analysis usually indicate a genetic influence on variability around 45-55%. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/212/4498/1055.short)

[Lynx]

Empirical in place of environmental? What does that mean?

[helot]

[QUOTE=~Spectre;2473559
It's like the word "justice". We use it, but that doesn't mean you can measure "justice".[/QUOTE]

Sure you can... all you need is some scales and a blindfold :D

[Comrade Trollface]

Yeah- and you cut off correct portions with an arming sword. Duh.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I read about such a claim recently. Is this actually authentic, or are they just looking to gain goodie points with right-wingers?

If it were not a right for each child to get a free education, the most "genetically 'intelligent'" person would be dumb. The material conditions really decide all, especially within a capitalist society in which individuals' emotions are manipulated to bind them to the rulers.

[Book O'Dead]

I read about such a claim recently. Is this actually authentic, or are they just looking to gain goodie points with right-wingers?

"The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

[Kenco Smooth]

If it were not a right for each child to get a free education, the most "genetically 'intelligent'" person would be dumb. The material conditions really decide all, especially within a capitalist society in which individuals' emotions are manipulated to bind them to the rulers.

Conversely under situations where education is free and available in equal amounts and efficiency environmental differentiation will drop and higher levels of variance will be attributable to genetics. Differences would still drop in absolute terms mind but it's important not to ignore genetic contributions.

[Mr. Natural]

"Intelligence" refers to the ability to adapt and adapt to the environment. All living systems are intelligent; life is an intelligent, systemic process of mutual adaptation, of dynamic interdependence.

The Harvard psychologist, Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory offers groundbreaking insights into intelligence. He identifies eight innate intelligences where current psychology and education only recognize and honor two: verbal and mathematical/logical.

Gardner bases his work on the organizational nature of intelligence in the brain. Although all intelligences are well-distributed throughout the brain, these eight have a hub--a "center''--which, if damaged, will significantly affect or destroy the intelligence. All of these intelligences are quite signficant for human life.

The eight intelligences are: verbal; mathematical/logical; kinesthetic (coordinated movement such as dance, athletics, traditional hunting); music; interpersonal (some people "know" others well); intrapersonal (knowing oneself); spatial; naturalist (added years after the first seven).

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory is in accord with the organization of the living systems of the life process. Gardner is an unusually clear, reader-friendly author, and his Multiple Intelligences (1993) is the definitive work on this.

Can you imagine how different schooling would be if it were efficaciously organized to develop and practice these eight intelligences?

My red-green best.

[Kenco Smooth]

"Intelligence" refers to the ability to adapt and adapt to the environment. All living systems are intelligent; life is an intelligent, systemic process of mutual adaptation, of dynamic interdependence.

The Harvard psychologist, Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory offers groundbreaking insights into intelligence. He identifies eight innate intelligences where current psychology and education only recognize and honor two: verbal and mathematical/logical.

Gardner bases his work on the organizational nature of intelligence in the brain. Although all intelligences are well-distributed throughout the brain, these eight have a hub--a "center''--which, if damaged, will significantly affect or destroy the intelligence. All of these intelligences are quite signficant for human life.

The eight intelligences are: verbal; mathematical/logical; kinesthetic (coordinated movement such as dance, athletics, traditional hunting); music; interpersonal (some people "know" others well); intrapersonal (knowing oneself); spatial; naturalist (added years after the first seven).

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory is in accord with the organization of the living systems of the life process. Gardner is an unusually clear, reader-friendly author, and his Multiple Intelligences (1993) is the definitive work on this.

Can you imagine how different schooling would be if it were efficaciously organized to develop and practice these eight intelligences?

My red-green best.

The issue with Gardner is the lack of rigour in his definitions and theorising. Why should these eight be considered discrete faculties? The list of identifying factors he uses* are categorical conditions and as such are very vague and elastic (see his addition of naturalistic intelligence and hand waving about moral intelligence). Not to mention that calling aspects such as kinesthetic ability intelligence is frankly bizarre. Should a chess master be considered a master athlete for making the perfectly precise motor movements to win a game?

Now if this was the best intelligence studies could do then it may well make an acceptable starting point, but thankfully plenty of more rigorous statistical work has been done for over a century now. Factorial analysis of practically every reliable set of test scores ever gathered identifies high correlations between all areas of mental ability which when hierarchically organised identifies a single, clear, overarching general factor (typically called general intelligence or just g). Simply put this rigour and vast scale engagement with empirical data is lacking from Gardner's work.

All the posts in this thread saying you can't possibly measure a single 'intelligence' are simply incorrect if you are willing to accept individual tests of ability (i.e. vocabulary, pattern identification, memory of single digits) as reliable tests of intelligence/ability in their own small area. A common factor always emerges (usually with a layer or two of intermediary factors between it and the individual tests).

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0160289607001353-gr1.jpg



*as listed on wikipedia


Potential for brain isolation by brain damage,
Place in evolutionary history,
Presence of core operations,
Susceptibility to encoding (symbolic expression),
A distinct developmental progression,
The existence of savants, prodigies and other exceptional people,
Support from experimental psychology and psychometric findings.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Of course, when you are talking about "intelligence" you need to operationalize it. The most widely used intelligence scale the WAIS (I think it's on version iv, but I haven't laid eyes on it for a while) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (and the WISC for kiddies). It is a pretty good test -- very well validated and very reliable. But of course many would argue that it is too narrow in it's focus.

You can, at least to some degree, measure how much of intelligence is genetic vs. environmental -- if you accept some consistent way to measure intelligence, like the IQ score on the WAIS or WISC. Stephen J. Gould wrote that most studies peg genetic contribution to intelligence somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. That leaves a lot to the environment. Height is 90 percent heritable. But the reason that people are a lot taller than they were, on average, 100 years ago is really about nutrition.

Gardner's work is very interesting and provocative. I don't know if someone has developed a good measure(s) based on his work. I would love to see that.

[Nox]

I read about such a claim recently. Is this actually authentic, or are they just looking to gain goodie points with right-wingers?

It sounds legitimate. Intelligence, like most traits, is both nature and nurture.

It's a meaningless piece of information though, what does it prove, what does it imply, what do they want?

[ckaihatsu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom's_Taxonomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)


[14] Bloom's Taxonomy, Illustrated

http://postimage.org/image/1coz2ku10/

[cyu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN34FNbOKXc

students with the growth mindset, those who thought they could change their own intelligence, increased their grades over time, while those with a fixed mindset did not. The gap in performance just widens and widens over time.

To some of the kids they said, "Wow that's a really good score. You must be smart at this." That's fixed mindset praise. To other kids they said, "Wow that's a really good score. You must have tried really hard." That's growth mindset praise.

The majority of the kids who received the fixed mindset praise chose to do the easy puzzle, while the majority of those who received the growth mindset praise chose to challenge themselves.

researchers gave a hard puzzle to all of the kids. when the kids went back to the set of easier problems that they started with, the kids who received the fixed mindset praise did significantly worse than they had originally while those who received the growth mindset praise did better.