Intelligence And/Or Ability Is Hereditary. (1 Viewer)

[enoilgam]

Depends what you define intelligence as: creativity? Emotional intelligence? "Academic" intelligence?

I think a definition on this would be good, "intelligence" is such a broad word.

 

[SylviaB]

From personal experiences

"your personal experience" trumps science then?

I know of very intelligent people, who are a stark contrast to their families.

I know very tall people, who are a stark contrast to their families. Therefore, height is 100% influenced by environment.

 

[SylviaB]

I think a definition on this would be good, "intelligence" is such a broad word.

IQ is an appropriate measure due to its predictive powers.

 

[Kiraken]

IQ is an appropriate measure due to its predictive powers.

http://www.owenlab.uwo.ca/pdf/2012 - Hampshire - Neuron.pdf

 

[SylviaB]

uh yeah whatever

controlling for IQ alone accounts for differences in income (and essentially all other SE-outcomes)

you can slice "intelligence" any way you want but unless it can predict stuff its a useless measure, at least as far as these topics are concerned

 

[enigma_1]

"your personal experience" trumps science then?


What, no. OP's asking for opinions.

 

[SylviaB]

"your personal experience" trumps science then?


What, no. OP's asking for opinions.

ok well your opinion is wrong

 

[enigma_1]

ok well your opinion is wrong

How can an opinion be wrong? And why are you arguing with me? I have nothing against you

 

[SylviaB]

How can an opinion be wrong? And why are you arguing with me? I have nothing against you

you know what you did

 

[Kiraken]

uh yeah whatever

controlling for IQ alone accounts for differences in income (and essentially all other SE-outcomes)

you can slice "intelligence" any way you want but unless it can predict stuff its a useless measure, at least as far as these topics are concerned

no you cannot "whatever" a study that essentially debunks IQ as a myth in terms of it's capacity to measure intelligence

 

[SylviaB]

I'm not sure that the article is proving what you think its proving

 

[Kiraken]

I'm not sure that the article is proving what you think its proving

yes it is and no that is not an argument so maybe come up with something better please

as for IQ being a strong predictor of income

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/DeNeveOswald_PNAS2012.pdf

this study here takes into account numerous factors that show notions such as self-esteem etc. are far better predictors and IQ is of limited relevance relative to other such factors (in fact it has pretty much the same correlation with income as height)

 

[SylviaB]

yes it is and no that is not an argument so maybe come up with something better please

can you quote what you think supports your argument

 

[Kiraken]

can you quote what you think supports your argument

why not just read the article yourself, that is why i posted it

or is your precious IQ too insignificant to read

i can't quote anything because literally the *entire* discussion at the end states it

 

[SylviaB]

this study here takes into account numerous factors that show notions such as self-esteem etc. are far better predictors and IQ is of limited relevance relative to other such factors (in fact it has pretty much the same correlation with income as height)

thats a poor study

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/murray_income_iq.pdf

why not just read the article yourself, that is why i posted it

or is your precious IQ too insignificant to read

i can't quote anything because literally the *entire* discussion at the end states it

I did read it and I dont see how you came to the conclusion about it that you did

also "intelligence" is defined in a way that is not necessarily the best for this kind of question

 

[Kiraken]

thats a poor study

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/murray_income_iq.pdf




I did read it and I dont see how you came to the conclusion about it that you did

also "intelligence" is defined in a way that is not necessarily the best for this kind of question

how is it a poor study

not to mention it's from 2012 (unlike your 1998 one), and takes into account many more factors that could influence income

the entire discussion is about how the "g" being a unitary measure is inadequate for measuring intelligence, i fail to see how it can be expressed in any more obvious a manner

also for your study i found this on the glorious interwebz

"In fact, the literature doesn’t say this. Someone gave me a link to an article by Charles Murray, “Income Inequality and IQ” (link to pdf file), but none of the findings in that article contradict my findings that high IQ doesn’t result in higher income after educational credentials are accounted for.

Charles Murray’s points, which are entirely supported by the GSS data, are that (1) IQ by itself is correlated with higher income; (2) IQ is correlated with higher educational attainment; (3) higher educational attainment is correlated with higher income. Clearly the means by which IQ correlates with higher income is through educational credentials; smarter people are more likely to get a college degree or a graduate degree. This is what the GSS data shows. But it’s the credential that employers seem to value and not the employee’s intelligence.

Murray’s article also has some confusing stuff about the correlation between IQ and occupational prestige. Occupational prestige is not the same thing as income. I can think of plenty of comparisons where the higher prestige job has lower pay. Most college professors are not especially well paid, but the occupation has a very high prestige. When comparing low IQ and high IQ people in the same income bracket, the high IQ person will more likely be in a more prestigious profession, so therefore IQ will have a higher correlation with prestige than it does with actual income."

 

[Kiraken]

i can also copy pasta this critique again from the interwebz of that study you linked

"But Murray still hasn’t managed to answer the academic community’s chief complaint: His theory does not adequately account for the role social environment plays in determining one’s lot in life.

As you may recall, in The Bell Curve Herrnstein and Murray used an extremely crude measure of social background, then contrasted its effects with those of a test of mental skills given to most of the sample in late adolescence. Murray claims his new study answers this criticism: "The Bell Curve’s method of controlling for SES [socioeconomic status] and the sibling method of controlling for everything in the family background yield interpretations of the independent role of IQ on income that are substantively indistinguishable," he writes. But the test Murray uses, the Armed Forces Qualification Test, is not an environment-free measure of intelligence, so it does not identify "the independent role of IQ." Scores on the afqt have been shown to vary significantly with the quantity and quality of education to which a young person has been exposed.

Moreover, comparing siblings, while helpful, does not come close to "controlling for everything in the family background." Environments can differ within families, too—because of differences in the sex, personality, or birth order of the children, for example. In any case, Murray’s conclusion—that improving the environments of unrelated children will do little to reduce inequality—is a non sequitur. Finding a correlation between intelligence and success within families says nothing about the extent to which inequality in a population is driven by differences between families. After all, incomes are much more equal among siblings than among unrelated individuals, which attests to the equality-enhancing effects of a common family environment. Variance in IQ explains at most one-fifth of the variance of incomes; so, most inequality is caused by other factors. It is by now well-established that, holding ability constant, more education raises earnings, and well-designed, early childhood interventions can improve later-life outcomes for disadvantaged youths in a cost-effective way. But Murray seems utterly unfazed by these results."

lol sounds like a much lambasted study by the looks of it

 

[braintic]

Why doesn't the poll allow for the possibility that intelligence is a combination of hereditary, cultural and opportunistic factors?
It seems it must be fully hereditary or fully not.

 

[wannaspoon]

^ agreed...

"your personal experience" trumps science then?

yes, read one and only one scientific opinion, or, watch some douchebag on youtube and don't question his rationale... You've posted the same fucking video twice... don't take everything science gives you as gospel...

 

[hit patel]

Why doesn't the poll allow for the possibility that intelligence is a combination of hereditary, cultural and opportunistic factors?
It seems it must be fully hereditary or fully not.

Yes I would add it but the thread wouldnt show the option. But then ofc it would make the results invalid.