Poll: The Cause of Intelligence

[Do4600]

Poll question is:"What is the key factor that decides an individual's level of intelligence."

A recently had a discussion on the causes of intelligence and was wondering what a wider community would think. In this context let's assume the definition of intelligence is: "The capacity for reasoning and understanding"

His opinion was that intelligence is based solely on initiative, barring poverty, and genius is a function of favorable genetics.

I had just finished a book that had at one point attempted to answer this question and I think that the author answered it quite well, it was the basis for my argument:

"The infrequency of genius is to be explained in simple probabilities. A child must learn a great deal before it reaches adult life. Processes such as the multiplying of numbers can be learned in a variety of ways. This is to say, the brain can develop in a number of ways, all enabling it to multiply numbers, but not all with by any means the same facility. Those who develop in a favourable way are said to be 'good' at arithmetic, while those who develop inefficient ways are said to be 'bad' or 'slow'. Now what decides how a particular person develops? The answer is--chance. And chance accounts for the difference between the genius and the dullard. The genius is one who has been lucky in all his processes of learning. The dullard is the reverse, and the ordinary person is one who has neither been particularly lucky nor particularly unlucky."

-Fred Hoyle, The Black Cloud

That is not to say that genetics doesn't factor somewhat into this question but as I understand it, genetics can only decide the limit to which something can develop, say, how tall a person can be, but not the actual height which is based on nutrition among other things. Genetics can certainly curtail intelligence which is the case in brain abnormalities. To suppose that mutations can make somebody a genius doesn't factor in enough "nurture". Metaphorically, a person could have the best hardware but the least efficient software and appear no more intelligent for it; so in the end it seems to rely on chance even if the person has some biological predisposition to be intelligent.

So Escapists, what determines intelligence?

 

[Esotera]

Both. In most cases characteristics seem to be determined by a mix of many different factors, which could include certain genes, or social upbringing. You can't really control the genes you are born with, but you can certainly control their expression - the person who exercises three times a week rather than moping about their genetic makeup is going to do better.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

Both. In most cases characteristics seem to be determined by a mix of many different factors, which could include certain genes, or social upbringing. You can't really control the genes you are born with, but you can certainly control their expression - the person who exercises three times a week rather than moping about their genetic makeup is going to do better.

First post gets it exactly right. Ditto.

 

[Filiecs]

The bottom factor is trying hard, making mistakes, learning from those mistakes, correcting those mistakes, learning from those that are better than you, and never giving up.
Mindest by Carol Dweck and About Learning by Bernice McCarthy explain it pretty much perfectly.

Sure genetics and your environment may make it harder for someone to learn a particular skill or trait than others, but it is NEVER impossible. As long as you are capable of conscious learning and have free will, you can potentially learn anything. No matter how unreasonable it may seem.

 

[EquestrianGeneral]

Well, there are many kinds of intelligence. A person could have an IQ of 140, but have absolutely no idea how to interact with others, for example.

Regardless, many things govern someone's "intelligence." I feel that IQ is likely governed by (mostly) genetics, whereas most other forms of intelligence are effected by experiences and determination to learn and improve.

 

[pilouuuu]

In someways I think that your first years are very important. Also not falling to the education system traps. I always tried to think critically and look for more information than what school or university or society as a whole gave me. It's necessary to have the initiative to investigate and look for new information.

There's also the factor of motivation. I never got the higher scores in school because most things were not interesting for me, but the time I didn't spend studying for school topics, I spent learning things that motivated me and in my opinion help me more to be a better or more intelligent person. That may have made society perceive me as less intelligent than I really am because they wouldn't see excellent scores. It's very difficult to measure intelligence anyways.

There's also a genetic factor and luck and chance to, because if you are born in a poor country your opportunities to develop intelligence are going to be different if you were born in a developed country.

So there are many things that have an influence in intelligence.

I think that reading The Escapist forum also helps gaining a few I.Q. numbers too.

 

[haruvister]

I haven't voted in the poll because I think that the possible answers all feed into each other. Someone who is born into a wealthy family (chance/luck), for instance, may be provided with more opportunities to show their initiative at a wider range of activities and occupations, and so their intelligence is more likely to emerge. Similarly, one who believes in supernatural providence may be more greatly inspired to express their intelligence, as if compelled by some higher power.

Plus there are different forms of intelligence. David Beckham won't be applying for a job at CERN when he hangs up his boots, but his awareness on the football pitch shows clear spatial intelligence.

Fred Hoyle's conclusion is that it is a matter of chance. But chance only dictates one's access to training, the will to succeed, superior genetics etc, not the actual quality of those determinants.

 

[FalloutJack]

Probably all of these things, minus the character sheet (You silly.), but plus other things like background, life-changing events, and good old-fashioned moxie.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'd say a combination of genetics and nurture.

My mum taught me to read before I was even at nursery school and I got 180+ (highest score) on the standard IQ test when I was 10. (It's for kids so I'm not saying I'm a genius or anything) I think the extra effort she put into my education helped a lot.

 

[Kyber]

Experience, every choice we have made has changed us in some way and good old luck of course.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Training, your mind is like a muscle, use it to it's full extend and it will keep on improving, neglect it and it will grow weak.
Also extensive research has shown IQ and genetics correlation only in 6% of cases, and even that did not consider nurture.

People aren't born dumb or smart, they choose to be.

 

[manic_depressive13]

It depends on what you consider intelligence to be. If one person can't tell their ass from their elbow but is happy, and another devotes their life to study but by doing so makes themselves miserable, who's the idiot? It really depends on what you want out of life.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I believe most studies on the subject point to genetics having a significant role in things such as intelligence. However upbringing and educations do have a significant impact as well as the genetics are predispositions.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Intelligence isn't very well understood, if it was we'd have much more luck building AIs, and it'd make a big difference to schooling...and everywhere else, I guess.

AFAIK, there's been no reliable way of accurately judging intelligence, or at least not developed so far.

 

[Do4600]

I believe most studies on the subject point to genetics having a significant role in things such as intelligence. However upbringing and educations do have a significant impact as well as the genetics are predispositions.

Genetics controls a good deal of the physical structure of the brain, but the actual content and order of the mind is controlled by the paths that are created between neurons.

People can develop specialized structures that enhance a portion of their minds. Daniel Tammet is a highly functional autistic who was born with synaesthesia and who became a savant after a series of violent seizures as a child. As result he can multiply five digit numbers together in his head nearly instantly and can become fluent in a language in a month or so. Daniel Tammet, however, isn't a genius, the structure of his brain gives him the ability to experience numbers in a way that we experience places. He experiences a number like 8,942 in the same way that we would experience a day in the park. This is different from the case of Stephen Hawking, who is able to perform complex astrophysics computations in his head, in the fact that Stephen Hawking taught himself to perform those computations by associating portions of equations with visual explanations. Unlike Tammet, Hawking has drawn understanding from those imagined visual calculations and has helped to reveal parts of the frontiers of human knowledge. This is the difference between an extreme genetic advantage and an extreme advantage created by chance.

I would argue that upbringing and education are simply factors that help to control chance in the same way that having an ace up your sleeve may help you win a single hand of poker. How can pure genetics explain the rise of a genius from an incredibly small farming town in 17th century Europe? If spontaneous mutation is the cause, why isn't that mutation reliably passed to off-spring? Is genius recessive?