There is a brand new book on intelligence titled: Intelligence And How To Get It by Richard Nisbett, a University of Michigan psychology professor and proponent of 'the new environmentalism'.
(http://i43.tower.com/images/mm112157901/intelligence-how-get-it-richard-e-nisbett-hardcover-cover-art.jpg)
Here is an excerpted review from The New York Times Book Review:
Whether intelligence is largely determined by genetics or environment has long been hotly contested. Richard Nisbett weighs in forcefully and articulately, claiming that environmental conditions almost completely overwhelm the impact of genes. Certain skills and traits are rooted in genetics, but intelligence isn't one of them, he says. He deflates assertions that our mental limits are hard-wired at birth but he does proceed with due caution. He grants that I.Q. tests — which gauge both "fluid" intelligence (abstract reasoning skills) and "crystallized" intelligence (knowledge) — measure something real. They also measure something important: even within the same family, higher-I.Q. children go on to make more money than their less-bright siblings. However, Nisbett bridles at the hereditarian claim that I.Q. is 75 to 85 percent heritable; the real figure, he thinks, is less than 50 percent.
****
Although I have not read it yet I am a bit skeptical about this whole argument that nurturing teachers and involved parents are the dominant factors.
Based on your experiences and personal observations how confident are you that environmental influences can have a "huge effect" in determining a person's intellectual ability ?
Eric, have you read Ian Deary's Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction?
It's a very eloquently-written (and authoritative, given Deary's background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Deary)) introduction to the study of intelligence, what 'intelligence' as described by psychologists (vs. my proverbial neighbour) is, how it's measured, what its impact is, and how it changes as we grow older.
With all due respect, this might provide a more appropriate perspective to all the books and articles you often cite, discuss and are troubled over. :)
Hi Renfield,
Quote from: Renfield on April 02, 2009, 09:12:50 PMHave you read Ian Deary's Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction?
Yes, I am familiar with the OUP series and have the one on Spinoza by Roger Scruton. I'll see if I can find the Deary book this weekend.
QuoteIt's a very eloquently-written (and authoritative, given Deary's background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Deary)) introduction to the study of intelligence, what 'intelligence' as described by psychologists (vs. my proverbial neighbour) is, how it's measured, what its impact is, and how it changes as we grow older
I am glad to see from his website at least that he is a proponent of
g (the general intelligence factor)
QuoteWith all due respect, this might provide a more appropriate perspective to all the books and articles you often cite, discuss and are troubled over. :)
Well I thought this was a good one:
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
:)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 02, 2009, 08:12:41 PM
even within the same family, higher-I.Q. children go on to make more money than their less-bright siblings.
I gladly invite Nisbett in my country, to study and measure this most interesting phenomenon: that many intelligent people barely make their living while people whose intelligence brilliantly manifests itself by absence pile wealth upon wealth. ;D
Renfield,
By the way, do you think the upper limit of a person's intellectual ability is set by nature or is environment really a powerful factor ?
Intelligence may be partly genetic but is no doubt influenced by environment and upbringing. Other factors such as nutrition can influence it too; unfortunately, children who grow up with poor nutrition can have their mental development and intelligence stunted.
Having parents who provide mental stimulation in infancy and early childhood is also an important factor. Reading to children is known to be extremely helpful to the mental development of children.
However, I am extremely skeptical about measuring intelligence numerically, and have a lot of misgivings about labeling children in school before they have a chance to develop their minds.
Albert Einstein was apparently far from what was considered a brilliant student as a boy, for example.
And furthermore, I am extremely wary about using grades as a measure of the intelligence and aptitude of children and adolescents, not to mention college students.
Given the upper limit set by genes, environment has a huge potential contribution. For me the question is can the environment boost intelligence instead of suppress it? I think the answer is no. So with all the right inputs you can reach your full potential but you can't create new potential out of positive influences.
Quote from: drogulus on April 03, 2009, 02:05:04 PMGiven the upper limit set by genes, environment has a huge potential contribution. For me the question is can the environment boost intelligence instead of suppress it? I think the answer is no. So with all the right inputs you can reach your full potential but you can't create new potential out of positive influences.
Ernie,
Did you read this piece:
America's Most Overrated Product:
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm
What do you make of it ?
Also, do you agree with the comments Mr. Douglas makes here in response to that article:
"No surprise or shock whatsoever. Merely another ineluctable consequence of our mindlessly equalitarian postmodern culture. Since the Sixties, a college "education" after graduation has, for most high school students, taken the place of a saner era's far more sensible and hugely more useful vocational school education; an education that would actually prepare most high school students for a life's work more suited to their intellectual capabilities, and of far more benefit to society as a whole. As it largely was in saner eras, a college education is, or ought to be, an undertaking reserved for a society's intellectual elite exclusively irrespective of that elite's ability to pay which last was, sadly, not often the case even in those saner eras the availability of scholarships notwithstanding. Also not surprisingly, colleges themselves have exploited our culture's mindlessly equalitarian postmodern idiocy in respect of a college education for all"
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 04, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Ernie,
Did you read this piece:
America's Most Overrated Product:
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm
What do you make of it ?
Also, do you agree with the comments Mr. Douglas makes here in response to that article:
"No surprise or shock whatsoever. Merely another ineluctable consequence of our mindlessly equalitarian postmodern culture. Since the Sixties, a college "education" after graduation has, for most high school students, taken the place of a saner era's far more sensible and hugely more useful vocational school education; an education that would actually prepare most high school students for a life's work more suited to their intellectual capabilities, and of far more benefit to society as a whole. As it largely was in saner eras, a college education is, or ought to be, an undertaking reserved for a society's intellectual elite exclusively irrespective of that elite's ability to pay which last was, sadly, not often the case even in those saner eras the availability of scholarships notwithstanding. Also not surprisingly, colleges themselves have exploited our culture's mindlessly equalitarian postmodern idiocy in respect of a college education for all"
The author asks "What must be done to improve undergraduate education?". I'm not sure this is the right question. Perhaps it's up to the students to prepare themselves. My guess is that good students get the most out of the instructors. The author is probably right that too many students have been sold on the idea of 4 year academic degrees. It's just that for some reason this country doesn't think much of vocational or technical education. That's really too bad, because I think some students would really thrive if they didn't have to understand everything great that's been written and done. It may be elitist to say so, but most people aren't well suited to that kind of Olympian perspective on the world. And it's a shame that people are encouraged to hold themselves in contempt because what they really want to do is build or fix things.
I'm
soooo sick of over-the-top '60s bashing that I might stop doing it myself.
:o ::) So Mr. Douglas has a point, even though I hate him.
:)
QuoteThat's really too bad, because I think some students would really thrive if they didn't have to understand everything great that's been written and done. It maybe elitist to say so, but most people aren't well suited to that kind of Olympian perspective on the world. And it's a shame that people are encouraged to hold themselves in contempt because what they really want to do is build or fix things.
True...
Quote from: drogulus on April 04, 2009, 03:09:07 PMIt's just that for some reason this country doesn't think much of vocational or technical education.
I think the reason is very simple:
In our society university is "first-class" and vocational education is "second-class"
:-[
I think intelligence has to do with a person's innate drive to learn...about all sorts of things. If a person is not self-motivated to learn, all other attempts, including those in the classroom, will be somewhat futile. Natural curiosity or "brightness" can lead to what adults now percieve as bad behavior, and these kids are subsequently drugged into zombie states. Think of how many geniuses in the past would have been completely ruined by modern society...and think of how many we are ruining every day with defeatist diagnoses and mind-numbing medications.
There is undoubtedly a genetic aspect to intelligence from my observations. But people begin to show their intelligence at different stages sometimes, so its hard to really pin down.
Quote from: drogulus on April 04, 2009, 03:09:07 PMIt may be elitist to say so, but most people aren't well suited to that kind of Olympian perspective on the world.
But why is elitism wrong ? I have no problem acknowledging that there exists a cognitive elite in every society. The important thing is not to equate that with human excellence or virtue.
And let's face it: a university curriculum demands above all that a person be able to
grasp abstract concepts and
analyze all kinds of texts. Most people simply don't have those cognitive gifts.
I sure as hell don't and yet I was pushed and humiliated all throughout high school by supposedly well-meaning teachers who subscribed to the egalitarian nonsense that Mr. Douglas talks about.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 04, 2009, 04:56:52 PM
But why is elitism wrong ? I have no problem acknowledging that there exists a cognitive elite in every society. The important thing is not to equate that with human excellence or virtue.
And let's face it: a university curriculum demands above all that a person be able to grasp abstract concepts and analyze all kinds of texts. Most people simply don't have those cognitive gifts.
I sure as hell don't and yet I was pushed and humiliated all throughout high school by supposedly well-meaning teachers who subscribed to the egalitarian nonsense that Mr. Douglas talks about.
Formal education is an attempt to bring out and maximize a person's intellectual ability. I do agree that not everyone is cut out for it, and people may want to do work in a field that doesn't need all this mumbo jumbo. However, intelligence is something you carry with yourself throughout life, and can be a sort of pillar to fall back on in all sorts of situations.
Neither elitism nor egalitarianism is inherently wrong. There are good and bad versions of both. We ought to find a way to help everyone reach their potential, but if we can't then we have to help those who have the most potential reach theirs. This isn't easy to reconcile with the smiley-face version of egalitarianism that says everyone is equal not just in law but in life.
Education will always be a lifeboat phenomenon, and the best way to deal with it is to have other lifeboats ready to take on those who are thrown out of boats they should never have boarded in the first place. We have to care about everyone in a way that doesn't make too plain the fact that we can't care about everyone in the same way.
So, how do i get more intelligence? I need it to fight the pinko commie relativism which as been making rounds in this forum.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 05, 2009, 07:18:31 AM
So, how do i get more intelligence? I need it to fight the pinko commie relativism which as been making rounds in this forum.
Aren't there fora for people like you? Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, say (with a side of Sean Hannity).
Quote from: nicht schleppend on April 05, 2009, 08:19:20 AM
Aren't there fora for people like you? Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, say (with a side of Sean Hannity).
Michael Savage is great for many reasons other than politics. I'm a regular listener, and I think Josquin might find something he likes there. Coulter and Hannity, on the other hand, are...comprimised. Thats all I'll say about that.
Ernie,
Quote from: drogulus on April 03, 2009, 02:05:04 PMGiven the upper limit set by genes, environment has a huge potential contribution.
But do you think this potential contribution largely comes to an end once a child reaches the age of 5 or 6 ?
And do you still agree with the following:
"While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence. Like it or not, general cognitive ability (g) exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance. If you do not have a lot of g when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have a lot of it. No change in the educational system will change that hard fact"
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 05, 2009, 11:26:38 AM
Ernie,
But do you think this potential contribution largely comes to an end once a child reaches the age of 5 or 6 ?
I don't know. Probably the greater part of it is in early childhood.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 05, 2009, 11:26:38 AM
Ernie,
And do you still agree with the following:
"While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence. Like it or not, general cognitive ability (g) exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance. If you do not have a lot of g when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have a lot of it. No change in the educational system will change that hard fact"
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Though the author here is probably working from facts while I'm just extrapolating from rather safe assumptions. While I'd like to think there's a "Krell brain boost" out there, I don't think there is.
(http://www.umich.edu/%7Eumfandsf/film/img/forbidden-krell-iq.jpg)
Morbius! The big machine, 8,000 cubic miles of clystron relays, enough power for a whole population of creative geniuses, operated by remote control, Morbius... operated by the electo-magnetic impulses of individual Krell brains... I always wanted to have one of those.
;D
Quote from: drogulus on April 03, 2009, 02:05:04 PMGiven the upper limit set by genes, environment has a huge potential contribution. For me the question is can the environment boost intelligence instead of suppress it? I think the answer is no. So with all the right inputs you can reach your full potential but you can't create new potential out of positive influences.
Speaking of...
Here is a very interesting study:
Key To Higher I.Q. Revealed:A new type of brain-imaging scanner shows that intelligence is strongly influenced by the quality of the brain's axons, or wiring that sends signals throughout the brain. The faster the signaling, the faster the brain processes information. And, since the integrity of the brain's wiring is influenced by genes, the genes we inherit play a far greater role in intelligence than was previously thought. Genes appear to influence intelligence by determining how well nerve axons are encased in myelin — the fatty sheath of "insulation" that coats our axons and allows for fast signaling bursts in our brains. The thicker the myelin, the faster the nerve impulses.
http://scientificcomputing.com/news-ds-Key-to-Higher-IQ-Revealed-040309.aspx
Most liberals are going to become miserable in the 21st century.
Why ?
Because 21st-century science is going to bring a tidal change in our scientific understanding of what makes humans tick, and it will spill over into every crevice of political and cultural life.
*****
There are cases of high musical intelligence arising where there is no history of music in the family and the child is given active discouragement in this field. Here the intelligence seems to be derived neither from a genetic nor an environmental source.
I'm not sure about the claim that those with greater intelligence necessarily earn more than those with less. You can be highly intelligent and not be able to get a high-paying job. I'm this this is true of many people. A highly trained musician in a symphony orchestra doesn't earn anywhere near as much as a Rock star,for example.
I knew I had forgotten at least one thread I was due to respond in, a few weeks ago...
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 03, 2009, 01:22:36 AM
Hi Renfield,
[...]
Well I thought this was a good one:
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
It is indeed: Gottfredson is an important researcher in the field.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 03, 2009, 04:54:17 AM
By the way, do you think the upper limit of a person's intellectual ability is set by nature or is environment really a powerful factor ?
By virtue of my professional and personal choices, at least where psychology is concerned, I do not 'think' (in that sense): I examine evidence.
However, if I
were to 'think', I would first ask where this concept of such a 'limit' comes from, before opining on its possible origin. ;)
And I would also insist on clarifying that you are (or must be) referring to measurable mental capacity;
not overall 'coping skills in life'.
Now, I will still opine that most of what is discussed in the present thread that purports
not to be 'opinion' (and might thus be potentially useful for something other than curiosity over others' views) is not new.
More so, it is not particularly exciting, either, in so far as it does not give any particularly useful answers or food for thought beyond providing grounds for casting off-topic political aspersions on views that (at least in so far as the
scientific sources are concerned) are intended to understand how something works, viz. human intelligence differences, rather than what they imply for society and its values. Arguing over elitism stemming from research that is not complete is reminiscent of arguing over the problem of taxation of intergalactic trade routes, and its implications for social equality: it assumes too much. What if there aren't any such routes, and people use wormholes, instead?
What if the sociopolitical issue is a conjunct to the results from the study of intelligence, in this discussion, rather than their implication? Of course, I am not saying this discussion is prohibited: but I would want there to be some thought on
why it's taking place.
That having been said, my woefully presumptuous pontification over, here is an extremely important source for anyone interested in
intelligence:
Neisser, U. (ed.), 1996. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.
American Psychologist, Vol. 51, 2, 77-101. (http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~deak/classes/EDS115/Neisser_Intell_AmPsych_96.pdf)
(Report of a Task Force Established by the American Psychological Association.)
Without exaggeration, this is the single most authoritative document published on human intelligence, from a scientific source. :)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 19, 2009, 12:26:43 PM
There are cases of high musical intelligence arising where there is no history of music in the family . . .
(* raises hand *)
Quote from: Superhorn on April 19, 2009, 12:59:11 PM
I'm not sure about the claim that those with greater intelligence necessarily earn more than those with less. You can be highly intelligent and not be able to get a high-paying job.
Quoted for Truth.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 19, 2009, 12:26:43 PM
There are cases of high musical intelligence arising where there is no history of music in the family and the child is given active discouragement in this field. Here the intelligence seems to be derived neither from a genetic nor an environmental source.
There may be no history of physics in the family in the case of physicists. I don't think that means there is no genetic cause. What disguises the genetic input is that the more deviation from the mean you get the more likely is the regression from that peak. The children of geniuses are not often geniuses themselves. High intelligence does run in families, at least for a while, but very high intelligence doesn't. It skips around, probably because several genes located in different places have to turn up simultaneously, like a straight flush.
:D
Eric's threads could use e/n tags.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=e%2Fn
Quote from: drogulus on April 22, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
There may be no history of physics in the family in the case of physicists. I don't think that means there is no genetic cause. What disguises the genetic input is that the more deviation from the mean you get the more likely is the regression from that peak. The children of geniuses are not often geniuses themselves. High intelligence does run in families, at least for a while, but very high intelligence doesn't. It skips around, probably because several genes located in different places have to turn up simultaneously, like a straight flush. :D
I'm inclined to agree. That is why I qualified my statement with the word 'seems'. In any case in historical cases it is generally difficult to trace an extended family tree. All that can be said is that there are no known antecedents.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on April 24, 2009, 02:09:33 PM
I'm inclined to agree. That is why I qualified my statement with the word 'seems'. In any case in historical cases it is generally difficult to trace an extended family tree. All that can be said is that there are no known antecedents.
Yes, and also we should be a little bit careful about assigning "musical" and "mathematical" to variants of genius as though these were types of intelligence. What I think is likely is that there are components of intelligence which in some permutations almost demand that a particular use be put to the resulting aptitudes (math and/or chess), and more commonly there are mixes that would accommodate many possibilities, which might produce a super-generalist like a Da Vinci (a different rare permutation). Since geniuses are IMO just like us but more they will have characteristics that are familiar in the rest of us.