The Irrational Side?

[Quiddity]

I was very confused for a moment there, trying to figure out where in that article you found the Yale quote.

I agree that there is a lot of quarrel on the topic. Part of the problem---as many of the articles point out---is defining intelligence. We've been talking a little about that here in this thread as well. When we say "intelligence", do we refer to mathematical, logical, lingual, emotional, social, or other abilities? What, biologically, is happening in an individual to make them more or less mathematically, logically, lingually, emotionally, or socially adept? When studying the link between intelligence and genes, what exactly should researchers be examining? Whether or not an individual and their close family members can solve a complex math problem? How quickly they can understand and choose the next image in a visual pattern? Whether or not they have perfect pitch? Whether or not they have a similar brain structure or something in common that influences their intellectual abilities?


Yet there has been some research done---admittedly in a very fragmented way---suggesting that some of these elements that are believed to attribute to "intelligence" are hereditary. I think the studies of identical twins raised in different environments are the most compelling.

I do in fact think some of these elements could be attributed to "intelligence" in whatever form you define it. What I deny (which I haven't found conclusive evidence for and you even caused me to go back to my old University and ask my professor ) is that an assemblage/collection of molecules/atoms can be identified to be the cause of Intelligence. But rather proper function is the root cause. If proper function is the root cause then it is alterable (ie get more sleep, eat right etc.) and any identification of which are innate and which are not will only have will have far reaching implications for social and moral value.

 

[Runt]

I do in fact think some of these elements could be attributed to "intelligence" in whatever form you define it. What I deny (which I haven't found conclusive evidence for and you even caused me to go back to my old University and ask my professor ) is that an assemblage/collection of molecules/atoms can be identified to be the cause of Intelligence. But rather proper function is the root cause. If proper function is the root cause then it is alterable (ie get more sleep, eat right etc.) and any identification of which are innate and which are not will only have will have far reaching implications for social and moral value.

Do you think, though, that there has been ample evidence to support that?

It seems to me that the only possible way for genetics NOT to play a part in intelligence would be for there to be no biological basis whatsoever to intelligence. So much of the physiology of a living organism is dependent upon gene expression, and if intelligence is considered a biological phenomena, then it only seems conceivable that genetics would play a role. Thus, because the brain is a biological organ with genes in each and every cell making up its structure, intelligence could not have much---if anything---to do with the brain.

It also seems to me that if genes were not to play a role in intelligence---if environment were the only factor---then individuals who are raised in similar environments would have similar, if not identical, IQs. Even in immediate families this is not the case. Yes, there are more similarities between the IQs of individuals within a family than without, but a coorelation should be seen elsewhere between environment and IQ. Yet from personal experience, I KNOW that people of similar backgrounds, family structures, class, religion, race, gender, age, and education can have VASTLY different intellectual capabilities. How do you account for this in your hypothesis that intelligence is influenced solely by environment?

 

[Quiddity]

Do you think, though, that there has been ample evidence to support that?

It's too early to tell in my opinion. Until they have a genetic configuration that is no doubt connected to intelligence, I won't hold my breath. The tests that I read in the articles provided were too vague and could be explained by some other biological phenomena.

It seems to me that the only possible way for genetics NOT to play a part in intelligence would be for there to be no biological basis whatsoever to intelligence.

But isn't there a difference here? One is specifically coded into who we are and it can not change. The other is specifically connected to the logistics of our biological make-up. This can certainly change and it's just as hard to catch. That is exactly what the debate between neurobiologist is all about.

So much of the physiology of a living organism is dependent upon gene expression, and if intelligence is considered a biological phenomena, then it only seems conceivable that genetics would play a role.

It's certainly conceivable. But I'm certainly not rooting for it. The impact it would have on our society can't be good.

Thus, because the brain is a biological organ with genes in each and every cell making up its structure, intelligence could not have much---if anything---to do with the brain.
It also seems to me that if genes were not to play a role in intelligence---if environment were the only factor---then individuals who are raised in similar environments would have similar, if not identical, IQs.

Not at all. A person's biological logistics is dependant upon how they take care of themselves, enviroment, and any other factors that affect health and well being.

Even in immediate families this is not the case. Yes, there are more similarities between the IQs of individuals within a family than without, but a coorelation should be seen elsewhere between environment and IQ. Yet from personal experience, I KNOW that people of similar backgrounds, family structures, class, religion, race, gender, age, and education can have VASTLY different intellectual capabilities. How do you account for this in your hypothesis that intelligence is influenced solely by environment?

I already did above.

Enjoying this dialogue, thanks.

~Victor

 

[Runt]

I've enjoyed our discussion as well, Victor. However, I think at this point we just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Sunstone]

Agreed......But how far do you think tolerance should be stretched?

I think when you have a group that comes together for a specific agenda, then the agenda or purpose determines how far tolerance should be "stretched". To take a simple example: Four friends get together to play poker. The one who wants to play bridge instead should tread lightly when suggesting bridge, shouldn't he? But when a community gets together to discuss a water supply issue, shouldn't any opinion on the issue be tolerated?

Diversity of thought is apparently encouraged in some cultures. I recall what an anthropologist who lived with the Hopi said of a community meeting. A community leader stood up, laid out three ways of solving the problem the community had met over, and then apologized for only offering three alternatives. The anthropologist remarked that in other meetings it was typical for 8 or 11 alternatives to be laid out. This contrasts, I think, with the general Western tendency to promote only one's own position.

 

[Quiddity]

I think when you have a group that comes together for a specific agenda, then the agenda or purpose determines how far tolerance should be "stretched". To take a simple example: Four friends get together to play poker. The one who wants to play bridge instead should tread lightly when suggesting bridge, shouldn't he? But when a community gets together to discuss a water supply issue, shouldn't any opinion on the issue be tolerated?

Diversity of thought is apparently encouraged in some cultures. I recall what an anthropologist who lived with the Hopi said of a community meeting. A community leader stood up, laid out three ways of solving the problem the community had met over, and then apologized for only offering three alternatives. The anthropologist remarked that in other meetings it was typical for 8 or 11 alternatives to be laid out. This contrasts, I think, with the general Western tendency to promote only one's own position.

Excellent! Gracias...