- #1
mattattack
- 18
- 0
This is a fairly taboo and controversial field. I've been hearing from many studies on intelligence, that it is highly heritable. Identical twins raised independent of each other have around a 0.75 relation in IQ tests. Siblings raised together have a .45 relation. What makes it worse is that people below a certain IQ in physics/math majors don't stand a chance. Is intelligence really set in stone, and determined from your birth? I'm inclined to think so, but I think there is still more to the picture that we still don't know.
What about neuroplasticity? Is it not the case that the human brain evolved in order learn and to solve complex problems, which could reshape itself, which was vital for our survival? Then why is IQ so heritable? Is it because small differences in genes can cause a huge IQ gap in different people over time? I don't think anyone has thought of this, but what if our genes only determine what sort of stimulation we like, thus effecting our intelligence? For example: There are two boys, both aged 10, their names are Peter and Bob. Peter likes collecting sticks, he is infatuated by them, but Bob is interested in solving maths problems, he is also infatuated by what he does. So, since Peter's hobby isn't very intellectually taxing, he won't develop the mental skills in order to be a mathematician, thus he may end up with a low IQ. Bob on the other hand is seeking out difficult stimulus, and will probably end up with a high IQ. So what if what we seek to stimulate ourselves with, is what determines our IQ, not genetics themselves? What if genetics merely makes us more inclined to seek out one thing instead of another, which explains the correlation with IQ and genetics.
I'll set up a causal link here:
x = how intellectual taxing what a person seeks to stimulate themselves with.
IQ = x
IQ =/= genetics
x = genetics
So IQ does not equal genetics, but x = genetics. So what I'm saying is genetics indirectly effects intelligence, it's not a direct causal relationship between them like what I've been hearing. Like in formal logic, correlation does not = causation, it could be a whole other factor like I've said here. So, if it is the case that genetics determines what we are inclined to stimulate ourselves with (instead of genetics directly effecting intelligence), can someone which has a low IQ, change their IQ if they were to focus on doing maths or high level thinking activities?
I really do hope that genetics doesn't determine IQ to a large degree (because IQ and academic ability are closely linked), because I'm going to university this year doing computer science, and it will be horrible to find out if there is some sort of genetic predisposition I have that will stop me from getting decent grades. I had a mixed track record in high school (went well in some subjects, bad in others), mostly because of poor study habits, which I am looking to change.
What about neuroplasticity? Is it not the case that the human brain evolved in order learn and to solve complex problems, which could reshape itself, which was vital for our survival? Then why is IQ so heritable? Is it because small differences in genes can cause a huge IQ gap in different people over time? I don't think anyone has thought of this, but what if our genes only determine what sort of stimulation we like, thus effecting our intelligence? For example: There are two boys, both aged 10, their names are Peter and Bob. Peter likes collecting sticks, he is infatuated by them, but Bob is interested in solving maths problems, he is also infatuated by what he does. So, since Peter's hobby isn't very intellectually taxing, he won't develop the mental skills in order to be a mathematician, thus he may end up with a low IQ. Bob on the other hand is seeking out difficult stimulus, and will probably end up with a high IQ. So what if what we seek to stimulate ourselves with, is what determines our IQ, not genetics themselves? What if genetics merely makes us more inclined to seek out one thing instead of another, which explains the correlation with IQ and genetics.
I'll set up a causal link here:
x = how intellectual taxing what a person seeks to stimulate themselves with.
IQ = x
IQ =/= genetics
x = genetics
So IQ does not equal genetics, but x = genetics. So what I'm saying is genetics indirectly effects intelligence, it's not a direct causal relationship between them like what I've been hearing. Like in formal logic, correlation does not = causation, it could be a whole other factor like I've said here. So, if it is the case that genetics determines what we are inclined to stimulate ourselves with (instead of genetics directly effecting intelligence), can someone which has a low IQ, change their IQ if they were to focus on doing maths or high level thinking activities?
I really do hope that genetics doesn't determine IQ to a large degree (because IQ and academic ability are closely linked), because I'm going to university this year doing computer science, and it will be horrible to find out if there is some sort of genetic predisposition I have that will stop me from getting decent grades. I had a mixed track record in high school (went well in some subjects, bad in others), mostly because of poor study habits, which I am looking to change.