What do feral children teach us about the development of IQ? (moved to Discussion)

[.Scott]

The only significant thing that I did not explicitly spell out in the OP is that when these feral children are returned back to human society, people have tried hard to socialize these feral children to the norms of society such as learning how to speak and understand human language and how to have proper hygiene, and how to hold a job so they can support themselves financially, and these efforts always fail. I did not mention the heroic efforts made to help feral children in the OP.

Up to a point, I do not discourage futile "heroic efforts". If nothing else, they allow the hero to recognize the futility. American society says that they need to attempt to hold a job before they qualify for Social Security benefits. This creates absurd, sometimes comical, but mostly harmless situations.

Some people think that IQ is determined strictly by genetics. My argument is not a straw man. I think feral children show that IQ is not determined strictly by genetics.

Clearly, it is not strictly genetics. If you are looking for "real discussion", perhaps you need to find a forum populated by people who think human intellect is only what they were born with. ;)
Sorry for spoiling your crusade with dispiriting agreement.

 

[Drakkith]

All anyone wants to talk about in this thread is the semantic issue of whether the word retard is a pejorative and whether or not IQ tests are a valid measure of intelligence. That is not really the question of this thread.

Well, you did use the term IQ in your original post, which refers to Intelligence Quotient, which is a score derived from a set of standardized tests. So you can't fault anyone for pointing out that measuring intelligence with IQ tests comes with a set of assumptions about the person taking the test, namely that they were raised in a society in which the things being measured are meaningful.

As for discussions on whether the word "retard" or "retarded" is appropriate, I think that we can solve that issue by just not using that word and not discussing it further.

 

[Drakkith]

My thesis does not rely on the scores of feral children on IQ tests. My thesis relies on the fact that it is self-evident that feral children stay retarded for life due to the behavior of adults in human society who were feral children. Adults who were feral children never learn human language, proper hygiene, or how to hold a job and support themselves financially.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you about this. It is of course true that an enormous amount of brain development takes place during childhood, and a child missing out on something like social interaction could severely handicap them for life in that area depending on how old they were and for how long they lacked it. Adults can go years or decades with no interaction with other people and then return to live a relatively 'normal' life in society. Children cannot.

 

[sevensages]

I don't think anyone is arguing with you about this. It is of course true that an enormous amount of brain development takes place during childhood, and a child missing out on something like social interaction could severely handicap them for life in that area depending on how old they were and for how long they lacked it. Adults can go years or decades with no interaction with other people and then return to live a relatively 'normal' life in society. Children cannot.

That is a very pithy post. Well done.

 

[Rive]

What do feral children teach us about the development of intelligence

Not much, I'm afraid.

Removing the IQ and other underspecified stuff from the equation, research still needs statistics to be meaningful. With statistics, comes some assumptions to make it meaningful. And one of those is numbers. Many.
One another is relevance.

Sporadic cases are good for anecdotes, stories, 'Aha!' moments and so, but won't make statistics.

About relevance - you can make a research about measuring specific skills and early motor development (scales and methods are needed, of course), for example, and by filtering through children and reducing the sample to relevant cases with similarities and specific differences, with still enough numbers for a statistics (thus, proof).

But it's difficult to work with individual cases where practically everything went wrong.

Even those old school guys around the dawn of psychoanalysis were careful enough to meticulously distinguish between case studies and the statistical background, and those times were soo less strict.

 

[sevensages]

I don't think anyone is arguing with you about this.

Please read Rive's post below. My thesis is not a straw man.

Seven sages: "What do feral children teach us about the development of intelligence?"

Not much, I'm afraid.

Removing the IQ and other underspecified stuff from the equation, research still needs statistics to be meaningful. With statistics, comes some assumptions to make it meaningful. And one of those is numbers. Many.
One another is relevance.

Sporadic cases are good for anecdotes, stories, 'Aha!' moments and so, but won't make statistics.

About relevance - you can make a research about measuring specific skills and early motor development (scales and methods are needed, of course), for example, and by filtering through children and reducing the sample to relevant cases with similarities and specific differences, with still enough numbers for a statistics (thus, proof).

But it's difficult to work with individual cases where practically everything went wrong.

Even those old school guys around the dawn of psychoanalysis were careful enough to meticulously distinguish between case studies and the statistical background, and those times were soo less strict.

 

[sevensages]

I don't think anyone is arguing with you about this. It is of course true that an enormous amount of brain development takes place during childhood, and a child missing out on something like social interaction could severely handicap them for life in that area depending on how old they were and for how long they lacked it. Adults can go years or decades with no interaction with other people and then return to live a relatively 'normal' life in society. Children cannot.

We (and most other people here agree) both agree that the normal human environment seems to be crucial to the development of the intelligence of humans in childhood. The fact that the normal human environment seems to be so important in developing intelligence in childhood makes me think that with the right knowledge, it would be scientifically possible for humans to create exceptionally good environments to raise intelligence even farther. That is one of the implications of the dismal outcomes of feral children. I consider that to be something that feral children teach us about IQ and intelligence.

 

[sevensages]

Not much, I'm afraid.

Removing the IQ and other underspecified stuff from the equation, research still needs statistics to be meaningful. With statistics, comes some assumptions to make it meaningful. And one of those is numbers. Many.
One another is relevance.

Sporadic cases are good for anecdotes, stories, 'Aha!' moments and so, but won't make statistics.

About relevance - you can make a research about measuring specific skills and early motor development (scales and methods are needed, of course), for example, and by filtering through children and reducing the sample to relevant cases with similarities and specific differences, with still enough numbers for a statistics (thus, proof).

But it's difficult to work with individual cases where practically everything went wrong.

Even those old school guys around the dawn of psychoanalysis were careful enough to meticulously distinguish between case studies and the statistical background, and those times were soo less strict.

That is all just your opinion.

The dismal outcomes of feral children are very well documented. Feral children that are out of contact with human society for many years ALWAYS wind up becoming intellectually disabled adults. I don't know what statistics you're looking for, but to just dismiss all the evidence that feral children invariably become intellectually disabled adults just because I did not provide any statistical analysis is foolish.

Below are the titles of some of the books that are my sources on feral children:

Savage Boys and Wild Girls: A History of Feral children by Michael Newton

Words and Things: An Introduction to Language by Roger Brown

The Wild Boy of Aveyron by Harlan Lane

The Wild Boy of Burundi: A Study of an Outcast Child by Harlan Lane and Richard Pillard

 

[berkeman]

We (and most other people here agree) both agree that the normal human environment seems to be crucial to the development of the intelligence of humans in childhood. The fact that the normal human environment seems to be so important in developing intelligence in childhood makes me think that with the right knowledge, it would be scientifically possible for humans to create exceptionally good environments to raise intelligence even farther.

Sure, that's pretty obvious. The issue is that it is hard to ensure that every child is born into an affluent family with the mother and father both having very high intelligence and are very motivated and accomplished professionally.

I know a few people where born into such situations, and for the most part they have also become affluent accomplished individuals. How do you propose to have the majority of newborns to be born into families like this?

 

[Drakkith]

The fact that the normal human environment seems to be so important in developing intelligence in childhood makes me think that with the right knowledge, it would be scientifically possible for humans to create exceptionally good environments to raise intelligence even farther.

Within limits, certainly. Where that limit is, I do not know.

 

[sevensages]

Within limits, certainly. Where that limit is, I do not know.

That statement I made is not something that I have ever heard or seen anyone else say or write. It's a profound statement about an enormously important issue. It's not a real mainstream view at all.

 

[berkeman]

It's not a real mainstream view at all.

Careful...

 

[sevensages]

Sure, that's pretty obvious.

It's not so obvious to people who don't know about the dismal outcomes of feral children, and the majority of the general population does not know about the dismal outcomes of feral children. A lot of people think that intelligence is only about genetics.

The issue is that it is hard to ensure that every child is born into an affluent family with the mother and father both having very high intelligence and are very motivated and accomplished professionally.

I know a few people where born into such situations, and for the most part they have also become affluent accomplished individuals. How do you propose to have the majority of newborns to be born into families like this?

To me, your question seems to rely on a premise that being born into an affluent family with the mother and the father both having very high intelligence and being very motivated and accomplished professionally is the key to raising the IQ of children by the environment. I don't necessarily agree with that premise. Nobody knows exactly how the environment determines human intelligence. I think that it's possible for a random baby that is born into, say, a working class family might have a better environment for increasing intelligence than a random baby born into an affluent environment.

There have been numerous twin studies done about this. What all psychologists agree on is that it is the nonshared environment that is important. So it's not ALL about affluence. Nobody really knows exactly what in the environment is so important. We just know from the dismal outcomes of feral children that it's the human environment that is important.

Edited to add:

I am going to re-type my quote, but this time I will put the key part in boldface font.

"The fact that the normal human environment seems to be so important in developing intelligence in childhood makes me think that with the right knowledge, it would be scientifically possible for humans to create exceptionally good environments to raise intelligence even farther."

It's about having the right knowledge. Nobody has the right knowledge right now. It's not about being born into an affluent family. It's about having the right knowledge of how to do this. The methods to do this might be very cheap and accessible to working class parents or perhaps even lower class parents. But nobody has the knowledge of how to increase intelligence by the environment right now. It's about knowledge, not money.

 

[berkeman]

To me, your question seems to rely on a premise that being born into an affluent family with the mother and the father both having very high intelligence and being very motivated and accomplished professionally is the key to raising the IQ of children by the environment. I don't necessarily agree with that premise.

My evidence for this is anecdotal through personal experience; that is true.

There have been numerous twin studies done about this. What all psychologists agree on is that it is the nonshared environment that is important.

Regardless of which forum your thread has landed in, you need to post links to peer-reviewed studies supporting these assertions of yours.

 

[sevensages]

My evidence for this is anecdotal through personal experience; that is true.


Regardless of which forum your thread has landed in, you need to post links to peer-reviewed studies supporting these assertions of yours.

I don't have peer reviewed studies. I'm not a psychologist. My knowledge about how the environment shapes IQ is based on books that I have read about intelligence. I created this thread because none of these books mentions feral children as evidence for the important of the environment. I had knowledge of feral children. And I had knowledge about intelligence. And I created this thread because I came up with the idea of combining these two distinct topics together. None of the books that I have read bout intelligence ever mentioned the implications of the dismal outcomes of feral children. So I thought i ought to create a thread about this.

The books that I have read that are just about intelligence in general (not about feral children) are the following:

Intelligence: All that matters by Stuart Richie

In the Know: Debunking 35 myths about Human Intelligence by Russell Warne

 

[berkeman]

I don't have peer reviewed studies.

Then this thread is done. You originally started this thread in the General Discussion forum (maybe to avoid the requirement in the technical forums for peer-reviewed sources), and it was moved briefly to the technical Biology forum to try to facilitate a technical discussion. That did not work so your thread was moved back to GD, but you keep trying to make scientific assertions without valid references, so this thread is done.

If you can find valid peer-reviewed journal articles on this subject that you want to discuss, send me a DM with those links so we can discuss a potential new thread start.