[Closed] Intelligence and personality as a hereditary characteristics

Eugenics is [url= http://www.hgalert.org/topics/behavGenetics/Genes%20and%20IQ%20research.pdf ]a sticky issue[/url]

tl dr?
amz at work

I’ve been working my way through several years of ‘The Life Scientific’

Great series and along with In Our Time nothing better to make you realise how little you know.

Im sure it was recently proven that intelligence is passed down from the x chromosomes more than y. I can't remember where I read that but I'll try to find out.

Assuming we're talking about IQ and not general knowledge. They're 2 very different things.

There's lots of theories about intelligence and personality. An often overlooked part is the link between high intelligence and poor social skills. It's not always the case but there are proven links.
If you imagine intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is low and 10 is Einstein, many people on the top end are also on the autistic spectrum. For many this doesn't hold them back but in sever cases people can struggle with basic communication and social skills making it difficult to make full use of their capabilities.

Eugenics is a sticky issue

Well for sure it is, but doing research into hereditary characteristics is genetics and categorically not eugenics. There is a reason the words are different.

IQ is a very dodgy measure. Kalahari bushmen supposedly score in the 50s.

If I ever get stuck in the Kalahari with Steven Hawkins and a bushman I'll be doing what the bushman tells me.

[img] ?imwidth=450[/img]

[quote=5thElefant ]IQ is a very dodgy measure. Kalahari bushmen supposedly score in the 50s.
If I ever get stuck in the Kalahari with Steven Hawkins and a bushman I'll be doing what the bushman tells me.

I doubt the bushman would be much help at telling you which knife to use at a formal dinner, or even how to survive in Greenland though and the advice they'd give you about the Kalahari has very little to do with intelligence.

IQ is a very dodgy measure. Kalahari bushmen supposedly score in the 50s.

I'm not sure why that piece of information, be it true or not, makes IQ a dodgy measure?

I'm not sure why that piece of information, be it true or not, makes IQ a dodgy measure?

ask yourself? when was the last time you saw a Kalahari Bushman do a TED talk?

exactly.

*this is not my wheelhouse

[i]Im sure it was recently proven that intelligence is passed down from the x chromosomes more than y. I can't remember where I read that but I'll try to find out.

Assuming we're talking about IQ and not general knowledge. They're 2 very different things.[/i]

I would've thought, from a brief preview it's about general intelligence and ability to learn. IQ and general knowledge are all wrapped up in that.
My theory (from the university of life, as they say on match.com) is that everyone is different.

I'm not sure why that piece of information, be it true or not, makes IQ a dodgy measure?

[quote=mjsmke ]Im sure it was recently proven that intelligence is passed down from the x chromosomes more than y. I can't remember where I read that but I'll try to find out.
Assuming we're talking about IQ and not general knowledge. They're 2 very different things.
There's lots of theories about intelligence and personality. An often overlooked part is the link between high intelligence and poor social skills. It's not always the case but there are proven links.
If you imagine intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is low and 10 is Einstein, many people on the top end are also on the autistic spectrum. For many this doesn't hold them back but in sever cases people can struggle with basic communication and social skills making it difficult to make full use of their capabilities.

Yeah, my intelligence is above average and I definitely have autistic tendencies.

Assuming we're talking about IQ and not general knowledge.

General knowledge is passed down the Y Chromosome, its closely linked to the genes for ear hair, farting and an inability to know who anyone is on Strictly or Celebrity Masterchef.

My theory (from the university of life, as they say on match.com) is that everyone is different.

I'm not

[img] [/img]

be it true or not, makes IQ a dodgy measure?

It's dodgy in that it's a single personality metric. I know lots of very intelligent people who are almost entirely useless, and a fair few half wits who can turn their hand to anything

When you say that you know them - do you mean you consider them to be intelligent (or they are broadly held to be intelligent)? Or do you mean that you know their IQ score?

I've never done an IQ test, or been asked to do one or asked to do one* and I don't think I know anyone who has or has told me their IQ or asked mine - so it doesn't seem to be a measure that matters much in day to day life.

I could make the the same observations about people who are highly academic being impractical or vice versa but i don't know anything about those peoples IQ.

* apparently eating the pencils and repeatedly throwing my own shit at my reflection in mirrors means I fail some sort of pre-qualifiction.

I've come across some very intelligent people with **** all common sense or the ability to function outside of what they specialise in. Make of that what you will

What is it that that you think an IQ test is a measure of?

I've come across some very intelligent people with **** all common sense or the ability to function outside of what they specialise in

thats the definition of 'specialism' isn't it?

No mention of the title of this thread, and whether grammar should in any way be an element of IQ testing?

What is it that that you think an IQ test is a measure of?

Easy! It's a measure of one's ability to do IQ tests.
What do I win?

I dunno, but genuinely just doing random things from say cooking to changing a plug. Is it that they haven't had to do such practical things because they are special? Also general common sense in how to get round every day problems.

I've come across some very intelligent people with * all common sense or the ability to function outside of what they specialise in.

As my best mate (who's a very practical paramedic) says, very accurately, about his older brother, who's got Masters and PHD's coming out of his arse...

[i]"He could calculate how many beans were in a tin, but he couldn't tell you how to open the *er"[/i]

😆

If you imagine intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is low and 10 is Einstein

I've come across some very intelligent people with * all common sense or the ability to function outside of what they specialise in. Make of that what you will

[OT but can I safely use a quotation with *, or do I need to replace the asterisks with a swear word?]

[i]I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as ‘common sense’.[/i]

What do you mean by "thing"?

Is this a wind up?

It certainly sounds alot like this guy.....

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as ‘common sense’.

[OT but can I safely use a quotation with ****, or do I need to replace the asterisks with a swear word?]

Try changing your opinion about common sense.

My Mother (88, bless her) started to keep her mind “fresh” by undertaking all sorts of tests via Cambridge Uni (where my sister is a Maths professor) and Mum was set all sorts of mind challenges, this was 12 years ago now.
So there were many mind challenges from the IQ tests and various other challenges that were designed specifically for Alzheimers, and other mind degenerative complaints.
She learned every problem faced had a sequence to it being solved, yes those problems were varied and vast. Over the years she learned to fool IQ test portfolio quite easily, she said it was one of the more simple tests to break and answer quite easily.
Obviously no test is infallible, but the IQ test has been proven as a flawed way of measuring intelligence.

What do you mean by “thing”?

[img] [/img]

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as ‘common sense’.

What do you mean by "thing"?

Like a duck is a thing, but not a duck. I suppose I mean that people do not have common sense without prior experience.

That intelligence often depends on the context.

Easy! It's a measure of one's ability to do IQ tests.

Obviously no test is infallible, but the IQ test has been proven as a flawed way of measuring intelligence.

These are not the responses the OP is looking for.

gauss1777 - Member

If you imagine intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is low and 10 is Einstein

Why start at 1 and not 0? Also I reckon Einstein was somewhere in the 9’s rather than a 10.

I am very good at doing IQ tests usually scoring in the 145 - 150 range. I believe my real intelligence quotient would be more 120 - 125 ish

I wasn’t aware they gave you bonus points for arguing black was white

gauss1777 - Member
If you imagine intelligence on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is low and 10 is Einstein
Why start at 1 and not 0? Also I reckon Einstein was somewhere in the 9’s rather than a 10.

So your disruptive then

I am very good at doing IQ tests usually scoring in the 145 - 150 range. I believe my real intelligence quotient would be more 120 - 125 ish

So, not really a true genius, just very superior? In fact so smart, you not only score really high, you can even calculate and apply a suitable correction but ensure your IQ test is accurate?

Thanks for letting us know. 🙄

It’s actually a pretty interesting insight into how his mind works

Don’t confuse knowledge and intelligence - or experience which may or may not build knowledge. Or understanding which is different again.

In life you probably do best if you have a mix of all of these.

And confidence.

And good hands.

And balance.

Possibly speed and strength.

And determination

Knowledge is what you know and remember .
Intelligence is what you can work out with the information provided.

That's why most IQ questions are visual with random shapes. You don't need prior knowledge about something specific to work out the question.

Of course both intelligence and general knowledge go hand in hand for a lot of situations.

Think of a computer with a hard drive and processor. The hard drive is like general knowledge and the processor is like IQ. Both are needed to function but every machine has different levels.

But that's a flawed argument even a simple processor can do an apparently complex calculation if that what it has been shown/trained/programmed to do. Same as someone who has seen played practised with the iq test type questions will score highly.
It's why we train our pupils to answer exam questions and the best to understand them.

gobuchul

I simply have a the ability to score well on IQ testing - and VRQ which is a similar measure but more verbal less mathematical. It does not make me a genius. It makes me good at doing IQ tests I know I am not in the genius range that I score on. But given my scholastic achievements I would have thought a figure around 120 would be reasonable. ( good schools qualifications, coped fine with a degree, struggled with more obtuse stuff)

Its just to point out that all IQ tests measure is how good you are at doing IQ tests

Same as someone who has seen played practised with the iq test type questions will score highly.

I'm actually one of the cleverest lads in my area, and I've made a bit of a name for myself.

It all started several years ago when our local newspaper took to Facebook. I became famous for finding, and correcting, grammatical errors in the articles that they published.

I'd write it sarcastically in the comments.... I think you'll find it's spelt 'achievement.'

I also invented a new super efficient payment method that's now used in every local shop. When your shopping total came to, for example, £4.12; instead of handing over a five pound note like usual, I persuaded people to hand over the note plus twelve pence. This meant they'd get a whole one pound coin as their change which is of benefit to both the shop and the customer.

Some of the smaller independent retailers struggled to grasp it initially, but they are full of praise for it now.

Of course, being so intelligent does have it's downsides; I went to the cinema the other night and the lady refused to sell me a ticket as she said the film was beneath me and I just wouldn't find it enjoyable. I ended up having to go home and read the Encyclopedia like I do almost every evening 🙁

I also invented a new super efficient payment method that's now used in every local shop. When your shopping total came to, for example, £4.12; instead of handing over a five pound note like usual, I persuaded people to hand over the note plus twelve pence. This meant they'd get a whole one pound coin as their change which is of benefit to both the shop and the customer.

But given my scholastic achievements I would have thought a figure around 120 would be reasonable. ( good schools qualifications, coped fine with a degree, struggled with more obtuse stuff)

😀

"I TJ: We need to talk about Jeremy."

Are you sure your not a new Steve Coogan character?

Am I missing something here?

Your sarcasm detector?

Am I missing something here?
Your sarcasm detector?

See, I did wonder, but I find sarcasm much harder to detect in text. The post didn’t seem too dissimilar to TJ’s. (Apologies for any offence).

Whats your issue Gobuchal? I was merely trying to use my own experience to show how limited IQ tests are as a measure of intelligence

Anyway - to shift it back to the OP

Its also a known effect that you get regression to the mean. IE two parents of 120 IQ are likely to have a child of 115 IQ. simlarly to parents of 85 IQ tend to have children 95 IQ.

High intelligence seems to be a a different effect Perhaps a mutation?

I can ride a bike with no handlebars

Isn't this one of those things where it's very hard to separate out nature vs. nurture? The brain, especially the young brain, is very plastic - so parental behaviour will influence the child and affect how their brain grows.

The analogy with a computer is a really bad one - the human brain is nothing like a computer.

The analogy with a computer is a really bad one - the human brain is nothing like a computer.

It was just an example of the difference between knowledge and intelligence and how both are needed.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

Whats your issue Gobuchal?

Apologies. Just taking the piss a bit.

I'm sure you are a really smart and decent bloke in "real" life.

But sometimes your apparent lack of self awareness when you post on here is extremely funny.

Posts like "exactly - I was tested a lot at school and also out of school." added as an edit. 😀

No worries. a bit savage for pisstaking. 🙂

bencooper - Member
Isn't this one of those things where it's very hard to separate out nature vs. nurture? The brain, especially the young brain, is very plastic - so parental behaviour will influence the child and affect how their brain grows.

Well to make sure we know how about some tests, collect 20 of the first born and raise them in isolation, then 20 second born, a few sets of identical twins should make some handy control subjects, of course we would need to

gobuchul - Member
...So, not really a true genius, just very superior?...

Of all the various talents a person can have, eg musical ability, athletic performance, strength, etc, the one that must not be mentioned is intelligence.

Otherwise the mean regress into nastiness... 🙂

We can measure musical ability, athletic performance etc very well. Intelligence is in some ways a little more abstract and doesn't always translate well to other things - it's almost like a potential - like the footballers who didn't want to train it's all good and well having the skills but if you don't use them what are they.

Flip side is I don't meet many people who rush to tell me their 100m time or what they can bench press

the one that must not be mentioned is intelligence.

one that must not be mentioned is intelligence.

The other ones can be "measured" to a greater or lesser degree.

Is "intelligence" a talent?

What is "intelligence"? Is it the capacity of the brain for processing information? Or something else?

Is somebody like Paul Gascoigne intelligent? At his peak, his brain processed information incredibly quickly, performing calculations and then sending signals to his muscles that allowed him to kick a ball with fantastic speed, control and accuracy.

Is having a powerful brain a measure of intelligence?

Here's a few logs for the fire

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Blimey! This intelligence lark all sounds really, really complicated. I’m actually grateful to be a bit thick

Davidtaylforths ‘system’ with the change, though?

MIND
BLOWN!

If I tried to instigate a similar system round here, would we have to pay you royalties? And how would we work out how much....

If I tried to instigate a similar system round here, would we have to pay you royalties?

Yeah.... so you say

You’ve never mentioned it before?

This idea that 'highly intelligent' people are impractical or socially cack-handed in some way is bollocks wheeled out by the dim to make them feel less inadequate.

Here's a few logs for the fire

The theory of multiple intelligences has always seemed entirely trivial to me. I read quite a bit about it and it never offered any insight deeper than 'different people are good at different stuff'.

But sometimes your apparent lack of self awareness when you post on here is extremely funny.

December the 5th, and we have the understatement of the year :D.

The theory of multiple intelligences has always seemed entirely trivial to me. I read quite a bit about it and it never offered any insight deeper than 'different people are good at different stuff'.

It's also a bit "Everyone's a unique and special snowflake".

I don't think calling lots of different talents and abilities "intelligence" really helps - why not just say someone's good with their hands or really thoughtful and caring?

gobuchul - Member
...Is "intelligence" a talent?...

However, the selection IQ tests my generation were subjected to in our youth couldn't have been applied if we had not already acquired a significant skill set of reading and computation and general knowledge. Hence a kid who had been educationally nurtured may have had an advantage in the selection tests.

Is that unfair?

Would we think so if it was a selection for say, a football* academy, where some kids had been specifically trained and others not?

Almost all gifts we call talent have been enhanced by some form of training.

I do suspect it is unfair when discussing the intelligence of the likes of the African bushmen. We would not last long in their environment without help, and must look stupid to them.

However the point I was making in support of TJ, was that if he had mentioned his football* talent no one would have felt fit to make negative comment.

*substitute whatever talent you like, eg music, art, etc

Both our kids are cleverer than either me or Mrs Seadog. Especially me. Hmmm...?
Definately not genetics, more to do with nurture rather than nature IMO.

However the point I was making in support of TJ, was that if he had mentioned his football* talent no one would have felt fit to make negative comment.

*substitute whatever talent you like, eg music, art, etc

Well if TJ* had claimed he was a "vastly superior" footballer to the majority of the population, I would expect him to of played at at least at a semi-pro, National League level or above.

If however, his only evidence for the claim, was that he had been decent and in the school team, then I would of made a negative comment about his claim.

*Other posters are available.

Nurture and opportunity probably has more to do with it, if you add in a bit of natural ability then things improve again.

Having had none of the above I assume my ability to talk bollocks has kept me safe.

Never underestimate how far talking bollocks can get you. I'd go as far as to say that its the number one ability needed in the modern workplace

Thank god!!! 😀

Gobuchul..re: Paul Gascoigne..
" performing calculations and sending signals to his muscles that allowed him to kick a ball with fantastic speed,control & accuracy "
Although I agree entirely with the point you were making that is possibly the worst description as to the genius of Paul Gascoigne I've ever come across 😀
Any pro.footballer can do what you have described ..what set Gazza apart was his ability to second guess what his opponent was going to do to try and stop him and then doing completely the opposite ..an ability /skill that most pro footballers will never get near to.
I saw his debut at Newcastle when he was 18 years old as a sub coming on against Liverpool ..with his first touch he then beat four players in his own penalty area cracked the ball out to Waddle on the wing kept running and got the ball back about 30 yards from the Liverpool goal and hit a shot that dipped just over the bar.
I think everyone in the ground that day believed they had seen the birth of a footballing genius.
Off the field though thick as a brick and as mad as a box of frogs and still to this day pushes the self destruct button ..not the first and won't be the last..Bestie , Marsh , Bowles..to name a few ..
Supreme sporting intelligence...but if you told him he had bodily kinesthetic intelligence he would probably nod and look blank...

The problem is the use of tests to determine intelligence. Tests by their very nature can be practised.
A guy on my degree got a first but by no means was the best chemist. He did have a photographic memory but stick him in a lab and ask him synthesise a specific compound to purity and he'd struggle. He could "see" the path to the answer when he'd seen it before but couldn't use his mental tools to problem solve.

..an ability /skill that most pro footballers will never get near to.

However, by your own definition of football genius, Gascoigne, is surpassed by another product of Wallsend Boys Club, Beardsley.

I don't want to get in to a football debate here but I used Gascoigne as an example as it always gets a response from the football haters, who see him as the typical thick footballer and hate hearing described as intelligent.

Davidtaylforths ‘system’ with the change, though?

I still can't get my head round that and believe me, I am great at intelligence. I got an A+ for it at school.

Binners post is spot on. It's about who you know and all that. The amount of professionals I know that have talked their way in, then when shit hits the fan they go into hiding.

Not read the entire thread, but I think IQ tests are a reasonable measure of something, not sure if it can be classed as intelligence though.

I sat two different tests when I was younger, one for mensa, and one as an entry "exam" for an IT training course.
Both tests were designed so that everyone can get answers right, but its impossible to finish in the time limit. So, what they are testing is your speed of logical thought. How many correct answers can you give in the time given.

Isn't this one of those things where it's very hard to separate out nature vs. nurture?

the point of OP's clip is that Plomin has proved this. Genetics DOES play a role in intelligence, this is a fact. twin studies, animal studies, endlessly, to the point where it's not really debatable and more experiments are pretty pointless. the measurable Variable is there; end. The only additional information needed now is to identify the actual genes responsible (bearing in mind that could be well into the thousands, all contributing a teeny amount)

The difficulty is attaching value and what to do with that information, now it's been defined. Do we identify children who WILL find learning harder, for instance. Do we identify children who WILL excel given the right stimulus?

EDIT: what Plomin says is that given if you can identify the genes that predict intelligence, you can skip all the nuture stuff and say with pretty much pin point accuracy "person x will be intelligent" What he's not saying is that "person X will be succesfull, kind, rounded human being"

It's also a bit "Everyone's a unique and special snowflake".

I don't think calling lots of different talents and abilities "intelligence" really helps