*_ Intelligence- innate or developed?

[mintcracker]

Guess this is part of the whole nature vs nurture debate that never seems to end.

Do yout think intelligence is mostly based on inherent genes or is 'intelligence' created?

What do you think?

[ivana b. anonymous]

50% from genes, and the rest from your environment ('developed intelligence').

[Guest yummylolly15]

both!

there are different types of intelligence i reckon.

a genius can not be the smartest if they didn't learn.

[Guest ebolainmemphis]

Uh... I guess for the vast majority of people, it would be nurture. Some rare ones will be heightened a lot thanks to genetics, but without proper nurturing, their gifts will go to waste.

Yep.

[Guest LunaUlna]

It's due to both nature and nurture.

Nature does play an important part, but nurture is also important, so...yeah.

Personally, I think that nurture plays a bigger role.

[Guest BoomBoomBang]

both, but 70% nature 30% nurture

[Mannosuke]

Really depends what you mean by intelligence.

No one is born knowing how to survive on the streets. Similarly, no one is born knowing how to add and subtract integers.

If anyone wants to argue that their 3-month old can do advanced calculus, I will be impressed.

[Guest cherubie]

It depends on what you mean by "intelligence". If someone is "intelligent" because they get good grades or knows a lot of facts, I would say that's developed. If you sat at home and read the dictionary and watch discovery channel everyday, you'll probably know a lot of big words and random facts. However, if you mean someone who can naturally learn things quickly or someone with innovative ideas and stuff, I would say that's innate. You can't LEARN to be a better learner. You can learn how to be a better student, but if you don't naturally have a good memory, you can't just develop that.

[Mannosuke]

It depends on what you mean by "intelligence". If someone is "intelligent" because they get good grades or knows a lot of facts, I would say that's developed. If you sat at home and read the dictionary and watch discovery channel everyday, you'll probably know a lot of big words and random facts. However, if you mean someone who can naturally learn things quickly or someone with innovative ideas and stuff, I would say that's innate. You can't LEARN to be a better learner. You can learn how to be a better student, but if you don't naturally have a good memory, you can't just develop that.

Of course you can learn to be a better learner. Certain studying techniques are better than others. Knowing what to listen for also increases your learning capacity.

Memory can also be developed. You may not be born with photographic memory, but you can train yourself to obtain it.

People don't spend thousands of dollars to put their employees through rigorous training sessions to develop all sorts of personal skills.

[Guest icespike]

in my opinion, nurture.. what you're exposed to when you were really young, say 3yo or less, you grew up to become good with it.. it's just most of the time you don't remember how you started and think it's innate

[iridescent]

I honestly tend to argue things like it's 1% nature and 99% nurture. I know that's not scientific but ...

Like others are saying, intelligence is subjective/there are different types, but I think all of them are developed.

School smarts - my mom took me to the library every day as soon as I could look at a book. Because of that kind of environment/that nurtured love for books, I read 30+ books a month as a child and I'm almost certain that's the only reason why I never have a difficult time with school. Reading/taking in information/analyzing it is easier than just about anything in life for me. My brother has the same parents but got less time learning with my mom at home, and didn't get as good nutrition as a baby because he was born here, when my parents were still trying to figure out how to get by. He's had a much harder time. (Though time not spent studying translated into abilities he has that I do not)

Kids I know who know tons of history (which amazes me because I've never been able to recall dates, names, etc. like they can) grew up watching the history channel, etc. because that was what they were exposed to. I know kids who are studying engineering, whose parents are in related fields.

You could say "well, those parents are smart. They had smart kids." But I definitely think the environment plays at least as big of a part. You need access to resources to be able to learn things like that.

Studies support that the first few months of a baby's life are critical and I think that's why even kids who are separated from "intelligent" parents at a young age will still develop similar capabilities. Babies/kids pick up their parents' mannerisms and attitudes, like they pick up their facial expressions. Intelligence requires (IMO) alertness, attention to detail, enthusiasm, curiosity, energy, and I think those things are at least as much learned as they are inherited. Also, nutrition plays a big factor in things like that, too. Parents who eat healthy are more likely to know what to feed their children. That's more nurture than nature...

/ramble. Basically what icespike said with a lot of insistent speculation added.

[Guest itsyumey]

I agree with iridescent~ =)

A knowledgeable person may seem very smart because they have studied the concepts needed to understand the subject and learned how to apply it.

On the other hand, a smart person is just someone who has great insight and understands the concepts of whatever it is that he or she may be learning and just knows how to apply that knowledge.

Like in math, a person may not have good logic but s/he can practice problems until s/he knows how they work and eventually come to understand the concept. Another person may have very good logic and understand how the math concepts work immediately. But in the end when they both take the test, they can both get good grades.

The only difference is that one worked very hard to understand the concepts while the other just understood right away.

But I mean, whether a person has good logic or not all comes down to how they see the world, right? And the environment s/he grew up in plays a very big part in how they see the world... so I believe it's mostly developed.

[ivana b. anonymous]

Well "scientific studies" (quotations 'cause who really knows the legitimacy of these cases) have shown that you inherit 50% of your intelligence from your parents. The rest are all up to you. You can't have only one high aspect of intelligence and not the other kinds - you'll get nowhere in life (wiki Christopher Langan).

Basically, work hard in life despite whatever it is that you're born with, and you will get somewhere.

Measurement of intelligence is really an overrated subject. It only matters if you're good enough. Once you've reached that threshold, there is little to no significance to how much higher than the threshold you are. For example, the average human IQ is 100. As long as you reach 100, and you work hard on other aspects in your life, you are just as likely to succeed (if not even higher chances of succeeding) than those with extremely high intelligence.

Don't feel guilty or ashamed if you're not as smart as your peers. In the long run, it doesn't matter.

[Mannosuke]

The only difference is that one worked very hard to understand the concepts while the other just understood right away.

The only difference is a couple digits in your salary.

Someone that can get crazy concepts in a snap will probably be able to go ahead and do great things.

[iridescent]

I read an old issue of Time magazine and there was an article related to this!

It was about epigenetics. In one of the studies they mentioned, a group of mice with genetic memory problems were placed in an environment with a lot of toys, exercise, and general attention, and they exhibited enhanced LTP (long term potentiation), which has a lot to do with learning and memory. Interestingly, even their offspring had improved LTP. I found an article about the specific study online and it said the "enriched surroundings [of the original mice] corrected their genetic deficit."

I'm not done reading it yet but: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ronments-memory

I was excited to come across something so related to this topic