Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 26 Aug '10 20:05
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7964538/A-sexual-disaster-for-teenagers-and-society.html

    Comments

    (by) cartimandua

    Today 05:01 PM

    (@) oldasiahand

    Part of IQ is genetic.What you get with a child from dim parents who is removed to a better home is a child who seems and sounds OK but whose receptive language (understanding) is still very limited.


    (by) pragmatist

    Today 07:14 PM

    Yes and adoptive parents who receive a child from an inferior genetic background end up being disappointed when their expectations for the child's progress are not met.

    ...
  2. 26 Aug '10 20:06
    are these dudes right?

    i always thought that genetics was less determinant of IQ than study and hard work and early exposure to reading was, but i guess twin studies might indicate what the proportion is.
  3. 26 Aug '10 20:08
    BTW and AON, here is the post that the first post above is responding to:


    oldasiahand
    Today 04:36 PM

    Teenage mothers should not be supported by the state with these perverse incentives. I have a better idea. There is a huge shortage of babies for adoption her and the US and especially white babies.

    Let them put the babies up for adoption on ebay (with certain safeguards). The mother gets to keep the money and uses it for her education (or her drug habit). The kid would be better off in a loving home presumably able to look after it better. Some of the unemployed women might decide it was a career choice and produce one a year. So be it. It's not our problem and society would be better off!.


    (by) fizzypilgrim
    Today 07:08 PM

    Buying and selling human beings is often known as slavery. There was a law outlawing this in most (not all) of the British Empire in 1833 and that law was repealed in 1998.
  4. 26 Aug '10 20:08
    what does fizzypilgrim mean by "that law was repealed in 1998"?
  5. 26 Aug '10 20:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    are these dudes right?

    i always thought that genetics was less determinant of IQ than study and hard work and early exposure to reading was, but i guess twin studies might indicate what the proportion is.
    IQ measures ones "ability to learn".Study and hard work have nothing to do w/it.
  6. 26 Aug '10 20:49
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    IQ measures ones "ability to learn".Study and hard work have nothing to do w/it.
    Those who spend lots of time learning new things will develop a better "ability to learn" than those who spend very little time learning new things.
  7. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    26 Aug '10 20:53
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    IQ measures ones "ability to learn".
    Maybe. The whole notion of IQ is based off Spearman's 'G' (the 'General Intelligence Factor', which was posited to explain the positive correlations between very different tests for intelligence. If anything, IQ is just a measurement of how well people can take certain forms of tests. Think about the vast array of different abilities that we think are indicative of intelligence: Creativity, language use, memory, computational ability, spatial reasoning, etc. It's quite a leap to claim that there is some common factor that both underlies and explains these diverse abilities. But even if there is some common measurable factor, it's unclear whether it would cohere with our pre-theoretic notion of intelligence. The two sorts of tests that most strongly positively correlate with measurements of IQ are latency tests (how quickly we can recognize something and respond), and pattern recognition and completion tests (like the Raven Progressive Matrices Test, which was the standard for modern IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet).
  8. 26 Aug '10 21:02
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Maybe. The whole notion of IQ is based off Spearman's 'G' (the 'General Intelligence Factor', which was posited to explain the positive correlations between very different tests for intelligence. If anything, IQ is just a measurement of how well people can take certain forms of tests. Think about the vast array of different abilities that we think are indi ...[text shortened]... ssive Matrices Test, which was the standard for modern IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet).
    "...just a measurement of how well people can take certain forms of tests."bbarr

    I agree. I should say the theory behind IQ testing is to measure ones intelligence(ability to learn,reasoning,etc) but in reality it mostly shows how well one performs w/certain test,as you said.
  9. 26 Aug '10 21:07
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Those who spend lots of time learning new things will develop a better "ability to learn" than those who spend very little time learning new things.
    I disagree. We are talking about intelligence not knowledge or wisdom.Someone who has never cracked open a book could have a much higher level of intelligence than someone who has several masters and phds to his credit
  10. 26 Aug '10 21:10
    looking at the types of questions you see on a typical IQ test -- they're things like "what number comes next in the following sequence?" or "which one of these five patterns doesn't belong with the rest?" or "complete the following analogy: A is to B as blank is to D"

    pretty much all of them involve the ability to recognize what the common pattern or theme is -- so that's pretty much what IQ measures.
  11. 26 Aug '10 21:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I disagree. We are talking about intelligence not knowledge or wisdom.Someone who has never cracked open a book could have a much higher level of intelligence than someone who has several masters and phds to his credit
    intelligence is much like athletic ability -- you're born with a certain POTENTIAL - but two people with the same potential athletic ability might differ greatly in their actual athletic prowess based on how often they engage in athletic activities. Intelligence works the same way. That intelligent person who never cracked open a book still had to have exercised his brain in some way.
  12. 26 Aug '10 21:36
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    looking at the types of questions you see on a typical IQ test -- they're things like "what number comes next in the following sequence?" or "which one of these five patterns doesn't belong with the rest?" or "complete the following analogy: A is to B as blank is to D"

    pretty much all of them involve the ability to recognize what the common pattern or theme is -- so that's pretty much what IQ measures.
    Right. Thats a measurement for intelligence.Capacity for leaning,ones ability to learn,reasoning,etc etc.
    However, a person who has never taken a test in his life or who may be uncomfortable w/the way the test is administered might score low.Not giving a proper indicator of his true intelligence.
    IQ scores are not absolute in determining ones intelligence and should be used in conjunction w/other methods.
  13. 26 Aug '10 21:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Right. Thats a measurement for intelligence.Capacity for leaning,ones ability to learn,reasoning,etc etc.
    However, a person who has never taken a test in his life or who may be uncomfortable w/the way the test is administered might score low.Not giving a proper indicator of his true intelligence.
    IQ scores are not absolute in determining ones intelligence and should be used in conjunction w/other methods.
    I agree -- while the ability to "find a complex abstract pattern" plays a major role in how successful one is at performing certain actions, it's still only a part of a person's total intelligence. To eliminate any misconceptions, they should change the name from "IQ Test" to something like "G Test".

    and yes - any measure of intelligence is going to involve a person's comfort level involving the specific test being used to measure it.
  14. Standard member abejnood
    Independant Thinker
    26 Aug '10 21:55
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Right. Thats a measurement for intelligence.Capacity for leaning,ones ability to learn,reasoning,etc etc.
    However, a person who has never taken a test in his life or who may be uncomfortable w/the way the test is administered might score low.Not giving a proper indicator of his true intelligence.
    IQ scores are not absolute in determining ones intelligence and should be used in conjunction w/other methods.
    I agree with the idea that IQ tests are far too primitive and catering to certain people's specific talents (namely, test-taking) to give an accurate measure of "intelligence". But I believe that intelligence is hardly a static and/or predetermined factor. At the very least, the "ability to learn" is severly impacted by food and drugs--you're much more likely to perform well or learn a new topic well if you're full as opposed to malnourished. Additionally, our brains undergo--and complete--some forms of development as we age, especially in our youth. How is it that a 2-3 year old child can learn a language and speak with complete fluency, accentless by the time they're 10 whereas a foreigner can spend 30 years with a language and never fully understand it? By your definition, the small child is much more intelligent than an older child--but this is merely do to brain developments, as we store language in different parts of our brain at 3 years of age than at 40 years of age. So intelligence is hardly pre-set or guaranteed in any form or fashion, but merely a highly fluid description of the person's "ability to learn", which we as humans consider in the form of an average of how fast someone seems to understand topics and concepts in general.
  15. 26 Aug '10 22:26
    Odd how we don't have a problem admitting that genes control physical differences but not mental.
    The apple don't fall far from the tree. Deal with it.