Intelligence: Biological or Environmental

[Nicole]

This is a discussion we've been having in one of my psychology classes as of late. It's basically a Hereditarian view vs. the Culture Only perspective on intelligence.

Is our intelligence determined at birth? As in, do we all have an exact level that we will stay at for the rest of our lives. This is the nativist view which has persisted up until the last 30-40 years or so. They believe that our g-factor (general ability or innate intelligence) is hereditary.

The opposing view believes that everyone is born with a blank-slate and can learn as much as they want given the appropriate education, granted they aren't severely mentally retarded, and also believes that there is no genetic role in this at all.

I believe that there are genetic influences as well as environmental influences. People aren't born with all the knowledge of the world, but because of genetic make-up, some people are quick to acquire information more than others. However, that doesn't exactly label people who don't pick up as quickly as unintelligent--if they work harder, they can learn to pick things up more quickly. Children who aren't in good school systems can not gain that knowledge, so it also depends on how well-educated the child is.

Again, because of genes, some people have to work harder than others to obtain intelligence, which is a rather hereditarian view.

I will elaborate more on my views if I get enough posters. :P

[Rubidium]

I believe intelligence is both biological and environmental.
If your parents are intelligent, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be intelligent aswell.
You could end up with an average intelligence, get an average job, and live an average life.
However, sometimes intelligence is passed down from parent to child.

On the other hand, you do find extremely intelligent people without extremely intelligent parents.
Also, people with disadvantaged backgrounds do manage to lead successful lives by working hard to achieve their goals. In this case, intelligence is neither biological nor environmental.
I hope that makes sense.

[Dexter]

I'm also covering this.. and have covered it numerous times earlier.

It's basically the nature vs nurture debate.

As above, I do agree both play a part. If both your parents are mentally incapable and therefore you get their traits, you aren't going to perform well anywhere.

But this is about majority.

And majority, is ENVIRONMENTAL.

Definitely, without a doubt. Circumstances make us and shape our intelligence for what we are. No child is going to come into this world as the most intelligent being alive, in the same way that no one is born "good" or "evil" - we're just blank slates shaped by the world and people.

Of course, some are more predisposed for quicker learning etc, but place this person in a hole for their life and they won't contend with the idiots who go through school and learn.

This famous quote is a decent example of what I mean;

"Give me a dozen healthy infants & my own specific world to bring them up in, and i will guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant, chef and yes, even beggar & thief, regardless of his talents,penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors."

[Icestorm]

The word intelligence in itself is a difficult thing to define to just one base. People that grow up in the jungle are in our world of science and computers probably considered stupid, but they have developed a certain type of intelligence that comes with what they must deal with in every day life. I believe strongly in the nurture side, we see it in all walks of life that how people turn out is strongly related back to how they are brought up and what they experience as they grow.

I cannot believe that someone has a pre-determined IQ that will sit with them for the rest of their lives. Because in alot of ways with enough hard work (putting aside mental problems) people can become intelligent, but in what way they are intelligent is of course dependent on the situations that they encounter. In that sense I believe that it is mostly determined by how they are nurtured and the environment they are born into.


(I encountered this question in grade 12 Psych, too)

[sweeter]

Both, but for the most part, environmental.

Dr. House: Would that upset you, really? To think that you were hired because of some genetic gift of beauty, not some genetic gift of intelligence?

Dr. Cameron: I worked very hard to get where I am.

Dr. House: But you didn't have to. People choose the paths that grant them the greatest rewards for the least amount of effort. That's the law of nature, and you defied it. That's why I hired you. You could have married rich, could have been a model, you could have just shown up and people would have given you stuff. Lots of stuff, but you didn't, you worked your stunning little ass off.

(:

[Jay3205]

It is a combination of both. There has been studies showing that if a parent is a genius, there is a higher likelihood (but no guarantee) of the child being a genius as well, meaning IQ is hereditary in part.

Since IQ is based on things that you learn in school in addition to things you should "naturally" learn (i.e. spatial relations), IQ is based somewhat on the environment. If nobody ever teaches you math, then your IQ score will be lowered.

An IQ score is determined by the person's age, so it can vary as they grow older. If a 13 year old is as "smart" as the average 14 year old, he'll have an IQ above 100. Typically, by the time he turns 14, he'll be as smart as the average 15 year old, so it usually doesn't vary much.

[zen]

Well I believe myself to be very intelligent(so do my test score). And my father&mother both were on drugs and both dropped out in 9th grade, no one in family has graduated high school. I live in one of the worse neighborhoods, and I still succeed in school. I believe it depends on the person, because if you don't have that rare immunity to peer pressure, than you may just act a certain way to impress others. But if I had to choose which one affected intelligence more than it'd be environment, because of the human way, of learning from it. I never believed in a thing as a smart gene, or an inheritable trait our genius. If you are constantly surrounded by intelligent people you may pick up a few mannerisms or some sort of vocabulary. But after a certain age I believe it doesn't matter what type of people you are around, it's a personal affair.

[Jay3205]

Well, I've done some research on the Internet, and it turns out that intelligence is *mostly* inherited. By the time you are an adult, up to 75% of your intelligence can be accounted for through genetics. This makes quite a bit of sense.

It sounds like some posters may be confusing "intelligence" (ability to learn/comprehend) with "memorized facts" or "willingness to work hard/drive to succeed". An unintelligent person can study all day, and learn very little. An intelligent person could study for two hours and learn much more. If the unintelligent person studies all day every day, and the intelligent person never studies at all, the unintelligent person would know more total facts, but that would not mean the unintelligent person is more intelligent than the intelligent person.

Just think of a real genius (i.e. Einstein, Beethoven, da Vinci, etc.). It is true that they may have worked hard for their accomplishments, but there are thousands of modern people who certainly work just as hard, are better nourished, and have access to much more information, yet they never reach anywhere near the intelligence or accomplishments as those natural geniuses. If intelligence was mostly environmental, then modern society should be capable of producing hundreds of Einsteins every few years.

[Klavier Gavin]

My friends and I talked about this like a year back ago... The nature vs nurture thing. We had a heated argument lol.

I personally believe that both sides play an equal part, but I think the majority of your intellect comes from the nature part. I don't really think nurture plays a big part compared to nature because I have friends having parents who are doctors and teachers, but their studies suck more than me(who already suck at studying) and they do not seem learn faster than me at work.

I have a dad who's working like a slave for his company driving people around and my mum didn't even make it to high school. I just graduated from my college in an engineering course and I'm currently awaiting army enlistment.

[myrvann]

In my opinon the answer is clear.
It's a mixture of both.
After all, we both have an IQ and an EQ
though people tend to focus most on the IQ, the EQ is just as important

EQ is social intelligence, and that you can only get through experiencing things, which means that it's environmental. At least that's how I see it.

IQ, on the other hand, I'd say it's something you're born with. Or at least some of it.
You can be born with the ability to gain knowledge, but it's up to the way you're raised or your strenght of will, whenether you use it or not.
Your parents can be smart, but you turn out being dumb as a bread and the other way around.

But to get anywhere today you need a mixture of both, right?

[SolBeowulf19]

As was said, it's both, but much more Environment than Biology. Simply put, in the brain when it's being developed, it is a blank slate, it's filled with different Neurons that allow the brain to be....multi functional. Such as musical talent, second languages, and other aspects. Simply put, we are able to do it all when we're born, when we're born normally anyways. However, much like muscle atrophy, when you do not excersise these certain neurons, then they die off, as the mind doesn't have any use for them anymore. Sort of like cleaning house. This is the biological aspect of it, however, the biological is caused by the Environmental. If you were to learn music and languages, for example, when you were very young, you would already have a basis for what you could learn in the future, and it would be much easier for you to learn other languages down the road. Anyway, that's my take on it, and some of what I learned about the human brain in psych. Essentially, if it's wrong, please correct me.

[Jay3205]

That is true. However, it's not like all of a person's brain neurons for certain activities will die off. A person who's never played a sport will still be able to learn a sport when they're 25 years old, though it would be more difficult.

However, most children start school around the age of 5 or 6, and there are clearly differences in the intelligence even at that age. Similarly, many children spend alot of time drawing at that age, but some children clearly can draw better than others in a few years. Since they are receiving roughly the same education, environmental stimulation alone doesn't account for the huge variety in intelligence.

Studies have shown correlation between intelligence and volume of grey matter in the brain, which is something that is largely affected through genes (or drugs). They've also shown that the IQ of un-related (adopted) siblings raised in the same family will differ greatly despite having a similar environment; by the time they are adults, their intelligence will be no more related than total strangers.

[Sirius]

I don't think it's an either or, I think both are required to become an intelligent person.

Biological advantages allow people to grasp concepts more easily than others, and differences definitely exists. However natural talent won't do it all by itself. People have to want to grasp concepts and learn or they will not.

An analogy would be somebody who has a natural talent for martial arts, but sits around and plays on their computer all day long. They are not going to be a very impressive martial artist despite their natural ability because they do not put it to use. In my opinion the same could be said about intelligence. If somebody was gifted with a superior mind but they choose not to use it then they'll be no more intelligent than the next guy.

Biological advantages exist, but if you do not use your mind you lose it.

[Reyin]

Well, growing up I was in the "gifted" program at school in elementary and middle school, but what did that really mean? Nothing, for the most part, I was just ahead of other students at that point in time. Now looking in hindsight, some of the kids that were in it with me were truly gifted, but others I would say were there because their parents did an outstanding job of teaching them things. This is to say there were some kids who had large raw intelligence and a bit of teaching, and those who had slightly above average raw intelligence but exceptional teaching.

My biggest issue with how we judge intelligence is this: I've taken several IQ tests and for the most part, they have certain themes, but the ones that are considered to be the "most accurate" are almost always just full of trivia questions and only a little logic. Well what does that mean? For starters if we're judging intelligence based on trivial knowledge then there is a clear choice between hereditary and culture/up-bringing... you could have an enormous potential for knowledge but if you weren't raised in an environment where you could actually learn the information, then what good is the raw intelligence.

The real truth is, the people we call "brilliant" are a combination of: being born with the ability to retain knowledge, being born with a certain creativity, and being raised in an environment where they were able to exercise their potential.

Like Sirius said above me, "biological advantages exist, but if you do not use your mind you lose it." that pretty much sums it up-- Yes there are those who have enough raw intelligence they are able to astound us with their brilliance, but if they'd been born in a small village in Africa, or heck even in an Amish community in the United States, the rest of the world would have trudged on none the wiser.

[Vlad]

I think it's both, but mostly enviornmental.
We had a discusion like this in class.

[Dexter]

^ Reasons as to why you think so would be good, since this is the debates section :)

[Lotus.Memoirs]

I would think that it is both. Why? Because (I'm not sure how accurate this is, but according to some previous posts above it looks correct) we had a discussion about this in my Biology class and this was the result: that the kid's intelligence capacity was determined by the parents, but if they don't apply themselves and work hard then they will just have an ordinary mind since they didn't try. In addition to that, most students succumb to peer pressure easily so they might act dumber than they really are, then that becomes a habit, and so they became a lemming.

Yet, what if the kid's parents weren't smart? Then I think that they would have a slight disadvantage because their intelligence capacity has a preset limit. I don't know if they can expand it or not but that's definitely got to take more work than the kid who has a higher capacity and just understand things quickly.

So, I think it's both biological (intelligence capacity) and environmental (peer pressure) that sums up to see how your intelligence turns out.