Is IQ inherited?

[francois]

How fuckin stupid are you. You are so clouded in your little deluded mind that you can't even see the point. Take two twins who have identical brain develoment from birth. If they live different types of lives and development, their I.Q will differ.

Indeed, this has been found to be true. Environment does indeed have an impact on adult IQ, albeit a small one.

The amount of I.Q difference is directly proportional to the kind of seperate lives they live. There are many practical examples of this nature in real life.

I'm sure this is true to some extent. But what exactly are you trying to prove by saying this? The farthest you're going to get with this thought is that environment matters. Well obviously it does. I never said it doesn't. So... good for you! Environment matters! Whoohoo!! A little bit.

You are probably the most stupid or slowest member on sciforums.

You're very likable, intellectually stimulating, interesting, mature, definitely not overemotional, uhmm, interesting, uh, likable, good looking, sock-sniffing, sexually arousing, uhm, and a good, uh, all-around chap.

Honestly though. I can take insult. I neither take insult personally in real life, and especially not in Internet forums. In fact, if properly executed I can really appreciate a good insult. If it exhibits wit, finesse and creativity, then it's great. But the problem is that you're doing it all wrong. It's really pathetic. Actually, this is one of the worst insults a guy can get, because you're saying "you're such a douche, I'm not even going to try and insult you properly--or maybe I'm the stupid, uncreative douchebag--either or." Next time you insult me, try to catch me actually saying something stupid and then accentuate my stupidity or the absurdity.

In other words, don't do what you just did. Basically what you did was make a dumb, completely ineffective argument and then said "You dumb." Honestly, please kill yourself.

In science, the theory is formulated based on the constants, not the latter. Do you know why the number 3200 has only two significant figures? Because it can be written as 32 x 10 to power 2. We don't give significance to any number that can change. So Francois, maybe its you who has been avoiding some reading.

Are you saying because you personally don't think I know what a significant digit is that I'm the one who's avoiding reading? What the fuck? Again. Please kill yourself.

 

[devils_reject]

...(yawns). You are a bore

 

[devils_reject]

This is not an english class, its about facts. You are the one insane if you don't think Enviroment overrides genes. Yes, first world countries have .8 heredity, but what the fuck about third world? Can you say heredity is 100% by this information? There is little gravity on the moon but does that mean space time has no effect on bodies? The I.Q discussion is not black and white, so Chatha only tried to take higher ground to make his point and help make the thread a little more interesting and multidimensional. Genes are a function of the enviroment, that is the meaning and principle of evolution. What the fuck is your problem?

 

[Chatha]

Evolution is an on going process. A thousand years is one evolutionary day. It took millions of years for us to get this point. The first world may have 80% inheritance but that’s just temporal because there is no telling that we are still going to evolve for another million years, especially when we start to venture into space and underwater. The next ice age or a heat wave or a huge flood can change things and cause man to adapt. However, all what I say might be science fiction. You are right about I.Q, I only wanted to take a panoramic view, my apologies. But if you still don't have enough intelligence to carry this converstion, then I don't know what to say.

 

[francois]

This is not an english class

Where did that come from? Odd.

You are the one insane if you don't think Enviroment overrides genes.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. First of all, I never said that environment doesn't override genes. Second of all, what does that even mean? I think I might know what you're saying. For example, let's hypothesize that a man has a genetic predisposition to rape women. Now let's say he develops in a culture that condemns rape and holds women in high esteem. It is conceivable that due to environmental pressures (culture and indoctrination) that he will go against his internal nature and not rape the woman. That would be a good case for environment "overriding" genes, if I'm properly understanding what you meant. However, it is also conceivable that the man's genetic predisposition to rape may be so strong that his culture cannot "override it." Indeed, we might postulate that the rapists in prisons may be there because that particular culture wasn't a powerful or present enough in their developments to override their natural predispositions to be fecund and savage.

One could make a similar example of adultery. Even though some cultures condemn adultery and punish it with death, people still cheated. Even though if they were caught it would mean dying! Maybe it has something to do with the strong, instinctive urge to procreate and diversify one's genes?

Anyway, yeah, environmental pressures can override genetic predispositions. If they couldn't, that would make us a weak and inflexible, and thus an unsuited animal, wouldn't it? So... what?

Yes, first world countries have .8 heredity, but what the fuck about third world?

A. I don't know.
B. Is it really relevant?

Can you say heredity is 100% by this information?

Why would anyone say that?

There is little gravity on the moon but does that mean space time has no effect on bodies?

Non-sequitur?

The I.Q discussion is not black and white,

What does that even mean? Why the vagueness? Be explicit.

so Chatha only tried to take higher ground to make his point and help make the thread a little more interesting and multidimensional. Genes are a function of the enviroment,

But that has nothing to do with the thread! Obviously genes are a function of the environment. But who cares? How is it relevant at all?

that is the meaning and principle of evolution. What the fuck is your problem?

I don't have a problem. It's just that your arguments are irrational and they don't really pertain to the thread at all. It's like you're trying to hijack the thread and turn it into something else, because it doesn't feel nice.

 

[francois]

Evolution is an on going process. A thousand years is one evolutionary day. It took millions of years for us to get this point. The first world may have 80% inheritance but that’s just temporal because there is no telling that we are still going to evolve for another million years, especially when we start to venture into space and underwater. The next ice age or a heat wave or a huge flood can change things and cause man to adapt. However, all what I say might be science fiction. You are right about I.Q, I only wanted to take a panoramic view, my apologies. But if you still don't have enough intelligence to carry this converstion, then I don't know what to say.

Chatha, me wanting/struggling to keep my thread on topic doesn't make me unintelligent. Not saying I'm intelligent. I'm just saying... you guys keep trying to bring in irrelevant facts and arguments into my thread. And I'm protesting. If you guys want to discuss how the environment shapes the genome, that's grand, that's uber, das ist spitze! But these things really don't belong in this specific thread. Maybe I'm expecting too much from this place. Yeah. Whoa. That just hit me like a lourde of bricks.

 

[Kumar]

Can humans/animals be animal type and plant type, related to Iron and Magnesium impacts, non-veg. and veg?

Lion can be more intelligent than bull.

Think deeply and dynamically.

 

[devils_reject]

Francois, the reason why we say the enviroment overides genes is because of evolution of organisms. A long time ago humans evolved from Homo erectus to home sapiens, not because of genes, but by genes. Humans evolved because of their enviroment. There is a difference.

 

[Chatha]

“

Originally Posted by francois
Chatha, me wanting/struggling to keep my thread on topic doesn't make me unintelligent. Not saying I'm intelligent. I'm just saying... you guys keep trying to bring in irrelevant facts and arguments into my thread. And I'm protesting. If you guys want to discuss how the environment shapes the genome, that's grand, that's uber, das ist spitze! But these things really don't belong in this specific thread. Maybe I'm expecting too much from this place. Yeah. Whoa. That just hit me like a lourde of bricks. "

LOL this is why I keep on laughing and you keep thinking i'm joking. Where the fuck did you ever say you wanted to keep your thread only on your topic. Maybe if you had told us earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time on your stupid thread.
Besides what the fuck gives you the idea I was off topic? Can you give us an exert where I was off topic? If you can't then you are an even bigger fool;the joke of sciforums. Besides who the fuck are you to tell us what is irrelevant or not. Red neck porn loving ignoramous who can't carry a conversation but who's only word is "Non-sequitur" and all the other jargon

 

[francois]

“


LOL this is why I keep on laughing and you keep thinking i'm joking. Where the fuck did you ever say you wanted to keep your thread only on your topic. Maybe if you had told us earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time on your stupid thread.
Besides what the fuck gives you the idea I was off topic? Can you give us an exert where I was off topic? If you can't then you are an even bigger fool;the joke of sciforums. Besides who the fuck are you to tell us what is irrelevant or not. Red neck porn loving ignoramous who can't carry a conversation but who's only word is "Non-sequitur" and all the other jargon

If you're not going to put in the time and effort in the interests of a real conversation, let alone even write in decent English, I can no longer see any virtue in replying to your inanities. That was the reason I felt compelled in the first place to respond to your nonsense. You seemed to care. Now you don't...

As for examples of you swaying off topic... virtually everything you wrote in this thread tries to veer off topic, which isn't surprising. How could you possibly stick to a topic when you can't even convey a single coherent thought? Anyway... from now on I'm only going to reply to you in PM... as this nonsense is getting in the way of people who may want to read this thread and have a proper discussion.

 

[Chatha]

(...lights a cigarettes) Like I said..a bigger fool. Now you want to hide behind everyone's back.

 

[Chatha]

I didn't bother opening your PM before I removed it because you really wasted my time on this thread. Listen, I don't want to leave sciforums on a sour note. I also don't want to be an ass. I am sorry if I messed up your thread, but if you look closely I was never off topic. I tried to throw in what I knew about the topic, but since its your thread then I guess you are right. Very rarely do people stay on topic on this forum. However, you really should have clearly told me to stop and or PM me earlier on my posts, I would have left and avoided it. Anyway I will be checking sci forums form time to time, including your thread. You seem like a nice guy.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

mod comment:


hello,

this is your friendly biology & Genetics subforum moderator speaking.

Threads belong to us all

happy posting,

your friendly biology & Genetics subforum moderator

 

[Kumar]

How you define IQ/Intelligence for the purpose of this thread?

Activities and abilities related to Natural progress of a person/preceptions can be considered as inherited intelligence whereas learned during lifetime can be called as aquired intelligence. God gifted and self made, I think.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That is indeed a good question. How do you define intelligence? Needless to say people dicuss this very topic without defining it and hence cannot even know if they are discussing the same thing.

The question is also whether we can define intelligence?

 

[Kumar]

Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. In common parlance, the term smart, metaphorically used is frequently the synonym of situational and behavioral (i.e. observed and context dependent) intelligence.

Although many regard the concept of intelligence as having a much broader scope, for example in cognitive science and computer science, in some schools of psychology, the study of intelligence generally regards this trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or wisdom.


At least two major "consensus" definitions of intelligence have been proposed. First, from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, a report of a task force convened by the American Psychological Association in 1995:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena.[1]
A second definition of intelligence comes from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52 intelligence researchers in 1994:

a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)

There are many definitions. We can't deny inherited and aquired intelligence.

I think, relevant thought behind this topic can be "memory"..Is memory inherited?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I think, relevant thought behind this topic can be "memory"..Is memory inherited?

Ah...I couldn't help but remembering the following classic experiment after reading your post.

Biochemical Memory in flat-worms?
There has been no convincing experimental work carried out which supports the mediaeval theory of mnemonic CSF or a mnemonic function for the pineal gland. The first body of work I will consider the evidence for a molecular basis for memory in flat- worms.

The flat-worm or planarian is a very simple invertebrate, nevertheless, in 1955 Thompson and McConnell showed that planaria could be classically conditioned to avoid light by pairing a light CS with an electric shock US. It becomes clear just how simple an animal a planarian is when you discover that if one is cut in half while alive the two halves regenerate into two complete flatworms - the tail-half grows a new head and the head-half a new tail! McConnell's initial discovery about memory in flatworms was that once a flatworm had been conditioned to avoid light if you cut it in half and allow the halves to regenerate both of the resulting worms show evidence of knowing the light-shock association. McConnell interpreted this as evidence that memory in flatworms was not localised in the head but was, rather distributed throughout the animal. In 1962 McConnell performed an experiment which appeared to be even more dramatic demonstration of this. After training some planaria he ground them up an fed them to other planaria. These animals were quicker at learning the light-shock association than controls who were fed ground-up untrained worms.

Given the excitement at the time about the discovery of the chemical basis of genetic information encoding and transfer - the structure and role of DNA was discovered by Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin in March of 1953 - a number of researcher began to investigate whether DNA or RNA were involved in what McConnell had hypothesised was the diffuse chemical encoding of memory in planaria. In 1961 Corning and John showed that the apparent memory of the tail of a bisected planarian could be disrupted by RNAase - an enzyme which destroys RNA, although there was still evidence for a retained association in the head-half even after regeneration in RNAase.

However, as for mammals:

These and other similar results prompted a rise in interest in memory by biochemists. Many experiments were carried out on transfer of memory and on attempts to isolate the chemicals carrying these 'memories', not only in planaria, but in fish, mice and rats. There was, however, a great deal of controversy about these experiments - many scientists found that they could not replicate others' studies and methods were often criticised. For example, Frank, Stein and Rosen (1970) carried out an experiment where one group of mice were trained to associate the light side of a test box with shock, another group were stressed by being rolled around in a jar but were not placed in the test box and a third group were untrained controls with experience of the test box. When the brains or livers of these animals were removed, ground up and fed to other animals it was found that recipients who had been fed the brains of trained animals escaped from the light faster than those that had been fed the brains of untrained controls, however, animals fed the brains of donors stressed in the jar escaped faster still. The speediest escapes were made by animals which had been fed the livers of jar-stressed donors. Stein interpreted this as showing that 'transfer' was not memory specific, rather, apparent changes in behaviour or learning-rate could be attributed to stress hormones transferred between donor's and recipients. Eventually it became clear that RNA did play a part in memory, but it did not appear to code specific memories. It was, however claimed that a peptide associated with RNA during the process of extracting the RNA did encode specific memories. There was a great deal of confusion at the time about the role of these peptides. It became clear that these peptides were part of the chain leading to stress hormone production, and so the hypothesis of memory specific biochemicals died.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/robert.kentridge/bpp2mem1.html

 

[Kumar]

Thanks for quite interesting links.

Eventually it became clear that RNA did play a part in memory, but it did not appear to code specific memories. It was, however claimed that a peptide associated with RNA during the process of extracting the RNA did encode specific memories. There was a great deal of confusion at the time about the role of these peptides. It became clear that these peptides were part of the chain leading to stress hormone production, and so the hypothesis of memory specific biochemicals died. [from your link]

If we think about plant's vegetative propagations, I think everything is passed to new plant, even better. About earthworms, that can be their anatomy alike that. But what about human clones? I think they may share everything except memory and intelligence(probably only aquired). In this regard, I want to understand inherited and aquired memory/intelligence seprately. Probably cloned person share inherited memory/intellgence but not the aquired ones. However, above quote tell about coding and encoding memories which can be peptide based. It appears, all people have some kind of memory of their previous interactions but they may remain dormant which one can stimulate by practices. For example, A person never heard/seen anything to which he never interacted during his lifetime, still tells that "it look right or wrong". How? Natural Reasonings capabilities, logics, resistances, surrvival of fittest, immune strength...all can be inherited.

Such encoting peptide can be very important to understand esp. for cloning.

 

[francois]

Hence the truth is in the middle. Intelligence is a genetic trait. And intelligence is influenced by the environment (in humans).

I agree with this. However, it's really an empty statement. The real question is, how much is IQ affected by nature/nurture? Which do you think is a higher determining factor in first world countries? Do you agree or disagree with the mainstream experts who say that genetics is the major determining factor?

 

[iam]

in a first world country i would say its more nurture that affects iq. If you have an intelligent parent, they will automatically converse and acclimate you to critical thinking skills and enquiry which gives you a headstart. So this is not just necessarily genetic but social. Also if you attend the best schools, have better nutrition, etc Also, people tend to take for granted what a gift it is to be conversing with those who are willing to shape your thinking as well as knowledge for the better.

I have known people who are not as intelligent as their parents and those who are more intelligent than their parents. Those who are not as intelligent do not fall though the cracks neither do those with less intelligent parents IF both have the gift of either relying on quality nature or nurture.

For everyone else, however you are born, you have to start from the bottom up so to speak and learn through your mistakes and experience.