UKGIRL28 Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 Do you guys think that, if a man and a woman are both intelligent, will give birth to an even more intelligent baby? Is intelligence inherited? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 I don't think its always a direct correlation. Certainly there are generic factors...but environment (including proper nutrition and avoidance of harmful stuff etc) and most importantly (early) education I think (and studies are showing0 are just as important or more. Of course there arre "natural" geniueses - and some - but not all seem to be born to fairly intelligent parents...but I don't think it is at all a one to one. Please don't take my answer as gospel though - or what anyone may likely say here - search it out in books or on the internet (if you really are curious) etc (and then let us know what you find)....and are you planning on givign your b/f an IQ test anytime soon? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKGIRL28 Posted November 13, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Well put it this way, he's definately got a higher IQ than myself, so no, I dont think I'll be testing him! LOL I was just curious coz of a magazine article I was reading about a woman who's saying that she's met her intelligent 'soulmate' and that she's expecting her offspring to be intelligent also.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 it really depends on the areas parents are "intelligent" at. for example, if both are extremely good mathematicians, then it is very likely that their child will be very at good math. however, if one is has good logic, and the other has good atistic skills, then the child has, i think, equal chances of being good at logic, art, both, or neither. no research, just a speculation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Converse is also true - I am not like either of my parents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 Do you guys think that, if a man and a woman are both intelligent, will give birth to an even more intelligent baby? Is intelligence inherited? First, define intelligence. Well, whatever it is, it is something that happens inside one's brain - and since parents with big noses tend to have children with even bigger noses, it might be the same with brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 Errr ... (as you love to say)! Steve, this time you are wrong. I have pretty eloquant nose, kind of Roman or rather Habsburgs type (a little curvy), but none of my parents have big nose. Both of them have very elegant small noses. True though, my grandfather had exactly like main... proud and big cucumb.., sorry, I meant - nose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayri7X Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 Intelligence is socially defined. It is measurable in "rightly" applying knowledge in a socially appropriate context ( such as an I.Q. test). It is highly subjective, IMO. Were I to gauge my intelligence in accordance to , say, Yanomamo standards ( an indigenous society in S. America) of what is a right and appropriate application of knowledge in a certain social context, then I would certainly be regraded as ignorant. However, I might ( through capacity and learning) aquire the knowledge ,and adequately or even exceptionally apply that knowledge. This sounds like it could be fodder for the classical debate of nature versus nurture- inheritance versus aquired knowledge. Yet it appears that more scientists are going recently with nature via nurture. Perhaps-- perhaps capacity is inherited. However it finds its vehicle of expression in an aquired manner. I.e., the nature via nurture arguement. Take this as an (unfortunate ) example used in communication and linguistic studies. A young girl named(?) Genie was rescued from years of neglect by social workers. When they found this young girl, her muscles associated with speech had atrophied, and she had no language skills whatsoever after having been left in a room with no human contact. Did she have the capacity for "intelligence" and "speech" ? Certainly. However, it could not be applied in social context, because for her there was none. BTW- she did undergo rehabiliation and eventually learn to speak, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKGIRL28 Posted November 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 First, define intelligence. Well, whatever it is, it is something that happens inside one's brain - and since parents with big noses tend to have children with even bigger noses, it might be the same with brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKGIRL28 Posted November 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 I always thought that if a guy has a big 'hooter' then when he's looking for his ideal female, he'll want her to have a small one so that, ideally, their off-spring will not be too big or too small! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 Vayri - some very good points. And besides strict cultural aspect to intelligence (measurment? /applications or what have you) I really think that there are justdifferent aspects to this thing we call "intelligence" that aren't alwasy eisily measurable. And I also think that there are inate as well as learned capabilities (as you specifically also mention). I've studied with and am friends with Anthroploigists who come 100% from the bahavoral/learned/nurture school (one good friend was [as a young girl] an assistant to Margerat Mead - and very much things along these lines. While it has apeal - i cannot discount inherited capabilities (potential) as well...however there are still many variables - some that I think may get short shift - such as nutrition and even random factors that may act to spark brain development (usage) where if some particuar encounter or environmental circumstance fail to occur - this stimulation might never kick in etc...What do you think? And your example of "Genie" is very interestiong...make s me think of all those who were either hard orf hearing or otherwise had soem learning disability who were neglected in the past - copnsidered mentally retarded and even abandoned...am I correct in my memory of one story of a guy named "Bill"...don't know if I got it right or if you are familiar - but his story always brought tears to my eyes (big time)...having lived a life into adulthood in mental institutions and having had to learn to be "normal" etc....just because he was slow or what have you - turned out to be a very engaingin individual. For many years I had his picture placed on a wall above my desk and thought of him as a true hero (if thats the word)...(any help? familiar?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 I always thought that if a guy has a big 'hooter' then when he's looking for his ideal female, he'll want her to have a small one so that, ideally, their off-spring will not be too big or too small! And then there is the phallic thing - big nose, big penis, (don't know whether it is true - though probably some US university has acres of research papers on the subject ) - so believers of that, if female, would maybe want to find a male partner with a big nose, but the man wouldn't want to have a female partner with a big nose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayri7X Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 THOTH- For some reason, I can't conujure the Bill narrative out of my mind just yet. " such as nutrition and even random factors that may act to spark brain development (usage) where if some particuar encounter or environmental circumstance fail to occur - this stimulation might never kick in etc...What do you think?" I agree with the nutrition factor, as an -element- of physiological components of intelligence. Ecology and systems theory inegrate this in accounts of performance of the organized application of knowledge. If we were to take a reductive stance as a *model* ( not the bottom-line) to understand intelligence capacity dynamically ( not fixed), then we could find ourselves in the arena of neuroscience & among other areas of science focusing on the brain. I.e, questioning the role of neurochemicals which constitute one of many biological variabilites of cognitive dynamics in learning and performing knowledge. The role of nutrition is Very important , I agree. Simply, how can one apply the capacity for intelligence with "deficient fuel"? Malnutrition ( and stress) alters brain chemicals that impact learning ability ( the specifics of recent reasearch , I am uncertain- but I'll bug my best friend, a PhD in neuroscience ). It also has been shown that stressful or violent environment alters the application of intelligence ( positive and negative). My neuroscience buddy claims that stress alters neurochemicals significantly - the jury is out for how permanent , the exactness of the process and what the specifics of the chemicals involved are,-aside from the elementary neurochemicals, which are widely known/ I agree then, that the symbiotic relationship between biology and environment should be accounted for . On that note, ( here's a controversey when thinking of the implications - I'll leave it ambiguous enough for folks to think of examples) Much has been said about the role of "class" and ideals of intelligence. Working -class/underprivileged kids may be subjected to variables of stress that middle- & upper-class kids are not, and as a result, *may* not have access to environments that allow for the application of knowledge that upper-class kids do, and hence, not get the ability to *exercise* capacity through application. Likewise, they may have opportunities of intelligence application that privileged kids don't. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 On that note, ( here's a controversey when thinking of the implications - I'll leave it ambiguous enough for folks to think of examples) Much has been said about the role of "class" and ideals of intelligence. Working -class/underprivileged kids may be subjected to variables of stress that middle- & upper-class kids are not, and as a result, *may* not have access to environments that allow for the application of knowledge that upper-class kids do, and hence, not get the ability to *exercise* capacity through application. Likewise, they may have opportunities of intelligence application that privileged kids don't. What do you think? absolutely agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.