I refuse to get into a serious discussion about intelligence…
…but
Given two exact same expressions of the same genome and you will be able to detect objective differences. The, “identical twins separated at birth, both are firemen” is the exception, not the rule.
And even if you started with the assumption that we all have the same mental capacity as everyone else (we don’t), add in a few doses of poverty, alcoholism, or abuse and (as emeril says) Bam!
I tend to ignore intelligence in much the same way I ignore people with perfect pitch. Both are great party tricks. Both cost the same buck fifty for a cup of coffee.
(To those who argue that greater intelligence gives you access to more money which gives you access to more coffee… Just look at Trump :D)
[Edit: insulting and inappropriate analogy comparing educators to homeopaths has been removed. I apologize: I went too far in my desire to discredit anecdotal evidence.] The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
[quote=“awjt, post:40, topic:70232”]
I take issue with this notion of a level playing field. It is so decidedly not a level playing field from birth, on many fronts.[/quote]
Perhaps, but until we level out the playing field after birth, it will be hard to tell just how much of an effect genetics plays at birth, especially when we are also measuring so many different kinds of intelligence.
I do really think we need to get away from the concept of any narrow sort of ‘innate’ intelligence being at all important or even particularly beneficial.
Even if one can argue that a specific sort of intellect is advantageous when it comes to certain aspects of our society, that’s still an absurdly limited range and it doesn’t do any of us any good to treat IQ as if it makes somebody potentially superior as a person or gives an advantage that’s anything other than artificially tuned to a very specific (and dysfunctional) society.
The ability to use one’s brain well varies from person to person but we’re all not good at everything and we need to embrace the variety that others have to get the most out of ourselves. The vast majority of useful mental skills are completely unmeasureable and they shouldn’t be disrespected because of that. If I’ve got five engineers stuck on a problem, then I don’t need another engineer…I need an admin or a nurse or a janitor or a child to get them out of their rut.
It should be about doing what we can with what we have (fighting biases, using our brains responsibly, having fun with things to improve our motivation, etc.), but not a race to all become clones based on arbitrary definitions.
You’re arguing against a perceived anecdotal fallacy with a false equivalence. Educators who are formally trained in the science of child assessment are not the same as homeopaths. Not even in the same ballpark. So I can’t take this argument seriously.
Also, twin studies are interesting, but it’s not what’s at stake here. It’s a narrow context. I am arguing a broader context. I am saying that there is a wide spectrum of intelligence present at birth in healthy, full-term children. If you are not arguing the opposite, that it is essentially a level playing field at birth, then we are talking past each other.
I’m sorry: I went too far in trying to discredit the idea of anecdotal evidence. Perhaps I should have said that even trained, practicing medical doctors can, and do, prescribe treatments which are ineffective because of anecdotal evidence. Equating educators to homeopaths was insulting and inappropriate, and I apologize.
I hear what you are saying.
I, in turn, am saying that there’s no way to measure intelligence as one meaningful, all-encompassing number, especially not at birth. I am saying that, unless two children are granted equal opportunities in their infancy, there are many other factors (especially ones related to economics) that would impact all of the different facets of their intelligence, well before such things can be measured. I am saying that before we can assume that someone was born “a slow egg” we have to control for all of those other impacting factors, which is nearly impossible.
Basically, I’m saying, since a person’s “brainpower” (as opposed to “ability to do well on tests”) is difficult to nail down at best, and dependent on so many things other than genetics, perhaps we should be careful before making judgements about what intelligence was “present at birth.”
I can probably mostly buy that. But the thing is, there are slow eggs and fast eggs. A number to label them, such as IQ, is probably inaccurate. I’ve read a lot about IQ and I don’t think it’s the end-all be-all intelligence measure. It’s controversial. So, I’m not arguing for IQ.
But let’s say you could toss babies onto a pile of pillows and because of magic, they land in the spot that closest approximates the summation of their innate intelligence. Intelligence defined as all factors combined somehow into a “tossing heuristic.” Well, all I am arguing is that we’d have babies spread out all over the pillows, from “less” to “more” in a more or less normal distribution.
Generally, that’s how things work, but I think my idea of what the standard deviation would be is much smaller than yours. Let’s say that the minimum is zero (autonomic function only), the maximum is 100 (as smart as a human being can possibly be while remaining human), and the average is 50 (note: this is not where I think the average would actually go on such a scale from 0 to 100, but I picked 50 for simplicity). I think that the standard deviation would be no higher than 2. That is, I think that the vast, vast majority (99%) of the human race would be within the range of 44 to 56. My gut says closer to 1 (99% within 47 to 53).
The babies will have to be dropped into a number of piles because there are too many different types of intelligence and ‘useful brain usage’ to categorize that simply. Also: This may damage their brains and cause injuries, and that’s just impolite…even if they are technically non-sentient larvae until the age of six.
The starting point isn’t nearly as relevant as what one does with their brains afterwards. It’s very possible to become better at things (basic logic and reason for example, which we American’s are un-trained at normally) and just as easy to become worse (Republican presidential candidates, anyone?) …and that’s just one narrow band.
Expertise in one realm does not correspond to expertise in others. In fact, many of the types are completely contradictory (for example I’m great on the creative front but can’t organize my way out of a bag)
That’s part of why I’m not big fan of trying to measure intelligence too much… it’s just not useful from a practical standpoint or even as a thought exercise. An average enthusiastic person can pass up a ‘genius’ pretty quickly in most fields, especially in these days of ready information where we’re all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Ummm… Please read my previous posts. I agree with you. I’m arguing against@awjt who seems to be taking the position that “there are slow eggs and fast eggs” and that what variety of egg you are is determined at birth.
I’m agreeing with you too! Well, both kind of. I’m in the ‘Yes we’re all really different but it doesn’t matter especially as we start going to kindergarten’ school.
I just didn’t want to get the conversation out of sync.
You’re just saying that because you want to make sure I don’t think I’m too smart and make sure to hire you as a Grand Vizier when I take over the world.
Well … ha! Screw that… -I- get to be the Grand Vizier!
Sad day when that happens, because she’s so adorable.
