EPTIntelligence and disease and smart Singaporeans - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
| ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:09 craz3d wrote: Perhaps disease correlates with climate as well. Countries located in Africa or in the Caribbean have more disease burden, while countries in Scandinavia for example have less. So there's lots of other factors involved. Diseases only have a small affection of our intelligence, however. It also depends on WHAT KIND of diseases we are talking about here. | ||
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 09 2010 03:33 Beyonder wrote: Read several articles which basically say the same thing. The flynn effect (global rising of intelligence) is most extreme in developing countries, most likely because of better healthcare, better education and so forth. Disease = worse healthcare = most likely worse educational system, etc, etc. Beyonder, how do you reconcile the Flynn Effect with your earlier post that 15 points of IQ is decided by the environment and the rest is genetic? In many populations the total increase was higher and if anything the population effect should have been towards lower IQ (i.e. the general trend has been that people with lower social status and on average lower IQ have more offsprings). If twin studies rarely show more than 15 points of difference that doesn't mean it's an upper bound for environmental effects. Indeed, the correct interpretation seems to be that there are variables which are constant over separated twins but aren't between generations. There are obviously a lot of these. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:37 hypercube wrote: Beyonder, how do you reconcile the Flynn Effect with your earlier post that 15 points of IQ is decided by the environment and the rest is genetic? In many populations the total increase was higher and if anything the population effect should have been towards lower IQ (i.e. the general trend has been that people with lower social status and on average lower IQ have more offsprings). If twin studies rarely show more than 15 points of difference that doesn't mean it's an upper bound for environmental effects. Indeed, the correct interpretation seems to be that there are variables which are constant over separated twins but aren't between generations. There are obviously a lot of these. He obviously haven't read about IQ and IQ Tests and it's great flaws. | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On July 09 2010 01:47 Beyonder wrote: Twin studies generally show that there's a variation of 15 IQ points (in the positive or negative) that's largely due to upbringing (stimulation by parents). Your genes largely decide between what interval you will place though. Wow, is that really true? How in the world would they do a study like that? Identical genetics but (apparently drastically) different environments? Can you really tell me a kid raised by wolves would be only have 30 max fewer IQ points than if he/she had been raised by intellectual parents? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:47 Ahseyo wrote: He obviously haven't read about IQ and IQ Tests and it's great flaws. No disrespect, but I'd rather read a well reasoned post that disagrees with my position than one with no substance that supports it. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:52 billyX333 wrote: Wow, is that really true? How in the world would they do a study like that? Identical genetics but (apparently drastically) different environments? Can you really tell me a kid raised by wolves would be only have 30 max fewer IQ points than if he/she had been raised by intellectual parents? A bad argument and I can only laugh at how stupid it is. I have no idea how many flaws there are and apperantely he must have been high whilst writing it, or just I don't know.... Silly. As I said, EQ means alot more than IQ when you express your self emotionally and use your intellect than IQ. | ||
|
Ahseyo
Sweden80 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:52 hypercube wrote: No disrespect, but I'd rather read a well reasoned post that disagrees with my position than one with no substance that supports it. No substance that supports it? Did you even read what I wrote about IQ on page six? It's alot more relaible than IQ. How the hell can you say that IQ is a reliable system to measure intelligence on when they're theories that doesn't support any kind of real fact? | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:54 Ahseyo wrote: A bad argument and I can only laugh at how stupid it is. I have no idea how many flaws there are and apperantely he must have been high whilst writing it, or just I don't know.... Silly. As I said, EQ means alot more than IQ when you express your self emotionally and use your intellect than IQ. Whoa, slow down there, buddy If you want to have an interesting debate, leave out the mocking/ridicule and personal attacks | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:56 Ahseyo wrote: No substance that supports it? Did you even read what I wrote about IQ on page six? It's alot more relaible than IQ. How the hell can you say that IQ is a reliable system to measure intelligence on when they're theories that doesn't support any kind of real fact? I'm not interested in debating how reliable IQ testing is atm. I think it's an important and interesting question, just don't think it has too much relevance to what I asked from Beyonder. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:12 Ahseyo wrote: Diseases only have a small affection of our intelligence, however. It also depends on WHAT KIND of diseases we are talking about here. That's because IQ isn't designed to measure intelligence and no it doesn't matter what kind of diseases we are talking about. If a country has alot of diseases it will stunt it's growth, leading to less development for the treating of said diseases. The work force will be lesser meaning that kids will have to go to work at an earlier age. That in turn means they will leave school earlier if they even go in the first place, and even so the teaching will be subpar compared to the rest of the world. It's in school you learn how to solve the puzzles given to you on an IQ, if your population isn't educated they will fail on the IQ tests. | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:52 billyX333 wrote: Wow, is that really true? How in the world would they do a study like that? Identical genetics but (apparently drastically) different environments? Can you really tell me a kid raised by wolves would be only have 30 max fewer IQ points than if he/she had been raised by intellectual parents? By studying twins who were raised both apart and in the same household and by looking at individuals who were adopted, scientists can gain better insight into the nature vs. nurture theory. Mother having twins puts them up for adoption, they go to different homes and u measure concurance and comorbidty of illnesses and traits vs twis with same enviroment. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On July 09 2010 21:52 billyX333 wrote: Wow, is that really true? How in the world would they do a study like that? Identical genetics but (apparently drastically) different environments? Can you really tell me a kid raised by wolves would be only have 30 max fewer IQ points than if he/she had been raised by intellectual parents? 15 points is probably a range found within typical experiences within a certain country or countries. Experiences outside that typical set could have a still greater effect. However, keep in mind that IQ (the ability to think/learn, not the measurement thereof) is different than the level of intelligence an individual achieves. The guy raised by wolves might have a perfectly working brain, but hasn't really applied it towards acquiring deeper knowledge. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On July 09 2010 02:39 Hynda wrote: I have an IQ of 131 that means my IQ is within the top 2-3% in the world, I'm a member of Mensa or rather i was since I saw no point in handing them money for no reason. Still I was far from the best in my class or in anyway exceptional, well perhaps I was because I could maintain decent grades without studying through out most of my first 9 years in school. I was busy being rebelious and lazy doing other non-school things raging against the rightwing society and protesting against stuff in far away country. I got 11 points more IQ than what you say is required to be a doctor, yet I'm probably the least suitable person in this thread to become one. IQ is such a fragmented part of a human and discriminating people based on it is ridiculous. If someone can work so hard that they pass the same tests as someone with 120 IQ why should they be barred because not having it? Isn't it also ironic that I suffer from dyslexia? I'm supposed to be super smart, yet my brain can't even handle to spell the same word twice. You would think someone with an IQ of 131 would realize that anecdotes are useless. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:12 seppolevne wrote: Rather be smart enough to realise that people wouldn't actually get the point unless you spelled it out for them.You would think someone with an IQ of 131 would realize that anecdotes are useless. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
DISHU
United Kingdom348 Posts
the poorer a country is the more diseases as they don't have good infrastructure in place (i.e hospitals doctors ) and this also means less school and leading to lower IQ. why is this so hard to understand ? | ||
|
MGren
Sweden148 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
Do people really think they just ran a simple correlation with two variables and wrote a paper on it? Not that the results are 100% conclusive, but come on. These aren't stats 101 students. | ||
|
wail
United States26 Posts
On July 09 2010 23:30 Hynda wrote: That's because IQ isn't designed to measure intelligence and no it doesn't matter what kind of diseases we are talking about. If a country has alot of diseases it will stunt it's growth, leading to less development for the treating of said diseases. The work force will be lesser meaning that kids will have to go to work at an earlier age. That in turn means they will leave school earlier if they even go in the first place, and even so the teaching will be subpar compared to the rest of the world. It's in school you learn how to solve the puzzles given to you on an IQ, if your population isn't educated they will fail on the IQ tests. IQ isn't intended to measure "intelligence" because "intelligence" is a fuzzy term that means any number of things in different contexts. I mean, honestly, I can go and speak to someone and people will claim that I'm "acting smart" just because I'm using vocabulary that isn't in common parlance. But vocabulary is not a measure of intelligence (rather, vocabulary is not strictly a measure of intelligence, but is somewhat correlated to it). I have co-workers who can run circles around me in terms of knowledge about how certain computer systems work, but the thing is their knowledge is highly domain specific and accumulated through lots of experience. Intelligence/IQ is not experience, and it's not domain specific. To a certain extent, everything that human beings can "know" (at least in an objective sense) can be known through certain specific paths: Observation, induction, deduction, etc. But most people in general are terrible at thinking logically, from an impersonal perspective, and so on. Someone of below average IQ is almost certainly going to have to struggle a lot harder to understand math like Calculus than someone with above average IQ, even though computers with no actual intelligence whatsoever can perform calculations involved in Calculus just fine. | ||
| ||
