This is a subject that I have had ferocious debates with some of my friends and intellectual companions: just how large of a role does one's genetic potential play in determining one's intelligence? It's basically a nature vs. nurture question. However, anticipating objections to such a broad question, as well as to motivate meaningful discourse, I would like to present some background.

1 - I recognize that intelligence is a broad term, composed of many sub-genres. Intelligence could be expressed in musical ability, artistic ability, interpersonal/social ability, quantitative/mathematical reasoning, and so forth. Therefore, my question encompasses all of these types: how fast someone can solve a math problem, how fast someone picks up an instrument, and so forth.

2 - I believe that success in any given one of these depends on a combination of genetic potential and practice/experience. There is, without a doubt, empirical evidence that genetic potential plays a role: families with high IQ tend to produce children with high IQ as well. And of course, training in various disciplines such as school, sports, or musical sessions enhance whatever initial ability existed (or viewed alternatively, training harnesses the genetic potential similar to how mining a gold vein in the ground reaps the full potential of that gold vein). What is unknown is the respective roles that each (genetics vs. training) play.

3 - I recognize the inherent difficulty in actually testing how large of a role genetics vs. experience play. In science, we know that correlation does not imply causation. For example, high shark attack rates and high ice cream consumption are heavily associated because both appear during the summer time, but by no means does this imply that eating ice cream increases your chances of getting shark-attacked. The only way to determine how much role a factor (such as intelligence or experience) has on a dependent variable (such as performance) is using controlled experiments. This is not possible since a person only has one life - we cannot give him training in one life and then deprive him of training in another life to compare the difference in his performance. Our closest models use identical twins, who have similar genetic decomposition, but grew up in different training environments.

4 - I admit that I think there is an intelligence cap (or a limit to how smart you can be, as determined by your genetics). Why? Because I have done the same math problem with someone who has had the same amount of training as me in math and I've seen him totally whip my ass. He will always figure out the solution before me, if I ever even do at all, that is. And vice versa, there are just some people whom I've tried to teach something and they simply will not be able to pick up. Yet, some of my friends have alternative views on this: they believe that there is no such cap. There is only time spent, devotion, and practice. In fact, one of my friends who is a brilliant physics major claims that I could be just as good as him at physics if I spent as much time as he did. I disagree with this simply because of the way that he thinks: he just lives on a much higher level than I do. He attributes that to experience: you get a "sense" after doing the same type of physics problems after a while.

5 - This intelligence cap that I claim to exist seems to exist in glowsticking as well. There are just some glowstickers out there who think up concepts that I could never think up. Often, I can only follow in their footsteps and imitate what they have created. I always walk the path; I never pave it. I always follow the master; I am never the master. It is always, "Oh, I can do that too, but why couldn't I have thought that up myself then?" (As it is often that case in analytical fields such as math, when someone explains a solution to me.)

So, I am asking you: how much of a role do you think genetics play, based on your previous experiences? Moreover, why do you believe so? (I am expecting answers particularly from frequent posters in the cafe intellect like Daobobo, Griever, EHB, FlowRate, Lira, etc (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/french_cig_nomo.gif) )

Oh, boy. Here this one goes.

I think that genetics set a pre-existing cap, whatever it may be, on everything. However, most people so seldom reach that cap or strive to test their limits that it's obscured the lines of the debate and become almost something of a moot point.

For instance, there are countless people with some inherent sort of musical ability who more likely than not haven't pursued it to its fullest. I know that I displayed some talent with the flute when I was 8, but I never went further with it. Likewise, there will always be those who never study for the SATs and ace them while others fumble through prep courses and still can't pick up "the knack" for test-taking. There's probably some sort of mental tick that can't be overcome. Of course, such lower-level concepts as standardized tests can usually be taught in such a way that circumvents nearly everyone's mental obstacles, but in more advanced things-- well, how many people can inherently understand astrophysics?

One could point to extreme cases, such as those of autistic savants, severely retarded in many forms of social and intellectual growth but vastly talented in other fields. Those are clearly defined by biological and genetic factors.

In most cases, though, while I think limits exist, they can and should be tested to their fullest if a person is so inclined to try and pursue some area, because the limit could be much higher and farther than previously supposed.

Totally agreed.
That would be me, as well.

Which leads me to my first point. I am going to discriminate between two major sorts of intelligence: emotional and academic (I can't remember the exact names if those are wrong).

Emotional intelligence comprises several things. The most important in this discussion is basically self control/self-motivation/dedication. Basically, trying hard. I think that trying hard will more than compensate for being slightly less biologically prone to be intelligent than other people. This also relates to experience. the more you do something, the better you get at it. If you don't do it very often, you probably won't get all that great at it ,even if you're naturally good at it.

I'm going to be somewhat cocky and use myself as an example. I consider myself naturally good at math and science. But I almost never study. Maybe for an hour or two before a test. The most interaction I get with the material is (seriously) bsing my way through the material and somewhat paying attention in class, but not very much. I still manage to A (or A- in chem (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif) ') most of my classes. Imagine what I (and the MANY other people like me, I'm not a savant or anything, most of my friends are the same way) could do if I actually applied myself.

I contribute this lack of emotional intelligence to my nurture. I was not taught discipline in school when I was younger. I was home-schooled by my mom. She never really had us do anything hard, we never had to study for tests, etc. When I was put into a private school for 7th/8th grade, I found almost everything to be too easy--there was no reason for me to apply myself. This taught me that school isn't hard. I fully expect to either learn to study or get my butt kicked this next semester.

That was a tangent, but I think I made my point.

Most of the vastly superior people I've met (I don't include myself in this instance) try VERY hard in school in addition to being extremely intelligent. Except for this one guy I knew who never tried and still aced everything.

It's late, I got distracted half way through and I don't know where I was going to go in the second half of my post. But I'll TL;DR because I lose myself when I try and be elaborate:

Three things are important: biological predisposition to intelligence, self-control and motivation to apply oneself, parents and teachers who reinforced positive, intelligent behavior during a child's development.

I can't say I have many productive answers on this issue. There are many, many questions and a great deal of problems.

What is intelligence? -- At this time, I believe intelligence in human beings can be reduced to certain physical structures in the brain. These physical structures in the brain perform the function of presenting the mind with solutions to whatever we call "intellectual problems".


But what causes these structures in the brain? I think a great deal of these structures are genetically organized in such a way that they require certain inputs to respond.

For example, ducks, when they are born, imprint on their mothers, and follow them around without exception in neat little lines. It's a beautiful situation, and if people are around at the birth of a duck, they can be imprinted by the duckling, resulting in those cute little lines of ducks following people around.

Suppose you were an especially cold-hearted individual and you placed a duck in a blindfold for several months so that it had nothing visible to imprint on. The duck wouldn't imprint on anything.

But this isn't a case of nurture over nature. Rather, it is precisely the nature of the duck to imprint if and only if it sees the motherlike shape. In the same way, much of human learning: language, and the ability to visually interpret things, are genetic triggers that are set to activate if and only if something else also occurs.

So genetics are a series of if and only if triggers. Nurture is merely the set of things that determines what activates those triggers.

After reading the thread and all the responses, I sat back in my chair to brood on an answer, and one of the first things I thought to myself was, "Man, I wish Jeremy (my roommate) were up so we could have some preliminary discussion on this." He's an extremely intelligent person with whom I discuss a great many things, and this is right up his alley. Sometimes he can see a side to a debate that isn't immediately clear to me (he's a philosophy major; go figure).

Then I realized that my answers were somewhat embedded in that one train of thought. I think the line between natural ability in a given area and active learning is often blurred because people tend to study most diligently what they have an aptitude for, as long as it interests them. I believe that my roommate's ability to think and debate certainly has roots in his genetic intelligence, but his years of training can't be overlooked on this issue. I remember during my high school days excelling in math through my sophomore year, then stopping. I found myself completely unable to do Calculus as a senior. This, to me, was evidence of very little natural mathematical ability - only intensive training. On the other hand, I was one of only two seniors that year to score a 5 on my AP English exam. But while the other guy studied profusely, I never even bought the prep books - my teacher hated me for that. Obviously, I had a strong natural ability with the English language and literature and analysis and such.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's really hard to tell sometimes, but I believe that in all things there is a cap of some kind - it's simply not always apparent. I think what we're questioning here is people's basic desire to believe that anyone can do anything. It's a nice thought, but it's not the truth. Some people enjoy sitting on that high horse believing that they were born privileged. Others like to believe that they simply work harder than most people do. Some would hate the idea that they are simply capable of things that others will never be.

It's a very positive outlook: believing that anyone is capable of anything. It's almost as if to say that everyone's genetics determines an affinity for one skill and hard work can make up for the rest of it. It's an equality thing, I think, and ultimately a superiority issue. But if hard work was able to make up for degrees of intelligence that one's genetics did not afford them, there would be many more geniuses in the world than there are. I've seen people's lives consumed by schoolwork and study, not because they loved learning, but rather because it was necessary in order for them to be able to keep up with others.

Genetics, in my mind, sets the bar. There are some individuals who, despite focused and determined study in a given area, will never achieve as much as others in the same field with a genetic advantage - a natural intelligence. We are not all equal.

Mann I just read the first 2 paragraphs and was like -WHOOSH- over my head.

I guess I'll answer this one in a few years =/ Sorry guys.

Perhaps the intelligence "cap" is not the appropriate phrase to refer to a how much potential one's genetics has endowed one with. I mean - as other people have stated in the above posts, most individuals never actually hit this "cap". Our lives are multi-dimensional typically so we never specialize so hard in one area as to actually hit that cap. For example, I don't know where my cap in glowsticking is because I split my time among other hobbies as well. So, I actually don't know how good I could be at glowsticking if I did actually spend all of my time towards it. So I can't see the cap. (I don't if I ever would want to hit the cap for any of my abilities like glowsticking, cubing, lifting weights, social intelligence - because that would require me to give up everything else for that one area of specialization and I am not willing to do that.)

A more appropriate indication of intelligence would be the rate of which a person learns something (as opposed to the end result of how good a person could be). Typically those with a high cap also learn faster. So for example, a person who is a genius at mathematics may demonstrate that his genetic potential for mathematics is very high by showing that he picks up new concepts in math at lightning speed. Here, we are observing patterns on the margin, as opposed to the end point. In other words, if we can't see the total ability of a person (because he never hits that cap), we can at least see the marginal ability or the change in the ability of the person over time.