Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

IQ? (Page 3)

.FunLuvingGirl. IF-Dazzler
.FunLuvingGirl.
.FunLuvingGirl.

Joined: 11 October 2008
Posts: 3395

Posted: 23 May 2011 at 8:14am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by .FunLuvingGirl.


And about the nature and nurture, yes both effects a lot.

What we gain from our parents' genes (hereditary) effects our intelligence and that is the main factor about a person having more or less intelligence.
And talking about the environment, it also effects. It checks our adaptability with the
environment.



-Soma.

Affects


oh ! LOL thanks..my frequent mistake..


Edited by .FunLuvingGirl. - 23 May 2011 at 8:14am

zorrro IF-Dazzler

Joined: 29 July 2008
Posts: 2702

Posted: 23 May 2011 at 8:18am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.
-pixie- IF-Rockerz
-pixie-
-pixie-

Joined: 21 September 2009
Posts: 6571

Posted: 24 May 2011 at 12:51pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Doe.

These IQ tests are really dumb. There is more to intelligence than the IQ tests. 
The reason these IQ tests came into existence was to divide children into categories based on their IQ in France...it was a method to make it easy for the teacher to know who was bright & who wasn't. That was started by Alfred Binet. However, it was Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin I guess), who introduced intelligence to Psychology. He made baseless statements like rich are more intelligent than poor, white are more intelligent than coloured, men are more intelligent than women and blah. Funny how a theory like this led to a vast topic like Intelligence.

As for nature vs nurture, it is a bit of both. We all know that genes play a great part in everything, including intelligence. This can be seen through studies like Twin studies, Pedigree analysis, etc.
As for the theory supporting nurture, I have read that orphans (neglected) who came under the mentally retarded category through IQ tests showed improvement in the intelligence levels when they were adopted by a lady who took good care of them.
So it is a bit of both.

Actually a Harvard Economics prof (Greg Mankiw) has data up on his blog that sort of correlates income (of parents) with intelligence and success of their progeny. I guess the intuitive hypothesis would be that the kind of opportunities that would be available to a child coming from a rich family would far outnumber those available to a poorer off child. Better coaching, better resources- would sharpen and polish the rich child far quicker even if both the children started out with the same. I guess this also validates a bit of the nurture debate that Aarya raised!
MagixX IF-Rockerz
MagixX
MagixX

Joined: 24 January 2010
Posts: 6273

Posted: 24 May 2011 at 1:11pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by -pixie-

Originally posted by .Doe.

These IQ tests are really dumb. There is more to intelligence than the IQ tests. 
The reason these IQ tests came into existence was to divide children into categories based on their IQ in France...it was a method to make it easy for the teacher to know who was bright & who wasn't. That was started by Alfred Binet. However, it was Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin I guess), who introduced intelligence to Psychology. He made baseless statements like rich are more intelligent than poor, white are more intelligent than coloured, men are more intelligent than women and blah. Funny how a theory like this led to a vast topic like Intelligence.

As for nature vs nurture, it is a bit of both. We all know that genes play a great part in everything, including intelligence. This can be seen through studies like Twin studies, Pedigree analysis, etc.
As for the theory supporting nurture, I have read that orphans (neglected) who came under the mentally retarded category through IQ tests showed improvement in the intelligence levels when they were adopted by a lady who took good care of them.
So it is a bit of both.

Actually a Harvard Economics prof (Greg Mankiw) has data up on his blog that sort of correlates income (of parents) with intelligence and success of their progeny. I guess the intuitive hypothesis would be that the kind of opportunities that would be available to a child coming from a rich family would far outnumber those available to a poorer off child. Better coaching, better resources- would sharpen and polish the rich child far quicker even if both the children started out with the same. I guess this also validates a bit of the nurture debate that Aarya raised!

History says that Sir Francis Galton was proven wrong when he tried to support his theories with proofs. LOL
Intelligence per say, is not about what one has learnt..it's mainly about their capability to learn something. And we all know that money cannot buy capability. LOL


Edited by .Doe. - 24 May 2011 at 1:13pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

-pixie-monar

-pixie- IF-Rockerz
-pixie-
-pixie-

Joined: 21 September 2009
Posts: 6571

Posted: 24 May 2011 at 1:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Doe.

Originally posted by -pixie-

Originally posted by .Doe.

These IQ tests are really dumb. There is more to intelligence than the IQ tests. 
The reason these IQ tests came into existence was to divide children into categories based on their IQ in France...it was a method to make it easy for the teacher to know who was bright & who wasn't. That was started by Alfred Binet. However, it was Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin I guess), who introduced intelligence to Psychology. He made baseless statements like rich are more intelligent than poor, white are more intelligent than coloured, men are more intelligent than women and blah. Funny how a theory like this led to a vast topic like Intelligence.

As for nature vs nurture, it is a bit of both. We all know that genes play a great part in everything, including intelligence. This can be seen through studies like Twin studies, Pedigree analysis, etc.
As for the theory supporting nurture, I have read that orphans (neglected) who came under the mentally retarded category through IQ tests showed improvement in the intelligence levels when they were adopted by a lady who took good care of them.
So it is a bit of both.

Actually a Harvard Economics prof (Greg Mankiw) has data up on his blog that sort of correlates income (of parents) with intelligence and success of their progeny. I guess the intuitive hypothesis would be that the kind of opportunities that would be available to a child coming from a rich family would far outnumber those available to a poorer off child. Better coaching, better resources- would sharpen and polish the rich child far quicker even if both the children started out with the same. I guess this also validates a bit of the nurture debate that Aarya raised!

History says that Sir Francis Galton was proven wrong when he tried to support his theories with proofs. LOL
Intelligence per say, is not about what one has learnt..it's mainly about their capabilities to learn something. And we all know that money cannot buy capabilities. LOL

Why can't money buy you capabilities? Assuming that the person is willing to learn- money can help that person acquire skills far superior to a poorer counterpart. I would not generalize based on disinterested poor rich boys. For everyone of those there are enough rich people who have doubled/trippled their fortunes! Ambanis being case in point.
MagixX IF-Rockerz
MagixX
MagixX

Joined: 24 January 2010
Posts: 6273

Posted: 24 May 2011 at 1:18pm | IP Logged
As far as I am concerned, you are born with a capability. A mentally retarded child will be less capable of learning something no matter how rich he/she is. Of course, they can be cured. Now that's something money can do.




Edited by .Doe. - 24 May 2011 at 1:23pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

-pixie-

-pixie- IF-Rockerz
-pixie-
-pixie-

Joined: 21 September 2009
Posts: 6571

Posted: 24 May 2011 at 1:20pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Doe.

As far as I am concerned, you are born with a capability. A mentally retarded child will be less capable of learning something no matter how rich he/she is. Of course, they can be cured. Now that's something money can do.

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make...lets say there are two mentally retarded children- the kind of care, therapy rich parents can afford cannot be replicated by the poor parents. Therefore over a period of time, the richer kid will always respond better to any measurement devices/instruments better than the poor kid- who lets say has not had comparable therapy or training!

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

MagixX

MagixX IF-Rockerz
MagixX
MagixX

Joined: 24 January 2010
Posts: 6273

Posted: 24 May 2011 at 1:26pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by -pixie-

Originally posted by .Doe.

As far as I am concerned, you are born with a capability. A mentally retarded child will be less capable of learning something no matter how rich he/she is. Of course, they can be cured. Now that's something money can do.

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make...lets say there are two mentally retarded children- the kind of care, therapy rich parents can afford cannot be replicated by the poor parents. Therefore over a period of time, the richer kid will always respond better to any measurement devices/instruments better than the poor kid- who lets say has not had comparable therapy or training!

No, I get you. Now what I am saying is, let's say there is a child who is mentally retarded, but very rich..& a very intelligent child, who is very poor. Who has more capability? The richer one or the poor one? I mean, who is born with a better capability? 

The case you have stated is more about fate. I mean, one retarded child was blessed to be born in a better house, while the other one was less fortunate.

Go to top

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index