• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Intelligence Mostly Innate or Nurtured?

xMathFanx

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
345
Reaction score
85
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is Intelligence Mostly Innate or Nurtured?

Now, it is near common knowledge that there is some level of intricate interplay between innate abilities and nurturing. However, which one plays a larger role? Please post your thoughts on the side that you feel is more responsible for various levels of intelligence in the Human population. If you are of the persuasion that it is 50-50, than please come down on either side or both sides of the debate when posting. Also, do you object to the framing of this question?--and rather feel that there is more to be discussed than explored here? Please indicate as such if you deem this to be the case while stating your reasoning.

Note: We are strictly discussing Human intelligence, as the innate differences between a Human and a frog are rather obvious/trivial to reasonably conclude/suppose.
 
I would say mostly nature (75%?) as you noted with the (discarded?) comparison with any human and any frog. That is not to say that nurture can not slightly enhance (up to 5% more) or seriously degrade (down to 25% less?) that latent potential of a given human's brain to achieve its potential.

We have too much (political or moral?) bias to be honest about this subject. While we (universally?) accept that genetics play a huge role in other human traits we want to believe that all human brains are created equal. We also (universally?) accept that potential brain development requires training (education) before puberty to be most effective. No matter how carefully we try to treat all students equally the result will be a bell curve in the performance of individual students even when they are taken from the most carefully controlled nurture environment possible.
 
Last edited:
Who's Nate?
 
Obviously because Mozart was writing operas when he was 6 years old, it's both.

I won't even pretend to know what the % is though.
 
I have to agree with both. However, creativity cannot be taught. Logic, common sense, disciplines, art, language including sign, and such can be taught and become the building blocks or restrictions to building blocks in one's chosen discipline. Much like software programming, some of the learning cannot expand itself. AI is feared because of just that function.
/
 

Who wants to believe that all human brains are created equal? I sure don't. I would define intelligence as the ability to learn. Which is different from what you learn. That's knowledge. Knowledge can be learned, intelligence I don't believe can. Like running a 10 second hundred. Some can do it, some can't.
 

Thats a bit different since no one can run a 10 second hundred without training and it even if you are born with the possible ability to do so it takes a decade plus of training to do so.
 
Crovax said:
Thats a bit different since no one can run a 10 second hundred without training and it even if you are born with the possible ability to do so it takes a decade plus of training to do so.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Isn't that the same with all human traits? Why is intelligence different?

No matter how hard you try and I train, you will never teach me to run a 10 second hundred. I can however solve math problems in my head.

To recap, I think intelligence is innate. Knowledge is learned.
 

The difference between a person with an IQ of 80 and a person with an IQ of 120 is almost entirely nature. No amount of training or education will elevate the first person to the level of the second. It takes hours and hours of training to get the first person to do tasks that the second can master in a few minutes.

The differences in intelligence that most educated people are concerned about -- the difference that will enable one high school graduate to make a higher score on the SAT than another -- is probably mostly nurture. The guy with an IQ of 80 isn't going to ever take the SAT.

To take one example, a difference of a half standard deviation in test scores of standardized exams like the SAT was identified between blacks and whites. If the groups were controlled for socioeconomic status then the difference disappeared. So nurture was all important. But this was in kids who had managed to get through school.
 

Raw intelligence: pattern recognition and an ability to rapidly learn, accurately predicting future outcomes from what was seen to have happened under similar conditions in the past; is innate.
 

Intelligence is innate, learning is nurtured.
 

Because intelligence is the only uniquely human trait.
 

First, we need to define our terms. What is intelligence? Is it verbal ability, mathematical ability, athletic ability, artistic ability, or something else.?

If we're talking about verbal IQ, which is what the so called IQ tests measure, then it's almost entirely nurture. Talk to a child from the time he/she's a baby, read to the child, play games, and you generally come up with a child who learns to read quickly and develops a large vocabulary, which will show up well as verbal IQ. Don't talk, play games, read to the child, and they generally will turn out to be poor readers who lack vocabulary and don't do well on a verbal IQ test. That same child may or may not have much artistic, mathematical, or musical ability.
 

Those, mostly SJWs, who believe that equality of outcome is a valid measure of equlity of opportunity for all people in a society. If one beleives that all humans deserve a certain amount (fair share?) of private goods/services (often confused with basic human rights) then it is imperative never to "blame the victim".

If you assert that all people's brains are genetically equal then those that end up with less X must have been cheated by by those that end up with more X. Where X is usually expressed as a basic income level which is required to have "access to" most private goods/services. On the other hand, if you believe that people's brains are genetically unequal then it is not surprising, in the least, that some end up with more or less X even when treated equally in all respects concerning human rights.
 
Crovax said:
but no dog is smart
Click to expand...

Mine was.

Of course, dogs lack the sort of abstract reasoning that humans have, but still, some are smarter than others. My brother in law's dogs, for example, are stupid. Every time they see me, they don't recognize me and go off on a barking fit. My sister's dogs, on the other hand, know who I am and act accordingly. My dog could recognize a visitor by smell, even before she saw them, and would display different body language according to who was on the other side of the door.
 

Yes dogs obliviously have varying degrees of intelligence but even the most intelligent dog is not intelligent by human standards. My point was that intelligence and knowledge despite one being innate and one being learned are still closely linked. Where as other skills the gap between innate and learned is much greater.
 
I would say nature, however there must be adequate nurture at a young age in order for the image abilities to excel. For example, in the womb and in childhood it is essential there is adequate nutrition for the brain to properly developed. If Mozart or Einstein were born and raised in Ethiopia in a constant state of starvation, they would have been nowhere near as gifted.
 
A combination of both...a human raised by animals will act like an animal...
 

Yes, and humans no doubt have varying degrees of intelligence also, but my original point was that there are different sorts of intelligence. Just because an individual has a high verbal IQ, it doesn't necessarily follow that they have a high IQ in other areas as well.

Based solely on personal experience, I'd say that verbal IQ is mostly nurture, mathematical is about half and half, artistic and musical is mostly innate. I can't prove that, of course, and it could be wrong, but then this same argument has been going on for decades now with no one coming up with any definitive proof.
 
Elvira said:
A combination of both...a human raised by animals will act like an animal...
Click to expand...


Day one --- You walk out to the dog house with a ball bat.....and hit the dog that is chained up.

Day two ---- Same thing.

Day three ---- The dog is going to start growling.

Day four --- The Dog is going to growl and show its teeth.

Day five ---- The Dog is going to strike back.


Environment is intelligence............ and intelligence is environment. As taught in college psychology classes = your environment is learned. And from that you adapt.

Adaption.....is survival. Your actions and reactions are based on your environment ----> Its a psychological fact folks.





Major Lambda
 
Elvira said:
A combination of both...a human raised by animals will act like an animal...
Click to expand...

Which is knowledge, not intelligence. A highly intelligent human, raised by animals, will quickly learn to catch the largest and best tasting rabbit for dinner, whereas the very low intelligence human will end up being dinner.
 

Again, that's learning, not intelligence. The smart dog will get to day five by day two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…