View Full Version : Intelligence: Genes v. Education
Triple Seven
22-07-08, 23:06
With the correct help (which is always necessary), it is possible for someone to do all of these things. The thing is, that people dont try. They normally reach a height in one and carry on with that one.
I could write a book, but its up to the public and not me whether it would be a best-seller.
The same with the no1 album. As well as getting money, for them both, of course.
If I read up on directing, then I could direct. Once again, blockbusters are never made by the director, but by the viewers.
Designing a building is highly likely, if I were to want to follow that path. There are many university and college courses, I think, that would build up that skill.
You heard it here first folks: talent has no place in this particular utopia :lol:
Anyhow, is there really a point to this T7? I mean, its all academic, theres only one right answer to this. The only way this topic is useful is if we all lived in an alternate reality were we all were exactly the same, no uniqueness.
A talent is just something that someone gets for learning-up on a skill, whether it be through practical ways or through theory. Talent is another word for strong-willingness.
You really believe that dont you?
Ryuu's_Ghost
22-07-08, 23:12
Talent is important if you want to be the best at something but when you just wish to be OK at something, then good old education / practice pays off. But in the end you need all these factors to be the best at something.
Well this is an entertaining thread; I think Ill go down to the art school and learn me some Da Vinci skills and make a lot of money. Isnt it awesome that we live in such a world were everything is so easy, and nothing depends on how different we all are! Its almost like were robots with the same blank slate.
-_-
Of course. Talent in one skill is just built up from using other skills that are similar to that skill. You just dont realise it.
ie someone likes painting and tries (insert posh writing style here). They dont realisse why they are instantly good at this posh-writing style, but it is actually because it is similar to art. People dont realise these things.
And so, immediate talent never exists.
Triple Seven
22-07-08, 23:16
Anyhow, is there really a point to this T7?
Im not sure what you mean. I dont all of a sudden support greenyxis point of view, I merely quoted the last (controversial) argument from the previous topic.
Nah, I mean its just all academic.
Its like making a topic called The moon is in space vs it isnt.
Nah, I mean its just all academic.
Its like making a topic called The moon is in space vs it isnt.
Only in this case, opinion can be involved.
Opinion can be involved in anything. Doesnt mean its right. Now you guys are just debating for the sake of debating. And besides this is a game forum, you cant make any impact here on the minds of teens.
Im afraid an opinion cant be involved in your example. Weve all seen the proof that is needed. Only the senile would reject a moon existing when it is up there in the sky.
Ryuu's_Ghost
22-07-08, 23:24
What about those who are really gifted, i.e photographic memories even with memory training its almost impossible to have that gift, talent or whatever term you care to use for the essential X factors which make some people different from others.
But thats just it. There is opinion involved here, as is staring at you from your screen. Genes do not give people the skills they use to survive, books and other people do.
What about those who are really gifted, i.e photographic memories even with memory training its almost impossible to have that gift, talent or whatever term you care to use for the essential X factors which make some people different from others.
Exactly, well said.
And why? Because its all in the genes, the persons constructed brain; and thats why you cannot say everyone can learn the exact same things, because they cant, its logically impossible due to life as we know it.
What about those who are really gifted, i.e photographic memories even with memory training its almost impossible to have that gift, talent or whatever term you care to use for the essential X factors which make some people different from others.
Thats a malfunctioning gene. They dont work how they should, even if it seems for the better. Its what life calls: a cheat :)
Anyway, we are showing that people can do any skill, not to what extent.
Anyway, we are showing that people can do any skill, not to what extent.
Uh no, thats not the discussion. The discussion was the claims that all brains can do the exact same things. ie theyre exactly the same, like two Pentium 4 3Ghz processors.
Triple Seven
22-07-08, 23:32
Exactly the point.
Genes v. education may not be entirely precise. Its what you may read in a newspaper, though. People with exceptional genes dont need to study hard - do not need much education to reach a certain level (of intelligence/performance). People with genes not as good do, in order to reach the same level/performance. In a sense they are fighting (fighting because they have to work considerably harder - or because people have to work harder with them) the limitation of their genes.
edit:
Anyway, we are showing that people can do any skill, not to what extent.
Uh no, thats not the discussion. The discussion was the claims that all brains can do the exact same things. ie theyre exactly the same, like two Pentium 4 3Ghz processors.
Finally that mistake/oversight is being addressed.
Yes, and brains doing the same things requires a mixture of skills that anyone can do. Every skill is humanly possible, by everyone (unless they chopped a ear off and cant be a music judge, but that cant possibly count).
Other than that, I cant remember anyone saying that each person can do something as good as each other. Only that each person can do something well enough to get a job at it. Also, luck is involved in the success of a talent (which is normally known as being good by other people). ie. a singer doing well because there is a surprise want for that type of music at the time that the singer starts singing professionally.
Ryuu's_Ghost
22-07-08, 23:38
Thats a malfunctioning gene. They dont work how they should, even if it seems for the better. Its what life calls: a cheat
How so? my point was that genes do matter BUT they need other factors to develop to the fullest potential.
Just remember guys, this discussion is on Seths (apparently Utopian) view that any one person can become a mathematician, a zoologist, an astronaut, an Einstein, and so on by simply learning it as he puts it can learn anything because as he put it genes dont matter.
Which is of course grossly illogical; as thats not the way the human brain works.
seth ranson
22-07-08, 23:40
Anyway, we are showing that people can do any skill, not to what extent.
Uh no, thats not the discussion. The discussion was the claims that all brains can do the exact same things. ie theyre exactly the same, like two Pentium 4 3Ghz processors.
Finally that mistake/oversight is being addressed.
What? Who made you the discussion god that decides what the discussion is about?
(by the way: the processing power of these computers isn t even near the one of a human brain)
What? Who made you the discussion god that decides what the discussion is about?
Im not sure you comprehended that correctly. Generally, its a good idea not to switch topics in a discussion - thats called off topic.
(by the way: the processing power of these computers isn t even near the one of a human brain)
-_- this pretty much sums up the entire topic. :lol:
seth ranson
22-07-08, 23:48
I never said that all brains are the same, only that they could learn the same stuff. And I still don t see why they couldn t. Genes only give someone a little bonus, so to say. That s what I think. And that in my opinion that doesn t even contradict the research I looked up (which said that genes decide the IQ).
(something i wanted to post before too: )
I think Ill go down to the art school and learn me some Da Vinci skills and make a lot of money.
You come up with examples that are somehow over the top.
Do you think that e.g. Da Vinci had his skill from his birth on? It s very probable that he had to practice a lot before and it was very hard for him, so it won t ever be as easy as you make it look like in your example. Additionally you have no idea wether his DNA made him skilled or if it was just practice.
An aura of awkwardness, or was it just me?
Anyway, if genes were just like a processor, we wouldnt need to learn at all. The skiils would all be in there. Whereas, everyone needs to be shown how to do something. You dont automatically know how to program computers. You need the knowledge inserted into you. Its not natural.
Edit: Seth is obviously right above me. Dont let this debate throw your common-sense.
Triple Seven
22-07-08, 23:50
Other than that, I cant remember anyone saying that each person can do something as good as each other. Only that each person can do something well enough to get a job at it. .
So everyone could become an astronaut? Everyone could become a professor of law, physics, chemistry etc.? These are specific jobs, specific professions.
Let me repeat what I said earlier on:
Genes don t matter. You CAN do any job you want. Genes (and your experiences) only decide wether you suck at it or not.
Incorrect. If you dont fulfill the requirements (> have certain genes) necessary to do a job you cant do it. You sure can have a title or be hired to do a job (and have what it takes to be hired) but you still cant do the job, you cant perform. For instance, you could technically be hired a as goldsmith and perhaps even be called a goldsmith but still cant do a goldsmiths work.
Sorry, I went a little over board with the italic.
The fact that people are replying to metaphors just goes to prove many of the certain things argued in this thread. This is going no-where; fast. So lets try some reverse tactics:
Yes, youre right.
All humans are equal.
We all have equal brains.
There is no such thing as uniqueness or talent.
What one person can do, we can do also.
Genes are unimportant; after all theyre just what were made from.
The fact that people are replying to metaphors just goes to prove many of the certain things argued in this thread. This is going no-where; fast. So lets try some reverse tactics:
Yes, youre right.
All humans are equal.
We all have equal brains.
There is no such thing as uniqueness or talent.
What one person can do, we can do also.
Genes are unimportant; after all theyre just what were made from.
We are all still completely unique, because different people concentrate on different aspects of life. We dont all learn the same skills, even though we can.
Uniqueness is made via choice and not by genes (other than natural looks etc).
Ryuu's_Ghost
22-07-08, 23:57
There are skills naturally known without training for example like a bears hibernation. just because Im using animal skills as a example doesnt mean Im not getting what green is saying. I could use the toddler trantrum witch every young kid under 4 years has a talent for.
Triple Seven
22-07-08, 23:59
We are all still completely unique, because different people concentrate on different aspects of life. We dont all learn the same skills, even though we can.
Uniqueness is made via choice and not by genes (other than natural looks etc).
And what makes you think that genes determine how you look but not what you can (potentially) learn, what you can (potentially) understand? Do you think you could set a world record over 100 meters? Over 10.000?
seth ranson
23-07-08, 00:00
Just on a sidenote*: This is somehow enjoyable. I want to have the next discussion about wether we have a free will or not, ok?
*this is my new favourite phrase now...
Green if youre telling me if you studied the same tactics as Da Vinci did, no matter how long it took, you would become as great an artist as him then youre a super human or an idiot (no offense; its a point, and thats an example, if you are good at painting replace it with something you arent).
I know for a fact if I tried to become a mathematician I would fail miserly; my brain just isnt wired that way. And thats the point; everyones brain is different, working well with some tasks, not at all with others; there is no we can all learn the same things, thats a Utopian bull***t created by the cowards that wont admit they arent equal with other people.
So yes, live in a dream world - we all have equal brain power. We arent just the best attempt at a Human our parents could achieve. Every part of our bodies operates exactly the same, no one part is different - your liver is just as good as mine. And I have some bridges to sell.
There are skills naturally known without training for example like a bears hibernation. just because Im using animal skills as a example doesnt mean Im not getting what green is saying. I could use the toddler trantrum witch every young kid under 4 years has a talent for.
Toddlers do that because all they could do as babies was make noise to gain attention. Therefore, they revert to that when they get a little older to try and gain attention once again. They/were not born with that, its just the only thing that we can possibly do at that time. And yes, I give in to the animals instincts arguement, because that is obviously connected to genes. Or do they learn it from their parent bears? I am also too tired and feel like spewing, so Im off, with the hope that you feel happy with your win :)
Edit: Well done, all of you. Im extremely stubborn when I want to be, and I hardly ever believe in scientists Urikas!, because not many of their findings can be proved in a fair test environment. Its what people call a guess that has been made by smart people so they must be right. Anyway, sorry about my strong views, as I know how offensive it can feel. Have fun :)
Ryuu's_Ghost
23-07-08, 00:05
In the end its your genes, environment and experiences which makes you unique. I personality think there is no such thing as equals amongst humans just different people.
Triple Seven
23-07-08, 00:12
Im off, with the hope that you feel happy with your win :)
This isnt about winning, at least it shouldnt be. Insults are out of place as well - thats a general statement. It would be nice if we could respect each other and come to a conclusion that makes sense to all of us.
No problem, its just a discussion afterall.
seth ranson
23-07-08, 00:16
We arent just the best attempt at a Human our parents could achieve.
So you say We are the best attempt at a Human our parents could achieve? (don t say you didn t mean this, you wrote it in the other topic too)
Why?
If I look at it your way there s something wrong, because before you re born parents can t influence your genes, because the production of gametes (hope that s the correct word I looked up there...) is happening totally randomly. And there s no other way for your parents (yet) to influence your genes.
edit:
I agree with that 777. It s been fun, so let s continue this shall we?
We are the best attempt. Your very existence just proves it. Otherwise, you wouldnt exist. You are the best attempt at creating a Human being that your mom and dad achieved. Just look up sex education, I really dont want to have to do this on the forum.
Ryuu's_Ghost
23-07-08, 00:28
If anyone was offended by what I wrote in this topic I apologise but I stand by what Ive posted on the subject.
I dont think anyone wrote anything offensive at all.
seth ranson
23-07-08, 00:30
edit: Yep. I think you re right.
We are the best attempt. Your very existence just proves it. Otherwise, you wouldnt exist. You are the best attempt at creating a Human being that your mom and dad achieved. Just look up sex education, I really dont want to have to do this on the forum.
...
I don t have to look that up. I m not stupid, you know. There are different genes in every gamete and at least the female one is totally random, and could only by chance be the best one.
Yes I know.
Attempt, Seth, attempt. You are the best attempt. Not best.
Triple Seven
23-07-08, 00:33
If anyone was offended by what I wrote in this topic I apologise but I stand by what Ive posted on the subject.
Thats perfectly fine.
Attempt, Seth, attempt. You are the best attempt. Not best.
What if he has siblings?
Guys youre getting too hung up on semantics here. If he has siblings then its clearly amoral to judge which one is the best attempt. The point of the best attempt is to illustrate the point made earlier; there is no one true human, everytime we reproduce we are making a version, our best attempt, at creating a Human.
Like if I asked us all to draw an image of Jill Valentine. Theyre all going to be the same in general, but different.
seth ranson
23-07-08, 00:43
You re right I was just confused because I somewhere lost the attempt while I was thinking.
(by the way: the processing power of these computers isn t even near the one of a human brain)
-_- this pretty much sums up the entire topic. :lol:
It does?
Seth what does a rolling stone gathers no moss mean to you?
Ryuu's_Ghost
23-07-08, 00:47
Guys youre getting too hung up on semantics here. If he has siblings then its clearly amoral to judge which one is the best attempt.
To be fair genetics is in certain ways is amoral after all it is one factor in evolution which is an amoral process.
Guys youre getting too hung up on semantics here. If he has siblings then its clearly amoral to judge which one is the best attempt.
To be fair genetics is in certain ways is amoral after all it is one factor in evolution which is an amoral process.
Oh I agree. But we humans have entered into the old invisible contract with society on amorality; so we cant be amoral xD
seth ranson
23-07-08, 00:53
Seth what does a rolling stone gathers no moss mean to you?
Is there some secret meaning to this? I just looked up what it means, but I can t make out what it has to do with me.
(for the case some other German people read this here s the German equivalent: Wer rastet rostet nicht. )
Nah dont worry I was just pulling your leg. Its a metaphor. Pity you looked it up though without replying :P Its in response to your last post which Ill answer first:
It does?
Nah, well kinda, but its just a sarcastic reply :P Basically, what you posted means you missed the metaphor; we know the processors isnt even near the one of human brain, it was a metaphor for having two processors they work exactly the same; two brains do not. Hence, the quote sums up the topic because we have a brain not getting it ;)
Then I was just pulling you leg with the moss thing, I wanted to see if you could see the metaphor. Not being able to see metaphors has long been a staple indication in the Psychiatric community of psychotic disorders. :P
seth ranson
23-07-08, 01:14
Hm? No, I saw that it was a metaphor, I just commented that these computers wouldn t equal a brain, because they have a lot less processnig power. It s kinda pointless, but that s why I wrote by the way before it.
This whole personality test and what followed were quite an English lesson now, I had to look up quite a lot of stuff...
Did you notice that we wrote more than 3 pages on one day in one topic (if you d add the offtopic posts from the personality test topic)?
btw: Did you get a error just now too? (it said page not available)
Ryuu's_Ghost
23-07-08, 01:19
Nah dont worry I was just pulling your leg. Its a metaphor. Pity you looked it up though without replying :P Its in response to your last post which Ill answer first:
[quote]Not being able to see metaphors has long been a staple indication in the Psychiatric community of psychotic disorders. :P
Lol that community never really impressed me with its grasp of the human mind, but then you soon develop a deep cynicism when 7 year old kids wrap them around their fingers, Personally I think modern psychiatry is the biggest failure of the 20th century from a medical standpoint.
Yeh I totally agree; not much stock in Psychiatry these days. Now that its out of its boys club phase, mostly.
Yeh the site went down a few minutes ago. Did it earlier today too. Anyhow Im off to bed :P
seth ranson
23-07-08, 01:25
Psychiatry talk reminds me of this for some reason:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=gJMKo-5Xu3k
Good night everyone, then. It s kinda late.
Almost this late:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=iWSyW5SS6oc
Meaning I ll be off too.
thezombiemessia
23-07-08, 10:57
I missed one hell of a discussion here...
If im right, this topic can mostly be boiled down to Nature Vs Nurture...right?
Are we born with intelligence, or do we learn it? Tabula Rasa...philosophy...all that jazz.
Im just going pop in my 2 cents, and then hopefully ill be able to go with the flow:
Nature Vs Nurute...i think its both.
I think every human is naturally born with a talent, or many talents...but if this talent isnt played with whilst the child is growing, it wont flourish into what it should be.
Going on the Da Vinci reference that everyone seems to love, the chances are he was born a good artist. It happened with my sister.
He will have shown some skill in the arts at a young age, excelling at capturing the human form or mixing colours or something like this...much like my sister. But it wont have been until a later age where it flourished to its full potential...because he was taught how to refine his abilities.
So, nature gives you a set of skills or talents...anything from being good with numbers, to being good with your hands...but it isnt until nurute enhances these that they become anything good enough.
It may be possible for a person to learn these other talents or skills, but never to the same degree that a natural born talent could be shown.
I hope that makes sense...
Random note:
About the processors thing. I learnt several months back that if you built 2 computers to be equal...they had everything exactly the same...and then turned them both on at the same time, and left them to install everything and sort themselves out (burning), you will actually find that both will end up different. Both computers will act differently and install different required files.
They will both shares basics and similarities, but their will be minute differences within the programmes.
Just thought id share that.
Da vinci... the most brilliant person we hold record of. I guess when we say intelligence we are reffering to the capacibility of one to learn, to recognise patterns to break and rebuild the pieces of information around us in a meaningful/logical way, and this we all have, but to different degrees. I think it can be developed whithin some limits most likely set by genetics. So two indentical twins with the same genetic inheritance, could develop their hability to learn to different degrees whose limits now would be set by the environment. But high intelligence is worth nothing if the person doesnt mean to use it hehehe to acquire knowlegment and ultimately wisdom.
Sky_Dragon
27-07-08, 09:46
I think that the best way to look at this not to look at highly detailed skills like maths, but to take it back to a basic level. Think of a group of tribes people. The most important skills in their lives is their bush skill which allow them to survive. And these are skills that they and their ancestors(sp?) have been using for thousands of years. Now surely if the things you can learn are predetermind by your genes. Then these skills that they use would become so entrenched in their genes they would become as natural as walking. But its not and they still have to be taught the skills.
However that being said I do believe that having the right combination of genes can make a person predisposed to greatness in a certain area. Nothing to do with intelligence but...if someone is born with genes that mean they are going to be 69 and hugely athletic they are going to be more disposed to playing basketball than someone who is 54 and as athletic as a stone.
Thats totally different, what youre talking about is the possibility of genetic memory, not the predisposition of the creation, which what was discussed here.