<p>and how much do you think is due to experiences you had growing up</p>
<p>for example, i am good at math. is that because i am genetically smart, or because my parents were drilling me on multiplication tables before i could walk?</p>
<p>It depends on how you define intelligence… for example, I think the memorization of multiplication tables is an unholy abomination that has nothing to do with being good at math nor with being smart.</p>
<p>Now, I think intelligence is the ability to reason and understand ideas. And I think it’s largely genetic… very inheritable and even more so set at the moment of birth. </p>
<p>Intelligence is distinct from knowledge. A child can be smarter than his or her teacher despite not knowing as much about the subject matter being taught; it is simply that the teacher has had more of a “headstart,” if you will.</p>
<p>Some subjects tend to require more intelligence than others. More specifically, different skills require more intelligence than others, and some subjects tend to require skills that rely on intelligence.</p>
<p>Mathematics is a good candidate for analysis. At first, kids get taught abstract concepts like numbers and adding. These are ideas that require intelligence to understand; but the intelligence they require is so low most human beings get it without problems. Then they get get drilled for the entirety of elementary school in algorithm application and table regurgitation - this DOES NOT require intelligence. Becoming proficient with algorithms is largely a matter of practice to remember the steps, and remembering tables is likewise a matter of going over them enough so that the values are engraved in your mind. Both of these skills rely on memory. People of prodigal memory may be able to remember the multiplication table at a glance (photographic memory, if you will) and remember the steps to the algorithm the first time they are shown it, but most people won’t. So for them mastery of the algorithm or memorization of the tables becomes a matter of effort, of the amount of work they are willing to put in doing exercises and reading the table over and over again until it becomes permanently stuck in their heads. Of course, for students of better memory this amount of work will be lessened, but it still important to note the above does not rely on intelligence - the understanding of the subject matter.</p>
<p>Later, in high school and specially in college for mathematics majors, mathematics begins to become conceptually based again and people of lower intelligence won’t be able to do it. So being good at very high level math is usually a very good indication that you are intelligent.</p>
<p>Well from what I see from my school there are two types of intelligence.</p>
<ol>
<li>Person who TRIES super super hard to get the results.</li>
<li>Person who has natural TALENT and can cruise through school.</li>
</ol>
<p>For person #2, it will eventually catch up with them in college.</p>
<p>haha i guess if you define intelligence as something that is innate, then it would be innate (i.e. person #2 as mentioned by chris2k5). if you define it through achievements, scores, college acceptances, or prizes/awards then it would be a combination of both something that is innate plus hard work. but sometimes (misinformed) people would credit intelligence to anyone who’s, say, applying to Harvard or taking an AP class. So i guess it all comes down to semantics…</p>
<p>i dont think trying hard makes someone intelligent, it may make them successful, but that is different. I think that intelligence is innate, but it can be nurtured. I am best at art and science, my dad majored in organic chem and my mom majored in va/art history. i wonder if i am good at these things because of genetics or because of what i was exposed to as a kid, i think its both.</p>
<p>I think that intelligence is basically having a rational mind
Example: Those who understand hard physics concepts, and can apply them to math, and vice versa, are smart. Those who can analyze stuff are also smart.</p>
<p>
Lol, actually, #1 is not necessarily that intelligent, while #2 clearly is if they can “cruise through school.” What’s really going to happen is that, in college, #1’s hard work isn’t going to be enough, while #2 is simply going to have to start trying a bit. lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>see the reason why i think this has a lot to do with your environment is because - what is learning? when you learn things have to be explained to you. you are essentially understanding a new concept in terms of old ideas. the more old ideas you have, the easier it will be for you to build bridges and learn new ones, even ones you haven’t seen before. there’s a quote that goes “education is what remains after you’ve forgotten everything you’ve learned in school”…there’s a reason people read faster as they age. there’s a reason people who’ve already had abstract algebra have an easier time with real analysis, even though the subjects aren’t prerequisites for each other or anything.</p>
<p>so basically i think if you learn a lot of stuff you’re actually becoming smarter. which might also be why average IQs are increasing with time. (you know, what with the internet and learning being thrust upon more and more of us.)</p>
<p>Oh good, a nature versus nurture debate.</p>
<p>Nurture all the way. John Locke had it right with his “tabula rasa.”</p>
<p>It’s environmental factors. Whether it be your parents teaching you when you were itty bitty, the pressure from your parents (or teachers) to do well when you were little, educational TV that made you think outside the box, etc.</p>
<p>These factors all culminated to who you are now, most likely a very driven, successful individual.</p>
<p>
I second the first bit. #1 is not a smart person, s/he is simply a person who is successful in academia because of his/her dedication. But as for college, I think what will happen depends on both the major and the teachers. If the major has difficult concepts that must be understood in order to progress and the teacher tests for understanding of those concepts, #1 will find that all the hard work in the world cannot make up for a lack of understanding s/he simply does not have while number #2 can continue to succeed, if perhaps with a bit more strained and less cruising. If, on the other hand, the major focuses heavily on skills which are best learned by practice and tests for mastery of these skills, #2 may well find that s/he needs to start working hard to remain in the game, while #1 will just continue to do what s/he has always done, if perhaps to a higher degree.</p>
<p>It’s important to note #2 always has the capability to continue, the only issue being having the will to make the effort, but if #1 is faced with a difficult enough concept no amount of hard work will enable him/her to understand that concept. Unlike #2, who can choose to start working harder, #1 can’t choose to become smarter.</p>
<p>BTW, I have observed the same division, chris2k5. People in high school getting good grades usually either were blessed with smartness and cruise or want to get good grades despite their lack thereof and make up for it by virtue of hard work.</p>
<p>
I beg to differ. When you have things explained to you and you understand them, you have just added a piece of knowledge to your mind. But the base ability remains the same. If another concept becomes easier to learn after you have learned the first one, then either the first one is a pre-requisite to understanding the second one (for example, multiplication when defined in terms of addition) or the first one is somehow anologous to the second one (for example, ubtraction explained as being like addition in reverse). In the latter case, the old concepts do provide a kind of short hand, yes, but it doesn’t mean learning the second concept is easier. It just means that you have already learned the same kind of idea the new concept requires.</p>
<p>Anyways, in the end I think intelligence is the ability to reason independently of knowledge. So if person A and person B both are exposed to the same concept while having the same understanding of previous subjects, whoever can understand better/faster/at all is smarter.</p>
<p>
I don’t see how the first two could have contributed much to smartness. The first one would only contribute to your knowledge, while the second one may make you look into ways of becoming smarter (or, much more likely, into other ways of successed in the class if your current smartness doesn’t cut it, such as working harder), but neither would make you smarter per se. I am unsure about the third one, though. Maybe that one works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes that’s usually what happens</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>which means learning the second concept becomes easier. what is intelligence, other than the ability to learn?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so tell me what you think of this guy
[Victor</a> of Aveyron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron]Victor”>Victor of Aveyron - Wikipedia)
he probably wasn’t intrinsically stupid…but he was raised in the wild for most of his childhood. and when scientists took him out they could only teach him to write one word (milk)</p>
<p>What a coincidence; I just had an AP Psych test on “Intelligence” chapter.</p>
<p>
The intrinsic ability to learn, independently of previous education. A person cannot learn the calculus without having being taught algebra, but is a person smarter after having understood algebra because s/he is now able to understand the calculus? No, it is that the concept of calculus involves algebra, so to understand calculus is to understand the revelang algebra. It’s just that one happened to learn it before as a separate subject.</p>
<p>In my subtraction example above, intelligence is having the capacity to understand the idea that addition is analogous to subtraction in the indicated way, as well as the intelligence previously required to understand addition. The fact that the child learns the concept of subtraction easier this way is irrelevant.</p>
<p>
The ability to learn language isn’t necessarily linked to intelligence… I think it’s more memorization; that is, memorizing what words correspond to what concepts (and memorizing their spellings, and the rather arbitrary rules for syntax, and so on). In ap psych, I believe it was mentioned that human beings have only a small window in development in which they are perceptive to learning to speak their native language, so maybe this guy just passed that period without being taught it. Furthermore, it is mentioned in the article that he may have been autistic, making it much more difficult to reach him.</p>
<p>Also note that he doesn’t support your idea, either. If intelligence can be enhanced with previous learning, why didn’t he just begin learning language when it was taught to him, and then develop at the same rate as a very young child who also knows very little?</p>
<p>you’re genetically smart and it’s also because they made you learn math at young age. My dad is a bussinessman… has everything to do with math and I, his daughter, can barely pass Alg 2 with a 70 (lowest grade i ever got, thought i failed it!)</p>
<p>I believe a lot of it is innate. </p>
<p>Case in point, one of my friends just moved here after going to a really bad inner-city school for her whole life. Now she goes to my school, which is really rigorous, competitive and one of the 50 top-ranked high schools in the nation. It’s really difficult to get good grades here and she easily gets straight As. She’s in all honors classes and 1 AP class (sophomores at my school are only allowed to take 1 AP). She’s just naturally smart.</p>
<p>I think intelligence is in some part innate, and in some part hard work. It was generally believed that intelligence was innate, and that an IQ was generally stable until you pass a certain age and then become senile 
But there have been several tests and experiments I’ve read about (in I believe Discover and Scientific American magazines, as well as a BBC article some time ago) that intelligence can be improved. I forget what the details of the experiment were, do this particular exercise for X days, retake various tests that we believe can accurately determine intelligence (not as knowledge, but as in the ability to find patterns, generalize, analyze, etc.) and then the people have demonstrated definite improved results correlated to the training. So I would say that it’s a combination of both. Sure, if you can have tons of natural intelligence, but I would be inclined to say that’s simply a headstart.</p>
<p>I think nearly everyone has the capacity to understand the fundamentals, and once you have the fundamentals down, you can learn to analyze more and more efficiently. I think it’s honestly the school education system that screws many people over in this area, more so then innate intelligence. In mathematics, I tutor various people at our school. The general problem I see with the students that take FOREVER to learn something new, are those who don’t understand the fundamentals. Oh, sure, they can spout off how to multiply 23 by 11, but they don’t know why you move one space over in the second line (incidently, that’s becaue 23 X 11 = 23 X 10 + 23 X 1. The first line is the latter term, and the second line is the former term. Anything multiplied by 10 will have an additional terminal zero at the end, and so that is why we move the second line over one space :P). But once they REALLY understand some of these basic concepts, their understanding suddenly jumps through the roof.</p>
<p>Another thing, note that even if intelligence is genetic it doesn’t necessarily mean kids of smart parents will be smart, as those of us who took biology and drew punnett squares know. But there is a higher chance s/he will. Conversely, the child of dumb people won’t necessarily be dumb, either.</p>
<p>^^ 100% agree about fundamentals.</p>
<p>If you don’t have a sound foundation, there’s no way you can build more complex ideas on top of it. And while it may seem that school teaches us basic stuff just fine, sometimes it encourages rote memorization more than understanding. There isn’t really anyone checking, “Do you understand?” School only checks, “What’s the answer?”</p>
<p>
100% of intelligence is innate. fostering intelligence in the right environment creates knowledge</p>
<p>What do you all think is intelligence though? Information retention? Intuition? Logic?
Would you consider someone that has immense reasoning skills smart if he completely forgot the fundamentals a week later? The person does not have a genetic disease but is just naturally forgetful.</p>
<p>What about someone who has an eidetic memory? He might be able to memorize whole pages of information and only able to process 1/4 of the information stored. When he/she is taught how to understand the information, did he just become more intelligent? Example: A person might be able to look through a physics textbook and memorize it in its entirety. Later, he is taught the background information. He can now understand the entire book. What was innate about that?</p>
<p>How about the person that does not have a mind for schoolwork, but is able to manipulate others? Isn’t it a kind of intelligence to be able to read others? Does it take reasoning skills to make others think the way you think?</p>
<p>I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are many kinds of intelligence(s?). The ability to reason is just one aspect of what we think is intelligence. I would think that to a certain point, by changing your way of thinking, you should become more intelligent, but there is still an innate factor that separates the geniuses from the those with “acquired” intelligence. The ceiling is just higher for geniuses.</p>
<p>I get depressed when I think of this, because I consider myself as only slightly above average intelligence. I have to work hard and study if I want to be able to get the grades I want. Many of my friends are so much smarter than me in that they are able to synthesize and understand the information better than me. Just by listening to the teachers, they can understand the basic concepts and automatically use that information to connect one concept with another.</p>