Heritability of Intelligence

[Carl Corey]

As per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ most studies have shown IQ to be about 80% genetic upon adulthood, something the powers that be aren't comfortable to let the masses know. In addition there is no proof that education significantly increases or lowers IQ. Another little known fact is that employers aren't allowed to use IQ tests when hiring, though degrees can be used as a rough estimate.

This kind of leaves one to wonder what the point of education is. The general idea is that education makes people smarter, which is perceived as beneficial, but all evidence shows this isn't the case. The only reason university students have high IQs is because people with high IQs do better at education, it's not the actual education that gave them the high IQs.

Education does teach kids some useful skills, like reading, writing, and calculus, but other than that the main purpose seems to be to teach kids to respect authority, what ideologies are right and wrong, some history that backs up the government propaganda, some religious values, a bunch of factoids, and all this repeated over and over again until graduation / dropout.

A major overhaul of the system might be preferable to wasting money on the futile effort to make kids more intelligent?

[eOs]

I'd like to hear some proposals, I mean, I'm in agreement with you, the school system is completely messed up. Is home schooling the only other alternative? Even then they'd still need to go to college to get that piece of paper.

[Kludge]

You can't measure intelligence with a test - it isn't a linear measurement. This should be common sense.

We should be determining what kids should do with their intelligence (as parents, not gov't, fwiw) instead of how to make them "more intelligent." I don't believe that there's any linear measure of "intelligence" which is accurate. That said, without any evidence less anecdotal & axiom-based, I think that Wikipedia article is bullshit.

Kids ought to learn "artistic" vocational skills instead of focusing on college which almost requires the student be interdependent and focuses on pre-determined technique irrelevant to innovation. More creativity, less facts is what I'd like. Knowledge is for low-end workers, ultimately, I think -- creativity tells those laborers how to use their labor to the greatest efficiency.

[eOs]

You can't measure intelligence with a test - it isn't a linear measurement. This should be common sense.

We should be determining what kids should do with their intelligence (as parents, not gov't, fwiw) instead of how to make them "more intelligent." I don't believe that there's any linear measure of "intelligence" which is accurate. That said, without any evidence less anecdotal & axiom-based, I think that Wikipedia article is bullshit.

Kids ought to learn "artistic" vocational skills instead of focusing on college which almost requires the student be interdependent and focuses on pre-determined technique irrelevant to innovation. More creativity, less facts is what I'd like. Knowledge is for low-end workers, ultimately, I think -- creativity tells those laborers how to use their labor to the greatest efficiency.

Hmm. Sounds alright, except, I mean, do you really think the artsy kids are any more fit than anyone else to manage? Have you met any 'artistic' college kids? They all sit around listening to the beatles and get high and paint stuff..And most of 'em are Obama supporters

[Kludge]

Hmm. Sounds alright, except, I mean, do you really think the artsy kids are any more fit than anyone else to manage? Have you met any 'artistic' college kids? They all sit around listening to the beatles and get high and paint stuff..And most of 'em are Obama supporters

Sure - who do you think innovates? Third parties, politically- because they're creative. My wife's worked in science and agrees it's the creative "outside-the-box" thinkers who innovate in medical/chemistry fields.

Following standard operating procedure won't produce change -- no innovation. You can't produce change unless you try something new, and to do that, you have to be creative, and with all the tech. already out - you have to be extremely creative to invent something better than what already exists.

[eOs]

Sure - who do you think innovates? Third parties, politically- because they're creative. My wife's worked in science and agrees it's the creative "outside-the-box" thinkers who innovate in medical/chemistry fields.

Following standard operating procedure won't produce change -- no innovation. You can't produce change unless you try something new, and to do that, you have to be creative, and with all the tech. already out - you have to be extremely creative to invent something better than what already exists.


So...if you want to study physics...instead of studying theory, you'd be force to take art class? I think the ideal situation, and a first step in the right direction would be to really let people study what they want. If you know you want to be , then pursue it, and screw the required foreign language classes, and the other 50 gen ed classes they require you to take, it's only a waste of time that makes college an additional 2 years more. Just let people study what they want, all the way down to high school.

Another big change I'd like to see is more fundamental teaching. Teachers teach you things like it's something to be memorized and regurgitated, not actually understood. For example, in math class in gradeschool, I never was taught that multiplication is actually just adding multiple times, instead, I was told to memorize a table with all these numbers on it, and that it's called "multiplication" They never teach the root of it all, another example is in college, why don't people understand how money is created? Why don't they know how the federal reserve works? We're taught a level above it, and it stays as an enigma for the rest of our lives, it's like one big giant shell game. Seriously, ask someone to explain to you what multiplication actually is, they will have no idea, ask them where money comes from, again, no idea, ask them to explain our 10 base number system, no idea, really, really important stuff, yet I can guarantee 90% of the people have no idea.

[specsaregood]

Another little known fact is that employers aren't allowed to use IQ tests when hiring, though degrees can be used as a rough estimate.


Incorrect.
http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/police-reject-candidate-for-being-too-intelligent/


Police Reject Candidate for Being Too Intelligent
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: “This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

[Dr.3D]

Incorrect.
http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/police-reject-candidate-for-being-too-intelligent/

I had to take intelligence tests to get the two different jobs I had too.

[Carl Corey]

Is home schooling the only other alternative? Even then they'd still need to go to college to get that piece of paper.
Kids can do some varied light labor, learn useful skills, and make some money, or save up for early retirement. Most skills can be taught on the job or by company owned schools. Universities for teaching advanced subjects will probably still be desirable.

Modern education seems geared toward making kids smarter, but it's comparible to having kids run 15 miles a day in order to make them stronger, with perhaps a no child left behind act that makes sure that all 4 year olds can run 3 miles a day. The top athletes are ultimately those with the genetic predisposition, and upon adulthood most people are gonna end up walking, driving, or riding a bicycle. Any kind of sound logic and science is missing when it comes to modern education.


You can't measure intelligence with a test - it isn't a linear measurement. This should be common sense.
You can measure IQ however, which modern tests measure very well, and IQ is the most important aspect of human intelligence for living daily life. It takes a major shift in worldview however to accept that some people are born with the innate ability to become a doctor, and some are doomed to flip burgers.


More creativity, less facts is what I'd like. Knowledge is for low-end workers, ultimately, I think -- creativity tells those laborers how to use their labor to the greatest efficiency.
I won't deny that creativity is very important, but as far as I know creativity is close to impossible to measure. There is some research that indicates that mental instability increases creativity, and that being open minded is of important as well. However, how can you encourage a trait that cannot be accurately measured? It's definitely something that ought to be researched and if possible, be encouraged, stimulated or trained.

Another thing to consider is that while society benefits greatly from innovation, the average person doesn't gain a whole lot from increased creativity, so it might be a waste of resources to try to make everyone more creative.


Incorrect.
http://nyletterpress.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/police-reject-candidate-for-being-too-intelligent/
That was back in 1996, somewhere around 2000 the powers that be began opposing IQ tests for job applicants.

The following links has some interesting information, and goes into detail about the legality of IQ testing in the USA.

http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Practical-validity-800.html

For those who don't want to read it all I'll quote



However, legal barriers, most prominently the US Civil Rights Act, as interpreted in the 1971 United States Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power Co., have prevented American employers from using cognitive ability tests as a controlling factor in selecting employees where (1) the use of the test would have a disparate impact on hiring by race and (2) where the test is not shown to be directly relevant to the job or class of jobs at issue. Instead, where there is not direct relevance to the job or class of jobs at issue, tests have only been legally permitted to be used in conjunction with a subjective appraisal process. The U.S. military uses the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), as higher scores correlate with significant increases in effectiveness of both individual soldiers and units, and Microsoft is known for using non-illegal tests that correlate with IQ tests as part of the interview process, weighing the results even more than experience in many cases.

[BlackTerrel]

Well if wikipedia says it...

Something tells me the people that always start these threads aren't the most intelligent people themselves. If you are confident in yourself you don't need to talk about it all the time. Heidi Klum isn't starting threads about good looking people and LeBron James isn't starting threads about skills on a basketball court.

[amy31416]

So...if you want to study physics...instead of studying theory, you'd be force to take art class? I think the ideal situation, and a first step in the right direction would be to really let people study what they want. If you know you want to be , then pursue it, and screw the required foreign language classes, and the other 50 gen ed classes they require you to take, it's only a waste of time that makes college an additional 2 years more. Just let people study what they want, all the way down to high school.

Another big change I'd like to see is more fundamental teaching. Teachers teach you things like it's something to be memorized and regurgitated, not actually understood. For example, in math class in gradeschool, I never was taught that multiplication is actually just adding multiple times, instead, I was told to memorize a table with all these numbers on it, and that it's called "multiplication" They never teach the root of it all, another example is in college, why don't people understand how money is created? Why don't they know how the federal reserve works? We're taught a level above it, and it stays as an enigma for the rest of our lives, it's like one big giant shell game. Seriously, ask someone to explain to you what multiplication actually is, they will have no idea, ask them where money comes from, again, no idea, ask them to explain our 10 base number system, no idea, really, really important stuff, yet I can guarantee 90% of the people have no idea.

I'm going to start off on a tangent, follow it and see what comes of it.

I have a hypothesis on "education," specifically toward science, and it goes kinda like this--Children are taught rigidity of thinking during a crucial time when they should be taking full advantage of the flexibility, creativity, imagination and ability to believe in "magic." We tame children too soon, we teach them in the wrong order.

What I propose, and intend to try is to teach a child about quantum physics/mechanics while their brain is malleable.

Why?

Because by the time I started learning about all this bizarre stuff, that is reality, my brain had been locked in to a classic physics viewpoint--where the world is as it seems. Quantum physics (and art, for that matter), will blow your fucking mind--and that is non-perceived reality.

A train, traveling along tracks, appears to be an uninterrupted continuum--in reality, there are such minute leaps, that our senses can not detect, where massive amounts of matter and energy jump from one level to another--with no "travel time" in-between.

It almost seems insane to me to lock someone's brain into the classical, continuous (convenient and lazy) view of nature, when we now know that that is not the way things actually work. But it's almost impossible to break out of the mindset once it's ingrained. What if teachers taught the realities of quantum physics first? Then taught the practical classical physics later? How much more adept would the mind be at contemplating the reality of the universe?

I don't know. I've never heard of an education like this, as I came up with it myself.

And I'm not talking about teaching a child how to do 3rd order derivatives necessarily, but am speaking mostly of teaching them visually--look into Richard Feynman, who was a pioneer of the method. Don't get me wrong, math is very important--but it's secondary to a mind that can comprehend beyond the senses that feed it.

Math is a discipline, a very valuable discipline--it can also stifle creativity or be used as a brilliant tool to a person with a very creative mind. Science and art do overlap, they go hand-in-hand.

Enough of my random yammering....I suck at writing.

[pcosmar]

I'm going to start off on a tangent, follow it and see what comes of it.


Enough of my random yammering....I suck at writing.

Dang, I read all that and it made sense.
not sure if that is good or bad :p

I would also mention something that will break that mental rigidity and open creativity at a later age.
Hallucinogens.
And before you laugh, they can set the mind free to explore abstract concepts and to put concepts into perspective.
Possible why they have been associated with "Spiritual" experiences.

As to the rest of the OP. Education is not intelligence. Intelligence cannot be learned.
Intelligence is possessed.
Education is gained.

I have known many that were educated far beyond their capacity.
;)

[specsaregood]

That was back in 1996, somewhere around 2000 the powers that be began opposing IQ tests for job applicants.
The following links has some interesting information, and goes into detail about the legality of IQ testing in the USA.
http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Practical-validity-800.html
For those who don't want to read it all I'll quote

Uhm, that link or what you quoted doesn't dispute what I showed where the courts ruled it valid. In fact the part you quoted says exactly when it is allowed: doesn't discriminate on race, relevant to the job and/or part of a subjective review process. Maybe something has changed since 2000, but that isn't shown in what you provided.

[specsaregood]

Heidi Klum isn't starting threads about good looking people and LeBron James isn't starting threads about skills on a basketball court.

Just wondering....how do you know? you don't.

[Kludge]

Math is a discipline, a very valuable discipline--it can also stifle creativity or be used as a brilliant tool to a person with a very creative mind. Science and art do overlap, they go hand-in-hand.

This is where I was going with my point. I do not value calculators as people, but I value the programmers who come up with new ways to use the hardware. The hardware is necessary, but it means nothing if they can only do the same thing over and over. I value the inventor, the businessman, the lawyer (... sometimes), and the advertisers (.............. occasionally) -- I value the analyst, which necessarily requires creativity. The analysts are who use knowledge and move the human race forward.

(Anyway, I'm utterly incapable of drawing and can barely write legibly.)

[Carl Corey]

Uhm, that link or what you quoted doesn't dispute what I showed where the courts ruled it valid. In fact the part you quoted says exactly when it is allowed: doesn't discriminate on race, relevant to the job and/or part of a subjective review process. Maybe something has changed since 2000, but that isn't shown in what you provided.
The bottom line is that it's another case of the government telling you what you can and can't do, because using an IQ test is, according to our government, racist.

[amy31416]

I would also mention something that will break that mental rigidity and open creativity at a later age.
Hallucinogens.
And before you laugh, they can set the mind free to explore abstract concepts and to put concepts into perspective.
Possible why they have been associated with "Spiritual" experiences.

As to the rest of the OP. Education is not intelligence. Intelligence cannot be learned.
Intelligence is possessed.
Education is gained.

I have known many that were educated far beyond their capacity.
;)

I wouldn't laugh about what you said about hallucinogens--I've read up extensively on it and know that they can unlock "avenues" in the brain that haven't been explored. But yeah, I've only read up on it...you may now laugh. :p I'm too chicken to do hallucinogens for a couple reasons: 1. I really, really, really hate vomiting and some of these drugs make you vomit. 2. I fear the "bad" trip and think my brain's already weird enough...with my luck I'd be one of those assholes who thinks they're an orange and tries to peel themselves (yeah, I know that's mostly myth...just sayin'.)

So, the only hallucinations I've ever had were during an intense, extended bout with insomnia. Both audio and visual, and it was not fun.

And yeah, Pete--I know a decent amount of people like you say--educated far beyond their capacity. They're usually pretty full of themselves too. . .

[specsaregood]

I wouldn't laugh about what you said about hallucinogens--I've read up extensively on it and know that they can unlock "avenues" in the brain that haven't been explored. But yeah, I've only read up on it...you may now laugh. :p

I like to put it like this:
It's like you live your life going down a darkhallway where all you can see is the path, but the walls are all blacked out. You do some hallucinogens and it is like the lights are turned on and you discover there is writing on all the walls.....of course once it is over you can't read or see the writing, but you know it is there.....whereas previously you had no idea it existed.

[amy31416]

I like to put it like this:
It's like you live your life going down a darkhallway where all you can see is the path, but the walls are all blacked out. You do some hallucinogens and it is like the lights are turned on and you discover there is writing on all the walls.....of course once it is over you can't read or see the writing, but you know it is there.....whereas previously you had no idea it existed.

Interesting. Thanks.

[specsaregood]

Interesting. Thanks.

Yup, my comment should not be taken as advocacy or non-advocacy, just my experience. At the same time, some where along my life I completely lost the ability to turn the lights back on or "trip". I've tried a number of times over the past decade and have found myself completely immune to a variety of hallucinogens in my older age. :( I've come to the conclusion that it is due to being in a career and lifestyle where I use my left-side of my brain near exclusively. Its a real bummer.

[amy31416]

Yup, my comment should not be taken as advocacy or non-advocacy, just my experience. At the same time, some where along my life I completely lost the ability to turn the lights back on or "trip". I've tried a number of times over the past decade and have found myself completely immune to a variety of hallucinogens in my older age. :( I've come to the conclusion that it is due to being in a career and lifestyle where I use my left-side of my brain near exclusively. Its a real bummer.

I'm sure there's got to be some interesting right-brain exercises out there...

[heavenlyboy34]

OP-you should know that psychologists still debate exactly what "intelligence" is and how to measure it. The system does need an overhaul, but making a system "IQ-centric" is futile.