4chan archive /sci/ (index)
2013-09-01 04:41 6002428 Anonymous Nature v.s Nurture and behavior... AND IQ (nutrition and weight loss.jpg 275x183 8kB)
So usually nature v.s nurture is debated with respects to intelligence. But what about behavior? This may be just be an obvious fact, but doesn't environment play a large role in the types of habits and behaviors a person would acquire? And, couldn't behavior be mistaken for intelligence sometimes? I put IQ in caps to attract attention- I know that's what we all love talking about.

1 min later 6002431 Anonymous (1320178052770.jpg 380x400 22kB)


10 min later 6002453 Anonymous
How would /sci/ explain feral children?

12 min later 6002459 Anonymous
>>6002453 outliers

1 hours later 6002537 Anonymous
>>6002459 They are still humans on earth. They still count. Does anyone else find it curious we're so.....programmable?

1 hours later 6002582 Anonymous
>>6002431 I don't know if this is serious or not.. >>6002537 I think we might be in a simulation of sorts.

2 hours later 6002629 Anonymous
>>6002428 THE DICHOTOMY IS BOGUS

2 hours later 6002631 Anonymous
>>6002537 Dude you have no idea. After taking a couple robotics classes, I keep thinking of the complicated algorithms to decide an easiest pass through a crowd without bumping people. And then I realize it's also swarm robotics because they are doing it too!

2 hours later 6002640 Anonymous
IQ scores are far from perfect. Religion, political belief and where you were born can affect your IQ score. Motivation and society can therefore affect IQ scores.

2 hours later 6002643 Anonymous (Nobel Laureates in Different Nations.png 569x721 25kB)


2 hours later 6002661 Anonymous
>>6002643 Why a png -6/10

2 hours later 6002667 Anonymous
>>6002661 because pdf

2 hours later 6002669 Anonymous
>>6002428 Moved to >>6002271

2 hours later 6002672 Anonymous
>>6002669 That's not me, but that thread does look pretty interesting. And it is pretty much the same thing.

2 hours later 6002680 Anonymous
>>6002643 nobel prize isn't an objective measure. it's historically been very euro-centric and the decisions are very political. same can be said for other similar prizes, including fields medalists.

2 hours later 6002682 Anonymous
>>6002582 >I don't know if this is serious or not.. you're probably just taking too shallow an interpretation of the message.

3 hours later 6002693 Anonymous
>>6002640 Not to mention, language. No matter which parents you are born to, interaction with other children and educators, and later the peer group one associates with during one's developmental years, has arguably a larger influence on development of language faculties. A large part of building relationships is communication. If a child is communicating in an imprecise language they will have difficulty with developing a language of thought conducive to critical thinking. Vocabulary is also essential to developing worldview.

3 hours later 6002694 Anonymous
>>6002682 That may be true. I just disagree with free will because most people don't realize they have free will... or they opt not to use it.

3 hours later 6002697 Anonymous
>>6002431 >free will

3 hours later 6002704 Anonymous
>>6002431 So where is the line drawn between nature and nurture? for one, gene expression isn't a given; it can be highly dependent on outside stimuli. secondly, are genes the only thing that can be considered hereditary? Information is passed down from generations by non-genetic means as well. Microorganisms in our bodies that are essential to our healthy function come from our mothers. Language is sort of cultural/environmental but babies develop their mother tongues from listening to their parents. Embryonic development is influenced by mother's nutrient intake.

3 hours later 6002717 Anonymous
>>6002431 >Free will Am I being trolled?

3 hours later 6002718 Anonymous
>>6002704 see >>6002629

3 hours later 6002724 Anonymous
>>6002640 You provoled an interesting thought: IQ measurements/values are based on the statistical "average", which must be updated every decade or so to accommodate rises in overall intelligence scores, adjusting the new meausrement (100 +/- 1 standard deviation) to reflect, again, the statistical average. He reason for this is widely believed to be increasing access to better education. This social phenomenon, coupled with "The Bell Curve"s disproven conclusion that there exists a racial difference in IQ scores between blacks and whites, should exist as very strong evidence that nurture plays a more pivitol role in IQ scores than nature (at least on a smaller time-scale of years or generations rather than thousands of years). That said, the WAIS-4 is only valid under limited circumstances in my opinion. They are much better than previous versions though. Lastly, i believe that intelligence should be measured as how able someone is to adapt, learn and understand new information / skills / ideas / etc and not simply how able a person is to show that they "know" it.

3 hours later 6002727 Anonymous
>>6002724 I now know what to say next time /pol/ visits.

3 hours later 6002732 Anonymous (oecd_a1_2-2012.png 499x1178 25kB)


6 hours later 6002852 Anonymous
>I put IQ in caps to attract attention- I know that's what we all love talking about. No its what insecure kids like talking about when they feel like asserting pseudo-supremacy over people. Your behaviour is pretty much entirely based on your environment. Grow up in compton, you may not become a criminal but if you're going to school there or whatever, you'll be a lot more toughened up and conformist. Grow up in some privileged suburb, you'll probably be slightly strange and open minded.

14 hours later 6003277 Anonymous
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pin ker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate .html

23 hours later 6004103 Anonymous
bump

12.055 0.070