Is Intelligence Mostly Innate or Nurtured?
Description of question:
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.
Response:
A person who is uneducated is very much analogous to stating that they lack physical training. Therefore, their mind is lacks intelligence in a similar manner as ones body would lack strength. Like a muscle, the brain adapts to stimulation and atrophies in the absence of it.
Now in regards to historical figures and intelligence, I will reference a previous post of mine on a separate Forum concerning a connected topic (in hopes that this will contribute to the discussion here):
Now, we need to distinguish between the "hardware" and "software" involved in Human intelligence.
Everybody is born with "hardware" on a spectrum from "lowest grade" to "highest grade", much like height for instance--which is (nearly) entirely out of their own control. Now, unlike height (actually, height can be fiddled with a bit), even the "hardware" can be molded in the positive or negative direction to relevant (although highly constrained) degrees due to neuroplasticity (and Frontal Lobe development or failure to become developed).
As for "software", this is tremendously reliant upon environmental factors and stimuli--including education, study time, ect. ect. Now, there is extremely high reason to believe that average range Human "hardware" is compatible with "software" upgrades beyond what we can currently imagine. That is, we have nowhere near "maxed out". For instance, it is well understood that the modern average Physics Graduate student (who is proficient in their studies) understands Relativity better than Einstein himself did. Moreover, Archimedes, for his time (ca. 287-212 BCE), was an unprecedented genius of the highest degree and it is well understood now that an individual with a BA/BS in Mathematics (that is proficient in the area) has knowledge & abilities so far above Archimedes that if they were to enter a time machine and go back to converse with him, Archimedes would be flabbergasted & almost definitely would struggle mightily to keep up--if he could at all. Archimedes (and others of his time) may well be tempted to describe such a Time Traveler as a "genius", although we know how silly & off the mark this claim would be. Hence, there are differing perspectives at work here as well, and if the Scientific Enterprise continues for centuries to millennia into Humanities future, this dynamic is bound to continue to unfold. This is a strong basis for hope--if humanity is able to "get our act together", then the potential is stupendous.
Also, Einstein (or Newton, ect) would have never been Einstein if it weren't for the extreme grit & tenacity for which they approached problems. Einstein worked on General Relativity continuously for 10 years straight, and in later life ultimately was on his deathbed writing down equations until he died. The idea that it was simply a "gift" is absurd--Newton, Einstein, and others are amongst the hardest-working people who have ever lived (aside from forced labor, that is). This is why comparisons between say Michael Jordan (or other "top" athletes) and Albert Einstein, ect. are truly infuriatingly stupid (amongst many other reasons).
Now, Newton & Einstein were clearly aberrations in the "high-grade Hardware" they were born with--and people with such "hardware" (to that level) seem to be extremely rare indeed (in fact, statistically infinitesimal). However, one should note that they still put in a tremendous amount of work in order to become the top "Genius" level people we know them as today--or else we (likely) would never have known them at all.
Description of question:
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.
Response:
A person who is uneducated is very much analogous to stating that they lack physical training. Therefore, their mind is lacks intelligence in a similar manner as ones body would lack strength. Like a muscle, the brain adapts to stimulation and atrophies in the absence of it.
Now in regards to historical figures and intelligence, I will reference a previous post of mine on a separate Forum concerning a connected topic (in hopes that this will contribute to the discussion here):
Now, we need to distinguish between the "hardware" and "software" involved in Human intelligence.
Everybody is born with "hardware" on a spectrum from "lowest grade" to "highest grade", much like height for instance--which is (nearly) entirely out of their own control. Now, unlike height (actually, height can be fiddled with a bit), even the "hardware" can be molded in the positive or negative direction to relevant (although highly constrained) degrees due to neuroplasticity (and Frontal Lobe development or failure to become developed).
As for "software", this is tremendously reliant upon environmental factors and stimuli--including education, study time, ect. ect. Now, there is extremely high reason to believe that average range Human "hardware" is compatible with "software" upgrades beyond what we can currently imagine. That is, we have nowhere near "maxed out". For instance, it is well understood that the modern average Physics Graduate student (who is proficient in their studies) understands Relativity better than Einstein himself did. Moreover, Archimedes, for his time (ca. 287-212 BCE), was an unprecedented genius of the highest degree and it is well understood now that an individual with a BA/BS in Mathematics (that is proficient in the area) has knowledge & abilities so far above Archimedes that if they were to enter a time machine and go back to converse with him, Archimedes would be flabbergasted & almost definitely would struggle mightily to keep up--if he could at all. Archimedes (and others of his time) may well be tempted to describe such a Time Traveler as a "genius", although we know how silly & off the mark this claim would be. Hence, there are differing perspectives at work here as well, and if the Scientific Enterprise continues for centuries to millennia into Humanities future, this dynamic is bound to continue to unfold. This is a strong basis for hope--if humanity is able to "get our act together", then the potential is stupendous.
Also, Einstein (or Newton, ect) would have never been Einstein if it weren't for the extreme grit & tenacity for which they approached problems. Einstein worked on General Relativity continuously for 10 years straight, and in later life ultimately was on his deathbed writing down equations until he died. The idea that it was simply a "gift" is absurd--Newton, Einstein, and others are amongst the hardest-working people who have ever lived (aside from forced labor, that is). This is why comparisons between say Michael Jordan (or other "top" athletes) and Albert Einstein, ect. are truly infuriatingly stupid (amongst many other reasons).
Now, Newton & Einstein were clearly aberrations in the "high-grade Hardware" they were born with--and people with such "hardware" (to that level) seem to be extremely rare indeed (in fact, statistically infinitesimal). However, one should note that they still put in a tremendous amount of work in order to become the top "Genius" level people we know them as today--or else we (likely) would never have known them at all.
