I.Q is inborn not developed through education

The US promotes by race, both in schools and at workplaces.

More like an Iz Wut? Gimme DAT!!!!

scientific fact that babies breastfed have higher IQ's than those who are fed formula.

So your entire idea is debunked on that fact alone.

Uhm OP the science on this has been settled for a while now, possibly decades.


We know.

Did I miss something?

What about what I call meta-thought? The overall process your brain uses to load, transform, process and output information? The fundamental learning, creative and conceptual processing?

Some of this is genetic & biological, however I believe there is a 'firmware' layer that can be reprogrammed. It is difficult to tap into this via conventional education, but not impossible.

I must bring to your attention the fact that their is a certain agenda that is being pursued by globalists and this agenda is egalitarianism and multiculturalism, so many of the facts that you are going to see might come as a surprise to you, as the globalist main stream media did not report on them, because it does not tie in with their political agenda of globalism.

The point I am trying to make, is that blacks tend to belief the shit they hear via the controlled media and thus they are ignorant of what has been transpiring in the real world of science.

[link to www.cpsimoes.net]

NOTE THE HEADING:

"Racial Differences in Intelligence: What Main stream Science Says"
..........

Your attention should IMMEDIATELY be draw to the following in the heading above:

"MAIN STREAM SCIENCE"

as opposed to

"main stream media" which happens to be where the blacks get their science from.

Then the following statement is made:

"This public statement, signed by 52 internationally known scholars, was active on the information highway early in 1995 following several rather heated and negative responses to Herrnstein & Murray's The Bell Curve. It was first published in The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, December 13, 1994. An alphabetical listing of the scholars and their home institutions are given at the end of the statement."
..........

We already know that the main stream media tries to crucify anyone that disagrees with their political agenda of egalitarianism.

So I thought it pertinent to start with this link, as it PROVES that what the MAIN STREAM SCIENCE has to say about IQ, is not the same as what the main stream media claims they have to say.
..........

Now the link above was signed by 52 PROFESSORS.

The following professors — all experts in intelligence and allied fields — have signed this statement:

* Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota
* Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
* John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
* Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii
* David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin
* Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota
* Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.
* Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota
* Hans Eysenck, University of London
* Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology
* Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University
* Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University
* Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University
* Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware
* Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University
* Richard J.Haier, University of California at Irvine
* Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley
* Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa
* Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin
* Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
* John E. Hunter, Michigan State University
* Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College
* Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario
* James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida
* Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley
* Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama
* Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego
* Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University
* Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley
* John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin
* David Lubinski, Iowa State University
* David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota
* Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine
* Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota
* R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia
* Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh
* Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London
* Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University
* David C. Rowe, University of Arizona
* J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario
* Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley
* Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia
* Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa
* Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University
* James C. Sharf, George Washington University
* Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J.
* Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University
* Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin
* Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University
* Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.
* Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario
*Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin
..........

So it is pretty obvious that these PROFESSORS represent the MAIN STREAM SCIENTISTS.

And finally we have the content of the signed statement that they made.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the BELL CURVE (in statistical jargon, the "normal CURVE"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

CONTINUED....

1. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The BELL CURVES of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The BELL CURVES for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

2. The BELL CURVE for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the BELL CURVE for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the BELL CURVES for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

1. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

2. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

3. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multi-faceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

4. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

5. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences."

CONTINUED....


1. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals.(Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

2. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

3. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

4. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

5. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal ketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.
....

1. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ BELL CURVES for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

2. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ BELL CURVES are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learnedas youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveys continue to show, black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics in between.

3. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appears to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved.

4. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason whysome individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

5. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.

6. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors -- the white admixture is about 20%, on average -- and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).

Wrong.

Experiment:

Step 1 - Take IQ test.
Step 2 - Smoke crack.
Step 3 - Take IQ test immediately.
Step 4 - Compare.
Step 5 - Rethink your dumb ass theory that outside influences don't hinder and/or maximize IQ

Outside influences does play a role, BUT a small role.
5 IQ points MAX.

IQ is genetic.
The science has been settled ages ago.
All that is left is the river in Egypt syndrome called denial.

I think the environment has more effect than people think. Take a small bonsai tree, for example. Masters carefully prune the branches, achieving greater branch complexity (ramification) and beauty, by in effect harming the tree.

So, a brain takes some damage. Immediately the neurological network starts attempting to wire around the damage. If there's a 'hole', then there may be ten different new pathways that are begun. Eventually one of them connects and the other pathways, partially completed, go dormant.

Now you get another wave of brain damage. All those partially completed pathways from the first round of brain damage, they start trying to reconnect around the new damage. Because there ARE more of them now - from the previous damage - more of them eventually connect.

So like a bonsai tree that's cut and pruned over time to attain incredibly complexity, the brain can do the same thing. I'm not so sure this changes raw IQ, but adds something else: imagination, deductive powers, something.

This is what happened to me, incidentally. I couldn't tie my own shoes until I was 9 years old - the part of my brain that handles spatial relationships was damaged apparently. But at age 9, the wiring got reconnected and everything came clear, and bam, suddenly I was going to a school for gifted children and my ability to read and soak up knowledge began to get crazy. I eventually peaked in my late teens at reading 7 books in a day, but I stayed at 2-5 books per day for years after that rewiring finally kicked in.

Some, I'm sure, was my genes. But that heavy-duty neurological rewiring and training has definitely had a significant impact. Recent science has shown that reading a NOVEL (e.g. fiction) has a lasting effect on one's neurology, lasting at least weeks (all they checked), but possibly forever. And while I was soaking up books, what kind were they? Primarily fiction, and probably at least ten thousand books. If reading ONE novel can have a lasting effect, you gotta wonder what reading TEN THOUSAND novels does to one's neurology.

So it's not all about genes. Genes provide the raw material 'bonsai tree', and your experiences and environment affect whether - and in what way, and to what degree - your neural network is complexified (or isn't).

First of all, you can influence your intelligence by not using it or eating garbage. It won't be a huge difference but it will limit your capacity. So, it is worth eating organic and pushing yourself.

Secondly, and even more importantly, learning is required not to be ignorant. A high IQ ignorant person is as useless as any other ignorant person.

All IQ is is an ability to learn, a POTENTIAL. Everyone has the ability to learn but with a higher IQ you can learn faster... IF you work hard at it. And if you choose to focus your learning on the wrong things, you can be high IQ, deeply knowledgeable about things that dont matter, and profoundly ignorant about life... Again, useless (except maybe to some specialty employer, big whoop).

IQ is the gift of a CHANCE to learn deeply about things that matter. It can certainly be squandered. Start by eating fast food and studying something that will not help anyone. Then it will be no different than if you were born a fool, since you chose to be one anyway.

Our IQ potential is inborn. You arent going to make a genius of an average kid by playing Mozart and feeding him fish oil.

However...environment and activity can have a big effect on how close we come to our inborn potential. Lead poisoning can make people stupider. Avoiding it keeps us smarter. A whole lot of things make us stupider and we should avoid them. Organic food, clean environment, good health, good mood (depression is stupidfying) and the right stimulation keeps us as smart.as we can be.

Especially when we are children, a clean snd non toxic stimulating environment helps our brains develop.

You cant teach a kid to be gifted. Some kids just are. But you can teach all kids to reach their own potential. And we should. Even retarded kids have a wonderful potential and the same inborn desire to learn and grow that all children have. There is no.excuse to neglect any childs education.

Prove it... Take the experiment. I guess Mrs. Reagan's "This is your brain on drugs" never aired on your continent?

Completely incorrect.

Read up on all the twin orphan studies.
Different environments made no difference to their IQ.

I do not belief scientific fact means anything to you. It seems as if this is more your type of religion.

Hace fun, belief what you must.
Just know that you are wrong.

Being off the charts iq wise from childhood, I agree. However perserverence, passion and a dedication to a field of study or trade, with experience can quickly even the scales. IQ is not a predictor or future success and in some cases, as mine, it can actually be detrimental during the formative years to be labelled gifted or special. In my own experience only of course.

Your story is by no means "average" thus it does not apply.

Rahter do some reading on the subject.....deeper reading, not the main stream media stuff. The truth is not politically correct.

Right or Left hand? :)

Well, intelligence might not be, but intelligence quotient can most definitely be altered by education.

Our son came into our home as a foster child when he was three years old -- we adopted him a year later -- and his vocabulary was that of a child 18 months old and some other "delays". We were told that his I.Q. was estimated to be about 70. (He had been severely neglected.) Thanks to improved mental stimulation in our home, he was reading Harry Potter books in the second grade and was not delayed at all. He also scored in the 91st percentile in vocabulary, when tested. (He went on to score at the 88th percentile on the ASVAB -- the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude test -- higher than someone else in his reserve unit who had a masters degree.)

(Btw, this was not accomplished by any special means -- just by my reading with him, working with him, and providing a public school education in a middle-class suburb.)

I am so happy that you gave an at risk kid a great childhood and a chance at a great life. If everyone did something like that to the extent of their ability our world would be wonderful.

You know you didnt raise his IQ. His apparent i.tellige.ce was suppressed by depression and despair. When you cared for him and he recovered his innate IQ became apparent.

You did a great thing.

High IQ is a lot more than learning faster. High IQ people learn deeper, broader, with more insight snd more imagination and have greater ability to transfer learning from one subject to another and to use what they learn. They are more.creative and intuitive and more sensitive. They are capable.of.original thought.

High IQ people are different.

High IQ is never useless. That is the sort of dumb perso. Statement dumb people say to make themselves feel less butthurt that someone elze got more of something good than they got.

Sour grapes.