Nature Versus Nurture: Stop ASSuming!

The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.
en.wikipedia.org...

The focus of this rant is on people who theorize about the general lowering of IQ levels and the increasing problem concerning the world population's lack of ability to think rationally and logically. This thread is not meant to be a place for debate of whether or not that's happening. I think most of this forum serves as evidence that it is happening.

I've found two basic camps among alternative thinker-types who theorize about why people seem to be getting dumber overall:

Theory #1 Schools and society in general aren't teaching children how to think.

Theory #2 Junk food, GMOs, the proliferation of technology, and other such factors are dumbing people down.

In my experience, almost everyone who theorizes about why people are becoming increasingly dumber falls into one or the other of the camps above. It infuriates me, here's why...

Both groups are making a huge assumption. Those who propagate theory #1 are assuming that nurturing is the key to intelligence (in the nature/nurture debate). But, I can't recall any of them stating that explicitly. They always seem to state their theory as if it's a proven fact that nurturing is the key to intelligence.

Those who propagate theory #2 are assuming that nature is the key to intelligence (in the nature/nurture debate). But, I can't recall any of them stating that explicitly. They always seem to state their theory as if it's a proven fact that nature is the key to intelligence.

Newsflash for both groups:

The nature/nurture debate will exist until we go extinct. Neither case can be proven to be true.

It's incredible to me that most people who theorize about why people seem to be getting dumber overall cannot see...

At the base of their theory is an unprovable assumption. Remove the assumption and theory #1 and theory #2 both are invalidated.

I presume it's both nature and nurture...



But theory 1 & 2 are both nurture...

Gmos technology & junk food are nothing to do with inherent natural genetic intellect.

In my opinion.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I presume it's both nature and nurture...



But theory 1 & 2 are both nurture...

Gmos technology & junk food are nothing to do with inherent natural genetic intellect.

In my opinion.

Theory #2 Junk food, GMOs, the proliferation of technology, and other such factors are dumbing people down.

Theory #2 states that people have innate intelligence that is being blocked and impeded by outside factors. That's the exact opposite of the nurture theory.

You were speaking of IQ and nature vs nurture.
I taught an entire class lecture period on that topic
in Univ.

Look at it this way:
science has shown that about 80% of IQ is inherited
and 20% is nurture.

But that stat alone is deceptive.

The average IQ is 100
so if a child has poor nurture, environment, food, etc. if their genetic IQ is 100 their IQ with wretched nurture could be as low as 80, which is borderline mentally challenged

The average IQ is 100
so if a child has superb nurture, environment food, etc. if their genetic IQ is 100 their IQ with superb nurture could be as
high as 120, getting close to borderline gifted

So the 20% is absolutely huge in terms of effect
on the end result IQ based on nurture.

Therefore, in reality nurture plays a much larger role in ultimate IQ
even though genes determine 80% of ones IQ

I hope you can all understand, I simplified it as best I could.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

I presume it's both nature and nurture...

In my opinion.

Since the OP specifically said we can't debate this I assume if I agree with you and oppose the stated arguments I would violate the request to not debate.
Very confused.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Look at it this way:
science has shown that about 80% of IQ is inherited
and 20% is nurture.

What's your source for that information?

I seriously doubt your story as it appears that a few minutes of research on this topic refutes the quoted statement above:

Thank your parents if you're smart: Up to 40% of a child's intelligence is inherited, researchers claim
New estimate is lower than those given by previous studies
Researchers analysed DNA and IQ test results from 18,000 children
They suggest a range of genes may affect intelligence cumulatively
Link to article

originally posted by: WalkInSilence

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

I presume it's both nature and nurture...

In my opinion.


Since the OP specifically said we can't debate this I assume if I agree with you and oppose the stated arguments I would violate the request to not debate.
Very confused.

What are you referring to? The emboldened part below?

originally posted by: Profusion
The focus of this rant is on people who theorize about the general lowering of IQ levels and the increasing problem concerning the world population's lack of ability to think rationally and logically. This thread is not meant to be a place for debate of whether or not that's happening. I think most of this forum serves as evidence that it is happening.

a reply to: Profusion

Too much sugar,not enough fat.

That's all it is.Oh,eat more fish,everyone.

originally posted by: Profusion

Theory #2 Junk food, GMOs, the proliferation of technology, and other such factors are dumbing people down.

Theory #2 states that people have innate intelligence that is being blocked and impeded by outside factors. That's the exact opposite of the nurture theory.

What? Wait... I thought the "nature" theory refers to what you are born with, not the effects of your environment after you are born- that is "nurture"...isn't it?

Off to research further....

ETA-
This is what I found:

The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

Yeah, so, the theory n°2 relates to nurture. Unless you refer to people being born with lower intelligence, because their parents ate GMO's, junkfood, etc. ?


Though I am not sure people's intelligence is lowering overall. The potential may still be there, but simply isn't being used by them.
Getting mentally lazy. It always seems to me that the intellect is almost like muscles that need regular exercise to be effective.
The less you use them, the less you use them...

originally posted by: Bluesma
originally posted by: Profusion

Theory #2 Junk food, GMOs, the proliferation of technology, and other such factors are dumbing people down.

Theory #2 states that people have innate intelligence that is being blocked and impeded by outside factors. That's the exact opposite of the nurture theory.

What? Wait... I thought the "nature" theory refers to what you are born with, not the effects of your environment after you are born- that is "nurture"...isn't it?

Off to research further....

ETA-
This is what I found:
The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

Yeah, so, the theory n°2 relates to nurture. Unless you refer to people being born with lower intelligence, because their parents ate GMO's, junkfood, etc. ?

I don't agree with your conclusion.

The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

Theory #2 from the original post implies that the entirety of the problem of the general lowering of IQ levels and the increasing problem concerning the world population's lack of ability to think rationally and logically is being caused by something that is affecting humanity as a whole.

That theory adheres to the nature theory. Consider the emboldened part above, "as compared to an individual's personal experiences." The people who propagate theory #2 (in my experience) disregard the personal experiences of the individual because they are coming at the issue from the perspective of the nature theory. Personal experiences do not matter to these people because they believe that the entirety of the problem is worldwide. That kind of thinking cannot fall under the nurture theory.

Then continuing on, "in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits." Once again, in my experience the people who propagate theory #2 are unconcerned with individual differences among people. The people who adhere to theory #2 are coming at the problem like this:

Humanity as a whole is being dragged down together because people's innate abilities are being blocked and hindered.

That idea is completely consistent with the nature theory.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Though I am not sure people's intelligence is lowering overall. The potential may still be there, but simply isn't being used by them.
Getting mentally lazy. It always seems to me that the intellect is almost like muscles that need regular exercise to be effective.
The less you use them, the less you use them...

Researchers say Western IQs dropped 14 points over last century

I didn't think that issue would be controversial. I could find more sources and research on that if you'd like.

Getting back on topic, "Researchers say Western IQs dropped 14 points over last century." That's startling if you ask me. Where will it end?

But "innate" means what you are born with- genetically, for example. That is what the nature theory refers to.

What you eat, what you do, what experiences you have, that have an impact on that, is "nurture".

Of course, many individuals living in the same society, with experiences they have in common, (food, for example) will have similar effects upon them as a result.


I like the answer they gave-

So why has there been such a steady drop? As UPI notes, previous research studies have found that women of higher intelligence tend to have fewer children on average, meaning that population growth may be driven by those with a lower IQ. And over time, the abundance of less intelligent offspring would affect the overall IQ average.

Idiocracy anyone?

originally posted by: Bluesma
But "innate" means what you are born with- genetically, for example. That is what the nature theory refers to.

What you eat, what you do, what experiences you have, that have an impact on that, is "nurture".

Of course, many individuals living in the same society, with experiences they have in common, (food, for example) will have similar effects upon them as a result.

Nurture is defined as 'concern given to offspring by their parents, especially by mothers, it is now extensively regarded as any ecological (not genetic) feature in the modern nature versus nurture debate. On the other hand Nature is defined as hereditary and a range of innate organic factors affecting overall growth.
Link

Going by the quote above, I'm essentially using the term "nurture" in the sense that's mentioned first, you're using it in the sense that's mentioned second. I suppose if you're going to refer to nurture "as any ecological (not genetic) feature" then I guess that you're right in your assessment above.

Personally I don't think that has any validity to it. Consider the following:

6 cases of children being raised by animals

According to your interpretation, those children all received nurturing while being raised by animals. Were they nurtured just by the fact that they were alive? Roaming through a forest to find food is being nurtured by the earth? Is that it?

That doesn't make sense to me. I hope you can shed some light on it.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I like the answer they gave-

So why has there been such a steady drop? As UPI notes, previous research studies have found that women of higher intelligence tend to have fewer children on average, meaning that population growth may be driven by those with a lower IQ. And over time, the abundance of less intelligent offspring would affect the overall IQ average.

Idiocracy anyone?

"Idiocracy" is exactly what I thought of when I saw that too.

a reply to: Profusion

I see where you are coming from- you're thinking of nurture as in giving affection, protection, comfort?

I was using it within it's meaning in empiricism (experience; learned). It doesn't refer to any kind of experience in particular (comforting, or not) .

Not as in "maternal nurture". In your example, every sensual experience that child has, with what it sees, hears, eats, touches, all contribute to it's "nurture" side of development.

Some studies have found that the more a certain sense is deprived of stimulation in young animals, the bigger the deficit in development once adult.
That is why I kinda wondered if , with all these computers to search and think for us and give us answers, and technology to make us things, perhaps our intellect is getting less stimulation, from the time we are kids... ending up with deficits as a result?

Just an idea thrown out there. I don't know.

originally posted by: Profusion
Theory #2 states that people have innate intelligence that is being blocked and impeded by outside factors. That's the exact opposite of the nurture theory.

Education is an "outside factor". The "nurture" explanation is all about outside factors.
A genuine "nature" explanation would be resting only on the belief that the genetic material itself was in decline.
"Nature versus nurture" means "What you were born with versus what influences you as you develop".

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: Profusion

I see where you are coming from- you're thinking of nurture as in giving affection, protection, comfort?

I was using it within it's meaning in empiricism (experience; learned). It doesn't refer to any kind of experience in particular (comforting, or not) .

Not as in "maternal nurture". In your example, every sensual experience that child has, with what it sees, hears, eats, touches, all contribute to it's "nurture" side of development.

What you wrote above seems to contradict what you quoted earlier:

The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

Do you agree with the quote above or not?

Now you're claiming that nurture refers to "every sensual experience that child has" and earlier you claimed it only referred to "an individual's personal experiences." If you're going to define every experience as a personal experience then why bother using the word "personal"?

That's a big issue. Let's take GMO as an example. If 99% of what's sold in all the local supermarkets in a town contains GMO and GMO decreases people's intelligence then that's going to affect the intelligence levels of possibly everyone in that town.

If we stick to what you quoted from wikipedia, then the effects of the GMO food in the town on intelligence levels would not fall under the nurture theory IMHO. However, if we're going to use the definition of the nurture theory that you're using now, then the effects of the GMO foods on intelligence levels in the town would fall under the nurture theory.

You seemed to be claiming above that I only considered positive factors to be nurturing. That's not the case at all. What I was thinking of nurturing as being is what the quote from wikipedia says:

"an individual's personal experiences" cause "individual differences"

I hope that clears it up. For example, under my previous understanding of this topic if a nuclear bomb fell on a town and the inhabitants of the town all got radiation sickness, the radiation sickness would not fall under the nurture theory. The reason is because as the wikipedia quote says, "an individual's personal experiences" cause "individual differences"...

The bomb dropping on the town was not a personal experience for anyone in the town and there were no individual differences in terms of effects as everyone got sick in the same manner.

That's the crux of theory #2 in the original post of this thread in my opinion.

I believe that labeling theory #2 as part of the nature theory is consistent with the wikipedia quote.

This thread is not meant to be a place for debate of whether or not that's happening. I think most of this forum serves as evidence that it is happening.



why keep going then

originally posted by: Layaly
This thread is not meant to be a place for debate of whether or not that's happening. I think most of this forum serves as evidence that it is happening.

why keep going then

I didn't want this thread to be a debate about whether or not there's a general lowering of IQ levels and a problem concerning the world population's lack of ability to think rationally and logically. I think discussing that further is beating a dead horse at this point. Just for the record, you took the sentences you quoted above out of context:

originally posted by: Profusion
The focus of this rant is on people who theorize about the general lowering of IQ levels and the increasing problem concerning the world population's lack of ability to think rationally and logically. This thread is not meant to be a place for debate of whether or not that's happening. I think most of this forum serves as evidence that it is happening.

What this thread has morphed into has been enlightening to me. That's why I'm continuing here.

The source?

I taught this in University for over 12 years.

This comes straight from my lecture.

It wasn't meant to refute anything.

It was just inserted as informational.

No need to get your panties in a wad.
There was no nefarious or contrarian
intent, simply informational.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The source?

I taught this in University for over 12 years.

This comes straight from my lecture.

It wasn't meant to refute anything.

It was just inserted as informational.

No need to get your panties in a wad.
There was no nefarious or contrarian
intent, simply informational.

I know from what you've written in this thread that you have no credibility.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Look at it this way:
science has shown that about 80% of IQ is inherited
and 20% is nurture.

1. You're claiming that "science has shown that about 80% of IQ is inherited" while claiming that the source of that information is your lecture. If science had shown something then the source of the information was not your lecture. Sorry to be blunt but you've already been caught in a lie right there.

2. If science has "shown" something then it wouldn't be refuted by legitimate further studies at a later time.

3. You were claiming that something that is impossible to prove had been proven as a fact. Anyone that knows the difference between inductive logic and deductive logic knows that it's impossible to prove something using inductive logic. I knew that the entire basis for your argument was dead on arrival and it only took me minutes to prove it.

I'm trying to debate using facts. You're using unsubstantiated claims and "No need to get your panties in a wad." I think that kind of says it all.

originally posted by: Profusion


What you wrote above seems to contradict what you quoted earlier:

The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

Do you agree with the quote above or not?

Now you're claiming that nurture refers to "every sensual experience that child has" and earlier you claimed it only referred to "an individual's personal experiences." If you're going to define every experience as a personal experience then why bother using the word "personal"?

The child is a person.
So everything he/she experiences is a personal experience.

For example, this child will not be effected by the experiences another one has.



I think I see what you mean about this current degradation of intelligence though.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Profusion


What you wrote above seems to contradict what you quoted earlier:

The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature" in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual's personal experiences ("nurture" in the sense of empiricism or behaviorism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.

Do you agree with the quote above or not?

Now you're claiming that nurture refers to "every sensual experience that child has" and earlier you claimed it only referred to "an individual's personal experiences." If you're going to define every experience as a personal experience then why bother using the word "personal"?

The child is a person.
So everything he/she experiences is a personal experience.

I've never heard or read that definition of "personal experience", what's your source for that?

originally posted by: Bluesma
For example, this child will not be effected by the experiences another one has.

So, in my GMO and nuclear bomb examples, you're actually claiming that each person "will not be effected by the experiences another one has"? The nuclear bomb example proves that to be wrong without any doubt. The GMO example leaves some wiggle room but not much IMHO.

After giving the quote from wikipedia more thought, if we use a normal definition of the term "personal experiences" then what the quote says is actually somewhat scientifically testable IMHO.

If "an individual's personal experiences" cause "individual differences" then it seems to me:

dependent variable = the person including things such as personality type
independent variable = an individual's personal experiences
control variable = the experiences and factors that are common to everyone in a region

Going by the normal definition of "personal experiences" and the wikipedia definition of the nurture theory, scientists could actually test the nurture theory to some extent IMHO.

However, if the nurture theory refers to "every sensual experience that child has" then I don't see how that's testable at all. I don't even see any point in spending any time on this issue if it can't be tested. Any thoughts on that?