Nature Versus Nurture: Stop ASSuming!

a reply to: Profusion

My reply bellow may seem like I wish to argue.. so please don't read it that way.. reason why I am here is that I cheer for your stop assuming title.. My number one issue about the nature of people.. It is my personal experience (and yes this forum does prove it to me) : people most of the time assume and they won't let go of their assumption.. sad and frustrating

But I read your OP and the content is not what I thought it would be but I still read it.. I really don't understand the point here.. again please don't assume anything I am just trying to understand what is your point of this topic I am reading I am just not understanding it.. again I am genuine about the fact that I do want to understand what is your point.. my first response would be..



No 1 : ASSumption

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..

I will just borrow this..

Changes in relative numbers of high-intelligent and low-intelligent people in the world should never lead to a change in global IQ.

IQ is not a measure of amount of intelligence, it is a measure of amount of intelligence relative to peers.

For example, see this source:

And it is very important for people not to confuse between intelligence and relative intelligence. Intelligence can never be measured and IQ is not the measure of intelligence. IQ is simply the measure of relative intelligence derived by a single or set of standardized tests.

For example, a young child can have a higher IQ than an adult, even though the adult has plenty more intellectual capacity, because, the peers of a child are not the same as the peers of an adult:

Modern IQ tests use a "deviation IQ" rather than a ratio IQ. With this method, test takers are referenced to other people of their own age. The average IQ is still 100, but deviations from the average are assigned a number which corresponds to a percentile rank.

Esentially, IQ is a measure of ranking, not of amount of ability. The rankings are expressed in IQ points, which are usually equal to 1/15th of a standard deviation of all possible test-takers.

There are standards for assigning IQs to people who get a certain number of questions correctly. These standards change over time, so that the average is always 100:

Because populations experience IQ gains over time, IQ tests must be constantly restandardized so that subjects are not scored against inaccurate norms.

That being said, the standards are not updated all the time, and certainly not in all countries. What Lynn and Vanhanen do, in the study that inspired your question, is to give a test that has been standardized in the Western world, to nationals of many countries across the globe.

Norms: Norm groups included in the manual are: British children between the ages of 6 and 16; Irish children between the ages of 6 and 12; military and civilian subjects between the ages of 20 and 65. A supplement includes norms from Canada, the United States, and Germany.

This is the standard that all other people are compared to, when assessing their ranking on the IQ scale.

If the tests were always standardized correctly, that is to (a representative sample of) all potential test-takers, the average global IQ would be 100 every time it is measured. So, no, global IQ should never drop.

But perhaps it does drop? It is, after all, a highly imperfect set of numbers. If global IQ were to drop, we could speculate on the reasons. One of the reasons could be that a putative gap in intelligence between more and less developed countries is widening. This means that the Western standards for assigning IQ points get tougher and tougher for poor, more populous countries. Note that this still doesn't need to mean that global levels of intelligence are dropping! All countries could do better nowadays, but the gap might still widen. Following the pattern of IQ scores over time simply doesn't tell us what is happening with the actual level of intelligence.

I've copied this too but it sums up my personal take on this subject

I tend to think about IQ scores as an inverse measure of deprivation. I believe that if people get some basic nutrition and education, intellectual capacity will flourish, and additional efforts to boost IQ scores will be futile. Deprivation, on the other hand, can harm intellectual capacity in many ways. In that sense, industrialization would act to suppress sources of deprivation, and the previously deprived portions of the population would flourish with the rest of us. And industrialization will come everywhere - it's no coincidence that we call poor countries 'developing'


No 2 : ASSumption

I think most of this forum serves as evidence that it is happening.

this comment just leaves me insulted on a mild level to be honest.. not personally.. it just sounds insulting to the entire forum but i won't assume anything so please if you can elaborate..

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

Many children in the same location, (as in your bomb example) can have a similar personal experience.
Ten kids faced with the same environment each had a personal experience which is similar to each other.
But, another kid, in a different environment will not be effected by their personal experiences.

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"?

Yes, that is my claim. Each one present will be effected by their own exposure and experience to that thing or event.

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?

They can and do. The more two individuals have in common in terms of personal experience, the more they will have in common in the way they develop. If they were raised in the same location, lived through the same events, had parents with similar belief and behaviors, will have more in common in the way they develop. But there will still be differences- because they have different genetics when born. Unless they are identical twins.

This is obvious when you have kids of your own, raise them the same, same environment, they go to the same school, and yet have totally different personalities. People cope differently in face of the exact same circumstances.

All the people who tested with the same IQ- do you think they are all exactly the same in every other respect??? They may have had something in common in their environment which effected them each similarly... but that is just one element of who they are- I am absolutely convinced that they have others ways they remain different from one another.