Originally posted by: mylifeforaiur
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: mylifeforaiur
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Eeezee
That's a dumb question. I'd happily take the money. With enough effort and enough money spent, you can become smart. It's easy if you have the money.
It's a lot harder to be smart and become rich than to be rich and "become smart" (if that makes sense).
An education does not make you smart, but you can live life without being pampered and eventually become smart. You'll at least never fall on particularly hard times.
Ummm, no, not really. You can increase your knowledge, sure. But your actual intelligence and, to a lesser extent, your capacity for knowledge are dictated by genetics. The best you can accomplish is to raise yourself to your maximum potential...but that potential is individual and dictated at conception (or at least by birth).
Is there any evidence suggesting that capacity for knowledge is dictated by genetics? Granted some things will come easier to some people than others- I've always felt that if I was truly interesting in understanding something I eventually will.
What sets the gradation for complexity of knowledge anyway? Maybe some day in the future string theory will be common knowledge and accepted to be true.
Edit: I think this poll asks a deeper philosophical question. Does money bring happiness?
Answer is no. Money does not bring happiness. However having more money will make you happier. That probably made no sense.
Having more money loosens the effect of the constraint of scarcity on you as an individual.
I however, would feel miserable as a rap artist (or paris hilton). I may be rich, but I would feel I have been detrimental to society (Just an example, don't roast me over this). I would feel even worse if the money had just dropped into my lap, without me having done anything to earn it. Does the fact that I find $1,000,000 on the ground mean that i should use it to satiate my own desires?
Overwhelming evidence shows that IQ (g) is inherited, and genetically constrained. There is less research into MI theories, so I don't have good data on that. I am more hesitant to comment on how you phrased your question; 'capacity for knowledge is dictated by genetics'. That's not exactly a definition of (g) or any particular MI.
However, the research into those areas shows that there is at least a probable correlation between the two. High IQ (g) makes speed and ease of knowledge acquisition increase, but I don't know of anything looking at actual capacity/potential. Given that we live a finite time anything that increases the speed that one learns, and likewise increases the possibility for comprehension, gives a higher overall potential capacity.
Let's just assume capacity is infinite for all we know. Haven't studies shown only 10% of the human mind is utilized? MI gives an ad hoc view of intelligence. Their definition of intelligence (or smart in our case) is very similar to the general perception of "ability".
Concerning IQ: if smarter people produce smarter children, are we to rule out the factors that the environment they were brought up in played no role in the encouragement of their pursuit of learning? There are also arguments against IQ tests, claiming that no matter how objectively the test is created, societal bias(general concepts within the society) cannot be completely removed. After all, we have no true insight on what is correct or right (A philosophical question probably best left out of this discussion, lol). We only know what has worked. (I guess in this sense a true genius would do worse on an aptitude test?) Therefore an IQ test also tests how well you understand the society in which the test was created.
I'm leaning towards the ability definition of intelligence. Of course this doesn't apply in certain situations, i.e it is advantageous to a musician's ability to have perfect pitch. However in most cases I can think of it applies.
Calculus is taught in high schools nowadays. A century ago, only a minute portion of the population understood Calculus (I'm guessing). Have we become that much smarter? or has it simply been made that much easier for us to acquire this ability?
In terms of speed and ease of acquisition of knowledge, does it really make that much of a difference if it takes a student two quarters to completely understand a subject instead of one? Didn't Einstein fail at algebra in his early years?(a hackneyed example yes i know).
That whole 'using 10% of our brain' thing is a
myth.
The various MI theories (Gardner, Sternberg, etc) are advancing our understanding and perspective of intelligence. They may not be wholly accurate, but they're the first major departure from (g) studies and are therefore valuable to progressing our situation.
Environment does have impact. Environment influences rather we advance to near the maximum genetic potential, or stay below. As an example (this is very rough), lets say you have a genetic IQ of 100. Environment could move you between 85 and 115. No amount of environmental variables or personal actions will move you outside that range. Studies indicate environment and other factors account for about 1sd either way, though in some extreme cases a 2sd shift may be possible.
While older IQ tests were heavily biased (as were the original Stanford-Binet) modern tests are much better. They may not be perfect, but they're so close it really doesn't matter. Understand there's a HUGE difference between a 60 question internet test and a full intelligence battery administered by a psychologist.
Understand that calculus in its modern form has only been around since about the 19th century. While many of the concepts are almost 4000 years old it wasn't organized and fleshed out like it is today. That's not because we've gotten smarter, it's because it takes a long time under the right circumstances to turn a bunch of unconnected theories into a connected practical course for the common man to learn. Moreover there has to be a reason for the common man to want to learn it. How many farmhands in 1900 Ohio needed to solve differential equations?
There are three separate factors at work when we look at education content. Cognitive psychology (how our minds work, intelligence, etc), developmental psychology (how our minds and emotions mature with age), and education (the political construct, shaped and inhibited by social constraints). Two of those fields are relatively new. As our understanding of these various fields increases it leads to increases in the others. This becomes a cycle that results in the most efficient learning, but it's still constrained by need and social pressures.
There are three aspects to learning speed - input, retention, and understanding (which is basically synthesis). IQ is only minimally correlated to input speed. Retention has better correlation, but it's still not the be all and end all. Synthesis, however, is directly correlated. People with higher IQs can 'understand' things quicker. This also applies to to then using that new knowledge to reach understanding of more difficult topics, as well as relating information from different fields. Mind you, this all assumes an equal level of psychological development. I focus on speed because our ability to learn is higher in our early years (say 10-14) and falls away somewhat as we age. That means that we have a finite amount of time to obtain knowledge in the most efficient manner. Let's see how that plays out in an example:
Kid 1 has an IQ of 100. It takes him 2 hours to read 100 pages, he retains 25% of it each try, he has an average understanding of the subjects after spending the needed time.
Kid 2 has an IQ of 160. It takes her 90 minutes to read 100 pages, she retains 50% of it each try, she has a high level of understanding of the subjects after spending the needed time.
Lets say a course is 500 pages long. Kid 1 has to go through it for 40 hours to get an average level of understanding/ability. Kid 2 spends 15 hours to get a high level of understanding ability. Kid 2 can therefore go on to learn another full course, and most of another, in the time it takes kid 1 to get the first. Moreover Kid 2 is going to be better at all 3 than kid 1 is going to be.
Now, that's not really exactly how it works, but it illustrates the importance of learning speed and understanding. The only way I can think of to give you accurate real world understanding is to use personal examples, which come across badly.