I feel that intelligence is a combination of genetics and environment, with genetics being the stronger factor.

Any alternate views?

What would environment have to do with it? I'm just trying to get the clear picture here.... From what I known about Heredity and intelligence. I look at both sides of my family..... One side who has been in the rural Kansas Area... and the other that's been on the other side of the world. Out of both sides... I see different points of view.... My grandfather on the Kansas side has a strong liberal point of view because Mennonites don't agree with somethings such as War.... yet since I'm a mixture of both sides..... I just don't know if I am considered intelligent at all.....

I'm just more pessimistic than I used to be...

Ye olde nature vs nurture debate. The problem with intelligence is that a) intelligence is an abstract idea that we are not able to clearly define.
And b) It is not the quantity of intelligence that counts towards how intelligent you appear, it's what you do with what you've got.
That is down to nurture.

I'm surprised you've gone with nature. Perhaps when your kids have grown up you will see the full effect you've had on them and change your mind.

The heritability of intelligence is a myth. Sometimes the smartest set of parents will produce a real letdown in the intelligence department. There's an example of this phenomenon right here. You're reading his post.

Well, here's an article about [i]heritability[/] http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/09/2...ted/16538/

As for genetics, the going thought, so far as I know, is that genetics only accounts for the extreme outliers; a typical brain has a very flexible nature that allows a tremendous influence upon the skills leading to a decent score on the tests designed by white researchers living in the western hemisphere to determine a person's "intelligence."

This post was last modified: 10-17-2012 12:54 AM by Lang.

It's not like the anti-vaxxers or the mercury moms.  It's the development of a set of neural skills that the tests examine, such as pointing to birds or fences.

Oh....

When they've grown up, the "nurture" effects will be none. Children are able to camouflage during growing up, in case they are "cuckoo's eggs".

I actually agree with you for the most part.

Functional intelligence is what made some of the kids I went to school with a lot richer than I am now, despite that (or more likely because) they worked their butts off just to get above average marks.

I mostly think that I get my intelligence from my Dad's side of the family since my Mother's side did come from Oklahoma after all .... :/

You cannot do statistics on a sample of one.

I'd disagree on at least two grounds. One, you seem intelligent to me. Two, if a 6.8" father and 6'4" mother produced a child who grew to 5'1" as an adult, that does not disprove that height has a strong genetic component among humans.

From: http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm

This, of course, does not disprove that intelligence has a strong genetic component - but it does show that environment can influence intelligence quite significantly. I do wonder, as well, how much effect nutrition has on those statistics.

From: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-genetic-basis-...elligence/

Twin studies have consistently shown a very strong genetic basis for intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance...telligence

There are some prominent banners around the stats I've included from Wikipedia - there are some strong ideological factors regarding the acceptance or rejection of these sort of figures.

Shouldn't that read 'Heritability of telligence'?

That's what I like so much and find at the same time frightening about that question. If everyone who's above average (in a bertain field) gets cut off, where do we end?