Stoopidittea

**Pickle_mole** · December 13, 2008, 01:38 PM

I was wondering if two adults came together with I.Q.'s of 80 or something low like that would they have a higher chance of giving birth to low I.Q. kids? If so why?

**Playfishpaste** · December 13, 2008, 02:07 PM

Yes, cognitive skill is partly genetic, though if the traits of both of their neurological systems favor higher cognitive efficiency then regardless of that direct intelligence negative the child could still end up very intelligent for indirect genetic reasons.

**Lord Feloric's Ambassador** · December 13, 2008, 11:35 PM

It's simple genetics.

**Pickle_mole** · December 14, 2008, 01:44 AM

With that in mind if you had a group of these people, a village, would the same still apply? you might see where this could end.

**~~Ummon~~** · December 14, 2008, 02:04 AM

Who exactly told you that IQ means intelligence? Or that intelligence exists, you see.

A matter of specifying things, nothing else.

**Playfishpaste** · December 14, 2008, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ummon

Who exactly told you that IQ means intelligence? Or that intelligence exists, you see.

A matter of specifying things, nothing else.

IQ is a measure of your cognitive skill, which is your intelligence. Though I think I know what you're getting at, could you elaborate further?

**~~Ummon~~** · December 14, 2008, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Playfishpaste

IQ is a measure of your cognitive skill, which is your intelligence. Though I think I know what you're getting at, could you elaborate further?

IQ is what we measure as intelligence. Obviously, others may measure it differently. Surely, I would not deny IQ is correlated with something we abstractly think of and define as intelligence, but...

**Playfishpaste** · December 14, 2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ummon

IQ is what we measure as intelligence. Obviously, others may measure it differently. Surely, I would not deny IQ is correlated with something we abstractly think of and define as intelligence, but...

Well we have our own definition of intelligence in english, others may have different concepts about it, but intelligence isn't really anything special, it's very easily definable as cognition. I think you're refering to brightness or smarts.

As for the village example, not enough people in the village would be stupid, there would be a bell curve.

**Copperknickers II** · December 14, 2008, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Pickle_mole

I was wondering if two adults came together with I.Q.'s of 80 or something low like that would they have a higher chance of giving birth to low I.Q. kids? If so why?

If you are asking if a servile-race of idiots is gradually evolving among the lower classes, the answer is no.

**Pickle_mole** · December 14, 2008, 04:58 PM

i was just wondering how if two parents would have a better chance of having "dumb" kids could your extrapolate that out further to a village etc.

**~~Ummon~~** · December 16, 2008, 04:16 AM

Ever read about intercultural studies on intelligence?

**Chaigidel** · December 16, 2008, 07:24 AM

I know a guy who was born too complete idiots ! but he is extremely intelligent; it could be part enviroment, part education, part genetics -- but either way this guys iq is at 140-150 on the tests, and his parents can hardly read( so they may not be that dumb just ill educated)

**LSJ** · December 16, 2008, 12:29 PM

If only we could measure intelligence...

You can only measure what you perceive to be intelligent, and even then you must consider the resources available to a person, the person's age, economic/social situation, the time period...

Many people consider robots to be smart, especially when programmed with many mathematics functions for science. But are they really smart? Can they understand basic human emotions? Do they learn from their mistakes or other's examples? They can only do what is programmed.

Perhaps you think someone who knows history is smart. But then a scientist who knows how to do the most complex equations but didn't take a history course or play EU3

would be considered unintelligent.

Some people have little creativity. You give them sticks, a saw, and glue, and they don't know what to do. Other people might get an idea and make a model of an airship

- something the other person may have never thought of.

As another example, the scientists who created nuclear physics must have been brilliant to do so, yet they knew far less than any physics university graduate these days. Yet these graduates didn't come up with any of this knowledge - they learned it from a book or professor. Can they be considered smarter for grasping a subject but not creating something from almost nothing?

Basically, you cannot rate intelligence in any accurate manner.

"Cognitive ability" is the same way, in that it varies so greatly in so many types of intelligence. Some people find math really hard but excel at everything else because they can learn it easier.