Comments on: Comments on 14038

Post number 14038

stbalbach — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:29:36 -0800

Is intelligence hereditary or environment? A new theory sees the brain as a plastic mold of potential with the more neuron connections the better [hereditary] and environment stimulation shapes the mold untill maturity. "You could present a person with an IQ of 200 with the appropriate phenomena when they are 20 years old, after the critical learning period, and they would not have the capacity to adapt their brains to the new phenomena". People of low IQ perform poorly because their brains do not adapt well to environmental stimulation.

By: walrus

walrus — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:42:51 -0800

I would have called this theory "common sense", but then I'm biased (I used to work in AI research).

By: rschram

rschram — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:51:12 -0800

A theory that has something for everyone.

By: walrus

walrus — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:53:31 -0800

Here's an article on the possible role of Neural Plasticity in evolution [found via MITECS].

By: gordian knot

gordian knot — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:38:09 -0800

Not only common sense, but not particularly new.

By: quirked

quirked — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:08:19 -0800

As with most things - nature AND nuture.

By: anewc2

anewc2 — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:35:41 -0800

Does one have to be a child Einstein to be an adult Einstein? Yes, if the developing brain has the ability to make the right connections, according to this theory. So much for this theory. Even Einstein was not a "child Einstein": slow in school. What I have yet to see in any of this intelligence debate is any talk about motivation or desire. When I was young I was branded "smart" in math (typical geek). But the rest of my life has convinced me I have no excess of "intelligence". I did well in math because I worked at it. I worked at it because I enjoyed it, and I was driven to know more. I have yet to believe that there is anything to this "intelligence" stuff apart from this drive, which leads to practice, which leads to improved performance.

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:20:04 -0800

Actually, from what I remember from reading Hawking's 'Universe in a Nutshell', Einstein wasn't quite as slow in school as many people make him out to be. Not surprising, really. Indeed, he had pretty fair grades while in high school.

By: Iax

Iax — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:04:22 -0800

I thought Einstein just did badly in math, and in later life he just hired mathematicians for any math specific stuff....

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:48:36 -0800

When did it become common sense to argue that people cannot learn or adapt after the age of 20? Being over 20 I just can't seem to learn that I am not suppossed to learn.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:56:53 -0800

Anewc2.. I think your statement points to environment shapeing your abilities. You "worked" at it, meaning you shaped the nature of outside stimulas to structure your brain in a certain direction (math). srboisvert .. I agree %100 this theory is not common sense at all. That we "harden" after age 20 sucks.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:09:50 -0800

> People of low IQ perform poorly because their brains do > not adapt well to environmental stimulation. Another way of saying they don't think about what they see. "Your problem, Watson, is that you see but you do not observe. -- Mr. Sherlock Holmes to Dr. Watson

By: Mach3avelli

Mach3avelli — Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:17:49 -0800

I saw something about Einstein on the Discovery Channel that stated that his poor performance in school was a myth, that he actually performed very well, but that he got into bitter arguments with teachers (= "bad" student).

By: walrus

walrus — Tue, 22 Jan 2002 02:50:50 -0800

FWIW, my "common sense" epithet was not directed at the 20 years old thing, but towards the nature versus nurture debate, where it's always seemed common sense to me that the brains plasticity provides the mechanism for intelligence, through learning in response to environmental stimuli. I don't know where they pulled the "You could present a person with an IQ of 200 with the appropriate phenomena when they are 20 years old, after the critical learning period, and they would not have the capacity to adapt their brains to the new phenomena" quote from, but I expect it was taken out of context, or exaggerated in the reporting. Learning does slow as we age, and I think that's indisputable, but I don't believe there is a "freeze" at any age.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:59:06 -0800

I think it is high time that metifites took on the plasticians! I haven't really been convinced that our brains 'harden' as we age in the sense that people commonly believe. You can teach an old dog a new trick but it is harder. Is this because of a change in the underlying neural structure that provides the plumbing for cognition? Maybe, but it could also be because we are no longer blank slates. It is a lot more difficult to fit new ideas into a pre-existing conceptual structure. It require resolving conflicting evidence, logical contradictions, dissonance, etc...

By: walrus

walrus — Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:17:58 -0800

I think it is high time that metifites took on the plasticians! Leave 'em to it. Neural Plasticity is such a vagary that one can hardly "take it on". The brain learns by changing synaptic "weight" or synaptogenesis. So? This notion of not being able to learn after a certain age is demonstrably ridiculous, but I still think we're probably arguing a quote taken out of context. Learning does slow down as we get older: or as srboisvertput it, tou can teach an old dog a new trick but it is harder. I think whether you see the "why" as having a logical or a physical basis is somewhat moot: it's probably a bit of both.