3 ms·
The idea that we don't fully understand intelligence does not negate the idea that intelligence would be genetically influenced in a similar manner to observabl
by mod 10y ago
The idea that we don't fully understand intelligence does not negate the idea that intelligence would be genetically influenced in a similar manner to observable physical traits.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your opening statement, the two are not very different in all likelihood.
- truth_sentinell 10y agoIt could be as it couldn't. Both our opinions are on the same level because we're fact-less. In most sports, we have clear rules about who is better at it. Let's say long jump. It's clear that a person with larger limbs (genetics) will have an advantage above one that has shorter limbs. How do we translate this in cognitive ability? A person is more intelligent than other because they passed a test? because they can draw better? Everything is loosely defined.
- mod 10y agoIn this comment, you're just calling into question the definition of intelligence. We have widely-accepted manners in which to gauge intelligence. If you dispute them, that's another matter. It's well-established that the measures show a genetic correlation. If you were to find another measure of intelligence, besides the standard ones, we can use our experience and facts to surmise with a high confidence that those, too, would prove to be influenced by genetics.