5 ms·

intelligence is a lottery at birth, assuming the education system is good enough at identify talents of all kind. and with the world especially Asian countries

intelligence is a lottery at birth, assuming the education system is good enough at identify talents of all kind. and with the world especially Asian countries better at this, I think we do need more human to maintain the current talents pool.

stephc_int13 3y ago
It is not. There is a part of genetics, like most things, but if you look at past geniuses, there is a common pattern, wealthy enough families able to afford tutors. Tutoring is what makes geniuses, not lottery.
- rtz121 3y ago
  I could just as well argue that those families have better genetic material and that is why they are wealthy.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Lots of people get tutored without becoming geniuses, hence tutoring isn't enough to make geniuses. Also many geniuses didn't have tutoring, they need wealthy enough families to afford public school which used to be a high bar but today most people gets it even if you include poor countries.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    > they need wealthy enough families to afford public school Note that what the UK origin term “public schools” means is not the same as what that means in other countries, which can confuse these discussions in a global forum. (In the US, we’d call that “private school”.)
- vunderba 3y ago
  No, it certainly does not. Obviously, a higher socioeconomic background means increased resources and dedicated attention to education which certainly helps, but genius, in the true sense of the word needs a good starting foundation, and that probably has a significant genetic component. Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Ramanujan were all child prodigies without exceptional access to tutors and other educational resources. If tutoring could produce geniuses (160 IQ) we would have a billion dollar industry around it instead of snake oil companies like Luminosity.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    i don't agree with the genetic argument but with your other point. producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry because we don't yet even know how to teach to that. but that doesn't mean that we could not improve teaching and peoples potential massively. china used to have a billion dollar tutoring industry (ok, i don't know if it was a billion, but china is huge so it's possible) until a change of laws shut it down. but this chinese tutoring industry was not aimed at producing geniuses. instead it was aimed at exploiting parents, extracting their money without providing any real value except putting pressure on the children to perform. that's why it was shut down.
    - collyw 3y ago
      It seems fairly obvious that there is a genetic element to intelligence, otherwise animals would be as intelligent as humans.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        yes, but this only goes as far as being able to explain the difference between humans and other animals. it doesn't at all explain the differences between different humans because other factors are so strong that so far we have not been able to isolate genetic differences as a factor in human intelligence. even twin studies have been flawed in this regard.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        If we had to wager whether there was any genetic component to intelligence differences among humans, I think the safe wager is on “there is some” over “there is none”.
        em-bee 3y ago
        yes, but i'd also wager that it is completely drowned out by other factors. if genetics improve my intelligence by 1% and teaching can improve it by 10% then what's the point? those genetics will only be a factor among those receiving no teaching at all, or those who receive the maximum teaching possible. but they will hardly factor in in the middle of the bell curve where every genetic advantage by one person can be outdone by another one putting in more effort. the difference then between you and me will be that your genetic advantage will allow you to reach the same result as me with less effort. there is practically no benefit for you. or the advantage is so small that we won't even notice most of the time. if at all. any model that relies on genetic advantages as a factor only works if we assume that those naturally more intelligent automatically bubble to the top and are not held back by other factors, all which have the potential to nullify any advantages they may have had
- em-bee 3y ago
  exactly this. the potential of humanity is largely underutilized. the reason we need geniuses now is because our current way of teaching is not enabling peoples potential as well as it could. it doesn't even take individual tutoring. better teaching methods such as montessori, project based learning, smaller groups (say a 10 to 1 ratio in class compared to the 50 to 1 ratio i see in china and other countries i have visited) would be a massive increase in the quality of education creating a potential way beyond what a doubling of the number of geniuses could ever achieve.
  - savingsPossible 3y ago
    research is mixed about small class sizes (maybe 1 in 10 as you said, on 1 in 5, would be beneficial but there is very little difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 50). Not a rebuttal, just adding some info

stephc_int13 3y ago

It is not. There is a part of genetics, like most things, but if you look at past geniuses, there is a common pattern, wealthy enough families able to afford tutors. Tutoring is what makes geniuses, not lottery.

rtz121 3y ago
I could just as well argue that those families have better genetic material and that is why they are wealthy.
Jensson 3y ago
Lots of people get tutored without becoming geniuses, hence tutoring isn't enough to make geniuses. Also many geniuses didn't have tutoring, they need wealthy enough families to afford public school which used to be a high bar but today most people gets it even if you include poor countries.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > they need wealthy enough families to afford public school Note that what the UK origin term “public schools” means is not the same as what that means in other countries, which can confuse these discussions in a global forum. (In the US, we’d call that “private school”.)
vunderba 3y ago
No, it certainly does not. Obviously, a higher socioeconomic background means increased resources and dedicated attention to education which certainly helps, but genius, in the true sense of the word needs a good starting foundation, and that probably has a significant genetic component. Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Ramanujan were all child prodigies without exceptional access to tutors and other educational resources. If tutoring could produce geniuses (160 IQ) we would have a billion dollar industry around it instead of snake oil companies like Luminosity.
- em-bee 3y ago
  i don't agree with the genetic argument but with your other point. producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry because we don't yet even know how to teach to that. but that doesn't mean that we could not improve teaching and peoples potential massively. china used to have a billion dollar tutoring industry (ok, i don't know if it was a billion, but china is huge so it's possible) until a change of laws shut it down. but this chinese tutoring industry was not aimed at producing geniuses. instead it was aimed at exploiting parents, extracting their money without providing any real value except putting pressure on the children to perform. that's why it was shut down.
  - collyw 3y ago
    It seems fairly obvious that there is a genetic element to intelligence, otherwise animals would be as intelligent as humans.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      yes, but this only goes as far as being able to explain the difference between humans and other animals. it doesn't at all explain the differences between different humans because other factors are so strong that so far we have not been able to isolate genetic differences as a factor in human intelligence. even twin studies have been flawed in this regard.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        If we had to wager whether there was any genetic component to intelligence differences among humans, I think the safe wager is on “there is some” over “there is none”.
        em-bee 3y ago
        yes, but i'd also wager that it is completely drowned out by other factors. if genetics improve my intelligence by 1% and teaching can improve it by 10% then what's the point? those genetics will only be a factor among those receiving no teaching at all, or those who receive the maximum teaching possible. but they will hardly factor in in the middle of the bell curve where every genetic advantage by one person can be outdone by another one putting in more effort. the difference then between you and me will be that your genetic advantage will allow you to reach the same result as me with less effort. there is practically no benefit for you. or the advantage is so small that we won't even notice most of the time. if at all. any model that relies on genetic advantages as a factor only works if we assume that those naturally more intelligent automatically bubble to the top and are not held back by other factors, all which have the potential to nullify any advantages they may have had
em-bee 3y ago
exactly this. the potential of humanity is largely underutilized. the reason we need geniuses now is because our current way of teaching is not enabling peoples potential as well as it could. it doesn't even take individual tutoring. better teaching methods such as montessori, project based learning, smaller groups (say a 10 to 1 ratio in class compared to the 50 to 1 ratio i see in china and other countries i have visited) would be a massive increase in the quality of education creating a potential way beyond what a doubling of the number of geniuses could ever achieve.
- savingsPossible 3y ago
  research is mixed about small class sizes (maybe 1 in 10 as you said, on 1 in 5, would be beneficial but there is very little difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 50). Not a rebuttal, just adding some info