Intelligence, Critical Thought Capacity, and Heridability

[Dave1001]

Are differences in intelligence (or different types of intelligence) between individuals in large part due to genetic difference? How about critical thought capacity specifically?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Are differences in intelligence (or different types of intelligence) between individuals in large part due to genetic difference? How about critical thought capacity specifically?

You'll have to open up the whole "nature-vs-nurture" can of worms here. Since intelligent children tend to be raised by intelligent parents, it's difficult to tell whether the intelligence is from the genes or the environment.

However, I've seen enough smart people who can't think critically to believe that critical thinking is largely environmental.

 

[Dave1001]

You'll have to open up the whole "nature-vs-nurture" can of worms here. Since intelligent children tend to be raised by intelligent parents, it's difficult to tell whether the intelligence is from the genes or the environment.

I'm pretty sure a lot of research in this area has already been done in this area, with children that have been adopted, twins that have been raised in different households, etc.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

The question is along the lines of what's is discussed in "the God gene", namely if people are genetically predisposed to higher or lower sensitivity to religious belief.

If so, the converse would be that certain people are genetically predisposed towards critical thought. My hunch is there's certainly going to be a measurable effect. At any rate, twin studies indicate that having a religious twin brother significantly increases the odds of being religious oneself.

As an aside, there is a strange asymmetry in the debate concerning intelligence vs genes. People are appalled at the thought that some people might be genetically predisposed to have a lower than average IQ. On the other hand, nobody cries "nazi" if you say that some people are genetically predisposed to have a higher than average IQ.

 

[Dave1001]

The question is along the lines of what's is discussed in "the God gene", namely if people are genetically predisposed to higher or lower sensitivity to religious belief.

If so, the converse would be that certain people are genetically predisposed towards critical thought. My hunch is there's certainly going to be a measurable effect. At any rate, twin studies indicate that having a religious twin brother significantly increases the odds of being religious oneself.

As an aside, there is a strange asymmetry in the debate concerning intelligence vs genes. People are appalled at the thought that some people might be genetically predisposed to have a lower than average IQ. On the other hand, nobody cries "nazi" if you say that some people are genetically predisposed to have a higher than average IQ.

There are lots of side debates pertaining to this issue. (Such as does IQ track something other than capacity for abstract thought, and are other forms of intelligence really just off-shoots of abstract thought capacity).

I think the god gene topic is a good one. I'm not sure that critical thought capacity vs. propensity to believe in god(s) are opposite though. In part becuase I see more than a few atheists that belive in, promote, and defend atheism in a way that doesn't demonstrate any greater critical thinking than is demonstrated by the arguments of a true believer in fundamentalist religion. Perhaps we could call them fundamentalist atheists. There are more than a few fundamentalist evolutionists, too.

 

[Meffy]

Dave, does this tie in with your mention of "eugenic benefit" in another thread? Do you in fact subscribe to the principles of eugenics?

 

[Raphael]

On the other hand, nobody cries "nazi" if you say that some people are genetically predisposed to have a higher than average IQ.

Whatever you say, Herr Himmler.

 

[Dave1001]

Dave, does this tie in with your mention of "eugenic benefit" in another thread? Do you in fact subscribe to the principles of eugenics?

I subscribe to the principles of Pyrrhos. I doubt the existence of a bus bearing down the street towards me, but I still get out of the way.

 

[Meffy]

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Raphael]

In part becuase I see more than a few atheists that belive in, promote, and defend atheism in a way that doesn't demonstrate any greater critical thinking than is demonstrated by the arguments of a true believer in fundamentalist religion.

Is this possible? I ask honestly. IMO a Fundamentalist has to suspend critical thinking from the outset. The resulting mental gymnastics to defend it can be quite elaborate.

Beyond accepting there is no evidence for a "personal god", does an atheist/agnostic have to be a top notch critical thinker? The only reason for elaborate defences is to try and convince those who don't arrive at their conclusions rationally.

 

[Dave1001]

That doesn't answer my question.

I wasn't aware that there were universal principles of eugenics. If you want to discuss eugenics, start a eugenics thread. Let's keep this thread closer to being on topic.

 

[Dave1001]

Is this possible? I ask honestly. IMO a Fundamentalist has to suspend critical thinking from the outset. The resulting mental gymnastics to defend it can be quite elaborate.

Beyond accepting there is no evidence for a "personal god", does an atheist/agnostic have to be a top notch critical thinker? The only reason for elaborate defences is to try and convince those who don't arrive at their conclusions rationally.

In a sense I think we're making the same point. That one can be an atheist without being any more of a critical thinker than is a fundamentalist christian.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

I do think ability to think critically (and using it!) correlates negatively with religiosity.

How that ties in with IQ is another question. I quite firmly believe in the concept of cognitive dissonance reduction. It explains how an otherwise reasonable or intelligent person can hold on to irrational beliefs and defend them using logically challenged arguments.

---

I'm sure it's possible to be a non-critically thinking atheist. However, such a person is also "religious" in my view, his religion being "that there is no god". That's what most believers think atheism is about anyway.Such a person is as open to conversion to "another" religion just like christians can turn muslim.

A proper atheist on the other hand, knows exactly what position he takes (that there is no evidence for a God) and why. Such a person is not open to conversion.

It doesn't help to hold the right opinion for the wrong reasons.

 

[Meffy]

I wasn't aware that there were universal principles of eugenics. If you want to discuss eugenics, start a eugenics thread. Let's keep this thread closer to being on topic.

Topic drift is common on this and many other forums. Most posters here don't mind. Please answer without further evasion. It won't take long.

 

[Dave1001]

Topic drift is common on this and many other forums. Most posters here don't mind. Please answer without further evasion. It won't take long.

Please start a thread on the topic of eugenics, and I'll happily discuss it there.

 

[Meffy]

Further evasion. I'm disappointed that you refuse to give two simple yes-or-no answers. As it happens, I belive eugenics is sufficiently related to the topic of this thread to be pertinent to the discussion.

How much longer would you like to evade the questions in this thread? You can answer with two words and be rid of the entire affair. Or you can refuse to answer and keep the issue alive. Your choice.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

Private friction? I'm lost, lads.

 

[Meffy]

No, public. There might be no cause for the friction at all; I hope so. But until Dave gives a straight answer I won't know.

 

[Dave1001]

Further evasion. I'm disappointed that you refuse to give two simple yes-or-no answers. As it happens, I belive eugenics is sufficiently related to the topic of this thread to be pertinent to the discussion.

How much longer would you like to evade the questions in this thread? You can answer with two words and be rid of the entire affair. Or you can refuse to answer and keep the issue alive. Your choice.

It's your choice not to start a eugenics thread to discuss eugenics in. That hardly constitutes topic evasion on my part.

 

[Dave1001]

From the wikipedia article on IQ. I don't know how accurate this portion of the article is, but it seems from it like the mainstream scientific community has concluded that IQ is "substantially heritable".

Genetics versus environment
Main article: Inheritance of intelligence
The role of genes and environment (nature vs. nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in Plomin et al. (2001, 2003). The degree to which genetic variation contributes to observed variation in a trait is measured by a statistic called heritability. Heritability scores range from 0 to 1, and can be interpreted as the percentage of variation (e.g. in IQ) that is due to variation in genes. Twins studies and adoption studies are commonly used to determine the heritability of a trait. Until recently heritability was mostly studied in children. These studies find the heritability of IQ is approximately 0.5; that is, half of the variation in IQ among the children studied was due to variation in their genes. The remaining half was thus due to environmental variation and measurement error. A heritability of 0.5 implies that IQ is "substantially" heritable. Studies with adults show that they have a higher heritability of IQ than children do and that heritability could be as high as 0.8. The American Psychological Association's 1995 task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that within the White population the heritability of IQ is "around .75" (p. 85).[1]