Running head: FUNDAMENTALS OF INTELLIGENCE 1

FUNDAMENTALS OF INTELLIGENCE 9

The Fundamentals of IntelligenceCarlos LealKnight High School

AbstractThis paper discusses the ongoing nature-nurture debate on intelligence, and the effectiveness of the current research methods available toward bettering our understanding out the brain and, in particular, our intelligence. First, the history of the debate is discussed to provide context for the debate. Then the two sides of the debate are presented through studies. Two types of studies are analyzed, one for each side of the debate, for their findings and for their validity. Also discussed is the importance and significance of the nature-nurture debate of intelligence, and the implications of reaching a conclusion. The assumptions and limitations of our research is taken into account, and the value of the research is assessed. Keywords: nature, nurture, intelligence, genetics

The Fundamentals of IntelligenceIn all fields of psychology, the nature versus nurture debate is one of the most heated arguments; in the case of intelligence, the debate has had a history of the concurrence between psychologists flipping from the nature to the nurture side. The debate can be traced back to ancient Greek thinkers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; while the former two believed that knowledge was innate, Aristotle, a more logical thinker, disagreed, proposing that knowledge grows from the experiences stored in our memories (Myers, 2005, p. 2). The discussion once again arose in the 1600s with scientists such as Rene Descartes, and John Locke. Descartes concurred with Socrates and Plato, while Locke argued the opposite, claiming that the mind was, at birth, a blank slate; in essence Locke revived Aristotles point of view (Myers, 2005, p. 3). Thinkers like Locke and Francis Bacon, also a scientist in the 1600s (though not quite contemporaneous with Locke), began to shape psychology into a more firm science by stressing empiricism, relying heavily on observation and experimentation (Myers, 2005, p. 3). Because of their efforts, psychology can presently deal with debates, such as whether intelligence is innate or influenced externally, more pragmatically and more scientifically. In the 1800s and 1900s the debate on intelligence leaned to the nature side. The scientists of the time, Mendel and Darwin, dealt with heritability and, as a result, psychologists began explaining the mind in terms of Darwins evolutionary theory. This effect is seen in the perspectives on motivation because evidence shows that as the influence of Charles Darwins evolutionary theory grew, it became fashionable to classify all sorts of behaviors as instincts (Myers, 2005, p. 470). Similarly, the effect can be seen in the nature-nurture debate on intelligence as Francis Galton argued for eugenics by trying to prove that gifted individuals came from families that had other gifted individuals, implying that intelligence is something passed down genetically (Wahlsten, 2005). In the mid-1900s psychologists began to dismiss theories that attributed all or nearly all importance to either nature or nurture. Psychologists began to understand, and show that they understood, that the mind was complex and not just influenced by a few factors. Thus, the shift began towards the middle of the debate with the nurture/environment side beginning to see more acceptances. Programs at the time included improvements in education and living conditions (Wahlsten, 2005).Since then, advancements in our ability to scientifically test hypotheses regarding the heritability, or lack thereof, of intelligence have come a long way. Scientists can now scan brains though CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs and actually compare brain size and volume. Our methods for assessing intelligence through tests have only gotten more standardized, reliable and valid. With these advancements, and the promising projects in our future, psychologists should be able to prove that intelligence is decidedly determined by ones environment, and, at most, only marginally influenced by ones genetics.It is a depressing thought to think that some people are automatically at a disadvantage by simply being born. That would be the reality if intelligence was predetermined at birth. Obviously we dont live in a perfect world, and that unfairness can be seen in our world with birth defects and mental disorders from birth, but it would be even more devastating knowing that everyone is subject to that unfairness. Im heavily biased toward the nurture side of the debate, although I do not disregard the importance of genetics in intelligence, choosing to believe that the brightest minds in our world became that smart through their hard work not their luck of the draw at birth, and that anyone can be as intelligent as those we regard as geniuses. In my mind, I split the brain into three parts when dealing with intelligence knowledge, general intelligence, and wisdom. Knowledge, being able to memorize and recite facts; general intelligence, being able to use our knowledge and acquire more knowledge; and wisdom, being able to think critically and apply knowledge and intelligence. I like to believe that we are equal in these three factors, and that everyone is able to apply these skills equally. I recognize my thoughts as idealistic at best, but I want to believe that our minds are equal.The tricky situation when dealing with anything in psychology is how to conduct scientifically sound experiments, meaning they are testable, reproducible, and consistent. It is tricky in the sense that scientists cant make any firm measurements; while they can measure a meter in length and record that to compare lengths, anywhere, of two things, they cant measure intelligence quantitatively (they cant prove that Person A is twice as smart as Person B, but they can prove that Person A is two inches taller than Person B, for example). One of the ways to get around this is the intelligence quotient, IQ. While psychologists can compare IQ scores, the problem lies at the root: IQ isnt a fundamental measurement like measuring a straight line is (as in there is no ambiguity in the length of a straight line); nevertheless, IQ is one of the better methods to compare data for intelligence and try to reach a conclusion.Scientific experiments meant to measure the heritability of intelligence have all revolved around identical twins. Testing the closest to two identical, yet separate, beings is a good starting point for comparisons. Experiments conducted by psychologist Burks expanded by also testing and comparing the IQs of foster children to their parents (Ball, 2010). Other researchers compared the IQs of identical twins, fraternal twins, biological siblings, and adopted children, all with multiple groups either raised together or separately, to their parents IQs and each others (European College, 2007; Wahlsten, 2005). These experiments seek to measure the role genetics play in determining intelligence. Studies that measure the effect the environment plays are fewer in quantity. It is difficult to measure the role the environment plays because it is impossible to set a control value for intelligence and then measure the change in intelligence. General studies, such as the one done by Flynn, must compare the IQ between generations to measure a change. Flynns study on the changes in IQ for the last 50 years has revealed a trend IQ scores have risen and the effect has been recognized as the Flynn effect (Flynn, 1992; Myers, 2005). The importance of the intelligence nature-nurture debate is the same as any other problem currently unsolved to increase our understanding of our world, and in this case of ourselves as well. Furthermore, answering the question could be crucial to rapid human technological and scientific advancements as every individual mind could be sharpened to become more productive. The stakes are also high for the education system which receives billions and billions of dollars for some head start programs, proving the importance of nurture would provide a huge boost to those programs (Dowling, 2004).The nature-nurture debate in psychology has lasted as long as it has because of the difficulty in scientifically gathering data to be able to compare. For intelligence in particular, psychologists are unable to definitively define intelligence; therefore researchers have to assume that the IQ test and assessment tests are suitable alternatives. Other assumptions are made when deciding on two subjects to study and compare; as no two people have the exact same experiences, researchers have to assume that their environments growing up were similar enough to not skew the results.Scientifically trying to compare intelligences is impossible to us, and trying to measure the effect of the environment has similar limitations. In essence, psychologists cant measure the two things theyre trying to study; thats why the nature-nurture debate has been, and will continue to be, a fiercely debated conflict until there comes a time where these obstacles can be overcome. So far, all the research done by psychologists serves as a base for our understanding of intelligence. The ancient Greeks could theorize and set up ideas that scientists are just now beginning to be able to test. But we are still a ways off from any definitive evidence in either direction (or neither for that matter). Despite our limitations, the research we have done is useful in several ways. We can now see correlations between family members intelligence and the disparity of IQs across generations. The studies done that have tried to measure the effects of nature and nurture have definitely been valuable to psychologists as they build upon our knowledge and allow us to further advance that knowledge. All in all, we have made big strides in our understanding of our brain and our own intelligence since Aristotle, who proposed the heart was the source of our cognitive abilities. The longstanding nature-nurture debates have no end in sight, but the scientific studies and experiments made just in the last century have sprung us quite a bit forward toward finding the answer. The fundamental sources for our intelligence are our genetics and our environment, but we have to try to understand the roles each of these sources play on our intelligence in order to maximize our cognitive abilities and further our society. The purpose of debates isnt to declare a winner; the purpose is to start an intelligent conversation where all possibilities are considered in order to reach the most correct conclusion, which doesnt have to necessarily be either of the two positions; thus, the purpose of the nature-nurture debates is to further our understanding of ourselves, and of our intelligence, and to continue advancing our knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.

ReferencesBall, L. (2010). Profile of Barbara Stoddard Burks. In A. Rutherford (Ed.),Psychology's Feminist Voices Multimedia Internet Archive. Retrieved from http://www.feministvoices.com/barbara-stoddard-burks/Dowling, J. E. (2004). The great brain debate: Nature or nurture? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Flynn, J. R. (1992). Education for cultural diversity: Convergence and divergence. J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.). London: Palmer Press.European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. (2007, October 17). Intelligence: More Nature Than Nurture?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016131452.htmMyers, D. (2006).Psychology. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.Wahlsten, D. (2005). Nature vs Nurture in Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html.