<p>This is really a nature vs nurture argument. Nobody really knows exactly how much of what comprises a persons identity is genes or worldly influence. I’m saying this from a very empirical viewpoint. Philosophically, trying to measure intelligence is absurd. Personally, I think the very notion of measured mental capacity is just as false as the notion of time. We are measuring someone’s ability to comprehend and reason? Reason and intelligence are both human concepts that have no intrinsic value. But then again, what does? From a non-philosophical viewpoint, I would say our “IQ” is HUGELY influenced by what we do and learn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why are the IQ scores of identical twins who are raised apart strongly correlated?</p>
<p>How do you measure IQ? What is IQ? How does one make a non-biased IQ test? Putting this aside, link me to the study or article. I have read articles that explicitly state how our genes are affected by outside influences after birth. But again, this is a question that has been asked for centuries and has no clear answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What question? Twins studies have revealed lots of answers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These questions are not relevant to my inquiry in post #22.</p>
<p>I’m saying the question of nature vs. nurture has been unsolved for centuries. And my initial questions show why the twin studies mean nothing. One’s view of intelligence is subjective and the test will be biased, no matter who makes it. You can’t truly measure anything that is subjective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What more evidence do you need than the multitude of twin studies before you deem the question solved? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whatever intelligence is, your comments suggest that you feel that there is a negative correlation or no correlation between IQ scores and intelligence; such is absurd. Anyhow, the twin studies answer the question of nature vs. nature regardless of one’s concept of intelligence because the IQ tests are measuring something.</p>
<p>
To go further on this line of thought, I ask anybody to name the smartest person they can think of. I guarantee they have a “high” IQ, if not an amazing IQ.</p>
<p>How can you prove a correlation between one thing and another is you can’t even define it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said anything about proof? I ask you: Do you really feel that there is a negative correlation or no correlation between IQ scores and intelligence (whatever the latter is)? If not (and I hope not), don’t suggest it by posing such a question.</p>
<p>@Silverturtle - I’m going to assume that you achieved a high SAT Score based on your defense of it correlating IQ</p>
<p>The Collegeboard itself has said that the SAT does not test IQ</p>
<p>IQ tests only examine one aspect of intelligence, and with that they are extremely subjective
For Example: Someone may be a great artist, but lacks abilities to do math. An IQ test would label that person average, even though he has great artistic abilities.</p>
<p>The SAT isn’t exactly Quantum Mechanics either, the hardest part is probably time management. Most of it is relatively simple concepts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not making these arguments out of an interest to make myself think I have a high IQ; the basis for your assumption is invalid. Your assumption itself, however, is correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am talking about correlations here, not intent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most great artists (visual or musical) have high IQs. In fact, studies have pointed to the idea that an IQ of 120+ is nearly required for profound creativity.</p>
<p>Definitions:
[Intelligence</a> quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient]Intelligence”>Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia)
[Intelligence</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence]Intelligence”>Intelligence - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>However, I doubt all would agree with these definitions.</p>
<p>@Silverturtle</p>
<p>Thats true</p>
<p>With any standardized test, a correlation will always exist, but I don’t think using the SAT by itself should characterize someone’s IQ or their ability to perform in other subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT is so strongly correlated with IQ scores that it is essentially an IQ test.</p>
<p>I’m sorry silverturtle, but you just don’t get what I’m saying. You have already conceded that there is no proof, only a correlation so there is really no point in carrying on. Bottom line is: you can’t find any connection, correlation or iota of semblance between two things if you cannot define one or either them. If you still don’t see this, then I’ll agree to disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying; I simply do not agree. What did I write that indicated that I did not understand your argument? </p>
<p>Anyhow, I don’t know why we’re debating this. Nothing I am arguing about the SAT has anything to do with that troublesome word (i.e., intelligence).</p>
<p>(For what it’s worth, I doubt any reasonable definition of *intelligence<a href=“most%20of%20which%20typically%20have%20to%20do%20with%20problem%20solving”>/i</a> would result in a concept that negatively correlated with IQ scores. Can you think of a reasonable definition of intelligence for which a negative correlation with IQ scores would likely exist? If not, then I do not know why are you arguing for such an idea.)</p>
<p>Ahh, see “define” isn’t what you’re thinking it is. I don’t care if one textbook gives a different definition or anything like that. There is no such thing as a “reasonable definition” for intelligence. I am saying each person’ perception of intelligence is differs drastically. It is like taking a test to determine how good your taste in music is. At least, that’s how I perceive it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the SAT to be essentially an IQ test, the correlation has to be 1. Since silverturtle mentions that the correlation is .82, the SAT just proves to be a strong indicator of one’s intelligence.</p>
<p>these are all myths dont believe and get into preparation…only iq and luck work</p>
<p>for the prepared mind.</p>
<p>Well actually it turns out the correlation between IQ tests (I’m not sure if this is only considering the reputable ones) is only about .8. So arguing that the SAT is essentially an IQ test cannot be so quickly rejected, I think.</p>