Nature or nurture

[MissEDashwood]

I was having a wee chat tonight, it came about whether intelligence is nature or nurture. I came from a deprived background with parents who were young, they didn't believe in education, but some how even though my parents never did whatever the trend was back then, I excelled at school. As I don't know one of my parents my argument was nature has to have a part, as I had a really good aptitude for things, read through all the books prescribed till you leave Primary at 9, was said to have a reading and spelling age of 16. Nothing was really done at home to promote this, where other friends in top sets like me had parents who really pushed them.

My DC's both take after their DF, in looks and pretty much everything. Although there DF being with me discovered messing about at school was detrimental, he worked hard studying and working to get where he is today. So he can be quite, get your homework done the day you get it type of thing.

I'm possibly more relaxed, I'm not worried about sets, their DF wants them to be in the top set, I believe children will achieve what they can, so sets are really an issue to me. My DC's could be Park wardens for all I care, as long as they're happy that's what matters.

So I wondered where people stood on the nature / nurture debate?

I should add I'm big on reading, at the same time I can't force them to read if they don't want to. Which is why I feel we should be pleased whatever the attainment.

Better if I had used the right there!

I believe it's both.

DH and I are graduates. I belonged to Mensa years ago, and I think DH is probably the cleverest person I have ever met (and I spent 10 years working in HE).

Yes, our DDs inherited our 'academic' genes. But, that inheritance was further enhanced by growing up in our home. They have always had access to tonnes of books, newspapers. We always tended to watch vaguely educational stuff on the TV (we both love BBC4). I like to listen to Radio 4. We've taken them to galleries, museums and the theatre, not because we should but because we have always enjoyed them.

It's a win/win.

Jupitar

Sorry I didn't explain that fully. Fraternal twins share 50% of their genes and identical twins share 100% The difference between 85 and 60 is 25.

Given that there is 50% difference between how similar fraternal and identical twins are as a whole, and 25/50=50. It would indicate that the genetic component of IQ is 50%.

I hadn't seen this post when I posted my own AIBU on nature, nurture.

I need to rtft (!) but I do believe it is nature first then nurture. There's variances of both, everyone is an individual, and so it can't be a black and white 'vs' type debate.

To clarify, neither 'trumps' the other. Nature provides the raw materials do to speak, nature nurtures various aspects or fails to do so.

*Nurture nurtures ffs!

Op, in direct answer to your question, home work has been shown to have no effect, infact the way you were self directed and self motivated probably had more impact.

I'd like to see the longer version of this.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=WVCTqgrFIPs

This: My DC's could be Park wardens for all I care, as long as they're happy that's what matters.

And this: I should add I'm big on reading, at the same time I can't force them to read if they don't want to. Which is why I feel we should be pleased whatever the attainment.

My parents were in the area of education psychology, I've been a teacher for over 15 years and I have taught children with additional needs and autism for the last decade. From my background and my subsequent career I believe that, absolutely, a happy child will learn. And all behaviour happens for a reason, nature or nurture driven. Focussing on attainment is damaging. Look up some of the thinking behind 'mindset' and 'perfectionism,' and it explains why.

Well it is both.

My AD1 worked very hard at school and ended up passing all her GCSEs. The nurture we gave her after she came to us enabled her to make the best of what she had. But with the best will in the world she was never going to come out with a string of A grades. Now she is older (and thus more rejecting of nurture from home) I find her nature coming out more and more ...

If you looked at past studies, then it's largely Nurture, if they start out fairly equal.

Early examples were used to prove Racist points, about how certain races had little understanding of some things and really struggled with some concepts, but it was found that it was a lack of a wide experience applicable to the task. For a while it was only White people who passed Mensa tests etc, because they were very Cultural.

If you look at the art work that China produced, in terms of perspective and dimension it would suggest that they were much more intelligent than other races, in today's terms. It was the knowledge, experiences and teaching that differed.

However intelligence is being able to adapt to your environment, so the Vikings probably topped everyone.

I don't think that intelligence means critical thinking, or understanding, which on a one-to-one level is more important.
Also, intelligence isn't about reading books.

I live in a crap area and it's depressing to see the Parents being given these bright, happy babies and turn them into something completely different.

I think that we are a combination of what goes into and on, in our brains and were just a head injury, or stroke/tumor away from being completely different. As well as severe emotional trauma, which we now know does alter brain function.

Df came from a background that left school asap.

He chose to take 2-3 jobs over weekends/evenings/holidays so he could pay for a motorbike and text books so he could stay on at school and do A-levels. (he had a paper round in the morning, pulled pints in the evening, and worked on a farm in weekends and holidays from age 14yo) he went to uni and ended up fairly high up at a big firm.

His dbro did the more conventional one from his background, which was leave without doing any exams, stay on the dole for a few years and eventually joined the army-which may well have saved his life from the position he was in.

I think df was more intelligent, but not by that much. He was also very well motivated-but would probably have achieved even further if his parents had been more supportive.

Dm taught identical twins. they arrived in year 7 very similar. But their mum blatantly favoured one. Dm would find parents evenings very hard as all the mum wanted to talk about was how wonderful one was.
Favoured one didn't bother working as she got all the attention and praise anyway. Other one worked hard.
At GCSE level favoured one was looking at a couple of possible scrape Cs and 3-4 D/E. Other one got 9 As and Bs (no A*).
The school made sure the other one opened the grade envelope while the staff were there as they suspected that if the mum got hold of it, she would swap the results over.

Favoured child was a nasty spoilt brat by year 11, and the other was a lovely child too.

If you looked at past studies, then it's largely Nurture, if they start out fairly equal.

But isn't the if they start out fairly equal the nature bit? Or have I missed the point?

My AD1 would have done considerably worse in her academics if she had stayed in her birth family (so that's the nurture bit), but there was still no way on earth she would come out with top grades (nature bit).

Mainly nature

I'd say nurture mostly unless you are talking about true geniuses then I'd say nature.

IQ is inherited. But It doesn't guarantee anything.

DH is far far more successful than me because he works hard, I was tested as a teenager and have a gifted/borderline genius IQ. On its own it's a fairly useless quality to have! I never had to put any effort in at school to do well so I've never really had to knuckle down, I drive myself nuts.

I think a good attitude is the most important thing, which is what I hope or DC will have.

A bit of both I'm sure.

Remember 'nurture' doesn't necessarily mean the military style approach and pushing hard.

All children have different learning styles and respond differently to their environment.

I think it's both - everyone has a base natural level of intelligence and a peak level of intelligence dependant on its fostering.Some of these are both higher for one hold than another or any variation.
So someone who appears naturally v smart may do worse than someone who appeared less intelligent if the less intelligent person pushed themselves further.
I've never really needed to try but that doesn't mean that my children will be the same way - my best friend has done v well for herself but had to graft her way tooth and nail to get there ... but get there she did.

IQ is inherited

Safe to say certain minorities aren't intelligent based on an IQ test?

You know an IQ test needs to be reliable, valid and consistent. Maybe there's no such thing as intelligence? Maybe our abilities are turned on or off depending on our environment. Is an African Masai less intelligent than someone's who good at solving number puzzles?

The Masiai example- I'm mean is a great hunter/ warrior better than a maths "genius"?

I think potential is nature and how well you achieve that potential is down to nurture

What about people with learning disabilities? My daughter has one and she could go to the best private school she is never going to be academic. Of course it is nature to a certain extent.

Dm taught identical twins. they arrived in year 7 very similar. But their mum blatantly favoured one. Dm would find parents evenings very hard as all the mum wanted to talk about was how wonderful one was.
Favoured one didn't bother working as she got all the attention and praise anyway. Other one worked hard.
At GCSE level favoured one was looking at a couple of possible scrape Cs and 3-4 D/E. Other one got 9 As and Bs (no A).
The school made sure the other one opened the grade envelope while the staff were there as they suspected that if the mum got hold of it, she would swap the results over.*
What? you don't think results statements have the candidates name on? and you are asking us to believe that the teachers don't know that either.Why do people post such blatant bollox?

No the thought was the mum would take the results envelopes and tell them the opposite results and not let them see.
She did that the previous year when they sat RE early, and when the unfavoured one won a competition entered through school (they sent the prize to the home, but an acknowledgment tothe school), so there was good reason to think she would for the results.
Hence having the child open it in front, rather than the previous year where mum had come in to collect and taken them home "for them".