[NB_ide]

(Original post by somethingbeautiful)
Just a thought - but if child A grows up in an environment in which their parents are educated, they will be exposed to a wider vocabulary than child B who grows up with uneducated parents. So if we suspend the idea, for a moment, that intellect is genetic we could argue that it's environmental. So the fact that intelligent parents have intelligent kids isn't necessary indicative of link between genetics and intellect, rather we can consider the possibility of a link between intellect and environment/exposure to knowledge.

Really, thinking about it - most kids don't actually receive an education (in the formal sense) until they are 4 years old. So all of their early development in influenced by their parents. If a child doesn't have many educational toys and has parents with a limited vocabulary then surely that is going to impact on how well they develop and how well they flourish in formal education for the rest of their lives - it's very difficult to play 'catch up' if a child is not grasping concepts that they ought to understand at key stage 1. It has a sort of domino effect on the rest of their education into key stage 2/3 etc.

omg mind-blowing idea, brah. How come no one else ever realised this before?!

(Original post by rizisap)
What has been proven is that the envoronment is a major aspect of how we learn. If you're placed in an environment where learning is actively encouraged, and managed in the best possible manner for each 'learnee' (as grammar schools tend to be) you will learn more then if you're placed somewhere where learning is encouraged en-masse (like most state schools). Essentally, Grammar schools cost more, but the standard of education tends to be higher. Before i get castigated, im a state school boy, and im not suggesting at all that state school is pants. it isnt, it just places the onus to mearn on the pupil moreso then in private schools.

just FYI, grammar schools aren't the same as private schools. They're just non-****ty state schools, usually, and free - though some can be private.

[riotgrrl]

I think anyone would struggle to argue for any one factor, your intelligence is clearly going to be influenced by a huge variety of factors. With some things, it's also a bit of a chicken/egg situation- am I intelligent because I read so much from an early age, or did I read so much because I was born naturally intelligent?

That said, no matter how much intelligence you're born with, you're going to struggle a lot more to utilise it if you aren't encouraged in your education by your family.

[Dobrzynski]

Studies have shown that it is about 50/50 between genetics and the environment that you are brought up in.

[QuantumOverlord]

FYI brain training does not work, all high quality studies including RCTs show absolutely no effect on intelligence.

[ufo2012]

It is never too late to start trying, you could have been dumb when young, but expose yourself to lots of educational material now and then become smart/clever later in life.

[Bukhatir]

the brain is the most advanced computer in history

[miser]

Academic performance is based on a number of factors and not just traditional notions of IQ. According to psychologists that give IQ merit, are able to show that people's IQs stay relatively constant through most of their lives. If it is affected by any nurtural influences, it will be by very early ones. Other aspects of academic performance include things like breadth of vocabulary, motivation and interest in learning new things, perhaps emotional intelligence in subjects such as english literature, and so on, which can mostly be developed or exist parallel to one's IQ.

Brain Training has no measurable (so far) effect on IQ, however it might improve aspects like short-term memory or arithmetic ability, which could themselves also influence academic performance. I think the sensible answer is that academic performance is an amalgam of many intellectual influences, both genetic and nurtured.

One interesting fact I do know is that there is no known better predictor of educational success in a child than whether the child has a book in his home (at least one book versus no books), according to the author of Freakonomics.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by L'onclesoul)

.: Stimulation at present- Could Brain Training be on to something in regards to keeping our brains completely active in order to become smarter?

According to a friend of mine who studies psychology (she admitted she may be wrong herself,) the brain 'cannot be saturated'. This seems likely, however do you think there would be a limit on say, how many languages one person could retain at one time?

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say! I'm actually really interested in things like memory and intelligence etc, so the more you can tell me the better!

The popular brain training games, such as those sold by Nintendo, really have no gain attached to them. Source.

Memory and mental processes is a part of psychology and neuroscience that I'm incredibly interested in myself. Neuroplasticity is a field I've recently learned about, which I find fascinating. Just thought I'd throw some information at you.

London taxi drivers were shown to have larger hippocampi than normal people. It's believed that this is because of the large amount of spatial memory and spatial orientation they have to use in their job. Hell, the amount of spatial memory required for The Knowledge is insane in itself. Source.
Fun fact. The hippocampi are named such because they look like a seahorse.

Neuroscientists currently estimate the capacity of the brain to store information to be about 2.5 Petabytes. Source.
So next time someone tells you that the new stuff they're learning is pushing the old stuff out, you can reference this fact and tell them that they're talking ****.

Here's a paper on talent and expertise.

Another paper published in Nature (you'll be noticing that I quite like Maguire's work), about the brains of mnemonists, people who can memorise uncanny amounts of information without problem at insane speeds. The last paragraph of this blog post contains links to some of those mnemonists showing off their memories. A list of world records can be found here. You know the guys that memorise an insane number of digits of pi? Yeah. They don't have any super crazy natural memory. They have just practised at the same techniques that the mnemonists in the study use! You might have seen this documentary about Daniel Tammet - where he claims his abilities come naturally to him. Mentathletes think he is a fraud, and we have a lot of evidence to prove it. He has lied, cheated, and mislead people on multiple occasions to make them think he is an autistic savant, rather than the trained mnemonist he actually is. But Tammet is often cited as an example of the 'potential' of the human brain, if only we could figure out how to unlock it. This perpetuates a negative stereotype that you're either born super intelligent with an awesome memory, or you're not. Much of what Tammet says in his documentary is a lie. In reality, accomplishments of a far, far greater level than what Tammet could ever achieve are within the grasp of every healthy human being.

The thing about these mnemonists in the study, and those who hold records, they claim no sort of innate photographic memory, savantism or anything like that. They are simply people who have trained to use their memories in an efficient and astounding way. Any person in the world can train to do what they do. It just shows the potential of the human memory, and how much it can be improved. A lot of people think they're stuck with the memory that they have, but no. Your memory can be trained to do things beyond your wildest imaginations.

Although much of these sorts of studies goes way beyond me, the general conclusion reached was that the brains of mnemonists were in no way different to the control group, and the difference arose in the parts of the brain being used during memorisation and recall. During spatial tasks, the control group was able to match the mnemonists. But when memorising digits and words, the mnemonists destroyed the control group, mostly because the mnemonists turned the meaningless numeral/verbal information into spatial information and exploited the parts of the brain involved in these processes. They use a part of their brain for a different use than it was evolved to fill, and it works. The parts listed in the study are the medial parietal cortex, retrosplenial cortex and right posterior hippocampus to be involved with spatial memory and navigation.

Training in mnemonic technique has been shown to improve mental faculties such as working memory and "natural" memory (which are both measured without using mnemonic technique), concentration, and fluid intelligence (will find a source if people are interested). I've heard mnemonists say that they also believe the mental training they undergo has helped them to become more creative thinkers, but I don't know if there's any scientific studies to back up this claim.

I think I'll stop there before this post gets too long.

When I make claims I meticulously cite sources because it does my head in when someone says "Studies show..." and then never present any studies for anyone else to go look at.

[ellieHA]

I think that intelligence is based on all these things. Intellectual stimulation would certainly help, not only in development but by getting the child interested in learning and so encouraging them to do well academically. I'm not sure about genetics but they seem to play a role in lots of things :P Stimulation at present i'm not sure is quite that relevant at a younger age, but people certainly become less practised in thinking in certain ways as they get older so may be considered less intelligent.

Are we talking about intelligence as a sort of innate quality here or as a learned thing?

In regards to seeing people around you being absolute geniuses, it's a lot to do with how much work they put in but there are unfortunately people in the world who are just ridiculously clever anyway. I know someone who got 4 A grades at As level without doing any revision or work during the year because they happen to be good at what they chose to take.

[Sheep]

I think nurture is a big factor in how intelligent someone turns out but it can't be denied that some people are just born smarter than others

[M1011]

(Original post by L'onclesoul)
I'm fascinated by the limits of the human mind and I've always wondered if academic intelligence is genetic or it's a result of exposure to educational materials for a long period of time.

A lot of people will argue that certain people are just 'naturally smart'. I never believed this because, being of average intelligence, I didn't want to believe that I couldn't ever process information how the great minds of our day have. (I'm a bit of a dreamer like that, see)
However, for sixth form I moved to a grammar school and some of the people there are just... amazing. Where I came from there were very few A*s, and suddenly I was surrounded by people who had nothing but A*s.

Anyway, since then I've been wondering. It's not that these people work any harder than me, so what is it that makes them so academically talented? I have compiled a few opinions and I wondered if anyone had anything to add?

Could academic intelligence be based on;

.: Intellectual stimulation from a very young age- things like leapfrog and connect four, games that encourage logic and development of skills. This could be backed up by arguing that children of musical parents will often divulge in music themselves. (However, could be countered by saying that parents may make their children learn an instrument)

.:Genetics- Parental influences on intelligence from the point of conception.

.: Stimulation at present- Could Brain Training be on to something in regards to keeping our brains completely active in order to become smarter?

According to a friend of mine who studies psychology (she admitted she may be wrong herself,) the brain 'cannot be saturated'. This seems likely, however do you think there would be a limit on say, how many languages one person could retain at one time?

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say! I'm actually really interested in things like memory and intelligence etc, so the more you can tell me the better!

Can't bring myself to read this whole thread, so this may repeat what others have said. Nevertheless here is my opinion;

You're confusing academic results with intelligence. A* grades tend to reflect your work ethic and ability to memorise as opposed to actual intelligence. Of course smart people understand things quicker and apply their knowledge better, so they certainly have an advantage. However there are plenty of smart people out there who do average in school simply because they never open a textbook at home (yet average in this scenario compares well to others who would fail with the same work ethic). Similarly you don't need to be a member of Mensa to pull off a A* in a GCSE.

I would say academic performance is a mix of ability and encouragement (e.g. early exposure, driven family background, good school etc). Intelligence on the other hand for the most part is genetic, you're either smart or you're not.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Sheep)
I think nurture is a big factor in how intelligent someone turns out but it can't be denied that some people are just born smarter than others

Lol it would be funny if a teacher just stood up and said to their pupils "Some people are just born smarter and will always do better than you so you will have to accept that"