Parents are stupid but I'm smart

High IQ is similar to height in a basketball player to the extent that they are both influenced greatly on genetics.

How can you consider someone with a low IQ (let's say 70) intelligent? This is statistically unjust. Someone with an IQ is a genius statistically because not even 0.2% of the world's population get that. Furthermore, someone with such an IQ is more likely to be successful than someone with an IQ of 85 by something like 2000%. Unless the latter wins the lottery or something. IQ tests don't just show you can answer a few questions, but actually test your brain capabilities. For example boys usually score higher when dealing with spatial whilst girls score higher when dealing with linguistics. It's a biological process that has undergone evolution.

Low IQ is not the causation of crime, aggressiveness and slow reactions. Crime has more to do with greed and need. Aggressiveness has more to do with upbringing. Slow reactions, well that's upbringing and probably genetic too.

My mum is stupid. All she does is drink, respond slowly, moan, smoke, ask stupid questions and her income and education is low. She's just stupid in general.

My dad doesn't even work. I hardly know him but he lives in a rubbish house, lazy, has no family and lives off benefits. I don't really know him but judging by this, one would infer he's stupid, including me.

Despite all of this (and I'm not boasting because I am no genius) I don't consider myself stupid and the vast majority of those who talk to me, acknowledge my intellectual capabilities.

They say that IQ is hereditary, therefore shouldn't I be stupid? Or am I just an exception? My sister is smart: she's a quick learner and she's got a university degree. We have different fathers but her father is exactly like mine. Am I underestimating my mum or are we just lucky?

So you would immediately call someone with an IQ of 95 as dumb, and someone with an IQ of 170 as smart?

Because if that's the case, then you would say someone with an IQ of 170 is "smarter" than someone with an IQ of 169. Am I right?

No, all human beings are intelligent because homosapiens are advanced species. Someone with an IQ of 95 isn't 'dumb' but it's average or slightly below if we incorporate statistics. Someone with an IQ of 170 is 'smart' statistically. However 'smart' is subjective. Someone with an IQ of 170 could be evil and immoral. Therefore people might call them 'stupid' for their wrongdoings.

There's a huge significance in intelligence between someone with 95 and 170. If every human being had an IQ of 170, the human race would have achieved a lot more. We might have been on the planet of Mars if that was the case. Obviously someone who scores 1 point higher on an IQ test is not exactly smarter. A cultural difference or silly mistake could have happened as a result.

Are you trying to say that you stand a chance against someone like Einstein/Isaac Newton/Pythagoros in intelligence?

Edit: the consensus is that anyone with an IQ of 70 or below is on the borderline of mental retardation.

In general, low IQ is the cause of crime, aggressiveness, promiscuousness and slow reactions. Test criminals and you will see how many have low IQs as opposed to high IQs. There have been thousands of scientific studies to prove this.

That's what I was asking you as you hadn't made the above clear really, it's not good to determine peoples intelligence by IQ, it's a silly test with silly questions. It's better to go by merit, and what they have actually achieved.

Did you know Charles Darwin had an IQ of just over 130?

Criminals having a low IQ does not mean they're criminals due to the low IQ.

Intelligence has very little do with nurture. There have been thousands of studies to measure intelligence such as IQ tests. For example, tests have shown that there's a huge correlation between high IQ scorers and economic success. Similarly, they have also shown low IQ scorers correlate with criminals and low success. The 'nurture' debate is also futile. For example there have been offspring from intelligent parents who were adopted and brought up in low environments and still had their parent's high IQ; whilst offspring from unintelligent parents who were adopted and brought up in high environments still had their parent's low IQ.

This is silly.

For example, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of criminals with high IQ's. They just didnt get caught. Also, correlation isnt fact. There may be plenty of people with high IQ's who dont really care about economic success. There might also be some people with low IQ's who still earn a decent amount.

Surely education is a form of 'nurture'? Lets say you have two people, A and B. A never went to school and cant read or write yet has an IQ of 150. B went to school and can read and write and has an IQ of 105. So surely you could say without nurture, intelligence is pointless. But then how do you define intelligence? IQ? Economic success? University education?

Your argument sucks and wasnt very clearly thought through. In my mind, intelligence is nearly impossible to measure. I feel the brain can be trained to learn and think in certain ways through nurture, but if you dont use it (like every muscle) it gets weaker, so the result of a measurement is constantly fluctuating.

How does my argument "suck"? I'm arguing scientific research that has been carried out thousands of times. Obviously their are criminals with high IQs that didn't get caught and the fact that they didn't get caught could suggest they have a higher IQ than average. For example, Jack the Ripper was probably a very intelligent man. But most criminals do get caught and they usually have lower IQs than average.

You are right. Einstein didn't care about economic success. And there are laws enforced to help people with lower IQs achieve economic success similar to that of those with high IQs.

Yes, institutional education betters a person's knowledge but does not make their brain more intelligent. And I am not saying intelligent people do not need to be educated; that is nonsense. But put it this way, if person A (with an IQ of 150) learnt how to read and write, their linguistic skills would be better than that of person B's (with an IQ of 105). Furthermore, no matter how much education you give to person B you cannot significantly increase their IQ to, let's say, 150. You may be able to increase their IQ a little (because IQ tests are not 100% accurate). For example, no matter how much mathematical work you do, you'll never be as brilliant as Einstein because he was just born like that. It all comes down to evolution, really.

Obviously nurture can affect your brain, such as your diet or banging your head really hard. But nothing you can do will make you as literary as Shakespeare or as scientific as Isaac Newton because that's how you've evolved.

Uhhh... No, I think not.

I'm exactly the same, just be grateful you didn't turn out like her!

How does my argument "suck"? I'm arguing scientific research that has been carried out thousands of times. Obviously their are criminals with high IQs that didn't get caught and the fact that they didn't get caught could suggest they have a higher IQ than average. For example, Jack the Ripper was probably a very intelligent man. But most criminals do get caught and they usually have lower IQs than average.

You are right. Einstein didn't care about economic success. And there are laws enforced to help people with lower IQs achieve economic success similar to that of those with high IQs.

Yes, institutional education betters a person's knowledge but does not make their brain more intelligent. And I am not saying intelligent people do not need to be educated; that is nonsense. But put it this way, if person A (with an IQ of 150) learnt how to read and write, their linguistic skills would be better than that of person B's (with an IQ of 105). Furthermore, no matter how much education you give to person B you cannot significantly increase their IQ to, let's say, 150. You may be able to increase their IQ a little (because IQ tests are not 100% accurate). For example, no matter how much mathematical work you do, you'll never be as brilliant as Einstein because he was just born like that. It all comes down to evolution, really.

Obviously nurture can affect your brain, such as your diet or banging your head really hard. But nothing you can do will make you as literary as Shakespeare or as scientific as Isaac Newton because that's how you've evolved.

So nurture can only have a negative effect on your brain?

The problem with TSR is people draw too many conclusions from statistics and studies and then believe it to be fact when its merely a theory. Your theory has to many holes in it.

Also in a previous post you mentioned low IQ's lead to people becoming criminals. If you put laws aside, the guy who sells a product in high demand would be considered an entreprenuer or businessman. Because hes a drug dealer does that make him stupid? No. Social-economic situations create crime. Greed creates crime. Human nature creates crime. People with low IQ's may be manipulated into becoming involved but the guy who started the drug cartel, or the guy who plans the bank robbery and puts things in motion is probaly more intelligent than the average person.

Think about it