h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Human Intelligence is NOT Genetic - A27287904
Author: veearora - U2803120

This is the second part of my series of write-ups on Demystifying Human Intelligence. Each new write-up will face more challenge from the established ideas, thoughts and beliefs and I shall strive to make people start believing in them and rethinking their long-held notions and beliefs.

hi veearora,
Is this article based on any fact or just your ideas? It looks at present as though you've posted it in the wrong place in light of what you say in your first post.This is not a "forum" to challenge ideas, this is the place where articles are reviewed with a view to being published in the Edited guide.

Can I suggest you look at the Writing guidelines and then remove this from Peer Review and perhaps post as a journal in your personal space.


ST. {scout}

The current thinking is that about 75% of human intelligence is in the genes. You just have to look around you at the children of bright and stupid people to see this for yourself. Also, recent studies seem to indicate that it is linked to recessive genes on the X-chromosome which explains why men have a much broader spread of IQ than women.

So, no.

Hi FM.

Err your last comment, ""so, no"" is that no as in not genetic or no as in not factual?

ST. {scout}

This Entry seems to be purely the opinion of the author. You say that human intelligence is not based on genetic information, but don't offer any proof. You don't say where you think intelligence comes from if not from genetics, which must surely be important.

I would assume that if it is not from genetics, then it must be learned from our parents, but you offer no examples of children cut off from parents being without intelligence, and you deny that machines could become intelligent without any apparent justification - there's not reason why machines couldn't learn from us as much as human babies do.

I think this Entry is very far from the sort of thing we are looking for in the Edited Guide, so I suggest you remove it from Peer Review. You can then either rewrite it to make it into the sort of thing we want, or submit it to one of the places in h2g2 which encourage discussion of personal views, such as the Forum.

'""so, no"" is that no as in not genetic or no as in not factual?'

Take your pick!

No, this is basically just wrong. You should research some actual science rather than basing your theories on works of fiction.

1. Human intelligence quite clearly does have a genetic basis.

>>If language skills were genetic, as Michael Crichton fancied, then humans would not have been able to learn multiple languages. A child born out of French parents should have been speaking French only, not German or English. A Vietnamese child adopted into Angelina Jolie-Brad Pitt family should be naturally speaking Vietnamese, not English. The same analogy would prove true for their Cambodian and Ethiopian adopted kids. <<

It would only be the case if there was a specific "French" gene, say, that controlled language skills, which is clearly rubbish. No-one has ever said that the specific words used in any language are genetic.

>>Similarly, if intelligence were genetic, children born out of illiterate parents would not have topped their classes and landed plum jobs. <<

Why on earth not? Even if performance in life was entirely depedent on genetics (which it isn't), genes work in rather more complex ways than that.

What you're doing here is making an assumption based on a misunderstanding of genetics and then using it to prove a rule.

2. >>Computer scientists believe that the working of human mind is like a computer chip <<

No, I don't think anyone believes that anymore, and that is not how strong AI research is progressing.

3. Who are these "biogeneticists" (what other kind of geneticist is there?) and what makes you think they are pursuing improvements to human intelligence?

<>
I said in my first post that this entry is most likely to 'face' challenges from established ideas, not challenge them per se.

You don't seem to understand what Peer Review is about. It is about discussing entries which document the established views in an interesting way, so we can decide are they suitable to go into the Guide. This one isn't.

Nor is A26722983 a suitable entry for the Guide.

Please remove them both from PeerReview.

Please read your <./>ACE</.>'s message, carefully.

I didn't think that one was quite as clear-cut, but on consideration, you're probably right - it is also not suitable.

Thank you, Gnomon