English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

were there any smart person not very smart when they were young ?

2006-11-09 20:58:58 · 6 answers · asked by Hoàng Lan N 2 in Social Science Psychology

6 answers

Intelligence, nature vs nurture. In a certain degree (up to half of our intellectual capacity) our intelligence is inherited from our parents. Being born with "smart" genes though, isn't enough for an individual to be intelligent when he grows up. This is the point where nurture takes over. There is a large variety of factors that can affect the way an individual's intelligence is developed, some of these factors being:

- education
- social status of the family
- relationships between family members, friends etc
- race (yes, race is an aspect that has been discussed as to having influence on one's intellect)
- religion
- culture
- economical status
- malnutrition
- whether you have a twin brother or sister
- alcoholism history in your family
- mental disorders
- emotional adaptation
and others.

Whereas a child's genetic low intelligence can evolve up to an impressive IQ level, the natural intelligence they inherited creates a limitation to how much their intellect can be improved.

Researchers have studied the aspect of intelligence for a long while, and the conclusion they reached is that an average of 50-50 (which can vary up to 34-66 or 66-34) nature and nurture participate in any individual's intelligence development.

2006-11-09 22:12:45 · answer #1 · answered by LoreCore 3 · 0 0

Being smart and being intelligent are two different things. Intelligent matter and information comes from things you learn and remember, smart is more as to what was already there, in your mind and soul. If you are really intelligent, and you went on the jeopardy show, you'd probably do good, but if you are smart, and not intelligent, you wouldn't do so good. But on the other side, what good is intelligence when new 'real' problems come up? People who are intelligent don't have a clue, it takes smart people to take charge. Ron Couch

2006-11-09 21:18:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yeah it's possible, it sort of depends on how much work you did then and now. So if you didn't study a lot before you wouldn't have built a great amount of knowledge but if you start studying now then you will start building knowledge. By the way, there is a psychological learning theory developed by Howard Gardner (you can look it up on google or wikipedia) that there as many as eight (and a half) types of intelligences, so you may have several but not necessary all of them.
I was bad at maths when I was young but now I'm good at it. :-)

2006-11-09 21:12:15 · answer #3 · answered by Triathlete88 4 · 0 0

"If it takes this lots artwork and psychological enter to create a single enzyme from scratch, is it rather lifelike to think of that undirected evolutionary tactics ought to immediately accomplish this activity? " Hell confident. Evolution and nature are massively greater advantageous to human intelligence. It created a slime mildew who does not also have a recommendations yet can map the London Subway! Why are you intuiting a recommendations in the back of those tactics? this could properly be a style blunders and a human failing bearing directly to recommendations wiring. Very cool. yet yet another closed hollow, creationists.

2016-10-03 11:51:11 · answer #4 · answered by duchane 4 · 0 0

I asked that same question to my teacher. I'm not on the pro side. Of course I tried to argue. Then he told me this: "I'll be damned if i'll ever see an infant talk at birth!". I just smiled and made no reply. I lost the game...

2006-11-09 22:30:17 · answer #5 · answered by chics 2 · 0 0

The unatural just have to work twice as harder

2006-11-09 21:12:43 · answer #6 · answered by J.Welkin 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers