From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:43:19 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Apr13.043127.239@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <GERRY.92Apr12165028@onion.cmu.edu>
> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>But many people might call me names if I were to say that at birth I
>>was endowed with greater potential for mental achievement than he.

The way I look at it is that the mind is like a muscle. You can work
it out to improve it.

Provided you have a healthy body, and had the same discipline to work
out like Arnold Schwaartzeneggar  (is that how you spell it?), at the
same age he started, follow his exact routine, my guess is that your
bicepts would be huge. In fact you would be just a mere 1 or 2cm less than
Arnie.

I'm suggesting that it is that little 2cm that is inherent genetics but
the most was just lots of hard work.

It's the same with mental potential. If you train real hard and spend
your life solving lots of puzzles, your apparent IQ might rise to be within
10 points (say) of the highest in the world.

It is the little 10 that is genetic and the rest was hard sweat. As
Thomas Edison once said "Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration."

My theory is that 99% percent of anything in life is 99% work and
it is only the 1% that is a natural talent or gift. And it's always that
extra 1% that puts you in the world class. (If you ran 1% slower than the
fastest runner, you'd probably fail entering the Olympics.)

So to answer your question: I would certainly not call you names if you
suggested that you were endowed with more mental potential than some
other people. What I would say is that your extra endowment doesn't really
mean anything as it is so small. What really matters is the hard
effort you put in. The endowment only matters if you are shooting
for a world record in something.

>>Therefore, it seems that there IS some native, inheredited potential
>>that is independent of environment.

Yes but I suggest it is negligible for everyday people.

>> And, since, as I claim that this
>>inheredited potential must exist, is it possible to identify and
>>measure it in some manner?

My guess is that it is impossible to measure the inherited potential.
Simply because being the smaller component, it gets lost in the noise.

An important question is "is it meaningful to want to measure the
inherited component."

Is it a useful quantity? Because if intelligence is 99% training,
who cares?

>But humans live in all sorts of environments, and we're at the stage at
>which we're now *modifying* hte environment, especially the mental
>environment.  So perhaps the definition of intelligence will change?
>Perhaps the relevant potentialities of today are not those of tomorrow
>or yesterday?

A very good point. What was that film when a bunch of people got
stranded on a desert island and it was the butler who became the
leader? In this environment he was the most intelligent. Administrators
and nuclear scientists would be useless for solving problems in
this new environment. The bulter was trained with more practical
was of thinking.