Quote:
Originally posted by aeon@Sep 2 2003, 07:17 PM
I'm not saying that changing one changes the other. I'm not saying that increasing nurture increases or decreases nature. I'm assuming the opposite really; the assumption is that changing one's environment does not change one's nature. What I am saying is that
by assuming:
1. There is something called intelligence and that we can or will someday be able to measure it relative to each other.
2. There is only a nature and nurure component to intelligence
3. The variables are independent (note this - then look below)
then:
In a contrived example:
Initially: environment 50, nurture 50
Finally: environment 0, nurture 100
= change
What I believe or don't isn't really relevant...just pointing out the problem of attempting to employ empiricism based on an abstract 
best of luck -
aeon
|
It's not a contradiction. It may look like it because of how IQ tests are scored.
In my example, one doesn't change the other. It only appears to change because IQ scores are normalized so that 100 is the median score. To say that an environmental component of IQ goes from 50% to 0% doesn't mean that environment stops being a factor. It means that the difference between people in such an ideal example would be 0 and so it washes out. Since IQ tests aim to measure results only in comparison to other people, that component becomes 0.
What is left (genetic) is the only component that will be measured after that. We could still say it is "50" so it doesn't look like it changed but when scores are normalized it will become 100.