dunno that there is much correlation between grades & intelligence. Grades is more representative of spod culture, good teaching & pushy parents. At my school, if a bro started getting conspicuously good grades, we would introduce his i.e. head to the i.e. toilet bowl. Whereas I spose at Eton or whatever, you get rewarded with first bite on the soggy biscuit.
2 Likes
Perhaps. I think in general though you would say those with better grades were more intelligent - it’s the way that we work all through the school and university system. I think that proportionally far more Oxbridge candidates, grades wise, come through private school than state, taking away the obvious private school bias.
1 Like
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
1 Like
Sounds like it, pretty basic stuff. Of course, a number of people seem to disagree this is the case, as shown above.
1 Like
It’s a distasteful premise, but let us test it!
Let’s say that my Bank Manager & my Postman had a threesome with i.e. Mariah Carey. They both banged her bareback right in the vag, and let fly inside her, i.e. they didn’t pull out & spunk over her tits as per normal. Then, like 9 months later, she had a baby, and baby turned out to be good at i.e. Investment Banking.
Whose sperms would we guess made this baby? My Bank Manager’s sperms, my Postman’s sperms, or i.e. could equally be either, there’s no telling. Maybe Mariah Carey is banking savant, and in any case, it seems doubtful that they were the only bros she banged that month.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
Sounds like it, pretty basic stuff. Of course, a number of people seem to disagree this is the case, as shown above.
What if the successful business person got to where they were based on traditional hierarchical thinking, rather than talent? And thus, this also extended to their child?
My grandfather was a dustbin bro, and I suspect that I, myself, would be better at being a dustbin bro than being a good business bro, although I have, in fact, been neither.
Documented evidence suggests there is some sort of genetic component to IQ levels, but lots of dispute over how large a component this is.
1 Like
There’s always exceptions Lou, not denying that.
1 Like
Its the old Nature v Nurture, whereas it’s not one or the other, but rather a mixture of both.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
Sounds like it, pretty basic stuff. Of course, a number of people seem to disagree this is the case, as shown above.
What if the successful business person got to where they were based on traditional hierarchical thinking, rather than talent? And thus, this also extended to their child?
There’s always exceptions Lou, not denying that.
You’ve got to be kidding me. The amount of talentless, uninspiring, lacking in vision, lacking in any intelligence (apart from the traditional exam passing type of intelligence you’re referring to) people I come across in leadership positions is frankly embarrassing, and old fashioned.
Of course, but then how do you whittle down applicants for jobs? Or do you just interview everyone who applies on the off-chance they are talented? I’m interested to know how to distinguish between people if you’re not going to take grades into consideration.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
Sounds like it, pretty basic stuff. Of course, a number of people seem to disagree this is the case, as shown above.
What if the successful business person got to where they were based on traditional hierarchical thinking, rather than talent? And thus, this also extended to their child?
There’s always exceptions Lou, not denying that.
You’ve got to be kidding me. The amount of talentless, uninspiring, lacking in vision, lacking in any intelligence (apart from the traditional exam passing type of intelligence you’re referring to) people I come across in leadership positions is frankly embarrassing, and old fashioned.
Of course, but then how do you whittle down applicants for jobs? Or do you just interview everyone who applies on the off-chance they are talented? I’m interested to know how to distinguish between people if you’re not going to take grades into consideration.
What about using colour or ethnicity instead of grades?
2 Likes
Originally posted by @Fatso
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
Sounds like it, pretty basic stuff. Of course, a number of people seem to disagree this is the case, as shown above.
What if the successful business person got to where they were based on traditional hierarchical thinking, rather than talent? And thus, this also extended to their child?
There’s always exceptions Lou, not denying that.
You’ve got to be kidding me. The amount of talentless, uninspiring, lacking in vision, lacking in any intelligence (apart from the traditional exam passing type of intelligence you’re referring to) people I come across in leadership positions is frankly embarrassing, and old fashioned.
Of course, but then how do you whittle down applicants for jobs? Or do you just interview everyone who applies on the off-chance they are talented? I’m interested to know how to distinguish between people if you’re not going to take grades into consideration.
What about using colour or ethnicity instead of grades?
If that’s the way you like to judge people then go with that.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Halo-Stickman
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
My grandfather was a dustbin bro, and I suspect that I, myself, would be better at being a dustbin bro than being a good business bro, although I have, in fact, been neither.
Documented evidence suggests there is some sort of genetic component to IQ levels, but lots of dispute over how large a component this is.
Its the old Nature v Nurture, whereas it’s not one or the other, but rather a mixture of both.
I agree.
As I previously said, evidence suggests that genetics (nature) plays a roll in a person’s intelligence, just as it does with their hair colour, height, predisposition for certain diseases etc. What is disputed is how much of a role is played by genetics, and how much of a role is played by a person’s upbringing, education, environment etc. (nurture).
The argument goes that a person is born with a certain level of intelligence, and whilst education, upbringing and other environmental factors obviously influence how well equipped a person is at passing exams etc. their basic level of intelligence stays, more-or-less, the same throughout most of their lives (obviously it can dramatically tail-off towards the end).
But the nature/nurture debate, especially when applied to intelligence, is one that usually stirs heated debate: a lot of people don’t like the thought that whilst they may be able to improve their learning, or their methods of learning, there’s an argument that they can’t do much to increase their levels of intelligence, i.e. how to apply this learning etc.
This debate gets particular heated when it is expanded to the level of populations, i.e. when people attempt to use it to suggest that various ethnic groups (or other type of groups) are inherently more intelligent than others. It is usually at this point that the debate descends into an almighty row about eugenics.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Halo-Stickman
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Halo-Stickman
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
My grandfather was a dustbin bro, and I suspect that I, myself, would be better at being a dustbin bro than being a good business bro, although I have, in fact, been neither.
Documented evidence suggests there is some sort of genetic component to IQ levels, but lots of dispute over how large a component this is.
Its the old Nature v Nurture, whereas it’s not one or the other, but rather a mixture of both.
I agree.
As I previously said, evidence suggests that genetics (nature) plays a roll in a person’s intelligence, just as it does with their hair colour, height, predisposition for certain diseases etc. What is disputed is how much of a role is played by genetics, and how much of a role is played by a person’s upbringing, education, environment etc. (nurture).
The argument goes that a person is born with a certain level of intelligence, and whilst education, upbringing and other environmental factors obviously influence how well equipped a person is at passing exams etc. their basic level of intelligence stays, more-or-less, the same throughout most of their lives (obviously it can dramatically tail-off towards the end).
But the nature/nurture debate, especially when applied to intelligence, is one that usually stirs heated debate: a lot of people don’t like the thought that whilst they may be able to improve their learning, or their methods of learning, there’s an argument that they can’t do much to increase their levels of intelligence, i.e. how to apply this learning etc.
This debate gets particular heated when it is expanded to the level of populations, i.e. when people attempt to use it to suggest that various ethnic groups are inherently more intelligence than others. It is usually at this point that the debate descends into an almighty row about eugenics.
Excellent precis of the situation as I see it.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Halo-Stickman
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @Halo-Stickman
Originally posted by @Bearsy
ARE WE SAYING that kids born of successful business bros, are to some degree, more likely to have inherited good business bro brains from their genetically superior parents, than kids born from i.e. dustbin bros?
My grandfather was a dustbin bro, and I suspect that I, myself, would be better at being a dustbin bro than being a good business bro, although I have, in fact, been neither.
Documented evidence suggests there is some sort of genetic component to IQ levels, but lots of dispute over how large a component this is.
Its the old Nature v Nurture, whereas it’s not one or the other, but rather a mixture of both.
I agree.
As I previously said, evidence suggests that genetics (nature) plays a roll in a person’s intelligence, just as it does with their hair colour, height, predisposition for certain diseases etc. What is disputed is how much of a role is played by genetics, and how much of a role is played by a person’s upbringing, education, environment etc. (nurture).
The argument goes that a person is born with a certain level of intelligence, and whilst education, upbringing and other environmental factors obviously influence how well equipped a person is at passing exams etc. their basic level of intelligence stays, more-or-less, the same throughout most of their lives (obviously it can dramatically tail-off towards the end).
But the nature/nurture debate, especially when applied to intelligence, is one that usually stirs heated debate: a lot of people don’t like the thought that whilst they may be able to improve their learning, or their methods of learning, there’s an argument that they can’t do much to increase their levels of intelligence, i.e. how to apply this learning etc.
This debate gets particular heated when it is expanded to the level of populations, i.e. when people attempt to use it to suggest that various ethnic groups are inherently more intelligence than others. It is usually at this point that the debate descends into an almighty row about eugenics.
Excellent precis of the situation as I see it.
Except it didn’t really touch on the points you’ve been making, but instead was a general overview on intelligence as hereditary.
2 Likes
Intelligence is heriditary
Realising the potential of that intelligence is entirely based upon circumstance be it school, upbringing, affluence, mentors, luck.
Yes, Lou, I was giving a general overview response to Chertsey’s nature/nurture comment.
Here is a more specific and personal response.
As I mentioned above, my grandfather was a dustbin-man. Just over a week ago I was at the Sheldonian Theatre to watch my state-educated son graduate with a masters degree from Oxford Uni. No ‘privileged background’; just lots of hard work. Yes, he met with a fair degree of snobbery; and, yes, it will be interesting to see if he loses out to those with a ‘privileged background’ in the jobs market.
But his is an example that, as I think you previously mentioned, opportunities do exist for ‘ordinary’ families to change their circumstances over a couple of generations.
Also, my definition of intelligence is not one to be proven or disproven by exams.
What, that generally people who go to private secondary schools are more intelligent than those that go to state schools?
1 Like