#1 Posted by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

What are your thoughts on the relation between heredity and IQ, as well as that between race and IQ?

#2 Posted by XaosII (16630 posts) -

There is no single factor that correlates to a higher IQ. There have been studies done about identical twins raised in the same household vs identical twins raised in different households and their effects on their IQ. There are studies showing that children who have been breastfed have slightly higher IQ's. Why? Who knows.

Every study about parent's IQ's and race are definitely a contributing factor. But by no means are they the only one, and they are likely not even the most important indicators.

#3 Edited by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Probs environment stuff

#4 Posted by Aljosa23 (25497 posts) -

If there exists a link then it's meaningless anyway. IQ is about as useless a system to measure smarts as BMI is to fitness.

#5 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Hey, Emil

Say you have 45 coins on a table in front of you and you are blindfolded. You are told that 17 of them are facing heads up.

You are then instructed to separate the coins into two groups that each contain the same number of tails up coins. You cannot feel the faces but you can flip any and all coins. How do you achieve separating the coins into two groups that contain the same number of tails in each?

#6 Posted by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

I believe that genes determine a person's highest potential IQ and that environment and upbringing determines their actual IQ, and that subsequently the current differences in the IQ make-up of each race is genetic. In my opinion, tropical environments are the least challenging to survive in and subsequently groups that evolved in such environments have the lowest IQs on average. On the other hand, cold environments require higher IQs (e.g. better group coordination, better spatial/ geometric perception [more difficult to see in snow], more creativity to create clothes, etc).

#7 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Guys remember that snow snowing section in the last of us

Visibility Limited

Ha ha

#8 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

I do want you to engage that coin puzzle, Emil by the way

#9 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Hey, Emil

Say you have 45 coins on a table in front of you and you are blindfolded. You are told that 17 of them are facing heads up.

You are then instructed to separate the coins into two groups that each contain the same number of tails up coins. You cannot feel the faces but you can flip any and all coins. How do you achieve separating the coins into two groups that contain the same number of tails in each?

  • 17 are heads up
  • 28 are tails up
  • ...I don't know. This seems like a trick question.
#10 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

No tricks.

There is a way to put the coins into two separate physical groups that each contain an equal number of tails up coins without feeling the faces. And you can flip over whatever amount of coins you want

#11 Posted by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

No tricks.

There is a way to put the coins into two separate physical groups that each contain an equal number of tails up coins without feeling the faces. And you can flip over whatever amount of coins you want

Sorry. Can't figure it out.

#12 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Oh ok. Perhaps this can be open for others to puzzle over

#13 Edited by chessmaster1989 (29534 posts) -
@dave123321 said:

Hey, Emil

Say you have 45 coins on a table in front of you and you are blindfolded. You are told that 17 of them are facing heads up.

You are then instructed to separate the coins into two groups that each contain the same number of tails up coins. You cannot feel the faces but you can flip any and all coins. How do you achieve separating the coins into two groups that contain the same number of tails in each?

Make a pile of 17 and flip that pile?

(Reasoning: if a coin in the pile of 17 is heads, then it has a corresponding tails in the pile of 28. When the heads is flipped, it matches the tails. On the other hand, if a coin in the pile of 17 is tails (and so is not in the pile of 28), it flips and becomes a heads)

#14 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Oh ok. Perhaps this can be open for others to puzzle over

I don't see how it can be solved. For example, let's say that I decide to split the coins into a group of 25 coins and another of 20 coins. In this case, I would not know how many coins of each group are heads up and how many are tails up. Also, flipping over coins wouldn't help me at all, because I can't see what coins I'm flipping over and subsequently still won't know the amount of coins that are heads up and the amount that are tails up. I'm convinced that this is a trick question.

#15 Edited by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

@chess

I think you flip the over the other pile instead but yes

#16 Posted by deeliman (2525 posts) -

@dave123321

You make 1 group of 17, and one of 28. If I assume all coins in the group of 17 are tails, that would mean there are 0 tails up coins in the group of 28, so if I flip all 17 coins I get the same number. If I assume 16 of them are tails, there is one heads up in the group of 17 and 1 tails up in the group of 28, meaning that if I flip all 17 coins again there would be the same number of coins tails up in each group. I can do this all the way to 0, meaning that it doesn't matter how many are tails up in the group of 17, if I flip them all there will always be the same amount of tails in each group

#17 Posted by Aljosa23 (25497 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Hey, Emil

Say you have 45 coins on a table in front of you and you are blindfolded. You are told that 17 of them are facing heads up.

You are then instructed to separate the coins into two groups that each contain the same number of tails up coins. You cannot feel the faces but you can flip any and all coins. How do you achieve separating the coins into two groups that contain the same number of tails in each?

Flip them all.

#18 Edited by deeliman (2525 posts) -

@emil_fontz It's not a trick question, seeming as chessmaster and I have already solved it.

#19 Edited by chessmaster1989 (29534 posts) -
@dave123321 said:

@chess

I think you flip the over the other pile instead but yes

If you flip the 28 then you could end up with (e.g.) 28 tails in one pile and 28 in the other. So you flip over the 17.

Technically this works with any number of tails <=22 in the pile (e.g. if you have 10 tails, then you make a pile of 10 and flip that). Actually upon reflection I think it works with any number of tails period.

#20 Edited by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

The solution is pretty much right but I think you guys might have gotten mixed up on there being 17 heads and not 17 tails

#21 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29534 posts) -

Oh yeah I read it as 17 are tails. Oops

#22 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Yeah the solution works if you change any of the numbers involved.

#23 Posted by deeliman (2525 posts) -

Yeah I read it wrong as well

#24 Posted by deeliman (2525 posts) -

@dave123321 I'm bored, give me another puzzle

#25 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Ah, ok

#26 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

@deeliman: have a limited window of time before my phone loses power and can't think of a good one at the top of my head , so won't be able to post one

Sorry

#27 Posted by deeliman (2525 posts) -

:(

#28 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

After creating a series of charts to represent two random groupings, I realized that the problem is indeed solvable.

#29 Posted by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

Hey, guys. Take this IQ test just for fun.

#30 Posted by gamerguru100 (10748 posts) -

I took some evaluation thing back in junior high school (I remember I was turning either 15 or 16 at the time, and I think it had something to do with special ed) and my IQ ended up being 97. Apparently I had also taken an evaluation in fourth grade and my IQ was a "whopping" 88. Not even a 10 point increase, and I was told that by late adolescence (18 years of age), your IQ stays at whatever it is. I know the average IQ is 100, and that 97 is within the average range of 90-110, but I don't feel like my IQ is even 97. Considering the fact that I'm really derpy a lot and suck at most things science or math related, my IQ is probably in the 80s. Hell, I remember my mom telling me that I was stunted after I had a derpy moment in 2012, which is still recent to me. I believe her. O_O

#31 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

Never mind.

#32 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

Do you have anymore questions like this?

#33 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14030 posts) -

I assume those people who score lower IQs live in poor areas.

#34 Posted by deeliman (2525 posts) -

@emil_fontz You have to flip the group of 17, not the group of 28. this way it always works with every combination.

#35 Posted by deeliman (2525 posts) -

Anyways, according to the IQ test you linked, I have an IQ of 175... which is total bull.

#36 Posted by lamprey263 (24467 posts) -

There could be some genetic factors to intelligence, and some of those factors might be smaller or even significant, but I tend to think greater factors might be those in child rearing, so that isn't exactly genetically hereditary except kids are typically reared by their genetic birth parents. How parents interact and teach their children and the stimulation of their environments are going to have an effect on the child's brain as they grow and their brain, their minds, their personality develops. Also, in utero development of the child's brain is probably going to depend on how the pregnancy is carried out. Studies have shown that a mother's stress levels can overdevelop and underdevelop certain areas of the child's brain, for instance making them more prone to stress and anxiety, and typically these people tend to not think abstractly and behave aggressively, and less prone to empathy whereas babies in the womb whose mother typically remains stress free will have parts of their brain develop that support greater abstract thinking and creativity and display greater empathy. Now, that's not necessarily genetically inherent, for instance the effect could possibly be achieved through a surrogate and therefor not genetically hereditary. People are the products of their environment to a great degree.

#37 Posted by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@deeliman:

1. No. If you have a group that consists of 17 heads and another of 28 tales, flipping the former would result in a group of 17 tales and another of 28 tales, in which case neither group would have a number of tales equal to the other.

2. Assuming that you were responding to the post in which I claimed that flipping over every coin in the group that contains 28 coins does not solve every combination, I was incorrect, because doing so does indeed solve every combination.

In a combination that consists of one group of 17 heads and another of 28 tales, if you flipped over every coin in the latter group, you'd end up with a group of 17 heads and a group of 28 heads, that is to say 0 tales and 0 tales, which are equal.

#38 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Anyways, according to the IQ test you linked, I have an IQ of 175... which is total bull.

You have to consider your score relative to others in order to determine its meaning. I earned only a 127; you're smarter than me.

EDIT:

175 is the highest score one can earn on that IQ test, which implies that you answered every question correctly. I have to ask, what is your ethnicity?

#39 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58157 posts) -

That puzzle is witchcraft. Burn them.

#40 Posted by lostrib (39180 posts) -

@emil_fontz said:

I believe that genes determine a person's highest potential IQ and that environment and upbringing determines their actual IQ, and that subsequently the current differences in the IQ make-up of each race is genetic. In my opinion, tropical environments are the least challenging to survive in and subsequently groups that evolved in such environments have the lowest IQs on average. On the other hand, cold environments require higher IQs (e.g. better group coordination, better spatial/ geometric perception [more difficult to see in snow], more creativity to create clothes, etc).

What's your field of study?

#41 Posted by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@lostrib:

Are you asking this to determine whether I'm qualified to draw conclusions about the correlation between race and IQ? I admit that I'm just a layman.

#42 Edited by lostrib (39180 posts) -

@emil_fontz said:

@lostrib:

Are you asking this to determine whether I'm qualified to draw conclusions about the correlation between race and IQ? I admit that I'm just a layman.

So you have no basis for any of your conclusions?

#43 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

If there exists a link then it's meaningless anyway. IQ is about as useless a system to measure smarts as BMI is to fitness.

you can't seriously believe in that physical smarts, social smarts, etc crap...

is it a coincidence physicists and mathematicians all have super high iqs?

#44 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13187 posts) -

Some of the smartest people I know have dumb-as-shit parents, and vice versa. I don't buy the hereditary bit.

#45 Posted by SUD123456 (4506 posts) -

@emil_fontz said:

What are your thoughts on the relation between heredity and IQ, as well as that between race and IQ?

Based on your posting history, I think the combined IQ of your parents is likely between 120 and 140

#46 Posted by lostrib (39180 posts) -

@SUD123456 said:

@emil_fontz said:

What are your thoughts on the relation between heredity and IQ, as well as that between race and IQ?

Based on your posting history, I think the combined IQ of your parents is likely between 120 and 140

you might need to dumb down that insult for him

#47 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@SUD123456 said:

@emil_fontz said:

What are your thoughts on the relation between heredity and IQ, as well as that between race and IQ?

Based on your posting history, I think the combined IQ of your parents is likely between 120 and 140

you might need to dumb down that insult for him

Yet another example of a thread of mine devolving into a series of personal attacks at me instead of remaining an impersonal, objective discussion. It's time for me to abandon this thread. Enjoy the roast, boys. Peace out.

#48 Posted by lostrib (39180 posts) -

@emil_fontz: you expect people to have actual discussions in your thread when at the first sign of trouble you bail?

#49 Edited by Emil_Fontz (306 posts) -

What do you guys think of this video?