There are many reasons a child may be born with less intellect than their parents. Genetics aren't linear, and there could be a family member in their genetic history who was not a Rhodes Scholar.

Additionally, environmental influences may have caused a defect or anomaly in the fetal development of the child.

Nurturing has a lot to do with child development. Perhaps the "daft" child is just not enriched. Many perceived intelligent adults are less inclined to take an active role in parenting beyond the basics of sleep, food, and shelter--being too tied up with their own lives to consider the lack of enrichment they are providing for their child, and ergo, creating a developmental rift in the child's ability to learn and apply schemas to new situations.

There are as many reasons why two intelligent people can have a "daft" child as there are definitions of intelligence in the first place. More information would be needed to provide a better educated hypothesis.

It is not only genes that account for intelligence and not all genes are dominant. The environment (stimulus) will account for huge portion of intelligence.

Also, it is necessary to define what confers intelligence? for me, intelligence is to be able to succeed in all areas and not a specific one (for instance, be a genius of math, but cannot socialize and make friends). Most of all, intelligence is the ability to find happiness, wherever you are and in whatever you do.

I don't believe that intelligence is hereditary. Not in the least. Genetics are responsible for general biological including nerve system abilities, that's it. Intelligence in no way belongs to biological abilities but is product of psychological development which is interdependent with organism as biological entity. Intelligence forms, first, from speech streams surrounding a child. It also depends on deliberate teaching. And this is where major problems may arise. Parents & teachers are very much able to develop disgust for and resistance to studies up to such "sicknesses" as ADD and likes. Then you will get daft children as a production of "education." Children really limited in their psychological abilities due to biological deficiencies of the nerve system do happen, of course, in about 1 out of 10-12 cases. These happen totally regardless of the parents' intelligence but depending on their genes directly and indirectly responsible for the nerve system deviations.

Anatoly, if biology did not play a role in intellectual abilities, then how would you explain the extreme development of one cognitive or motor area of autistics? they do not respond to the external stimuli as a learning experience.

I believe that there are both components present: intrinsic or biological (wich can or cannot be genetically given) and extrinsic (environmental , social, etc)

Karen, thank you for that challenge. I perceive it as a problem statement and would like to think it over. Can you be more specific about those abilities of autistics? Give me one example for starters, the closest to purely psychological abilities? And thanks again.

Anatoly, thanks for the engagement in this thought provoking discussion.

I was referring to abilities such as "excessive memory for dates" or "extreme ability to calculate" etc...a lot apparently coming from left brain..., but not stimulated by education or role modeling..

Hmm. Karen, honestly, I am not quite able to analyse that accurately at the moment but see some direction for speculation. You are talking about different abilities. I asked for one example but probably could be lost on one. You supplied two and that is fortunate (and I thank you!!). So, first, two different abilities are they and we definitely see their rootedness in speech. But let forget about speech for a moment. It's just two but I suspect there are many more out there. Can you imagine this many fine differences in the biology of brain to cause all those extra abilities? Or take just those two examples -- do you really believe they can be explained by two different sets of biological specifics? If they are caused by specifics of left hemisphere (which is questionable, but if) you still need to explain their differences. And if you find those differences -- I am sure, you will find them in the history of (let's recall now speech) the speech-relations-communication-activities development of the child. And when you find those differences the question will arise why we needed that biological start at all? To this end, second: there is huge amount of known data supporting our understanding of the brain's flexibility. Whenever certain "center" (say "speech center") is damaged a training is possible to build workarounds and restore damaged activities. That means the brain as such is not responsible for the entire psyche say configuration and can be "rewired" so that psyche persists regardless brain damage. And third. Please refer to my initial comment. I didn't claim that biology doesn't play any role at all. My claim was that intelligence is not hereditary -- I am more than sure your examples just confirm that -- parents of those kids wouldn't had super memory for dates, etc. True, my claim was based on the idea that biology in no way can explain intelligence but it seems (only seems!) reasonable it plays some role in the most general non-specific abilities, probably... And thanks again!

Anatoly, thanks for the great discussion.

So, to complete my line of thought, I strongly believe that you need even a biological component to motivate yourself to learn from environment.

Whether it is an intellectual activity, or motor, or even comportmental.

One example (I know you like it) is children from a "broken" home. Some grow to be violent, others to be weak and wimpy. Some will repeat the behavior of the parents, some will do exactly the opposite. So, what differentiates their response to the same stimulus? Their biological apparatus, the amount of neurotransmitters that they will release, the cardinal traits of their personality. So, in my experience over 30 years with behavioral science, it is safe to say that biology has the greatest impact on an individual. the environment can influence to some degree, but cannot change the people's essence. Now, some of the biological structure is inherited, some is not...we must no forget that...

Dr. I appreciate your wonderful response.

Agree with Dr Kathryn

Karen, several points (and I beg you be specific point by point):

1. Could you please address my argument about differences in exceptional faculties of autistic children?

2. The example with "broken home" may well confirm your take. Still, you must be sure that cause and effect are not traded in the case.

3. Furthermore, I am 100% sure that distribution of roles in your example is not that definite. There must be violent but weak and say quiet but strong -- all depending on the relationships within their home. It is 100% strong fact that patterns of parents' behaviour get imprinted in children's consciousness and differ in the ways of demonstration only.

4. We work in totally different although overlapping fields, use different language and system of concepts. I had to realize that. For me (and it is useless to argue for my take as soon as it is just my field) is impossible to call organism essence of a human -- no, not in my field. I don't think my subject in terms of "organism vs. environment" or "behaviour vs. stimuli" but in "individual -- communication," or "communication -- relationships," etc. In my field human essence belongs to communication -- inner and outer, for example.

5. Say, we take your example again and put those children in "normal" home -- their behaviour will be very different. In the span of several years "weak" ones may become leaders while aggressive ones -- outsiders or just vice versa, regardless biology. So, again, biology does affect individual faculties but in the most general terms, exclusively.

Anatoly,

To save time in the discussion (I am not familiar with the base of all essence be in communication solely as you point, since my field of practice is the human behavior), just think of what happens to individuals, who have a stroke in one area of the brain. Think how much their behavior, cognition, abilities, etc. can change from a simple locus infarct that destroys the functionality of a little area. That is the biological component of people's abilities...whether they are motor, sensation, cognitive, or communication (motor or semantic language). can this individual develop the area that he/she lost ability to sue? The answer is yes; however, it takes long time practicing, focusing, with much dedication, to recover "part" of what was lost. The brain plasticity/ neurogenesis can develop similar neurons to execute the same function, but it needs a lot of efforts + willpower (personality traits/motivation) to get there at least partially. So, as I said, I strongly believe (based on my empirical experience) that the biology accounts for most of what we do, whilst the environment, may affect to certain level, and also depending on the biological apparatus. Intelligence as a development of certain areas (math, or ability to learn languages, or "super" memory, etc will have the influence of the environment if the individual has the apparatus to develop. Individuals that are isolated in intrinsic world with little interest on external world (such as autistics) were born with some over developed area of the brain (biology) and even without the stimulus from parents or other children, they display they intellectual advantage over the others.

Karen,

I find this discussion important to clarify some ideas for myself, so see no need to save time. You can do it your way, of course but there is something I need to note: Usually people try to "save time" when they face difficult questions, challenge to their well established views. Our discussion already make circles just because you do not want to answer specific questions and argument. I am going to quote your points and answer them best I can.

"I am not familiar with the base of all essence be in communication solely as you point, since my field of practice is the human behavior" -- that I don't understand, although I am aware about the school of thought you represent. My view (my school's view) -- it is impossible even talk about human behaviour without taking into account its essence -- human psyche. Nonsense for my ear, I apologise.

" just think of what happens to individuals, who have a stroke in one area of the brain. Think how much their behavior, cognition, abilities, etc. can change from a simple locus infarct that destroys the functionality of a little area. That is the biological component of people's abilities...whether they are motor, sensation, cognitive, or communication (motor or semantic language). can this individual develop the area that he/she lost ability to sue? The answer is yes; however, it takes long time practicing, focusing, with much dedication, to recover "part" of what was lost."

This long quote just tells us that psyche can make up for a physical damage to the brain -- no more, no less. In the beginning damage causes deficiencies in behaviour and faculties but "training" can make it up and restore all the losses, sometimes in full despite the initial damage is all there. There are unbelievable cases and _all_ those are explained purely by essential power of human consciousness which is able to organise and "force" changes on "biology" of brain.

"The brain plasticity/ neurogenesis can develop similar neurons to execute the same function" -- that is out of mark by any school and science. We can only talk here about "neuron networks" and not the "same" networks to restore lost functions but just the opposite in a way, and this is obvious -- we can talk about "working around networks".

"but it needs a lot of efforts + willpower (personality traits/motivation) to get there at least partially." -- Exactly so. Just pay close attention to what you said, yourself. Willpower, motivation, personal efforts provide "change in biology." So, who controls who?

"So, as I said, I strongly believe (based on my empirical experience) that the biology accounts for most of what we do" -- evidently not -- read above excerpt from your own comment. Thus all the experience you refer to may account only to misinterpretation -- I cannot escape this conclusion and apologise again.

", whilst the environment, may affect to certain level, and also depending on the biological apparatus." -- Your own words above refute this.

"Individuals that are isolated in intrinsic world with little interest on external world (such as autistics) were born with some over developed area of the brain (biology) and even without the stimulus from parents or other children, they display they intellectual advantage over the others" -- obvious misrepresentation of facts. How can you even discover those abilities without those individuals being exposed to the subject-matter?

Anatoly,

I respectfully defer your arguments, as they are a misunderstanding and conveniently interpreted to fit your beliefs. I mentioned "to save time in discussion" because it is very difficult to find time to write everything that goes through our mind and all the arguments, especially when we do it during our precious work time. We lost a lot when we write.

However, I believe that you misinterpreted my arguments, all of them.

First, about the neurogenesis....that means "new neurons" ...not new synapses or if you prefer, new circuitry. So I hope that is clear now. Both happen in the brain: new synapses and new neurons (a long time ago we did not believe that new neurons could be developed...well it is obsolete now. for that to happen, we need to use our already existing "apparatus", or in other words, our biological equipment. Willpower, and energy to force yourself to do something, can be "easily" dispersed or inexistent, if the biology does not help you (neurotransmitters, enough biological apparatus to do so). Willpower does not come from "divine" energy...it comes from a bunch of chemical reactions and biological processes that generate this intrinsic energy to perform something....it comes from neurotransmitters (like dopamine) to be available in satisfactory amount and the receptors to be able to capture and utilize them...so they can give you a boost in intrinsic motivation, feelings and finally willpower.

I also stated that although biology accounts for the essence of human being, the environment may affect the behavior. So, you may be born in a certain way, but you could learn someone else's behavior and even display it...but it would not last. That is why children of the same parents although may show some similarities in behavior, they show more differences in their essences...once they break free from the environment, their essence emerge and they are completely different people.

Same goes for intelligence. If they by chances of genetics, inherited the genes of their parents, then they will have same intellectual abilities. Those who did not , will have the intellectual ability that they were given too. Now, that can be increased by exercising memory (exercising the hippocampus and also stimulating the frontal lobe) but will never lead the person to geniality...

After all, Darwin was absolutely accurate...biology makes one who he/she is...and your biology changes for adaptation (not the other way around, environment changes the biology)...so the strongest survive!

Anyway dear colleague. Obviously we have different views of the human psyche/behavior/physiology. We will never find an agreement to this subject, but our intention is to show our views and respect those of the others'.

So, I rest my case!

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss!

Dear Karen,

You are right on two accounts: We will never find an agreement on said subject. And we do need respect views of one anther... Even though I believe these two statements we will also interpret differently ;)

I thank you too.

We finally agreed in something lol. It was a pleasure to discuss the theme with you. Let's find another subject to argue our perceptions... ;)

Have a great week!