Potential

[ckj846]

I was having a conversation with a friend and the question of potential came up. My friend was basically saying that people have the potential to be whatever they want to be as long as they put their minds to it. So, in theory, he was saying that anyone could be famous, anyone could be president, it all mattered on the factor of determination. I, of course, disagreed just because it sounds completely absurd and somewhat retarded. But then I got thinking (while I was supposed to be reading a book for school >.<) that it might actually have some truth in it. For example, people who are "poor' usually have that mentality that "I'm stuck in a gut, I can't get out" and then they make excuses as to why they are poor. "I was born into a poor family, blah blah blah I'm not smart, I fail in school, I'll never get a job." The thing is, every person has the potential to do well in school and thus, everyone has the potential to go to great colleges and get jobs that pay well, thus being not poor. This can really go on forever and my friend and I were at it for hours just because we totally disagreed.

Another thing that I brought up was that life in general isn't fair so how can everyone have a fair chance at everything. My friend said that everyone still has potential to be something great and everyone is given a shot at life. I actually was starting to agree because even if someone is born with a disadvantage (disability, poorer family, abusive family) there seems to always be a way to overcome that problem (surgery, forming better habits, determination, therapy) and it just seemed to go in an endless loophole for me. Anyone else have opinions about this? I know it does sound corny with the whole WE LIVE IN AMERICA, THE LAND OF OPPURTUNITY and all that stuff I think everyone grew up with, but do you think it might actually have some truth in it?
O_o

[Reach]

I would say everyone beyond a certain point has equal potential, because society governs what intellectual capacities are required to suceed.

They noticed when measuring IQ's, that between 70 and an IQ of 115, what you were able to accomplish in the real world went up exponentially as your IQ went past 70 and closer to 115.

And then they noticed something else. After 115 there was an exponential drop in the increase, and essentially it flatlined; meaning, as the IQ goes past 115, it starts to become irrelevant to what you are capable of in society. After 130, it means almost absolutely nothing in terms of achievement.


Not that there arn't mental differences between these people, but what they had the potential to do within society, was the same.



So in that sense, I think there are TONS of people that really can suceed and have loads of potential to do something great.

But no, people arn't created equally. That's a fact.

But environmental factors also play a large role in what you are able to accomplish. Proper education and resource as a child boosts IQ. So does proper nutrition.

But, it's not necessarily being 'poor' that limits people, but poor people are, statistically dumber. However, that doesn't mean because you are poor you are dumb or incapable, so lots of poor people end up suceeding.

[mikki_vi]

I might get yelled at for posting in here, seeing as I have yet to actually post anything, but i don't mind.

I personally think that the IQ of a person has little to do with what a person is capable of. From what I have heard and learned, IQ is something that changes very little in a person and exists at the same point for their entire life. How a person reacts to patterns or logic, or a persons response to a certain idea or stimuli, can not be changed at all by anyone, family as well as society, instead can only be nurtured, developed or locked up by the conditions they are given in life.

I have always believed that people have had the potential to do anything that is desired by an individual, and in that sense is what equality comes from. All minds can be equal in potential, but internal and external forces drive mankind away from this equality.

We all have the potential to be equal and the potential to do anything. It's a matter of choice. If someone isn't given the freedom of choice, the potential is still there but dormant.
In The wrong environment the idea of potential will decrease and people are limited in what they are capable of doing, but it's always there no matter what the persons "IQ" is.

Sorry, I don't think we can measure ones mind/intelligence on a scale of numbers.

[The_Q]

Originally Posted by Reachk

But no, people arn't created equally. That's a fact.

And this is what disproves the theory that everyone has the same potential. There's this amazing thing, guys, called "division of labor." It' s a concept that is often referred to in economics. You see, people often do for a career what they are best at (and can get paid for. Balancing 50 cups on your chin isn't much in the job world, I'm sorry to say, but someday...) because that's what they can get the most out of by doing. This implies that other people can benefit through the concept of comparative advantage with another person and decide to do business with them. Infinite potential would have changed things around to make people a lot more self sufficient. We are not, might I point out, self sufficient.

Originally Posted by Oh mikki you so fine, you so fine you blow my mind

Sorry, I don't think we can measure ones mind/intelligence on a scale of numbers.

You can measure anything at all with numbers. From the value of a person's life to the marginal value of love to any one person. Again, econ tells us so.

Q

[talisman]

Given enough resources/energy I'm sure anyone could do whatever they wanted. The trick would be coming by those resources in the first place.

[Reach]

I personally think that the IQ of a person has little to do with what a person is capable of.

It is a well known fact that people with different IQ's between 70-115 have dramatically different abilities.


Past 115 this argument becomes valid, and past 130 it is correct. It is well known that an IQ past 135-140 has no statistical correlation with achievement. Actually, if anything, studies show often achievement is lower in individuals with IQ's beyond 150 compared to their 130 counterparts (SD 15)

There are actually a few valid reasons for this negative correlation at high levels, but we don't need to get into that XD

IQ is something that changes very little in a person and exists at the same point for their entire life.

Incorrect. Actually, it is possible to change your IQ as much as 20-30 points o_O! This is a very large misconception. However, it appears increasingly hard to change the IQ's of people with very low IQ's. However, studies have been done on people with IQ's of about 100, and after a year of rigorous diet change, sleep change and education were retested at an average of about 120.

It was also found that, the highest the IQ, the easier it was to boost it even higher with training.

All minds can be equal in potential

But this is just what we want to believe <_> Just like we want to believe some almighty man in the sky put us here, we're special and there is no such thing as evolution <_> It's a nice answer, but it's wrong.

Evolution makes it pretty much impossible for any of us to be totally equal in intellect.

They are definitely not created with equal potential. Genetics can account for, conservatively, 50% of a persons intelligence. You're telling me people born with smaller brains, slower brains or brain damage have equal potential? You can estimate someones IQ through a brain scan, looking at the size and activity of the brain.

Sorry, I don't think we can measure ones mind/intelligence on a scale of numbers

Alas, we cannot. But we can measure statistically valid numbers that tell us a lot about what a person is capable of. IQ isn't necessarily intelligence as a whole, but it is intelligence that is useful in society!

[flamingspinach]

Unless your mental age increases linearly with time (as your physical age obviously does) your true "Intelligence Quotient" is going to change, like it or not.

Also, no, people don't have unlimited potential, that's ridiculous. The reason poor people tend to have a lower IQ is that they tended to grow up in a poor family, and didn't have the opportunity to truly learn properly. Studies have been done on kids of poor parents adopted into rich families and vice versa (which is rarer obviously), and they tend to confirm this observation.

[ckj846]

The thing really is... You don't need a high IQ to do well in school. I'm sure you have read other threads where everyone says grades aren't a symbol of your intelligence, merely a represenation of your effort and your study habits. I'm sure my IQ is not very high, but I do very well in school because of my memory and my study habits. Just because you can memorize things and apply them doesn't make you smart. It makes you "smart" in the sense that you are getting the work done and you are meeting the standards for the school. In this sense, would you think unlimited potential is possible?
O_o

[Reach]

Originally Posted by ckj846

The thing really is... You don't need a high IQ to do well in school. I'm sure you have read other threads where everyone says grades aren't a symbol of your intelligence, merely a represenation of your effort and your study habits. I'm sure my IQ is not very high, but I do very well in school because of my memory and my study habits. Just because you can memorize things and apply them doesn't make you smart. It makes you "smart" in the sense that you are getting the work done and you are meeting the standards for the school. In this sense, would you think unlimited potential is possible?
O_o

This is true. The average IQ of a highschool graduate is about 100-105...average. Apparently, the optimal range for obtaining the highest grades with the most ease in high school is an IQ between 110 and 120. Nothing spectacular, more than 25% of the population is above 110.


However, I wasn't aware that doing well in school gave you unlimited potential.

Not only that, still, the average IQ of someone that can't graduate from highschool is about 90. From junior high, 80, and from elementary school, 65.

(all of the above IQ's are in comparison to the STANDARD CIRRICULUM, special ed and resource when used to get someone to pass by upping their marks obviously doesn't count, they count as not passing).

There are lots of people like this. People that are absolutely not smart enough to graduate from highschool.

The reason poor people tend to have a lower IQ is that they tended to grow up in a poor family, and didn't have the opportunity to truly learn properly.

This is true.

IQ is still significantly genetic, but in childhood, it is actually MORE environmental than genetic.


However, as the person ages, genetics begin to rule a person. They've done studies with identical twins actually, much like what you were talking about.

Seperated, and they seemed so completely different when you raised them in completely different environments and educated them differently.


By age 25 however, they were practically the same person in all tests done.


This nearly completely explains child prodigies and why almost all of them fail to do anything great later in life, even though as children they looked like an Einstein already.

The general consensus by your 20's is about 70-80% genetic and 20-30% environmental. It seems about right.



If anything, how you take care of a child before its born by eating properly and such, and in its first few years of life are most important to its intelligent development.

[jhskulk]

anyone can have good, even if not smart. look at US persident hehehe.

it is probably help to have smart but not much. but mostly it is best to have know other people who have good. it very hard to get good by your self. yes einstein had very smart, and did very good. but also actor or football player get very good and not need have smart.

sorry for bad english, hope you are understanding.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by jhskulk

anyone can have good, even if not smart. look at US persident hehehe.

it is probably help to have smart but not much. but mostly it is best to have know other people who have good. it very hard to get good by your self. yes einstein had very smart, and did very good. but also actor or football player get very good and not need have smart.

sorry for bad english, hope you are understanding.

You can achieve a lot of great things without great intelligence, yes!


And well, the tests Bush has in fact taken would tell you his IQ is between 115 and 120.

Certainly not low.


In fact that would classify as quite bright in most cases.

The reason bush appears dumb is most other presidents before him have been smarter...for example, Clintons tests would suggest an IQ closer to 135-140.

[Iam_a_Maid]

Taking certain aminoacids, (such as L-Tyrosine) as supplements can change your whole outlook on everyday life.

Also DMAE

[Cavernio]

I agree with Maid. Taking a placebo can totally change your outlook on life.
(Do you even know what an amino acid is?)

No, we obviously don't have the potential to do anything. I'm going to skip over the IQ debate, I've already said my disdain about IQ elsewhere. People just put way too much weight on it IMO. I like foreign guy's opinion: You don't have to be smart to be a sports pro, yet making millions of dollars clearly shows that you're successful.

My talk of placebos has more to do with my point than just showing that I think that taking L-Tyrosine would be as useless as taking L-glutamine. They make you think that you're going to feel better, and so you feel better. Any pill you take is doing absolutely nothing and yet you feel better. Why? Because you think you'll feel better, or hope you will, or want to. That same can be said for thinking that you can succeed at anything. By putting yourself in a positive frame of mind, you'll automatically think that you can do better at something than you currently do and so you'll try harder to do well at it, and so you WILL do better at it because you try. I know, its pretty juvenile, but in this sense, I agree with your friend. Also, even if you're not very good at something and there's no point in trying at doing whatever that something is, you're automatically never going to do it. If you don't try, you have no possibility, which is less than a small possibility.

[Cavernio]

I can't resist....

Flamingspinach:
IQ is standardized so that your score is not actually the total of the marks you get on the test, but is a comparison of what your score is to other people your age who take the test. For example, if you scored 60 on the test, and the average for someone your age is 60, then you have an IQ of 100. If you scored 61 though, your IQ would be 102. (61/60*100). Average IQ is (or at least was at some point) 100 because it was designed to be that way. So no, your IQ won't go up as you get older unless you're becoming smarter than the average person your age, even though people clearly get more intelligent as they age.
I've heard that average IQ now though is actually above 100, indicating that compared to when the tests were standardized, overall, people are getting smarter.

[flamingspinach]

Cavernio, actually I was suggesting that your IQ should get lower as you age, since you probably don't get smarter as you age. The whole "quotient" part of the phrase "intelligence quotient" supposedly refers to the quotient of your mental and physical ages. Yes, I am aware that it doesn't really work that way :P

[Iam_a_Maid]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I agree with Maid. Taking a placebo can totally change your outlook on life.
(Do you even know what an amino acid is?)

No, we obviously don't have the potential to do anything. I'm going to skip over the IQ debate, I've already said my disdain about IQ elsewhere. People just put way too much weight on it IMO. I like foreign guy's opinion: You don't have to be smart to be a sports pro, yet making millions of dollars clearly shows that you're successful.

My talk of placebos has more to do with my point than just showing that I think that taking L-Tyrosine would be as useless as taking L-glutamine. They make you think that you're going to feel better, and so you feel better. Any pill you take is doing absolutely nothing and yet you feel better. Why? Because you think you'll feel better, or hope you will, or want to. That same can be said for thinking that you can succeed at anything. By putting yourself in a positive frame of mind, you'll automatically think that you can do better at something than you currently do and so you'll try harder to do well at it, and so you WILL do better at it because you try. I know, its pretty juvenile, but in this sense, I agree with your friend. Also, even if you're not very good at something and there's no point in trying at doing whatever that something is, you're automatically never going to do it. If you don't try, you have no possibility, which is less than a small possibility.

Thing is they do have an effect, all we have here is your absolute word that they have no effect what so ever. While I do agree that thinking that you will feel better, does get you better. But completely dismissing, non-neccessary nutrients as placebo, is rather weird without proof to the contrary.

[flamingspinach]

The tired old burden-of-proof argument again... the fact is, when it comes to science, "invalid until proved valid" is generally the rule. Occam's razor, anyone?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I can't resist....

Flamingspinach:
IQ is standardized so that your score is not actually the total of the marks you get on the test, but is a comparison of what your score is to other people your age who take the test. For example, if you scored 60 on the test, and the average for someone your age is 60, then you have an IQ of 100. If you scored 61 though, your IQ would be 102. (61/60*100). Average IQ is (or at least was at some point) 100 because it was designed to be that way. So no, your IQ won't go up as you get older unless you're becoming smarter than the average person your age, even though people clearly get more intelligent as they age.
I've heard that average IQ now though is actually above 100, indicating that compared to when the tests were standardized, overall, people are getting smarter.

The first paragraph refers to what is called the ratio quotient. It's generally considered a more skewed measure of intelligence than a deviational IQ. It's used on children under 16, a deviational IQ is used after 16.

They decided to do this because testing showed people stopped doing better on IQ tests at age 16.


The ratio IQ is often skewed because they're found IQ is nearly 80% environmental in children. This essentially means it is pretty easy to boost a childs score with lots of training, even as much as 50 points. However, in these cases they've found by age 16 the IQ of the person tends to drop dramatically on the new scale.

( For example, classically to the bellcurve, IQ = 160 = 1 in 31500. However, they found people were scoring 160 at a statistical value of about 1 in 2000 on the ratio scale.)


And actually, the average worldly IQ has dropped to about 90 and will probably fall further. This has to do with plenty of different reasons. The flynn effect, or the effect of rising IQ's is only happening in certain places within certain populations.

By putting yourself in a positive frame of mind, you'll automatically think that you can do better at something than you currently do and so you'll try harder to do well at it, and so you WILL do better at it because you try.

The almighty environmental factor. Indeed, it is real and what you are saying is the truth.

However, testing still shows it can only affect the outcome as much as 30%. The reality is, a retard isn't going to be smarter than a genius because he thinks he's smarter.



Not that I think IQ is everything. Quite the opposite, actually. But I do recognize its statistical importantance, and accept the fact there are real genetic differences between people that just doesn't give us all the same potential.

I like foreign guy's opinion: You don't have to be smart to be a sports pro, yet making millions of dollars clearly shows that you're successful.

I'd like to point out, while an interestingly true sentence, irrelevant to the situation at hand.

This doesn't really have anything to do with potential XD

[Tokzic]

Even though it's come down to IQ lately I'd like to go back to willpower for a minute: While various people are born with various potentials, willpower is an enormous role in how you end up. Someone could be born deaf but still really want to become an excellent violin player, and a normal person who wants to make a living off of playing violin but not as much as the deaf person. If the deaf one is determined enough, she can beat the normal person out.

I'm an excellent example - I am extremely smart and want to do well in school, however, I also like to have fun. If I have an assignment that is due in a matter of days that I have not started yet, I will know that I must start, and yet I do not want to enough to stop having fun until it is crunch time and I have no other choice to begin. Sometimes even then I will put it off until I am late. Smart though I am, my willpower is crap, and though I know I must improve it, I do not have the willpower to. People less intelligent than me are doing better than me in school.

Which reminds me, I should really work on my procrastination problem now that I'm almost in university... ehh, maybe later.

[Cavernio]

Since when is believing in yourself purely an 'environmental factor'? Are you saying genetics play no role at all in one's general state of mind is? In any case, I meant it in the sense that we have control over what we can and can't do. I really don't want to get into a nature/nurture debate. They're pointless.

I wasn't aware that the 'ratio quotient' disappeared after 16. I was under the impression it was still used, except that after a certain age, 16 I guess, the age was now simply 'adult', and one's IQ was still measured against a standardized average of all 'adults'. I am still under that impression.
I'm not sure how you can be so certain about the 'statistical significance' of IQ while knowing the limitations of it. You yourself pointed out that it doesn't follow a bell-curve, (at least you've acknowledged this in children). A key assumption in many stats psychology studiers use is that the dataset must come from a larger population where there exists a standard distribution. And since the IQ of the world is clearly not stable and/or it is not actually standardized so that 100 is the average...
(Yes, lots of stats assume other data shapes than a bell-curve, but you'd be surprised at the bold assumptions which no one seems to remember that are done when analyzing data.)
Furthermore, not that I don't think the world IQ can drop, but I sincerely doubt that people are getting dumber. Rather, I would put any acknowledged decline in IQ today versus yesteryear a result of more diverse testing of people than white, native english speaking kids in middle/upper class American schools. No, I don't expect Brazilians to know basic American knowledge as well as Americans.
Also, I hardly think that my mention of sports stars is aside the point. The original post clearly talked about becoming famous and becoming successful. If IQ is truly a measure of success, it is probably because people who believe it is are probably also the people who define success as being intelligent, as in the intelligence which IQ measures. Not that I'm saying sports stars aren't intelligent. Well, maybe the one's who've sustained head injuries aren't too bright. :-p