Hi All,
After participating in Wednesdays debate on fixed vs malleable intelligence, I found myself still in taking a neutral stance that intelligence is malleable to a point (determined by a genetic threshold). So far, the debates seem to be structured such that each debate team is supporting a absolute which is only partially true. After the debate I conceded that while I was on the fixed side of the debate, I do believe intelligence can be improved to s threshold. This debate seemed to undermine the themes of our class, as all previous class conversations have regressed to the genetic basis for intelligence.
As a debater, I am curious of the classes opinion on the debate! What thoughts did my peers have on the MZ twin study which showed significant epigenetic changes do not have significant effects on IQ? This suggest that even significant environmental changes do not have significant effects on IQ. However, does anyone else have any other thought on this?
Also, how does this topic apply to eugenics? If intelligence is truly fixed could medical schools/grad schools assay a persons genes to see if they fit the genetic profile of a successful professional?
Until my next post,
Ryan
No comments:
Post a Comment