Breaking news: the poor are thick

Why can no one ever seem to just admit that intelligence can be genetic? Almost everyone in this thread seems to be saying it's not what you're born with but how you were brought up. Well that is partially true I guess but there will almost certainly be some genetic parts to it too. (Intelligence being defined in this as the ability to learn)

It's like saying everyone can be world class 100m sprinters, just as long as they had the facilities and were pushed from a young age. Now there is almost no one that would agree with that, so what is the difference between that and intelligence? Generally a world class sprinter will have more chance of having a child who has the ability to be a world class sprinter themselves

I have no problem believing that poorer people are generally less intelligent than wealthier people, due to wealther people generally getting being wealthy because they are intelligent and have got ahead in the world by being more intelligent. Intelligent people are almost certainly more likely to have intelligent children and so the cycle continues. Now I know that is a gross generalisation (i'm from a 'poor' family, and am pretty intelligent) but the general gist is correct, and today there is no excuse for an intelligent person to not get wealthier, there is very little class barrier in the way any more.

And yes I have taken the whole class thing out of the argument as I don't believe that has any bearing on the argument, as you can be rich and have no class or poor and technically be upper class.

Greenlizard0 said:
Much more correct than the person you quoted. It's kind of annoying when it's probably the only subject out there that doesn't even have a structured syllabus to it. We were expected to know a bit about everything.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty close friends with about half a dozen medical students and know how much work they put in, and how competative they are. :D
 
Last edited:
gurdas said:
What percentage of London banking interns last year do you think came from Newcastle? It's an example of how industry can look down upon people. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, it's simply an example where it does happen.
Click to expand...

Well considering we have Goldman Sachs, DKIB, Credit Suisse recruiting on campus sometimes I don't think they look down on newcastle grads that much. Sure its not in the same league as the top 10 uni's but its still a Russell Group one and you could do much worse. Its actually has one of the best med schools in England for example. Oh and I went to public school, likewise a load of my friends here.. we chose it mainly because of the good work/party balance :-)
 
Amp34 said:
Why can no one ever seem to just admit that intelligence can be genetic? Almost everyone in this thread seems to be saying it's not what you're born with but how you were brought up. Well that is partially true I guess but there will almost certainly be some genetic parts to it too. (Intelligence being defined in this as the ability to learn)
Click to expand...

Oh I totally agree with you. Generally, intelligent people aren't working class, as they have the ability to get good jobs. It stands to reason that people with more money should be more intelligent in the first place (or at least have some sort of ability that stands out from the crowd). I'm not talking about inherited wealth, I mean people who have made their own money.

I have never met an intelligent person who didn't have at least one intelligent parent. I don't just mean someone capable of getting a degree, by intelligent I mean people who are always at the top and stand out.
 
I don't agree with the OP. I go to Durham Uni and as you can imagine there are a lot of toffs who were private schooled and have rich parents but to be fair a lot of them are less intelligent than me.

I come from a working class background, I wouldn't say my family are poor but certainly not rich. I went to a public school and got into this uni due to decent grades and a good interview, although I do believe the likes of Oxford and Cambridge are very aware of your background. Around 6 people from my 6th form applied to Oxford and Cambridge and not one of them were offered a place despite 2 of them achieving 5 A's at A-Level
 
markyp23 said:
One word:

AVERAGE

(not Alan Sugar but the point in the OP).

EDIT: Not that I think Alan Sugar is the brightest tool in the shed, either. IMO he wouldn't make it again if he started again today with nothing (no contacts or anything).
Click to expand...

Dont agree. Business sense and drive are far more important than contacts.

I'd rather be in a pub full of working class than some public school twits
 
Una said:
Well considering we have Goldman Sachs, DKIB, Credit Suisse recruiting on campus sometimes I don't think they look down on newcastle grads that much. Sure its not in the same league as the top 10 uni's but its still a Russell Group one and you could do much worse. Its actually has one of the best med schools in England for example. Oh and I went to public school, likewise a load of my friends here.. we chose it mainly because of the good work/party balance :-)
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate, it does give you an advantage but I guess you can make up for it in other areas and make yourself stand out. Enjoying university is a good aspect too which has affected my university decisions a lot.

markyp23 said:
Where do you go?
Click to expand...

Why does that matter?
 
Amp34 said:
That and to an extent the enjoyment factor (of the course). Several of the 6 universities I put down and got conditional offers for are quite high on that list, but the university I decided to go to isn't. But it is still accredited and I can live with the fact the course is far more intersting..



You obviously don't know how medical students are examined. The have to take 2 exams throughout the year where every year (from first to 5th) takes the same exam and the exam can consist of ANYTHING (especially stuff they haven't learned), the people who are in the lowest 5 or so% are chopped. It means they have to know as much as possible, not just a narrow field, or they will fail because their peers will do better than them.. I don't agree entirely with it, for one it creates ultracompetativity(?) between all the medics, and that isn't necessarily a good thing for people who are supposed to be helping people.
Click to expand...

Lol, i love people who can't understand the concept of relativity, in any way shape or form.

"I had to learn loads, so it can hardly be called narrow, because theres lots of it, lots I tell you" and so the **** what. Direct from the mouths of the people who run the admissions and testing and management of UCL and Imperial medical schools who say the others in their field at top unis agree. THe amount of medical knowledge required has been cut down, as has been done in all area's of education at EVERY single level. Just because you learn lots doesn't mean it hasn't been narrowed down. Just because a exam has a lot of possible subjects doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot less possible subjects than previous exams. Exams are easier, this is pure fact in the medical institution, I've heard this personally, and through my dad when discussing going to med school from the people who RUN THE MED SCHOOLS.

But again, does your post in any way disagree with mine? no, my whole point was someone could do fantastically on an exam and have less actual useable knowledge than someone who fails an exam. Your entire post agree's with mine, with the idea that people can learn a heck of a lot more than others and simply never be tested on it and so have no "proof" of their knowledge.

Of all the most inteligent people I know they hated school and hated university but assumed and were encouraged to go. I for one hated the limited learning i was forced to do. I read extensively on subjects in private, generally learning extra on area's i was reading on for current school work. All this did was mean I'd already learnt/read everything i needed to for years ahead and found myself doing smeg all in school for years and years because I'd simply learnt it myself. If you can learn faster than average a very very rigid education system will almost never suit you. AS I said, a heck of a high proportion of the smartest people I know either don't go or drop out of Uni because its a waste. More so now than ever.

AS for the last post, I was under the impression the majority are saying inteligence isn't learned, its predisposed, and has no bearing on where you end up or what knowledge you have at all. IS it genetic, maybe partially. But how you think, the patterns you can recognise, the mathematical ability, how you are taught at a very young age is largely to do with how good you are in these area's. If you learn to read/write/count/add/calculus at a very young age its almost hardwired into your brain. It teaches you to do those things quickly and easily, it gives you a base knowledge that makes everything else easier.

Class really has nothing to do with it. Getting your kid a book and teaching them to read early, and learning times tables and basic stuff very early doesn't take money, it takes a library card and a sheet of paper to write on. Maybe richer familys are more likely to put more effort into their kids, that doesn't mean they are smarter, as lots of people have said, it just maybe leads to a higher chance you actually put your brain to use.
 
Amp34 said:
It's like saying everyone can be world class 100m sprinters, just as long as they had the facilities and were pushed from a young age. Now there is almost no one that would agree with that, so what is the difference between that and intelligence? Generally a world class sprinter will have more chance of having a child who has the ability to be a world class sprinter themselves
Click to expand...

Oi! You stole my analogy!
 
Also combined with the fact that to be in upper class, you pretty much have to be born into, ie the royals. Although nowadays there are several socio-economic classes rather than the upper-middle-working class system.
 
"Dr Charlton said: "The UK Government has spent a great deal of time and effort in asserting that universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are unfairly excluding people from low social-class backgrounds and privileging those from higher social classes."

I don't see how Bruce Charlton has said that... it looks to me that he has merely pointed out the obvious (and this is coming from a working class man), and not suggested that there is a bias in the entrance to oxbridge.
 
daz said:
Not all rich people are smart; not all poor people are dumb.

What we have to do as a society is to push social mobility further and break down barriers so that the people that are poor and intelligent have the opportunity to get the best education possible - we as a society benefit from having more intelligent, better trained people contributing to the economy.
Click to expand...


Our Royals are wealthy but def. not noted for their intelligence.
 
wannabedamned said:
I'm smart, and I'm poor.

So what makes you working class then?

having a job??
Click to expand...

ZOMG EVID3NCE :D

Funny thread, and not a generalisation at all.

I'm an engineer, and in english writing and language knowledge I am a complete poor person, but in engineering and technical based competancies I'm a rich person. So overall I am a Nando's medium in terms of inteligence.

Really bored at work and can't be bothered to think today :)
 
Intelligence is at least 50% heritable, and environmental factors due to you upbringing control the most of the rest of the variance.

So basically, if your parents are intelligent then you re more likely to be born more intelligent than average. Furthermore, if your parents are intelligent then they are more likely to do intellectually stimulating activities with you as a child. The feedbacks are very pronounced. More intelligent parents on average earn more money, therefore more likely to spend more on better education.


Natural variation underlies all of this of course creating a more Gaussian spread but the intelligence difference between different social-economic groups is a well verified fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom