"Studying only teaches you how to memorize, true intelligence is having the smartest opinions rather than simply remembering someone else's."

Studying is not memorizing. Memorizing is just a way of storing information into long-term memory. Learning goes way beyond that.

The benefit of education and study is to engage the mind and cause cognitive functions to turn on and develop. If you can do that without education, fine. But I wouldn't recommend "alternative methods" for a child. We see how that can turn out. Children without a formal education are often marginalized in the world. Children need formal education not just to learn facts, but to learn how to use their talents. They also need to learn how to socialize and cooperate with other people, especially children their own age.

Einstein developed the theory of relativity. There had been no such theory before, so obviously he wasn’t working from memory. However, in having an education, he learned about the tools he would need to help him in his work.

Memory will help you, but that is not what an IQ test determines. It measures how well you have the ability to recognize new patterns, make distinctions between different concepts, and apply to information to solve problems. Intelligence is that leap you make when nothing in your memory gives you the answer. You have to intuit it from point zero.

Intelligence is not the same thing as a physical ability. If something is physically wrong with your brain, then you may not be as bright as the other person. But that is not a normal condition, it is atypical. Also, the brain does not differentiate as much as our other physical characteristics across individuals. Not in a way that affects our genetic programing.

Studies have found that older kids are usually smarter than their younger siblings. At first, it was thought that maybe it was a genetic cause. However, that didn't pan out, so then some people thought that it may be because parents who had their first child wasn't as busy and spent more time interacting with their kids. They are still not sure about that. But now some scientist are suggesting that first time mothers produce more of a few beneficial organic chemicals for their first children than they do for the next child. These chemical are what helps push a child’s mental development along. Not genetics, just chemistry. Kids being smarter because of getting more benefits from their environment. In this case, the womb.

You look at kids when they are just babies and you see one doing stuff early and imagine this is because of some special genetic talent. It's speculation. You haven't been watching that kid every moment of every day. You have no idea what lessons he's been learning by observing his environment.

A few years ago, scientists discovered that children who were exposed to music on a regular basis developed their minds faster than children who didn't. And this even worked on unborn children still in their mother's wombs. So mothers starting playing music next the their stomachs for their kids. And the statistics seem to show that it works.

My point is, you can't make determinations about genetics based on loose observations. This is the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. Only lab work and research can get to the true cause, and the research says there is no such thing as a genetic advantage as far as intelligence is concerned. Anyone who says there is is pushing junk science.

Everyone at birth has the same level of intelligence, which is close to nothing. Intelligence is a product of certain genetic advantages which all humans share equally (unless they are brain damaged in some way), and education.

Scientists tried to see if people with certain genes had higher levels of recordable intelligence than others. And there were some genes (such as FNBP1L) that seem to give the brain a physiological advantage in some cases. However, when tested, the people who had the gene only tested slightly higher than other people in their demographic who didn't, but not enough to make a noticeable difference in intelligence. Also, scientists can't prove for certain if the slightly higher testing scores is a result of genes from their parents or cultural environment.

"But, there is lot of difference in children. Some start speaking pretty earlier than others. Some are intelligent. We can easily see that. Some are organized. Some love eating. Some hate eating. There are lots of natural trends. I don’t agree human minds are the same at birth."

What do babies do? They eat and crap. But when they aren't doing that, they absorb stimuli and information. They learn. They learn at different rates because their minds are engaged differently depending on the way their parents interact with them and their environment. Different interactions and environments will activate different cognitive processes. Different individuals will develop different affinities for different abilities based on their individual experiences. It has nothing to do with genetics. It's nurturing and experience.

Observations are not direct evidence. What you are seeing is not always what is happening. All humans share the same genome which contains the same genes that determine our capacity for intelligence. Just the capacity, not the actual intelligence. We have to develop that over time.

Most people in the world do not have an IQ that is higher than 130 points, and 120-130 are the people who bothered to learn a little. That's how much intelligence you get if you don't try very hard. And I realized that I am sounding harsh again, but the facts are you don't get a high IQ by sitting around and waiting for your genes to kick in. You get it by hard work.

The thing to remember is that IQ is not a static number. It changes over time, usually in accordance with how much you use your brain. We typically test higher in school that we do after the school years in relation to our age.

There are no credible scientific studies that links a person's IQ with their genes, family heritage, or even social status. Those kind of ideas are relics of racist eras past. There are some studies that show that there were certain cultural biases written into the old IQ tests that are no longer is use. This does not apply to the new test.

The top countries with the highest IQ scores are all Asian countries. The northern European countries come after them. The U.S. comes in at number 19 (or 20), way below Asia or Europe. It's no coincidence that the top Asian countries with the highest scores also have the best school programs. And northern Europe the second best. The countries with the lowest IQ scores have the worse school systems in the world. That alone should explain to you the origin of IQ. It's education, not talent. For the vast majority of people, at least.

If your intelligence is low, you can't blame your genes. Blame your family, your school system, your nutrition, your environment, and yourself. That is ultimately where the failure lies.

Everyone can not be genius, intelligent, emotional, soft, hard, good, bad, etc, at the same time. Nature distribute unique strength for everyone. No one is supreme, every strength has its own charm.

"I often read in the news, that the A University, B University, or C University was doing the research and the results is: intelligence passed down through the mother’s genes blah blah blah. So, do you think that scientific research is false?"

What those studies show is that children inherit the genes that make up the parts of the brain responsible for intelligence. Sometimes we get genes that are completely from our mothers. Sometimes we get genes that are completely from our fathers. Sometimes we get genes that are unique to us which can't be said to come from either parent. And sometimes we get genes that are made up of genes from both parents. Like our intelligence genes which come from both parents, not just the mother.

However, what the studies do not show is that the genes we get from our parents are better in any way than the genes that other people get from their parents. Unless something was wrong with one of your parent's genes, which a very rare circumstance. Genetically speaking, it is far more possible for you to get a broken gene than a super gene. But the chances are still incredibly low unless your house happens to be near a power plant. You know what I mean?

So even if one of your parents was a rocket scientist and passed you their genes, you wouldn't get any benefit from that whatsoever. Not enough to make any real difference. Maybe you might get a quarter of an IQ point for it out of the 100+ points. Big whup.

What is more likely is that your parent who is a rocket scientist will raise you in the same way their parents raised them, and you will be smart like them because you received the same advantages as a result of culture, tradition, and family.

Scientists will report "genes responsible for creating intelligence passed down through the parents' genes," and the news will report, "intelligence passed down through the parents' genes." Always check out the original study.

Scientists have suggested it, but absolutely no scientist anywhere has ever proven that high IQs are genetic.

"Since no two persons are alike, it is obvious that some are gifted with a greater degree of intelligence than others. Just how do you refute that argument? You can cite all your crap, but we simply may not be able to detect and identify the fact some people have inherited a different amount of intelligence than somebody else, to some other individual."

Scientists have already looked at the active intelligence genes between very different kinds of people and found nearly no significant variances between them. Just like there is nearly no significant variation between the genes that create our faces. And yet, we all look very different, don't we? So you need to drop the whole "no two persons are alike" nonsense. It doesn’t apply here. All humans have the same genome. The genome is only a part of what ultimately decides our variation as humans.

Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)--a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.

I never said there was no genetic component to intelligence. I said, the genetics that create intelligence do not make some people smarter than others. And that's a fact, not opinion. The scientists are the first to say it, not me. So your argument is with the scientific community, not with me. Prove them wrong. Go ahead.