Monster- there are many specific definitions to this word. One can say it is the scary creature that lives under the bed, whereas another can identify it as a person he or she knows. The definitions of words are dependent on factors like the definer’s background, culture, and/or identity. Because we are all separate individuals, our experiences and thought processes aren’t identical, so almost everyone’s connotations of intelligence are distinguishable, even if the difference is minimal. Intelligence is a factor, or an abstract idea, that cannot be easily defined, but there will be people who will voice their take on such an inexpressible word. James R. Flynn maintains in The Sociological Imagination that when defining intelligence, there…show more content… Both say nature and nurture assist in determining intelligence; however, they go in separate directions with the rationale and verification. The studies on twins concludes that intelligence is due to genetics, but they argue for nature playing a role as well. Warwick claims “intellectual performance can obviously be altered by training and stimulation” because the brain is a physical organ and physical ability can be improved through training (Warwick 203). Flynn continues on and explains that because of genetics, the twins are put into comparable situations as they grow (Flynn 168), thus, their intelligence are due to the similar social setting placed upon them. Through this Flynn continuously maintains nurture and nature coexist. Flynn and Warwick arrive at the same conclusion that there needs to be nature and nurture influences, but Warwick goes more in depth about how genetics alone can only allow someone’s capabilities to maximize so…show more content… The feedback loop says that social standing, wealth, and education affect each other, like in a cycle, and one results in the outcome of the other, and the multiplier shows that one event can lead to an outcome. For example, Flynn relates this idea back to his claim of genetics placing twins in similar situations, because of the individual multiplier, doing homework results in getting good feedback, in turns leads to liking school more, and then getting into an honors stream and getting the best teachers (Flynn 168). Warwick’s feedback loop links all factors together. Like the multiplier, one factor can result in the outcome of another, but that outcome affects another only to be led back to the same factor, all of which has positive effects, which Warwick shows in his example of China restricting families to one child, resulting in families “hav[ing] more money to spend on their one child and the state has more money to spend on better schooling” (204). Although the ideas aren’t entirely identical, they present the same idea of the influence of one factor leads to another, only Warwick was able to express the effect of such an idea.
In essence, both authors’ assert the same warrant-intelligence cannot be simply measured from IQ scores, or any academic elements for that matter.
