(1) For my first point, I would like to say that, our environment one of the

reason our intelligence is cannot be increased. Can environment raise a person’s

intelligence? Nearly everyone automatically assumes the answer to that question is
yes. But in reality, no one really knows. Now, I’m not saying that environment
can’t lower a person’s intelligence. Knocking a person over the head or getting
drunk while pregnant are both examples of how the brain can be physically
damaged. But in the absence of physical damage to the brain, does a more
“nurturing” or “intellectually stimulating” environment make someone any
smarter? This has certainly not been proven. And there isn’t sufficient research into
the area either, because research in this area when done properly always confirms
that intelligence is at least partly (if not completely) genetic in origin, and that
there are large gaps between the white and black races. If the right environment
really led to higher intelligence, and if there were enough research, then we’d have
a roadmap of exactly what to do to significantly boost children’s intelligence by
giving them the right environment. All we have are a lot of bullshit-like theories
about the mysterious but unknown aspects of upper-middle-class white households
that magically make children smarter. Because of political correctness, we don’t
know the truth. The problem with figuring out the link between environment and
intelligence is that so-called Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests are imperfect
measuring devices. I don’t think that anyone has invented a paper and pencil test in
which preparation for the test doesn’t increase one’s score. One is
certainly not more intelligent just because he practiced doing IQ-test-type
problems before taking an IQ test.

Have you ever bothered to carefully observe the toys for young children
these days? Especially, the ones that are billed as being educational? They tend to
mimic the types of cognitive skills tested on IQ tests administered to young
children. The toys given to kids, especially upper-middle-class kids whose parents
want to give them a cognitive edge, are equivalent to a training course in taking IQ
tests. In the latest New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell makes a big deal about the
Flynn Effect, the effect in which measured IQs are rising. Malcolm and many
others confuse IQ with actual intelligence. Just because children, and maybe even
older people, have been trained to perform better on IQ tests doesn’t mean they are
actually any smarter.

Presumably the environmental conditions that could affect the development

of intelligence will be related to a greater and lesser extent to the intelligence
quotient of the people who share a living space, and other variables likewise
related. These interrelations could partially hinder or hide the true origin or cause
of the capacities studied in multiple regression studies. The need for certain
environmental conditions for human development is another aspect of the
environment and intelligence issue.

(2) Next point, intelligence cannot be increased because of the biological

influence, firstly, this can be explained by referring Theory of natural
selection which indicated that it is generally accepted that a certain degree of
intelligence has to be hereditary; this is demonstrated by the visible difference of
intelligence between different species of animals.

If genetic intelligence were very similar for all members of one species, it
would be very complicated to explain the appearance of new species with a highly
superior intelligence.

Saying that the evolution of animal intelligence has been produced by

random mutations of DNA chains is hardly convincing (it sounds like science-
fiction) due to the evolutionary lottery that it would be implying. This consequence
is another one of the great difficulties in the fundamentally hereditary nature of
intelligence; it means having to directly face the evolutionary theory of natural
selection.

Along these lines, ideas have come up that human intelligence has not
changed in the last thousands of years, that we do not use out full potential, etc. In
addition, the problem would change dimensions because, upon rejecting the theory
of mutations, an alternative theory of evolution would have to be found that would
provide a coherent model. At the same time, the connotations of the Nazi idea that
intelligence can be hereditary is often indicated. The Nazi embraced this idea
fiercely and set about taking skull measurements to show that the German race was
superior. In all corners of Nazi Germany comparisons were made showing that
German skulls were larger than those of other races. Individuals found not match
up to German race measurements were to be exterminated in the name of the
principle of eugenics.

Secondly, the exposure to toxic chemicals and other substances has been
proven to have significant effects on the intellectual development of a child. In a
long-term study done by Baghurst 1992, children who grew up next to a lead-
smelting plant had significantly lower intelligence test scores, negatively correlated
with their blood-lead level exposure. Even though lead levels have been reduced in
our environment, some areas in the United States, particularly inner cities, are still
at risk, for exposing their children.
 Furthermore, prenatal exposure to alcohol can greatly affect a child’s
performance on intelligence tests, and their intellectual growth. At high doses, fetal
alcohol syndrome can develop, which causes mental retardation, as well as other
physical symptoms, such as head and face deformities, heart defects and slow
growth. It is estimated that 1 in 1,000 babies born in the general population are
born with fetal alcohol syndrome, as a result of heavy use of alcohol during
pregnancy.

However, studies have shown that even at slightly less severe doses, prenatal
exposure to alcohol can still affect the intelligence of the child in development,
without having the full syndrome. Through a study done by Streissguth, Barr,
Sampson, Darby, and Martin in 1989, it was shown that moderate prenatal doses of
alcohol, defined as the mother ingesting 1.5 oz. daily, lowered children’s test
scores by 4 point below control levels, by the age of four. They also showed that
prenatal exposure to aspirin and antibiotics is correlated with lower performance
on intelligence tests as well.

Specifically, prenatal exposure to marijuana affects development of

intelligence later in childhood, in a nonlinear fashion, with the degree of
exposure. Heavy use by the mother within the first trimester is associated with
lower verbal reasoning scores on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale; heavy use
during the second trimester is associated with deficits in composite, short-term
memory as well as lower quantitative scores on the test; high exposure in third
trimester associated with lower quantitative scores as well.

Therefore, in very adverse conditions such as the lack of oxygen during

birth, alcoholism during pregnancy, meningitis, or other extreme situations, there is
not doubt that intellectual potential will be seriously affected.

(3) My last point is “existing intelligence tests have high validity” this can
be seen from the psychometric approach ever since Alfred Binet's great success in
devising tests to distinguish mentally retarded children from those with behavior
problems, psychometric instruments have played an important part in European
and American life. Tests are used for many purposes, such as selection, diagnosis,
and evaluation. Many of the most widely used tests are not intended to measure
intelligence itself but some closely related construct: scholastic aptitude, school
achievement, specific abilities, etc. Such tests are especially important for selection
purposes. For preparatory school, it's the SSAT; for college, the SAT or ACT; for
graduate school, the GRE; for medical school, the MOAT; for law school, the
LSAT; for business school, the GMAT.
 What I mean by the intelligence have high validity? Take an example if one
student took the Binet test during his 4th grade, later when he perform the test in
12th grade the result isthe same. His intelligence remain stable and this showed that
the student intelligence is static and therefore demonstrated that intelligence cannot
be increased.

As I’ve pointed out before, while IQ scores have been rising, SAT scores
have not been rising. The type of cognitive skills tested on the SAT are more
immune coaching because they involve much more complicated cognitive skills
which take many years of education to perfect. IQ tests, on the other hand, seem to
be testing more simple mind tricks.

Far too many IQ studies look at tests given to children, which make all of
those studies a lot less useful than if tests were given to adults. And it would be
more useful still if the SAT were the test used instead of IQ tests, because
empirical evidence shows that SAT scores are a lot more immutable than the more
abstract IQ tests.

As far as I know, all of the studies that the human biodiversity denialists use
to confuse people were studies involving IQ tests given of children and not adult
outcomes (although perhaps some reader will point me to a study in which adults
were measured).

To end with, I would like to stress my standpoints again that intelligence

cannot be increased.