bjj/judokas are on average more intelligent than boxers

[ShanghaiBJJ]

I used to train BJJ. Now I have only trained boxing for three years.

So my opinion is....

.... eehhhmmm......

....Sorry, didn't really understand the question.

 

[SFinclined]

You haven't met me yet. I'll even out that average for you ......

Haha, i'm pretty poor too.

 

[blanko]

Originally Posted by judogido View Post
You haven't met me yet. I'll even out that average for you ......

nah he has met me... he knows it's not true.

 

[IM Your Daddy]

Its mainly a general impression. Im usually too busy drilling technique or sparring to calculate the specific IQ of those around me. Neurophysiology is my particular speciality (i previously worked as a clinical neurophysiologist), not psychology. I could conduct a study correlating EEGs and PET scans to the performance the boxers or bjj/judokas performance on an IQ test performed by a neuropsychologist.

If you were to come to the conclusion that one road is usually more busy at a certain time than another, you would normally just use your pervious experiences of driving down that road. I find it doubtfull that you would calculate exactly how many cars are driving through that particular road compared to some other road.

I can't believe ive been brought down to writing this drivel when I could be discussing different bjj techniques etc

You remind me of those guys who have just gone to university to do a philosophy course. Their first lecture will be on Descarte or Wittgenstein (can't spell his name) and then will try to convince you that the sandwhich you are eating doesn't exist or that you can't prove it exists.

Or will try to correct another posters grammar and spelling rather than just discuss the topic they are actually discussing.

Much like your questionable speculations on boxers may be wrong, your speculation about me is completely wrong. I rarely correct grammatical errors in the posts of others, unless I ask for clarification of a point I cannot understand. Comparing cars and traffic flow is not the same as judging human beings as the depth and time required for the analysis for all the dynamics of intelligence is not as simple as response to traffic as there are fewer variables involved to consider. My assumptions about what traffic is doing at any point on a road can be entirely wrong. Your analogy doesn't prove or give evidence to speculation in either case to be correct, it only serves as rationalization for the behavior be the assumptions right or wrong.

Why are you complaining about defending your biased and overgeneralized opinion when it is you who started the topic? The only person in our interaction on this board trying to prove something is you, so in essence you are the person who resembles what you claim I remind you of. Remember, I'm the one saying "bullshit" and "give further clarification" to you, not the other way around. You are trying to convince me of something I don't believe. I do believe sandwiches exist, but do not automatically grant your observation about boxers.

Your retort may provide the key. Much like you made an off the cuff, completely incorrect analysis of what I am you possibly did the same to the boxers you pigeonhole as mental inferiors. Perhaps you could try using your allegedly superior intellect to think a bit more before you make sweeping judgments others. Your general impression is based entirely on your own prejudices as by your own admission you are too busy training to calculate intelligence. If someone calls on you to explain your methodology, as an allegedly trained scientist you should be more than familiar with the process and not feel threatened.

 

[johil d'o]

The second part I agree with except for the implication that money is related to intelligence, at least among kids (who are far and away the most common age group in a boxing gym). You can have poor parents and turn out to be very intelligent indeed ... more than a few geniuses have come from very humble circumstances.

It's logical that there is a correlation between intelligence and success, and between success and money. Pretty hard to deny that there is a correlation between education and income/wealth. Sure there are smart people in all social strata, but smarter people TEND TO be more educated and accumulate more wealth.

 

[georgejjr]

It's logical that there is a correlation between intelligence and success, and between success and money. Pretty hard to deny that there is a correlation between education and income/wealth. Sure there are smart people in all social strata, but smarter people TEND TO be more educated and accumulate more wealth.

Except that comes out with adults, not with kids, and as often as not it has to do with successful parents being able to provide good schooling (and later on job opportunities) for their children - connections rather than intelligence. And most folks in a boxing gym (at least locally) are in their teens - their financial status is based on their parents success, not their own (and we'll ignore all the other complicating factors that arise in inner cities). Statistically there's only weak correlation between a parent's success and a child's intelligence, or even between a parent's intelligence and their children's intelligence. There's a strong correlation between parent's education level and their children's, but it isn't reflected in IQ scores, suggesting that it might be nurture rather than nature (ie educated parents tend to push their kids into going on to university etc).

Or you can go the "proof by example" route - a lot of very brilliant scientists (Newton, Einstein etc) had very average parents :icon_chee

 

[Rayrobinson#1]

I grew up in boxing gyms. My trainer paid for everything. The unspoken deal was if I made it pro and became a champ I would keep my trainer. He had a full time job and trained young fighters with potential. He eventually did have a fighter who won the WBO light heavyweight championship and fought Roy Jones. In the end all his free training he was still hoping to get paid although that wasn't his primary motive. I think the same dynamic is in play at most boxing gyms. The trainers are looking for future world champs and will groom them for that. The trainers will also take on alot fewers students then you would have in BJJ.

In grappling the trainers want to be paid up front. I've paid alot for my kids and myself to take grappling classes. I don't think there is as much thought about finding the next phenom and guiding him to the world championship.

In regards to the intelligence issue you meet all kinds in both sports.

 

[Rinksterk**]

Wow such compelling emprical evidence, TS!

 

[johil d'o]

Except that comes out with adults, not with kids, and as often as not it has to do with successful parents being able to provide good schooling (and later on job opportunities) for their children - connections rather than intelligence. And most folks in a boxing gym (at least locally) are in their teens - their financial status is based on their parents success, not their own (and we'll ignore all the other complicating factors that arise in inner cities). Statistically there's only weak correlation between a parent's success and a child's intelligence, or even between a parent's intelligence and their children's intelligence. There's a strong correlation between parent's education level and their children's, but it isn't reflected in IQ scores, suggesting that it might be nurture rather than nature (ie educated parents tend to push their kids into going on to university etc).

Or you can go the "proof by example" route - a lot of very brilliant scientists (Newton, Einstein etc) had very average parents :icon_chee

Dude, the evidence correlating parents' intelligence and their kids' intelligence is absolutely overwhelming. Intelligence has a GREAT DEAL to do with genetics -- smart parents, more likely smarter kids. Anyone that denies this has pretty dumb parents.:icon_chee

 

[Zankou]

Except that comes out with adults, not with kids, and as often as not it has to do with successful parents being able to provide good schooling (and later on job opportunities) for their children - connections rather than intelligence. And most folks in a boxing gym (at least locally) are in their teens - their financial status is based on their parents success, not their own (and we'll ignore all the other complicating factors that arise in inner cities). Statistically there's only weak correlation between a parent's success and a child's intelligence, or even between a parent's intelligence and their children's intelligence. There's a strong correlation between parent's education level and their children's, but it isn't reflected in IQ scores, suggesting that it might be nurture rather than nature (ie educated parents tend to push their kids into going on to university etc).

Or you can go the "proof by example" route - a lot of very brilliant scientists (Newton, Einstein etc) had very average parents :icon_chee

Intelligence variation is well studied, and it's about as strongly heritable a trait as you could want. Smart people have a much higher tendency to have smart kids. In the developed world, IQ variation among adults is about 3/4, similar to height variation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_intelligence

In other words, your parents' IQ plays about as much of a role in determining your IQ relative to others as your parents' height plays in determining your height relative to others.

It has nothing to do with social factors either. Twin studies show the same link. And ironically it becomes much stronger over time, so that adults are less able to escape their parents' genetics than children are.

 

[johil d'o]

^
Well said! This man must do BJJ rather than boxing!

 

[Calibur]

LOL. Everytime I see a nice post I will say.

"You must be a jiu jitsu guy"

Or maybe I can say "you're not a boxer, are you?"

Which one is better?

 

[georgejjr]

Intelligence variation is well studied, and it's about as strongly heritable a trait as you could want. Smart people have a much higher tendency to have smart kids. In the developed world, IQ variation among adults is about 3/4, similar to height variation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_intelligence

In other words, your parents' IQ plays about as much of a role in determining your IQ relative to others as your parents' height plays in determining your height relative to others.

It has nothing to do with social factors either. Twin studies show the same link. And ironically it becomes much stronger over time, so that adults are less able to escape their parents' genetics than children are.

From the wikipedia article:

The finding of rising heritability with age is counterintuitive; it is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. According to work by Robert Plomin,[7] heritability estimates calculated on infant samples are as low as 20%, rising to around 40% in middle childhood, and ultimately as high as 80% in adult samples in the United States. This suggests that the underlying genes actually express themselves by affecting a person's predisposition to build, learn, and develop mental abilities throughout the lifespan.

Note that the infant samples are low (20%), and then rise with age. One interpretation is the one suggested in the article, that the genes express themselves by affecting the person's predisposition. The other is that the 20% is the actual genetic content, and the increase comes from the environment provided by the parents.

Read up on how much IQ can be improved by studying (for instance, taking course on writing the GRE). Read up on how much IQ is affected by nutrician. IQ is much like strength - it responds to training, diet etc. Take two children, feed one properly and give them plenty of exercise, while feeding the other lots of simple carbs and let them watch TV all day and the conclusion you'll come to is that the first kid is genetically stronger and healthier ...

 

[Garrett E.]

Living in the city of flith i can give some personal insight to this.

You have choices to getting out of the ghetto around here...

1. do good in school (hard to do in this social/economic situation)
2. be good in sports, (basketball, baseball, ect ect)
3. be a boxer, fight in the golden gloves

Seriously, those are the options unless you want to sell drugs. TMA arent good because they arent very practical in the street. Boxing is on the otherhand... so along with doing a hobby that is physically benificial, your learning some things that may keep you good on the street.

Listen, once more BJJ gyms open up and become a bit cheaper, i gaurentee, just like boxing, MMA (and bjj) will become a phenomon in the intercity...

 

[johil d'o]

From the wikipedia article:

The finding of rising heritability with age is counterintuitive; it is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. According to work by Robert Plomin,[7] heritability estimates calculated on infant samples are as low as 20%, rising to around 40% in middle childhood, and ultimately as high as 80% in adult samples in the United States. This suggests that the underlying genes actually express themselves by affecting a person's predisposition to build, learn, and develop mental abilities throughout the lifespan.

Note that the infant samples are low (20%), and then rise with age. One interpretation is the one suggested in the article, that the genes express themselves by affecting the person's predisposition. The other is that the 20% is the actual genetic content, and the increase comes from the environment provided by the parents.

Read up on how much IQ can be improved by studying (for instance, taking course on writing the GRE). Read up on how much IQ is affected by nutrician. IQ is much like strength - it responds to training, diet etc. Take two children, feed one properly and give them plenty of exercise, while feeding the other lots of simple carbs and let them watch TV all day and the conclusion you'll come to is that the first kid is genetically stronger and healthier ...

You're really swimming against the tide in this argument.

 

[BenWS]

Intelligence is very subjective and personally i think nearly impossible to give an accurate definition for, but certain things like IQ tests i think give an indication.

having said that:

Wealthier people are on average more intelligent then poorer people.

Bjj is more expensive then boxing and attracts wealthier people in general.

Therefore on average bjj people will be more intelligent then boxers.

 

[DirectDrive]

soci-econmic nothing to do with the actual sport.

 

[georgejjr]

You're really swimming against the tide in this argument.

Yeah, I know - the studies on IQ have changed since I was in school a long time ago. Back then the claim was that IQ was mainly nuture rather than nature, the wiki article suggests that that has changed somewhat. But its like being in a bad position on the mats - move around, test your opponents base, sometimes something gives.

And in most professional jobs you're taught to test the obvious interpretations of data, if only to develop the habit :icon_twis