For ages scientists, philosophers, and thinkers in general have been asking the question; where does intelligence come from? Some scientists such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Charles Murray have argued that intelligence is highly heritable. These men claim that the intelligence of a child will be approximately equivalent to that of their parent's intelligence. To support their ideas, and have additional proof, they employ the use of an IQ test. A far cry from the intentions of Alfred Binet, the modern day use of the IQ test is to quantify g. The IQ test allows them a standard number to which they may attach to a person a representation of their intelligence. It seems rather ridiculous that an abstract number composed of two or three digits can describe a person's entire intellectual ability. First, an IQ test measures only particular skills. Skills that are measured correspond with test taking ability. Many variables go into how well a person performs on test. Surely the only factor involved is not the "quantifiable intelligence" of a person. Conditions such as room temperature, stress level, hunger, etc. all obviously affect how a person may perform on a test. Second, it is fallacious to assume that a person of a particular group is just like the rest of the group. (Genetic Fallacy) This is an issue of stereotypes. The group to which I refer to is family. The stereotype is whether that family is known for their intelligence or the lack of. One cannot make a judgment upon a person solely because they come from a certain type of family. To do this, personal achievement is completely taken away. Intelligence would not be a question of effort, but rather a question of birth.

Perhaps one of the greatest motivators is personal experience. Since personal experience varies from person to person, individual motivation may also. A person's effort is possibly the best way to measure success. The same can also be said for intelligence. Which brings us to another question. What is meant by success and intelligence? Both words have different connotations in a bevy of societies. In Spanish the word for ambitious, ambicioso, carries a negative connotation. Here in America, ambition is considered a virtue. Therein lies the problem. Since both success and especially intelligence hold ambiguous meanings, they are hard to measure. Different definitions will yield different results in the quest to measure intelligence.

To simplify the problem, I sought out to research something tangible. I interviewed various students at Emory University. I asked the same six questions to every person interviewed, and took notes on their answers. The questions ranged from family attitudes towards education, and back to the interviewee's own perspective. The research and interviews are based upon my assumption that intelligence is not something that a person is born with. Intelligence and intellect is something that is developed and cultivated through experience and learning. A person can gain experience and learning in almost any arena, but the most obvious and specific choice was the education received in school. Thus, my questions were created to learn more about each student's family and personal ideas towards school education. I realize that performance in school is not the definition or prediction of intelligence. What I sought to explore was whether or not intelligence (which in my experiment will stand for performance in school) is heritable.

Sociologists talk about the Social Learning Theory in respect to how children learn and how children develop their attitudes towards school. In her article entitled "Behavior-Genetic and Socialization theories of intelligence: Truce and reconciliation"; Sandra Scarr says that the Social Learning Theory shows how "parental behaviors directly affect their children's development, through modeling, social reinforcement, and interactions that promote or discourage learning." Within the mindset of the theory, most of the learning habits people have at their disposal were learned and encouraged by their parents. If we apply the Social Learning Theory to performance in school, we would find that students perform roughly at the level their parents encourage and expect. The Social Learning Theory disregards any theory that states a person's genes determine their intelligence. According to this theory, performance in school is affected and shaped by the parental rearing styles the child experiences.

The Socialization Theory of education says that the manner in which parents raise their children is an important determinant of the child's development. For example, if two parents suspected that their child was intelligent, they would encourage that child in various ways so that the child would flourish intellectually. Parents that felt this way would read to their children, buy them more constructive toys, or perhaps introduce their child to a musical instrument. Whereas if the same two parents felt that the child had more potential in athletics, their parental encouragement would be directed in that manner. When I was little, my parents thought I would be good at soccer, don't ask me how, and so they bought me a ball. Ever since then, I have loved the sport, and for a time in high school actually flourished in the sport. It is amazing to think that a few simple gestures in my childhood affected my entire view of the sport. Nevertheless, it has and I suspect much of the same for education.

Furthermore, there exists another factor that influences a child's performance in school. The factor, or factors of which I speak are called Learner-Related Variables. These variables are those that deal with a student's perceptions of a class, school, or their own abilities. Other Learner-Related Variables are the attitudes one places on learning (For example: a good attitude or a bad attitude.) and also the teaching styles that best help the student to learn. All of these variables depend on what the child brings to the "learning process." (Beatriz Chu Clewell and Angela B. Ginorio, 1996) In the same article authors Beatriz Chu Clewell and Angela B. Ginorio also say "student's performance and participation in mathematics and science seem to depend on enjoyment of the subjects, perceptions of the subjects as useful to themselves and/or the domain of white males, and confidence in their own abilities." These Learner-Related Variables are invariably affected by the society that surrounds. Another powerful factor is the opinions of the child's significant other. For instance, the two major significant others in a child's life are his or her parents. Being significant others, parents have been found to be very influential in the student's personal perceptions of achievement and also performance. (Andrews, 1989.)

Ain't No Makin' It is story written by a sociologist by the name of Jay MacLeod. In the story Jay MacLeod recounts his experience living in a housing development called Clarendon Heights. Clarendon Heights offered very poor housing within an undisclosed city. While living there he observed two different groups of youths living in the development. One group he named the "Hallway Hangers," the other he called the "Brothers." Both groups he observed came from a low socioeconomic status, however the attitudes inside the two groups were very different.

The "Brothers" had mostly just moved from a similar housing development that was in worse condition. Because of the poor condition the development was in, it was destroyed. The families of the "Brothers" then had to be relocated to another housing development. In effect, the "Brothers" had moved up one notch on the socioeconomic ladder. That coupled with their parents attitudes, lent them to think school was important. For them, life was getting better. Their lives were a little better off, and so they approached school with a better attitude. Also, their parents gave them strong support. Each "Brother" said that school was very important to his parents. They all associated success with high performance in school. For these two reasons, and certainly others, the "Brothers" were successful in school.

On the other hand, there was the group called the "Hallway Hangers." These young men and there families had been living in Clarendon Heights most of their lives. Most did not have a stable family life. If their fathers weren't in jail, they were simply not around. The "Hallway Hangers" focused mostly on surviving the city from day to day. Their lives were focused around part time jobs and doing drugs. Jay MacLeod claims that their attitude was partly influenced in this manner because "Hallway Hangers" had no parents around to stress the importance of school. Another important factor was that they lived their lives day to day. Each and every day they lived seemed dark and hopeless. By taking it one day at a time they never saw the big picture or made plans for the future.

Both groups that were observed by Jay MacLeod were affected by the attitudes of their parents. While the "Brothers" did well in school because of the values instilled upon them by their parents, the "Hallway Hangers" did not because they were not taught positive educational values.

1.) When growing up, what were your parent's attitudes towards education?
2.) Who do you think shaped your work ethic?
3.) How did you shape your education values and ethic?
4.) How did your family and parents feel about college?
5.) How did you feel about going to college?
6.) What are your education values?

The following are the results of my interviews with various Emory undergraduate freshmen. To give an idea of the answers to my questions, I will put the typical answer underneath each question. Of all the people I interviewed, there were only a couple of answers that were different than the rest. However, I do have an opinion on why these people contradicted the responses of all the others interviewed. But we will get to that afterwards.

1.) When growing up, what were your parent's attitudes towards education?
A: Typically, those interviewed stressed that their parents felt that education was the first priority. Those interviewed would say that they had to complete their homework or suffer the consequences. I was also told that parents offered to help if it was necessary.
2.) Who do you think shaped your work ethic?
A: Here the answers varied a bit. However, the variation came from which parent the child cited as the influential factor in the development of their work ethic. Occasionally, I would be told that both parents were influential. Usually it was whichever parent was more available.
3.) How did you shape your education values and ethic?
A: The people interviewed typically said that they first learned their ethic from their parents through observation. Some of the interviewed worked hard and did well to be noticed, while others simply wanted to succeed. Mostly, these people worked hard to get good grades in school because they were told that was the way to succeed.
4.) How did your family and parents feel about college?
A: Of everyone interviewed, there was only one person that said their family didn't want them to go to college. For everyone but the aforementioned, college was always planned on. The only question was where.
5.) How did you feel about going to college?
A: I think the answers here reflect an actual emotional aspect of education. While everyone agreed that college was the next step, and was necessity, everyone also said that they were nervous. Some felt that there was pressure to major in a particular field, while others were worried about living up to expectations. Several said that they were humbled when the arrived.
6.) What are your education values?
A: Mostly everyone here used the values learned from their parents as a jumping point. An interesting point I would like to make here is that most people had roughly the same answers for both this question and the one concerning their parent's attitudes towards education. The point I have to make here is that parents affect the way their children think so much that later on in life they will cite their parent's (or what they think that definition is) definition of education values. Another interesting point is that I believe the two are different questions? The first question, dealing with parental attitudes, is an infinitely broader question. The second refers to a much more finite idea. What the word "values" refers to something more altruistic than the idea that education is necessary for success. Nonetheless, those interviewed answered the question in the latter form.

Because most of the answers were similar, I can't help but to conclude that parents have an enormous affect of their children's ideas towards education. It seems that those interviewed had it ingrained in their minds that success was proceeded by success in education. Everyone agreed that to succeed in school, one must work hard. Another example of this is that on the last question the interviewed responded similarly to the first question asked. There were only two people that had an answer that talked about the value of education. The two that answered in this manner effectively said that they wanted to learn so that they would become a better person. Basically, they wanted knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

The other paradox that I was confronted with was explaining how two people said that their work ethic was not shaped by anyone. One particular female that answered this way was extremely interesting. She told me that her mother and father were not around when she was growing up. She has never met her father, and only started living with her mother when she was thirteen. Her youth was spent with her grandmother, older sister, and younger brother. She said that her grandmother did not concern herself with her siblings and that she had to raise her brother with her sister. Meanwhile, she was making incredible grades. Her grades were so good that she given a scholarship to come to Emory. She is an Emory Scholar, the stuff legends are made of. At first glance this is an utter paradox. She was not bequeathed any educational values, she simply formed her own. However, there was one thing that gave me an insight as to how this may have happened. When recounting her childhood, she told me that more than anything she did not want to turn out like her mother and father. I believe this is the reason why she decided to work hard at school and earn good grades. To become successful, she reasoned that had to be a polar opposite of her mother and father.

Another girl said that her work ethic was not really shaped by anyone but herself. She did say that her parents had certain attitudes about education, but that they did not really impress these ideas upon her. She told me that she shaped her own work ethic by deciding she wanted to succeed and learn. Her motivation helped to push her on through. Later in the interview, she disclosed a situation that is similar to the aforementioned girl. Her two older brothers were not very successful in school. They did not go on to college, but stayed home to work in construction instead. She was very careful to make sure that I understood that she did not feel their lives were bad, just simply that she didn't want to live that way. Like the other before her, this girl decided that in order to succeed in her definition of success, she needed to be the antithesis of her bad example. In this case it meant that she needed to study.

After my interviews I can't help but conclude that a person's family and parents have a tremendous affect on one's views of success, education, and drive. Whether parents directly offer their views or indirectly show a child by acting in a manner the child refuses to accept for themselves, these are lessons that shall stick through time. As for the two young women that gave me unexpected answers, who knows. Perhaps my simple explanation is correct. More than likely these two young women offered me a window into human ambition. I personally believe that everyone has something special inside of them that cannot be explained by science, at least not as of yet! Despite social and economic adversity, these two women have proven strong enough to define their own ideology, and see it through. I defy a test to quantify the human spirit. Through my research it has become painfully obvious to me that intelligence cannot be a simple number figured from results of a test. Numerous factors contribute to a person's intelligence, family, society, education, ambition, etc. How can we hope to ever measure these figures in an objective and accurate sense? I believe that we can study each one separately. We can come to understand how a family shapes educational values, but we should not try to group our findings in this subject and couple them with other factors that go into the equation. As economists frequently say, that would be comparing apples to oranges. From my interviews and research, I am inclined to say that family, and especially parents, directly affect their child's views on education. However, that is not to say that the children are not subject to their own experiences and individuality.

The following is a small group. I had a limited amount of time to interview and research. I believe that the study should be broadened to include many more interviews. Also, in the hopes of making my research more credible, I tried to have as diverse group as possible. Nota Bene, the following names have been changed.

Sandra: African American Female, 19. She did not wish to report socioeconomic status.
Frank: White Male, 18. Upper middle class.
Kate: Her parents were born in China, she was born in America, second generation American. 18. Upper middle class.
Eileen: White Female, 19. Middle class.
Tom: White Male, 19. Upper middle class.
Joe: White Male, 18. Lower upper class.

Andrews, J.V. (1989, April). Attitudes and beliefs about Mathematics: Do parents, students, teachers, counselors and principles agree? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Clewell, Beatriz Chu and Angela B. Ginorio, "Examining Women's Progress in the Sciences from the Perspective of Diversity." The Equity Education. (1996): 163-231.

Davis, Cinda-Sue, et al. The Equity Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

MacLeod, Jay. Ain't No Makin' It. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc., 1987.

Scarr, Sandra. "Behavior-Genetic and Socialization theories of intelligence: Truce and reconciliation." Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment. (1997): 3-41.

Sternberg, Robert J. and Elena Grigorenko. Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment. Cambridge University Press, 1997.