> same as my parents and theirs, which really suggests a genetic component
Does it? Could be as much a product of a privileged upbringing and generational welth reproducing themselves. Do you have an adopted sibling you grew up with, that had the same environments and opportunities, but turned out to be a moron? As a control group, you know.
I find odd how people are so quick to jump to genetics to explain a thing so complex as a human being inside a society. There's SO many forces acting on it at all times, picking genes over all the others feels like an oversimplification.
I said suggests, not proves. It can't prove anything, it's just one data point. It does seem very unlikely for a dozen people to score so well academically if genetics wasn't a factor at all, or? Why didn't other, richer people score higher than any of them? And why did they marry other intelligent people?
> privileged upbringing and generational welth reproducing themselves
I come from an ex Soviet satellite state, I don't think your assumptions of what my parents/grandparents' life was like is accurate. I had a more privileged upbringing, but that doesn't explain 2 generations away.
> (same as my parents and theirs, which really suggests a genetic component)
I am not at all put off by genetic explanations (go genes!), but it does equally suggest environment and upbringing as a common element, it's a series of poster children for it.
I concede you have a point there. My opinions are colored by my experiences.
As a personal story that I will share since it also has value as an experiment: I did not see my father between the ages of 0-3 and 7-19. That means he was not there for a large part of my developmental phase, in which I formed a lot of my viewpoints on the world (at the time, obviously).
What astounded me was that when I met him, he shared a lot of those viewpoints. A lot of my behaviour that I thought was specific to me, was not. Even small things like preference for walking etc. I will not list everything obviously but it really ingrained in me that a lot of what I considered "my identity" was not chosen in any way by me. We grew up in rather different environments/countries too.
I think most humans would rather not face the fact that their identity is scarcely chosen. But learning to accept that means you can experience a lot more, since your ego doesn't mind losing parts that aren't "really part of it" anyway. Or at least it's less scary.
I drive a pickup truck. Like my dad, grandpa and uncles. Do you think there might be a genetic compent to my choice of vehicle? Its strongly suggested as such, according to you.
I have blue eyes, as does my mother and my two children. Do you think it is due to our similar upbringing and socioeconomic status?
Maybe genetics plays a much larger role in intelligence than we currently think, it's just so complicated that (unlike eye color) we can't identify those genes yet.
Almost all flamingos are pink. Do you think this is "genetic" the same way human eye colors are "genetic"?
(It isn't.)
> Maybe genetics plays a much larger role in intelligence than we currently think, it's just so complicated that (unlike eye color) we can't identify those genes yet.
People telling you "genetics causes x" are committing abuses of notation if they don't include the counterfactual i.e. they are lying to you.
Everything about you is 100% caused by genetics - because otherwise you'd be a gorilla.
Everything about you is also 100% caused by the environment - because if a rock fell on your head you wouldn't have any "intelligence" after that.
Didn't they find some very crazy similarities in seemingly arbitrary lifestyle choices with identical twins that were separated at birth? I would rate the choice of vehicle the same way, in other words, possibly genetic.
The original topic under discussion is the impotence of being clever. It seems to me your cleverness (and that of others replying to the original comment) is demonstrating that.
I find it odd how quickly some humans discount genetics/evolution and assume they are somehow exempt from the natural patterns that affect all living beings.
Wealth and privileged upbringing do not result in intelligence. On the contrary, children brought up being able to goof around in comfy surroundings often turn out to be mediocre regardless of the standard of their education.
I seriously doubt, since there actually is evidence that, for adults, psychological safety is a major factor in productivity at work, specifically at knowledge work.
Yeah, and I imagine for children the same is true, atleast from a face validity p.o.v, the opposite of that claim was so off kilter from what I know of the current literature that I was immediately intrigued.
Twin studies exist; the major component of heredity is, unsurprisingly enough, genetic. For intelligence, it's anywhere between 50 and 80%. Given a strong political opposition to such conclusions, I'd expect it's actually underrated.
Where does this idea where you can only inherit looks and physical attributes from you parents, but anything connected to smarts is magically only defined by the environment comes from?
I don't think anyone is claiming that's the only factor, but it does seem that some people have higher natural aptitudes for some modes of thought, at least to me.
Does it? Could be as much a product of a privileged upbringing and generational welth reproducing themselves. Do you have an adopted sibling you grew up with, that had the same environments and opportunities, but turned out to be a moron? As a control group, you know.
I find odd how people are so quick to jump to genetics to explain a thing so complex as a human being inside a society. There's SO many forces acting on it at all times, picking genes over all the others feels like an oversimplification.