Nature vs Nurture poll.

[miko2d]

 I wonder how many people here believe that for majority of the people intelligence (IQ) is determined to a much greater extent by their genetics rather then the circumstances of their life?
 If you agree with that, do you agree that the genetic intelligence is to a great extent inherited from parents rather then  random?

 If I get an indication of interest (many responces), I will start a thread on the implications of either on our life, politics, etc. It should be interesting.

miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Kratzer]

Obviously genetics play a role, and prenatal care... but parenting is the most important thing in any child's life - not just in terms of intellectual aptitude, but in terms of societal and emotional intelligence.

My 2c.

[funked]

Both.

I think there are plenty of people who would score high on an IQ test but behave stupidly, because they learned bad behaviors from their parents.

And there are studies which show that neglect (abandonment, not physical abuse) in infancy can actually cause structural (physical) changes in the brain.  Think about that.

But I also think if you are dealt a bad hand genetically, there are limits on how high you can test for IQ, no matter how good your parenting or schooling.

This is all talking out of my bellybutton though, as my understanding of this subject only extends to a few Scientific American articles and talking to people I know who work in the mental health field.

[Fatty]

My ignorance approaches (but stops just short) of Funked's.  Disclaimer aside, I tend to agree that it's a combination similar to physical abilities.  Potential is there more or less depending on genetics, but that falls secondary to schooling and social atmosphere.  Exercised areas get the blood, iow.

To more accurately answer the original question, I think an idiot brought through the best schooling available will be much better off than Einstein dropped in the worst one you can find.

[StSanta]

Genetics decide the potential. The upbringing and experiences decide how much of the potential is realized.

My take on it anyhow.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Maverick]

There is not an exclusionary situation here. While you have both schools of thought on this there is the factor of random or chaos impinging on it as well.

Here is what I mean. Genetics, while a worthy science is still in its infancy. Until they can really read the code like a book to see what is there and not just some specific "words", you cannot use it as a determiner. This is in the case of people.

When you talk about domesticated animals you can use a correlation in that we have selectively bred certain strains of dogs, for example, for "temperament". By continually culling the "bad tempered dogs" you can get a genetically based trait for a "good tempered dog". IE. a Pit Bull vs a Labrador.

People on the other hand tend to take a dim view of having themselves bred for a genetic trait. "Culling" in our society is not being done, outside of the occasional "Darwin Award winner" as we do everything we can to help those who would not otherwise survive without "heroic" measures. (Not that I am complaining about this!!!)

I think that overall, given equal genetic material quality, MOST would be influenced more by the nurture rather than nature. I do think there are some people in this world that are somehow deficient in that area that makes us a good social critter. In other words there are some blatantly evil people out there. Nothing you can do in te nurture side will have a beneficial effect on them. Fortunately they seem to be a very small aberration given the numbers of the population.

Now there will be many apologists who will blame other factors outside of the individual for whatever act they have committed. The most common type of apologist is the defense attorney. They will blame everything from lack of breast feeding to an overdose of Twinkies for the actions of their clients. Frankly I don't hold much to this "explanation". Each one of those folks made a conscious decision that placed them in some sort of situation that could have been avoided. Even in a "passion" motivated crime there was some trail of events that could have been broken had the offender used the grey matter to better effect.

The end of what I am saying is that I feel each side of this argument has some merit but we know too little to really say with any certainty which is the greater force on the individual. There really needs to be a solid scientific study done, but I am afraid it would be unethical to "experiment" on people like we have done with insects, plants and animals.

Please note for those I lost in this post. Some of it IS tongue in cheek.  

Mav