Soil vs. Air

[entanglement]

Lets suppose Paris Hilton and Fred Durst had twin babies, and Stephen Hawking decides to adopt one. They stay with their parents for the next 10 years, and they are analysed each and every single day in terms of their intellectual, emotional, physical, biological and relationship health.

Would the end products both be morons because of the similaries at the seed-level, or does what a person adapt from one's environment and experiences in life prove to be more influencial than his genes?

What exactly DO we acquire from genes? The fundamental traits we have in our personalities like greed, cunningness, etc. or is it more than that? And do we actually gain those at all?

 

[cryosteel]

A study on grade school children has been concluded demonstrating that socio-economic factors played no role in academic performance. The mass media spin intent of the study is that "immigrants are not a problem". Fair enough, however, the facts yielded by the study indicate that socio-economic differences (poor or wealthy and same culture or different culture) play no role in explaining academic performance. Now that socio-economic is understood to at most play a subordinate role, or no role whatsoever, more focus on genetics study is needed.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/fsu-mtg091906.php

 

[Justin S.]

^ What utter nonsense. It has a great deal to do with socio-economics, youre simply disingenuous.

 

[Demiurge]

Well, the Minnesota trans-racial adoption study found that placing children in upper middle class households had a nearly negligible effect on adult IQ. Further, headstart programs have been notoriously unsuccessful, although, a recent one was able to raise the IQ of "at risk" children by 5 points and maintain this into adulthood. Furthermore, identical twins raised apart display a higher positive correlation than any other group, including fraternal twins reared together. There is good reason to believe that genetics are very important, though, one must recognize the importance of environment, also. In the aforementioned meta-analysis of twins, the correlation was higher for reared together sets than for the corresponding reared apart ones.

 

[entanglement]

Furthermore, identical twins raised apart display a higher positive correlation than any other group, including fraternal twins reared together. There is good reason to believe that genetics are very important, though, one must recognize the importance of environment, also.

WHAT would match and what wouldn't match at the end of that? Just the Physical appearance? Can one be smarter than the other one?

They CAN have contrastive personalities, because its the environment he/she is faced with that will help in building one, but will the roots of their behaviour and decision-making, emotions, feelings be on the same platform because they share the same genes, or are they just based on your experiences/environment too?

 

[judas69]

Genetics play the biggest role and as much as I'd like to say it's all genetics, I can't deny environment. To what degree, who knows.

Environmentally speaking though, you could walk outside your house right now, get hit by a bus and end up with an IQ of -3. So, that's pretty damning, but assuming no huge tradegy, genetics will play the dominant role given a suitable environment that doesn't take development away from the godawful hilton-durst child.

 

[OldScratch]

Genetics play the biggest role and as much as I'd like to say it's all genetics, I can't deny environment. To what degree, who knows.

The genetic factor can only determine intellectual capacity. The environment, surely has a great deal to do with just how much of that potential may/will ever be realized.

 

[fah-q]

I have never been a believer in the "product of your environment" theory.

 

[judas69]

Well, if we crawled out of the ocean ..we surely are products of our environment.

 

[cryosteel]

The natural environment causing a lasting genetic effect in populations takes more than a man's life. It's probably closer to tens of thousands of lifetimes for change to show up in populations of humans. The environment can have an immediate effect like the bus example, but this does not constitute lasting change in whole populations.

The equating of environment with socio-economics is disingenuous. The whole of the environment is not encompassed by socio-economics.

 

[Demiurge]

WHAT would match and what wouldn't match at the end of that? Just the Physical appearance? Can one be smarter than the other one?

They CAN have contrastive personalities, because its the environment he/she is faced with that will help in building one, but will the roots of their behaviour and decision-making, emotions, feelings be on the same platform because they share the same genes, or are they just based on your experiences/environment too?

I do not understand what you're trying to ask.

 

[Norsemaiden]

WHAT would match and what wouldn't match at the end of that? Just the Physical appearance? Can one be smarter than the other one?

They CAN have contrastive personalities, because its the environment he/she is faced with that will help in building one, but will the roots of their behaviour and decision-making, emotions, feelings be on the same platform because they share the same genes, or are they just based on your experiences/environment too?

With the identical twins, they would both have the same inherited intelligence level. But the environment can have some effect on genes, for example, the food eaten by an individual affects their IQ.
Twins are clones of eachother. But if you are brought up with your clone, it is no surprise if you both decide to adopt a different style of say clothing or company or try to listen to different music. This is because it is normal to want to forge an individual identity for oneself. Although many identical twins enjoy their similarities with their sibling.

It has been found that when identical twins that have been separated at birth and did not even know about eachother, are reunited, the similarities are unbelievable.

We hear next from Tom Patterson and Steve Tazumi, twin brothers separated 40 years ago as infants in an orphanage in Japan and only recently reunited. Although raised in different kinds of families in different parts of the U.S., the twins found that they walked alike, talked alike, and even had scars from injuries they suffered on the same place on their body. They are both weight-lifters and have both owned a gym; they both married American women and they both gave their first child a Japanese name and their second an American name.

http://www.lcmedia.com/mind0005.htm

 

[derek]

Yup, it's a remarkable subject. I tend to resist the general (reductionist) assumption that genes make everyone who they are. I'd say a synthesis of both nature and nurture is the most likely scenario for explaining how everyone ends up how they are.

 

[Justin S.]

The natural environment causing a lasting genetic effect in populations takes more than a man's life. It's probably closer to tens of thousands of lifetimes for change to show up in populations of humans. The environment can have an immediate effect like the bus example, but this does not constitute lasting change in whole populations.

The equating of environment with socio-economics is disingenuous. The whole of the environment is not encompassed by socio-economics.

I never claimed "wholly" anything. However, its ridiculous to deny that the most salient causes in ones immediate context (pertaining to "academic affairs" ) are the possibilities determined by society (the "others"). Its clear that that your family's class and culture, district tax revenue, and quality of teaching have a great deal to do with your exposure and quality of educational material.

Surely this is more determinant in this specific case than millennia long causal chains of gene expression and mutation. Such strong argument for the role of genetics is the same old determinism (and desire for order), brushed off and updated with a new name.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It has been found that when children adopted at birth from the sub-working class are brought up by enthusiastic middle class parents, they barely do any better at school than if they had been brought up with peers in the sub-working class (apart from that their attendance is improved).

Since there has been social mobility for a long time in Britiain, the genes for intelligence that previously were trapped into the lowest social class have had the chance to advance into the middle class. This has left the lowest class with very little intelligence and the social mobility grinding to a halt. The halt of this social mobility has alarmed the government, which blames it on some kind of environmental block (from prejudice to fast food) that is slowing the numbers ascending from the lowest class into university, and into top jobs. (Of course they have also made it much easier for everyone to get into university which would mask this otherwise clearly observable phenomenon).

It used to be possible for a man from the humblest background to achieve great status, even before social mobility was encouraged. For example, the famous explorer David Livingstone, who evidently had inherited the genes which encouraged him to become well educated and driven to discover the mysteries of the world.

On the other hand, the British royal family, with the best education money can buy, are notably dimwitted. Their environment didn't help them.

 

[judas69]

Anyone catch the recent study that once again concluded men are infact more intelligent than women? If so, what are your thoughts if any, and do you think these studies further support the genetic side of this arguement?

 

[Seditious]

The genetic factor can only determine intellectual capacity. The environment, surely has a great deal to do with just how much of that potential may/will ever be realized.

Agreed.

 

[judas69]

Well, I don't think it's that easy. Just as you can assert that "genetics define the intellectual potential while environment realizes it" I can just as easily, and just as correctly state, "the environment sets intellectual potential while our genes determines a level of realization".

The brain as you may not know, does not build itself up as you might expect, rather, it cuts itself down. During infancy, you have an incredible number of neuro pathways that are severed via a pruning process. It's not the number of connections thats of most importance when it comes to intelligence, but their quality and organization of the network as a whole, something not necessarily or completely passed genetically.

In otherwords, environmental stimuli shapes your brain, even now as you read your brain physically changes. Also, I think in this thread we have a very simplistic view of intelligence so, whatever we determine by the end, it won't really be useful unless we talk a bit about what we mean by "intelligence".

 

[Demiurge]

Intelligence should be defined as g because more inclusive definitions cannot be operationalized.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well, I don't think it's that easy. Just as you can assert that "genetics define the intellectual potential while environment realizes it" I can just as easily, and just as correctly state, "the environment sets intellectual potential while our genes determines a level of realization".

The brain as you may not know, does not build itself up as you might expect, rather, it cuts itself down. During infancy, you have an incredible number of neuro pathways that are severed via a pruning process. It's not the number of connections thats of most importance when it comes to intelligence, but their quality and organization of the network as a whole, something not necessarily or completely passed genetically.

In otherwords, environmental stimuli shapes your brain, even now as you read your brain physically changes. Also, I think in this thread we have a very simplistic view of intelligence so, whatever we determine by the end, it won't really be useful unless we talk a bit about what we mean by "intelligence".

This looks made up, do you have any kind of reference for this information?