Heritability and the extremes of intelligence

It is difficult to fathom, but some people believe that intelligence is determined strictly by nurture.  These people subscribe to the belief that nature conveniently packaged all its creatures into neat categories and that our category, called “human”, has no meaningful variation when it comes to inherent intelligence.

But even according to the above doctrine, if a person is mentally retarded due to a genetic defect, for example a mongoloid*, then this would be an exception.  Barring genetic defects, all the rest of us are subject only to the accidents of nurture when it comes to the power of our intellect.

What about the other side of the Bell Curve?  A 13 year old Oregon girl, Kristin Qian, is blessed with an intellect most of us could hardly even dream of (from The Oregonian 12/12/2010):

… At one and a half, Kristin learned to read; at two, she had her first solo painting exhibition, at Portland French School.  At three, possessing perfect pitch, she could sing any theme she heard,  At four, she performed in her first violin concert; at five, she won a national piano competition.  The same year, she had her first composition published in a national magazine…

… She won her first local piano competition at eight; at ten, she became the youngest finalist at the Turech International Piano Competition in New York City.  Also at ten, her book of poems and illustrations, “The Silly Monkey World”, was published…

… She teaches violin, speaks six languages and won a Rubik’s Cube contest in sixth grade.  Three years ago, she surprised her parents and dazzled her classmates at Oregon Episcopal School in a pi competition where contestants tried to recite as many digits of the never-ending decimal as they could… After preparing for half an hour, Kristin rattled off 500.

How does she do it? Is it innate?  Genetic?  Nurtured by parents?

Who knows?  Prodigious talent remains a mystery.

Is The Oregonian seriously suggesting that any child can learn to read by age one and a half – if only her parents nurture her the right way?  I nurtured my children very well (so they tell me), but none of them came anywhere close to Kristin.  Perhaps the author of this article, David Stabler, appreciates the absurdity of attributing such genius to good upbringing and, therefore, allows that it might by genetic.  Clearly, Stabler is one of those people I described at the beginning of this post.  In this case, reality threw a real-life ad absurdum objection to his convictions and he wavered.  Still, he would rather leave it “a mystery” than admit the obvious.  Perhaps he realizes that once we admit that genius is hereditary, the genie is out of the bottle and some people might conclude that finer differences in intelligence are also hereditary.  So he would rather let his readers believe that some sort of magical, mystical power is responsible for Kristin’s abilities.

I’ll be the first to admit, I am not as smart as Kristin.  But it is difficult for me to understand how people can believe that genes only influence intelligence at the extremes.  How would they explain this?  Do they claim that anybody with an I.Q. under 70, or over 140 is a product of his genes – but everybody in between must only answer to his environment?  What an odd proposition!  Perhaps, some day, we can ask Kristin herself.

* I find the term “Down’s Syndrome” too negative so I prefer the term “mongoloid”.

Advertisements

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in examples of propaganda, nurture vs. nature and I.Q.. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Heritability and the extremes of intelligence

  1. Kiwiguy says:

    ***How does she do it? Is it innate? Genetic? Nurtured by parents?

    Who knows? Prodigious talent remains a mystery.***

    I can’t believe that some journalists seem incapable of doing some research on this. It’s really inexcusable in the age of the internet that they can’t be arsed looking stuff up.

    Steven Pinker’s efforts in the NY Times to explain the influence of genes seem to be in vain:

    “The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.” By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

  2. E says:

    The most sacred cow of Liberalism is not: global warming, public transit, solar panels, gay marriage, abortion, or even universal health care. Yes there is actually something even more sacred than ALL of the above and that is the belief in racial egalitarianism.

    I don’t see Liberals giving up without a HARD fight. However IMHO time favors the believers of HBD. Every year that goes by the pendulum swings closer towards our way (albeit at a slow pace) but still towards our way.

  3. fred says:

    The liberal religion is a combination of secular humanism and socialism. But socialism is a flop. Rather than admit it they try to ram it down our throats with “anti-discrimination”. Any difference in outcomes is blamed on “discrimination” rather than differences in ability. And, of course, their solution is always some twisted form of neo-marxism.

    To each “group” according to it’s needs. From each “group” according to it’s abilities.

    “Discrimination” is just the hook used to justify it.

  4. Pingback: Nature versus nurture and Jack LaLanne « Jewamongyou's Blog

  5. Pingback: “The Emperor’s New Clothes” book review/critique « Jewamongyou's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s