if the above is the general conclusion so far, phenotype = genotype + environment, why is it then of such an importance to some to emphasize the priority of genotype?
Yes, the environment shapes the genotype. I guess the point you're trying to make is that environment matters more than genes, because the environment shapes the genotype, right? . . . . Of course the environment shapes our genes. But genes are indicators of the kind of environment an organism evolved in--not necessarily the environment an organism inhabits. There is a difference between the environmental factors that created an animal's genome and the environmental factors an organism finds itself in. The environmental factors an animal evolves in are frozen into the genome. And it then becomes the animal's nature. The environmental factors an animal lives in are not frozen. That current environmental factors are independent of an organism. They are not its heritage. No one, as far as I know, is saying that genes are not a function of environment.
Our genetic legacy is a function of what worked best within the framework of the available choices. “Best” is defined as anything that increases gene frequency over time. I’ll sugest two forces other than environment as having an impact. First is the fact that sex selection isn’t random, rather, much of it is hardwired to enhance specific traits. Second, that a genetic potential for an “improvement” in survivability causes a feedback effect within the system whereby different groups engage in an “arms race” to maximize this potential. Because the idea is to eventually obtain a working model that is useful for directing our efforts at improvement in the future. I.e. – do we spend $126 billion in a national daddy/son huggysuckle therapy program to increase overall IQ by 5 points, or we can achieve a far greater net effect with a 70 billion dollar treatment to alter the population frequency of certain number of genes? What’s our bang-per-buck best option? My personal opinion is that too much emphasis on behaviorally based therapies will result in poor returns, huge cost overruns, and perishable gains. At the same time, if some other country chooses a more effective strategy using techniques that we rejected for one questionable reason or another, then we might find that as a nation we’ve just invested billions in becoming one of the future’s 2nd or 3rd world nations. Sucks to be us. “Environment” needs to be better categorized here. Right now it’s being presented as a mish-mash of different things heaped onto one pile. “Environment” is actually a wide range of different categories including genetic influences, biological, chemical, behavioral, etc.
even a moron like me realises the importance of environment as it relates to IQ. without the right environment the genes are worthless. the answer to the question of "is IQ inherited" is quite simply no.
I already explained the difference. The environment that you evolved in is the environment that shaped your genes and made you the animal that you are. The environment you live in is just the environment you live in. That's it. Certainly you would agree that the environment humans find themselves in now, particularly in America, is not the environment that created us. If we did evolve in these conditions, we probably wouldn't have famine genes. We probably wouldn't have the same natural instinctive fear of snakes and spiders (assuming we're talking about a person who lives in a modern city like New York). We're not evolved/adapted to live in the environment in which we find ourselves. Understand? In the first world, however, most people get proper nutrition and health services. People are only going to be stifled in terms of cognitive ability if they are severely deprived, like if they are starved, are experiencing some sort of malnutrition during their formative years, or did not interact or talk with people during their formative years. This rarely happens in the first world. And children are very resilient, so as a result, in the first world, the heritability of IQ is higher than worse places. In first world countries, genetics matter more, somewhat ironically. Most people in America get enough of their environmental needs in order to develop optimal IQs. The rest of it is up to the genome.
My interest is focused primarily on how we, as a society, move forward from the point we are currently at such that in the future people are happier, better adjusted, and more intelligent. It appears from the gist of this thread that some posters imagine, with brilliant observations along the lines whereby a bullet through your brain might decrease your IQ (well, duh), that future generational betterment with be the product of stuffing kids with nutrient enriched milk and suckling them into adulthood. I’m thinking more along the lines of, “Um, no”. As for theories here as to what causes, or is most important to, the formation of intelligence: sure, whatever. You go girl. In terms of moving forward from here, though, rest assured that, our collective opinions notwithstanding, therapies based upon enlightened medical or genetic practice might be in the order of 10 to 100 times more effective than those focused on behavioral or therapeutic devices.
Nature vs Nurture My view: Everyone has Qi. Ability to sense and express Qi depends on both Nature and Nurture. A person may inherit a higher than average potential to sense and express Qi but will not be aware or develop this potential if this is not induced or supported by environment. Recently, I heard a show by Laura Lee radio interview with Donna Eden, she encountered people in her class who has greater capability than her to see energy field radiated by the flow of Qi. Donna's view is that these people live in country areas which foster the development of the capability. Not everyone, I expect to have the same potential. Just join this site. Is there any feedback?
An observation I noticed I thought this may be of interest to some. I was adopted when I was 6 months old by my father (kept the same mother). 20 years later I met 3 biological brothers from my biological father. Just a couple of points before I continue: - We never spoke to each other until I was at least 20 years old. - I never saw my biological father in this time period as well - My 3 half brothers went to a different "style" of school. I went to something sporty, they went to a technical school. - We grew up in different cities in completely different cultures. - I have another brother and sister, they are the kids of the father who adopted me. What I have noticed: - My 3 biological brothers and I look similar, we all have way above average IQ's (according to our shrinks) - We have the same learning disabilities ADD, or as I like to call it. MTE (Multi taking enhancer) - We have the same hobbies (right down to a card game known as Magic the gathering) - We performed the same at our relevant schools - We both belong to the same organisations, read the same type of books, and had the same habits and vices. The brother and sister from my adopted fathers side are very sporty, look nothing like me, are average thinkers and have completely different scopes in life. My conclusion is that even though I had a completely different upbringing to my 3 half brothers from my biological father... We had almost identical mentalities and mental abilities. I have brown hair and brown eyes like them. The two kids from my adoptive dad... even though we had the same mother, are the "sporty jock" type. They both have blonde hair and blue eyes. I had the exact same upbringing as them, yet we have almost no similar interests. There is a lot more, and its definitely proof of nothing, however, it is an observation that appears to hold some interesting information in it from my perspective.
Interesting, thanks for your account. Actually, I was expecting something quite different. I thought you were going to say something along the lines that you were similar to the people you grew up with and nothing like your biological kin. And of course, there are surely many examples of that. However, by and large, I'm willing to bet there are a lot more stories like your own, than vice versa. I personally like the story about the Jims. http://science.howstuffworks.com/twin1.htm This is the best online source I can find about this story, for some reason. But from what I've read in a psychology book, the twins even have more in common that what the howstuffworks article says. This story, among many other things I've read have made me something of a genetic determinist. Identical twins aren't just similar in the obvious ways. The similarities go quite a bit deeper, as this story exemplifies. Later, I might find a more detailed version of the story for shit's sake.
With my 3 brothers I on my biological fathers side I share the same traits. With my other brother and sister from my biological moms side I share very few personality or character traits. That would be indicitive of the male carrying the "smarter than some" gene and not my mother (in my case).
yeah, here's that story in full: On a chilly Ohio Saturday morning in February 1979, some time after divorcing his first wife, Linda, Jim Lewis awoke in his modest, middle-class home next to his second wife, Betty. Jim—a romantic, affectionate type—was determined that this marriage would work and made a habit of leaving love notes to Betty around the house. As Jim lay in bed he thought about others he had loved, including his son, James Alan, and his faithful dog. Toy. Having outfitted a workshop in a corner of his basement, Jim looked forward to spending some of the day’s free time on his woodworking hobby. He had derived many hours of satisfaction from building furniture, picture frames, and an assortment of other items, including a circular white bench around a tree in his front yard. Jim also liked to spend free time driving his Chevy, watching stock-car racing and drinking Miller Lite beer. Jim was basically healthy. Having undergone a vasectomy, he was done having children. His blood pressure was a little high, perhaps related to his chain-smoking habit. He chewed his fingernails to the nub. And he suffered occasional half-day migraine headaches—“like somebody’s hitting you with a two-by-four in the back of the neck.” He had become overweight a while back but had shed some of the pounds. What was most extraordinary about Jim Lewis, however, was that at the same moment (I am not making this up) there existed another man—also named Jim—for whom all these things (right down to the dog’s name) were also true. This other Jim—Jim Springer—just happened, 38 years earlier, to have been his womb mate. Thirty-seven days after their birth, these two genetically identical twins were separated, adopted by blue-collar families, and reared with no contact or knowledge of the other’s whereabouts until one February day when Jim Lewis’ phone rang. The caller was his genetic clone (who, having been told he had a twin, set about to find him). One month after that fateful encounter, the brothers became the first twin pair tested by University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues, thus beginning a study of separated twins that extends to the present. When given tests measuring their intelligence, personality, heart rate, and brain waves, the Jim twins—despite 38 years of separation—were virtually as alike as the same person tested twice. Their voice intonations and inflections were so similar that, hearing a plackback of an earlier interview, Jim Springer guessed “That’s me” Wrong—it was his brother.
I agree that IQ is partially hereditary; there is a certain range that fluctuates with environment. Eugenics is not inevitable, because the effect of social and cultural changes are enough to make headway on poverty, crime rates, etc. the latter's just a lot more challenging. Eugenics to doesn't address disease; rather, it evades the intellectual challenge of curing it outright. Denying reproductive rights to those who have hereditary diseases is discrimination.
True story, a mother has two kids with autism, a form of intellectual retardation, one boy one girl. The mum and her husband are perfectly fine, so are their own parents. This proves that genetics, even though can skip generations, is nonetheless inconsistent. And why is it inconsistent? Then we have to look at the enviroment for answers. Facial Thats certainly debatable.
discrimination against the individual, but certainly not against mankind, and last I checked the preservation of the culture is paramount against the individual. What would you rather? A few people carring deformative diseases that could further develop and spread into the human race? Would you have an HIV or autistic patient give birth?
Well, I probably wouldn't let most people have children if it was up to me, we already have too many people. But it's still discrimination.
