Ability

[~Sophia~]

True, but I do not support the idea that biological behavioral influences are absolute, because evidence does not back that up. Someone may be biologically inclined toward a shorter temperament, but active habitualization of a different temperament will eventually become reflexive.

Children don't have that kind of capacity to introspect, self monitor, and thus alter their temperament.

This is very hard to do for adults. I am fairly introverted and I can act in an extroverted manner at times (with significant effort) but I don't think that has had any significant effect on altering of my temperament. It is like acting with your basic nature unchanged. You can get good at acting - that I will give you. I have seen it.

If that is your criteria than I want to ask, can you admit the opposite? That the evidence is not strong enough to reach the conclusion that a genetic predisposition must be present in order for someone to become great at something?

First, I would rather use biological rather than genetic. Second, such generalization is not what I have been arguing for. I think that sometimes this factor is significant other times not so much.

That is, are we starting from the perspective where it is assumed that hardly anyone can do hardly anything great unless they have a genetic gift favoring that, and I must prove that these limitations are not that pronounced?

No you are creating an unnecessary dichotomy here.

Or can we start from the perspective that virtually anyone can do virtually anything great and the limitations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I want to start from the correct prospective. And those two are not the only alternatives.

I think that most of healthy humans can be great at great many things and if you like something you should definately give it a go. It is not necessary for me to believe, given my context, that I could be an opera singer if I wanted.

To put it another way, on a concrete personal level, if you set out to learn a new skill, do you assume you can do it unless proven you can not, or do you assume you can not do and not start it unless you prove to yourself that you can do it?

Yes usually I assume I can do it short of few things like becoming world renown opera singer . I think that it is important to choose our goals wisely and efficiency for an organims with limited lifespan and usually mulitple goals and aspirations is a significant factor.

With the evidence I've listed including the limited human genetic variation

Observed physiological variablity is large.

From the very moment we are born every thing we do and that is done to us alters our neural and physiological development, primarily while we are growing, but even into adult years.

Genetic differences would be most obvious in two scenarios 1) with absolutely no conditional differences and 2) with identical controlled conditional differences over a long time. The first would best be approximated by newborn infants. The second is virtually impossible to create.

I am thinking that you misunderstood what I mean by the biological component. I don't mean purely genetic meaning part of our genome and thus there from day one. I very much agree with your first sentence above - I will just add that it starts even before we are born. That fact supports my opinion that equality does not exist because the equality is impossible to create. Can this fact be of great significance when it comes to certain abilities/skills? I think it is.

Again if a child given just the right environment from birth can become great at virtually anything then a parent following certain rules would be able to nurture that child into anything. I don't think that is true. It has not been my experience nor any parent I know. There are children of music teachers who are not musically inclined despite having an "enthusiastic and encouraging" expert at their disposal from birth. There are many examples of this.

There are many kids who train (or study) just as hard or harder than others, spending hours and yet don't get as good results. Some parents share your view and spend a lot of money (on good trainers/teachers) and time and a child also wants it badly yet they never get to the top. (I am not suggesting that they should not try - just that fact show that not every kid has the same potential to reach to the top).

Even if a child, starting from infancy, is 1% more likely to grasp and pick up an object, this difference, taking place throughout their developmental years, could easily be compounded into major difference in physical dexterity down the road. At 1% this is below the threshold of perceptibility (which is generally 2%) so no one would think this child had done or behaved in any different way than any other children, but these small differences early on can create tremendous differences later.

I would not dispute that.

Edited November 19, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Matus1976]

There are hundreds of active genes in the brain if not more.

Actually it's probably thousands, and nice context dropping, but when I say there are 12 genes I'm talking about genes that govern the HUMAN brain. There are some 500 genes that pertain to cellular replication alone, and of course cells in the brain also replicate. But the context of this discussion is the variability from one human to another, genes that all animals share in regard to their brain are not relevant, genes that humans share with primates are also not relevant. The more complex a system is, the less tolerant it is of mutation and variation. Mutations in these genes usually have tremendous consequences of functionality. They don't make you better at math, they make you have a small barely functioning brain. It seems two genes primarily control the size of the human brain, and a mutation in one of these causes the Microcephalin gene to not function properly, causing microcephaly. The Brain is simply too complex to be determined by a small number of genes, these genes control the general structure of the brain, the underlying pattern which governs the growth of it.

Again - this is a mutation of a single gene that causes "withdrawal or aggression, poor memory, and poor school performance".

You prove the point, the vast majority of potential mutations to the genes that pertain to the human brain cause significant problems, when they all operate normally you attain a normal human functioning level. When they have mutations, you perform poorly or not at all, such as in Anencephaly.

[RationalBiker]

I wonder then what you would say of a video like this?

In all fair, you answered my question so I should answer yours. What would I say? I would say that example gives meaning to the word "exceptions".

But I can go you one better in terms of examples of exceptions to generalities; the banjo player (Barry Abernathy) in this band has NO fingers at all. I heard them play live one night. He was a good banjo player but not great banjo player (IMHO). However, in the world of 'no-fingered' banjo players he is probably king.

On the other hand (no pun intended), Josh Shilling is a great singer by virtually any standard.

Edited November 19, 2008 by RationalBiker
Spelling

[Mensch]

Mensch, I got a good link here for you that you can show your students that should shut them up for good. I'm not posting this to try and make a point in the ongoing debate, this is just a good example of what you can acomplish with hard work and dedication, and while it's not exactly web design it is visual art.

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=870

This guy started a thread at the conceptart forums when he was a newbie, and as you can see he was not very skilled at the beginning. Throughout the thread you can see his progress. Today he's a professional and teaches others.

Thank you Alfa, excellent example of what a little determination can achieve. Thanks much for this link. It is so very true that pushing walls aside will give results rather quickly There is also another factor that I find is interfering with student's progress: they are inhibited by what other people think of their effort. They compare themselves with professionals that are way above their level and then make the assumption that they can not ever reach this level, they give up much too early. The easy excuse of innate ability that they do not have is very handy.

This has turned into a fascinating discussion, mainly thanks to Sophia and Matus1976. I will study up on all of the raised issues here.

At this point I am still convinced that focused effort alone can yield the desired results in learning any skill at a rather high level. If indeed there is a small innate advantage in some, there still should not be huge differences in what a person can achieve. Determination can go a long way.

[~Sophia~]

The more complex a system is, the less tolerant it is of mutation and variation.

Notice how researchers stressed out the difference and significance of gene expression.

From that article:

Although the gene sequences from human and chimpanzee remain very similar, previous studies in tissues other than the brain have shown that gene expression varies widely. Other studies have found that, within the brain, the abundance of expressed genes per neuron appears to be greater in humans.

The functionality is mostly on the protein level so you have to be looking at protein variablity and their amounts. Alterations of the gene itself is only one factor contributing to the overall variablity.

[Matus1976]

Ok, I'm new here but I had to respond to this topic. Personally, I studied Biology in university, and we are far from a blank slate when we're born (at least not in the way many on this thread have defined the word).

The 'blank slate' is a figurative one because while our behavior is a complex interaction of chance, environment, genes, and choice, choice ultimately over rules the others. Through introspection and habitualization one can generally alter their behavior even when it is influenced by our genes.

Yes, we have potential, and we have free will, but everyone isn't born with equal potential, physical or mental.

No one has been presenting such a rigid egalitarian stance, it's obvious that we have genetic differences and that these limit our potential in some areas, but the degree to which genius or ability is commonly attributed to genetic head starts or predispositions is a gross exaggeration.

Now, to interject my side of the story. I'm gifted. High IQ, was in a special class in school, blah blah blah. Of course, I have always had other problems (with motivation, etc). I can't tell you the number of times in school where I would absolutely destroy someone in marks, while I did little to no work. No, this wasn't me doing work beforehand, this was me just being able to do something better. For example, in grade 12, we had a Biology independent study project. The teacher gave us 3 chapters to learn, and a month to do it in. One person in my class studied this material every night. He had a great GPA, and was one of the hardest workers I have ever seen. I cracked open the book the day of the test. I skimmed through the material, understood it immediately, and went on to score higher than he did.

For starters, from the largest identical twin studies IQ seems to be about 85% genetic, meaning a large variation in IQ can come from nutrition, environment, habits, and choices we make. Further, some research suggests that IQ is fixed throughout life, while others suggest that it can be changed. Still other research suggests that IQ tests are incredibly disingenuous representations of intelligence anyway. Other research suggests that the general average IQ is climbing in humanity, which contradicts the notion that it is fixed either throughout life or genetically. So your gifted level IQ could very well have come from things you've done in your life, and not just the genes you were born with.

As I pointed out to Sophia, very small differences, below the threshold of perception level, especially starting at a young age, can grow into tremendous differences later on. As a child or while growing up it's entirely plausible that you engaged in many activities which you might have done only slightly more frequently than other children but that never the less created a profound difference in your ability by 12th grade.

Hard work and the results there of are not a direct indicator of ability. You can work or train very hard, but if you do not do it properly, you will not get any better. I've spent many thousands of hours driving, but I am perhaps only a slightly better car operator today than I was 10 years ago. If I spent thousands of hours on a police driving training course, I'm sure my skill levels would improve dramatically.

What you study and how you study make a big difference. If your friend spent hours trying to memorize every minute detail, he would waste a great deal of time and not score very well. Perhaps in your study, you recognized the important facts, considered what was likely to be on a test and what was not likely, focused on patterns between and within data, and looked for the over arching concepts that governed that knowledge, and not necessarily memorized every tiny note.

I'm saying it because I want to show you that, had we all been capable of everything, had life been "fair" in the way you seem to think it is, he would have destroyed me.

No one is disputing that we all have different levels of ability, or that everyone is capable of anything (Obviously Stephen Hawking won't be running any Marathons anytime soon) what I am disputing is the extent to which this is attributed to genetic 'gifts' and not attributed to the things we do throughout life. Since our actual ability to memorize things varies very little among typical humans (including those of high IQ) the large difference in your and his ability is probably more a result of his poor study habits and practice and the advantages you've gained throughout life because of thing's you've done or chosen to integrate.

I'm also very good with math. I've always made intuitive leaps that sometimes confuse even my teachers. I skip steps. I never did homework. I never bothered to learn, I just... knew. The mathematical concepts were as obvious to me as breathing is to most people. And that has nothing to do with my upbringing, my father didn't teach me math when I was very young (any more than he taught my two brothers, who are not as good as I am). It's the way my brain works, I just make connections.

Is your father good at math? Your mother? grandparents? Where is the genetic link that has caused you to be good at math? Why these concepts came easy to you might not be obvious, but just because you can't think of any obvious reason (any more than a gifted artist would realize that at 2 months he was 1% more likely to grasp an object or trace a line in the floor) does not mean it automatically must come entirely from genetics.

One of the most remarkable things about Einstein's family is that they were entirely unremarkable. When asked by an early biographer whether he got his incredible intelligence from his mother or his father, he insisted neither, and that he was just passionately curious.

What I'm trying to say is, everyone has different gifts. I never appreciated or worked for mine growing up. Yes, I have to work now (partially because of my goals in life) but that doesn't change the fact that things always came much easier for me.

Well, had you never cracked open that biology text book at all, it's doubtfull you would have scored well on it. So you do work for them. But you may have done a great deal of related work when very young at a critical stage of physiological development of your brain, it may have been an entirely unrelated tasks but one that ended up using a part of your brain which also happened to be used in making connections or grasping mathematical concepts later on.

[Ifat Glassman]

You prove the point, the vast majority of potential mutations to the genes that pertain to the human brain cause significant problems, when they all operate normally you attain a normal human functioning level. When they have mutations, you perform poorly or not at all, such as in Anencephaly.

The point was to show that even a single gene can drastically affect one's intelligence. There could be other mutations, less extreme in their influence of intelligence. Point is - as I showed; that genes do influence intelligence. No matter how much effort such a kid will exercise and how good his environment - his intellectual achievements will never match those of other kids.

There may be other mutations causing much milder changes which affect intelligence as well, just like you can have about 7 mutations of Hemoglobin affecting its functionality.

The 'blank slate' is a figurative one because while our behavior is a complex interaction of chance, environment, genes, and choice, choice ultimately over rules the others.

I have no idea where you get the evidence for this. In my school, most people were trying very hard to succeed. But it is so obviously clear that some just get it easy and fast while others struggle, that there is not even a thread of question that it is definitely NOT their will/choice that is lacking.

In my college I've studied with a few people, some smarter than me and some much less smart than me - we all wanted to succeed just the same, but each had his own limitations, regardless of how much effort they chose to invest in, say, preparing for a test.

Even if genes are not the main reason for these differences - choice is obviously not the main one.

Another example: Seems to me that you choose to think as hard as you can, but still, you do not produce the intellectual achievements of Ayn Rand, nor posses her analytical ability. Are you saying this is because of your choice?

[~Sophia~]

One of the most remarkable things about Einstein's family is that they were entirely unremarkable. When asked by an early biographer whether he got his incredible intelligence from his mother or his father, he insisted neither, and that he was just passionately curious.

And reversibly a child of two very intelligent parents may not match his parents to the same degree. This is not surprising. In the production of a sperm or an egg half is genetically discarded and then those two (random) halves from each person fuse. So, from purely gene sequence prospective, it is more about what is in the family gene pool than the specific genetic makeup of the parents. Also, germ-plasm is being kept separate from the body so what happens to each parent's genes during their life has no genetic influence on their child.

General mental ability has a normal distribution in the general population, suggesting that it is probably a product of several genes that interact with the environment. Genius level of ability is way above any 'normally occurring' level of ability. It is estimated that only the top 2-5 % of children in the world are truly gifted. This is not limited to any particular race and there are certainly more than 5% of highly intelligent parents in the world. Although there is correlation between what is your family gene pool and intelligence - geniuses, those way above in ability appear randomly within every race. Something is going very right in those cases.

[Matus1976]

The point was to show that even a single gene can drastically affect one's intelligence. There could be other mutations, less extreme in their influence of intelligence. Point is - as I showed; that genes do influence intelligence.

I have never stated that genes can not influence intelligence, obviously we are more intelligent than chimpanzees, presumably this is due to a genetic difference. The problem is you observe large differences in ability and then automatically assume that their cause is nearly entirely genetic, most people do this because after two seconds of thinking about it they can't come up with any reason other than genetics. I question whether genes can 'drastically' influence intelligence once you are at a typical human baseline (e.g. you don't have microencephaly) For nearly 90,000 years human's underwent extensive selective pressures, and now for the last 200 years those selective pressures have been extensively minimized. Many, most, if not all of beneficial mutations regarding intelligence would be far more likely to have occurred during those 90,000 years and spread quickly throughout the population. If those mutations were possible and beneficial, it's unlikely most of them would have not occurred until only recently.

No matter how much effort such a kid will exercise and how good his environment - his intellectual achievements will never match those of other kids.

I have said over and over again that virtually anyone can become good, an expert, or even great at virtually anything. I did not ever say that 'anyone could be better than everyone else if they simply tried hard enough' The point is the small genetic differences do not show until you reach the height of the performance envelope and the vast majority of observed differences in ability are due to habitual, environmental, or behavioral choices made throughout life.

Further, given the evidence from the large identical twin studies which suggest IQ is about 85% genetic, then yes, a kid could in fact exceed the intelligence and ability of another kid who might have a greater genetic predisposition to a higher IQ but the former kid because of his experiences utilized that 15% possible leeway to exceed the other. Your blanket generalizations are not supported by evidence.

There may be other mutations causing much milder changes which affect intelligence as well, just like you can have about 7 mutations of Hemoglobin affecting its functionality.

None to a great degree and none which are not usually overshadowed by differences in experience, and which only typically become evident at the extreme of the performance envelope.

I have no idea where you get the evidence for this. In my school, most people were trying very hard to succeed. But it is so obviously clear that some just get it easy and fast while others struggle, that there is not even a thread of question that it is definitely NOT their will/choice that is lacking.

Here again it is being suggested that my claim is one of egalitarianism and that any evidence of differences in ability are disproofs of my suggestions. Please try reading what I am saying so you do not waste either of our times by arguing a point I never suggested nor made. Evidence of differences in ability does not constitute proof that those differences come from a genetic source only.

If you learn a 2nd or 3rd language as a child, it makes it much much easier to learn more languages throughout your life. This has nothing to do with your will / choice that is lacking, it has everything to do with the affinity toward learning languages in every human's mind which is most efficient at a particular age.

The things you do, especially during the years which your body and mind are undergoing actual physiological development and change, can have drastic consequences on the rest of your life and the extent of your abilities throughout it.

In my college I've studied with a few people, some smarter than me and some much less smart than me - we all wanted to succeed just the same, but each had his own limitations, regardless of how much effort they chose to invest in, say, preparing for a test.

Even if genes are not the main reason for these differences - choice is obviously not the main one.

If genes are not the main reason, then yes in fact 'choice' is, but not in an expediency of the moment sense, it is in the same sense that you choose what you find humorous or who you love because of the decisions you have made and values you have integrated throughout your life, except it's even more powerful because the consequences of the choices relating to brain and body development can have on your physiological growth and development, where they can become permanently embedded.

If everyone were exactly genetically identical, there would still be an immense amount of variation in ability because the only instant which identical twins are identical is the moment the embryo separates into two organisms, from then on out there's differentiation, from whatever cells are whacked by cosmic rays to what toys the twins as babies liked to play with. These differences are compounded throughout life and are obviously manifested in intelligence and ability.

Another example: Seems to me that you choose to think as hard as you can, but still, you do not produce the intellectual achievements of Ayn Rand, nor posses her analytical ability. Are you saying this is because of your choice?

Yes, primarily. But you must not confine 'choice' to the mere expediency of the moment. As a child, I made no informed volitional choice about how much time to spend on what. I was not presented with the scenarios and benefit cost analysis relating to what I spent my critical developmental years doing. While this is a result of my environment and culture, and to some degree of choice, those choices where whimsical and not informed, I would not have understood anyway. By choice, it is things you choose, have chosen throughout life, and other people have chosen to attempt to apply to you, and how you choose to respond. It is not deciding one moment to be smart, and then magically becoming so.

I'm sure Rand, such a strong advocate of the 'Blank Slate' would be pleased to hear you attribute her intellectual achievements to just some lucky genetic card game, and not the decades of her life she spent in intensive study. Do you compliment body builders the same way? Sure, one body builder may have slightly more muscle mass after the same work as another who is not as genetically lucky, yet few would be so callous about attributing this physical endowment to genetics, and not the decades of focused training, let alone look at a starting weight trainer and a veteran trainer and suggest that the latter was merely genetically fortunate. But, it seems, we are more than willing to do so with intellectual endowments with as equally little reason.

Rand embarked on an intensive intellectual journey at a much younger age than I did, and so will forever surpass me no matter how hard I try, even if I did endeavor to study and develop along the same course as Rand, which I do not. Besides, at my age, Rand was hardly more than a struggling author. And I'm pretty sure Rand was not ever anywhere near as good of a mechanical engineer as I am. Even so, I consider myself of average intelligence, and Rand of above average, and so if we did live the same life, studied the same things in the same way, made the same choices, (all impossible anyway) she would never the less still out pace me to a great degree. Even a 1% difference compounded over 60 years will produce something almost twice the reference.

There are genetic variations in intelligence, which I have stated all along, but they simply do not exist to the extent commonly accepted and the overwhelming majority of differences in abilities of all kinds comes primarily from our choices and our environment.

[~Sophia~]

I'm sure Rand, such a strong advocate of the 'Blank Slate' would be pleased to hear you attribute her intellectual achievements to just some lucky genetic card game, and not the decades of her life she spent in intensive study.

Rand's "blank slate" refers to the fact that humans are not born with any innate knowledge. It does not refer to biological equality.

Ifat did not attribute Rand's intellectual achievements to lucky genetic game. Obviously without the knowledge (the content) she aquired through long hours of study she would not have been able to make the kind of intergrations she did. However not many could make that kind of grant scale connections between data. She was not the only person with decades of life spend in intesive study in human history yet she was the only one who gained that kind of integrated understanding of reality. This was an amazing mind. And she formed her views very early - before she came to America. There was nothing particularly extraordinary about her upbringing either.

[~Sophia~]

I question whether genes can 'drastically' influence intelligence once you are at a typical human baseline (e.g. you don't have microencephaly). For nearly 90,000 years human's underwent extensive selective pressures, and now for the last 200 years those selective pressures have been extensively minimized. Many, most, if not all of beneficial mutations regarding intelligence would be far more likely to have occurred during those 90,000 years and spread quickly throughout the population. If those mutations were possible and beneficial, it's unlikely most of them would have not occurred until only recently.

Mutations are not necessarily stable. Repair mechanism can reverse it, for example (repair mechanism checks against the template and - no information about the benefit of such mutation is used in this process). Expression regulation is complex and we still know very little about it. Some of it is not genetic. Extraordinary efficiency can arise and be lost in a population especially if there is no offspring (like it was in case of Rand) but even with offspring.

Second, we are speaking here about abilities which are not necessary for us to survive. We can do just fine with much less. So the evolutionary pressure, if you will, is weak.

Edited November 20, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

There are genetic variations in intelligence, which I have stated all along, but they simply do not exist to the extent commonly accepted and the overwhelming majority of differences in abilities of all kinds comes primarily from our choices and our environment.

True. However, there is a big difference between this statement and the statement of yours which I am disputing here. My position is that of scientific community that this is a combination of nature and nurture. And yes it is true that a lot of people mistakenly or dishonestly use the nature factor as an excuse for inaction (and your criticism is absolutely valid in that respect). You however, completely downplay the nature component which is also an error just in the opposite direction.

[Matus1976]

In response to post 35

I don't understand your point here. What is relevant for humans (especially when it comes to issues involving our brain) can not be assessed by looking at genetic variation rates observed in animals.

This started out with me pointing to the highly limited genetic variablity in humans, where one tribe of chimpanzees has more genetic variation than the entire human race. To that you responded that we also have a large amount of variation in our expressed genes, which seem to be suggesting that makes up in some part for the limited genetic variation. To that I asked if humans have a greater variation in their genetic expressions than other animals (possibly due to more variation in environments) You did not seem to suggest that was the case, so it still remains, Humans differ from one another very little, about 1,000th as much as a typical chimpanzee differs from another chimpanzee. This is part of my reasoning suggesting that differences in ability do not come only nor primarily from genetic variation.

I don't think that your example is useful at all. Those who make it to the Olympics are the selected few who were the best among those who did go through the same training.

I don't think it's a perfect example, but it is useful. You're assumption seems to be that the 'best who did go through the training' are all pinnacle achievers which are only there because of their genetic advantage. And these Olympic level athletes are just the best among those. While I am suggesting that the training and consequences of choices in life lead to the initial variation, and these olympic athletes are the ones that did the right training and made the right choices and had the right life circumstances, AND have the genetic predisposition to be better than the others. In your case, the olympic athletes are far better than the average guy primarily because of favorable genetics. In my case they are far better from the average guy primarily because of the proper training and life events, but they are better than the other good athletes because of favorable genetics.

My scenario

average guy x Proper training = good athlete. Good athlete x proper training and favorable life circumstances = great athlete. Great athlete x favorable genetics, proper training, favorable life = olympic atheletes.

Yours

average guy x proper training = good athlete. Good athelete x proper training x favorable genetics and life circumstances = great athlete. Great athlete x great genetic favorability = olympic athletes

I'm really not sure how you could prove the exact extent to which favorable genetics boosts your ability because you have to completely control every other variable. Can you suggest a way to differentiate between these two scenarios? It is only through massive statistical analysis of easily quantifiable things that we can even get a sense of that, and even then those studies will tend not to take into account compound variance of events that are below the threshold or perceptibility. IQ Studies on identical twins show a 85% heritability of IQ. These are people with the exact same genetic code, yet they can vary significantly in intelligence due to their training and life circumstances and choices they make. The US Army can take your average guy and get 90% of them to run the same distance an Olympic athlete can in twice the time after 1 month of training. We can take average people, give them the right kind of training, and make a significant portion of them into chess grandmasters. I have no doubt genetic variation gives the elite advantages, but these advantages only show up at the top of the performance envelope and overwhelming majority of observable differences in ability come from their environment, training, and choices.

amounting to about 1% among each other, are probably primarily from their genetic variations

That you also don't know conclusively. Sometimes those seconds are a momentary luck if you will - ability to better control your emotions - something which is hard to train for - especially if it is your first Olympics (stimulating such pressure is hard). There are many factors here.

No of course I can't contribute every variation to genetics nor know that conclusively, but presumably SOME of it is from their genetic differences, I contend the majority of it, and most (all?) olympic events have repeat trials to help factor out those temporary accidental events and figure out who is the actual best performer.

But there are many who don't quit. They just don't make the cut over and over until they get to be too old.

There are more people who train for this long and this hard and don't get to go.

Explainable both by differences in life events (especially early ones) and favorable genetics, or a combination of the two.

Again, you seem to be working from the axiomatic assumption that most differences in ability come from genetics, and that I must prove where they do not. I don't think the evidence supports this as a starting point.

In fact, It's VERY clear that

1) vast differences in ability can come from differences in training.

consider the worst way to train to be a good chess player, say just trying every random move and statistically cataloging the ones that are slightly better, compared with the best, a computerized training program that teaches you strategies, concepts, and continually pushes you past your limits. What kind of performance increase do we see in good training over bad training? 10%? 100%? 1,000% It can certainly be pretty damn high.

2) vast differences in ability can come from choices and events when you are young

Consider again the phenom rock climber example

3) Identical twins can differ significantly from one another in performance abilities.

What is not obvious or very clear is that vast differences in ability can come from genetic sources. A person with good training compared to a person with no or poor training can be orders of magnitude better at something. A typical person with good genetics compared to a person with bad genetics but with the exact same training and life circumstances can be how much better?

First some people don't even think about joining the army because they can't make it physically. So this is not a random sampling here.

Second you can't assume the pattern of growth or speed of growth based on previous increase. You have to know the equation...the relationship of variables. The relationship may appear linear at first but be in fact exponential and level off fast with no further increases. You just can't make that kind of assumptions.

In terms of physical improvements I noticed myself that the biggest improvements you make is at the beginning.

Sure, it's not a perfect example, but this is a large sampling of people, given the same training and who presumably have similar motivations. The number of people with physical disabilities in that age group is around 5% - 6%, and these disabilities are not all genetic. So even given that the numbers are not skewed significantly. Obviously if you compare a person with a genetic defect who has no legs against an Olympic athlete, the majority of the performance difference is genetic. But that's not what were talking about here. Also I'm not sure how the relationship of the increase, whether linear or exponential and then leveling off would make a significant difference to the essential point, that with a little bit of training a large sample of average people can do pretty good, attaining half the performance of an olympic athlete.

I disagree on this, that the skill variability is not related to any specialized training. At this young age, the majority of your differences specifically come from habits and skills (from choices) you've made throughout your life and the more varied and active you are in any particular area and the younger the age the more profound the difference will have on you, because in fact your are physiologically developing at the same time, and your habits and choices can actually alter your body.

At what age? I have been observing my son since day one.

All of your other examples support the considerable significance of nurture which I am not disputing.

At all ages, but most critically the ones where the most physiological growth and development are occurring, I'm not sure exactly what ages represent the greatest change over all or related to specific physiological functions, but up until the point growth and development ceases these things are far more influential.

Of course, the point is though that this previously genius level ability is now far more common BECAUSE of the new training available, NOT because of a plethora of mutants.

Again how do you know that that is not a factor? That more people who CAN get there are exposed to that information so more of them DO? The larger the sampling population the better the chance at finding significantly better ability.

Ok, let me turn that question back around on you. In one case the better training just finds the more people out there with a greater ability primarily due to genetics, in the other case it exploits the potential ability that the average person has. How would we tell these two apart? I think the easiest identifier would be whether only a specific small group of people even with the specialized training become experts or chess grand masters, or if nearly everybody who is given the training achieves that level of ability. Presumably if the majority of difference comes from genetics, than only a small portion of people would have those favorable genetics (otherwise most people would have them and it would be a characteristic of the 'average' person anyway)

from Scientific American's "Expert Mind" article

Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one. L�szl� Polg�r, an educator in Hungary, homeschooled his three daughters in chess, assigning as much as six hours of work a day, producing one international master and two grandmasters--the strongest chess-playing siblings in history. The youngest Polg�r, 30-year-old Judit, is now ranked 14th in the world.

The Polg�r experiment proved two things: that grandmasters can be reared and that women can be grandmasters. It is no coincidence that the incidence of chess prodigies multiplied after L�szl� Polg�r published a book on chess education. The number of musical prodigies underwent a similar increase after Mozart's father did the equivalent two centuries earlier.

all I am saying is that the amount of difference commonly attributed to genetic variation is way over emphasized,

But I agree with this... that is not all you are saying. You are saying that anyone can become an expert at anything. Huge difference.

My position is far from biological determinism so that is a straw man.

No, I have never said that anyone can be an expert at anything. From my first post in this threat

While you may get a head start with favorable genetics, talent and ability come primarily from deliberate study and most people can become good or experts at virtually anything with the right kind of training

And from the previous thread on this

Now I wouldn't say that absolutely anyone can become great at absolutely anything, you might have physiological limitations, like the amount of oxygen your red blood cells store, that limit your potential in physical endurance. But for the most part, any normal human mind is capable of becoming an expert at virtually any task

My position has always been that virtually anyone can become good or great at virtually anything, but not virtually anyone can become better than everyone else because that is where those genetic differences become most important.

I do not think you are a biological determinist, I think we just differ significantly in how much we think differences in ability come from genes and how much come from choices or life experiences. If I had to put a number on it, I would say that an Olympic athletes ability is about 95% - 98% from training and life events, and the rest from genetics. While you might suggest ... 50% or 60% does? Obviously we're just pulling numbers out of thin air here, but it's an extremely difficult thing to identify exactly and I do not think the evidence supports the axiomatic position that the majority of differences come from genetics. A person with good training is much much better than a person with bad training, and two people with the same training, experiences, events, etc. differ only to very small degrees.

like looking at a body builder and saying 'lucky you, born with all those big muscles' insulting the years of dedicated hard work they put into it

My brother in law is a body builder and most people do not have the genetic predisposition to be as big as he is naturally (without any "help"). They can reach their own potential.

Of course, and I think this is a good example to consider. They won't have the genetic predisposition to be as big as he is naturally, but how big would they be compared to him with the same training and diet? Would they only be half as big? 3/4's as big? That's the point, the would probably be very close to the same size, though they will be different. How much does a typical human muscle structure differ from one person to another? (excluding of course major genetic defects) We don't look at one huge body builder, and another smaller body builder and automatically assume their differences primarily come from genetics. We rightly assume the bigger guy has trained hard, better, or longer. Yet when we look at two people, one who has a figurative 'big brain' and one who has a figurative 'small brain' we automatically assume that this difference is primarily one of genetics.

I think that you allow conclusions from examples in which too many variables are not controlled and thus can't be used as conclusive evidence.

I am always open to seeing evidence. I'm going with the best available information we have. To recap so far.

1) there is not alot of human genetic variability, much less than most other animals

2) differences in training very clearly produce huge differences in ability

3) differences in your life, especially at a young age, can have profound consequences on your ability

4) differences in actions / experience below the threshold of perceptibility can compound over a life time into huge differences with no obvious cause.

5) very few genes govern the gross structure of the brain that differentiates it from non-humans, and mutations in these genes tend to cause extremely severe defects (like microencephaly)

6) people with the exact same training and attitude and life events appear to differ very little in ability.

7) there is a strong philosophical bias in favor of biological determinism in science

8) there is a strong philosophical bias among individuals to abdictate themselves of potential ability because they embrace an altruisitic ethic which would require them to do something if they knew themselves to be highly capable

9) large samplings of average people given the same training perform at similar levels (less than 20% variation among the military run after 1 month training)

10) elite athletes differ in ability to a very small percentage

11) identical twins can differ significantly in performance ability

12) the lives of all great geniuses and achievers are characterized by a life or intense effortful study usually starting at a very young age

13) new technologies (printing press, inexpensive instruments) or training methods (computer chess programs) create huge explosions in people with expert level abilities.

14) humans experienced extreme selective pressures for 90,000 years, only in the last 200 have those pressures lightened significantly. Most genes advantageous to survival would have been very likely to permeate the entire population in those 90,000 years.

15) the average human mind is a functional supercomputer which exceeds the ability of the best man-made supercomputers by about 1,000 times.

[Ifat Glassman]

I have never stated that genes can not influence intelligence, obviously we are more intelligent than chimpanzees, presumably this is due to a genetic difference. The problem is you observe large differences in ability and then automatically assume that their cause is nearly entirely genetic,

I think there may be a mix-up of concepts here. To compare intelligence to water in a glass: genetics determine how big your glass is, but environment and choice (and genes) determine how much water are going to get filled. A person can have a lot of potential, that can be destroyed by the environment, if his parents prevent his proper cognitive development by putting him in an environment unsuitable for his mental needs. But also, if a kid has it easier off to understand things, he might not give up on understanding as quickly as some other kid put in the same circumstances and environment. I worked for over a year in a kinder garden. The differences in intelligence of kids is quite clear. I am talking about kids and not about adults because at that stage of a human life, a kid's mind is being built, and it is harder to claim to some environmental factor or to difference in the kid's choices (which they make in a completely emotional way since they barely have conceptual thinking yet). At that stage their performances reflect - not their environment, nor their choices - but their ability to learn as coming from how efficiently their brain is.

I had a friend who learned how to read at age four while sitting opposite to his grandma while she read him the book. He saw the letters upside down and learned to read from that.

My parents read me books, and even in the right direction, but I was not able to learn how to read from that. Now this friend of mine has never been through any special brain-enhancing environment. He and his sister grew up in the same environment, but she is hardly as bright as he is. To me this suggests genetics as the only possible cause.

Now, when you are talking about choice as being critical for intelligence, you are not talking about how big the glass is, but about how much water to put in (in my understanding). It is obvious that if someone chooses to improve his abilities in something that he can improve them a lot by practicing. If someone is a bad thinker because of some bad premises or bad methods he has adopted, he can choose to examine and correct them, and then improve his analytical ability a whole lot.

Anyway, I'm leaving this discussion, it's not interesting enough for me at this point to proceed. I do find your arguments interesting though, and I'm enjoying Sophia's input on genetics.

Oh, one last thing I forgot - if you want to eliminate choice and environment as factors, you can examine the variability of intelligence in animals. If animals have big variability most likely it comes from the genetics.

[~Sophia~]

Humans differ from one another very little, about 1,000th as much as a typical chimpanzee differs from another chimpanzee.

But humans do not differ from one another very little. Neither do we differ "very little" in terms of our genetic variability. It is because such differences are significant (worth knowing) that we will be soon sequencing individual genomes as a routine part of our health care.

When scientists say things like: sequence divergence is relatively small vs. ..... - it has a specific comparative context with a specific meaning. It is NOT a statement of the significance of the differences which are observed.

This is part of my reasoning suggesting that differences in ability do not come only nor primarily from genetic variation.

I agree with this but not because one can conclude this from the given reasoning.

You're assumption seems to be that the 'best who did go through the training' are all pinnacle achievers which are only there because of their genetic advantage.

Can we please use biological instead of genetic (because people think of genetic as "in a gene sequence")?

No, that is not what I think. I consider it as one of significant factors. There is a reason why we have weight categories for some disciplines, for example.

But I also think, as I have stated, that this is not a good example. There are too many unaccounted for factors here, many of which are environmental. Because our environment is affecting us from day 1 and can not be "made equal" this further increases our physiological inequalities.

My claim is this: a combination of genetic and environmental factors (the influence of which on a trait will vary depending on a situation) is making us unequal which has impact on our skill acquisition to some degree.

I also would like to make an observation that environmental does not necessarily mean within our control. For example, a small child does not have the mental capacity to understand early on what is good or bad for him.

While I am suggesting that the training and consequences of choices in life lead to the initial variation, and these olympic athletes are the ones that did the right training and made the right choices and had the right life circumstances, AND have the genetic predisposition to be better than the others.

Then we don't disagree. However it does not follow from this that virtually everyone can achieve virtually anything.

In your case, the Olympic athletes are far better than the average guy primarily because of favorable genetics.

No. That is not my position.

In my case they are far better from the average guy primarily because of the proper training and life events, but they are better than the other good athletes because of favorable genetics.

When comparing Olympic athletes who went through similar training (although in reality they actually don't go through exactly the same training) the difference is probably slight physiological advantage. It maybe genetic in nature in some cases or it may not be. Maybe one of them went through an illness as a child which left a mark (more of a fixed factor for them) or even a flu just a week ago or they did not get a good night sleep the night before. Maybe it is not biological at all - maybe it was a small variation in training or one of them was able to control his emotions much better.

I said slight advantage because bigger physiological differences (which are much wider in a population than in this sampling) were already eliminated via selection process.

When comparing Olympic athletes to the average random guy obviously training is a much bigger component explaining the difference (when compared to the previous group). However, the chance of also much greater physiological difference in terms of potential at that point is also bigger.

I'm really not sure how you could prove the exact extent to which favorable genetics boosts your ability because you have to completely control every other variable.

But that is not what I am trying to do. I am arguing for not disregarding of the physiological component to the degree that you do. I am not placing it above of what is within someone's volitional choice but I am also not downplaying it's significance completely.

Can you suggest a way to differentiate between these two scenarios?

There are too many uncontrolled variables in this case and thus it is not a useful example.

If you want an answer in general. To what degree exactly we are influenced by genetics in terms of behavior and abilities is a very hard question to answer experimentally (and if I could do that - I would be much richer ) for the reasons you have indicated. Difficulty with achieving a quantitative answer, however, does not mean that it is valid therefore to disregard almost completely the influence of a biological advantage. It is not a reasonable assumption at this point.

IQ Studies on identical twins show a 85% heritability of IQ.

I am going on a tangent here but it maybe of interest to you (and others) because I am suspecting it will be news to many.

Heritability estimates are not appropriate for estimating the magnitude of genetic influences on a trait, and this is particularly true for IQ. Thus, various IQ heritability calculations are scientifically meaningless. Whether genes influence intelligence is a legitimate question but one which can not be answered using heritability.

Heritability is a property of a population and not of a trait itself. The concept refers only to the % of the population variance that can be attributed to genetic factors. Heritability tells us nothing about how genetic and environmental factors influence the development of a trait.

A trait could be 100% inherited yet have a heritability of zero. I will use the trait of having two eyes as an example. Because virtually all people with one eye became that way due to environmental occurrences - heredity explains none of the observed variance of the trait "eyedness" in a human population and therefore heritability value is zero.

I have no doubt genetic variation gives the elite advantages, but these advantages only show up at the top of the performance envelope and overwhelming majority of observable differences in ability come from their environment, training, and choices.

I think this is contextual. For some things you are probably right for other abilities it may not be the case. Again, I disagree with your claim that this is the case across the board.

3) Identical twins can differ significantly from one another in performance abilities.

Identical twins are not physiologically identical and may appear not so absolutely genetically identical either after we start sequencing individual genomes. In fact, I can guarantee it.

What is not obvious or very clear is that vast differences in ability can come from genetic sources.

Well, we know about intelligence, for example, that below certain threshold the consequences in terms of performance are very significant. Above that level the performance variance is much smaller.

I do think that in many cases there is a lot of room if you will (certainly in more cases than people usually assume).

A person with good training compared to a person with no or poor training can be orders of magnitude better at something. A typical person with good genetics compared to a person with bad genetics but with the exact same training and life circumstances can be how much better?

Someday, far in the future, you will be able to input you DNA into a computer and get a printout with your chances of reaching certain level of skill along with a time line and a manual for training .

Today we don't have that kind of data.

P.S. What a huge post you made me write

Edited November 22, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Daniel Krüger]

Interesting conversation. I would assume that those competing in the Olympic 100-meter final are more similar biologically than any sample taken at random. They have of course trained very hard to get there, probably using quite similar and sophisticated methods when it comes to physical training, mental training, diet, sleep etc., but all of them had a high potential (in running fast short distances) right from the start. They have all ghone through a selection process, which Sophia refers to, just like the methods for training have ghone through a developmental process. One cannot draw the conclusion that anyone can be great at anything just because people that ARE great in what they do (e.g Michelangelo, Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods, Mozart) have put in a lot of effort in reaching greatness. The conclusion does not derive from the premises here. I do think that it is plausible to say that it’s hard, if not impossible (incorrect conclusion actually …sorry), to reach greatness without putting in a lot of effort (real life examples to debunk this proposal please). I can come up with examples of people that are very good at virtually anything they try, right from the start and without a lot of effort, but they would still need to put in effort to become great. Why? – Well, because there are others with the same talent who will (by choice)! In my experience Francisco-types exist, just as there are people at the other end of the bell curve. Some will cry: “that’s not fair”, but nature needs no justification for being what it is - fortunately.

[~Sophia~]

It is because such differences are significant (worth knowing) that we will be soon sequencing individual genomes as a routine part of our health care.

I just came back from a talk on this topic and for the first time I have herd a number thrown up there in terms of the magnitude. It was presented that it is about 10^8 bp difference between individuals.

[Grames]

What is the unit "bp"? And for perspective, how many bp are in an individual genome?

[Maarten]

bp are basepairs, the basic units of DNA. Humans have about 3*10^9 basepairs of DNA, so this would be a fairly large difference (3% or so of the total). Sophia, was that number for the basepairs that can possibly be different between individuals, or is it the average number of bp that is different per person? (i.e. did they identify potential polymorphism sites or is it an actual difference?)

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Interestingly there is a commonly quoted statistic that we have 98+% in common with the chimpanzee, our nearest relative. [To any creationist lurkers who don't think we are related to the chimpanzee: We still have 98+% of our DNA in common with them, more so than any other species, and that plus a metric kiloshitload of other independent evidence implies relationship to anyone not willfully blind.] Now this number is often quoted in places where they do not specify whether it is 98+% similarity in base pairs or the groupings of three base pairs that define which amino acid goes into that spot in the protein (I know there is a word for it but I cannot remember what it is), or differences in the resultant amino acid itself (many of the possible combinations of three base pairs yield the same amino acid).

But it sounds like there is more difference between me and some other human being than there is between me and a chimpanzee.

Hmmm, finally a scientific explanation for my state legislator.

[Jake]

(I know there is a word for it but I cannot remember what it is

codon

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Okay so phrased less awkwardly: does the oft-quoted statistic that a chimpanzee shares 98% of its DNA in common with humans mean it's 1) 98% of the base pairs, 2) 98% of the codons, or 3) 98% of the amino acid resulting from the codon? The distinction between the last two: UUA and UUG are two different codons and would count as different under the second criteria, but both encode to leucine, which would make them no real difference at all under the third criterion.

I still find it interesting that the human-human variation is apparently greater than the human-chimp variation.

[~Sophia~]

Okay so phrased less awkwardly: does the oft-quoted statistic that a chimpanzee shares 98% of its DNA in common with humans mean it's 1) 98% of the base pairs, 2) 98% of the codons, or 3) 98% of the amino acid resulting from the codon?

That number is not accurate.

This is old but will give you a glimpse.

I still find it interesting that the human-human variation is apparently greater than the human-chimp variation.

It is not.

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, was that number for the basepairs that can possibly be different between individuals, or is it the average number of bp that is different per person?

This the magnitude of differences they see when they compare individual genomes. I think they are working on classification (identification of new polymorphic sites).

-----------

What was surprising for me to hear as well was that after they sequenced two cells (whole genome wide) coming from the same person: one healthy cell and the cancer cell (I don't remember which type) - they only found 10 differences. So the variability between individuals is rather high but the difference between healthy and not - is rather small.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

That number is not accurate.

This is old but will give you a glimpse.

Gaack, it's "Answers in Genesis"!

In any case their answer of 5% (assuming it's truly the correct number and not the product of lying sack-of-shit creationist "science") still seems awfully low compared to a 3% variability between two randomly selected people.