Zero Powers wrote
> [Lee wrote]
>> ... twin studies show that there is a lot more in our individual genetic
>> makeup than is commonly thought, and this can include some of the virtues
>> you mentioned. So you have been "lucky" not only in having a good
>> environment, but also, most likely having obtained many beneficial genes.
>
> So is it nature or nurture? That is the question. Seems to me the obvious
> answer is: It's both.
Of course. This has actually been known for a whole century (at least).
> My intellectual curiosity does seem to be a product of my biological
> make-up, particularly since I seem to excel in that more so even than
> my own parents. But I wonder at what age it would finally have
> developed if it hadn't been nurtured by my parents.
Of course, that has to remain an imponderable until we are able to
either run simulations or clones get cheap.
J.R. writes
> 70% nature and 30% nurture; that is the answer.
Well, that's about what they've found for *intelligence*, but hardly
for a lot of other predispostions.
Party of Citizens writes
> Are there sound, scientific, a priori reasons for saying
> that there are no race differences in intelligence due to
> nature-genetics? What are they?
The only alleged "scientific" reasons (pushed off on everyone
in the 1960's) that there are *no* race differences in intelligence
or anything else, should be rejected by those with open minds and
who are current with modern investigations.
As I said in a previous post, however, it is an even worse
mistake to think that such differences are anything more than
statistical; there has been too little time for large differences
to evolve, and at present there is, of course, a very large overlap
between all human groups.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:08 MDT