7 ms·

it's pretty much down to genetics and yes, there are environmental differences, but no you cannot manufacture them I'm not so sure. If you look at genius level

by p1esk 8y ago

it's pretty much down to genetics and yes, there are environmental differences, but no you cannot manufacture them I'm not so sure. If you look at genius level people (Mozart, Einstein, Perelman, etc) pretty much all of them had supportive, smart, educated, and usually wealthy parents. Of course genetics plays a major role, but it's not clear that genetics would overcome indifferent development environment.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
Unless you're one of the leading behavioral genetics researchers who has personally conducted multiple famous longitudinal studies (adoption studies, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies) since the mid 70s trying to nail down exactly what the environment is responsible for and you have done a thorough analysis of the literature and summarized it in a book. Then it's clear. How much more rigorous of an analysis could you get? The conclusion isn't that environment doesn't play a role. It does. The conclusion is that shared environment (family, school etc) doesn't contribute in any predictable way to the heritability of psychological traits (I think he says it's less than 1% ~ 2%). All psychological traits are on average 50% heritable (he says it ranges from 30% ~ 60% but it's on avg. 50%). The rest of the variance is from so called "non-shared" environmental differences. If you live in the same home with the siblings and go to the same school and are even in the same class, you still don't have exactly the same experience. A lot of your experiences are unique to and it's those things that shape you in combination with your genetics. He concludes that after all the research that has been done that non-shared environmental differences are unsystematic and unstable which means they are essentially random and you can make no predictions based on them and that implies you cannot systematically engineer outcomes for people.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  > The conclusion is that shared environment doesn't contribute in any predictable way to the heritability of psychological traits What a shock it would be, if such a complex object developed through interactions with its environment which are still largely illegible to current experimental methodology.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Shared environmental effects are not illegible. You longitudinally study multiple children living in the same home and attending the same school and you control for genetics by studying homes where two children have been adopted from different families into the same family,so they share only the same shared environment. Annnnd... it turns out, it seems, the shared environment doesn't explain more than 1%~2% of the variance. The methodologies for the twin studies and adoption studies outlined seem, as far as I can tell, like the best possible way to try measure that variable. How else might you do it? What isnt measurable directly are the non-shared environmental effects which contribute the Lions share of the variance attributable to the environment and represent about half the variance overall. The other half being genetics. The point is that non-shared environmental differences are essentially random and parents and schools can't manufacture them.
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      They're not random, they're just not systematizable at this point.
      - james_s_tayler 8y ago
        They're not systematizable ever. We're talking about experiences unique to each individual. If you get 30 kids sitting in a classroom they share the room they're in and the words the teacher is saying. They don't share how much attention each one is paying, they don't share the same comprehension or interpretation of the content, they don't share the way they feel about the content, they don't share the thoughts they have about the content and they don't share the new connections made in their brain as the lesson progresses. You can't systematize that. It's random.
    - chongli 8y ago
      Annnnd... it turns out, it seems, the shared environment doesn't explain more than 1%~2% of the variance. And yet we have the case of Lazslo Polgar who raised 3 daughters to be strong chess players, two of whom became world class and one who became the best female player ever [1]. How likely an outcome would this be if there had never been a chessboard in the Polgar household (nor a determined father to teach them)? Vanishingly unlikely. Scott Alexander over at SSC has written about the Polgar household [2], even going so far as to arrange a community fundraiser to pay for Laszlo Polgar's book to be translated into English [3] so that he could review it. There is a lot to be said for the Polgar family's ethnic background being a major factor in intelligence, yet children don't learn chess (or anything for that matter) without exposure to it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r [2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/30/hungarian-education-iii-mastering-the-core-teachings-of-the-budapestians/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/30/hungarian-education-iii... [3] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/31/book-review-raise-a-genius/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/31/book-review-raise-a-gen...
- stewbrew 8y ago
  Twin studies sometimes are less rigorous than they seem to be. Some people go a long way to prove what they think is right, see Sir Burt: https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+fraud+twin+studies https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+fraud+twin+studie...
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    What's say that's true... what's the likelihood all the data over the last 50 years was faked?
    - stewbrew 8y ago
      The data probably isn't fake but its interpretation could be biased by statistical incompetence. I say this as somebody who (originally) graduated in a field where the majority of studies most likely is not worth the storage used to save the pdf. Let's just say I'm skeptical when strong beliefs and world views are involved in the interpretation of data.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Twin studies sometimes are less rigorous than they seem to be IQ being just over 50% genetic is a consistent result from twin studies and other attempts to study the genetic influence.
- p1esk 8y ago
  you cannot systematically engineer outcomes for people I'm describing a particular scenario, and I'm not sure your studies have any data about it - the situation where a gifted child is developing in an indifferent environment (not being stimulated or motivated). No one claims we can turn anyone into a genius. But I'm pretty sure one needs very fortunate conditions to become one.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan It's not necessary.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      This is a great counter example, but I would urge people not to get caught up in trying to look for outliers to try and prove a point. The parents comment still stands I think. You kinda have to ask is it always the case that even in a bad home genius always manifests where it might? Or do you sometimes find that it goes entirely to waste. I'd venture to say it sometimes does go entirely to waste. On balance those kids probably go on to do well above average and it's likely you've never heard 99.999% of their names. I'm not sure why people want to focus on outlier geniuses so much when debating the claim that there is something they as a parent can do to systematically engineer higher intelligence in their own children. I just don't think it's that useful.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Given that you would have to fall into the extreme tail end of the normal distribution you ipso facto need fortunate conditions to become one to have a genius level IQ. And geniuses themselves are likely normally distributed as to their contributions to the world. So you multiply two very slim possibilities that you first have a very high IQ and that you then go on to do something noteworthy. I'm not sure that's a very helpful thing to think about though. You don't have any reasonable expectation of controlling that. I think one thing to consider is your scenario is personal choices made by the individual. If they have genius level IQ at least one of their parents has to have a significantly above average IQ and is, on the balance of probabilities, likely interested in educating their child. But let's take the hypothetical that the home environment isn't encouraging at all. When you raise kids you don't spend every waking moment with them, there is plenty of time you leave them to their own devices and they choose what they do based on what's available to them and what interests them. Kids pester their parents pretty damn hard to get what they want. Let's assume there are pretty cold and uncaring parents. Well you will probably be in daycare, so you're not at home all the time and the chance you also go to a wretched daycare is not that high, so assume you are exploring and developing your intellect there. Then you go to school and that continue s. Maybe you are too far ahead and get bored and are diagnosed with a learning disability. As you get older you gain more freedom. Perhaps you discover the library and it makes you feel wonderful that you can learn so much and you don't get such good feelings anywhere else, so you spend more and more of your time there reading and nurturing yourself. Maybe, just maybe, you nurture yourself into a genius still.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > He concludes that after all the research that has been done that non-shared environmental differences are unsystematic and unstable which means they are essentially random No, what it actually means is that the specific environmental influences haven't been identified. “Shared environment” and “unshared environment” are big buckets inferred in “top down" studies from whether people who share some pre-identified candidate influences (family environment, school, etc.) get equal or different effects. (There's also studies that work bottom-up to try to identify candidate specific environmental factors, but it's a long process of identifying potential ones and then working them into top-down studies where you can tease out the exact influence of each; we've actually identified quite a number of environmental factors, especially in early childhood, that are specific negative influences, and you can, given resources, engineer to avoid them.)
throwawaymath 8y ago
You've named three extraordinarily accomplished people. That is not sufficient to make any kind of judgement using the words, "pretty much all of them." How many supportive, smart, educated and wealthy parents in history have had children who never achieved anything resembling Einstein's work?
- p1esk 8y ago
  That is not sufficient to make any kind of judgement using the words, "pretty much all of them." How many of extraordinarily accomplished people didn't have intellectually nurturing environment? How many supportive, smart, educated and wealthy parents in history have had gifted children who have not became extraordinarily accomplished people? More importantly, how many gifted kids are not realizing their potential because their parents are too busy working, and their school teachers suck? Many times I've heard people mentioning they hate math then describing horrible ways it was taught to them in school. Often they don't even realize it was horrible.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    Exactly. We don't have enough information to make a determination either way.
    - p1esk 8y ago
      By choosing not to act, you are making a determination.
oculusthrift 8y ago
their parents were most likely smart and educated because of their genetics which they then passed down
- p1esk 8y ago
  Smart and educated is not enough. That's my point. Many of those geniuses had children who inherited genius genes, and yet have not became geniuses. Why?
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Regression to the mean. You only get 50% of the genes from each parent. It's not likely both parents are geniuses. And genetics only accounts for half the variance. The other half being non-shared environmental differences. The kids and their parents have completely unique experiences.
chuck- 8y ago
I believe you’re making a good point that others are misinterpreting or outright dismissing: Many gifted children come from upper middle class to upper class families. I’d wager majority of the people on this site are from those sorts of families and look around them and say “hey, none of us are geniuses! So, environment alone is not sufficient!” This is dismissive and misses the point (while ignoring most of these people went to good colleges and have good jobs, which typically is associated to “smart people” accomplishments). What I think you’re getting at, is that you can be gifted and raised in an environment where your parents are uneducated and you lack a support systems to nurture your intellectual growth. You can be gifted and raised in an environment where you aren’t taking college level courses in high school and don’t have what it takes (on paper) to enter a good college and then potentially get held back from what your potential would otherwise allow you to achieve. Even a kid that has a 160 IQ but went to a school where the highest math course they took is Calculus, will be behind a kid that took Calculus I-III, Differential Equarions, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis and Number theory at a STEM magnet school. Even if they are equally smart as them. The latter kid would likely get into top colleges, while the former kid may get into a State school. The latter kid will be seen as traditionally intelligent, while the former kid may be viewed as average given their high school accomplishments. I think the demographics of people on this site assume everyone is from the same upper middle to upper class backgrounds and equally have the same educational opportunities like the latter kid. What they don’t all realize is you can be really smart in a very bad environment and not achieve anywhere near what you’d otherwise be capable of. Environment plays a big factor along with genetics.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  No one is disputing that the environment plays a significant role. The claim is that the differences are random and you cannot systematically manufacture environmental differences to engineer outcomes. At least not in a way that meaningfully generalizes across a population in any useful way. In other words don't bother buying Baby Einstein.
nopinsight 8y ago
> Mozart, Einstein, Perelman, etc. That historical level of accomplishments requires the accumulation of skills as well as the opportunities to develop it for extended periods of time since childhood when neuroplasticity is at its highest. At the extreme end of the accomplishment distribution, both nature and nurture must be very high. If one of them is lacking, there would be many others whose work is as impressive and their names would not stand out. It is likely that a kind of luck, defined as being at the right place at the right time in history that matches their particular mix of skills plays a role in such cases. There are currently many times more people in the world than at any time in the past, why don't we have significantly more geniuses, as defined by accomplishments? Situations external to the individuals contribute to their geniuses. A lesson I took from this is to think strategically and work in an area you have the potentials to achieve world-class level, given your existing foundations and the possible circumstances you can choose to be in. This also applies to skill development in kids as their options, though quite broad, are not unlimited.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Bingo. That's the takeaway. Play to your strengths and nurture yourself. Help your kids find their strengths and help them nurture them.

by p1esk 8y ago

james_s_tayler 8y ago

Unless you're one of the leading behavioral genetics researchers who has personally conducted multiple famous longitudinal studies (adoption studies, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies) since the mid 70s trying to nail down exactly what the environment is responsible for and you have done a thorough analysis of the literature and summarized it in a book. Then it's clear. How much more rigorous of an analysis could you get? The conclusion isn't that environment doesn't play a role. It does. The conclusion is that shared environment (family, school etc) doesn't contribute in any predictable way to the heritability of psychological traits (I think he says it's less than 1% ~ 2%). All psychological traits are on average 50% heritable (he says it ranges from 30% ~ 60% but it's on avg. 50%). The rest of the variance is from so called "non-shared" environmental differences. If you live in the same home with the siblings and go to the same school and are even in the same class, you still don't have exactly the same experience. A lot of your experiences are unique to and it's those things that shape you in combination with your genetics. He concludes that after all the research that has been done that non-shared environmental differences are unsystematic and unstable which means they are essentially random and you can make no predictions based on them and that implies you cannot systematically engineer outcomes for people.

AlexCoventry 8y ago
> The conclusion is that shared environment doesn't contribute in any predictable way to the heritability of psychological traits What a shock it would be, if such a complex object developed through interactions with its environment which are still largely illegible to current experimental methodology.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Shared environmental effects are not illegible. You longitudinally study multiple children living in the same home and attending the same school and you control for genetics by studying homes where two children have been adopted from different families into the same family,so they share only the same shared environment. Annnnd... it turns out, it seems, the shared environment doesn't explain more than 1%~2% of the variance. The methodologies for the twin studies and adoption studies outlined seem, as far as I can tell, like the best possible way to try measure that variable. How else might you do it? What isnt measurable directly are the non-shared environmental effects which contribute the Lions share of the variance attributable to the environment and represent about half the variance overall. The other half being genetics. The point is that non-shared environmental differences are essentially random and parents and schools can't manufacture them.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    They're not random, they're just not systematizable at this point.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      They're not systematizable ever. We're talking about experiences unique to each individual. If you get 30 kids sitting in a classroom they share the room they're in and the words the teacher is saying. They don't share how much attention each one is paying, they don't share the same comprehension or interpretation of the content, they don't share the way they feel about the content, they don't share the thoughts they have about the content and they don't share the new connections made in their brain as the lesson progresses. You can't systematize that. It's random.
  - chongli 8y ago
    Annnnd... it turns out, it seems, the shared environment doesn't explain more than 1%~2% of the variance. And yet we have the case of Lazslo Polgar who raised 3 daughters to be strong chess players, two of whom became world class and one who became the best female player ever [1]. How likely an outcome would this be if there had never been a chessboard in the Polgar household (nor a determined father to teach them)? Vanishingly unlikely. Scott Alexander over at SSC has written about the Polgar household [2], even going so far as to arrange a community fundraiser to pay for Laszlo Polgar's book to be translated into English [3] so that he could review it. There is a lot to be said for the Polgar family's ethnic background being a major factor in intelligence, yet children don't learn chess (or anything for that matter) without exposure to it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r [2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/30/hungarian-education-iii-mastering-the-core-teachings-of-the-budapestians/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/30/hungarian-education-iii... [3] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/31/book-review-raise-a-genius/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/31/book-review-raise-a-gen...
stewbrew 8y ago
Twin studies sometimes are less rigorous than they seem to be. Some people go a long way to prove what they think is right, see Sir Burt: https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+fraud+twin+studies https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+fraud+twin+studie...
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  What's say that's true... what's the likelihood all the data over the last 50 years was faked?
  - stewbrew 8y ago
    The data probably isn't fake but its interpretation could be biased by statistical incompetence. I say this as somebody who (originally) graduated in a field where the majority of studies most likely is not worth the storage used to save the pdf. Let's just say I'm skeptical when strong beliefs and world views are involved in the interpretation of data.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Twin studies sometimes are less rigorous than they seem to be IQ being just over 50% genetic is a consistent result from twin studies and other attempts to study the genetic influence.
p1esk 8y ago
you cannot systematically engineer outcomes for people I'm describing a particular scenario, and I'm not sure your studies have any data about it - the situation where a gifted child is developing in an indifferent environment (not being stimulated or motivated). No one claims we can turn anyone into a genius. But I'm pretty sure one needs very fortunate conditions to become one.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan It's not necessary.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    This is a great counter example, but I would urge people not to get caught up in trying to look for outliers to try and prove a point. The parents comment still stands I think. You kinda have to ask is it always the case that even in a bad home genius always manifests where it might? Or do you sometimes find that it goes entirely to waste. I'd venture to say it sometimes does go entirely to waste. On balance those kids probably go on to do well above average and it's likely you've never heard 99.999% of their names. I'm not sure why people want to focus on outlier geniuses so much when debating the claim that there is something they as a parent can do to systematically engineer higher intelligence in their own children. I just don't think it's that useful.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Given that you would have to fall into the extreme tail end of the normal distribution you ipso facto need fortunate conditions to become one to have a genius level IQ. And geniuses themselves are likely normally distributed as to their contributions to the world. So you multiply two very slim possibilities that you first have a very high IQ and that you then go on to do something noteworthy. I'm not sure that's a very helpful thing to think about though. You don't have any reasonable expectation of controlling that. I think one thing to consider is your scenario is personal choices made by the individual. If they have genius level IQ at least one of their parents has to have a significantly above average IQ and is, on the balance of probabilities, likely interested in educating their child. But let's take the hypothetical that the home environment isn't encouraging at all. When you raise kids you don't spend every waking moment with them, there is plenty of time you leave them to their own devices and they choose what they do based on what's available to them and what interests them. Kids pester their parents pretty damn hard to get what they want. Let's assume there are pretty cold and uncaring parents. Well you will probably be in daycare, so you're not at home all the time and the chance you also go to a wretched daycare is not that high, so assume you are exploring and developing your intellect there. Then you go to school and that continue s. Maybe you are too far ahead and get bored and are diagnosed with a learning disability. As you get older you gain more freedom. Perhaps you discover the library and it makes you feel wonderful that you can learn so much and you don't get such good feelings anywhere else, so you spend more and more of your time there reading and nurturing yourself. Maybe, just maybe, you nurture yourself into a genius still.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> He concludes that after all the research that has been done that non-shared environmental differences are unsystematic and unstable which means they are essentially random No, what it actually means is that the specific environmental influences haven't been identified. “Shared environment” and “unshared environment” are big buckets inferred in “top down" studies from whether people who share some pre-identified candidate influences (family environment, school, etc.) get equal or different effects. (There's also studies that work bottom-up to try to identify candidate specific environmental factors, but it's a long process of identifying potential ones and then working them into top-down studies where you can tease out the exact influence of each; we've actually identified quite a number of environmental factors, especially in early childhood, that are specific negative influences, and you can, given resources, engineer to avoid them.)

throwawaymath 8y ago

You've named three extraordinarily accomplished people. That is not sufficient to make any kind of judgement using the words, "pretty much all of them." How many supportive, smart, educated and wealthy parents in history have had children who never achieved anything resembling Einstein's work?

p1esk 8y ago
That is not sufficient to make any kind of judgement using the words, "pretty much all of them." How many of extraordinarily accomplished people didn't have intellectually nurturing environment? How many supportive, smart, educated and wealthy parents in history have had gifted children who have not became extraordinarily accomplished people? More importantly, how many gifted kids are not realizing their potential because their parents are too busy working, and their school teachers suck? Many times I've heard people mentioning they hate math then describing horrible ways it was taught to them in school. Often they don't even realize it was horrible.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Exactly. We don't have enough information to make a determination either way.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    By choosing not to act, you are making a determination.

oculusthrift 8y ago

their parents were most likely smart and educated because of their genetics which they then passed down

p1esk 8y ago
Smart and educated is not enough. That's my point. Many of those geniuses had children who inherited genius genes, and yet have not became geniuses. Why?
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Regression to the mean. You only get 50% of the genes from each parent. It's not likely both parents are geniuses. And genetics only accounts for half the variance. The other half being non-shared environmental differences. The kids and their parents have completely unique experiences.

chuck- 8y ago

I believe you’re making a good point that others are misinterpreting or outright dismissing: Many gifted children come from upper middle class to upper class families. I’d wager majority of the people on this site are from those sorts of families and look around them and say “hey, none of us are geniuses! So, environment alone is not sufficient!” This is dismissive and misses the point (while ignoring most of these people went to good colleges and have good jobs, which typically is associated to “smart people” accomplishments). What I think you’re getting at, is that you can be gifted and raised in an environment where your parents are uneducated and you lack a support systems to nurture your intellectual growth. You can be gifted and raised in an environment where you aren’t taking college level courses in high school and don’t have what it takes (on paper) to enter a good college and then potentially get held back from what your potential would otherwise allow you to achieve. Even a kid that has a 160 IQ but went to a school where the highest math course they took is Calculus, will be behind a kid that took Calculus I-III, Differential Equarions, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis and Number theory at a STEM magnet school. Even if they are equally smart as them. The latter kid would likely get into top colleges, while the former kid may get into a State school. The latter kid will be seen as traditionally intelligent, while the former kid may be viewed as average given their high school accomplishments. I think the demographics of people on this site assume everyone is from the same upper middle to upper class backgrounds and equally have the same educational opportunities like the latter kid. What they don’t all realize is you can be really smart in a very bad environment and not achieve anywhere near what you’d otherwise be capable of. Environment plays a big factor along with genetics.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
No one is disputing that the environment plays a significant role. The claim is that the differences are random and you cannot systematically manufacture environmental differences to engineer outcomes. At least not in a way that meaningfully generalizes across a population in any useful way. In other words don't bother buying Baby Einstein.

nopinsight 8y ago

> Mozart, Einstein, Perelman, etc. That historical level of accomplishments requires the accumulation of skills as well as the opportunities to develop it for extended periods of time since childhood when neuroplasticity is at its highest. At the extreme end of the accomplishment distribution, both nature and nurture must be very high. If one of them is lacking, there would be many others whose work is as impressive and their names would not stand out. It is likely that a kind of luck, defined as being at the right place at the right time in history that matches their particular mix of skills plays a role in such cases. There are currently many times more people in the world than at any time in the past, why don't we have significantly more geniuses, as defined by accomplishments? Situations external to the individuals contribute to their geniuses. A lesson I took from this is to think strategically and work in an area you have the potentials to achieve world-class level, given your existing foundations and the possible circumstances you can choose to be in. This also applies to skill development in kids as their options, though quite broad, are not unlimited.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
Bingo. That's the takeaway. Play to your strengths and nurture yourself. Help your kids find their strengths and help them nurture them.