5 ms·

>Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds Not following this logic and this seems to be at o

>Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds Not following this logic and this seems to be at odds with the rest of your comment. You seem to be saying that the idea of 'nurture/environment' being more or as important than 'nature/genetics' belittles the effort made by individuals to train their minds? Isn't the complete opposite actually true, ie acknowledging the importance of 'nurture/environment' or epigenetic enabled knowledge/skill acquisition, would actually be to recognise rather than belittle the 'consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds'?

dimitrios1 6y ago
I didn't finish the train of thought because I felt like it was getting too wordy, but, yes training can bring you to a certain level, but you need to have the right genes as well to be even above everyone else. I am a big sports buff so my mind instantly thinks of all the thousands upon thousands of players across the world, people who train night and day, sleep 8+ hours, have perfect diets, and still come up short. Then you have a Michael Jordan, or my favorite example of pure genetic specimen: Bo Jackson. You need it all: the right genes, the skill acquisition, the grit, the determination, the right mindset, and finally, a little bit of luck.
- SJC_Hacker 6y ago
  Shaquille O'Neal is the perfect example of this. He hit the genetic jackpot. Being 7' feet tall is a one in 1 million shot. Being 7'2 with that type of frame is like a 1 in a billion shot.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    So glad you brought up Shaq. He is the perfect example of if he had say half the madness of a Michael Jordan, he probably would have went down as the greatest of all time, surpassing Kareem. He made grown men look like children in the same way Wilt did in his generation.
- willmw101 6y ago
  No, I get all that. Just wondering why you wrote this in the wider context of your comment: >Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    I am realizing this is difficult to express concisely. Let's for the sake of this conversation narrow down our definition of intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" which also presupposes some form of ability to maintain intense lengths of focus and concentration required to learn these skills and acquire said knowledge. I will preface by saying surely there have been people whom society would have viewed as "not having the right genes" accomplished many great feats and tasks. And surely there have been geniuses, or what we view in a certain lens as "genius" without having had a reputation for being particularly intelligent. But the point I am making has three parts: Point one: If you take the purely metaphysical approach, there is a maximum capacity for intelligence that any one individual has. Evolutionary biology has told us, thus far to our understanding, that this is brain size. Going down this same road, that means certain people have evolved, or fitted more advantageously for intelligence, and some for other things like strength, others for other traits that are important, so on and so forth (by the way to go ahead and nip in the bud, this isn't saying one is better or more important, so don't take this as any kind of statement of supremacy). Genetics plays in part your maximum capacity, for some function of intelligence: whether its the sheer number of skills and knowledge you can acquire, I haven't done enough research personally to make an accurate statement there, but I do know that we have limitations and those limitations are determined by genetics. Point two: You can certainly overcome some limitations. But your effort to overcome efforts and become "genius" at a given field is still hampered versus someone who puts in the same effort and has the genetic platform. That is why you still have the "scrappy" players in the NFL that are clearly inferior genetically but have carved out a niche for themselves, or you have business people that have a "stroke of brilliance" But in order to obtain maximum human potential for intelligence, the genetic platform first needs to be there, and then you need to put in the consistent effort to acquire the skills, to put them to use. Said another way someone genetically inclined to gather knowledge is going to accomplish more knowledge gathering than someone not genetically inclined to do so. Just as my lanky and bony arms are never going to lift as much weight as someone who has tree trunks for arms if we hit the gym the same amount of times. Point three: Yes there are scrawny and scrappy, the "brainless" that have strokes of genius, the people who overcome improbable disadvantages to achieve greatness. But we are talking about the most likely scenario. I have 3 brothers and my oldest was always considered the most intelligent. We had the exact same upbringing and exposure to resources and tools. Our genetic expressions determine our propensities to engage in certain behaviors, which lead to certain interests, which lead us down different roads. Our environments help carry us along those paths. The ones that are truly great, or "genius" or "best of all time" in a sport, have gone down a road they have the genetic propensity for, and utilized their capacity to its fullest, through consistent effort and energy. This is at least my current model of the world through my life experiences. Do you think it is grossly incorrect? Happy to be corrected, or incorporate more factors.

dimitrios1 6y ago

I didn't finish the train of thought because I felt like it was getting too wordy, but, yes training can bring you to a certain level, but you need to have the right genes as well to be even above everyone else. I am a big sports buff so my mind instantly thinks of all the thousands upon thousands of players across the world, people who train night and day, sleep 8+ hours, have perfect diets, and still come up short. Then you have a Michael Jordan, or my favorite example of pure genetic specimen: Bo Jackson. You need it all: the right genes, the skill acquisition, the grit, the determination, the right mindset, and finally, a little bit of luck.

SJC_Hacker 6y ago
Shaquille O'Neal is the perfect example of this. He hit the genetic jackpot. Being 7' feet tall is a one in 1 million shot. Being 7'2 with that type of frame is like a 1 in a billion shot.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  So glad you brought up Shaq. He is the perfect example of if he had say half the madness of a Michael Jordan, he probably would have went down as the greatest of all time, surpassing Kareem. He made grown men look like children in the same way Wilt did in his generation.
willmw101 6y ago
No, I get all that. Just wondering why you wrote this in the wider context of your comment: >Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  I am realizing this is difficult to express concisely. Let's for the sake of this conversation narrow down our definition of intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" which also presupposes some form of ability to maintain intense lengths of focus and concentration required to learn these skills and acquire said knowledge. I will preface by saying surely there have been people whom society would have viewed as "not having the right genes" accomplished many great feats and tasks. And surely there have been geniuses, or what we view in a certain lens as "genius" without having had a reputation for being particularly intelligent. But the point I am making has three parts: Point one: If you take the purely metaphysical approach, there is a maximum capacity for intelligence that any one individual has. Evolutionary biology has told us, thus far to our understanding, that this is brain size. Going down this same road, that means certain people have evolved, or fitted more advantageously for intelligence, and some for other things like strength, others for other traits that are important, so on and so forth (by the way to go ahead and nip in the bud, this isn't saying one is better or more important, so don't take this as any kind of statement of supremacy). Genetics plays in part your maximum capacity, for some function of intelligence: whether its the sheer number of skills and knowledge you can acquire, I haven't done enough research personally to make an accurate statement there, but I do know that we have limitations and those limitations are determined by genetics. Point two: You can certainly overcome some limitations. But your effort to overcome efforts and become "genius" at a given field is still hampered versus someone who puts in the same effort and has the genetic platform. That is why you still have the "scrappy" players in the NFL that are clearly inferior genetically but have carved out a niche for themselves, or you have business people that have a "stroke of brilliance" But in order to obtain maximum human potential for intelligence, the genetic platform first needs to be there, and then you need to put in the consistent effort to acquire the skills, to put them to use. Said another way someone genetically inclined to gather knowledge is going to accomplish more knowledge gathering than someone not genetically inclined to do so. Just as my lanky and bony arms are never going to lift as much weight as someone who has tree trunks for arms if we hit the gym the same amount of times. Point three: Yes there are scrawny and scrappy, the "brainless" that have strokes of genius, the people who overcome improbable disadvantages to achieve greatness. But we are talking about the most likely scenario. I have 3 brothers and my oldest was always considered the most intelligent. We had the exact same upbringing and exposure to resources and tools. Our genetic expressions determine our propensities to engage in certain behaviors, which lead to certain interests, which lead us down different roads. Our environments help carry us along those paths. The ones that are truly great, or "genius" or "best of all time" in a sport, have gone down a road they have the genetic propensity for, and utilized their capacity to its fullest, through consistent effort and energy. This is at least my current model of the world through my life experiences. Do you think it is grossly incorrect? Happy to be corrected, or incorporate more factors.