4 ms·

> even if hypoethetically there is a genetic component > Genetics might be a thing Wouldn't it be a huge surprise if genetics weren't a thing when it comes to

> even if hypoethetically there is a genetic component > Genetics might be a thing Wouldn't it be a huge surprise if genetics weren't a thing when it comes to intelligence (or imperfect attempts to quantify it)? Maybe my lay understanding is out of date or something, but research like [1] concludes that metrics of intelligence are "moderately to substantially heritable," along with "virtually all individual psychological differences." [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12486697/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12486697/

meowface 6y ago
Of course; the parent likely meant something more like "even if hypothetically there is a strong or very strong genetic component". It's undeniable there is one, but the responsibility is still hotly debated. I've seen claims between 20 - 90%. I think their point was that no matter how strong it might be, it often may not visibly materialize due to various environmental factors, including passive or active suppression and the way our societies and economies are organized. So assuming for the sake of argument it's 50% or even 90%, there are still a lot of reasons why such gifted people may not get recognized and/or reach their full potential. Ramanujan very easily could've died with almost no one remembering him if none of the letters he wrote were taken seriously. The first two mathematicians he contacted ignored him. If not for the third, G. H. Hardy, giving him a chance, we might not be talking about him. And even he initially suspected he was a fraud of some kind, until he scrutinized the work more carefully and shared it with others.
Matumio 6y ago
The main thing about homo sapiens is that we are a cultural species, capable of evolving and select for culture much faster than genetic evolution, passing know-how and tools down to the next generation to improve. The culture, tools and values we grow around with has so much power to shape our thinking and values (not even talking about opportunities) that I would be surprised if it didn't dwarf most genetic influence. (Hard to prove: how do you know success was passed down via culture vs genes?) This is why we are so interested to learn about geniuses: by adapting their values and thinking, we might be able to copy some of their success. This is the process of cultural learning, for better or worse.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  > Hard to prove: how do you know success was passed down via culture vs genes? By studying twins separated at birth (reared-apart twins), which establishes that genetics accounts for more variation in intelligence than environment, culture, etc. One starting point for further reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/well/family/what-twins-can-teach-us-about-nature-vs-nurture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/well/family/what-twins-ca...
  - jariel 6y ago
    'Success' in life is something completely different from 'success' in academia. The later probably requires one to be quite intelligent, the former, not necessarily, it'd be just one of many advantages. Throw in the creativity and propensity to think or daydream, frankly I don't know how many professors could do anything else with their lives. We all know profs who literally would put ties on backwards.
andyxor 6y ago
I think "genius" has a lot to do with being recognized and widely known, which is tied to luck and fashion to a large extent, and almost always a prominent evangelist "marketing" the work is playing the main role in establishing someone's work as "genius" in public opinion. Social network dynamics are driving the exposure and acceptance of someone's work as exceptional. Johann Sebastian Bach would have been an obscure and almost forgotten composer if not for Mendelssohn discovering and popularizing his work 140 years after his death[1]. Same with Vincent van Gogh and countless other geniuses tolling in obscurity whose output was perhaps equally great but never became popular if not for their resourceful high-profile evangelists. Jesus of Nazareth would have been a long forgotten Jewish rabbi if not for Paul and the apostles making the Gospel go viral. [1] https://musicwithvision.medici.tv/clef-notes/this-week-in-music-history/mendelssohn-revives-bachs-st-matthew-passion-1829/ https://musicwithvision.medici.tv/clef-notes/this-week-in-mu...
sudosysgen 6y ago
It can be the case that the raw intelligence necessary to be a genius is moderately to substantially heritable, and yet that most people that inherit such raw intelligence don't become geniuses. In fact, this seems quite likely.

meowface 6y ago

Of course; the parent likely meant something more like "even if hypothetically there is a strong or very strong genetic component". It's undeniable there is one, but the responsibility is still hotly debated. I've seen claims between 20 - 90%. I think their point was that no matter how strong it might be, it often may not visibly materialize due to various environmental factors, including passive or active suppression and the way our societies and economies are organized. So assuming for the sake of argument it's 50% or even 90%, there are still a lot of reasons why such gifted people may not get recognized and/or reach their full potential. Ramanujan very easily could've died with almost no one remembering him if none of the letters he wrote were taken seriously. The first two mathematicians he contacted ignored him. If not for the third, G. H. Hardy, giving him a chance, we might not be talking about him. And even he initially suspected he was a fraud of some kind, until he scrutinized the work more carefully and shared it with others.

Matumio 6y ago

The main thing about homo sapiens is that we are a cultural species, capable of evolving and select for culture much faster than genetic evolution, passing know-how and tools down to the next generation to improve. The culture, tools and values we grow around with has so much power to shape our thinking and values (not even talking about opportunities) that I would be surprised if it didn't dwarf most genetic influence. (Hard to prove: how do you know success was passed down via culture vs genes?) This is why we are so interested to learn about geniuses: by adapting their values and thinking, we might be able to copy some of their success. This is the process of cultural learning, for better or worse.

EForEndeavour 6y ago
> Hard to prove: how do you know success was passed down via culture vs genes? By studying twins separated at birth (reared-apart twins), which establishes that genetics accounts for more variation in intelligence than environment, culture, etc. One starting point for further reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/well/family/what-twins-can-teach-us-about-nature-vs-nurture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/well/family/what-twins-ca...
- jariel 6y ago
  'Success' in life is something completely different from 'success' in academia. The later probably requires one to be quite intelligent, the former, not necessarily, it'd be just one of many advantages. Throw in the creativity and propensity to think or daydream, frankly I don't know how many professors could do anything else with their lives. We all know profs who literally would put ties on backwards.

andyxor 6y ago

I think "genius" has a lot to do with being recognized and widely known, which is tied to luck and fashion to a large extent, and almost always a prominent evangelist "marketing" the work is playing the main role in establishing someone's work as "genius" in public opinion. Social network dynamics are driving the exposure and acceptance of someone's work as exceptional. Johann Sebastian Bach would have been an obscure and almost forgotten composer if not for Mendelssohn discovering and popularizing his work 140 years after his death[1]. Same with Vincent van Gogh and countless other geniuses tolling in obscurity whose output was perhaps equally great but never became popular if not for their resourceful high-profile evangelists. Jesus of Nazareth would have been a long forgotten Jewish rabbi if not for Paul and the apostles making the Gospel go viral. [1] https://musicwithvision.medici.tv/clef-notes/this-week-in-music-history/mendelssohn-revives-bachs-st-matthew-passion-1829/ https://musicwithvision.medici.tv/clef-notes/this-week-in-mu...

sudosysgen 6y ago

It can be the case that the raw intelligence necessary to be a genius is moderately to substantially heritable, and yet that most people that inherit such raw intelligence don't become geniuses. In fact, this seems quite likely.