4 ms·

Do we actually have no idea what the biological/genetic differences between geniuses and average people are? That's interesting. > I'd like to take the idyllic

Do we actually have no idea what the biological/genetic differences between geniuses and average people are? That's interesting. > I'd like to take the idyllic position of (somewhat irresponsibly) hoping that some level of genius can be fostered and created in anyone from a young age So you believe that genius is environmental and not genetic? Or maybe we are thinking about different definitions of genius.

smnplk 6y ago
I believe the foundations have to be genetic. There are multitude of factors involved and one of them is having a strong memory. But there also needs to be a drive and thirst for knowledge.
- astrange 6y ago
  The difference between humans and other apes is genetic, but anything more than that is not. Humans have nearly no genetic diversity because of population bottlenecks, there are barely any interesting differences between us. It's also not that useful to think about. Phenylketonuria is a condition that makes you less intelligent if you drink Diet Coke, and most people don't have the gene for it. But not having phenylketonuria isn't a "gene for intelligence", it's just not having a disease.
  - MagnumOpus 6y ago
    Both points you make are massively incorrect. Humans do have massive genetic diversity, in physical characteristics as well as mental ones). In the last decade, GWAS analysis has now lead to the ability to identify the gene combinations responsible for intelligence (as well as height, various cancer predispositions etc), and predictive ability is high (i.e. predicting cohort differences in income, years of education etc just from genetic material). It is also something both extremely useful and important to think about both how to avoid both nature and nurture components of intelligence. Preventing diseases detrimental to brain development (like using unleaded fuel and paints) are some of the best bang for the buck on a population level, and maximizing the genetic potential of your offspring by avoiding genetic faults and choosing positive traits while doing IVF will be an unavoidable consequence of current research.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      > In the last decade, GWAS analysis has now lead to the ability to identify the gene combinations responsible for intelligence (as well as height, various cancer predispositions etc), and predictive ability is high (i.e. predicting cohort differences in income, years of education etc just from genetic material) That you seem to think GWAS operates at a genetic level, just for a start, leads me to doubt very strongly you will be able to provide any supporting citations for the claims you make here, which are wildly heterodox verging upon eugenicist. I am no longer close to the field of bioinformatics, though, so perhaps you will surprise me!
- kaba0 6y ago
  I think drive and thirst for knowledge is more “nurture”, but the base is heavily correlated with genetics. I think it is the same with people holding world records in sports. You can get insanely good no matter where you come from (let alone some unfortunate medical conditions) with only drive and enough exercise, but to win a gold medal, you have to be born for a given sport (of course on top of the insane amount of motivation and exercise spent on it!). Also, probably it is less sport-specific, so someone becoming a world-class soccer player would have been similarly good in a similar sport.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    Absolutely. Drive and determination can get you closer to your personal genetic ceiling. But if you don't have lucky genetics your ceiling will be lower than the world class level. Whether that is sports, math, painting, whatever.
stephc_int13 6y ago
From a genetic standpoint, all humans are 99.9% identical beasts. There is of course some genetic components in potential abilities. But I strongly believe that most of the differences we are seeing are built on compounded interest of environmental factors, starting from a very young age.
- internetslave 6y ago
  Zero chance it’s environmental
  - stephc_int13 6y ago
    Why not?
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I'm not sure this is a viable argument considering that we also share much of our DNA with apes/monkeys. It seems like minor genetic differences can create large disparities. I definitely think environmental factors can compound on a genetic baseline though, and of course the earlier you start compounding the greater the returns.
  - stephc_int13 6y ago
    The differences between apes and humans is much larger than between humans, by at least an order of magnitude.
    - KMag 6y ago
      But that's not a sufficient counter-argument that the GGP post's reasoning is sound. Even single base pair mutations can have huge impacts. A surprising percentage of the human genome is retroviral in origin. As far as I know, "Genetic clock" analysis is the only sound application of counting base pair differences. I don't think the GP is arguing one way or the other. They seem to be mostly questioning how wide the error bars should be on these statements. It looks like a Socratic twist on "citation needed" without an implication that statements are necessarily wrong.
tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
My personal experience is that it's a bit of both. I am not a genius, but I can tell that I'm likely above average. I was raised in an environment that did not value intellect or education, and I always felt out of place. It definitely felt innate, and there are lots of stories from people in similar circumstances. On the other hand, I never did well in school, especially math. One of my teachers literally called me stupid. So I had this self-perception of just not being very good at STEM. Had I not fallen into programming by accident, I would never have changed that perception of myself. I imagine there are very many people who had similar experiences, but were not so lucky as to learn their actual potential. So, it's almost certainly a combination of factors.

smnplk 6y ago

I believe the foundations have to be genetic. There are multitude of factors involved and one of them is having a strong memory. But there also needs to be a drive and thirst for knowledge.

astrange 6y ago
The difference between humans and other apes is genetic, but anything more than that is not. Humans have nearly no genetic diversity because of population bottlenecks, there are barely any interesting differences between us. It's also not that useful to think about. Phenylketonuria is a condition that makes you less intelligent if you drink Diet Coke, and most people don't have the gene for it. But not having phenylketonuria isn't a "gene for intelligence", it's just not having a disease.
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  Both points you make are massively incorrect. Humans do have massive genetic diversity, in physical characteristics as well as mental ones). In the last decade, GWAS analysis has now lead to the ability to identify the gene combinations responsible for intelligence (as well as height, various cancer predispositions etc), and predictive ability is high (i.e. predicting cohort differences in income, years of education etc just from genetic material). It is also something both extremely useful and important to think about both how to avoid both nature and nurture components of intelligence. Preventing diseases detrimental to brain development (like using unleaded fuel and paints) are some of the best bang for the buck on a population level, and maximizing the genetic potential of your offspring by avoiding genetic faults and choosing positive traits while doing IVF will be an unavoidable consequence of current research.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    > In the last decade, GWAS analysis has now lead to the ability to identify the gene combinations responsible for intelligence (as well as height, various cancer predispositions etc), and predictive ability is high (i.e. predicting cohort differences in income, years of education etc just from genetic material) That you seem to think GWAS operates at a genetic level, just for a start, leads me to doubt very strongly you will be able to provide any supporting citations for the claims you make here, which are wildly heterodox verging upon eugenicist. I am no longer close to the field of bioinformatics, though, so perhaps you will surprise me!
kaba0 6y ago
I think drive and thirst for knowledge is more “nurture”, but the base is heavily correlated with genetics. I think it is the same with people holding world records in sports. You can get insanely good no matter where you come from (let alone some unfortunate medical conditions) with only drive and enough exercise, but to win a gold medal, you have to be born for a given sport (of course on top of the insane amount of motivation and exercise spent on it!). Also, probably it is less sport-specific, so someone becoming a world-class soccer player would have been similarly good in a similar sport.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  Absolutely. Drive and determination can get you closer to your personal genetic ceiling. But if you don't have lucky genetics your ceiling will be lower than the world class level. Whether that is sports, math, painting, whatever.

stephc_int13 6y ago

From a genetic standpoint, all humans are 99.9% identical beasts. There is of course some genetic components in potential abilities. But I strongly believe that most of the differences we are seeing are built on compounded interest of environmental factors, starting from a very young age.

internetslave 6y ago
Zero chance it’s environmental
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  Why not?
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I'm not sure this is a viable argument considering that we also share much of our DNA with apes/monkeys. It seems like minor genetic differences can create large disparities. I definitely think environmental factors can compound on a genetic baseline though, and of course the earlier you start compounding the greater the returns.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  The differences between apes and humans is much larger than between humans, by at least an order of magnitude.
  - KMag 6y ago
    But that's not a sufficient counter-argument that the GGP post's reasoning is sound. Even single base pair mutations can have huge impacts. A surprising percentage of the human genome is retroviral in origin. As far as I know, "Genetic clock" analysis is the only sound application of counting base pair differences. I don't think the GP is arguing one way or the other. They seem to be mostly questioning how wide the error bars should be on these statements. It looks like a Socratic twist on "citation needed" without an implication that statements are necessarily wrong.

tenaciousDaniel 6y ago

My personal experience is that it's a bit of both. I am not a genius, but I can tell that I'm likely above average. I was raised in an environment that did not value intellect or education, and I always felt out of place. It definitely felt innate, and there are lots of stories from people in similar circumstances. On the other hand, I never did well in school, especially math. One of my teachers literally called me stupid. So I had this self-perception of just not being very good at STEM. Had I not fallen into programming by accident, I would never have changed that perception of myself. I imagine there are very many people who had similar experiences, but were not so lucky as to learn their actual potential. So, it's almost certainly a combination of factors.