I think a conflation of parenting with education in general can shed light on this; here are some questions to ponder along those lines: - Could someone who's

I think a conflation of parenting with education in general can shed light on this; here are some questions to ponder along those lines: - Could someone who's never learned calculus be expect to apply it to a problem? - Could someone with little experience in reading be expected to write well? - Could someone who had little education in his or her childhood, but taught a robust education in his 20s and 30s (or later) be expected to perform as someone who learned it younger? - If someone spends his 20s in jail, would you expect him to be able to get a white-color job afterwards? - A smart person does damage to his cognitive abilities by drugs etc, both acute and chronic/permanent. Is this a nature or nurture consideration? What about the genetic and environmental factors that lead to this drug use? - A smart person learns and becomes proficient at a skill in a month. A less-smart person struggles in the first month, but keeps at it, and becomes proficient in 6 months. For that skill, (This is almost a tautology), would they perform the task at an acceptable level? My point is that we should consider a model where capabilities are based on physical qualities that are largely unchangeable (for the better). A distinction from genetics: The base is genetics, but other things like injuries also play this. However, skills and learning are linked heavily with the nurture side. Genetics etc plays an important role of how well someone can learn something, but the learning still must occur through information acquired and sorted in the brain after birth. Stated another way: It's clear that humans (And to a lesser extent other mammals) rely on a childhood full of nurture and learning. Physical touch, social interactions, learning skills, etc. This alone is enough to debunk the strawman in the article, even if you recognize the critical role of genetics.