With all due respect,
my post to Aristotle was not meant to be a gateway for another discussion on poverty in America. Doing so would be an unforgivable distraction from a topic that is long overdue.
On a more personal note, in addressing your comment about me not understanding what I write,: That is just your misguided opinion. I never write anything I don't understand. You may not agree with my narratives, but I assure you they are usually backed by objective research or personal experience
Now,if we could get back to the main title and stay there, it would be greatly appreciated.[/quote]
IanC said:
you were the one who diverged from the OP. you implied that environmental and societal conditions were more important than native intelligence when taking an IQ test.
NO. I implied nothing of the sort. I simply noted that societal and environmental factors
played a role in cognitive development just as access to proper nutrition does. You do realize that the phrase" played a role" has some significance in that narrative, don't you?
that has been shown false for all but the most extreme cases that would be correctly called abuse in western societies. which I implied when I asked you whether poor nutrition (to the point of impairing mental function) should be blamed on the parent when there are numerous ways to attain food and other types of neccesities in our society.
Shown false by whom? Your sunday school class? I am not going there in this thread. That old Troll trap is not going to work this time!
the twins in the OP are obviously bright, and benefitted from the mathematical culture of their older siblings. if they were not bright they would not have caught on. without previous sibling success and encouragement they would not have known what to try out for.
Well, you have stumbled back on topic so I will respond. Once again your logic is flawed.
The twin's exceptional cognitive traits might or might not have been influenced entirely by sibling rivalry. In this case, environment and opportunity likely were key features in stimulating their genetic potential, just as those components triggered similar responses in their older siblings.
one of the reasons that you find academic and/or atheletic success runs in families is obviously genetics. another reason is family culture that accelerates the learning curve and demonstrates actions that may not even be thought possible by outsiders.
Granted, genetics does play a part in any human proclivities, physical and mental. But your suggestion that the pairing of two bright parents is going to always produce bright offspring has little merit. Conversely, two dull parents do not always produce dull children. Heritability is far more complex than you have posited here. Reason being that each of us has a plethora of ancestral genetic traits produced by thousands of pairings between bright
primogenitors and dull primogenitors. whatever causes one gene to dominate over another, whether it be a contributor to mental acuity or not, is an unpredictable phenomenon.