We have two daughters, ages 13 and 14. Love them both equally, obviously. We raised them in the same manner, they have been raised in the exact same environment, and they have attend the same schools.
The 13 year old is very intelligent, very studious, and has *lots *of self discipline. She has always been #1 in her class in math and science. She wants to get her PhD in physics, and I believe she will. The 14 year old is very artistic and a C- student. She’s having lots of trouble in the academic department. I’m not even sure if she’ll be able to make it through college.
Though interestingly, there’s a pretty wide variance in level across the sisters given their elite level - Judith would routinely crush Susan, who would routinely crush Sofia.
Sure, there is a variation in ability of each, butthat still doesn’t necessarily argue to innate capability over nurture; without knowing the amount of training, support, et cetera we can’t say which of the sisters should be better “by nurture”. But the fact that all three sisters are unambiguously world class players–a phenomenon that I believe is unprecidented in the sport–is almost inarguably a result of environment and education, not just integral nature. On the other hand, I wouldn’t argue that any random child under László’s tutelage would achieve the same level of achievement; the sisters all bring in the basic genetic heritage for the development of analytical thinking that allowed their father to be an expert-level coach and authority in the field. But that they all surpassed him at so vast a level and achieved elite status against any random statistical probability of natural genius certainly validates the hypothesis that effective intelligence (as opposed to nascent capability) is a trainable quality.
You have a point but it isn’t unprecedented. Archie (the father) and his two sons Eli and Peyton Manning are all stellar quarterbacks in the NFL. The Manning’s have a third son who was also a great football player but developed a spinal condition and had to quit playing after high school. The chances of any one person being an NFL quarterback are so minuscule you might as well consider it like a lottery win if it was random. To have three in the same family is incredible but I don’t think it is by chance alone. The two sons were born with the raw physical and mental tools to do it. It helped a great deal that they had a father to coach them at an early age but you wouldn’t get very far with that for even a typical very talented high school quarterback without something special running in the family. Chess skills and quarterbacking skills can be taught to some degree but thousands if not millions of people have access to the same level of coaching and can’t do it at that level.
But the difference is that there is unambiguously phenotypical characteristics that allow someone to be an elite athlete, and it is generally accepted that while there are epigenetic and congenital factors which contribute to or detract from physical development, that the basic physical plan is predominately genetic. Any average person in good health can achieve a high degree of fitness through training alone, but only those at the far tail of certain physical characteristics, such as muscle fiber composition, musculoskeletal structure, et cetera, will ever be able to complete at the level of a Peyton Manning, Michael Jordon, or Michael Phelps regardless of how hard they train and condition.
With cognitive characteristics and capabilities, this principle is not well established. Not because it isn’t necessarily true, but because we know so little about how cognition and brain function works to begin with that we cannot even establish a baseline for human intellect except in the most gross qualitative ways, e.g. the intelligence quotient, which is a relative measure of capability only assuming a comparable cultural and educational background. We do know that ultimate ability is significantly affected by early development and environment, but despite the efforts of many to define specific ways to enhance intelligence, there is little consistency in results, e.g. having your fetus listen to Mozart does not produce a musical genius or even enthusiast.
This leads many to the conclusion that intelligence is dominated by genetics. However, we have singular experiments, such as the Polgár sisters, who would seem to defy that logic. While intelligence and capability do sometimes run in families–for instance, Richard Feynman and his sister Joan are notable physicists, albeit Joan is an experimentalist while Dick was not to be trusted with actual hardware–there is just no plausible explanation why all three Polgár sisters would inherit the exact same genetic factors that would let all three become “natural” world class chess players. The same is true with people who insist that mathematicians must have a “math gene”; while there are a few Ramanujans who have some kind of inexplicable natural ability, the vast majority of mathematicians and people who use advanced mathematics develop that ability by just working very, very hard at developing the cognitive abilities to think in terms of math.
So I think the only answer to the o.p. is that we know so little about what intelligence even is, much less how it the expression of natural abilities is mediated by environment, that we cannot provide any concrete answer or even a reasonable estimate of the ratio of natural ability to environment. However, even a cursory examination indicates that both nature and nurture play a significant part in how intellectual abilities develop and are expressed.
Lots of people had better musical training than Mozart. There are very few Mozarts - including Mozart’s sister.
As for math, I’ve seen significant differences in the ability to do different types of math. My older daughter could tell if she had 9 or 8 bibs when she was still in the crib and before she could speak, and had excellent math skills right up to calculus. She is still very good at statistics, and her difficulty with math that requires more visualization is not from lack of trying. Feynman wrote about just seeing how to integrate. I can’t, and it is not from lack of effort.
While it is true that working hard in math or music helps, it is not substitute for innate talent.
“chess gene”
It’s possible there are genes responsible for the mental attribute(s) that gives the person an advantage when playing a game like chess. It doesn’t have to be a single gene specific to chess.
With this one single example, we still don’t know how much of their skill is due to genetics.
I certainly don’t dispute the general nature/nurture/environmental consensus, but I do think the logic in your first sentence doesn’t hold. Having two intelligent parents produce an unintelligent child doesn’t prove that it’s “not all genetic”, because there’s variability in genetics. You sometimes see two tall parents with a short kid and so on.
But you wouldn’t expect a lot of deviation, e.g. a “genius” with unremarkable parents. But I would speculate that a lot of “unremarkable parents” with genius children are actually exceptionally bright themselves, but were simply not given the opportunity to express their intelligence.
Welll I did qualify that. I said “but it’s clearly not all genetic, at least in the sense that intelligent parents are no guarantee of an intelligent child,”. There are other characteristics where there’s a stronger correlation with genes. We just don’t know how genetics affect intelligence, or nurture for that matter.
First, we conceived. This involves genetic material from our parents, which may combine and recombine in complex and unexpected ways. We all know a set of short parents who manage to have an unusually tall kid- and height is a straight forward thing. With intelligence, there are different kinds of intelligence that work together in different ways. For example, a gifted “big picture” person who is also good with writing has the potential to be a visionary. But a gifted “big picture” person who is bad at communicating has a good chance of not doing anything useful with their intelligence, whereas a gifted mathematician won’t be as hampered by poor communication skills. So it doesn’t matter just how smart our parents are, but also how the things we’ve inherited work together.
Then there is early development. Malnutrition, illness, stress, and unstimulating environments in early life can inhibit development, stunting the ultimately intellectual capacity. The maximum potential we live with in our life is probably set in the first few years, as we develop neurologically.
Then there are things like school, which help us channel our intellectual capacity. Another important factor is “soft skills,” including resilience, social skills and diligence. A moderately intelligent hard worker will probably achieve more than a brilliant lazy person, and the brilliant lazy person’s intelligence may never be expressed at all.
Because this is all so complex and intermingled, I don’t think it is possible to meaningfully separate out the nature and nurture.
I agree with this. The example would be way more interesting if all three had been adopted from different genetic heritages. Also, there’s evidence that high level chess players brains process differently, though again it’s not clear if that’s inherited or developed.
There are many tiny variations. My father, brother, and I share a highly specific math-related trait. None of us had the same math teachers, nor did we teach each other math, or even discuss it when my brother and I were kids. As adults, however, we wandered into a discussion of mental arithmetic, and discovered that all three of us had independently developed exactly the same mental shortcuts, to the extent that we held numbers in the same “location” in our visualization of the problem.
Given the substantial differences in our math environments, it suggests that something heritable in our mental makeup makes that system a natural fit for us.
I knew and once taught one of a pair of identical twins. One studied physics and the other math. They both won Rhodes scholarships. One is now a well-regarded physics and the other one has never had a career. He worked for an alternative newspaper, he has done some free-lance translation and now has some relatively low-level job. Same nature, same nurture, maybe different womb environments, very different outcomes. Go figure.
There was some letters in the NY Times yesterday discussing some of these things. One struck me in particular since it claimed that reading to them early, helping with their homework, … made more of a difference than nature. I mention this because while my wife and I read a lot to our kids practically from birth, I can recall only one instance in which we helped with homework. Our attitude was that the only true discipline was self-discipline and they were going to have to learn to sink or swim on their own. They swam, all three of them.
Sophia, our 11yo, is bright, funny, smart, and constantly tests in the 80s-90s on her Iowa test scores (I keep an Excel spreadsheet showing her progress throughout the years). I would hazard a guess that her IQ is in the mid-120s (her mothers and mine tested around 130), so the nature part was, fortunately, set in her favor.
On the other hand, her mother (especially!) and I are extremely involved in Sophia’s academic life - if you search through my threads here you’ll find a number that deal with education issues - to the point where “education” is more of a facet of our existence than something you do 5 days a week, 6-8 hours a day. For example, during the summer we send her to various 1-week educational camps throughout San Antonio - geology camp, archaeology camp, photography camp, math camp, even Harry Potter and Doctor Who camps. During the school year, not only do we keep on top of her homework (sorry, Hari! ), she and I will spend an hour every Sunday previewing the upcoming weeks work (especially math, where this has made a BIG difference in her comprehension and confidence.) She doesn’t read just the minimum (1-2 books) on her summer reading list, she reads as many of them as we can fit in, etc.
I don’t want to say she’s intellectually lazy, but perhaps not as driven to find out things as I was at her age. She would much rather watch TV and complains when we ask her to read (I probably did the same, if my Dad would have ever asked me to read), the usual stuff.
So, with Sophia it’s obviously both (nature and nurture). She has the tools, but she doesn’t have the inherent personality traits that make for a self-made “intelligent” person. But fortunately she has parents who care and we’re helping her develop the habits so that when she’s grown she will accept continuing education as “normal.”
*Prof Tulsi Narayan Prasad, an advocate at the Supreme Court and a serious practitioner of astro-genetics, had to fight the world around him when he proposed that the sex of a to-be-born child could be manipulated. He proved his theory right by declaring well in advance that he was going to have a male child.
“It’s a science called eugenics,” Tulsi Prasad said, explaining the way his genius child was conceived. “By employing it, we can ensure that the child achieves the desired traits. As I knew what we wanted, we followed the prescription for a genius mind. Human body is a perfect institution. Nature has made it self-sufficient. For organised production of required chemicals, there are glands which could be (altered)…”
He explained: "I and my wife had to plan everything in the process of having the child, right from our diet to our mood to the sex itself.
*
My mother read everything to me when I was a baby, and I really do wonder if that sparked my verbal skills (really, I was hyper verbal) and obsession with the written and spoken word. She tells me that as soon as I could talk, I would demand that she read aloud every word on the page – if she was holding a letter, she’d read me the addresses written across the front.
I also learned a neat party trick. Mama would read me my favorite books so many times, that I memorized when she turned the pages. I’d sit on the floor, book in my lap, and repeat the words aloud, turning the pages as I went. Her friends would freak out – “That baby can read?!” And my mother would have to tell them what I was doing.
), she and I will spend an hour every Sunday previewing the upcoming weeks work (especially math, where this has made a BIG difference in her comprehension and confidence.) She doesn’t read just the minimum (1-2 books) on her summer reading list, she reads as many of them as we can fit in, etc.