[HN Gopher] Genetics, not shared envs, drives parent-child simil...
___________________________________________________________________
Genetics, not shared envs, drives parent-child similarities in
intelligence
Author : amichail
Score : 30 points
Date : 2025-01-16 17:06 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.psypost.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.psypost.org)
| IshKebab wrote:
| Honestly after having had children I was surprised that nature vs
| nurture was even a debate. Genetics is very obviously the biggest
| factor in their behaviour.
| EliRivers wrote:
| I suspect (but cannot prove) that if two children were swapped
| at birth and placed in a completely different culture on the
| other side of the world, their behaviour would be very
| different and would match that culture far more than that of
| their genetic parents' culture.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| They don't behave much like a particular "culture" when they
| are very young, though, do they?
| Vampiero wrote:
| They have natural inclinations and their experiences and
| core memories during early life will form the seed of their
| personality. Their interactions with their parents will
| shape their interactions with others (and not all parents
| treat their children equally). Early trauma will stunt
| their mental development both in subtle and not so subtle
| ways.
|
| As they grow older their instinctual inclinations are
| tempered by cultural and social norms and by whatever
| reinforcement style the parents and teachers employed. Even
| entertainment like cartoons and the internet constantly
| impart cultural lessons upon them.
|
| They are constantly being told what is right and what is
| wrong, what is good and what is bad. Even though they might
| not necessarily feel like they agree with it. And that is
| what shapes their morals, which in turn shape their
| behavior, which in turn shapes their growth, which
| ultimately shapes their intelligence.
|
| If they developed some behavioral or mental issues, they
| will learn coping and masking mechanisms to compensate. If
| they were rewarded for something they were naturally
| proficient at, they will learn to excel at it.
|
| So I don't see how it's so easy to settle what is obviously
| not even a debate. Both nature and nurture are important in
| varying amounts at different points in time because the
| world is complex.
|
| As for intelligence, it's not surprising to me that some
| people are just born smarter than others and that this
| trait carries over genetically. It's how intelligence
| evolved in the first place. But with persistence and a
| positive environment it's possible to overcome many unfair
| setbacks in life (and vice-versa).
| ozten wrote:
| I guess the question is if your parents and your grand-parents
| formed opinions based on sample size N of 1.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's not a debate. Everything's nature except for things
| changed by nurture (or abuse), which is everything as well, but
| to a greater or lesser extent.
| kristianp wrote:
| So everythings nature except stuff that's nurture? You're
| kinda hedging your bets there.
| angrysaki wrote:
| "The model assumes that people directly choose partners based on
| their observed cognitive ability, but in reality, partner
| selection might happen indirectly through other related
| characteristics or through more complex patterns,"
|
| Seems like a pretty wild assumption to make. Maybe they need that
| to simplify their model, but still...
| scotty79 wrote:
| Seems pretty reasonable. The mechanism might be more complex
| but the result is similar.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-16 23:01 UTC)