Thread:User talk:WaitingforGodot/IQ tests/reply (23)

Well, if you accept evolution you must accept a genetic basis for intelligence. Secondly, if you accept evolutionary principles, you'll be aware that there's no way to stop it working. Only if a) we reproduce exactly through cloning and b) do not die before we reproduce, would evolution be stopped. So while we've come down from the physical trees and climbed up the tree of intelligence we should continue to do so as long as there's descent with modification and a driving force to select for higher intelligence. That local factors in development outstrip this effect by an order of magnitude at least doesn't automatically make it negligible or non-existent, though. So while our wider experiences, better diet and improved access to culture and technology will improve intelligence significantly (i.e., we could pluck a baby from the bronze age and I'm pretty sure they'd be up to speed with our computer technology just as fast as any modern child) there will most certainly be a small genetic factor visible on a statistical level.

Usually the most accepted idea of nature-vs-nurture is that genetics enable you to do it, but your environment allows you to reach that potential. I think it's slightly more complex than that, though, and certainly isn't a case that you wouldn't be merely limited by genes. They determine not so much how far we can go, but how easy we find it to get there. You can have the best potential genes on the planet but unless your parents instill a work ethic into you, you're not going to Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, you can come from "poor stock" but for only a marginally greater amount of effort you could equal or better anyone from "good stock". Even then, it's important not to make a rule out of this or platonify it. Variation is what drives evolution, so we're undoubtedly going to find a high amount of variation in intelligence's genetic factors - thus manifesting in the anecdotes of "oh, Joe Blogs had dumb parents and grand parents but he ended up with a PhD!" and "Sally Sue had everything, but still flunked out and failed everything!" - actually, even then that's an cartoonish exaggeration, genetic variance may be great, but it's also subtle.

The thing is, while both nature and nurture might improve our intelligence, the real interesting thing is whether they conspire and feed back on each other. Do we improve intelligence selection criteria at the genetic level because of our more nurtured abilities?