Comments on: Nature vs. nurture, again, and again, and again….

By: ackbark

ackbark — Sun, 15 May 2011 00:35:56 +0000

I have a critical theory of Critical Theory.

My theory is that the whole thing is a Catholic conspiracy to undermine modern civilization.

By: Humanity invented in 1800 by the French | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Sat, 14 May 2011 07:56:17 +0000

[...] comment from earlier this week struck a nerve with me. I’ll repost it in totality first: I find it interesting that Fox [...]

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:46:02 +0000

“Hopefully Lewontin is around to see the results of the BGI research.”

Why, so his politically correct “interpretation” spin-job can be plastered everywhere along with that snail researcher’s? No thanks….

Benny,

Really? How so? LOL

By: Benny Vallejo

Benny Vallejo — Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:34 +0000

Epigenetics, gene placidity, self organization. The next chapter, or scientific naturalisms next hail Mary pass. One thing is for certain, & and that is that the Neo Darwinian synthesis has been dying the death of a thousand cuts for the last 30 years, at least. RIP.

By: Kiwiguy

Kiwiguy — Thu, 12 May 2011 05:26:30 +0000

***The failure to find such genes continues and it seems likely that the search for the genes causing most common diseases will go the way of the search for the genes for IQ.***

Hopefully Lewontin is around to see the results of the BGI research.

By: expeedee

expeedee — Thu, 12 May 2011 01:02:05 +0000

I don’t really care if it’s nature or nurture. If it’s biological, it’s nature.

By: Onur

Onur — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:57:29 +0000

One factor in all of this is that there are a lot of things which are taught very slowly in even the best schools which a very talented student can whiz through at enormous speed.

That is why I strongly support an education system based on IQ and merit. High IQ, mediocre and low IQ people should certainly be educated in separate classes. Also home education should be in the same legal status as school education.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:30:00 +0000

This doesn’t decide the question, but Mozart was mentioned. Mozart’s father was a well-regarded professional musician who specialized in pedagogy. Mozart was his practice dummy.

His sister had a similar music education and was very talented, but she was married off and had no musical career.

One factor in all of this is that there are a lot of things which are taught very slowly in even the best schools which a very talented student can whiz through at enormous speed. In music, chess, math, and a few other fields a 10 or 12 year old can be fully competent, if he has talent, access to the materials, and a life organized for him to do that. Terence Tao is a recent example.

By: Mustafa Mond

Mustafa Mond — Wed, 11 May 2011 20:17:57 +0000

“Well, if the environment involves lots of genetic modification, nanobots, and direct mind-computer connections – if every kid is fully subjected to the most convoluted interventions of both Mechs and Shapers – I think we may finally be able to get those test scores up.”

Indeed. I imagine I can hear the rationalizations for tampering with egg and sperm cell nuclei now: “Every chid deserves an equal chance of being tall, having green eyes, and an intelligent and agreeable disposition.”

By: Onur

Onur — Wed, 11 May 2011 19:04:00 +0000

Ria, I think the author is trying to downplay – not necessarily intentionally – the role of genes in the development of individual traits and behavior by presenting the nature-nurture debate as a new one, as by doing that, she is implying that the whole nature-nurture debate is an artificial one. That tells a lot about the political motives of the author.

By: gcochran

gcochran — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:41:48 +0000

Well, if the environment involves lots of genetic modification, nanobots, and direct mind-computer connections – if every kid is fully subjected to the most convoluted interventions of both Mechs and Shapers – I think we may finally be able to get those test scores up.

By: jb

jb — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:31:26 +0000

It is either true that, given the proper environment and upbringing, any child is a potential Einstein or Mozart, or else it isn’t true.

In its most extreme form, this is what the whole nature/nurture debate is about. Public confusion over the precise nature of the interaction between genes and environment takes nothing away from the fact that this is a perfectly clear, meaningful, and important question.

By: Ria

Ria — Wed, 11 May 2011 14:41:56 +0000

I find it interesting that Fox Keller seems to be assuming that human interest in “nature” began only in the 19th century. Rather, the concept of mankind’s nature has been a topic of much interest since at least the induction of philosophical inquiry by the Greeks, and remains a topic of interest in philosophical circles in the philosophy of man. While the ancient Greeks certainly had no idea about DNA or genes, they were able to examine man’s behavior and physical characteristics and to try to determine whether or not men were born a certain way (nature) or could learn to alter some traits by choice (a great example of such an inquiry is in the Nicomachaen Ethics by Aristotle, regarding the definition and inculcation of virtue). The current debate about nature vs. nurture in a specifically genetic mode is merely a more specialized version of the exact same concept…how to differentiate what parts of “man” are immutable and what parts seem to respond to differing environments (whether internally or externally imposed). That might explain why Fox Keller is so confused about why this concept seems to be so rooted in Western thought…it’s been around for about as long as “Western thought” has!

I find it interesting how so often, people in intellectual circles today fail to consider any thought development that occurred prior to the French Revolution. After all, empiricism (scientific thought) is simply one form of philosophy, not the ONLY form of philosophy.

By: Jim Johnson

Jim Johnson — Wed, 11 May 2011 13:28:40 +0000

So instead of the assumption that nature and nurture can be separated, we’re to simply assume that there is no difference between innate potential and response to environment?

This sounds a lot like “This difference is really complex and shifting and abstruse, and we don’t have a good handle on it, so let’s just pretend it isn’t there and not try to figure it out.”

By: ziel

ziel — Wed, 11 May 2011 12:25:57 +0000

“Keller reveals that the assumption that the influences of nature and nurture can be separated is neither timeless nor universal, but rather a notion that emerged in Anglo-American culture in the late nineteenth century.”

- coincidentally, around the same time (and among the same people) that sufficient scientific understanding to tease apart these differences began to form.

By: Nature vs. nurture, again, and again, and again…. « Forest Quest

Nature vs. nurture, again, and again, and again…. « Forest Quest — Wed, 11 May 2011 11:25:41 +0000

[...] 11th, 2011 Tags: Sociobiology, Sociology by Razib Khan in Evolution | 1 comments | RSS feed | [...]

By: Misha

Misha — Wed, 11 May 2011 10:34:55 +0000

That last paragraph is unbelievable. All it needs is a little theremin music and a rubber mask.