A quick Google search confirms that you’re not the only person who thinks so. =P

Nature versus Nurture

I read about something called an epigenome a while back. I’m far too ignorant of even the term to say more…, except to say it looked intriguing.

People pursue rewards. If a given activity doesn’t yield rewards, they find it unenjoyable and stop engaging in that activity. Those rewards may be internal rather than external, but they have to be present at some level. So those that are on the upper bounds of physical ability for their age cohort (either through genetics or simple chance of birthdate) will find athletic activities enjoyable, because they get the lion share of the rewards. Then the Matthew Effect kicks in, and they learn the skills and develop the musculature to perform at the upper level.

But genetics can still trump chance. There are a few known physical mutations that can make you perform *much* better than anyone else at certain kinds of physical activity. For example, some people have a mutant form of hemoglobin that gives them fantastic endurance for long-distance running and cycling events (Lance Armstrong is probably one of them). Others have a mutant protein that leads to increased musculature (many of the olympic-grade weight-lifters have this). There are several mutations in blood chemistry and muscle-cell proportions associated with high-speed sprinting.

All of these come with side-effects that in the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation) made them not such clear-cut advantages. The high-endurance hemoglobin requires much larger iron intake, and if those with the mutation don’t get it they are prone to extreme anemia. The heavy-muscle protein leads to a metabolism requiring 5000 calories a day, and lots of protein. And the high-speed sprinters often cannot accumulate body fat, not a useful attribute if you need to subsist through the winter (or other short-term famines) on stored reserves.

But in a modern, industrialized society, shortages of nutrients is rarely an issue, so these mutations lose their downside and those with them can become world-class athletes. But if you don’t have those mutations, and you’re competing with someone who does…you probably feel like everyone in the Tour de France who isn’t Lance Armstrong.

There are probably some very subtle and effective variations in brain activity with genetic roots that have equivalent effects. My father was a journalist and writer known for his ability to turn a memorable phrase, and although he certainly never tried to teach me how or had many opportunities to show me through example, I seem to have picked it up. My family leans towards the upper end of the IQ spectrum.

But environment still comes into play. I have a sister who is the “dummy” of the family, her IQ was “only” 127. Although this is well into the gifted range, she grew up without confidence in her intellect and didn’t pursue intellectual challenges, because she was comparing her success rate at them to the rest of the family and coming up short.

So, in the end, when you’re asking “Nature or Nurture?”, the answer is “both”, because you’re asking the wrong question.

–Dave

Doesn’t seem to get you any closer to an actual answer. =P

Oh, well, if a chicken egg is an egg that comes from a chicken, then the chicken came first. If a chicken egg is one that hatches a chicken, then the egg comes first. Just fluff and nonsense, I know.

As someone mentioned above these outcomes are not acceptable to modern liberal society. However geneticists and companies tend to continue thier work despite societies dated value structures. The outcomes are many times not pleasant to certain sectors of society.

Example: Currently there is a company that produces a gene chip, they have about 90% of the patents on gene chip technology. Every 6 months or so they exponentially increase the amount of genetic tests they can run off of 1 tumbnail sized chip. In every test they run they produce about 1 terabyte of genetic data. At this time they are concentrating on identifying diseases, and “Predispositions” toward diseases. Many of thier investors are insurance companies, most of you can figure out why….

So now we see that genetic “predispositions” can be used both ways. However the work of geneticists does not stop here, they are moving forward not only in the area of identifying disease processes, but identifying genetic markers for “propensity’s” for certain talents. These talents being mentioned above:

Mathmatics
Music (really mathmatical constructs)
Visual Arts
etc.

This is a bad thing if you believe in certain outcomes like this however identifying propensities toward certain talents will be required for future generations going forward participating in a global economy in specific job
categories as Reich points out in “The Work of Nations” specifically his treatment of “Symbolic Analysts”
which in fact is a classicafation that includes everyone from stock brokers, to programmers, to artists.

However, these are only “propensities” a term that encompasses not only what someones tendancies toward exceling in a certain area are but what is fundamentally what Raph posted above (and what I’ve attempted to do with my daughter as well) which is encouraging exposure to different modalities of learning. In this way a child can find thier potentiality, and yes, develop the feedback loop and deepen thier neural pathways. But this should not be at the expense of identifying other areas of thought/excellence, because people are dynamic and full of potential and are usually good in many areas. Menaing people do not have one neural pathway but many (a neural network!)

What does this mean? Broad liberal educations that allow for a person to naturally select thier preffered area of specialty are still superior to rigid systems of learn by rote.

So the question going forward: Do we use our knowledge of bio-chemistry and genetics to reinforce rigid societal views of how and who should be rewarded? Or do we use this knowledge to maxamize our future potentialities as a species?

The answer lies in what/who holds and uses this information and your access to it….

Doesn’t seem to get you any closer to an actual answer. =P

Was I good at because I liked the game, or did I like the game because I was good at it?

To put it more classically, which came first, the chicken or the egg? =)