The talent myth

[talea51]

Both the King's College Twin Study (11 thousand sets of twins) and a recent Texas university study put heritability of intelligence at somewhere between 58 and 70%. This research shows genetic effects increasing with age and the interplay of environment and genes being more complex than originally envisaged: not just a simple nature/nurture dichotomy. That isn't anecdote, it is hard science.

No account of nuture is taken in the King's College Twin Study. They assumed that twins would have a higher shared environment experience than non twin siblings. Their data is based on monozygotic and dizygotic twins.

No one said this was a simple debate, if it were it would have been answered definitively years ago.

I think the most interesting part from the King's College Twin Study is this: (g refers to high general cognitive ability - scores in the top 15%)

Heritability and expert training address
different issues: ‘what is’ versus ‘what could be.’ Heritability describes the extent to which
individual differences in g can be attributed to genetic differences between individuals given
the genetic and environmental differences that exist in a particular population at a particular
time. In contrast, training experiments are not concerned about describing the origins of
individual differences; their focus is on the potential for change. That is, heritability of g could
be 100% but a training regime or other environmental interventions could improve performance
on tests that assess g. Conversely, showing that environmental interventions can improve
performance says nothing about the genetic and environmental origins of individual
differences. However, beyond this nature vs. nurture level of debate, there are interesting and
largely unexplored issues at the interface between training and heritability. For example, are
there genotype-environment interactions, differential sensitivity to the quantity or quality of
training as a function of genotype? Or genotype-environment correlations, differential
exposure to training as a function of genotype, in which children seek, modify and create
environments correlated with their genetic propensities? One interesting example of this
interface is a study of performance on a motor task which showed that heritability was
substantial before, during and after training (Fox, Hershberger, & Bouchard, Jr., 1996). Further
analyses of gene-environment interaction and correlation are also needed. As one of many
possible examples, these results for high g may be moderated by socioeconomic class as has
been suggested for the full range of g (Turkheimer et al., 2003).

[Yamin151]

Both the King's College Twin Study (11 thousand sets of twins) and a recent Texas university study put heritability of intelligence at somewhere between 58 and 70%. This research shows genetic effects increasing with age and the interplay of environment and genes being more complex than originally envisaged: not just a simple nature/nurture dichotomy. That isn't anecdote, it is hard science.

No account of nuture is taken in the King's College Twin Study. They assumed that twins would have a higher shared environment experience than non twin siblings. Their data is based on monozygotic and dizygotic twins.

No one said this was a simple debate, if it were it would have been answered definitively years ago.

I think the most interesting part from the King's College Twin Study is this: (g refers to high general cognitive ability - scores in the top 15%)

Heritability and expert training address
different issues: ‘what is’ versus ‘what could be.’ Heritability describes the extent to which
individual differences in g can be attributed to genetic differences between individuals given
the genetic and environmental differences that exist in a particular population at a particular
time. In contrast, training experiments are not concerned about describing the origins of
individual differences; their focus is on the potential for change. That is, heritability of g could
be 100% but a training regime or other environmental interventions could improve performance
on tests that assess g. Conversely, showing that environmental interventions can improve
performance says nothing about the genetic and environmental origins of individual
differences. However, beyond this nature vs. nurture level of debate, there are interesting and
largely unexplored issues at the interface between training and heritability. For example, are
there genotype-environment interactions, differential sensitivity to the quantity or quality of
training as a function of genotype? Or genotype-environment correlations, differential
exposure to training as a function of genotype, in which children seek, modify and create
environments correlated with their genetic propensities? One interesting example of this
interface is a study of performance on a motor task which showed that heritability was
substantial before, during and after training (Fox, Hershberger, & Bouchard, Jr., 1996). Further
analyses of gene-environment interaction and correlation are also needed. As one of many
possible examples, these results for high g may be moderated by socioeconomic class as has
been suggested for the full range of g (Turkheimer et al., 2003).

Dibble

No, I do understand but it is the reason why I don't miss clinical trials!!!

[Guest55]

JSN said :

poetry - real creative writing is a real skill/talent
Maths / science easy-peasy trust me I know

What evidence, other than personal experience, have you for making this comment?

I've taught maths for over 30 years and hard work does not always get you a good grade.

I find it insulting that you think it's 'easy-peasy' - perhaps you should actually talk to teachers who know on a daily basis how children struggle.

As DG says, creative writing and even poetry, can be taught by skilled teachers.

[Tinkers]

I'm sure the adults I taught basic maths skills to a few years ago would also disagree that maths is easy peasy. For most of them it was anything but.

The reason why I was teaching them in the first place was because they were struggling with it. Most of them tried really hard and were really prepared to put the effort in to learn. They were not children who had to go to school but adults who had the choice.

In contrast we had one student who refused to do any homework. We gave up setting him any. However he did grasp new maths concepts very well. If he changed his ways once he moved on to the GCSE maths group and actually put some more effort in I'm sure he would have done very well. As it was I'm sure he would have managed to get a grade C despite lack of effort.

However he was an exception. He openly admitted he didn't work at school and spent most of the time playing truant. Basically his parents had told him it was pointless being at school, he wouldn't amount to anything and he believed them. Now runs a successful business of his own.

[talea51]

In contrast we had one student who refused to do any homework. We gave up setting him any. However he did grasp new maths concepts very well. If he changed his ways once he moved on to the GCSE maths group and actually put some more effort in I'm sure he would have done very well. As it was I'm sure he would have managed to get a grade C despite lack of effort.

However he was an exception. He openly admitted he didn't work at school

My dh was like this at school. Not the playing truant bit but the not putting any effort in. Except that he got A's at school and was first in class with absolutely no effort at all on his part. (when we were at school an A was the highest grade one could achieve)

I am sure there were many other children in his classes who hated the fact that he sailed through everything and didn't study or do homework. He only got away with it because his results were always excellent.

It's not an unusual story and I think it's what DG has been referring to. Children who are highly able can be overtaken by children who work exceptionally hard especially if the highly able children do nothing

[Daogroupie]

JSN, Maths/Science easy peasy to you, creative writing easy peasy to me. I can however apply myself to Maths and Science just as anyone who wants to can apply themselves to Creative Writing or find someone to help them with it. DG

[southbucks3]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... ching.html
I think that is a summary of it- it's King's College London research.

Basically over half of intelligence is inherited. But it manifests itself progressively over a lifetime. In the early years children are more influenced by their environment - they are nurtured, or not, and this affects how well they perform at school. As they get older and are able to make their own choices, genetics become more important, but in the subtle way that people influence their own environment - their choices reflect their genes. Crudely put, intelligent people create an environment to nurture their own intelligence. It's what I would call 'drive'. It's not as simple as saying that the environment is something external - the observation is that we influence our own environment to suit our genetic predispositions.

It explains something which I have observed many times - that the children who can read brilliantly and do maths precociously at age 5 are by no means always the ones coming out of secondary school with illustrious exam results and vice versa. Many of the former group will have reached that position because of nurturing, but as they get older, their inherited intelligence will be more of a factor. Likewise those who maybe had poor nurturing but who have stonkingly good genes will rise to the top later as they seek out appropriate stimulation - they influence their own environment.

Not sure if I have summarised this correctly and there is plenty more research to do; but it does somewhat reframe the nature/nurture argument in rather less simplistic terms.


Never seen that film I'm afraid.

So, if a child that has a genetic disposition to be idle (my poor kids) they are less likely to go to the library (so to speak) once their parents have stopped telling them to, or once they assert their independence. Whereas a child that has never been purposely sat in front of a book, but has genetic drive to improve themselves, will search out that book later in life to learn from it and find the best method of learning as required for success.

Do you know what, that sums my brother in laws youth up to a tee. He was given up on in school, very outwardly vacant so left to sit in a quiet world of his own, left school with no qualifications at all literally barely reading or writing and yet he persevered until he got a decent degree and career!

Hopefully some of those perseverance genetics have filtered through to my lads, but not his other worries bless him.

Thank you Amber and talia. Very interesting indeed.

[copella]

Perhaps I am one of those who is not genetically predisposed as I am struggling to understand this. What about those groups who are consistently doing poorly at school and struggle to achieve ie black Caribbean children. Some get through but many languish and clearly never reach their potential or never even find out they have a potential. I was reading yesterday how Doreen Lawrence was in despair that this situation would ever change. In these situations genetics has limited impact if your life chances are limited by discrimination and years of prejudice.

[Amber]

Perhaps I am one of those who is not genetically predisposed as I am struggling to understand this. What about those groups who are consistently doing poorly at school and struggle to achieve ie black Caribbean children. Some get through but many languish and clearly never reach their potential or never even find out they have a potential. I was reading yesterday how Doreen Lawrence was in despair that this situation would ever change. In these situations genetics has limited impact if your life chances are limited by discrimination and years of prejudice.

It absolutely isn't an argument for just letting people get on with it in the face of inequality and discrimination. Years ago women were denied education full stop but it didn't mean they weren't intelligent enough to be equal to men if they had the opportunities. If anything it is more of a call to ensure fairness of access for all - it hasn't negated the nature/nurture debate, just reframed it in less simplistic terms. Clearly natural justice dictates that access and provision should be equal for all, and it very definitely is not as things stand. In order to allow genetic predispositions fully to manifest themselves, you need to be in a position where other imperatives are taken care of- you have food, shelter, security etc, and your social and economic conditions are optimum. Otherwise study or music or whatever will not be your driving force; survival will.

And actually the lowest achieving group in English schools ATM is white British boys, not black Caribbean ones.

[southbucks3]

Yes, it also must be very hard to allow your personal drive to take you to a place suitable for learning as you develop your own decision making processes, if you have huge amounts of peer pressure to do just the opposite.