Salon 1

Apparently there is renewed discussion on the correlation between race (genetics) and intelligence, and the nature vs. nurture debate (I prefer to call the seed vs. soil debate).  This time the discussion is based on some alleged comments by the famous Dr. Watson of the great Watson and Crick duo that discovered DNA.  The concept that we are a product of our genetics and our envrionment is explained in most BIO 101 classes; however, this concept seems to be forgotten, or at least downplayed, when someone wants to propose a controversial theory on the subject.  To my knowledge (and I am not up on the latest news on this topic), no one has derived the proportions of these 2 factors.  So I would like to take a shot based on deductive reasoning.

First, in most cases, without significant physical or mental disabilities, we have great latitude in our range of possiblilities, capabilities, and accomplishments from both.  This typical case is a product of our genetics.  While these genetics strictly dictate our hair color, eye color, or even more complex traits, they also grant most of us with the trait of accomplishment – the ability to be many different things at a wide range of levels of ability.  Hence, it is most likely, if not obvious, that the variance within a life is greater than the variance between racial groups.

Second, it should not be a surprise at all that if we don’t spend time thinking about certain topics or performing certain skills (essentially training) that we will not excel in those domains (hence, the basketball argument).  But, it is not just what we think about, but also how we think.  If your most complex thought of the day is how to get a ball in a circle, then you are not exercising your brain as much as you are your body.

Hence, I argue that one’s environment most likely plays a much larger role in intelligence than genetics.  But do not forget that culture is part of environment.  Many people, surprisingly, still think culture is genetic.