[sophist]

The classic nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. The problem with your argument is that it's simply not backed up by evidence. There are plenty of cases of children who grow up in virtually identical environments, yet go on to have widely varying interests. My brother and I grew up experiencing basically all the same stimuli: same parents, same TV shows, same music, same magazines, same everything. As adults we couldn't be more different.

There's more to this picture than just stimulus response/valuation/categorization.

[bluishgreen]

Just wanted to point out. You and your brother cannot possibly have had the same stimuli. You were his elder brother (say) and he was younger to you. People sometimes resist each others ideas. My friend took to piano lessons because his brother hated it. Sibling rivalry factors ever so little especially at the early stages of growth, and it tips everything later on.

[rkts]

Technically true, but sophist's experience is consistent with scientific findings. Sibling studies have repeatedly shown that genes do account for a significant amount of variation in behavior. While environment plays a role as well, the "blank slate" theory is flat wrong.

For an overview of the evidence, I recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.

[aspirant]

As far as I can tell, no one here has posited the blank slate theory.

My point was that the conclusions we come to about the world around us are the largest factor in determining where we end up on the spectrum between mediocre and extraordinary.

If we really thought DNA was more important than our beliefs, we would spend less time trying to correct and inform each other on Hacker News and more time getting our genes sequenced.

[rkts]

> the conclusions we come to about the world around us are the largest factor

Also known as "the blank slate theory." Or mostly-blank, if you want to be pedantic.

[Ardit20]

Well there is one easy way to scientificaly prove whether genes or DNA determine a certain behaviour. While I agree with the nice explenation given by the main comentator I do think that he has largly ignored the role that genes play.

Twin studies have shown, as far as intelligence is concerned, that when two identical twins are raised in two different environment their intelligence is quite similar.

Now who plays the greater role? Well who came first the chicken or the egg?

Was it the environment who turned on a certain gene, or was it the gene who went to find a certain environment?

When children start education most are the same. Most watch television, most go to school. Does the child prefer watching television because of his genes or because of the environment?

I personaly can not doubt that both play a role, but also I can not doubt that in most circumstances the environement tends to play a greater role. Nonetheless neither can be discaunted and both are crucial.

[ericb]

I think you're right, but what would it mean if the more is chaos? Have you seen the Price is Right game "Plinko" where identical starting positions lead to totally different results? What if the more isn't nature or nurture, just pure chaos.