[vunderba]

No, it certainly does not. Obviously, a higher socioeconomic background means increased resources and dedicated attention to education which certainly helps, but genius, in the true sense of the word needs a good starting foundation, and that probably has a significant genetic component.

Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Ramanujan were all child prodigies without exceptional access to tutors and other educational resources.

If tutoring could produce geniuses (160 IQ) we would have a billion dollar industry around it instead of snake oil companies like Luminosity.

[throwaway047278]

Einstein actually did have a tutor (Max Talmey). Any access to tutors at the time was exceptional, as the majority of families could not afford that.

Einstein was also raised in a family that can not be described as average.

His father had an interest in mathematics and founded 2 electrical engineering companies

His mother was well-educated and worked as a piano player. She made Albert begin violin lessons at the age of five.

It seems to me that Albert Einstein did not grow up under average conditions. His family had some financial issues, but was able to give him a good education.

[savingsPossible]

> His father had an interest in mathematics and founded 2 electrical engineering companies

I am not saying that you are wrong, but this might not be evidence for a 'nurture' hypothesis as opposed to a 'nature' one.

[stephc_int13]

The only reason that tutoring is not more widely used is because it has scaling issues.

You need one very experienced, patient and skilled tutor for each kid. The cost would be unbearable except for the wealthiest families.

And of course, while it will consistently improve the skills and mental abilities of the tutored kid, it won't produce a genius every time, there are many out-of-control factors, including genetics but also related to early life, bacteria and viruses infections can slow/stunt the growth of an immature body, and impact all its functions.

[em-bee]

i don't agree with the genetic argument but with your other point.

producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry because we don't yet even know how to teach to that. but that doesn't mean that we could not improve teaching and peoples potential massively.

china used to have a billion dollar tutoring industry (ok, i don't know if it was a billion, but china is huge so it's possible) until a change of laws shut it down.

but this chinese tutoring industry was not aimed at producing geniuses. instead it was aimed at exploiting parents, extracting their money without providing any real value except putting pressure on the children to perform.

that's why it was shut down.

[mensetmanusman]

It was aimed at improving performance on state mandated standardized tests. They were effective, but if everyone did them, the curve was just shifted and no one seemed to benefit in particular (but society is arguably better off if everyone is higher IQ).

[em-bee]

that was what they were selling, but apart from the problem of everyone doing it, there were also many shady operations to outright scams that never even intended to provide the value they promised.

[collyw]

It seems fairly obvious that there is a genetic element to intelligence, otherwise animals would be as intelligent as humans.

[em-bee]

yes, but this only goes as far as being able to explain the difference between humans and other animals. it doesn't at all explain the differences between different humans because other factors are so strong that so far we have not been able to isolate genetic differences as a factor in human intelligence. even twin studies have been flawed in this regard.

[sokoloff]

If we had to wager whether there was any genetic component to intelligence differences among humans, I think the safe wager is on “there is some” over “there is none”.

[em-bee]

yes, but i'd also wager that it is completely drowned out by other factors. if genetics improve my intelligence by 1% and teaching can improve it by 10% then what's the point?

those genetics will only be a factor among those receiving no teaching at all, or those who receive the maximum teaching possible. but they will hardly factor in in the middle of the bell curve where every genetic advantage by one person can be outdone by another one putting in more effort. the difference then between you and me will be that your genetic advantage will allow you to reach the same result as me with less effort. there is practically no benefit for you. or the advantage is so small that we won't even notice most of the time. if at all.

any model that relies on genetic advantages as a factor only works if we assume that those naturally more intelligent automatically bubble to the top and are not held back by other factors, all which have the potential to nullify any advantages they may have had

[sokoloff]

I disagree with the last paragraph. If there are four factors that all combine to create an outcome, we don’t ignore factor 1 just because factors 2-4 can nullify any advantage.

My garden grows based on light, CO2, macro nutrients, and water. We don’t say “CO2 is not a factor in plant growth because deficits in water, nutrients, and light can prevent it from showing in overall outcome.”

[thwarted]

producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry

The concept of producing a specific kind of human being an industry or not is like something out of "A Brave New World".