[SloughFeg]

Believing everyone is tabula rasa when it comes to intelligence is one of those white lies society tells itself to make itself feel better. Of course the environment one grows up in is important but this article is kidding itself into thinking it is the primary factor.

We inherit so many other traits from our parents, why should intelligence be any different? What makes it so special that it requires a convoluted explanation that rests on so many assumptions?

[bayesianhorse]

Why should it be different from other traits? Well, we don't really understand the genetics of physical height. Why should we be so certain we understand the genetics of intelligence when we barely even understand intelligence itself?

What do we know? Getting Malaria in childhood reduces IQ by a few points. Resistance to Malaria is partly genetic. Are these genetic factors now a genetic basis for Intelligence? Shouldn't we just vaccinate the children and eliminate the problem?

We know that in developing countries, every month in school increases IQ and earning potential. Should we assume and accept genetic factors in school attendance as inevitable or should we just require attendance?

We know that in Africa, using cheap deworming agents in school children two times a year will increase their intelligence and school attendance. Are there genetic factors in resistance against worms? Does it matter where the particular ethnicity lives? Sure. Should we care? Not really.

The image that emerges is: Once you hold the environment pretty constant, as has been done in twin studies (regarding to the above known factors at least), IQ is largely genetic.

But making decisions on the basis of assumptions about the genetic basis intelligence is at the very least quite stupid.