Here are my ideas about it. Please argue with me.

1. No matter how hard wired a genetic propensity may be, it will only manifest if particular environmental conditions are present. To put it another way, nurture induces nature.

2. Nurture instils nature (the myth of talent.) If someone is practised enough in something (particular from a young age) it becomes ‘second nature’ to them. Eg. the ability to play the piano, or speak a particular language.

3. The more we know about the effects our environment can have on us and our neurology (and physiology), the greater our potential to be free. One can’t overcome habits they do not know exist. As Dan ‘the man’ Dennett says, freedom evolves.

To sum up: Nurture nurtures nature, nature nurtures nurture, and the truth shall set us free.

Jason

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

We (humans) all inhabit the bell curve of talents (we’ll take IQ here).  Races, or any chosen genetic differentiator, will lead to a slightly moved or skewed curve compared to the population’s.

This is ridiculously simple common sense that has become “untouchable” and “controversial” because of the bad uses some people have put this idea to in the past.  In reality it is no different to asking why there are more African Americans playing NBA than Asians or whites, it is simply that the bell curve is different - actually flattened rather than shifted I believe - for this one group.  There are obviously some societal complications here, a 7-foot white kid generally has greater opportunities to be successful so may choose education rather than sport, but the genetic difference between the races causing a higher proportion of African Americans to be tall is genuine.

The question of what we would be like in different circumstances is valid, but I feel that intelligence would show regardless of the situation, it may just come out in a different and unexpected way.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Jason, you are seemingly being inconsistent. 

In points one and two you say “nurture induces nature,” and “nurture instils nature.”  I think you mean, “nurture brings to life our nature” (I am simply rephrasing your two statements). You gave the example of something that happens in life that effects our nature and eventually becomes, ‘“second nature.’” 

So are you saying that our genes have the potential to become active and determine certain behaviors, but are not activated until certain events occur, thereby triggering particular genes with particular behaviors?  In other words, to use your example, I personally may have the capacity to become a preeminent pianist, but for this to happen certain events must unfold in my life; or talent is a myth because what we label “talent” is merely the product of fortuitous events occurring during development and later in life; or particular societies are like fluctuating functions, if a person is input (born) into the society/function at just the right time, the output may be an individual with revered and lionized qualities; or we all have potentiality for being great in all domains, but for our greatness in a domain to be actualized, certain events must transpire.  I think this is what you are saying. 

What I think is inconsistent is the phrase, “nature nurtures nurture,” with the position I paraphrased above.  Do you see it? or am I misrepresenting your position?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Re: 3. Mikel

Thankyou for your comment. You say that what I said was inconsistent… and it is in a way, but it was intentionally so. I was trying to comment on the dynamics of discussions concerning this topic. I.e. the seemingly fluid definition of the term ‘nature’.

To answer points made in your paragraph-long question: From what I understand (I don’t know much and intend to read up on this), certain genes require a certain environment to become activated. E.g. if your left arm gets cut off, all genes concerning the left arm (only) aren’t going to be doing their thing (unless you undergo stem cell therapy). Map this principle onto the operations of your mind and it gets very interesting.

I would agree that, for the most part, we do have potentiality for greatness in all domains, but it must be remembered that the amount and type of resources to get a given person there would vary on the basis of their genetics. How much would they vary? That’s one for science to discover.

The example of the NBA was brought up in the previous post. I don’t know if it was in refutation to what I said, but it tickled me because there was a time where African Americans did not dominate the NBA. It was a racist time. This is my point, the genes of the black man didn’t count for shit in professional basketball in America because of cultural factors in the environment. Once the culture became more free and enlightened, it was realized that it costs a lot less to make a great basketball player out of a black man that it does out of a white or Asian man (generally). It has been shown that African people have a higher percentage of white (fast-twitch) muscle, so they’re objectively, on average better at running and jumping. I’ll just add that I think spectator sports are ultimately a waste of time. Art and science is better for everyone.

The point that needs to be emphasized about our intellect, is how fluid (or malleable) it is. The sophistication (and therefore the potentiality) of the intellect is itself fluid. It’s for this reason, that it will never find itself dominated by anyone one race (unlike basketball, such a bigoted pastime)... The skill of playing the piano is an almost entirely intellectual feat. If you’ve got enough potassium in your nervous system, your fingers will get it. As said, start when you’re a child and all the more so (you might need that left arm back though).

Nature nurtures nurture in the following way: You’re a kid. You and your friends live in pretty much identical environments. You all play basketball regularly. You all eat the same food, same family circumstances, same values, culture, everything. Yet, you’re still quite a bit better at the game than your friends. This compels you to devote yourself to the game and surround yourself with all things basketball, and your parents begin to encourage it. You’re friends do not do this and their parents do not. So your nature has determined your nature. Almost simplified the meaning out of it, but you see what I mean.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Edit: 4. Jason01
Second last sentence: “So your nature has determined your nature.”
To: “So your nature has determined your nurture.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Certain genes require a certain environment to become activated. E.g. if your left arm gets cut off, all genes concerning the left arm (only) aren’t going to be doing their thing (unless you undergo stem cell therapy).”

Thats very interesting, I’ll have to read up on this.

“We do have potentiality for greatness in all domains, but it must be remembered that the amount and type of resources to get a given person there would vary on the basis of their genetics … It has been shown that African people have a higher percentage of white (fast-twitch) muscle, so they’re objectively, on average better at running and jumping.”

I think the example lends credence to the previous idea nicely.

I’ll just add that I think spectator sports are ultimately a waste of time. Art and science is better for everyone.

Haha. Agreed!

It seems then you are saying that it is not ALL nurture or ALL nature, rather these two are interdependent, but perhaps nurture is more influential regarding human intelligence.  If this is so, is it important to you that society constructs itself around human capability to ensure that its members have the opportunity to maximize their potential?  I throw this out there because I find the social and political implications of the nature vs. nurture distinction fascinating; something that I don’t think many people account for when organizing their political opinions.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.