This is one of the most HN comments ever. Without getting into the nature-vs-nurture debate for the trillionth time, "Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids" is a totally preposterous statement. Genes are certainly AN influence, but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with computers my whole life had something to do with how I got interested in computers and subsequently developed a career out of it.
That's just not an option for a lot of kids, and that has zilch to do with genes. But hey, keep thinking Ayn Rand's not full of shit, Hackernews :)
My view is anecdotal. I come from a family with adopted children. My siblings say how I talk, act and think like our parents. I am the only biological child of our parents.
Does this prove IQ? No. however, I would be astounded if there was no relationship (just looks, voice, height, thought patterns, but no IQ correlation).
At the same time, my kids are quite different from each other. However, my siblings' kids reflect their parents and have diverged significantly from my family far more so than my kids diverge from each other.
My eldest brother (as an example), earned good money but spent it all. He put very little love or effort into his kids, despite him being raised in a household of caring and sharing. He's also a drinker and drug taker. His kids all have troubles with drugs and alcohol.
This is nothing like my family. We have continued down a path of caring and sharing and support quite a few community activities.
I'm not inclined to equate IQ directly, but, I am strongly inclined to say "there is a lot more than just looks that gets passed down to children".
My eldest sister is a behavioural clone of her biological mother. They didn't know each other until their 20s. That was the moment I knew that behaviour could be inherited by children, because my eldest sister is an aggressive hedonist. No drugs, just wild partying and ladette behaviour.
The other aspect of this article that is true is that luck favours the prepared. Some people send their kids to private schools so they can
Mingle with other well-to-dos.
What I do like about today's society is that there is a wealth of opportunity if you look for it, regardless of socioeconomic status. I am a huge believer in opportunity but I totally reject political correctness (and any other prejudice for that matter, PC just happens to be the most popular prejudice today).
You raise some really interesting points. I've seen similar as well. But what I draw is not so much that there's an IQ gene (though I'm sure that there are genes that affect brain physiology in some ways), but more so that there are known genes that affect compulsive behaviours which can trump rational processes e.g. addiction, risk-taking.
And while I'm sure lifestyle factors (including nurture, environment) may impact the "degree" to which the expression of these genes "take hold on behaviour", the overall probabilities are more likely to be based on the genetics. I'm thinking similar to how genes increase likelihood of getting cancer, while behaviour/lifestyle can affect treatment outcomes.
If we blame problems on genetics that means they are out of our hands. We cannot solve them. At least not without preventing reproduction of undesirable genes.
Actually the smug, dismissive tone of your comment is equally common on HN. Neither you nor the OP have given direct evidence on the matter, and it is presumptuous to think that the narrative you presented trumps the OP's vague reference to twin studies.
A quick google study yields "Using 15 years of data on Finnish twins, we find that 24% (54%) of the variance of women’s (men’s) lifetime income is due to genetic factors and that the contribution of the shared environment is negligible."[0] But I don't want to claim this is the final word, it's just the kind of evidence that is useful rather than blithe assertions and name calling.
Given the issues the social sciences have with reproducible results, that Gwern is linking more science blogs than papers, and that we know rich people have conspired to hold poor people back via laws and other self serving maneuvers I'm still going to lean into "bullshit" category
When you have evidence that the supposedly smart and highly moral are guilty of oppressing an entire swath of people and you point at mostly economic markers without controlling for bad behavior by the "haves" you're just skewing your own results
That rich do better within our culture, which is rigged to give the rich an advantage, it doesn't say much to whether they are truly smarter
> but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with computers my whole life had something to do with how I got interested in computers and subsequently developed a career out of it.
We'll never know for sure, but would you likely have turned into an artist if your parents had surrounded you with paints and canvases instead? Would you have possibly turned into a tinkerer/problem-solver "of some sort" even if your parents hadn't surrounded you with computers?
It's interesting that you say your parents "encouraged" your nerdiness and didn't say they "instilled" nerdiness in you. It implies there was something innate to start with.
Perhaps there is a set of genes linking curiosity, detail-orientation, problem solving that are at the core of people that become engineers, programmers etc?
That's just not an option for a lot of kids, and that has zilch to do with genes. But hey, keep thinking Ayn Rand's not full of shit, Hackernews :)