Gifted Issues Discussion homepage
Posted By: Merlin Nature versus nurture - 05/11/17 11:15 PM
I know this has been widely debated and researched, but wanted any personal feelings about this. My DYS DS9 is in 3rd grade in a public school. We supplement his education with online courses and partial homeschooling. He is able to learn at a much faster rate than what is taught at school. Does he get ahead because of his natural IQ, or is it because we supplement him with the resources, and instill value in education, and have a positive attitude about learning?
What if we took 2 of the brightest students in each third grade class in a typical school and provided them with the same educational resources, etc. how many would be able to do just as well or better? Does the other student's IQ really matter or is it their work efforts/achievements that matter?Is my son special or is it the Environmental factors that contribute to his faster pace of learning what matters most? I would like to know if anyone has any ideas, feedback, or research that has been done on this type nature versus nurture questions.
Posted By: Val Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/11/17 11:25 PM
The answer is "it depends."

IQ is only one factor in scholastic success. Other factors include motivation, the presence or absence of individual learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia), physical health, the home environment, and etc. etc.
Posted By: puffin Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/11/17 11:46 PM
It isn't as clear cut. You talk of taking two bright kids - they might. What about 2 kids below 85? Below 70? 70 is only the same below as moderately gifted but kids at that level are usually obviously challenged. I suspect nurture works on top of nature.
Posted By: Cranberry Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 03:06 AM
This question always interests me - I never understand why it's positioned as an either/or (or "vs.").

Take two kids with equal, high intellectual ability. Have one slog through standard school curriculum while the other gets the enrichment, support, etc. as described. The latter is likely to have a better outcame.

Put a high performer and an average performer through the same process - wither standard or enriched, and the high performer is likely to have a better outcome.

"Does the other student's IQ really matter or is it their work efforts/achievements that matter"

"Both" seems to be the obvious answer to me.

Support and enrich an average performer and put a high performer through a mediocre, standard development process and, at some level, they'll have similar outcomes.

I don't think only one of them is important. They're closer to additive/multiplicative.
Posted By: Merlin Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 03:46 AM
Theoretically let's say my son's IQ puts him at the one in 1:50,000 group. Therefore, according to IQ, it's pretty rare that another high achieving third grader in a typical school would be able to achieve as high as he could. But I am thinking regardless of the other child's IQ, as long as they are high achievers, they would be able to master what my son can master in that same amount of time if given the same opportunity. So really, I'm asking once an IQ reaches a certain level, for example >130, then are all kids capable of achieving the same great results given the same opportunities or would their mental IQ limit their learning ability?
Posted By: Nolepharm Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 04:32 AM
I like to move the discussion to a different genetic variant that people are generally more comfortable discussing...height. Your kid has a genetic code that will allow him to be very tall (over 7ft). If he eats properly and avoids disease, injury, or growth-stunting medication, he will max out that potential. You could take in another student that could be 6'10 or 6'8 or maybe only 5'7 with those same conditions. Maybe you give that kid some hgh and they end up taller than yours. It is obviously not a perfect analogy for nature vs nurture, nor does it take into account some of the short-comings of using iq score as a proxy for intelligence, but it works for me.
Posted By: ashley Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 04:34 AM
Originally Posted by Merlin
So really, I'm asking once an IQ reaches a certain level, for example >130, then are all kids capable of achieving the same great results given the same opportunities or would their mental IQ limit their learning ability?

In my area, there are tons of high achieving students - there are constant newspaper reports of kids maxing SAT scores, winning Science fairs, winning national math competitions, selling startups for millions, making remarkable inventions, playing their music multiple times at Carnegie hall, getting accepted to multiple Ivies etc. Given the sheer number of such reports and the sheer number of tutoring and mentoring opportunities in my area, I have come to the unscientific conclusion that kids who have an IQ higher than a certain cutoff will excel if they are given excellent opportunities to learn. And my unscientific cutoff is an Iq level of 135 and above. Please don't ask me for proof smile This is my unscientific report based on what I have observed. Take it with the proverbial pinch of salt.

Anecdotally, I have seen nurture trump over nature - a young person dear to me had severe auditory processing disorder and a lot of weaknesses in his early IQ test scores were attributed to it. This person's mother who is a music teacher taught him to play the violin and the piano starting at ages 3 and 4 respectively. He practiced every day of his life diligently. At age 16, now, he has no more APD (all the tuning and listening to tone and pitch has rewired his brain - neuroplasticity at work) and he also has high processing speed which is significantly higher than when he was tested before.
Posted By: LazyMum Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 08:36 AM
I went to an academically selective school with a whole bunch of smart kids from a whole bunch of different backgrounds. Some became academics, doctors, lawyers, etc., some dropped out of uni to make music, or babies, or travel, or pursue other non-academic things, and some took a more creative path opening galleries, working in theatre, making clothing lines,etc.

As a general observation, the students who became high achieving professionals were the ones that came from families that valued working diligently and consistently, and following rules, rather than exploring, creating and bending rules.

So that's my very un-scientific take on it. In a group of kids who are all (probably) gifted at different levels, nurture makes a big difference.
Posted By: howdy Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 12:51 PM
I definitely think it is both.

I would also like to add that when you consider who is high-achieving, we consider it from the lens of what we think is important, or what society thinks is important. There are very intelligent people who are stay at home parents or social workers, and that does not fit the definition of high-achiever for most people, even if they did very well in school.
Posted By: sallymom Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 01:07 PM
Frankly, I think you are giving to much credence to IQ. We know that the upper ends of IQ tests occur more frequently than they should statistically. We also know there are many extraordinary thinkers with pretty normal IQ's (Feynman for example). I think executive function and some factors that we are currently not able to measure have more to do with success than IQ scores. I have a DYS daughter. However, she has exceptional EF and these two things do not seem to correlate necessarily. I think that it is the EF that make the IQ work for her and not the other way around. In her case she did not learn it from me (although her dad has great EF) so I think much of it may be genetic and is just a natural way of processing the world.
Posted By: ConnectingDots Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 01:57 PM
I would say there is something about the ability to more quickly grasp subject matter that seems to be related to IQ (barring a second E). I see this in the people I work with, maybe that's showing their processing speed, but it seems to correlate with intelligence. These people are the ones who will get to the answers or core issues more quickly than most employees. This can be very subject specific (i.e., one person figures out a quantitative issue fast, another person pinpoints a training gap quickly while others are still working to understand the situation).

That said, it doesn't mean that others don't do very, very well. It's just that one group of people thinks at what seems to be a different speed. Mix the latter with a low work ethic, and they won't succeed. Mix that ability with a good to strong work ethic and they stand out.

I also agree with Howdy's point on success definitions varying widely.
Posted By: indigo Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by Cranberry
Support and enrich an average performer and put a high performer through a mediocre, standard development process and, at some level, they'll have similar outcomes.
BINGO! It is my understanding that this describes the process and intent of the common core experiment which is being conducted on US public school children. Equal outcomes is the goal for all children in government schools. It is the new basis for public school teacher evaluations, and it is used in school ratings/rankings.

Closing "achievement gaps" and "excellence gaps" involves capping the growth of the children at the top.

Here is a brief roundup of grading practices utilized to accomplish the tilling under of top students:
- 2015 post on grading practices contrived to show equal outcomes
- 2016 post on grading practices contrived to show equal outcomes
- buzzwords to obfuscate the content of gifted programs and services, including the lack of appropriate academic/intellectual challenge and academic/intellectual peers
- data collection: contrived grades passed along to colleges, workplaces

By these means, the government is beginning to select who shall be at the top, in the future. This version of "nurture" is designed to win out over "nature."
Posted By: Val Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Merlin
So really, I'm asking once an IQ reaches a certain level, for example >130, then are all kids capable of achieving the same great results given the same opportunities or would their mental IQ limit their learning ability?

I agree with others that you're putting too much emphasis on IQ. Use the height analogy: you pretty much have to be tall to play pro basketball. Let's say the top 1-2% is a good starting point (6' 2"-ish for men; 5' 10-ish for women). Is 2% of the US population --- 6.2 million people --- good enough to play pro basketball? Of course not.

To make the team, a person needs a ton of other abilities and skills.

The same is true of academic achievement. A minimum level of g-loaded intelligence is an entry requirement (likely <130 minimum), but there are many other factors, and opportunities aren't the only ones. Creativity, ability to make connections, ability to work with others, ability to get stuff done...the list goes on. And some of these factors are critical in some situations but not in others. It all depends.

Put another way, if an IQ of 130 and great opportunities are all it takes to make incredible discoveries in STEM, we should putting single-dose anti-cancer pills in our first aid kits when we set out to explore distant galaxies by now. There are millions upon millions of people with IQs that high walking around (and more in the past), and yet here we are, still on earth, still suffering with cancer.

(You're also assuming that a high IQ will yield "great results," which is most definitely NOT the case, as some of the nastier but very intelligent historical figures have demonstrated and are demonstrating.)
Posted By: sunnyday Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 07:19 PM
This goes back to the growth mindset work, which I think has been discussed here recently.

My favorite bit of anecdotal evidence is Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, whose IQ was about a standard deviation above the mean (various reports say it was in the 120s), barely "gifted", and yet he drastically advanced understanding in his field and achieved very highly.

I teach my children that there are three factors to success in anything you do, be it sports or academics or career: natural talent, passion, and hard work. If you have all three, you can reach the highest levels; if you have any two, it's possible to be among the best -- but you won't get very far on just one.

I teach them that their natural talent in school-related stuff means that things come more quickly to them and they might need fewer repetitions to learn some things, but if their classmates are interested in those same subjects, they will get to the same level of achievement and make the same kinds of contributions, just maybe at a different pace. And in the meantime, it's up to my kids to realize that if things are coming easily, that means it's time for them to find more challenge so they can continue to put in hard work and grow.

I also like the distinction between high achievers, gifted learners, and creative thinkers (http://www.bertiekingore.com/high-gt-create.htm). There can be overlap between the three groups, but more often, they get conflated when they shouldn't be.
Posted By: indigo Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/12/17 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by sunnyday
This goes back to the growth mindset work, which I think has been discussed here recently.

My favorite bit of anecdotal evidence is Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, whose IQ was about a standard deviation above the mean (various reports say it was in the 120s), barely "gifted", and yet he drastically advanced understanding in his field and achieved very highly.

I teach my children that there are three factors to success in anything you do, be it sports or academics or career: natural talent, passion, and hard work. If you have all three, you can reach the highest levels; if you have any two, it's possible to be among the best -- but you won't get very far on just one.

I teach them that their natural talent in school-related stuff means that things come more quickly to them and they might need fewer repetitions to learn some things, but if their classmates are interested in those same subjects, they will get to the same level of achievement and make the same kinds of contributions, just maybe at a different pace. And in the meantime, it's up to my kids to realize that if things are coming easily, that means it's time for them to find more challenge so they can continue to put in hard work and grow.

I also like the distinction between high achievers, gifted learners, and creative thinkers (http://www.bertiekingore.com/high-gt-create.htm). There can be overlap between the three groups, but more often, they get conflated when they shouldn't be.
Agreed smile
Posted By: indigo Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/13/17 02:00 AM
Originally Posted by Merlin
Is my son special or...
While I completely understand this phraseology in the context of this question, I'll also take the opportunity to say that the 97 or 98% of the population that is not gifted takes umbrage with the gifted being considered special. The gifted are normal but not typical; the gifted do have different educational needs.

I mention this not to be nit-picky, but to provide insight and vocabulary that may be more neutral and therefore better received in some mixed audiences.

The use of certain words, including special and bored, can work against the gifted.

That said, I appreciate this topic and find it interesting to read what people have to share about nature and nurture. smile
Posted By: Merlin Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/13/17 03:15 AM
You are right Indigo, I had a hard time choosing which word to use. I am actually on board with the "one needs nature and nurture and drive to have high achievement." Nature works for easy endeavors but once things get difficult, definitely one needs the drive and the opportunities (nurture) to be present as well.
Posted By: aeh Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/13/17 03:42 AM
Originally Posted by indigo
Originally Posted by sunnyday
This goes back to the growth mindset work, which I think has been discussed here recently.

My favorite bit of anecdotal evidence is Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, whose IQ was about a standard deviation above the mean (various reports say it was in the 120s), barely "gifted", and yet he drastically advanced understanding in his field and achieved very highly.

I teach my children that there are three factors to success in anything you do, be it sports or academics or career: natural talent, passion, and hard work. If you have all three, you can reach the highest levels; if you have any two, it's possible to be among the best -- but you won't get very far on just one.

I teach them that their natural talent in school-related stuff means that things come more quickly to them and they might need fewer repetitions to learn some things, but if their classmates are interested in those same subjects, they will get to the same level of achievement and make the same kinds of contributions, just maybe at a different pace. And in the meantime, it's up to my kids to realize that if things are coming easily, that means it's time for them to find more challenge so they can continue to put in hard work and grow.

I also like the distinction between high achievers, gifted learners, and creative thinkers (http://www.bertiekingore.com/high-gt-create.htm). There can be overlap between the three groups, but more often, they get conflated when they shouldn't be.
Agreed smile

Not disagreeing with the overall point, but I think one should note that this was not necessarily an accurate measure of his cognitive ability, as noted by Stephen Hsu in this Psych Today interview:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...hard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another
In that era, it is likely that an individually-administered test would be an old Stanford-Binet, which was heavily loaded for verbal ability, and not so much for mathematical ability. If it was group-administered, it would be even more questionable in its ability to capture mathematical giftedness. You'll also notice that there appears to be some circumstantial evidence from Dr. Hsu's anecdotal reports that Feynman may have had a second exceptionality, such as dyslexia or dysgraphia, as he observed frequent errors in writing mechanics (spelling and punctuation) in his notebooks.
Posted By: puffin Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/13/17 07:55 AM
And even if it were a good estimate, 125 is not exactly low. It is a fairly optimal intelligence especially combined with opportunity and drive.
Posted By: indigo Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/13/17 08:05 AM
Originally Posted by aeh
... one should note that this was not necessarily an accurate measure of his cognitive ability, as noted by Stephen Hsu in this Psych Today interview:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...hard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another
In that era, it is likely that an individually-administered test would be an old Stanford-Binet, which was heavily loaded for verbal ability, and not so much for mathematical ability. If it was group-administered, it would be even more questionable in its ability to capture mathematical giftedness. You'll also notice that there appears to be some circumstantial evidence from Dr. Hsu's anecdotal reports that Feynman may have had a second exceptionality, such as dyslexia or dysgraphia, as he observed frequent errors in writing mechanics (spelling and punctuation) in his notebooks.
Good to know! smile
Posted By: sunnyday Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/14/17 12:55 AM
Right, I actually read that article before posting here, but a number of points still stand. Higher IQ in itself does not predicate higher achievement, nor the converse. The tests have their own flaws. And innate talent in one area (eg. math and physics) does not necessarily come with talent in other areas (eg. vocabulary, linguistics, handwriting.)

And yes, puffin, even if Feynman's results were well-correlated with our modern intelligence tests, a standard deviation or so above the mean is nothing to sneeze at. In fact, it's pretty much the sweet spot for being able to extract maximum value from accommodations that are easy to apply in run-of-the-mill schools. I think of this as the "quarterback" level of natural intellectual talent. Smart at a level that peers admire, not at a level that intimidates them. In fact, for me that's a highly relevant aspect of this conversation. Once you get past that sweet spot, you're possibly looking at a level of asynchronicity that creates its own challenge and even inhibits achievement.

I believe in both inherent ability and growth mindset. The brain is an amazingly pliable thing. My biggest challenge as a parent is not allowing my children to rest on their laurels once they realize they are the "smart" kids in class. And at the same time recognizing that their IQ probably does *not* put them at the very top of the heap -- nonetheless I must be confident that they have immense opportunity just with the talents they do have, given sufficient drive.

On the flip side, I've got personal experience to show that a person who's not identified gifted but has grit and drive, can drastically outperform a person who's identified highly gifted but is wishy-washy and challenge-averse. Motivation/passion/grit matters SO much.
Posted By: greenlotus Re: Nature versus nurture - 05/14/17 04:59 PM
I occasionally wonder about this topic as our children are both adoptees (not biologically related to each other or us). First I will say that there is a great difference between the two - one (MG) has the drive and the organizational skills to lead the world.She is that combo of high achieving and gifted. The other (DYS) just is - different. This crazy need to read, watch, try. The intensity. She also has been diagnosed with ADHD inattentive type so that sometimes gets in the way of her learning. We are she sure will do something imaginative and grand when she grows up but will need others to act on her dreams and keep her organized. They both have opportunities and parents advocating for them that many children do not. They are a great study in nature vs nurture.

I often wonder about DD DYS' biological parents. There is a very good chance they are impoverished farmers in their country. If IQ is inherited, what are they doing with the passion to learn, that obvious difference from the average individual? I just can't even imagine how hard that would be. DD struggles to fit in with kids at school, but there are some who are quirky like her. What about someone without anyone like them? I just hurt for them sometimes.
© Gifted Issues Discussion Forum