(I think the waters have been muddied somewhat by the term "nurture" and the subsequent use of the term by laypeople in these sorts of discussions. It would be simpler to call it the "environment vs. genetics" debate, to rule out the need to discuss whether a child is a self-teacher, as that's not very relevant in my opinion).


Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
Not everyone can be a particle physicist, a great jazz pianist, a charismatic talk show host, or a poet laureate. I think that it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I'm amazed that you would lump a charismatic talk show host in with a particle physicist and poet laureate. (I also don't think that the word "disingenuous" means what you think it means. :P )


Quote
But enough of the one ingredient doesn't substitute for the other.
Sure; though they can compensate somewhat, one certainly can't completely substitute for not enough of the other. "Perfect" instruction couldn't turn a person with a defective brain into a great thinker, just as a John von Neumann-type brain can't teach itself particle physics from scratch, nor can it invent a language to think about abstract concepts from scratch. The brain of a John von Neumann, as with anyone, would actually physically atrophy, as I understand it, if he/she were raised by wild dogs.


Quote
Einstein, Picasso, Oprah
Come on, seriously?


Quote
It bemuses me that while most fully concede that not everyone can become, say, a professional athlete, there is still the durable belief that environment is 100% of intellectual performance
Well, I think it's pretty well-accepted (by most in this thread at least) that an extremist viewpoint is bound to be wrong. I do think it's a fallacy, however, to liken abstract intellectual pursuits to athletics. I can see why it would be tempting, of course-- physical limitations are easy to understand on a gut level, and easy to prove-- but running a marathon is not just like doing advanced math. I don't know of any proof of the maximum level of ability of the human brain, and believe that we are still in the beginnings of our journey of understanding about the brain.


Quote
that with the right environment, neural plasticity is infinite
Hyperbole, of course. No one seriously thinks that.


Quote
There are fields where neurotypical people are the minority; is that solely due to lack of interest? Can everyone who WANTS to be a brain surgeon or test pilot do so?
Are you saying that these fields are packed with autistic people? I am amazed at that, especially at the test pilots. In any event, does the existence of that minority tend to prove or to disprove that an improved environment can make a biologically normal person perform at what we today consider to be a very high level? (That's rhetorical-- I already know the answer.)

Anyway, I don't think that merely becoming a brain surgeon or test pilot, or scientist for that matter, means that one is particularly brilliant. But if achieving membership in such a role is how you define very high mental ability, I am guessing that any born-normal person could fairly easily be educated to perform at that level, with the right know-how. I even think one could be trained to be a charismatic talk show host! I may just be a disingenuous sort of person to feel this way, but we can agree to disagree.

Striving to increase my rate of flow, and fight forum gloopiness. sick