Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Nature versus nurture

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.

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."

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good to know!