I'd like to take the idyllic position of (somewhat irresponsibly) hoping that some level of genius can be fostered and created in anyone from a young age.. But when I read articles like this I feel the compulsive need to sit back in my chair and ponder just how much more primitive my mind is in comparison to a man like John's.
"Teller also said "von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us."
> I'd like to take the idyllic position of (somewhat irresponsibly) hoping that some level of genius can be fostered and created in anyone from a young age
So you believe that genius is environmental and not genetic? Or maybe we are thinking about different definitions of genius.
It's also not that useful to think about. Phenylketonuria is a condition that makes you less intelligent if you drink Diet Coke, and most people don't have the gene for it. But not having phenylketonuria isn't a "gene for intelligence", it's just not having a disease.
Humans do have massive genetic diversity, in physical characteristics as well as mental ones). In the last decade, GWAS analysis has now lead to the ability to identify the gene combinations responsible for intelligence (as well as height, various cancer predispositions etc), and predictive ability is high (i.e. predicting cohort differences in income, years of education etc just from genetic material).
It is also something both extremely useful and important to think about both how to avoid both nature and nurture components of intelligence. Preventing diseases detrimental to brain development (like using unleaded fuel and paints) are some of the best bang for the buck on a population level, and maximizing the genetic potential of your offspring by avoiding genetic faults and choosing positive traits while doing IVF will be an unavoidable consequence of current research.
That you seem to think GWAS operates at a genetic level, just for a start, leads me to doubt very strongly you will be able to provide any supporting citations for the claims you make here, which are wildly heterodox verging upon eugenicist.
I am no longer close to the field of bioinformatics, though, so perhaps you will surprise me!
I think it is the same with people holding world records in sports. You can get insanely good no matter where you come from (let alone some unfortunate medical conditions) with only drive and enough exercise, but to win a gold medal, you have to be born for a given sport (of course on top of the insane amount of motivation and exercise spent on it!). Also, probably it is less sport-specific, so someone becoming a world-class soccer player would have been similarly good in a similar sport.
There is of course some genetic components in potential abilities.
But I strongly believe that most of the differences we are seeing are built on compounded interest of environmental factors, starting from a very young age.
It seems like minor genetic differences can create large disparities.
I definitely think environmental factors can compound on a genetic baseline though, and of course the earlier you start compounding the greater the returns.
I don't think the GP is arguing one way or the other. They seem to be mostly questioning how wide the error bars should be on these statements. It looks like a Socratic twist on "citation needed" without an implication that statements are necessarily wrong.
Being "99.9 percent identical" doesn't necessarily preclude substantial genetic variation in intelligence just like it doesn't preclude such variation in height or skin tone.
I was asking what the basis is for your confidence that it positively isn't substantially genetic.
We know that intelligence is highly heritable, which leaves a few possible explanations, genetics being one of them (along with prenatal nutrition, prenatal lead exposure, etc).
If you're going to claim that genetics is only a small part of the reason that it's heritable, then that has its own burden of proof that needs to be met.
I am not a genius, but I can tell that I'm likely above average. I was raised in an environment that did not value intellect or education, and I always felt out of place. It definitely felt innate, and there are lots of stories from people in similar circumstances.
On the other hand, I never did well in school, especially math. One of my teachers literally called me stupid. So I had this self-perception of just not being very good at STEM. Had I not fallen into programming by accident, I would never have changed that perception of myself. I imagine there are very many people who had similar experiences, but were not so lucky as to learn their actual potential.
So, it's almost certainly a combination of factors.
I don't think it was a biological separation. Neumann, and his brilliant peers, all grew up in Hungary in the midst of political and ethnic oppression with significant economic and language barriers to overcome. Books have been written about it, and I can't accurately recount the facts. But it seems to me that what separates him and his peers is their perseverance in the face of adversity. Having overcome the very difficult circumstances in which they were born prepared them for great success later in life. It's inspiring, but in some ways it's also survivorship bias, since there were uncountable people who were born in the same circumstances and did not overcome. I think similar things are happening with refugees today. Those who overcome their circumstances often go on to be outstanding examples of genius and accomplishment in their fields.
The situation obviously rapidly changed in Europe, but Von Neumann left for Princeton before the 30s began. He grew up in a life of great privilege.