It is not.
There is a part of genetics, like most things, but if you look at past geniuses, there is a common pattern, wealthy enough families able to afford tutors.
Tutoring is what makes geniuses, not lottery.
There is a part of genetics, like most things, but if you look at past geniuses, there is a common pattern, wealthy enough families able to afford tutors.
Tutoring is what makes geniuses, not lottery.
Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Ramanujan were all child prodigies without exceptional access to tutors and other educational resources.
If tutoring could produce geniuses (160 IQ) we would have a billion dollar industry around it instead of snake oil companies like Luminosity.
producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry because we don't yet even know how to teach to that. but that doesn't mean that we could not improve teaching and peoples potential massively.
china used to have a billion dollar tutoring industry (ok, i don't know if it was a billion, but china is huge so it's possible) until a change of laws shut it down.
but this chinese tutoring industry was not aimed at producing geniuses. instead it was aimed at exploiting parents, extracting their money without providing any real value except putting pressure on the children to perform.
that's why it was shut down.
those genetics will only be a factor among those receiving no teaching at all, or those who receive the maximum teaching possible. but they will hardly factor in in the middle of the bell curve where every genetic advantage by one person can be outdone by another one putting in more effort. the difference then between you and me will be that your genetic advantage will allow you to reach the same result as me with less effort. there is practically no benefit for you. or the advantage is so small that we won't even notice most of the time. if at all.
any model that relies on genetic advantages as a factor only works if we assume that those naturally more intelligent automatically bubble to the top and are not held back by other factors, all which have the potential to nullify any advantages they may have had
My garden grows based on light, CO2, macro nutrients, and water. We don’t say “CO2 is not a factor in plant growth because deficits in water, nutrients, and light can prevent it from showing in overall outcome.”
another reason why we can ignore a genetic factor is that we can not influence it. or, that trying to influence it carries serious ethical implications.
it is also to small to serve as a tool to predict future performance.
The concept of producing a specific kind of human being an industry or not is like something out of "A Brave New World".
Einstein was also raised in a family that can not be described as average.
His father had an interest in mathematics and founded 2 electrical engineering companies
His mother was well-educated and worked as a piano player. She made Albert begin violin lessons at the age of five.
It seems to me that Albert Einstein did not grow up under average conditions. His family had some financial issues, but was able to give him a good education.
I am not saying that you are wrong, but this might not be evidence for a 'nurture' hypothesis as opposed to a 'nature' one.
You need one very experienced, patient and skilled tutor for each kid. The cost would be unbearable except for the wealthiest families.
And of course, while it will consistently improve the skills and mental abilities of the tutored kid, it won't produce a genius every time, there are many out-of-control factors, including genetics but also related to early life, bacteria and viruses infections can slow/stunt the growth of an immature body, and impact all its functions.
the potential of humanity is largely underutilized. the reason we need geniuses now is because our current way of teaching is not enabling peoples potential as well as it could. it doesn't even take individual tutoring. better teaching methods such as montessori, project based learning, smaller groups (say a 10 to 1 ratio in class compared to the 50 to 1 ratio i see in china and other countries i have visited) would be a massive increase in the quality of education creating a potential way beyond what a doubling of the number of geniuses could ever achieve.
Note that what the UK origin term “public schools” means is not the same as what that means in other countries, which can confuse these discussions in a global forum. (In the US, we’d call that “private school”.)