Sad News: Most Talents, -Athletic, Academic, and Artistic are Mostly Genetic

Kgpremed12 wrote:

Nothing you can really do about it, which is sad. So what do you do if you have an IQ of 70? Save up your money and become a personal injury lawyer.

What do you do if you can't break 15 for the 5k? Get a real job.

Aren't you a medical student? Has genetics education in undergrad / the first two years become so bad that you actually believe this crap? If ever I have the great misfortune of being your attending I swear I will b@tch slap the taste out of your mouth.

Your a Moran.

Gregor Mendel wrote:

Kgpremed12 wrote:

Nothing you can really do about it, which is sad. So what do you do if you have an IQ of 70? Save up your money and become a personal injury lawyer.

What do you do if you can't break 15 for the 5k? Get a real job.

Aren't you a medical student? Has genetics education in undergrad / the first two years become so bad that you actually believe this crap? If ever I have the great misfortune of being your attending I swear I will b@tch slap the taste out of your mouth.

Your a Moran.

lol "Moran"

I got the information from my genetics professor. I use to be the type of guy who thought " If you just believe!", but now I'm a bit more realistic.

Gregor Mendel wrote:

Kgpremed12 wrote:

Nothing you can really do about it, which is sad. So what do you do if you have an IQ of 70? Save up your money and become a personal injury lawyer.

What do you do if you can't break 15 for the 5k? Get a real job.

Aren't you a medical student? Has genetics education in undergrad / the first two years become so bad that you actually believe this crap? If ever I have the great misfortune of being your attending I swear I will b@tch slap the taste out of your mouth.

Your a Moran.

Some spelling bee f*ggot and or grammar nazi will be along shortly to correct "your" with "you're" or "you are."

This place is a cess pool of f*ggots.

Kgpremed12 wrote:

I got the information from my genetics professor. I use to be the type of guy who thought " If you just believe!", but now I'm a bit more realistic.

You are an idiot for thinking "if you just believe" and that these things are mostly genetic. As I'm typing this, I'm recalling that you are a troll so never mind.

Kgpremed12 wrote:

What do you do if you can't break 15 for the 5k? Get a real job.

And if you can run 14:50 you don't need a real job?

Newsflash, ALL talent is "genetic" (or at least there's nothing you can do about it), but SKILL is not.

know-it-all joe wrote:

Kgpremed12 wrote:

What do you do if you can't break 15 for the 5k? Get a real job.

And if you can run 14:50 you don't need a real job?

Newsflash, ALL talent is "genetic" (or at least there's nothing you can do about it), but SKILL is not.

Running has very little to do with skill.

Kgpremed12 wrote:

Running has very little to do with skill.

Almost forgot to append my rating.

0/10

Op is correct. I saw a recent study that estimated how much practice and hard work could improve one's performance and it was depressing.

Unfortunately for those that want this to be true (its a great excuse for failure), the studies that "prove" this are studies of twins that are adopted separately. The researchers are required to use twins so that can isolate the effects of environment from genetics. The main confounding problem is that the twins are normally adopted into middle class families that want them. This represses most the environmental factors allowing the claim that the genetics are so much more important.

The conclusions should really be much less broad than advertised....but that wouldn't get headlines or future funding.

From most studies of identical twins, their IQs are strongly related even when brought up in different environments, but they can vary by 25 points or more, which is a pretty dramatic difference.

So genetics are a strong factor in intelligence, but by no mean a determining factor.

"The human body an INCREDIBLE storehouse of genetic information just waiting for expression through practice and training to bring it out."

~Sciatica Road

Desirable traits:

Intelligence = Creativity >>>>>>>>>>>>> Athleticism

le veritable wrote:

So genetics are a strong factor in intelligence, but by no mean a determining factor.

As is true of just about every single human attribute, an individual's intelligence is a result of nature AND nurture. (I know it can be more satisfying to just advocate for one or the other, but reality intrudes.)

Though studies and experts differ, from what I've read it would appear that the OP's title for this thread is probably correct...so long as "mostly" genetic is understood to mean a simple majority.

The extent to which a gene is expressed is influenced by the environment. Given the complexity of these interactions, I don't know how one could quantify the extent to which a trait is influenced by genes vs. environment.

I might have the genes to be tall, but just how tall I grow will be influenced by things that happen during development in the womb as well as childhood nutrition and exposure to harmful substances. If I grow to be 6'6" and I turn out to be a great basketball player, people will say that I am genetically gifted, but my height isn't 100% genetic. Maybe I would have been 6'9" with different environmental influences. Or I could have been born premature and failed to grow to a height that anyone would consider "tall."

So how do you say that a given trait is mostly genetic, OP? How do you assign a number? What percentage of a trait like height is genetic, and what percent is environmental?

u6sr wrote:

As is true of just about every single human attribute, an individual's intelligence is a result of nature AND nurture. (I know it can be more satisfying to just advocate for one or the other, but reality intrudes.)

Though studies and experts differ, from what I've read it would appear that the OP's title for this thread is probably correct...so long as "mostly" genetic is understood to mean a simple majority.

No, intelligence is mostly or entirely from nurture. You are thinking of the word "smart".

reality hurts wrote:

Op is correct. I saw a recent study that estimated how much practice and hard work could improve one's performance and it was depressing.

This doesn't mean anything as far as genetics vs. environment. Your current performance ceiling is not just genetic; it is also influenced by all kinds of past environmental events.

I will probably never run a sub 16 5K regardless of training. I have no clue how much of this is due to genetics and how much is not. Maybe a bit more of some in utero hormone (an environmental factor) would have been the push I needed to ultimately break 16 minutes.

What's the "sad news?"

intell wrote:

u6sr wrote:

As is true of just about every single human attribute, an individual's intelligence is a result of nature AND nurture. (I know it can be more satisfying to just advocate for one or the other, but reality intrudes.)

Though studies and experts differ, from what I've read it would appear that the OP's title for this thread is probably correct...so long as "mostly" genetic is understood to mean a simple majority.

No, intelligence is mostly or entirely from nurture. You are thinking of the word "smart".

Contrary to your implied ability to read my mind, I was actually thinking of the word "intelligence":

People whose careers involve studying this kind of stuff seem to agree with my word choice and not yours.

Kgpremed12 wrote:

Nothing you can really do about it, which is sad. So what do you do if you have an IQ of 70? Save up your money and become a personal injury lawyer.

What do you do if you can't break 15 for the 5k? Get a real job.

Thanks for providing the science behind your claim.