From: "Rob Curedale" <[log in to unmask]>
> Would you conclude that social class, race, sex, educational level have
> more
> to do with general intelligence than genetic inheritance?

In short, yes. I am very skeptical of the thesis you quoted that concluded 
that "What makes a person creative? ...., the superficial answer for 
everyday creativity in normal people that has emerged is: To over 60% his or 
her genes and to less than 40% his or her non-shared environment." This 
argument is from a thesis, not a published, peer-reviewed article, so for 
that reason alone--in addition to all the criticisms that Terry (was it 
Terry?) levels at the argument--I am not convinced of the accuracy of these 
figures.

However, I don't dispute that some people are simply born smarter than 
others, in ways that can perhaps be assessed scientifically (genetic 
markers, or number
of neural connections, or something like that). But it's very hard to 
separate the biological from the cultural, and for obvious reasons even 
otherwise reasonable people (like women faculty members in math and science) 
get very anxious when it is suggested that intelligence may be determined by 
biology rather than culture. Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard, 
could no doubt tell you quite a lot about how fraught these kinds of 
questions can be, even if from a scientific perspective they are perfectly 
legitimate questions to ask.

Although I count myself among the "otherwise reasonable people [who] get
very anxious" about biological determinism, I do think that Summers (and
you, and anyone else who is interested) should be able to raise the question
without getting run out of town. So please don't mistake my intentions here:
I'm not saying you shouldn't pursue this idea. But do be aware that many
people will resist it, mostly because they like to feel they shape their own
destiny, and they're not anxious to relive the nineteenth century, when it
was accepted anthropological truth that men were smarter and more creative 
than women and whites smarter and more creative than other races.

I also tend to think that some kinds of intelligence are more inheritable 
than others. Math, for instance. But literature? Art? Maybe facility with 
language, or hand-eye coordination are inheritable, but to be an 
"intelligent" or "creative" person in the humanities, at least, means in 
part being familiar with as many works of literature or art and with as many 
ideas as possible (I'm sure this helps in math, too). For this kind of 
intelligence--that doesn't rely on mathematical reasoning or on hand skills, 
but rather on exposure to lots of cultural phenomena--I do think that social 
class and educational level (and, in the past much more dramatically than in 
the present, race and sex) really matter.

There are many studies of intelligence and probably creativity that do 
address inherited traits. I am no expert on this literature, but one reads 
occasionally about twins separated at birth and reared in totally different 
kinds of households who nonetheless still both grow up to be nuclear 
engineers or concert pianists or the like. I suspect that if you take a look 
at the literature on general intelligence, you'll find plenty of interesting 
food for thought. Maybe start with Howard Gardner and his work on "multiple 
intelligences"? I believe art or creativity is one of the areas he 
discusses.

And I like Terry's formulation: that we may really be talking about 'the 
attributes that enable the outputs of creative thoughts to be taken up by 
others and realized publicly.' Or, as Lars puts it, "the self-confidence etc 
that may be the result of social factor[s] affects the way people utilize or 
allow their traits to flower."

Carma Gorman

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Curedale" <[log in to unmask]>