Not read the paper you linked yet (yes I know I'm commenting prematurely but I have known to be highly heritable struggles with deferred gratification, combined with social/national history that nurtured in me a probably subconscious belief that it's way better to have a marshmallow equivalent now because by the time two migh…
Not read the paper you linked yet (yes I know I'm commenting prematurely but I have known to be highly heritable struggles with deferred gratification, combined with social/national history that nurtured in me a probably subconscious belief that it's way better to have a marshmallow equivalent now because by the time two might be due the whole setup could be changed by the Boss Lady, or she could be replaced by a different one who wasn't giving out any marshmallows, or a fire/airstrike alarm could sound)...
...but if the abstract reflects the contents and if it's credibly done, it'd offer a pretty impressive reconciliation of the endless discussions about heritability of certain (often politically / sociologically controversial traits), and common intuitions, by perhaps looking at the heritable part as a certain ceiling/potential, which WILL get realized once certain environmental conditions are met but often isn't in conditions that are seriously suboptimal.
Height works like that iirc, menarche age, and max life expectancy too: we're not necessarily genetically taller than people 100 years ago, but we are less hampered/stunted.
I've always felt that on the one hand, yes, intelligence OBVIOUSLY feels largely innate and this is confirmed by twin studies etc (tho Wechsler has big "crystalized" aspect too). But on the other hand it's also OBVIOUS that many people never get to "crystalize" their, let's call provisionally, actual/potential IQ, likely due to combination of physical and social environmental influences.
Similarly to the idea that "parental behaviours don't matter much" -- well, yes, they probably don't NORMALLY. But in some cases their influence can be so absolutely catastrophic that they surely do. So this whole relationship will be very nonlinear.
Really neat.
Not read the paper you linked yet (yes I know I'm commenting prematurely but I have known to be highly heritable struggles with deferred gratification, combined with social/national history that nurtured in me a probably subconscious belief that it's way better to have a marshmallow equivalent now because by the time two might be due the whole setup could be changed by the Boss Lady, or she could be replaced by a different one who wasn't giving out any marshmallows, or a fire/airstrike alarm could sound)...
...but if the abstract reflects the contents and if it's credibly done, it'd offer a pretty impressive reconciliation of the endless discussions about heritability of certain (often politically / sociologically controversial traits), and common intuitions, by perhaps looking at the heritable part as a certain ceiling/potential, which WILL get realized once certain environmental conditions are met but often isn't in conditions that are seriously suboptimal.
Height works like that iirc, menarche age, and max life expectancy too: we're not necessarily genetically taller than people 100 years ago, but we are less hampered/stunted.
I've always felt that on the one hand, yes, intelligence OBVIOUSLY feels largely innate and this is confirmed by twin studies etc (tho Wechsler has big "crystalized" aspect too). But on the other hand it's also OBVIOUS that many people never get to "crystalize" their, let's call provisionally, actual/potential IQ, likely due to combination of physical and social environmental influences.
Similarly to the idea that "parental behaviours don't matter much" -- well, yes, they probably don't NORMALLY. But in some cases their influence can be so absolutely catastrophic that they surely do. So this whole relationship will be very nonlinear.