Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Vegan
Now you're being ridiculous. The very definition of the word aptitude is "innate talent."
|
Read my post again. I didn't ask you to
define aptitude, I asked you to
measure it-- independent of environment. Wasn't it you who just finished saying "You can keep a person with high aptitude ignorant and we will not develop that potential"? So how do you know what their aptitude
is, in that situation? (That's what I was asking. Perhaps you had some bizarre interpretation that seemed ridiculous.)
Quote:
|
You can test a ten year old's IQ just as you can a 40 year old's IQ because aptitude remains the same regardless of education.
|
And that 10-year-old doesn't have an
environment? Last I checked, environment started at birth (some say before, but I'm skeptical there). So, now, tell me how you are going to test the IQ of a newborn, I'm all ears.
Quote:
|
Someone asked me to clarify why I thought genetics played the larger role in shaping a person. I explained why.
|
No, actually, you did not explain why you thought genetics "played the larger role", you are significantly misquoting yourself. What you actually said, and which I quoted in my response, was "In the case of personality and aptitude environment has almost no contribution". Saying it had the "larger role" would have been much closer to reasonable, in the case of an individual (I already pointed out the difference when you average over populations).
Quote:
|
When twins separated at birth develop all of those same traits, and have the same aptitudes, it's clear evidence that genetics dominates those areas.
|
You have IQ data on twins that were separated at birth and placed into highly different environments? Please cite it.
Quote:
|
That such things as innate ability, sexuality, personality traits, etc, are determined by genetics is well-established.
|
Actually we are just talking about "aptitude", those others are more non sequiturs. And I still await that data you refer to but never cite.