Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverfly
It would appear that this statement in itself is an assumption on your part.
|
Not at all. By assuming that you can speak about "the importance of the environment versus the importance of genetics" in general, it is you who are assuming a (perfect)
correlation between all human (intellectual) features.
But how do we know that such a correlation exists? I prefer not to assume one. (In correlation studies, the null hypothesis is "No correlation" until proven otherwise.)
Plus, I know that Down's syndrome is 100% genetic, but native language is 100% environmental. Clearly, the contribution of genetics to a particular human intellectual ability varies with the ability in question. It's not homogeneous. Thus any attempt to compare genetics with environment
in abstract is unrealistic, meaningless.
I prefer to address this issue first, before dealing with your recap, because I feel that it is this misconception which lies at the heart of the disagreement in this thread.