The Instigator
lastrequest691
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

Nature v. Nurture (Nature wins) Intelligent is linked to the Good Gene

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 27,035 times Debate No: 12047
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (9)

 

lastrequest691

Pro

Nature v. Nurture

I believe that being successful or a failure depends on the genes and not on the hardwork put on by the individual. Boys and Girls who are lucky enough to get all the good genes from their parents are destined to always win. While on the other hand the people who have bad genes cannot succeed no matter how hard they try.

In simple words - Men & Women with good genes are Priceless.

Because when a child is born of parents belong to 2 different race only one thing can happen- the Offsprng is a hybrid so we call them Priceless.

The Bell Curve

From time to time, there have been inflammatory articles which present and interpret evidence of IQ differences between groups (in particular Jensen, 1969). The most recent, and most major of these publications was Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) "The Bell Curve". This book provided momentum to swing the pendulum in the direction of 'nature', at least in the public's eye, but even more so, it generated massive debate and controversy in psychology, sociology, education, and politics, not to mention the media and household. The 800+ page book, written for laypersons, hit the best-seller lists in the U.S.
"The work's main thesis is that an individual's intelligence - no less than 40% and no more than 80% of which is inherited genetically from his or her parents - has more effect than socioeconomic background on future life experiences."

In addition to the premise that measured intelligence (IQ) is largely genetically inherited, a second important premise was that IQ is correlated positively with a variety of measures of socioeconomic success in society, such as a prestigious job, high annual income, and high educational attainment; and is inversely correlated with criminality and other measures of social failure. It was suggested that SES successes (and failures) are largely genetically caused.

Unlike people from Canada who are inferior as a result of inbreeding, people from US & Europe who come from mixture of different race are more superior in intelligence.

That is why US does everything for Canada.

Let the 1st Round Begin
Danielle

Con

== Introduction ==

While I'd like to thank my opponent for beginning this debate, sadly it appears as if he felt the need to plaigerize his entire argument which I did not realize before I had accepted the debate. This is obviously bad conduct. For the website where my opponent stole his contentions, it can be found here [1]. That said, my primary focus of this debate will be opposing these assertions made by Pro in Round 1 (in addition to the asinine statements about America and Canada) -->

"I believe that being successful or a failure depends on the genes and not on the hardwork put on by the individual. Boys and Girls who are lucky enough to get all the good genes from their parents are destined to always win. While on the other hand the people who have bad genes cannot succeed no matter how hard they try."

== Arguments ==

1. The Bell Curve is based on 4 primary assumptions --> intelligence is depictable as a single number; intelligence is capable of rank ordering people in a linear order; intelligence is primarily genetically based; and intelligence is essentially immutable. American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen J. Gould argued that if any of these premises are false then their entire argument disintegrates [2]. However, there are plenty of criticisms to all of these claims. For instance, Harvard Psychologist Howard Gardner points out that there are multiple types of intelligence, such as analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, practical intelligence, etc. Most people accept the common phrases "street smart vs. book smart." If The Bell Curve's intention is to prove that intelligence is related STRICTLY to genetics or other biological factors, then how can they account for "street smarts?"

2. The American Psychological Association states, "There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation... It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences. There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis" [3].

3. Associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at Emory University Melvin Konner notes that The Bell Curve is a "deliberate assault on efforts to improve the school performance of African-Americans... African-Americans have excelled in virtually every enriched environment they have been placed in, most of which they were previously barred from, and this in only the first decade or two of improved but still not equal opportunity. It is likely that the real curves for the two races will one day be superimposable on each other, but this may require decades of change and different environments for different people. Claims about genetic potential are meaningless except in light of this requirement" [4].

4. There is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding the methods used to garner the information in Murray's 'The Bell Curve.' For instance, the National Bureau of Economic Research economist Sanders Korenman and Harvard University sociologist Christopher Winship found certain errors in Herrnstein's methodology [5]. They concluded, "There is evidence of substantial bias due to measurement error in their estimates of the effects of parents` socioeconomic status... it fails to capture the effects of important elements of family background (such as single-parent family structure at age 14). As a result, their analysis gives an exaggerated impression of the importance of IQ relative to parents' SES, and relative to family background more generally. Estimates based on a variety of methods, including analyses of siblings, suggest that parental family background is at least as important, and may be more important than IQ in determining socioeconomic success in adulthood" [6].

5. Now, there are a plethora of other scientists I can cite and quote as noting the methods and findings of The Bell Curve as complete BS. However, let's deviate from what the experts have to say explicitly and use a bit of common sense. Studies show that men and women tend to have similar IQs and intelligences; however, due to social circumstances women are statistically far more likely to be poor than men. This proves that intelligence and IQ is obviously not the only factor that determines one's life success. Additionally, many outside factors are huge influences such as the economy and one's political environment. Whether or not one has supportive or influential parents is also relevant, as is one's individual drive and other personality traits and factors which are all susceptible to change and grow with experience, and not limited to strictly biological indicators.

6. Pro states that those with "bad genes" cannot succeed no matter how hard they try. This is a statement with no factual basis whatsoever nor was it evidenced from what Pro plaigerized. On the contrary, I advocate that success is indicative of a lot of factors outside of genetics. For instance: hard work, luck, talent (i.e. musical, etc.) and networking. One's looks can also play a significant part to their success. Pro says that hard work is irrelevant though it is his burden to prove that this is the case. Additionally, consider the reality that when applying for a job and whatnot, an employer tends to look at one's grades and resume. It is completely possible to get good grades despite a lack of intelligence. For example, I can name even some DDO members who get good grades, but might not be "the brightest crayon in the box." George W. Bush is an example of a fellow who attended one of the nation's most prestigious universities and achieved high levels of success without necessarily being the brightest.

== Conclusion ==

I'm not sure if my opponent was being serious or sincere with this debate (considering his plaigerism and remarks about Canada). Most academics acknowledge the reality that The Bell Curve is inaccurate and inconclusive. I will end this round for now as most of my points are pretty clear, but I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds if need-be. For now I send this debate back over to Pro and wish him the best of luck for what I hope will turn out to be an interesting debate.

[1] http://wilderdom.com...
[2] http://goinside.com...
[3] http://www.search.com...
[4] The Tangled Wing Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit by Melvin Konner, 2nd edition, p. 428
[5] http://press.princeton.edu...
[6] http://papers.ssrn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
lastrequest691

Pro

Success in Nature is decided by Genes

"The people who succeed are the people with GOOD GENES.
People with bad genes will never succeed no matter how hard they try."

Please read this article
http://www.deccanchronicle.com...

Paul's daughter is also attractive and who would not want to date her.

Racehorse success lies in Genes:
http://www.thaindian.com...

Here is the detail
Does a racehorse's success come from its genes? New research shows that genetics really do play an important part in whether a horse will be a winner or a loser on the racetrack. But it also hints that a high stud fee might not guarantee getting the good genes: horse breeders don't always get what they pay for.

Evolutionary ecologists Alastair Wilson and Andrew Rambaut at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland took a detailed look at the genetics of racehorses. They obtained data for the lifetime earnings of 554 currently or recently active stallions used for breeding, as well as the earnings of their ancestors going back several generations. This gave them a database of 4,476 horses going back to 1922, with full lifetime performance statistics for 2,500 of them. They used these data to model the estimated lifetime earnings of the children of the current studs.

They found that environmental factors such as training, diet, strategic race entry and jockey skill accounted for 91.5% of the variation in a horse's winnings and 8.5% of the effect was genetic. "8.5% may seem small, but for those of us studying the benefits generated by genetics in wild animals this is huge," says Wilson.

In the wild, where environmental conditions vary a lot and survival can depend on luck as much as anything else, genetics usually account for about 1-2% of survival rates, says Wilson. But in the highly regulated environment of racehorses, where winning races is the main measure of success, genetics has a much bigger effect.
Getting what you pay for

The team also wanted to see if stud prices were indicative of genetics. These prices can vary wildly: mild-mannered stallions can cost hundreds of dollars, and stallions with grand reputations can cost millions.

In their sample, they report, the stud price was not linked to the success of the offspring. Amongst these horses, paying a few hundred to breed a mare with an average racing stallion was as good as paying a few million. "We expected stud fees to be honest signals [of success] but they were not," says Wilson.

ADVERTISEMENT

These findings might be skewed, says Larry Bramlage, an equine orthopaedic surgeon in Lexington Kentucky, because they look at studs with a mix of ages. Some are so young that their stud price depends solely on their own success (which is largely the result of environmental effects that can't be passed on to progeny), and some are old enough that their price is weighed entirely on the success of their offspring. The latter, he notes, is a much better measure of genetic quality, and most horse breeders know that.

"If you took the stud fees of stallions that had been breeding for at least ten years, I think you would get a very different result," Bramlage says. In such a sample, he thinks genetics would link to price.

In the end even Beauty is linked to good genes. Ever heard the quote, "Mixing makes things look better."
Interracial Couple make beautiful and superior kids. Kids born from Interracial marriage have more intelligence, they look beautiful and they also live longer.

Why ? Mixing makes things better. The Good Gene.

Please read this if you want a strong, beautiful and long living kid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Let the 3rd round begin
Danielle

Con

== Rebuttal ==

My opponent's first link about Stella McCartney is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't prove a thing; all it does is quote Paul McCartney talking about his daughter's good genes. His second link/argument regarding the race horse is also irrelevant considering that the horse is not human, and thus the relevant factors mentioned in my contentions that extend beyond nature do not apply.

== Arguments ==

Please extend all of my arguments as my opponent has not responded to any of them. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
lastrequest691

Pro

Genes architect your Fate

Stella McCartney succeeded because of her superior genes- It is clear.
You are a naive when observing the human nature when it is clearly decided by genes.

1. Street Smarts have bad genes
Street smarts may get B+ or even A (if they cheat), maybe they will be better in playing the guitar, maybe they will play college basketball like a pro but it does not change the fact that they are inferior. Inferior to the Book Smarts. But in what ways. The Book Smart will always earn more than a Street Smart.

Let me give you a very good example- Bill Gates was a nerd and got out of college not because he could not keep up with college but the college could not keep up with him. He would be the founder of Microsoft and make billions of dollars. Lets say that Bill Gates was a book smart.

And there is Kanye West- the man who was confident, cocky in his high school years. He also left college and went on to become one of the greatest rapper living today. He is a Millionaire.

Did you observe ?
There is a huge difference between a Millionaire and a Billionaire.
Millionaire- Street Smart
Billionaire- Book Smart

Book is better than socializing with people- That's the Truth. You are worng, wrong, wrong, wrong. You are always wrong.

What did Kanye west do when Taylor Swift wont the CMA ?
He ruined it. He clearly had bad genes.
Look at Obama- the Book Smart.

There is a huge difference between Obama and Kanye West.

Good genes is linked to success:
Why are Brazilian women hotter than most girls ? 24% of women who have signed for Victoria Secret are Brazilians. It's in the genes. Brazil is full of mix race- as I said earlier when one race mixes with another a Hybrid is born.
Take an example of China- All their women look the same. There is no variety

And what I said about Canada is the truth. If I had a choice between drinking a water mixed with cyanide and going to Canada then I would choose the glass of water.

And my opponent is always wrong. I would like to tell something to my opponent and hope she reads this- "Woman! Your argument is invalid. Go and make me a sandwich."
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately my opponent can't handle the fact that he's too incompetent enough to debate properly, so he resorts to monotonous and trite "insults" against women in a desperate attempt to look as un-pathetic as possible (it's not working). His "class clown syndrome" i.e. trying to use humor to mask his blatant lack of intelligence is failing miserably. Nobody thinks he's smart, funny, or apparently attractive (or else he'd have a girlfriend and something better do with his time then post useless debates). I'm going to go make myself a sandwich right now; Pro can hold his breath for his. Extend my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yetanotherlogician 6 years ago
Yetanotherlogician
lastrequest691, you show blatant disrespect for proper debate. This could have been an extremely enlightening topic if debate by anyone else.
Posted by DominicanNYC 6 years ago
DominicanNYC
damn it, we had a discussion on this during y psychology class, i wish i had read this before that way i would have contributed more during the discussion. both made good points and had valid reasons for believing what they do. but i think in some ways nature vs. nurture is in the eye of the beholder, it can be based on opinion, no facts and research bury the counter argument completely.I think that this question will always be debated
Posted by lastrequest691 6 years ago
lastrequest691
Congratulation Lwerd - You won.
"Every dog has it's day"

It was your day.
Congrats
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
although pro did a terrible job
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
Now I think people are starting to vote for theLwerd just because she's theLwerd.

Reputation for the win.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
"Unlike people from Canada who are inferior as a result of inbreeding, people from US & Europe who come from mixture of different race are more superior in intelligence."

*snorts* Which is why Canada has grown some of the most famous innovaters and inventers in the world?

Now, you have a point that inbreeding is detrimental - the Habsburgs line died out due to it, but your proclamation that Canadians are "weak" due to so-called "inbreeding" (which is less likely than the USA and of which is extremely less plausible than Europe), is follysome. European Royalty have inbred for centuries.
Posted by lastrequest691 6 years ago
lastrequest691
Let the best Man win this debate. I can see Lwerd winning this one but I can still win - I just need 39 points and I will win.
NEVER STOP BELIEVING.

I expected boys would vote for me when I told that woman to make me a sandwich. (Put the woman in her place)
Common boys- I stand for Men.
Vote For Me.
Posted by MattE 6 years ago
MattE
Why did pro try to use comparative psychology (i.e. horses) to validate g-factor intelligence? This is sad.
Posted by MattE 6 years ago
MattE
Wow, what a debate fail. Con is clearly victorious in this one, especially with the ad hominem attacks.
Posted by jaweber1 6 years ago
jaweber1
Well now that I have seen you actually debate on your own feet in round three, I can see why you would plagiarize. You are the reason for which I ponder the morality of genocides, if only I could gather enough people of your HIGH intelligence.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Digamma 6 years ago
Digamma
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DominicanNYC 6 years ago
DominicanNYC
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by pokemonboy102 6 years ago
pokemonboy102
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jaweber1 6 years ago
jaweber1
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Atheistassociate 6 years ago
Atheistassociate
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
lastrequest691DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06