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

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...