> Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only?

Not "only", but yes, there are studies attributing variation in intelligence in significant part to genetics.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

> These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals.

Do you really need a study to see that the top athletes in the Olympics, for example, are all there due to genetic advantages?

Whether it's higher endurance, a tiny difference in bone structure, longer arms, greater height, etc. - that's all mostly genetics with a bit of environmental factors mixed in (like childhood nutrition)

But cognitive abilities and intelligence are far less understood, because you simply can't measure it as well as physical achievements (in fact, some of the top comments here gripe about using a PhD degree as a benchmark for achievement; or patents; or publications; or even income level)

I perfectly understand the physical genetics advantages. But people here and everywhere are attributing intelligence to genetics as it was as evident as physical traits.

Intelligence is a physical trait; how could it be anything else?

I didn't say "only" genetics. I'm just saying that your genes are enormously responsible for what you can excel in.

Are you really suggesting that genetics don't play a role in who can successfully play football? If I'm 6'5", is that because I practiced at my height for 10,000 hours?

By the way, to act like genetics are "suddenly" king because of some pop-science trend is ridiculous. Genetics have always been king, it's how we evolved from a single celled organism to what we are now.

Physical advantage due to genetics is very different from cognitive advantage due to genetics. First and foremost because we don't even have an absolute way of assessing intelligence, nor we have an appropriate scale (I personally think IQ is BS).

That said, where exactly is the genetic factor that determines whether a person is more intelligent than other? Is it more neurons? More connections among them? the ability to process information quicker?

You can validly support the genetic basis for cognitive advantage without understanding the precise functioning of the brain, because the brain is a physical structure. Being complex its unlikely a single genetic factor (nor is intelligence singular anyways) determines it. But there is a substantial amount of evidence that supports at least some genetic basis for traits that give some people a cognitive advantage over others, inline with the genetic influence for all other physical traits.

Ok, so you are admitting your ideas are fact-less, mere assumptions that can easily be true or false, yet you're down voting my comment because it doesn't align with your evidence-less assumptions about the brain?

Again, what's that evidence? Is it a genome? some sort of better brain capacity?

> so you are admitting your ideas are fact-less, mere assumptions that can easily be true or false

I'm saying that were there a dearth of evidence either way, the argument for a genetic basis would still be valid based on the premise that the brain is a physical structure (among other things). In actuality, there's a good bit of evidence that its at least partially, and perhaps mostly, genetic.

> Again, what's that evidence? Is it a genome? some sort of better brain capacity?

Its polygenetic and at least partially influenced by the environment. Its unlikely that higher brain capacity plays a large role (in the difference between humans). Identical twins separated at birth provide the best evidence

> yet you're down voting my comment

Wasn't me :)

The idea that we don't fully understand intelligence does not negate the idea that intelligence would be genetically influenced in a similar manner to observable physical traits.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your opening statement, the two are not very different in all likelihood.

It could be as it couldn't. Both our opinions are on the same level because we're fact-less.

In most sports, we have clear rules about who is better at it. Let's say long jump. It's clear that a person with larger limbs (genetics) will have an advantage above one that has shorter limbs. How do we translate this in cognitive ability?

A person is more intelligent than other because they passed a test? because they can draw better? Everything is loosely defined.

In this comment, you're just calling into question the definition of intelligence.

We have widely-accepted manners in which to gauge intelligence. If you dispute them, that's another matter.

It's well-established that the measures show a genetic correlation.

If you were to find another measure of intelligence, besides the standard ones, we can use our experience and facts to surmise with a high confidence that those, too, would prove to be influenced by genetics.

> Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only?

Of course there are, like tetrachromacy [1]. Or even more mundane: XY chromosomes prevent men from having the ability to give birth.

I also think you're vastly underappreciating the results from genetic studies. Twin studies have repeatedly shown that identical twins separated at birth and growing up in wildly differing conditions, still largely end up with similar temperaments, similar world views, and similar intelligence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

Thanks, I didn't know about that. But I meant cognitive abilities, like Math.

Why would cognitive ability be different than any other characteristic, like height, athletic ability, and so on? Those same twin studies have shown that intelligence and academic performance are also highly heritable.

Certainly nurturing an ability will enhance performance, but there's an inherent upper limit to everything. Just like eating right and exercising won't make you grow taller than some max threshold, so studying and solving riddles won't make you more intelligent than some upper bound dictated by your genes. We don't know how to measure that yet, for either height or intelligence, but that bound is there.

I'm astonished about how many people here are using physical traits that are observable (even with the naked eye) as analogies to brain functions. Yes, we know a lot about muscle fibers, nutrition, physics and all that stuff, we can make reasonable conclusions about physical limits, but we don't know much about our brains or minds for that matter, not even state-of-art neurology have come up with solid conclusions, yet people here are talking (and being absolutely sure, which is the worst part) about intelligence inherited by genes, brain limits...

I just can't.

You're arguing for magic. If brain function does not follow from our physical makeup, then where exactly do you think it comes from? Sure learning is like exercising a muscle and can shape your brain, but environment affects muscle growth too via exercise and nutrition. Would you deny that your genetics place an upper limit on your achievable strength?

Sorry to say, there is already plenty of evidence of direct genetic impact on cognitive ability that you can see with your own eyes, even ignoring the twin studies that all but prove that cognitive functions are largely heritable. For instance, down syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease and Leukodystrophies.

The scientific case is in: given comparable nutrition and a standard education, your intelligence as compared to your peers is determined by your genetic makeup.

This says nothing about your work ethic or your determination of course, and thus what you can achieve if you put in enough effort. Intelligence is merely a metric stating that given the same amount of work expended on cognitive problems, those with higher intelligence will do better on average.

> Are actually there studies that claim a special ability is due to genetics only?

For various special abilities, including intelligence, there are studies that establish the degree to which they are heritable, as well as the effect of particular environmental and other factors in determining the non-inherited portion of the variability.

It takes genetics to be interested in something too I believe.

I need proof. This is one of the questions I have been interested in for a long time. Do we invent or discover ourselves?

You might enjoy reading some of the discussions of free will (or the lack thereof) in the face of a material universe. A good starting point might be searching for "free will" on Jerry Coyne's blog: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:whyevolutionistrue.word...