Have you even tried looking for these citations? It's hard to believe you didn't find them because there is no shortage of published research on this topic. Here's the first link I picked off google scholar: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2673145
How about you provide citations for the case that you are making?
The pro-nature side would simply contend that wealth correlates with more advantageous genetics and that the success of their prodigy mostly has to do with the genetics they pass down, and less to do with the economic advantages presented to them
The pro-nature side would simply contend that wealth correlates with more advantageous genetics
Seems like this is easily testable by looking at the distinction in, say, educational outcomes between "old" and "new" money. Are you aware of any citations supporting this hypothesis?
What do you think of the following articles? Do you find their implications as disturbing as Lucy's claims?
"Poor people, generally, make bad decisions—bad in the sense of their long-term physical, mental and financial welfare. But their bad decisions aren't the reason for their poverty. They're caused by it."
@http://killermartinis.kinja.com/why-i-make-terrible-decision....
"Growing up poor is bad for your brain"
@http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/growing-up-poor-is-bad-for-....
"With...many people saying that 'this is proof positive...'" is bullshit. You don't have many people saying exactly that. I don't think you even have one person saying exactly that, other than Lucy. Many people? Which people, and where? In Japan? In America? Did you count them? Weasel words, trying to lend credibility to the Lucy's claim that this is proof positive (!) that nature cannot overcome nurture (!). Third clause of this whopper: people who are born into poverty are doomed to stay there. Wow. You know, I'm not altogether sure that the prince-born pauper is actually poor. Going by what we know, he has a job as a truck driver, which is more than can be said for his mother, who was on welfare, and formally poor. He simply couldn't go to high school or college. In other words, he moved up a bit in life, though granted, not much.
And as rayiner pointed out, this is a single data point. It proves nothing.
Now, what if it did prove exactly that nature cannot overcome nurture? This would mean so much! Suddenly, so much of the progressive agenda would be validated! It would truly be bigotry, and literally nothing else, that was responsible for minorities in perpetual plight. It would truly be sexism, and literally nothing else, that was responsible for how many fewer women are CEO's. It would be a rallying cry for the communists of the world to unite against the pure, distilled evil that etcetera.