Re: [Phys-l] Nurture vs Nature (Was:Student engagement)

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

Let us hope the contemporary twin studies data are not "manipulated"  
as was the seminal one earlier this cent.

bc thinks we're still in the 20th.


On 2009, Dec 08, , at 10:24, Brian Whatcott wrote:

> John Clement wrote:
> > /snip/ I would put the genetic aptitude thing as less than 50% in  
> > light of what
> > I have already said, but probably more than 10%.  The Chinese  
> > teachers
> > apparently also put it very low.  I would say that practically all  
> > can come
> > up to the formal operational level and be capable of understanding  
> > basic
> > science and math.  But there are many who have no need to go  
> > beyond simple
> > algebra and geometry.  In the end it is anyone's guess, but it is  
> > wise to
> > use research in making that guess. /snip/
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
> Last time that I was following studies relating behavior and skills
>  to nurture versus nature,   the general impression was
>  of a 70% genetic contribution and 30% due to environmental factors.
> Separated identical twins were a favorite focus of such studies.
>
> One factor I recall was associated with nurture:  a home where books
> featured strongly, and TV featured weakly if at all.
> Another: parental expectations, strongly enforced.
>
> But looking at my home study now: the several encyclopedia editions,
>  and numerous technical volumes have been gathering dust for some  
> years now:
>  the usual look up method revolves around the internet these days.
>
> Brian W
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l