Nature Vs. Nurture

I've never claimed to be a scientist but I enjoy compiling and analyzing data like one.

I've been reading this fascinating book called 'The Genius Factory' by David Plotz. Back in the late 1970's to early 1980's the concept of germinal repositories (ie. sperm banks to the layman) was still pretty new, but one man with decidedly more money than brains had a concept of a utopian society in which children were born to Mensa moms and Nobel dads.

Robert Graham, a self made businessman, decides to create the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank located on his 10 acre estate in Escondido, California. The repository rapidly earned it's more well known nickname, the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank for it's founder's propensities to pursuing Nobel laureate recipients like a dog after a cooked steak. His best efforts only garnered 3 willing Nobel donors (included noted Eugenics supporter, William Shockley), but he eventually lowered his standards to allow accomplished scientists, students, professors, doctors and self made businessmen like himself to make donations which he initially only distributed (complimentary) to (as I mentioned in the above paragraph) married women who were either accepted by Mensa or had an IQ of 120 points or higher.

Granted, Graham realized that if his bank was going to be a success he'd finally have to accept whatever women who came in the door with a raging biological clock and enough money to complete the process of insemination.

The entire book has been enlightening to me for so many reasons. The concept of Eugenics was something I had often thought about in regards to whether or not I wanted to have my own children. Keep in mind of course that I view the theory as it was originally intended to be thought of, as the study of improving human genetic qualities (and in ALL races!), and certainly not at all like supporters such as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin thought of it in terms of forced sterilization and euthanasia for the 'sub-classes'. And honestly, I think many people given the choice of playing even the smallest of parts in creating how their unborn child would turn out would like to choose to have a even-tempered, healthy child with the physical traits of your choosing.

But then I started thinking about the argument against that. DNA is fickle. So the donor's sperm only contributes one half of the genetic information. What about the half contributed by the woman?

So what traits do adults possess that are gifts of nature versus ones of nurture? Which are purely environmental and are results of the way these people were raised?

The author goes into a lot of detail on this. Would it not be permissable that children raised by overachieving parents are thus overachievers, regardless of their so called 'genius' DNA?

I'm not the only one that notices the cultural differences in how children of different descent's are raised. Typically most children of European descent were allowed a more liberated upbringing than, say, an Asian child of the same age.

In most middle eastern cultures, children are taught that education is all important and are often raised believing that they are expected to do great things, whether a world renowned concert violinist or the world's greatest mathematician.

So while it could be argued that people of Asian descent are on average higher in IQ than their caucasian counterparts, it does lead me to wonder if they are truly genetically predisposed to being more intelligent or if the general cultural differences allow them the advantage later in life.

For anyone who's not completely bored yet, I wonder if you might know of any studies on this. I'd be interested in reading them.

And tonight, perhaps I'll sleep.