Something about the East African runners is just built differently to excel in endurance running. Probably a combination of genetics and training.
if you can’t beat the Kenyans then join them
Zane Robertson famously moving from Hamilton in 2007 at age 17, along with his twin brother Jake, in part to escape bullying and a broken family, to live and train in Kenya with the hope of mixing it among the best distance runners in the world.
There is probably a minor genetic component, microevolution promoting higher hemoglobin/etc than average, similarly to many Tibetans. But childhood conditioning seems to be a more powerful effect.
Not only at the elite level, but our junior teams and even school teams perform well on the world stage.
Like you say, that social factor plays a huge part in it. Support, funding, etc etc
>Read Bourdieu "Bourdieu contended there is transcendental objectivity, [definition needed] only when certain necessary historical conditions are met."
This guy sounds like a midwit.
With your theory, how would you explain adopted refugees children doing much better at IQ tests than they would have if the stayed in their home countries?
Also dismissing Bourdieu as a midwit? Yeah, ok. Come back when you actually want to expand your world view.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Heritabil...
From your own low-effort wikipedia 1st google result link:
" recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."
Bouchard, Thomas J. (7 August 2013). "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"
As for Bourdieu:
"Bourdieu was in practice both influenced by and sympathetic to the Marxist identification of economic command as a principal component of power and agency within capitalist society."
"According to Bourdieu, tastes in food, culture and presentation are indicators of class because trends in their consumption seemingly correlate with an individual's place in society."
If both of these were true you would never have class mobility. I do well for myself but still like hamhocks and beans.
into the trash he goes
People do not grow up in isolated vats, and social class is one of the largest influence on one's life. Obviously there are exceptions, not 100% of your life is determined by that. If you can't even fathom how your social class might inform your taste on red wine and such then I don't see what more we have to talk about. Goodbye.
Bouchard, Thomas J. (7 August 2013). "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"
You can set your watch to people on message boards making arguments about the genetic determination of intelligence that rely almost entirely on heritability statistics. It seems pretty clearly to be a cargo culting phenomenon; how else could you have very specific heritability numbers without even knowing what the term means? I'm curious where you got it from.
Is this not what heritability means?
If you're going to cite heritability numbers, you have to use the technical definition of heritability (which is what these papers are using).
> Is this not what heritability means?
No, not at all.
(HAYR-ih-tuh-BIH-lih-tee) The proportion of variation in a population trait that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors.
The study title is saying that heritability INCREASES with age: as you age your IQ is more closely correlated to the IQ of your parents from whom you inherited your genes from.
>As you point out a couple of comments later, genes don't change with age.
Your genes dont change but the correlation between you and your parents IQ does.
None of what you're being told is first-principles axiomatic reasoning. This is all stuff you can just go look up. You got so close with that Wikipedia definition of heritability! All you need to do now is understand what those words mean.
For example, someone is quite likely to speak the same first language as their parents, and for this reason, the statistics for heritability come up with a high number for how heritable a trait first language is. But this isn’t because of some English-speaking gene, it’s because lots of environmental conditions are common between parents and children.
The intuitive reason that the number of fingers on your hand is not heritable is because lots of the variation comes from injuries which are not explained very much by whether one’s parents lost fingers from injury. Genetic causes for an unusual number of fingers are much less common than accidents and so can’t cause much of the variation that is observed across a population.
Because it is quite reasonable to get a high heritability number for something that is not genetically determined (and a low number for something that is), one cannot really argue anything about genetic determinism from heritability numbers.
This is not the definition of heritability you are mincing words.
Heres the definition of heritability:
(HAYR-ih-tuh-BIH-lih-tee) The proportion of variation in a population trait that can be attributed to inherited GENETIC factors.
>For example, someone is quite likely to speak the same first language as their parents, and for this reason, the statistics for heritability come up with a high number for how heritable a trait first language is.
you are conflating inheritability with heritability.
The reason we are able to have crops that yield more is because we genetically modified them to do so; not because we grew wild corn in the perfect environment.
If you read your own words carefully, you're trying to rebut the parent commenter with their own argument.
Are there enough studies with adoptions? Because this would show exactly what we mean about genetics