How much do genetics make a difference?

[caketastydelish]

We are often told by the PC police that the environment someone is raised in is far more important than their hereditary traits. I am willing to believe that, but only with evidence. I will use Colin Kaepernick as my example.

"Kaperneick sucks, why him?" Sure he sucks, if you compare him to the very best in the world. He is a better quarterback than 99.9 % of the general population.

Both of Kaepernick's parents (biological, that is) were very athletic. His adopted family was not. Both his white mother and black father (biological) were athletic. That's also why I wanted to use him as an example: I don't want to turn this into a white people vs black people thing. You have a biracial man where both parents were just as athletic as each other, the only difference is one is white and the other is black.

Steve Jobs biological parents were very intelligent. His adopted family, meh. He also has a biological sister who he never even met until well into his adult years, who is also very successful. Not as much as him of course, but you get the picture.

 

[Zelig]

Nature and nurture both matter a lot.

 

[KmDubya]

I like to think of it as genetics gives you the cards in your hand, the way you are raised determine how well you can play them. Another way to look at it is genetics determines your potential and the way you are raised determines what percentage of that potential you actually achieve. An overachieving guy with poor genetics can be better than a genetically gifted lazy guy, but all things being equal better genetics will win out.

With selective breeding of animals you can emphasize whatever trait you want to, no reason it would not work for people as well.

 

[Berzerker]

they make all the difference...that doesn't mean environment cant have an effect on the end result

in your example, I imagine Colin's lineage of athleticism reaches further back than his parents. How does the child of un-athletic parents pass along genes they didn't get from their parents?

 

[Senethro]

It depends.

Unfortunately for us genes have the greatest influence when something goes badly wrong.

 

[Berzerker]

that should be a blessing when we can figure out how to manipulate genes when something bad does go wrong

 

[Yeekim]

Let's see how well those precious genes perform if you're dropped into an active volcano.

 

[Kyriakos]

Worth noting that the appearance of people who excel in something is (by definition) rare, so the general gene pool is not the issue if you compare huge groups like "races".
It is very likely that in any given classroom the smartest and the least smart do not differ that greatly in their overall genes, yet will differ to some degree. Furthermore, how the person goes about from the earliest of childhood has a very core effect in their future. You might have the potential to be the next <insert name of great mathematician>, and still don't do anything at all.

 

[Narz]

It depends.

Unfortunately for us genes have the greatest influence when something goes badly wrong.

Epigenetics is more important than genetics.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Genes are not so much blueprints for building an organism as they are a set of switches that tell the cells how to react to their environment. Genetics without an environment means nothing.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Worth noting that the appearance of people who excel in something is (by definition) rare, so the general gene pool is not the issue if you compare huge groups like "races".
It is very likely that in any given classroom the smartest and the least smart do not differ that greatly in their overall genes, yet will differ to some degree. Furthermore, how the person goes about from the earliest of childhood has a very core effect in their future. You might have the potential to be the next <insert name of great mathematician>, and still don't do anything at all.

Genetics would help a lot for intelligence, looks and physic but willpower and drive are learnt.
I'd imagine culture also plays a significant role

 

[KmDubya]

People are born intelligent or strong but lazy is a choice.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Genes are not so much blueprints for building an organism as they are a set of switches that tell the cells how to react to their environment. Genetics without an environment means nothing.

That is a very good point.

I find the example the OP uses interesting since it reveals the area where genes are extraordinarily important. I think most people can do well in most things if they manage to achieve the proper frame of mind and the proper practice hours. Or put differently but in consequence saying just the same: If their environment meets their needs to do so.
However, to do better than most or even all in a field where there is strong competition, where a whole lot of people are trying very hard, AND where the quality of your achievements is also actually measured well (which is more the case in sports than in most professions) - for that you will probably often need the right genes.

In a nutshell: Genes create different cost-benefit-equations for each indivdual. For the same effort you will get different results. However, this will mostly not seal your fate

Epigenetics is more important than genetics.

Surely not actually more important. But very important.

We btw understand now much better what the cliched "bad childhood" really can mean. It can make your brain shrink noticeably (as can stress, in general), and it changes the whole way your genes actually express themselves.
If you got a terrible childhood, lacking love and support, it can very well mess you up for live. Perhaps you still had a theoretical potential to "succeed", whether you actually will can become extremely less likely.

Basically, it is not far-fetched to say that when you meet some totally fracked individual, you may had been a lot like him if you would have had his or her life. Because in this instance the whole way you feel and think may have been drastically different, on a physical level.

 

[Honor]

Environment does shape genetics, as well, although it can take quite a bit of time for us, macros. Therefore, I believe the primary factor will always be the environment.

To answer within the scope of the original question: Nobody knows. Nobody can know until we figure out every single function of every single gene in the human genome, and figure out how epigenetic switches work and what triggers them, and how neuroplasticity plays a role in all of this.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Genes matter a lot, probably more than most people are comfortable with (although far from the only thing). Another super powerful determinate that gets forgotten about is the wealth you're born into.

 

[timtofly]

Genes matter a lot, probably more than most people are comfortable with (although far from the only thing). Another super powerful determinate that gets forgotten about is the wealth you're born into.

So every descendant of a wealthy sports personage are supposed to carry on a sports legacy?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

So every descendant of a wealthy sports personage are supposed to carry on a sports legacy?

No, not quite. But, to take the sports analogy, the vast majority of athletes come from well-off backgrounds. There's this cultural myth of the poor black inner city youth rising to NBA stardom, but most black athletes are born into middle and upper class families.

 

[Lexicus]

Genes matter a lot, probably more than most people are comfortable with (although far from the only thing). Another super powerful determinate that gets forgotten about is the wealth you're born into.

Be careful about conflating genes and heredity.

 

[timtofly]

No, not quite. But, to take the sports analogy, the vast majority of athletes come from well-off backgrounds. There's this cultural myth of the poor black inner city youth rising to NBA stardom, but most black athletes are born into middle and upper class families.

Would that not point to a more stable early life experience as opposed to mere wealth, or even genetics?

 

[Farm Boy]

Shifting away from wealth and towards poverty increases predicted instability. Staying together for the kids is something a degree of wealth makes easier to enjoy barring major relationship dysfunction and as far as the kids are concerned is reasonably effective in the long term.