yeah, environmental conditioning and opportunities certainly have
their effects, so i'm not against the social welfare state's pragmatic
interventions like pushing of vitamins, but we certainly aren't
"created equal" re "measureable intelligence," no
matter what idealists, liberal leftists, and humanists morally would
like

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=463539&in_page_id...

Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

Mrs Brown, chief executive of a charity, believes Georgia has
benefited by growing up as the youngest of five children.

She has been absorbing information from her older brothers and
sisters and father, a self-employed carpenter, while not receiving
any special treatment.

Interesting bit there. Of course, if the mom had said her daughter was
"born that way" she would have been panned.

Robert Cohen wrote:

Its not just that nature wins, I'd venture the the thought, that
seen in terms of the rates and amounts we learn, we are naturally
very intelligent in our younger years, our natural state in those
early months/years is to learn, absorbing and adapting quickly
language and locomotion.

I would even say, nurture, unappreciative of this potential places
a limit on that rate of progress. I wonder if there were any
extenuating circumstances in this particular case, for example colic.

Nature imposes limits and tells us what we can't do. The real differance
between nature vs. nurture is that nature relies on negative reinforcement
and nurture relies on positive reinforcement.

Nature imposes on use by telling us what we can't do. The real differance
between nature and nurture is that nature relies on negative reinforcement
and nurture relies on positive reinforcement.

Nurture is part of nature.

Nature provides both negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement;
i.e., pain and pleasure. So does nurture.

Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/

So many misconceptions, so little time.