The debates regarding the significance of either nurture or nature in examining the intelligence of children are mainly focused on their genetic data rather than education and other factors, which are difficult to measure. Meanwhile, as per the claims of Kirp (2006), social context is critical, and although people’s IQ is related to their background, life experiences modify it. Hence, this indicator is not solely determined by genetics, and maximizing it is possible through improving one’s conditions.
The standpoint that IQ is influences both by one’s ancestry and general wellbeing is based on recent findings. According to Kirp (2006), twin studies were reported to be inaccurate as the link between genes and environment was ignored, whereas growing up in poverty was claimed to affect the outcomes, such as reading skills. These findings imply that the resemblance between offspring and their biological parents is more apparent than with the adoptive ones, but nurture impacts their actual results. In other words, ignoring social context is inappropriate as both genetics and one’s living conditions affect learning outcomes. From this perspective, the most reasonable suggestion for parents and educators is to focus on what they can affect, which is the creation of favorable settings for children’s development. In this way, it will be possible to improve their wellbeing in the future while not imposing any limitations of genetic nature.
In conclusion, the works of researchers in the area of nature vs. nurture confirm that both factors are important for one’s intellectual results. It means that IQ is not determined only by genetic but a combination of factors. In this case, the best policy for adults is to ensure that their children are taken care of so that they could have an opportunity to maximize their academic success in the long run.
Reference
Kirp, D. L. (2006). After the bell curve: New research strengthens the case against genetic determinism. The New York Times Magazine 6(15), 15-19. Web.