C. the broad definition of environment becomes even stranger when you realise that genes that influence parenting are categorised under "environment". Same with the fact that parents change the environment for their child more widely, like moving to better areas. It is very much up to your parents and your extended family, or even ethnic group when it comes to what environment it creates. The environment never just "happens" for humans it is the extended phenotype of our genes (Dawkins). This limits what even identical twin studies can capture and overestimates environmental impact versus genetic impact. The Environment vs genes discussion almost always has problems and misunderstandings built into it, at least how it is discussed in the mainstream media.
E. I would guess that's because school achievement is more than just intelligence singled out, it is also about other heritable traits related to how hard you work, if you psychologically can fit in well in a modern school environment and so on.
By most people discussing the environment/genetic influence split. It tends to be a mis-guided discussion to start with. I'm not arguing against Robert Plomin here, I'm just generally expressing frustration about how people generally muddy the waters around the old environment vs. genetic inluence debate. It is a silly debate because the real answer is that the result is 100% genetic and 100% environmental, not a split.
C. the broad definition of environment becomes even stranger when you realise that genes that influence parenting are categorised under "environment". Same with the fact that parents change the environment for their child more widely, like moving to better areas. It is very much up to your parents and your extended family, or even ethnic group when it comes to what environment it creates. The environment never just "happens" for humans it is the extended phenotype of our genes (Dawkins). This limits what even identical twin studies can capture and overestimates environmental impact versus genetic impact. The Environment vs genes discussion almost always has problems and misunderstandings built into it, at least how it is discussed in the mainstream media.
E. I would guess that's because school achievement is more than just intelligence singled out, it is also about other heritable traits related to how hard you work, if you psychologically can fit in well in a modern school environment and so on.
Not sure what you mean by "categorised under 'environment'", by who?
By most people discussing the environment/genetic influence split. It tends to be a mis-guided discussion to start with. I'm not arguing against Robert Plomin here, I'm just generally expressing frustration about how people generally muddy the waters around the old environment vs. genetic inluence debate. It is a silly debate because the real answer is that the result is 100% genetic and 100% environmental, not a split.