I'm really incredulous to the social sciences, there is definitely good research taking place, but they really do have a strong liberal bias as well.

SCIENCE PREVAILS






White Devil reign supreme !

There is evidence that girls who are raised without a father reach puberty sooner because there is an environmental cue that males are unreliable and that they should focus on having a lot of offspring as r strategies are now more suitable.

Process during pregnancy such as diet and chemical balance of the womb could also affect the person's genetic potential, wouldn't it?

What is not enough focused on in the series is that not all humans necessarily respond equally to the environment or the biological heritage from their parents. A quite important issue. In other words parental genetics, natural environment, social environment and economy situation for the family, are all assumptions based on the "determined" causality. Those will be there anyway, but is there any direct evidence to why an individual becomes different to a twin from the same environment with very close genetics?
Why does the natural variation occur at always a minimum standard of effect? It is even the case for 2 trees growing from the same type of seed. They will never be alike. One fact is the individual genetic condition, but another is to understand why it even may occur.
Here we probably have to enter the realm of physics. The reason is that selection pressure as an environment is not proved to cause the variation, only proved to cause the adaptation which is a more general ability among organisms.

Another important matter is that the cultural impact also relates to how the society is actually developed. Culture now and culture in 1700s is not the same, and culture differs from areas. It is possible that one person affected in a specific way in region "a" is not affected in the same way in region "b".

Joe might have sent me

I really liked the first episode because there have been numerous accounts of the unscientific nature of gender studies, it was nice to see it rightfully bashed.

This episode however i found a little bit too biassed and with a little too much cherrypicking. Having a fairly recent degree in teaching I can only remember that research are a lot more open than what this episode pictures. What I can remember most ist that we were encouraged to take part of scientific research and be open minded about how different parameters can effect your students deveopment.
It is not a polar debate between parents or genes!
Lots of factors can be credited to corrolate to school results, however it is hard to determine causality and to what degree they might effect school results. An american study is just one of thousands with varying quality. 

Atleast here in Sweden and I would think it is also true for Norway, most teachers and school planners and whoever has anything to do with the school system are well aware of how different parameters can effect results. It would be a very dangerous proposision however to bring about the "dumbass stamp" just because the parents are low educated.

I think this episode reeked of strawman argumentation.

For some reason I feel there are something missing. 
I wish they would do research similar to the adoptive child vs. normal child, but also include stuff like morals and self-esteem.

Its a hunch but I believe these are things the parents are more influential...

Thank you very much for sharing this series.  Extremely interesting.

Couldn't the parents teach the child a misapplication of their attention, IE 'waste' their intellect via procrastination, or the related? Would the social influence of that be stronger? Could that be another reason why poorer communities tend to have generations of those who never go on to higher learning, or even high school? Not the fact that they are necessarily genetically 'dumber' than others? (provided that poverty is not a direct factor in their nonattendance; either just enough money for the schooling or use of welfare systems)
The above also makes sense to me, as we all know someone who could be considered 'dumber' in some way, but is still able to live comfortably and happily, even if the career is not as glamorous as what we are taught in schools to aspire to achieve.
The host mentioned his father's constant referral to an encyclopedia, and how he often does the same. Could that be some sort of specific genetic trait that manifests itself through the act? Or is that just an example of choosing the best option available. (just application of logic)
If social groups are a larger factor, than that implies it is more important the company the parent's keep and those that the parents allow the child to be close to than who the parents themselves really are. That sounds like reasonable social reinforcement; the parent shows the child, by extension, who best to interact with to both survive and reproduce. That sounds a biologically positive trait. Could that also imply that children on some level are viewing their parents as part of a whole, like a piece of the social group at large, in the case the child is surrounded by adults more than those their age (Or if they are largely isolated) ?
Could parents somehow 'dumb down' their children through actions other than abuse if the child is more isolated? (Forcing ideology, for instance), and could there also be some sort of genetic trait in the child that could either counteract or embrace that behavior or belief system?
And now I'm wondering if there's some possible common gene between the people we decide have 'revolutionary' theology (The Thomas Paines and Karl Marxs) And could that always be determined through an IQ test?
So many questions I now want to mull over

I wonder how much of what they call genetics here should really be called biological inheritance, which may include factors like epigenetics and womb environment.  To establish the difference I believe they'd need to look back at least two or three generations (or compare genetic profiles).

"Mangfold" er et kodeord for hvit folkemord
"Diversity" is a codeword for white genocide