“As to the nature vs. nurture debate, it seems the truth is likely some combination of nature and nurture – not one or the other. I do believe there may be a genetic component to IQ, given my father and son both graduated from university Phi Beta Kappa (within the top 10%, within the top 10% of universities).” —— Actually, I majored in math at Harvard and do have a very good memory and very good intuition in math as well. And physics too. The whole nature versus nurture debate could be a VERY interesting math problem. Because, well, think about it. Imagine the brain growing and developing like how a tree or shrub grows, and then nurture is like outside influences exerting influence at times, but the brain is still genetically programmed to grow in only certain ways in response to those outside influences, so you get a combination of nature versus nurture. Maybe certain parts of the brain are stubborn, though, and will not bend to nurture too much. Like the heart, for instance, has to be within a certain range regarding geometric shape and other stuff, and cannot stray too far from the norm. Other things like survival instinct and how you respond to danger – like when you get PTSD and it’s stubborn and irrational. You can try to reason yourself out of PTSD but, no, you can’t. You know you are safe. It doesn’t matter. Another part of your brain over rules that and can only be treated the way it can be treated. It’s stupid to have a debate where some academics say it’s all 100 percent nurture, some say it’s all nature, when in fact you could try to develop a whole science that starts out with the assumption that it is a combination of both, one where it’s going to be very hard to sort things out, but at least you can try.