ABSTRACT
I suppose the first step in discussing the logic of the nature-nurture issue is to define what the issue is; and this is not a simple task. And perhaps, we shouldn’t take it as read from the beginning that there is one thing at issue here. Perhaps there are several issues. Or perhaps there are none. On the side of ‘nature’ it does indeed seem that there are at least two different claims, not necessarily incompatible: (i) that intelligence is innate ability (Burt’s view), (ii) that individual differences in intelligence are largely determined by genetic factors: the ‘mainstream’ view, held by, for example, Jensen, Eysenck, Butcher and Burt (again). What is at issue, then? Is it whether intelligence is, or is not, innate ability? Or whether innate determinants of individual differences in intelligence out-weigh environmental ones? Would someone arguing for ‘nurture’ be claiming that these differences are largely environmentally produced? Or would he object to this whole attempt at quantification?
