Physical advantage due to genetics is very different from cognitive advantage due to genetics. First and foremost because we don't even have an absolute way of assessing intelligence, nor we have an appropriate scale (I personally think IQ is BS).
That said, where exactly is the genetic factor that determines whether a person is more intelligent than other? Is it more neurons? More connections among them? the ability to process information quicker?
You can validly support the genetic basis for cognitive advantage without understanding the precise functioning of the brain, because the brain is a physical structure. Being complex its unlikely a single genetic factor (nor is intelligence singular anyways) determines it. But there is a substantial amount of evidence that supports at least some genetic basis for traits that give some people a cognitive advantage over others, inline with the genetic influence for all other physical traits.
Ok, so you are admitting your ideas are fact-less, mere assumptions that can easily be true or false, yet you're down voting my comment because it doesn't align with your evidence-less assumptions about the brain?
Again, what's that evidence? Is it a genome? some sort of better brain capacity?
> so you are admitting your ideas are fact-less, mere assumptions that can easily be true or false
I'm saying that were there a dearth of evidence either way, the argument for a genetic basis would still be valid based on the premise that the brain is a physical structure (among other things). In actuality, there's a good bit of evidence that its at least partially, and perhaps mostly, genetic.
> Again, what's that evidence? Is it a genome? some sort of better brain capacity?
Its polygenetic and at least partially influenced by the environment. Its unlikely that higher brain capacity plays a large role (in the difference between humans). Identical twins separated at birth provide the best evidence
The idea that we don't fully understand intelligence does not negate the idea that intelligence would be genetically influenced in a similar manner to observable physical traits.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your opening statement, the two are not very different in all likelihood.
It could be as it couldn't. Both our opinions are on the same level because we're fact-less.
In most sports, we have clear rules about who is better at it. Let's say long jump. It's clear that a person with larger limbs (genetics) will have an advantage above one that has shorter limbs. How do we translate this in cognitive ability?
A person is more intelligent than other because they passed a test? because they can draw better? Everything is loosely defined.
In this comment, you're just calling into question the definition of intelligence.
We have widely-accepted manners in which to gauge intelligence. If you dispute them, that's another matter.
It's well-established that the measures show a genetic correlation.
If you were to find another measure of intelligence, besides the standard ones, we can use our experience and facts to surmise with a high confidence that those, too, would prove to be influenced by genetics.
That said, where exactly is the genetic factor that determines whether a person is more intelligent than other? Is it more neurons? More connections among them? the ability to process information quicker?