There has been a lot of interest throughout history in what makes great people great. Like the freakishly great people. The Yo-Yo Mas and the Michael Jordans, if you will. Some research pointed to genetics. Some research pointed to practice making perfect (ever heard of the “10,000 hours” rule?). An article in Slate, “Practice Does Not Make Perfect” sums up some pretty compelling evidence that genes play a mighty big role in all sorts of aptitudes.
In a recently published analysis of the data, researchers found that there was a stronger correspondence in drawing ability for the identical twins than for the fraternal twins. In other words, if one identical twin was good at drawing, it was quite likely that his or her identical sibling was, too. Because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes, whereas fraternal twins share only 50 percent on average, this finding indicates that differences across people in basic artistic ability are in part due to genes. In a separate study based on this U.K. sample, well over half of the variation between expert and less skilled readers was found to be due to genes.
And if you’re already thinking about the implications and ramifications of snubbing practice because it all comes down to genetics, the article discusses that (in depth) too.
It is therefore crucial to differentiate between the influence of genes on differences in abilities across individuals and the influence of genes on differences across groups. The former has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by decades of research in a number of fields, including psychology, biology, and behavioral genetics. There is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that genes contribute to individual differences in abilities. The latter has never been established, and any claim to the contrary is simply false.