Like Cummings, I am not qualified to interpret genetic research, so I asked Professor Steve Jones, the celebrated geneticist at University College London, what it means. Cummings, using the work of the behavioural geneticist Robert Plomin, badly misinterprets it, says Jones, and “fundamentally misunderstands” how biology works. That 70% is, crucially, “a statement about populations, not individuals. It certainly does not mean that seven-tenths of every child’s talents reside in the double helix.” Teachers become more, not less, important, Jones says, when examining the close interaction of environment and genes. Even in the simple matter of height, environment plays its part: with no DNA change, his native Welsh population has grown two inches and increased its IQ since the 1950s. Moving to affluence increases a working class child’s IQ by 15 points.
The effect is not upon the IQ of that one working class child that moves into affluence. It i exactly as you are criticising Cummings for: it’s the Flynn Effect and it works on populations, not individuals.
And as to this:
With destiny all but set by five years old
If destiny is set before the education system even sees the child ten it’s clear and obvious that it’s not the education system that influences destny, is it?