A kid of John Carmack is likely to have a cognitive capacity that is a standard deviation or two to the right of even the "smart" kids in class. Genetics isn't everything but it's not nothing.

I don't know how this ended up in the USMLE but AFAIK, it has long been debunked... unless for "inherited" you mean something other than "genetically transmitted".

See "Not in our Genes" by Lewontin, Rose, Kamin, for a thorough discussion.

In practice, it is a result based on twin studies, but with very low standards: for one thing not double-blind, definitions were let swing arbitrarily by the interviewers, and so on.

Definitions of intelligence are themselves questionable, techniques to measure it, even more so. The history of IQ has been tainted by plain fraud... And the whole field is too a succulent target for ideological warfare... truth is too easily a collateral casualty. This should not be considered science.

This sounds like a myth, as I have never seen such a thing suggested by any expert on the subject.

Well I sat through quite a bit of USMLE prep and it's there.

That's a poor paraphrase of "recent studies suggesting [testable IQ]'s mostly from the mother".

https://books.google.com/books?id=8zVXDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=...

I think this only proves that you should teach your kid Lisp if you are John Carmack.

Or that you should teach a kid Lisp if he is a descendent of John Carmack (or probably Paul Graham).

Maybe descendants of Paul Graham should be taught C if Carmack's kids are learning Lisp.

If he was given a chance to go back in time and teach his younger self to learn whatever language he wanted to make himself learn, I'm pretty sure he would have NOT Picked LISP and picked exactly the same language he used to build his first game.