[VadeRetro]

When I met him and debated him in the 1980s, he acknowledged a small genetic component to intelligence, but felt that environment was the key. This--to me--is Lysenkoism updated and a bit compromised, but Lysenkoism nonetheless.

The nature-nurture debate is about how much of who we are comes from genetics and how much from environment. Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckism, is a belief that "nurture" characteristics are passed to offspring. That is, "nurture" in one generation becomes "nature."

Didn't know that?

I suspect that if you debated Gould, you claimed he dented your fender.

[Pharmboy]

You're not only rude, you're an IDIOT.

Lysenkoism was a campaign against genetics and geneticists which happened in the Soviet Union from the middle of the 1930s to the middle of the 1960s, centered around the figure of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. In a broader context, Lysenkoism is often invoked to imply the overt subversion of science by political forces.

Who CARES what theories Lysenko invoked to put his idiocy forth? It is about the environment as key, and the minimization of genetics. The same goes for Gould, and, evidently, you.