The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?
Robert Clark
Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist,
Sept-Oct 1997,
http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
order of 3 pts. per
decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that
if the average
person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be
consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science
fiction
writers have long suggested that human intelligence will increase over
the centuries,
but that idea was discounted by biologists on the grounds that
evolution was
directed by necessity and since in "civilized" societies anyone can
grow to
reproductive age regardless of their intelligence, human intelligence
should stay pretty much static. (Hmm, cloning, space travel, life on
other planets, evolution of human intelligence, are science fiction
writers psychic?)
In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological
reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological. After all, there
has always been a strong social push towards "intelligent" mates even
in civilized
societies. In prehistoric times, there would be a tendency toward
intelligent mates since they would be
the ones who be most able to survive, hunt good food, create good
shelter, etc. Over
time we might surmise that it became a genetic disposition to seek
intelligent mates. In surveys
of what we find attractive in a potential mate intelligence always
comes high in the list.
If one looks at what is the most salient feature that distinguish us
from
other animals, its our intelligence. Just as the most salient features
of birds is flying
ability and there would be strong genetic push towards increased flying
ability so would be the
same thing for us in regards to intelligence. There are 5 billion of
us on the planet, no other
large animal even comes close to that number, probably throughout all
of history. This suggests
to me a strong biological success in our genetic endowment.
Any comments?
Bob Clark
Anders Sandberg
"Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> writes:
> In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological
> reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological. After all, there
> has always been a strong social push towards "intelligent" mates even
> in civilized societies.
Hmm, how come nerds and scientists aren't sex symbols then?
I actually lean strongly in the direction of a combination of
nutrition and upbringing effects. People today are constantly exposed
to problems where we need to make complex semantic and semiotic
judgements, and rewarded for doing well and punished for failing. In
the 30's the amount of information a person would have to deal with
was a trickle compared to today, and it has steadily increased. Today
most children grow up with MTV and computer games and learn significantly
faster reactions and eye-hand coordination skills.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
a...@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
Richard P. Sasser
In article <b49vhzu...@void.nada.kth.se>, Anders Sandberg <a...@void.nada.kth.se> wrote:
>"Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> writes:
>
>> In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological
>> reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological. After all, there
>> has always been a strong social push towards "intelligent" mates even
>> in civilized societies.
>
>Hmm, how come nerds and scientists aren't sex symbols then?
>
>I actually lean strongly in the direction of a combination of
>nutrition and upbringing effects. People today are constantly exposed
>to problems where we need to make complex semantic and semiotic
>judgements, and rewarded for doing well and punished for failing. In
>the 30's the amount of information a person would have to deal with
>was a trickle compared to today, and it has steadily increased. Today
>most children grow up with MTV and computer games and learn significantly
>faster reactions and eye-hand coordination skills.
>
40,000+ years. Without some form of selection process, evolution, for
humanity, is devolution.
Rick
ea...@neosoft.com
Actually there is ample evidence that the brain size of modern man has
decreased about 10% from that of 50Ky ago. Maybe early versions of MTV
helped dull the human mind.
Robert Clark
How do you know the brains have not changed for 40,000 years? What you
may know is something about the brain case over that period but nothing
else.
ea...@NeoSoft.com wrote in article <604eip$ctt$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
William Wallace
On 21 Sep 1997 15:46:10 GMT, "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
> Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist,
>Sept-Oct 1997,
>http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
>there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
>order of 3 pts. per
>decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that
>if the average
> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be
>consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science
>fiction
>writers have long suggested that human intelligence will increase over
>the centuries,
>but that idea was discounted by biologists on the grounds that
>evolution was
>directed by necessity and since in "civilized" societies anyone can
>grow to
>reproductive age regardless of their intelligence, human intelligence
>should stay pretty much static. (Hmm, cloning, space travel, life on
>other planets, evolution of human intelligence, are science fiction
>writers psychic?)
The tests are not static. There is a matter of teaching to the
test which teachers are constantly doing.
I wish I could find it again but I once had the IQ test was used
in WW I. It was an acculturation test that everyone here would grade
out as a low grade idiot. Knowing your Ghee from your Haw was not even
the asked, that was too simple. Yes, at least one of the questions
required a knowledge of using horses and I think more than one.
The tests we give, in the interests of giving them to groups and
quickly are acculturated. Arithmetic relationships? If you never heard
of arithmetic or if you never faced geometric shapes or ... but they
sort of work. They can be normed with types of tests with no such
requirements and those are quite "fair." See, The Bell Curve, for a
discussion.
All we have happening here is teaching towards the test. I took a
specialized IQ test once that was picture puzzles. If I had never seen
the figures involved or such a puzzle I would not have had a chance at
it.
There is a biological connection with IQ and that is reaction
time.
Biologists can reject the idea of such improvement rather easily
since natural selection requires either failure to have progeny or a
greater number of progeny that would be based upon intelligence. It is
unclear that we have anything save fatal auto accidents in the
reaction time category and there are not enough of them if that is
what it is.
There is a biological basis for average IQ increase and that is
good nutrition in infancy and childhood. However, that generally means
really malnurished before there is something detrimental and that does
not explain western European nations for that last century or so.
As to renorming in general, the SAT and GRE, while not IQ tests,
are also renormed regularly for similar reasons.
Remember any test is game between the test creators and the test
takers.
=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.
William Wallace
On 21 Sep 1997 18:33:05 +0200, Anders Sandberg <a...@void.nada.kth.se>
wrote:
>"Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> writes:
>
>> In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological
>> reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological. After all, there
>> has always been a strong social push towards "intelligent" mates even
>> in civilized societies.
>
>Hmm, how come nerds and scientists aren't sex symbols then?
>
>I actually lean strongly in the direction of a combination of
>nutrition and upbringing effects. People today are constantly exposed
>to problems where we need to make complex semantic and semiotic
>judgements, and rewarded for doing well and punished for failing. In
>the 30's the amount of information a person would have to deal with
>was a trickle compared to today, and it has steadily increased. Today
>most children grow up with MTV and computer games and learn significantly
>faster reactions and eye-hand coordination skills.
As in a preivous post, drill, drill, drill. If you spend your
life looking for patterns in numbers you ace that part of an IQ test.
Imagine a real life test, translate hieroglyphics.
Bryan Palus
On 21 Sep 1997 15:46:10 GMT, "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
> Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist,
>Sept-Oct 1997,
>http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
>there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
>order of 3 pts. per
>decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that
>if the average
> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be
>consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science
This is guaranteed to open up a can of worms....
Have you performed a search engine seek on SAT scores.??? Various
countries around the world (including the good old USA) test their
school children on a periodic basis and make comparisions to determine
if there is a uniform standard of performance.
Caution These scores seem to be subject to a wild range of interpre-
tation, depending upon whether you are a legitimate educational
system, such as can be found in several of the European and Asiatic
cultures, or whether you are in the USA where the scores are subject
to interpretation of the current political correctness regime headed
by the social reengineering gnomes in Washington. Either way, in
the USA it shows that the SAT scores have remained relativly constant
over the past 25 years, (actually have declined by a small
percentage). But you are right about the baseline. Whenever it shows
that the USA is falling behind, they downgrade the baseline
accordingly.
An amusing observation is that Bill Clinton, our Great??? Fearless???
Leader??? is now making funny sounding noises about the Federal
Government stepping in to save our educational system. Which is very
tragic because the policies mandated by the Federal Government,
(including the Judiciary branch) have been a major direct contributor
to the decline in American Education. (Speculation has it that
certain members in the executive branch are looking closely at the
trillions of dollars raised by the local governments for educational
purposes as a potential source of ?????? now that contributions from
other sources are under investigation. Totally unrelated news item
...Sales of cellular telephones and encryption scramblers are
reported to be on the rise throughout the Washington, DC area.
(In response....Yes, I had a catholic school education. How else does
one learn to read, write and sift through governmental propaganda in
the US??)
Robert Clark
In regards to your argument about natural selection not operating,
recall my original argument that there may have developed a genetic
tendency to desire intelligent mates over the period of early human
evolution. And when you look at it closely, throughout all of human
history and prehistory and all of human cultures and societies, it has
always been "intelligence" that has been a strong determining factor in
defining success in that culture. Looking at it biologically what else
is there for human beings that would make a member in a group be
"successful" and that would operate uniformly over time. If we were
lions I suppose it would be hunting ability, if we were birds it would
be flying ability, if dolphins, ability to locate fish using sonar. But
as humans what do we have? We have hands, language, and intelligence.
The first seems to be pretty much static over history, and the second is
strongly dependent on intelligence anyway. So the primary factor
determining success of a member of our species is intelligence.
Since as I claim the tendency towards intelligent mates has existed
throughout history, there would also be a social pressure that would act
to select for this as far as mate selection is concerned. So that this
feature of human mate selection would be reinforced over the centuries,
not lessened. Note also that with development of technological society
this tendency is increasing and its leaning toward the kind of
intelligence involved with technology. Granted there is variation of
what kind of intelligence would be most desired depending on the
culture. But it has been surmised that there is a general factor that
applies across the various kinds of intelligence. And all you need is
for this general factor to be continually selected for over the
centuries for this factor to be a high point of desirability in mate
selection.
I didn't explain that last point very well. Let's say there is some
general factor that relates the various kinds of intelligence,
psychologists will recognize Spearmans hypothesized "g". Now there may
be only a small connection between a particular kind of intelligence and
the general factor. But I maintain that you draw the same conclusion
anyway. For suppose for every culture and throughout all human history,
there is strong social and perhaps genetic tendency to select mates high
in the particular intelligence desired by that culture. Then since the
general factor will be selected for along with this, perhaps to a
smaller degree, and since this happens for all cultures and all times,
over the centuries the general factor will be selected for to a great
degree.
I suppose that it may be possible for us to arbitrarily decide to value
the ability to physically beat up another person as desirable (actually,
it may be we couldn't do that even if we wanted too; our brains being so
oriented otherwise.) If we did create such a culture I would surmise
that over time it would be this quality that would come to be desired.
However, of course, this is not likely. As I see it, we will continue to
value intelligence in regards to mate selection and therefore there will
continue this tendency towards greater human intelligence
Bob Clark
Sčan McNamara
Richard P. Sasser <rsasser@_onramp.net> wrote in article
>
>
>
>
I agree. There is no biological evidence. The brain has not changed for
40,000+ years. Without some form of selection process, evolution, for
humanity, is devolution.
Rick
Actually, there is no such thing as devolution. Evolution has no positive
or negative value assigned to it. Evolution doesn't always make the
creature better. It simply changes it. Of course, I do agree that
humanity is declining. We do need some sort of selection process for the
advancement of our species.
Sčan
frank murray
> As in a preivous post, drill, drill, drill. If you spend your
>life looking for patterns in numbers you ace that part of an IQ test.
>
> Imagine a real life test, translate hieroglyphics.
hmmm...seems that the first modern to read hieroglyphics did so by
following the lead of the rather respectable mathematician, thomas
young...
frank
uhs...@ohsu.edu
Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think evolution
would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter? Where did
you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly related to size?
The salient factor in neural networks is not the absolute number of functional
units, but their arrangement, structure and connections. A smaller absolute
size could also be the result of streamlining, making more efficient, better
arrangement of the connections so that fewer units are needed to perform as
well or better. Think about it, do we make smarter computers bigger? No, we
make them smaller and more efficient. The brain puts a huge energetic cost on
the body's physiology. There is a direct relationship with brain size there.
As humans we consume huge amounts of energy compared to lower creatures, but
that may not be the smartest thing. Evolution is not necessarily a continuous
hierarchy, but a landscape of stable solutions sets, basins of attraction, in
a hyperfunction of universal state space.
In article <01bcc63b$4ac31400$c9d1...@rclark.op.net> "Robert Clark"
<rcl...@op.net> writes:>From: "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net>
>Subject: The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?
>Date: 21 Sep 1997 15:46:10 GMT
> Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist,
>Sept-Oct 1997,
>http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
>there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
>order of 3 pts. per
>decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that
>if the average
> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be
>consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science
Bailey
Your assumptions make some sense, but do not account for the fact that
*generally* lower SEC, and less educated individuals have much larger
families than do the most educated and *intellegent* couples, who often
have only 1-2 children, thus if the intelligence would be decreasing???
uhs...@ohsu.edu
Your thoughts are getting pretty close to eugenics and teleology. I also feel
you mistakenly put too much weight on intelligence being the factor in human
species. My own general experience has been that two highly intelligent
people, say two medical doctors maybe, are less likely to reproduce and have
children. Intelligence may be a factor in mate selection, but that does not
entail that intelligence correlates with reproductive success. Who, after all,
has the most babies? You are groping.
In article <34269B79...@op.net> Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> writes:
>From: Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net>
>Subject: Re: The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:23:21 -0400
Robert Clark
That's funny I heard the exact opposite about SAT scores. That in fact
they had to be renormed because the average score was higher than the
average of the old test. In fact there was a recent news story that made
all the networks that SAT scores had gone up by a surprising margin and,
just as in the case with intelligence tests, the greatest increase was
in the math oriented portion of the test.
Bob Clark
Bryan Palus wrote:
>
> On 21 Sep 1997 15:46:10 GMT, "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
>
> > Just heard on public radio about a report in the American
> Scientist,
> >Sept-Oct 1997,
> >http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
> >there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
> >order of 3 pts. per
> >decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So
> that
> >if the average
> > person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> > which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be
> >consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science
>
frank murray
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:29:39 -0400, Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net>
wrote:
>That's funny I heard the exact opposite about SAT scores. That in fact
>they had to be renormed because the average score was higher than the
>average of the old test. In fact there was a recent news story that made
>all the networks that SAT scores had gone up by a surprising margin and,
>just as in the case with intelligence tests, the greatest increase was
>in the math oriented portion of the test.
>
a bit like cutting the buying power of the dollar in half and giving
everyone a fifty cent raise...the recent higher SAT scores follow the
preceding "downward" renorming...the local paper here noted that local
scores had "leapt" almost up to the national average...
frank
Unknown
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:28:09 GMT, uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote:
>Your thoughts are getting pretty close to eugenics and teleology. I also feel
>you mistakenly put too much weight on intelligence being the factor in human
>species. My own general experience has been that two highly intelligent
>people, say two medical doctors maybe, are less likely to reproduce and have
>children. Intelligence may be a factor in mate selection, but that does not
>entail that intelligence correlates with reproductive success. Who, after all,
>has the most babies? You are groping.
I personally think that there isn't a very great evolutionary
need for more intelligence than we have now. It seems like any idiot
can, and does, live long enough to pass on his/her idiot genes on to
offspring.
We might develop other survival traits such as the ability to
survive in pollution and things like that. I can't wait to see what
happens in a couple of million years from now!
Robert Clark
uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
The title was my rather quirky sense of humor operating. I was making
reference to the representation of science fiction writers, mostly of
the early period, of humanity in the far future as having large bulbous
heads. This representation is also frequently made in regards to aliens
whom we regard as being 'advanced', most recently in the movie "Mars
Attacks."
The other points in your post I agree with all in all.
(On the other hand those sci-fi writers have been remarkably
prescient by and large!)
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
The actual status of SAT scores is difficult to judge, at least in
the US, because there were more poor children who were aiming at
attending college and therefore took the SAT than previously. The
papers discussing the Flynn effect scientifically suggest that it
exists among all types of tests of intelligence when you take into
account the different socio-economic levels of the people taking the
test. Once you take soci-economic levels into account for SAT scores
I'm quite certain that it will indicate also that at each
socio-economic level the scores were actually increasing over the
years. Also in countries where the socio-econmic levels of the people
taking similar standardized tests is much more stable, it does show
that the scores are increasing just as for intelligence tests.
Bob Clark
frank murray <fmu...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<606pn8$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Robert Clark
The opposition to intelligence tests is understandable. However, few
people would be opposed to the idea of the increase in intelligence in
general, especially since the increase operates across all cultures,
societies, and socio-economic groups.
In regards to the eugenicists, my argument shows in fact that their
views were stupid, because what they claimed they were trying to do was
already happening naturally anyway (I and many others believe that what
they actually wanted was something very different from what they
claimed.)
Your point about reproductive rates is well taken. But keep in mind
that this difference has always existed, at least among the 'advanced'
cultures. And my argument suggests that the desire for intelligent
mates exists among all socio-economic groups, and intelligence tests
are also increasing among all soci-economic groups. Actually, the
desire for intelligent mates may even be stronger among the lower
soci-economic groups since each individual would want to increase their
own soci-economic status as well as that of their children.
Bob Clark
uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
| Your thoughts are getting pretty close to eugenics and teleology. I
also feel
| you mistakenly put too much weight on intelligence being the factor
in human
| species. My own general experience has been that two highly
intelligent
| people, say two medical doctors maybe, are less likely to reproduce
and have
| children. Intelligence may be a factor in mate selection, but that
does not
| entail that intelligence correlates with reproductive success. Who,
after all,
| has the most babies? You are groping.
|
|
| In article <34269B79...@op.net> Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net>
writes:
| >From: Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net>
| >Subject: Re: The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?
| >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:23:21 -0400
|
|
|
|
Peter Szabo
(Rodney Munch) wrote:
> I personally think that there isn't a very great evolutionary
>need for more intelligence than we have now. It seems like any idiot
>can, and does, live long enough to pass on his/her idiot genes on to
>offspring.
The evolutionary change is, or will be, a result of a rapidly changing
environment. And I don't mean the ozone layer or cemented roadways.
I mean the things that affect our direct perception and the things
that demand more from our minds.
One example is the ever increasing complexity of modern life (more
thinking labour, taxes, insurances, credit, newspapers, TV,
appointments, tighter schedules, more neighbours, home electronics,
appliances, transportation systems, computers, etc.) and the pressures
to deal with all of these things better than the next person.
Another example is visual stimuli, mostly from advertising. It is
true that the average person is bombarded with something like 1500
advertisments a day; all desperately trying to grab his/her attention.
Now this is not to be hysterical We all deal with it and most don't
know any different. (except when we go on vacation and marvel at
being able to relax and have only minor responsibilities) Try to
contrast modern urban (since urban holds a growing majority) affairs
with those of only two hundred years ago when the average person did
not need to think as many thoughts in a day.
The point is that humans are the most adaptable animal on the planet
(with the possible exception of the cockroach) and we are currently
adapting to this new information age; the eztent of which (and the
implications of which) we often fail to notice.
Another issue I have with this thread is the overly broad concept of
intelligence. As this relates to the post I quoted at top, there *is*
a need for growing intelligence. Only this should be qualified as
being specific to different forms of intellignce.
Being able to quickly, unblinkingly, and emotionlessly filter through
masses of computer-fed e-texts is a skill not much previously needed.
Virtually that same skill is used to ignore the bulk of advertising
around you. To put it another way, being able to filter through large
amounts of visual data. Is this quick-processing emotionless skill
what we want to call intelligence? A moot question since this is what
we *will* be calling intelligence eventually, if not already.
Intelligence is too broad of a term. Thus "IQ tests" are oftenly
misleading brands of "intelligence".
On a personal note, I scored all right on one in grade 4, but it was
the quick reaction and picture puzzle sort. Unfortunately, my quick
reactions and visual perception have done squat for me beyond helping
me to avoid car accidents. (as someone pointed out earlier) There is
a more useful form of intelligence that drives people towards success
that I do seem to be lacking.
> We might develop other survival traits such as the ability to
>survive in pollution and things like that. I can't wait to see what
>happens in a couple of million years from now!
Haha. You believe in reincarnation I suppose? Or you mean *really*
develop the ability to survive in pollution. :)
Peter Szabo.
Realms of Archaea--------> http://users.uniserve.com/~peters5/zoomquk4.html
zoomQuake!---------------> http://users.uniserve.com/~peters5/
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Rick Ottolini
Probably not. The size of head is constrained that we are bipedal animals.
The pelvis is relatively small for efficient locomotion,
yet a infants's head must squeeze through it. Human baby heads are
relatively soft and deformable. Also, human brains are relatively immature
at birth compared to other mammals and primates, and continue to grow
rapidly at least for a year or two.
Jonathan L Cunningham
I've set followups to what seem to me to be the two most appropriate
groups: but since my comment is fairly short, rather than notify all
nine groups (I don't know which one the original poster was reading)
I've made my response to all nine. Sorry.
In article <34269B79...@op.net>, Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> writes:
(snip)
> Since as I claim the tendency towards intelligent mates has existed
> throughout history, there would also be a social pressure that would act
> to select for this as far as mate selection is concerned. So that this
> feature of human mate selection would be reinforced over the centuries,
(snip)
Even if what you say is true, you are overlooking the possibility that
such pressure is not uniform. Suppose the preference goes in the order:
a bit smarter than average, then ordinary folk, then dumb but nice folk,
with really smart people bottom of the list. Then although everyone
prefers more intelligent people, the overall selection pressure could
be to reduce intelligence (e.g. if the preference is for successful,
but normal people, over Einsteins).
This is just one scenario. It's easy to think of others (e.g. tribal
societies, the smartest guy(s) get to be leaders, but tribal warfare
kills leaders preferentially). Again, it's better to be smarter/tougher
whatever than average, but not the smartest/toughest.
Summary: even assuming a strong genetic component to intelligence,
and even assuming a preference for "smarter than average", there is
not necessarily a selection pressure to increase overall species
intelligence.
Jonathan
--
(My current news-server skips articles. I've decided to live with this:
I spend too much time reading news anyway, but don't assume I'll see
every post, even followups to my own inane posts, unless you Cc to me.)
Home: j...@sofluc.demon.co.uk Work (temporary): j...@math.sintef.no
frank murray
On 23 Sep 1997 02:29:13 GMT, "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
> The actual status of SAT scores is difficult to judge,
agreed...though whether that agreement extends to the cause of such
difficulty is another matter...
>........................................................at least in
>the US, because there were more poor children who were aiming at
>attending college and therefore took the SAT than previously.
might you cite figures that support such correlation??...the great
fall in SAT scores occurred '63 - '80...but per TBC the great
democratization of the SAT taking population occurred during the
period of rising scores preceding '63...in short, it appears that
those born between '45 and '62 (using 18 as the average age of SAT
takers) were increasingly inept...
reasoning that environmental factors can more easily intrude to the
detriment, than to the benefit of otherwise healthily functioning
higher organisms (if you're unsure of this, try cutting open the
neighbor's cat and making a few improvements) we' ed not be amiss in
checking for environmental changes that might have effected those born
during the period at question...
in '59 or '60 (a more precise date eludes memory) Scientific American
published an article that mapped areas of then falling K-12 test
scores to downwind patterns of nuclear fallout from the aboveground
nuclear testing that we had conducted...i've not seen mention of this
possible correlation since, but perhaps someone has further
investigated and nudged the case towards yea or nay??...
>...................................................................The
>papers discussing the Flynn effect scientifically suggest that it
>exists among all types of tests of intelligence when you take into
>account the different socio-economic levels of the people taking the
>test. Once you take soci-economic levels into account for SAT scores
>I'm quite certain that it will indicate also that at each
>socio-economic level the scores were actually increasing over the
>years.
aside from wondering what stats you'll offer to support such
certainty, i'd suggest that the existence of the Flynn effect in no
way precludes the possible existence of forces acting against a rise
in scores...it only overwhelms them, and whether this will prove to be
a temporary overwhelming is an open question...
>.....Also in countries where the socio-econmic levels of the people
>taking similar standardized tests is much more stable, it does show
>that the scores are increasing just as for intelligence tests.
unfortunately world wide comparative data on psychometry is difficult
to come by...given that blacks score so low as a group, and that many
have pre-decided that no such possible disparity in intelligence is
admissible, politics will pressure against scientific investigation
and evaluation of world-around comparative scores on such tests...
but...trying to bring this back inline with the expertise of the group
within which i ran across the thread...i wonder if any here in
sci.arch have info on any attempts to quantify comparative
intellectual abilities within and between the varied civilizations of
the past...
frank
ea...@neosoft.com
Boy is that a reach for excuses.
I am of the '45 birth cohort and (living outside of fallout reagions) personally
witnessed the drop in scores during college.
The big factor you leave out is the rise of TV usage from less than
1% when I was learning to read in elemetary school to 98% household
coverage (and child avg of 4+ hours of daily evening viewing) a few years later.
Those hours devoted to viewing junk are hours lost in the critical
years when reading capacity develops.
Blame it on the idiot box, (and lazy parents)
David Mitchell
Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> wrote in article <34269B79...@op.net>...
> In regards to your argument about natural selection not operating,
> recall my original argument that there may have developed a genetic
> tendency to desire intelligent mates over the period of early human
> evolution.
Well, first although women say that they like intelligent men, what they
really mean is that they want a guy who can form a coherent sentence &
doesn't drool too much in front of company; anything more is a deterent to
a succesful relationship. To be fair, men seem to go for drop dead
gorgeous airheads as opposed to smart girls. But none of this is important
since all credible research has shown that there is no inherited quality to
intelligence. At least since the definition has been changed to eliminate
[inbreeding & drinking] as signs of low intelligence.
> And when you look at it closely, throughout all of human
> history and prehistory and all of human cultures and societies, it has
> always been "intelligence" that has been a strong determining factor in
> defining success in that culture.
Funny, I thought it was physical strength or power. Look at how much more
we reward our atheletes [money & fame] as opposed to our teachers &
geniuses. And a gun has always been a more succesful deterrent than debate
[as sad as that is].
In my opinion the average person is about as intelligent as they have been
for the past several thousand years, but our skills have changed. It seems
to me that most people are willing to live thier lives doing little to
improve themselves beyond what is required to get by. And because of this
the average "iq" moves very little over the centuries, although our basic
skills have certainly changed. We no longer need to understand how to care
for horses, but we do have to drive automobiles (etc...)
It also seems that we have 3 directions that we can head into in the next
couple of millenia (assuming mankind lives that long):
1. we will become more informed at the expense of our physical bodies. In
much the same way that television or the internet seem to make us want to
spend all of our time in front of them, information (even useless sitcoms)
are very addictive.
2. we will become more well rounded, physically, mentally & emotionaly. As
all the social & psychological programs finally kick in we will all
suddenly become self-actualized and play midnight basketball while
republicans & democrats hug and discover solutions to all our worldly
problems.
3. our society will become even more stratified. The mental elite will
find themselves the only ones interested in useful information and view
this as a type of power. The physical elite will continue to be idolized
and seize their own type of power. There will continue to be others (the
entertainment elite, etc...) The average joe will sit around and talk to
each other over the water coolers and have not even the slightest clue as
to what the mental elite are even working on much less what it all means.
They will continue to idolize the others & daydream about being one of the
elite classes, but they will never so much as raise a finger to do anything
about it (exercise, read, etc...)
Where will the future lead? We already seem to be comfortably on path #3.
Who knows?
--------------------------
David Mitchell
http://www.jersey.net/~mitchell
mitc...@jersey.net
Jon Larson
Does a 20 point increase in 60 years imply a 100 point increase in
300 years?
It seems to me that the cause most likely had to do with social
changes or inaccurate testing. Those kinds of things could change a
lot in 60 years. The hard wiring of ours brains caused by evolution
through sexual selection could not possibly change 100 points in 300
years or even 20 points in 60 years. IMHO.
"Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
>if the average
> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological
>reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological.
> we might surmise that it became a genetic disposition to seek
>intelligent mates.
Zed
On 22 Sep 1997 16:52:40 GMT, "Sčan McNamara" <sm...@chevronp.com>
wrote:
A good point, the first part, I mean. However, why biological
evolution? There are so many constraints upon short term (say, on the
scale of centuries) biological selection/evolution that it could never
hope to _catch_up_ let alone keep pace with the evolution of our
mentality.
Our mentality really is the issue here, is it not? Why not
cybernetic evolution as it has been for several thousand years. If
one were to quantify the survival/fitness improvements aquired in the
last one hundred-thousand years of biological evolution of our
lineage and compare it to the last one _hundred_ years of cybernetic
evolution, well...the genetic version would look pretty sad. (By
cybernetic, incidentally, I refer to any usage of intentionally
organized matter (all classes of tools) the development of which was
not purely a matter of genetic programming (learning, non-innate
behaviors)).
Take a look at the development curve of computer technology
over the past 50 years if you want an idea of a potential future for
humanities evolution. (hint: Geometric expansion of functional
elements/connective complexity).
-Zed
none
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 22:01:38 GMT, fmu...@pobox.com (frank murray)
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:17:16 GMT, WWal...@freedom.org (William
>Wallace) wrote:
>
>
>> As in a preivous post, drill, drill, drill. If you spend your
>>life looking for patterns in numbers you ace that part of an IQ test.
>>
>> Imagine a real life test, translate hieroglyphics.
>
>hmmm...seems that the first modern to read hieroglyphics did so by
>following the lead of the rather respectable mathematician, thomas
>young...
>frank
hieroglyphics were "cracked" by linguistics genius Jean-Francois
Champollion of France in 1822. he made the discovery by the Rosetta
stone, which showed glyphs and greek counterparts. late egyptian
greek dominated hieroglyphs were solved earlier, but it was not a
"great breakthrough" like JF's was.
ns
frank murray
ea...@NeoSoft.com wrote in message <609kmg$hp3$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
>
>Boy is that a reach for excuses.
>I am of the '45 birth cohort and (living outside of fallout reagions)
personally
>witnessed the drop in scores during college.
>The big factor you leave out is the rise of TV usage from less than
>1% when I was learning to read in elemetary school to 98% household
>coverage (and child avg of 4+ hours of daily evening viewing) a few years
later.
>
>Those hours devoted to viewing junk are hours lost in the critical
>years when reading capacity develops.
>Blame it on the idiot box, (and lazy parents)
hmmm...not sure what you think i'm trying to excuse...nor how your theory
would account for the bottoming out of SAT scores in '80...is it your
position that those who reached SAT age after '80 had spent less time at the
"idiot box" than those before??...if not, then how do you account for that
bottoming out??...
in wonder,
frank
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <609kmg$hp3$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com> , ea...@NeoSoft.com writes:
>I am of the '45 birth cohort and (living outside of fallout reagions) personally
>witnessed the drop in scores during college.
>The big factor you leave out is the rise of TV usage from less than
>1% when I was learning to read in elemetary school to 98% household
>coverage (and child avg of 4+ hours of daily evening viewing) a few years later.
>Those hours devoted to viewing junk are hours lost in the critical
>years when reading capacity develops.
>Blame it on the idiot box, (and lazy parents)
Nay, don't blame it on the "idiot box" per se. Television did not HAVE
to be a "lowest common denominator", a commercial product pitched to a
"mass audience" according to the whims of the market. The reason for
this is that it was never necessary, desirable, appropriate, nor RIGHT
for the commercial broadcasters to claim that the radio spectrum was a
"common law right" once they'd started using it; nor for the Federal
government to "seize" this method of free speech and claim it for
themselves, to "license" to commercialists as they saw fit, subject to
regimes of government censorship that further dumb down the content by
excluding any radical doctrine or form of presentation.
Had the radio spectrum remained completely free of regulation, or if
governmental interference been limited to allowing each person only so
much broadcasting power, which they could combine or utilize as they saw
fit, then individual and non-profit broadcasters would have predominated,
based on voluntary contributions of bandwidth from the common people.
The commercialists would have gone down in flames, because they could
neither compete with that which is free, nor persuade people to support
their broadcasts over public broadcasts.
Television could have been a method to educate all the people, to
stimulate public debate, to seed the Revolution!
And the censors are out there, trying EVERY sneaky tactic: first the
CDA, then "mandatory key escrow" (i.e. requirement of government key =
license to be able to communicate at all!), as well as deliberate
disruption of communications on Usenet and elsewhere, combined with
censorship disguised as "anti-spam" measures; and more. They are trying
to make it so that we find ourselves saying the same about INTERNET a
decade or two from now, and who is trying to stop them?
We have to stop them, because there is VERY little time left. The
culture of warring nobles will destroy our species once and for all if we
fail, and it will be justice.
Scott Kelly
>> has always been a strong social push towards "intelligent" mates even
>> in civilized societies.
>
>Hmm, how come nerds and scientists aren't sex symbols then?
Because they dress like nerds and scientists and act like nerds and
scientists. They tend to be interested in data and findings and
conclusions and less interested in being sociable and social.
Science equals restriction moreso than religion. Emotion and religion
go together, mathetics and emotion... I've never seen an excited math
teacher, or an ethusiastic one. I've seen excited auto mechanics.
Put everything right and-- "Yes, it works! Listen to that purr!"
Correction, "Donald Duck in Mathemagicland." THAT was enthusiam and
happy and fun. But many science types motto is "Dignity. Always
dignity."
LK
Jeff Suzuki
William Wallace (WWal...@freedom.org) wrote:
: As in a preivous post, drill, drill, drill. If you spend your
: life looking for patterns in numbers you ace that part of an IQ test.
There's a sociobiological (whew) selection bias that no one's mentioned, which
is that there are more tests nowadays than there were two hundred years ago;
those who do well on tests tend to have a competitive advantage (getting into
Harvard vs. getting into Dinksville Junior College). Considering they then
meet people who likewise have a competitive advantage, it seems inevitable
that the process perpetuates itself.
Jeffs
Jon Larson
jl...@primenet.com (Jon Larson) wrote:
>Does a 20 point increase in 60 years imply a 100 point increase in
>300 years?
After some thought, I realized this is ridiculous. I now conclude
that an increase from 100 to 120 (the 91st percentile) in 60 years
implies an increase from 100 to 165 (the 99.99942 percentile) in 300
years.
1-.09*.09*.09*.09*.09 = .9999942
references:
netherlands normal calculator:
http://fonsg3.let.uva.nl:8001/Service/Statistics/Normal-Z_distribution.html?Z=1
explanation of above:
http://olam.ed.asu.edu/%7eglass/502/chp6/chp6.html
additional help:
http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/utility/NormTble.html
>It seems to me that the cause most likely had to do with social
>changes or inaccurate testing. Those kinds of things could change a
>lot in 60 years. The hard wiring of ours brains caused by evolution
>through sexual selection could not possibly change 100 points in 300
>years or even 20 points in 60 years. IMHO.
My big point that the average IQ "could not possibly change 100
points" is ruined.
I'll just have to settle for "I don't think evolution could go that
fast."
>"Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
>>if the average
>> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
>> In any case, the psychologists interviewed all gave sociological
>>reasons for the increase. I'm betting on biological.
>> we might surmise that it became a genetic disposition to seek
>>intelligent mates.
*******************
Any idea of controlling the size of the human population through the
voluntary restraint of people of conscience is doomed in the long run.
-------Me paraphrasing Garret Hardin paraphrasing Darwin's grandson.
-------http://www.dieoff.org/page95.htm
Cande
Robert Clark wrote:
>
> Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist,
> Sept-Oct 1997,
> http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
> there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
> order of 3 pts. per
> decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that
> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100. Science
Consider that it is not evolution on the march, but technology. How did
a person living in 1930 obtain their information? No television, no
computers, etc., They were more dependent on radio, newspaper, and
gossip for the sharing of information. Therefore, as technology expands
so does our base of intelligence as we share information more
effectively.
If we could transplant a person from 1930 and place them in our
technological era, they would acclimate fine. The intelligence of
humans has not changed, only the amount of data they are subjected to.
--Cande
James Howard
Preface
This is my "letter to the editor," printed May 14, 1995, in "The
Morning News of Northwest Arkansas." It is a very short explanation of
what may be happening to the learning skills in the nation's school.
Since this group has been considering the influence of evolution on
intelligence, I thought some of you may be interested. I will explain
in more detail below this letter, and I will relate it to the ongoing
question of "The Future of Human Intelligence."
"The editorial of April 29, page 18A, 'The Decline in Reading,' had bad
news and good news. The bad news is that 'reading proficiency is down
in virtually 40 states ...and significantly down in 10.' The good news
is 'that math scores are on the rise.' The editorial says that
'educators almost unanimously agree that' teachers aren't asking enough
of their students. Their conclusion doesn't make sense; it would take a
major conspiracy to cause a nationwide drop in reading skills.
Ironically, a rise in math scores, along with a decline in reading
scores, may both signal something else is happening, perhaps beyond the
reach of the best teachers.
It is generally accepted that the two sides of the brain (cerebral
hemispheres) interact but basically perform different functions. The
things we call reading and writing are usually controlled by the left
half, mathematical things and spatial abilities are usually located in
the right half. Because of this divergence in function, boys are,
generally but not always, better in math than girls. My work suggests a
reason for this that is directly connected to the changing reading and
math scores.
The left hemisphere finishes growth a little after the right. My work
suggests brain growth is particularly dependent on the hormone DHEA.
(DHEA in extremely small quantities stimulates formation and growth of
the brain cells primarily used in thinking, neurons.) Therefore, the
left hemisphere depends on a continued supply of sufficient DHEA for
final growth. All tissues, especially the brain, compete for DHEA. The
hormone testosterone increases use of DHEA by testosterone target
tissues, which also includes parts of the brain. Boys produce more
testosterone than females so there is less DHEA, on average, for left
hemisphere growth. In animals studies, it has been demonstrated that
testosterone actually reduces development of the left hemisphere
(Behavioral and Neural Biology 1988; 49: 344). Therefore, boys, on
average, have an increased ratio of right hemisphere growth to left.
The right side is used more for mathematical and spatial thinking;
therefore, on average, boys out-perform girls in these areas.
If you want to be a good mathematician, you might be tempted to want
more testosterone. In tests of spatial and mathematical reasoning,
males with high testosterone score much worse than those with low
testosterone. High testosterone increases lower brain growth and
development at the expense of even the right hemisphere. That is, in
high testosterone, even the right hemisphere loses in the competition
for DHEA.
I have suggested in past letters to this paper that testosterone is
rising in this society. Most people see it in the 'secular trend,' that
is, that boys and girls are getting bigger and reaching puberty earlier.
If testosterone is rising, it not only will affect the size of our
children, but it will also affect their brains. That is, as
testosterone increases it will decrease the ratio of left hemisphere to
right. This will be seen, on average, as a decline in reading ability
and an increase in math abilities. In areas where testosterone is very
high, reading and math scores should both decline. The thing that
worries me most is that one of my references points out that 'the left
hemisphere also seems to be the seat of analytical thinking...'
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we may be
seeing a real, and in some areas already significant, decline in
functions of the left hemisphere."
The Future of Human Intelligence
A brief synopsis of my theory of human evolution may be read at
http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605 (There, one may find more detailed
explanations, and support, of the following.) My theory suggests that
the total increase in hominid brain size resulted from the influence of
two phenomena. The first increase occurred in the Australopithecines
and is due to an increase in testosterone. I suggest this is ongoing
and is the cause of the "Flynn Effect," which is the increase math
skills. (Use Deja News, Flynn Effect and sci.anthropology or
sci.anthropology.paleo to find my detailed explanation, and arguments
against it. If you bother to do this, I have used different email
addresses in the past.) The increase in brain size in the
Australopithecines is small. The more pronounced increase in hominid
brain size is the result of increases in the effects of melatonin and
dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) on brain size.
As I explained in my "letter to the editor," competition exists for a
limit supply of DHEA. That is, testosterone will not only increase some
aspects of brain growth, and current evolution, but testosterone also
directs use of DHEA for the lower brain and body. That is why I
suggested that too much testosterone is not good for learning. This
relates to the "future of human intelligence" in the following way.
I think, overall, testosterone is increasing in the world. I think it
is increasing most rapidly in the U.S.A. (We have the highest murder
rate and the highest sex rate, among our teens.) This means that
intelligence, i.e., intelligence that has to do with education, is going
to decline, on average, in the U.S. When increasing testosterone
begins to increase too much, it is the cause of the grouping of these
three behaviors, that is, poor learning, increased aggression, and
increased sexuality. This is evolution occurring in our population.
Evolution is not concerned with intelligence, per se, it is involved in
increased sexuality. The fact that testosterone increases sexuality and
also increases some brain growth, and therefore intelligence, is a very
useful side-effect for our species. For example, it has recently been
determined that "The average numbers of neocortical neurons were 19
billion in female brains and 23 billion in male brains, a 16%
difference." (J Comp Neurol 1997 Jul 28; 384(2): 312-320). I attribute
this difference to testosterone.
If I have made myself clear, you should have perceived that I think
certain amounts (lower) of testosterone are a benefit to brain growth
and intelligence and too much testosterone is harmful. (See chart,
"Testosterone Levels," page 122, "Sex Differences in the Brain," Doreen
Kimura, "Scientific American," September 1992.) My theory of human
evolution suggests that, whenever populations of humans congregate and
increase nutrition, testosterone begins to increase. This is the "feed
and breed" phenomenon. This results in increased intelligence, due to
increases in brain growth and function. Intelligence will increase in
these populations, when they are growing. As their intelligence
increases, the breed and feed phenomenon increases testosterone.
(Actually, I specifically intend to say that the percentage of higher
testosterone individuals increases over the increase in low testosterone
individuals. People of higher testosterone are sexier than low
testosterone types and will simply out-breed them.) As this switch in
the population continues, intelligence begins to decline, aggression
increases, and sexuality increases. This leads to the decline of the
civilization. I think this occurred in Greece and Rome. I think the
last time this phenomenon occurred world-wide, following the decline of
Rome, it resulted in a world-wide decline in intelligence, increased
aggression, and increased sexuality: the Dark Ages.
James Howard
Peter Brülls
Cande <Ca...@iName.com>:
> If we could transplant a person from 1930 and place them in our
> technological era, they would acclimate fine. The intelligence of
> humans has not changed, only the amount of data they are subjected
> to.
I thought people did that regulary.
ea...@neosoft.com
In <60anaj$d...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "frank murray" <fmu...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>ea...@NeoSoft.com wrote in message <609kmg$hp3$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
>
>>
>>Boy is that a reach for excuses.
>personally
>>witnessed the drop in scores during college.
>>The big factor you leave out is the rise of TV usage from less than
>>1% when I was learning to read in elemetary school to 98% household
>>coverage (and child avg of 4+ hours of daily evening viewing) a few years
>later.
>>
>>Those hours devoted to viewing junk are hours lost in the critical
>>years when reading capacity develops.
>>Blame it on the idiot box, (and lazy parents)
>
>would account for the bottoming out of SAT scores in '80...is it your
>position that those who reached SAT age after '80 had spent less time at the
>"idiot box" than those before??...if not, then how do you account for that
>bottoming out??...
>
>in wonder,
>
>frank
>
As with almost all stimulii there is a point of saturation. When the '80
crowd came along we were roughly 18 years after the switch to
roughly 98% households on color TV (and that was a big shift in programming
content -- from old Studio One to Charlies Angels), and the downward spiral
in test scores -- from that point on there was no way to increase lifetime TV
exposure in the 18 yrold population at large.
From that point of utter saturation with trash in their lives the "natural"
increase in IQ from technology/information reappeared and resumed
a slow linear advance (with suitable juggling of the data by the ETS
to meet the desires of educators that they be shown to be a positive
force on education -- otherwise known as renorming the mean)
Woodford John
sco...@aa.net (Scott Kelly) writes:
<<antecedents and commentary snipped>>
>Science equals restriction moreso than religion. Emotion and religion
>go together, mathetics and emotion... I've never seen an excited math
>teacher, or an ethusiastic one. I've seen excited auto mechanics.
>Put everything right and-- "Yes, it works! Listen to that purr!"
>
>Correction, "Donald Duck in Mathemagicland." THAT was enthusiam and
>happy and fun. But many science types motto is "Dignity. Always
>dignity."
>
Oh, like the Pathfinder team? What dignity! What reserve!
Or Richard Feynmann? Perhaps the appearance of Stephen Hawking on
Star Trek was motivated by a sincere desire to act in a dignified
manner, hmmm? (NB: This is sarcasm.)
Seriously, what the poster misses is the crucial distinction
which must be made between teachers of science and math and actual
scientists and mathematicians. OK, I'd call myself a research materials
scientist. I do what I do _because it's fun_. The same is true of a
great many other scientists (don't know about mathematicians, sorry).
But too often, teachers lose sight of this. They see how difficult
what I will with tongue in cheek call the scientific enterprise is,
and figure that those of us who do "science" must take it oh-so-
terribly-seriously.
Well, we do take it seriously. But we can get awfully excited,
too; it's just that by the time the general public sees what we're
excited about it's suits and talking heads. (BTW, I think this was an
unanticipated bonus from Pathfinder--scientists caught in their natural
state, as it were.)
JBWoodford
woodford at cae dot wisc dot edu
Woodford John
"Sčan McNamara" <sm...@chevronp.com> writes:
>
>Actually, there is no such thing as devolution. Evolution has no positive
>or negative value assigned to it. Evolution doesn't always make the
>creature better. It simply changes it. Of course, I do agree that
>humanity is declining. We do need some sort of selection process for the
>advancement of our species.
>
takes place is laughably slow compared to the rate at which
technological and social change takes place. For all intents and
purposes, speciation in humans (that is, _temporal_ speciation, in
which a human of generation _n_ and a human of generation _n + m_
would be incapable of producing viable offspring in the event of
their being able to make the attempt) will not occur before
technological advancement or extinction makes it immaterial.
2) Let us suppose that there exist some evolutionary paths
which would transform the current human species into something
more "fit" (with fitness defined in whatever way you feel like--
intelligence, disease and/or parasite resistance, etc.). If
selection is stringent, only those paths which do not proceed
through "less-fit" intermediates may be used. If selection is
less stringent, more possible paths open up.
Let me use a stupid example: The human retina is wired
backwards. The light receptors are actually behind the nerve
connections. So all of the nerves feed into a central trunk,
still ahead of the receptor cells, and we have a blind spot where
they pass through the retina. If we were sensibly designed, the
nerves would be behind the receptors, and no blind spot would be
necessary. Now, one may imagine a sequence of changes under which
retinal wiring would be reversed. But if they don't all happen at
once--an extreme unlikelihood--at least some of the intermediate
generations will have impaired vision. So if your selection
process kills everyone who doesn't have adequate vision, you'll
never get out of the suboptimum current situation and to the
optimum retinal configuration.
William Wallace
>William Wallace (WWal...@freedom.org) wrote:
Save that these days, those that get to the top of the social
heap tend to be those with the fewest progeny. It is not clearly the
best strategy. And then look at any oldtime successful family and look
at how few of them are left these days.
=====
Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.
William Wallace
>On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:17:16 GMT, WWal...@freedom.org (William
>Wallace) wrote:
>
>
>> As in a preivous post, drill, drill, drill. If you spend your
>>life looking for patterns in numbers you ace that part of an IQ test.
>>
>> Imagine a real life test, translate hieroglyphics.
>
>hmmm...seems that the first modern to read hieroglyphics did so by
>following the lead of the rather respectable mathematician, thomas
>young...
I thought the Rosetta Stone had something to do with that.
Magnus Redin
WWal...@freedom.org (William Wallace) writes:
> Save that these days, those that get to the top of the social heap
> tend to be those with the fewest progeny. It is not clearly the best
> strategy. And then look at any oldtime successful family and look at
> how few of them are left these days.
But how good were they with spreading their genes while they were
successfull?
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Richard P. Sasser
In article <34269B79...@op.net>, Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
>In regards to your argument about natural selection not operating,
>recall my original argument that there may have developed a genetic
>tendency to desire intelligent mates over the period of early human
>history and prehistory and all of human cultures and societies, it has
>always been "intelligence" that has been a strong determining factor in
>is there for human beings that would make a member in a group be
>"successful" and that would operate uniformly over time. If we were
>lions I suppose it would be hunting ability, if we were birds it would
>be flying ability, if dolphins, ability to locate fish using sonar. But
>as humans what do we have? We have hands, language, and intelligence.
>The first seems to be pretty much static over history, and the second is
>strongly dependent on intelligence anyway. So the primary factor
>determining success of a member of our species is intelligence.
>throughout history, there would also be a social pressure that would act
>to select for this as far as mate selection is concerned. So that this
>feature of human mate selection would be reinforced over the centuries,
>this tendency is increasing and its leaning toward the kind of
>intelligence involved with technology. Granted there is variation of
>what kind of intelligence would be most desired depending on the
>culture. But it has been surmised that there is a general factor that
>applies across the various kinds of intelligence. And all you need is
>for this general factor to be continually selected for over the
>centuries for this factor to be a high point of desirability in mate
>selection.
I disagree completely. It continues to take longer and longer to
produce a member of the "successful" category. While we produce contributing
members of society breeders have between 4 - 5 kids. No natural selection is
at work at all due to the bleeding heart liberalism of our current regime.
I wonder at divergent evolution. Maybe we will see a "worker" class
and a "thinker" class. A bad move, because the worker class will always want
the things the thinkers have - better cars etc. (human nature being what it
is) and even if you're bright, you can always be outnumbered.
There is definitely a case for eugenics. My only argument against
eugenics is criteria. The question isn't "What is the future of the human
race?" as if we have no control, but "What traits are desirable in humanity?"
Hard question. Increased perceptual ability? Increased mathmatical ability?
Better resistance to disease? Longer lifespan to compensate for extrememly
poor educational technique? IMHO we can only use technology to overcome our
shortcomings for so long. Eventually we will become the victim of a
technology that we lack the intelligence to use wisely.
Rick
> I didn't explain that last point very well. Let's say there is some
>general factor that relates the various kinds of intelligence,
>psychologists will recognize Spearmans hypothesized "g". Now there may
>be only a small connection between a particular kind of intelligence and
>the general factor. But I maintain that you draw the same conclusion
>anyway. For suppose for every culture and throughout all human history,
>there is strong social and perhaps genetic tendency to select mates high
>in the particular intelligence desired by that culture. Then since the
>general factor will be selected for along with this, perhaps to a
>smaller degree, and since this happens for all cultures and all times,
>over the centuries the general factor will be selected for to a great
>degree.
> I suppose that it may be possible for us to arbitrarily decide to value
>the ability to physically beat up another person as desirable (actually,
>it may be we couldn't do that even if we wanted too; our brains being so
>oriented otherwise.) If we did create such a culture I would surmise
>that over time it would be this quality that would come to be desired.
>However, of course, this is not likely. As I see it, we will continue to
>value intelligence in regards to mate selection and therefore there will
>continue this tendency towards greater human intelligence
>
>
> Bob Clark
>
>William Wallace wrote:
>>
>> The tests are not static. There is a matter of teaching to the
>> test which teachers are constantly doing.
>>
>> I wish I could find it again but I once had the IQ test was
>> used
>> in WW I. It was an acculturation test that everyone here would grade
>> out as a low grade idiot. Knowing your Ghee from your Haw was not even
>> the asked, that was too simple. Yes, at least one of the questions
>> required a knowledge of using horses and I think more than one.
>>
>> The tests we give, in the interests of giving them to groups
>> and
>> quickly are acculturated. Arithmetic relationships? If you never heard
>> of arithmetic or if you never faced geometric shapes or ... but they
>> sort of work. They can be normed with types of tests with no such
>> requirements and those are quite "fair." See, The Bell Curve, for a
>> discussion.
>>
>> All we have happening here is teaching towards the test. I
>> took a
>> specialized IQ test once that was picture puzzles. If I had never seen
>> the figures involved or such a puzzle I would not have had a chance at
>> it.
>>
>> There is a biological connection with IQ and that is reaction
>> time.
>>
>> Biologists can reject the idea of such improvement rather
>> easily
>> since natural selection requires either failure to have progeny or a
>> greater number of progeny that would be based upon intelligence. It is
>> unclear that we have anything save fatal auto accidents in the
>> reaction time category and there are not enough of them if that is
>> what it is.
>>
>> There is a biological basis for average IQ increase and that
>> is
>> good nutrition in infancy and childhood. However, that generally means
>> really malnurished before there is something detrimental and that does
>> not explain western European nations for that last century or so.
>>
>> As to renorming in general, the SAT and GRE, while not IQ
>> tests,
>> are also renormed regularly for similar reasons.
>>
>> Remember any test is game between the test creators and the
>> test
>> takers.
Richard P. Sasser
>
>It is generally accepted that the two sides of the brain (cerebral
>hemispheres) interact but basically perform different functions. The
>things we call reading and writing are usually controlled by the left
>half, mathematical things and spatial abilities are usually located in
>the right half. Because of this divergence in function, boys are,
>generally but not always, better in math than girls. My work suggests a
>reason for this that is directly connected to the changing reading and
>math scores.
This is not necessarily true. Men and women have *fundamentally* different
spatial abilities. Like comparing apples and oranges. Since men and women
think differently, I wonder if math education is possibly male biased in
technique. Could be.
>
>The left hemisphere finishes growth a little after the right. My work
>suggests brain growth is particularly dependent on the hormone DHEA.
>(DHEA in extremely small quantities stimulates formation and growth of
>the brain cells primarily used in thinking, neurons.) Therefore, the
>left hemisphere depends on a continued supply of sufficient DHEA for
>final growth. All tissues, especially the brain, compete for DHEA. The
>hormone testosterone increases use of DHEA by testosterone target
>tissues, which also includes parts of the brain. Boys produce more
>testosterone than females so there is less DHEA, on average, for left
>hemisphere growth. In animals studies, it has been demonstrated that
>testosterone actually reduces development of the left hemisphere
>(Behavioral and Neural Biology 1988; 49: 344). Therefore, boys, on
>average, have an increased ratio of right hemisphere growth to left.
>The right side is used more for mathematical and spatial thinking;
>therefore, on average, boys out-perform girls in these areas.
I have no basis to argue with the chemistry portion of this, so will accept it
provisionally.
>
>If you want to be a good mathematician, you might be tempted to want
>more testosterone. In tests of spatial and mathematical reasoning,
>males with high testosterone score much worse than those with low
>testosterone. High testosterone increases lower brain growth and
>development at the expense of even the right hemisphere. That is, in
>high testosterone, even the right hemisphere loses in the competition
>for DHEA.
I can't see this though. I'm so oversexed one of my girlfriends referred to
me as "the gland" yet my math skills are off the charts. Math just doesn't
interest me as much as sex ;)
>
>I have suggested in past letters to this paper that testosterone is
>rising in this society. Most people see it in the 'secular trend,' that
>is, that boys and girls are getting bigger and reaching puberty earlier.
> If testosterone is rising, it not only will affect the size of our
>children, but it will also affect their brains. That is, as
>testosterone increases it will decrease the ratio of left hemisphere to
>right. This will be seen, on average, as a decline in reading ability
>and an increase in math abilities. In areas where testosterone is very
>high, reading and math scores should both decline. The thing that
>worries me most is that one of my references points out that 'the left
>hemisphere also seems to be the seat of analytical thinking...'
>According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we may be
>seeing a real, and in some areas already significant, decline in
>functions of the left hemisphere."
I find it more likely that we are experiencing the end result in
evolution of a natural stratification of society. Those at the bottom the
have-nots, breed faster than the haves. This whacks our gene pool all to
hell, until the have-nots and the haves fight until the situation
restabilizes. This may be too easy an explanation. I think there are many
factors involved, learning curve, enabling, etc. But the end result is that
society naturally restructures into those two groups.
This goes the same for girls and boys sexually maturing at a faster
rate. As the have nots continue to breed faster and faster (since the haves
continue to take care of they and theirs through welfare) they produce
children who are maturing sexually sooner. Similar to breeding for a desired
trait. (Devils advocate to myself here, I have seen NO evidence that males
and females are maturing faster sexually. What was the average child bearing
age over the centuries. I would say 14, that being variant on technological
level and population density. In response to threat, I think the human race
would breed faster. I wonder if we are looking at the natural result of a
century of warfare.)
>
>The Future of Human Intelligence
>
>A brief synopsis of my theory of human evolution may be read at
>http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605 (There, one may find more detailed
>explanations, and support, of the following.) My theory suggests that
>the total increase in hominid brain size resulted from the influence of
>two phenomena. The first increase occurred in the Australopithecines
>and is due to an increase in testosterone. I suggest this is ongoing
>and is the cause of the "Flynn Effect," which is the increase math
>skills. (Use Deja News, Flynn Effect and sci.anthropology or
>sci.anthropology.paleo to find my detailed explanation, and arguments
>against it. If you bother to do this, I have used different email
>addresses in the past.) The increase in brain size in the
>Australopithecines is small. The more pronounced increase in hominid
>brain size is the result of increases in the effects of melatonin and
>dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) on brain size.
They renorm those tests in response to politicos desires so fast they're
meaningless. My test score on the ACT is ADJUSTED UPWARDS when compared to
the ACT scores of 91 and on. I.e. say I scored a 30 on the ACT of then, that
makes adjusted score 32 for now. Most colleges react to the renorming of
tests by increasing their entrance requirements.
>
>As I explained in my "letter to the editor," competition exists for a
>limit supply of DHEA. That is, testosterone will not only increase some
>aspects of brain growth, and current evolution, but testosterone also
>directs use of DHEA for the lower brain and body. That is why I
>suggested that too much testosterone is not good for learning. This
>relates to the "future of human intelligence" in the following way.
>
Empirically again, I can say that I understand math much better after puberty
than before, but again I think that this relates directly to interest!
Too many other factors in Greece and Rome. Plus, the dark ages was not a
continuos era of death and destruction as is popularly depicted. There are
some holes here. (Probably in my head.) I would point to the shrinking
middle class as a major factor in the decline of those two civilizations. Net
effect on intelligence due to changes in testosterone would be too minute I
believe.
I'm not a scientest, nor do I have a degree (good flame material here), I just
notice stuff. I could be wrong, and I probably wandered all over the topic,
but hey, it's a big topic.
Rick
It consistently amazes me that there are more restrictions on getting a
drivers license than in having a child.
Robert Clark
uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
| Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think
evolution
| would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter?
Where did
| you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly related
to size?
.
.
.
Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> wrote in article
<01bcc7c3$9bed46a0$54d1...@rclark.op.net>...
> The title was my rather quirky sense of humor operating. I was
making
> reference to the representation of science fiction writers, mostly of
> the early period, of humanity in the far future as having large
bulbous
> heads. This representation is also frequently made in regards to
aliens
> whom we regard as being 'advanced', most recently in the movie "Mars
> Attacks."
> The other points in your post I agree with all in all.
> (On the other hand those sci-fi writers have been remarkably
> prescient by and large!)
>
>
> Bob Clark
I re-read that American Scientist article and found that head sizes
really are getting larger! This appears in the section on nutrition,
http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/nutrition.html. In the
article, the argument is made that the increase follows from the fact
that heights are increasing and this is attributed in the article to
better nutrition. However, an interesting question to consider is
whether or not the size of newborns as well as their head size has been
increasing over the years. If it has, then I think the possibility of a
genetic basis to the increase in intelligence should be given a much
more serious consideration.
Bob Clark
William Wallace
> I disagree completely. It continues to take longer and longer to
>produce a member of the "successful" category. While we produce contributing
>members of society breeders have between 4 - 5 kids. No natural selection is
>at work at all due to the bleeding heart liberalism of our current regime.
> I wonder at divergent evolution. Maybe we will see a "worker" class
>and a "thinker" class. A bad move, because the worker class will always want
>the things the thinkers have - better cars etc. (human nature being what it
>is) and even if you're bright, you can always be outnumbered.
> There is definitely a case for eugenics. My only argument against
>eugenics is criteria. The question isn't "What is the future of the human
>race?" as if we have no control, but "What traits are desirable in humanity?"
>Hard question. Increased perceptual ability? Increased mathmatical ability?
>Better resistance to disease? Longer lifespan to compensate for extrememly
>poor educational technique? IMHO we can only use technology to overcome our
>shortcomings for so long. Eventually we will become the victim of a
>technology that we lack the intelligence to use wisely.
The problem with implementing eugenics, ignoring the issue of
getting volunteers and keeping them monogamous, is your "desirable
traits" issue.
Human culture is not stable for enough generations for any
particular criteria to remain dominant. Even within technology, before
WW II we would have been selecting Edisons, inventors, not scientists.
For about twenty years after that war, we would have selected for
scientists, since then, engineers.
However, "even within technology" is the problem in our political
world. Often forgotten is that the government student loan program
that has become the backbone of higher education was proposed and got
its impetus as a result of Russia orbitting Sputnik. ALL of the basis
for it was to catch up with the Russians, to make the US a scientific
and engineering powerhouse among nations, etc. etc. etc.
But then politics came into play. "How dare you say a scientist
is more valuable than a poet?" And thus the effort became subverted
from its original intent and purpose and became so neutral that it did
not accomplish its original purpose in the least.
The same would happen with any eugenics program. "How day you say
a scientist is more valuable than an athlete?" And thus there could be
no net benefit to such a program.
The only clear way to benefit is the other way around, the
removal of the clearly and irredeemably "unfit" such as the retarded
and the few heritable forms of mental illness. However, that has been
so poorly applied that in Sweden children (most always female) were
sterilized because they could not learn when all they needed were
glasses. It seems most every country has dabbled in this starting in
the 1920s. Many such as Sweden and Australia did not stop until the
late 70s. The US generally stopped in the late 50s.
Even the best theories fail when reduced to practice by
politicians and bureaucrats.
William Wallace
On 26 Sep 1997 18:58:33 GMT, re...@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
wrote:
>WWal...@freedom.org (William Wallace) writes:
>> Save that these days, those that get to the top of the social heap
>> tend to be those with the fewest progeny. It is not clearly the best
>> strategy. And then look at any oldtime successful family and look at
>> how few of them are left these days.
>But how good were they with spreading their genes while they were
>successfull?
The frequecy of adultery does not appear to know social class but
does appear to remain mainly within its class. Even if for no other
reason than nothing propinques like propinquity.
And if it results in progeny, women are rarely quiet about
getting what their children "deserve" in one way or another.
If within the class it does not matter much. If a Carnegie has a
child by a Mellon nothing much changes. There is no clear superiority
of individuals in these matters and the Mellon woman gains nothing by
demanding benefits from the Carnegie man.
If outside the class, we usually hear about it one way or another
and then, unless an accident with a prostitute, we have to ask if the
woman "had" something. Consider the FDR and Eisenhower affairs. Had
they resulted in children, clearly the women were up to the same
intellectual standards.
Anette & Ed Janis
In article <34265805...@news.erols.com>, BPa...@erols.com says...
<snip>
>
> (In response....Yes, I had a catholic school education. How else does
> one learn to read, write and sift through governmental propaganda in
> the US??)
>
Get born in 1971 and ride the trailing edge of real education right ahead
of the wacko-ness that invaded education in my home state year by year
behind my class as we moved forward. Most people I meet that went to the
schools in (the state of which I am a native) and were a year behind me,
ie. born in 1972, seem to be fond of the real nutso causes including the
idea that the best thing that could ever happen is for government to have
ALL the money. My contemporaries and people born in 1970 (same
educational parameters) tend to lean the other way on most everything.
There are, of course, exceptions. But this has been my personal
experience.
Gregg
T. Sheridan
It would be easier to contelplate the future of human intelligence if we
were some evidence of it haveing had a past.
--
=========--------- -
mailto:Spa...@navpoint.com
http://navpoint.com/~sparky
- ----------=================
Robert Clark
uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
| Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think
evolution
| would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter?
Where did
| you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly related
to size?
.
<01bcc7c3$9bed46a0$54d1...@rclark.op.net>...
> The title was my rather quirky sense of humor operating. I was
making
> reference to the representation of science fiction writers, mostly
of
> the early period, of humanity in the far future as having large
bulbous
> heads. This representation is also frequently made in regards to
aliens
> whom we regard as being 'advanced', most recently in the movie "Mars
> Attacks."
> The other points in your post I agree with all in all.
> (On the other hand those sci-fi writers have been remarkably
> prescient by and large!)
> Bob Clark
.
Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> wrote in article
> I re-read that American Scientist article and found that head sizes
> really are getting larger! This appears in the section on nutrition,
> http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/nutrition.html. In the
> article, the argument is made that the increase follows from the fact
> that heights are increasing and this is attributed in the article to
> better nutrition. However, an interesting question to consider is
> whether or not the size of newborns as well as their head size has
been
> increasing over the years. If it has, then I think the possibility of
a
> genetic basis to the increase in intelligence should be given a much
> more serious consideration.
>
> Bob Clark
I looked up some citations on secular trends in newborns in the
PubMed database, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/, but the citations
I found were contradictory. Some said there were trends toward greater
birth size, others said there had been in the past but that was now
ending. It is interesting to note though that if heights were
increasing genetically then this would solve the problem the first
poster above noted. You just make the whole body larger!
In any case regardless of its cause, it is certainly true that adult
heights and head sizes are increasing. So perhaps I should have titled
my post: "The Future of Human Intelligence. Very Tall but with Nicely
Proportioned Heads."
Bob Clark
Jim Meritt
I seem to recall (OMNI, I think, years ago) an interesting computer model.
Bone growth information was modeled, along with a few other aging phenomena.
In Homo sapiens, for example, bone growth slows/stops at adulthood (note: I
am aware of what a poor generalization/statement this is. No need to get on
me for it). _IF_ the growth was not arrested, but allowed to continue into
adulthood in the model a graphical representation appeared to be similar to
the media impression of a "caveman". (yuch). If, on the other hand, the
growth trend was arrested prematurely what appeared was a big-skulled
"alienish " appearing image.
Two questions:
1. Anyone else run into something similar, and do you know the reference?
2. What does this imply to you?
v/r
Jim
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply
are and belong to none.
Robert Clark
uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
| Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think
evolution
| would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter?
Where did
| you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly related
to size?
Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> wrote in article
<01bcc7c3$9bed46a0$54d1...@rclark.op.net>...
> The title was my rather quirky sense of humor operating. I was
making
> reference to the representation of science fiction writers, mostly of
> the early period, of humanity in the far future as having large
bulbous
> heads. This representation is also frequently made in regards to
aliens
> whom we regard as being 'advanced', most recently in the movie "Mars
> Attacks."
> The other points in your post I agree with all in all.
> (On the other hand those sci-fi writers have been remarkably
> prescient by and large!)
> Bob Clark
...
Ian A. York
In article <60r2ut$4...@elf.wang.com>, Jim Meritt <mer...@wangfed.com> wrote:
>
>me for it). _IF_ the growth was not arrested, but allowed to continue into
>adulthood in the model a graphical representation appeared to be similar to
>the media impression of a "caveman". (yuch). If, on the other hand, the
Why did this need 'computer modelling'? This is what happens in
acromegaly, a non-terribly-rare syndrome.
>growth trend was arrested prematurely what appeared was a big-skulled
>"alienish " appearing image.
Why did this need 'computer modelling'? This is what happens with various
forms of dwarfism, which are not-terribly-uncommon diseases.
>Two questions:
>1. Anyone else run into something similar, and do you know the reference?
I've run into something similar. Medline lists over 4000 articles on
acromegaly, and 3500 on dwarfism.
>2. What does this imply to you?
It implies to me that whoever wrote the article doesn't know much about
physiology or medicine.
I'm a little puzzled as to why this needed to be posted to alt.psychology,
rec.arts.sf.misc, rec.arts.sf.science, sci.anthropology, sci.archaeology,
sci.bio.misc, sci.cognitive, sci.psychology.misc, and
sci.psychology.theory. Newsgroups trimmed and followups set.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Andrew Plotkin
Jim Meritt (mer...@wangfed.com) wrote:
> I seem to recall (OMNI, I think, years ago) an interesting computer model.
> Bone growth information was modeled, along with a few other aging phenomena.
> In Homo sapiens, for example, bone growth slows/stops at adulthood (note: I
> am aware of what a poor generalization/statement this is. No need to get on
> adulthood in the model a graphical representation appeared to be similar to
> the media impression of a "caveman". (yuch). If, on the other hand, the
> "alienish " appearing image.
> Two questions:
> 1. Anyone else run into something similar, and do you know the reference?
Can't help there.
> 2. What does this imply to you?
That people like to model aliens after babies -- big heads, big eyes. The
same reason that puppies are cute, and cartoon puppies are even cuter
(because the heads and eyes are exaggerated even more.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Alex Kashko
Woodford John <wood...@cae.wisc.edu> wrote:
> sco...@aa.net (Scott Kelly) writes:
> <<antecedents and commentary snipped>>
>
> >Science equals restriction moreso than religion. Emotion and religion
> >go together, mathetics and emotion... I've never seen an excited math
> >teacher, or an ethusiastic one. I've seen excited auto mechanics.
> >Put everything right and-- "Yes, it works! Listen to that purr!"
A quote whose source I have forgotten says that a teacher is
someone who can, after many years experience, talk unenthusiastically
about anything for thirty minutes
> >
> >Correction, "Donald Duck in Mathemagicland." THAT was enthusiam and
> >happy and fun. But many science types motto is "Dignity. Always
> >dignity."
And religion and politics and....
> >
> Oh, like the Pathfinder team? What dignity! What reserve!
> Or Richard Feynmann? Perhaps the appearance of Stephen Hawking on
> Star Trek was motivated by a sincere desire to act in a dignified
> manner, hmmm? (NB: This is sarcasm.)
> Seriously, what the poster misses is the crucial distinction
> which must be made between teachers of science and math and actual
> scientists and mathematicians. OK, I'd call myself a research materials
> scientist. I do what I do _because it's fun_. The same is true of a
> great many other scientists (don't know about mathematicians, sorry).
Maths is great fun too. As long as you keep moving. I recall the
pleasure with which I first derived my proof that the number of subsets
of a set is always at least 2^^(number of elements in the set) even for
infinite sets and the time my lecturer presente a three page proof of a
theorent then accepted my ten line proof. Sometimes I regret not being
in research any more.
> But too often, teachers lose sight of this. They see how difficult
> what I will with tongue in cheek call the scientific enterprise is,
> and figure that those of us who do "science" must take it oh-so-
> terribly-seriously.
Similarly there are a lot of people who think that because they
consider religion is important they must take it seriously. The Idea of
holy Laughter seems to heve escaped them.
> Well, we do take it seriously. But we can get awfully excited,
> too; it's just that by the time the general public sees what we're
> excited about it's suits and talking heads. (BTW, I think this was an
Wh oprobably have similar positive emotions about what THEY do/
> unanticipated bonus from Pathfinder--scientists caught in their natural
> state, as it were.)
>
> JBWoodford
> woodford at cae dot wisc dot edu
--
GTI Translations Intnl, All Languages - G...@galdr.demon.co.uk
UK National Phone calls from 2p/minute - un...@galdr.demon.co.uk
$2000 -$300/month after six months - World...@galdr.demon.co.uk
Multimedia Writing,publishing & coding - aay...@galdr.demon.co.uk
Jeff Suzuki
Cande (Ca...@iName.com) wrote:
: If we could transplant a person from 1930 and place them in our
: technological era, they would acclimate fine. The intelligence of
: humans has not changed, only the amount of data they are subjected to.
I would disagree to the extent that a lot of modern technology can be lethal
_unless_ you're _already_ acclimatized to it. Most of us know not to step in
front of a speeding car (though periodically some forget, and the result is a
tragedy). Would a person from 1930? Would a person from 1830? I suspect
not.
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
Jim Meritt (mer...@wangfed.com) wrote:
: I seem to recall (OMNI, I think, years ago) an interesting computer model.
: Two questions:
: 1. Anyone else run into something similar, and do you know the reference?
Yes. Unfortunately, it was in OMNI...
: 2. What does this imply to you?
There is a phenomenon called neoteny, which is (roughly speaking) the
retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. What follows is wild
speculation on my part, but...
One of the key abilities of young minds is the ability to absorb information
at a phenomenal rate. It's why a child can learn to speak three or four (or
five or...) languages much better than an adult can learn to speak one good
language. (Whups. "One language good". Er, well. One language _well_.
Yeah, that's it...)
It has been suggested (somewhere, foggy memory of article long lost) that
human beings are neotenous themselves. (This explains many things....)
Because neoteny is a fairly "simple" mutation (simple in the sense that the
gene that says "Okay, you're done growing, stop now..." gets whacked off), it
may be a significant factor in evolution in general. (Again, wild speculation
on my part)
Whether or not evolution "works" on a tool-using species, we can posit that
the next biological advance may come through induced neoteny in human beings.
Now this may happen "naturally", via Drs. Malthus and Muller, or it may be
deliberately induced, via Drs. Watson and Crick.
Hmmm, there's an idea for an SF story in here...
Jeffs
Unknown
On 30 Sep 1997 21:16:17 GMT, je...@bu.edu (Jeff Suzuki) wrote:
>I would disagree to the extent that a lot of modern technology can be lethal
>_unless_ you're _already_ acclimatized to it. Most of us know not to step in
>front of a speeding car (though periodically some forget, and the result is a
>tragedy). Would a person from 1930? Would a person from 1830? I suspect
>not.
I disagree. They don't have to know what a car is to figure
out that it would hurt them. If I saw an animal that I didn't
recognize that was the size of a moose I would know not to step in
front of its path without knowing what it was.
Joshua D Phillips
Robert Clark <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
>uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
> | Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think
>evolution
> | would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter?
>Where did
> | you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly related
>to size?
The idea comes from the fact that the more brain there is, the more
likely it is to have a greater percentage of associational only
neurons, as opposed to sensory/motor neurons. The higher the order of
brain (ie higher intelligence) the higher the percentage of the brain
is associational neurons -- (ie rats=10%, cats 20%, apes 60%, humans
85%).
As to those speaking about human brain size getting larger, this is
not true -- due to human's evolving into upright creatures, we are
greatly restricted to how large our bodies can get. Much more, and
our bones won't be strong enough, hearts not strong enough, etc --
kinda like how an insect cannot get much larger because its
exoskeleton won't support it. The head itself can't get smaller
because a female's pelvis, because of the reason's cited above, will
not enlargen to let a larger human head pass through. People will not
just grow bigger heads, because they are at a maximum now (ie blood
volume, cooling features, weight distribution on the body will not
support it). Thus, we are basically limited to how much we can grow.
Robert Clark
|uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
| Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think
evolution
| would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter?
Where did
| you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly related
to size?
...
> Joshua D Phillips <jdphi...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<34319011...@news.mindspring.com>...
> The idea comes from the fact that the more brain there is, the more
> likely it is to have a greater percentage of associational only
> neurons, as opposed to sensory/motor neurons. The higher the order of
> brain (ie higher intelligence) the higher the percentage of the brain
> is associational neurons -- (ie rats=10%, cats 20%, apes 60%, humans
> 85%).
>
> As to those speaking about human brain size getting larger, this is
> not true -- due to human's evolving into upright creatures, we are
> greatly restricted to how large our bodies can get. Much more, and
> our bones won't be strong enough, hearts not strong enough, etc --
> kinda like how an insect cannot get much larger because its
> exoskeleton won't support it. The head itself can't get smaller
> because a female's pelvis, because of the reason's cited above, will
> not enlargen to let a larger human head pass through. People will not
> just grow bigger heads, because they are at a maximum now (ie blood
> volume, cooling features, weight distribution on the body will not
> support it). Thus, we are basically limited to how much we can grow.
While I agree that there should be some limit to how large human beings can
get, it's still uncertain how big that is. There are many well-proportioned pro
basketball players for example over 7 feet tall, many of whom are more agile
than an average sized person. So what might we conclude would be a maximum
height for humans? Eight feet? Nine feet? Ten feet?!
In the article, http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/nutrition.html
, it said that heights were increasing at the rate of about one centimeter per
decade. So even if the heights only got up to seven feet, that would still
amount to about 300 years of increasing height and presumably increasing
intelligence, which would be quite a marked difference, according to the
current trends.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
I think that is a very good point. Some of the citations I saw on the PubMed
database indicated we are maturing earlier. We might surmise therefore that we
are retaining our early learning ability into adulthood, which would contribute
to an intelligence increase.
Bob Clark
Jeff Suzuki <je...@bu.edu> wrote in article <60rram$g89$3...@news1.bu.edu>...
>
>...
Caleb J. Howard
> This is not necessarily true. Men and women have *fundamentally*
> different spatial abilities. Like comparing apples and oranges.
> Since men and women think differently, I wonder if math education is
> possibly male biased in technique. Could be.
Do you have any pointers to the studies upon which you base the notion
that men and women think differently? It sure doesn't jive with my
experience.
> I can't see this though. I'm so oversexed one of my girlfriends
> referred to me as "the gland" yet my math skills are off the charts.
> Math just doesn't interest me as much as sex ;)
Well, Richard, It's interesting to note that one can be a mathematical
genius, sexually insatiable, and socially underdeveloped. I myself
claim to be all three. There are many criteria upon which to guage
fitness, or social value, or even intelligence.
> I find it more likely that we are experiencing the end result in
> evolution of a natural stratification of society. Those at the bottom
> the have-nots, breed faster than the haves. This whacks our gene pool
> all to hell, until the have-nots and the haves fight until the
> situation restabilizes. This may be too easy an explanation. I
> think there are many factors involved, learning curve, enabling, etc.
> But the end result is that society naturally restructures into those
> two groups.
I would call "the end result in evolution" a bit of an oxymoron, but
that aside. You make assertions about social breeding habits, and
natural processes which you don't support. I'd love to hear your
rational defense of the notion that class exploitation is somehow a
natural state. Your above statements would almost seem to imply that
you see a correlation between the "have-nots" and genetics. Otherwise,
how could their breeding skew the gene pool? Do you know what political
historical figures made similar unfounded assertions? Saying a class of
people are genetically predisposed to their social position is standing
on very dangerous grounds. You had better have hard data to back you up
if you're hoping to avoid an angry mob.
> This goes the same for girls and boys sexually maturing at a faster
> rate. As the have nots continue to breed faster and faster (since the
> haves continue to take care of they and theirs through welfare) they
> produce children who are maturing sexually sooner. Similar to
> breeding for a desired trait. (Devils advocate to myself here, I have
> seen NO evidence that males and females are maturing faster sexually.
And that is your opinion. Can you support it?
> What was the average child bearing age over the centuries. I would
> say 14, that being variant on technological level and population
> density. In response to threat, I think the human race would breed
> faster. I wonder if we are looking at the natural result of a century
> of warfare.)
"I would say 14", "I think the human race would breed faster." - your
speculation is stimulating to you, I am sure, but can you at least say
what has caused you to think these things, if you are unable to point to
scientific sources? Otherwise your feelings amount to facist
propaganda.
> I'm not a scientest, nor do I have a degree (good flame material
> here), I just notice stuff. I could be wrong, and I probably wandered
> all over the topic, but hey, it's a big topic.
If you mean that you don't adhere to any scientific principals, I
couldn't argue with you. Not having a degree means nothing as far as I
can see. I do have a degree (UWaterloo BMath), but it doesn't qualify
my opinion as anything beyond an opinion unless I back up my assertions
with data.
> It consistently amazes me that there are more restrictions on getting
> a drivers license than in having a child.
Seriously!? You think that such an important decision as that to create
a child should be in the hands of the government? That baffles me. You
must have great regard for your government to feel this way.
To my way of thinking, mundane, but possibly fatal equipment, like
automobiles, and guns, may reasonably require some demonstration of
competence by a governing body prior to allowing people to operate
them. I feel this way because a car, or a gun is so simple a thing that
it's usage may be socially standardized easily enough. The same is
definitely no true of the process of raising a child.
I am always astounded by the lack of consideration evident in the
utterances of people who claim intelligence. Much of what you proport
as fact seems to me to be antisocial, unscientific, and inconsistent
with my experience and understanding. I claim no authority, but would
ask you to realize that there are people who will fixate upon statements
such as those you make, and use them to justify hatred. The weakness of
your position will not significantly deminish the damage caused by your
statements. If you consider yourself to be a social human animal, then
you should work to minimize disinformation.
-caleb
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Caleb J. Howard "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
c...@sqla.com - work -Albert Einstein
cal...@earthlink.net - home
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Chris Walsh
Robert Clark wrote in article <01bcce69$7cbed3a0$2e4a...@rclark.op.net>...
> I think that is a very good point. Some of the citations I saw on the
PubMed
>database indicated we are maturing earlier. We might surmise therefore that
we
>are retaining our early learning ability into adulthood, which would
contribute
>to an intelligence increase.
>.
That's very unusual, considering that one of the biggest differences
between humans and chimpanzees in that 2% of our DNA which differs is the
timing of our growth. As we mature later than chimpanzees (our molar
eruptions, for example, are about 5 years after theirs, etc.), we have a
longer period during which we are dependent on our parents, thus a longer
period during which we can grow mentally, as well. This has permitted our
brains to get big enough to get culture.
And, this study that was done on growth patterns, it showed that there is a
direct correlation between brain size and rate of maturation. Homo erectus
had a maturation rate, and a brain size, about halfway between Homo sapiens
and the chimpanzee.
This means if we are maturing earlier, our brains are getting smaller. And
this doesn't seem correct. It's commonly believed (I can't cite this, but I
can find citations for the stuff above if you want) in bioanthropological
circles that the reason our brains/heads aren't getting any bigger is
because the pelvis has already had to undergo drastic alteration to
accomidate our large brain size at birth. Any further modification to the
pelvis would begin to severely damage women when they tried to walk, so our
brain size has reached an evolutionary stasis. Doesn't matter, though - if
I'm not mistaken, we don't use much of it anyways.
Caleb J. Howard
> I wonder at divergent evolution. Maybe we will see a "worker" class
> and a "thinker" class. A bad move, because the worker class will
> always want the things the thinkers have - better cars etc. (human
> nature being what it is) and even if you're bright, you can always be
> outnumbered.
Why couldn't divergent classes enjoy similar standards of livingas the
Thinker class? Do you suppose thinking is more worthy of reward than
the workers, or do you suppose the thinkers would withhold benefits from
the workers just to get 'em mad, or what?
> There is definitely a case for eugenics. My only argument against
> eugenics is criteria.
Well, survival has worked to a point as a criteria. If you're talking
about a human policy for survival, I doubt you could find three people
with identical ideals. It is impossible for a survival criteria to be
devised by any select body which doesn't skew the biodiversity which
evolution needs to select from.
My personal favourite eugenic criteria: Kill anyone who would tell me
who is fit to live. The eugenic elimination of eugenic policy. There's
a problem with that, though.
> The question isn't "What is the future of the human race?" as if we
> have no control, but "What traits are desirable in humanity?" Hard
> question. Increased perceptual ability? Increased mathmatical
> ability? Better resistance to disease? Longer lifespan to compensate
> for extrememly poor educational technique? IMHO we can only use
> technology to overcome our shortcomings for so long. Eventually we
> will become the victim of a technology that we lack the intelligence
> to use wisely.
If we are to survive our dependency upon technology, I suspect we'll
need as much diversity as we can manage. Any selection beyond survival
is not survival behaviour. Eugenics is facism.
Richard P. Sasser
In article <3432F3C8.3F54@NO_UNSOLICITED_EMAIL_PLEASE.sqla.com>, "Caleb J. Howard" <cjh@NO_UNSOLICITED_EMAIL_PLEASE.sqla.com> wrote:
>> This is not necessarily true. Men and women have *fundamentally*
>> different spatial abilities. Like comparing apples and oranges.
>> Since men and women think differently, I wonder if math education is
>> possibly male biased in technique. Could be.
>
>Do you have any pointers to the studies upon which you base the notion
>that men and women think differently? It sure doesn't jive with my
>experience.
The different brain chemistry would probably have something to do with it..
Hmm. The only way I'll learn I'm wrong is by having other people debate with
me. Second, as most engineers will say, the theory's nice, but what about
empirical evidence. I simply think that the end result of generation after
generation of socially supported people will inevitably breed a lower
intelligence. If it isn't important to survival, it'll eventually quit
working. Happened to the appendix. Of course, if current theories about
intelligence are correct, it's the social interaction that actually requires
intelligence, so maybe this won't happen.
>
>> This goes the same for girls and boys sexually maturing at a faster
>> rate. As the have nots continue to breed faster and faster (since the
>> haves continue to take care of they and theirs through welfare) they
>> produce children who are maturing sexually sooner. Similar to
>> breeding for a desired trait. (Devils advocate to myself here, I have
>> seen NO evidence that males and females are maturing faster sexually.
>
>And that is your opinion. Can you support it?
Actually, I was hoping to make some else mad enough to do the actual work.
(which would be a type of social intelligence ;)
>
>> What was the average child bearing age over the centuries. I would
>> say 14, that being variant on technological level and population
>> density. In response to threat, I think the human race would breed
>> faster. I wonder if we are looking at the natural result of a century
>> of warfare.)
>
>"I would say 14", "I think the human race would breed faster." - your
>speculation is stimulating to you, I am sure, but can you at least say
>what has caused you to think these things, if you are unable to point to
>scientific sources? Otherwise your feelings amount to facist
>propaganda.
Fascist propaganda? Mainly my last post was thinking out loud. I happen to
agree with a lot of what the post I was responding to said, I just thought I'd
see if there were any holes, and this is one way to approach it.
>
>> I'm not a scientest, nor do I have a degree (good flame material
>> here), I just notice stuff. I could be wrong, and I probably wandered
>> all over the topic, but hey, it's a big topic.
>
>If you mean that you don't adhere to any scientific principals, I
>couldn't argue with you. Not having a degree means nothing as far as I
>can see. I do have a degree (UWaterloo BMath), but it doesn't qualify
>my opinion as anything beyond an opinion unless I back up my assertions
>with data.
And? I can't FIND any hard data on some of things I think are happening.
Mysteriously I can't find any. So yeah, I speculate. Let's see, I'd like a
copy of "Average age of menarche in females from 1800 -2000 to go, please?"
>
>> It consistently amazes me that there are more restrictions on getting
>> a drivers license than in having a child.
>
>Seriously!? You think that such an important decision as that to create
>a child should be in the hands of the government? That baffles me. You
>must have great regard for your government to feel this way.
No regard. Lottery would be a better method of choosing a president.
>To my way of thinking, mundane, but possibly fatal equipment, like
>automobiles, and guns, may reasonably require some demonstration of
>competence by a governing body prior to allowing people to operate
>them. I feel this way because a car, or a gun is so simple a thing that
>it's usage may be socially standardized easily enough. The same is
>definitely no true of the process of raising a child.
No, but I'd set limits based on the ability to support a child without
taxpayer assistance.
>
>I am always astounded by the lack of consideration evident in the
>utterances of people who claim intelligence. Much of what you proport
>as fact seems to me to be antisocial, unscientific, and inconsistent
>with my experience and understanding. I claim no authority, but would
>ask you to realize that there are people who will fixate upon statements
>such as those you make, and use them to justify hatred. The weakness of
>your position will not significantly deminish the damage caused by your
>statements. If you consider yourself to be a social human animal, then
>you should work to minimize disinformation.
>
>-caleb
I said it was all opinion. I knew somebody flame away anyway.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Caleb J. Howard "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>c...@sqla.com - work -Albert Einstein
>cal...@earthlink.net - home
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
"And he has Brain."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that's why he never understands anything."
Richard P. Sasser
In article <3432DE5E.59E2@NO_UNSOLICITED_EMAIL_PLEASE.sqla.com>, "Caleb J. Howard" <cjh@NO_UNSOLICITED_EMAIL_PLEASE.sqla.com> wrote:
>> I wonder at divergent evolution. Maybe we will see a "worker" class
>> and a "thinker" class. A bad move, because the worker class will
>> always want the things the thinkers have - better cars etc. (human
>> nature being what it is) and even if you're bright, you can always be
>> outnumbered.
>
>Thinker class? Do you suppose thinking is more worthy of reward than
>the workers, or do you suppose the thinkers would withhold benefits from
>the workers just to get 'em mad, or what?
>
Yeah, probably insane jealousy of huge muscles.
>> There is definitely a case for eugenics. My only argument against
>> eugenics is criteria.
>
>Well, survival has worked to a point as a criteria. If you're talking
>about a human policy for survival, I doubt you could find three people
>with identical ideals. It is impossible for a survival criteria to be
>devised by any select body which doesn't skew the biodiversity which
>evolution needs to select from.
>
>My personal favourite eugenic criteria: Kill anyone who would tell me
>who is fit to live. The eugenic elimination of eugenic policy. There's
>a problem with that, though.
I would never presume to say who is fit to live. I have worked with autistic
and retarded children and their lives are just as valuable as mine. I would
say that the ONLY way eugenics could ever work would be if the average human
were able to discern what would be best for his species. For instance, I have
a friend who had a vasectomy because he has a serious incidence of congenital
defects in his family. A noble decision. He hopes to adopt. I hope for him.
>
>> The question isn't "What is the future of the human race?" as if we
>> have no control, but "What traits are desirable in humanity?" Hard
>> question. Increased perceptual ability? Increased mathmatical
>> ability? Better resistance to disease? Longer lifespan to compensate
>> for extrememly poor educational technique? IMHO we can only use
>> technology to overcome our shortcomings for so long. Eventually we
>> will become the victim of a technology that we lack the intelligence
>> to use wisely.
>
>If we are to survive our dependency upon technology, I suspect we'll
>need as much diversity as we can manage. Any selection beyond survival
>is not survival behaviour. Eugenics is facism.
Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of
the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that
stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial
control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
Benign fascism or oppressive democracy. You mislabel me politically, and it
is irrelevant anyway. To say that a science has a political affiliation is
ludicrous.
>
>-caleb
Jeff Suzuki
Rodney Munch () wrote:
: I disagree. They don't have to know what a car is to figure
: out that it would hurt them. If I saw an animal that I didn't
: recognize that was the size of a moose I would know not to step in
: front of its path without knowing what it was.
My point is that they have no way of knowing that a car _would_ hurt them. If
we see a car a block down the street, we've learned better than to step in the
street in front of it. The person from 1830 does _not_ have this knowledge:
they're not used to things moving that quickly, and would assume that "car
down street" means "safe to walk", since their experience says that it takes a
lot longer than a few seconds for a vehicle to travel a block.
Look, we don't even have to argue hypothetical person from 1830; we just have
to look at third world countries with dumpsites. Remember about ten years
ago, when an entire Mexican village was poisoned because someone had the
bright idea of scrounging material from the local dump? They didn't know that
a circle with three triangles in it meant "DANGER: RADIOACTIVE", so they pried
it apart and recycled the material.
Or consider your friendly radio. It makes nice music, and a person from any
time period could appreciate that (although their definition of "music" might
be different). Would they know that it was a bad idea to listen to a radio in
the bath? What's the harm in having music while you bathe?
There are a million and one ways that modern technology can be lethal to
someone who doesn't know what it is. We avoid getting killed because we've
grown up with it, and most of us don't even think once about putting our
fingers into light sockets, or walking in front of city buses. But someone
who hasn't grown up in our technological society is at a potentially fatal
disadvantage.
Jeffs
Ash Wyllie
>Hmmm, there's an idea for an SF story in here...
Jeffs
Your right, the idea of humans as neotenous apes would make a good story.
Unfortunately Larry Niven beat you to it. (Damn, another fortune down thew
drain).
-ash
(Where is John Galt when you need him?)
Caleb J. Howard
Richard P. Sasser wrote:
> Yeah, probably insane jealousy of huge muscles.
Sorry, I don't understand.
> I would say that the ONLY way eugenics could ever work would be if the
> average human were able to discern what would be best for his species.
This would imply that there was a particular "best", where, as I
understand it, survival of the species as a whole has depended upon
genetic diversification to provide a greater likelyhood of at least some
of the species surviving an environmental change.
> Fascism
>
> 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
> that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
> individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
> headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
> regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
That's how I was using it, more or less. Look at China, happily
discerning what is best for the nation, and the race.
> Benign fascism or oppressive democracy. You mislabel me politically,
> and it is irrelevant anyway. To say that a science has a political
> affiliation is ludicrous.
To say that one can divorce their intellectual, or "scientific" ideals
from their political ideals is ludicrous. Talk to Einstein.
Let me say, I appreciate the fact that you can remain civil in a
philosophical discussion.
William Wallace
>>If we are to survive our dependency upon technology, I suspect we'll
>>need as much diversity as we can manage. Any selection beyond survival
>>is not survival behaviour. Eugenics is facism.
>Fascism
>1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of
>the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that
>stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
>severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
>opposition
>2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial
>control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
>Benign fascism or oppressive democracy. You mislabel me politically, and it
>is irrelevant anyway. To say that a science has a political affiliation is
>ludicrous.
More to the point, the Fascists were a political party in Italy,
one of many. It was removed from power in 1944 when it received a "no
confidence" vote from the italian parliament. Hardly a dictatorship.
It is only WWII propaganda that continues the "dictator" assertion.
Mussolini was more like a Huey Long than a dictator. (Your opinion of
Huey Long may vary.)
Additionally, it did not engage in eugenics any more than any
other European country, perhaps not at all but I have no evidence of
that negative.
Eugenics began in european countries (and descent countries such
as the US) around 1920 and did not end until the 50s to as late as the
70s in some nations such as Sweden and Australia.
Unknown
There can be a large increase in intelligence without a large
increase in the size of the human head. Hawking, Einstein, Newton, and
other super-geniuses didn't have extraordinarily big heads.
William Wallace
I did not say there was. I am the champion of the IQ to weight
ratio of women.
Caleb J. Howard
> I said it was all opinion. I knew somebody flame away anyway.
Sorry. I wasn't meaning to flame. When you made the comment about
justifying Eugenics, I thought you were stating your beliefs about the
evolutionary viability of it. I have some interest in the politics of
Tibet, where the Chinese government enforces its eugenic policy through
forced abortions. I have also some interest in the movements of
evolution because of my career. Since you had made statements
inconsistent with my understanding of what has been observed when
eugenics is implemented, from both the political and genetic
standpoints, I felt you might know something I didn't, and so I
questioned the source of your statements.
Since you now say it was *all* opinion, I hope you will look into what
hard data there is on the experiments with eugenics which have taken
place in human history. Also, there is much which has been done in
ascertaining the observable truthes concerning some of the mechanics of
evolutionary mechanics. What I have seen has supported the notion that
diversification is vital in maintaining a healthy gene pool. Look at
all of the congenital defects in purebred dogs which have arisen from
the notion that there are ideal traits to cultivate to the exclusion of
other "less desirable" traits.
> "Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
> "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
> "And he has Brain."
> "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."
>
> There was a long silence.
>
> "I suppose," said Pooh, "that's why he never understands anything."
I love Pooh. He's my childhood's wizard. I loved Eeyore the best, but
in my heart, I have always been Piglet. I never agreed with them that
Rabbit was all that clever, but I know how it is to assume someone's
smart just because you can't understand what their saying.
-caleb
William Wallace
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 22:35:26 GMT, (Rodney Munch) wrote:
> There can be a large increase in intelligence without a large
>increase in the size of the human head. Hawking, Einstein, Newton, and
>other super-geniuses didn't have extraordinarily big heads.
I know several women in the genius range. IQ to weight ratio
works for them. Beat the crap out of me also which is quite difficult
for other reasons.
Unknown
>On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 22:35:26 GMT, (Rodney Munch) wrote:
>
>> There can be a large increase in intelligence without a large
>>increase in the size of the human head. Hawking, Einstein, Newton, and
>>other super-geniuses didn't have extraordinarily big heads.
>
> I did not say there was. I am the champion of the IQ to weight
>ratio of women.
>
My point is that if we are going to evolve in the direction of
increased intelligence, it would be unnecessary to have a large
bulbous head. There is already large variations in intelligence with
the heads we have now.
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall)
In article <3435db3...@news.mindspring.com> William...@freedom.org (William Wallace) writes:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 22:35:26 GMT, (Rodney Munch) wrote:
>
> > There can be a large increase in intelligence without a large
> >increase in the size of the human head. Hawking, Einstein, Newton, and
> >other super-geniuses didn't have extraordinarily big heads.
>
> I know several women in the genius range. IQ to weight ratio
> works for them. Beat the crap out of me also which is quite difficult
> for other reasons.
It's not the size of the brain, it's the number of neural connections. I
was watching a segment of 20/20 last week, talking about a little girl who
had half her brain removed (!!!!) to stop a serious, serious problem with
seisures. They then put her through constant therapy to stimulate her
brain, both physical activity and mental activity, to make her remaining
half brain take over some of the functions of the missing half, so she
could walk again and so on. They mentioned in passing that, up till the
age of ten, a child's brain is constantly, and wildly, building neural
pathways, willy-nilly, but that it stops doing this around age ten, and
then the brain starts ridding itself of pathways that don't get used.
I also remember seeing once a segment about a man who was very bright,
high test scores and all that, and it turned out that he had a huge
void in the center of his brain! Seems, when he was very small, there'd
been some sort of pressure build-up problem with the fluid in his skull,
and they'd had to do some surgery to releive the pressure, but unknown
to them the fluid had expanded out into the middle of his brain and
expanded outwards, so all he had was this thin shell of brain tissue on
the inside of his skull. And yet, because this had happened vey early in
his physical development, his remaining brain tissue had made up for the
difference to the point that there was no impairment at all, and so the
damage was never noticed. Presumably he has as many, if not more, neural
pathways inside that smaller amount of grey matter than most of us have
in a completely intact brain. And he had a high IQ, to boot!
Something to think about. If you'll pardon the unintended pun.
>
> =====
> Any sufficiently convoluted argument can be made to appear to be science
> as the layman equates incomprehensibility with science.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +-------------------------------------+
Nomad of Norad (David C. Hall) | "What good will cryptography do if |
no...@joshua-wopr.com | some adversary can fly a gnat-sized |
http://users.southeast.net/~nomad/ | camera into your room and station |
+----------------------------------+ it above your desk?" |
| -- David Brin, in his article, "The Transparent Society," WIRED 4.12US |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robert Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------->
Subject: Re: The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?
From: fmu...@pobox.com (frank murray)
Date: 1997/09/23
Message-Id: <608pep$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.psychology,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.anthropology,sci.archaeo
logy,sci.bio.misc,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.misc,sci.psychology.theory
On 23 Sep 1997 02:29:13 GMT, "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
> The actual status of SAT scores is difficult to judge,
agreed...though whether that agreement extends to the cause of such
difficulty is another matter...
>at least in the US, because there were more poor children who were aiming at
>attending college and therefore took the SAT than previously.
might you cite figures that support such correlation??...the great
fall in SAT scores occurred '63 - '80...but per TBC the great
democratization of the SAT taking population occurred during the
period of rising scores preceding '63...in short, it appears that
those born between '45 and '62 (using 18 as the average age of SAT
takers) were increasingly inept...
.
.
.
>The papers discussing the Flynn effect scientifically suggest that it
>exists among all types of tests of intelligence when you take into
>account the different socio-economic levels of the people taking the
>test. Once you take soci-economic levels into account for SAT scores
>I'm quite certain that it will indicate also that at each
>socio-economic level the scores were actually increasing over the
>years.
aside from wondering what stats you'll offer to support such
certainty, i'd suggest that the existence of the Flynn effect in no
way precludes the possible existence of forces acting against a rise
in scores...it only overwhelms them, and whether this will prove to be
a temporary overwhelming is an open question...
.
.
.
frank
fmu...@no.spam.pobox.com
http://home.att.net/~fjtmurray/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
I did a web search on trends in SAT scores and came up with these:
1.) Myth American test scores have fallen in the..,
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-sat.htm
"Myth: American test scores have fallen in the last 30 years.
Fact: American test scores have risen for all sub-groups.
Summary
The drop in average SAT scores is a statistical fluke. Thirty years ago,
advantaged and over-achieving white students formed a disproportionate share of
all those taking the test. Today, a growing share of minority and lower class
whites are taking the test also, and they tend to score lower than advantaged
whites. However, the scores of minorities have been rising over the last few
decades, even faster than whites. Thus, everyone's scores are generally rising,
even though the average is dropping.
.
.
.
At first glance, the numbers seem to support this assertion. Between 1972 and
1992, the combined math and verbal scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
fell from an average of 937 to 899. This drop occurred despite the fact that
the U.S. doubled its per-pupil spending, from $2,611 to $5,521 (in 1990
dollars) between 1965 and 1990.
However, the drop in SAT scores is a statistical fluke called "Simpson's
paradox." This occurs when everyone's measure is rising, but the average is
dragged down by expanding the population at the base. To see how this works,
consider the U.S. Baby Boom of the 1950s. The fact that the average age of
Americans was declining in the 1950s did not mean that Americans were aging in
reverse. On the contrary, it only meant that the birth rate was climbing
relative to the death rate.
The same phenomenon has been at work in American SAT scores. Back in the 60s,
middle and upper class white students formed a disproportionate share of all
those taking the SAT. As the nation's most achieving students, they already
posted high scores. Since the 1970s, however, a growing share of minorities and
lower class whites have been taking the SAT as well. In 1972, minorities formed
13 percent of all SAT takers. In 1992, that number more than doubled to 29
percent. Unfortunately, minorities tend to score lower than the advantaged
white students, and including them among the nation's test-takers has resulted
in an average drop in SAT scores.
This does not mean, however, that minorities and lower class whites have not
been making progress over the last several decades. They have. Between 1976 and
1992, black scores rose from 686 to 797. Mexican-origin scores rose from 781 to
797. Puerto Rican scores rose from 765 to 772. The average white SAT score
declined slightly, due to the inclusion of more lower class whites. Of the
entire 17-year old white population, those taking the SAT rose from 19 to 25
percent, a less elite group.
Most, if not all, achievement tests besides the SAT show the same
encouraging trends..."
and
2.) THE MYTH OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FAILURE, http://epn.org/prospect/13/13roth.html
"True, average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores have declined to 899 (math
and verbal combined) in 1992 from 937 in 1972. Yet this favorite fact of
headline writers tells a very partial story. Last year, 29 percent of SAT
takers (students planning to go to college) were minority students, more than
double the 13 percent 20 years earlier. In 1992, 43 percent of test takers
ranked in the top fifth of their high school classes. In 1972, 48 percent were
in the top fifth, a more elite group. In California, for example, where over
half the test takers were minority students in 1992, only 66 percent came from
homes where only English was spoken, and 20 percent spoke English as a second
language, up from 13 percent just six years earlier. These shifts
unsurprisingly produce lower average scores. Declines in average SAT scores
stem mostly from expansion in the test takers' base, adding more disadvantaged
students to a pool that earlier included mostly privileged students.
While average scores have gone down, minority scores have gone up. From 1976
(when the College Board began tracking group scores) to 1992, black student
scores went from 686 to 737; Mexican-origin scores went from 781 to 797; and
Puerto Rican scores went from 765 to 772. White scores declined, but this is
due, at least in part, to the broadened social class base of white test takers.
In 1976, the number of white test takers was equal to only 19 percent of the
17-year-old white population. In 1992, it was 25 percent, a less elite group.
The best way to improve average SAT scores would be to encourage only the best
middle-class students to take the test. We used to do just this, which is why
average scores were higher. Today we prepare more minority and
lower-middle-class students to take college entrance exams. It's a sign of
accomplishment, not failure..."
Bob Clark
frank murray
On 7 Oct 1997 06:54:17 GMT, "Robert Clark" <rcl...@op.net> wrote:
frank murray wrote:
>>
>>might you cite figures that support such correlation??...the great
>>fall in SAT scores occurred '63 - '80...but per TBC the great
>>democratization of the SAT taking population occurred during the
>>period of rising scores preceding '63...in short, it appears that
>>those born between '45 and '62 (using 18 as the average age of SAT
>>takers) were increasingly inept...
> I did a web search on trends in SAT scores and came up with these:
(snip)
>2.) THE MYTH OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FAILURE, http://epn.org/prospect/13/13roth.html
>
>"True, average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores have declined to 899 (math
>and verbal combined) in 1992 from 937 in 1972. Yet this favorite fact of
>headline writers tells a very partial story.
(snip)
but...the substitution of one partial for another does not complete
the story...comparative demographics of 1972 and 1992 students does
not speak to the sudden reversal of until then rising SAT scores that
occurred in '63...as the great drop was between '63 and '80, with the
majority of that drop prior to '72, rothstein's figures cannot even
pretend to address that drop...further, rothstein seems to recognize
the irrelevancy of his figures to the question of the great drop...in
a rather garbled paragraph, immediately preceding the one that you
quote above, rothstein says:
>It does seem that academic performance declined in the late 1960s
> and 1970s but rebounded dramatically in the last decade. School
>achievement, certainly for minority youth and most likely for whites as
> well, today exceeds not only 1970s standards but those of 25 years ago.
as rothstein is writing 1993, 25 years prior would be 1968, about five
years into the great drop...
frank
Darron Nelson
There is no evidence suggesting that an increase in intelligence
requires a more massive brain. As it is, according to most experts, the
average human being only uses 10% of his/her brain anyway. This
contradicts the theory of evolution which would bring about physical
changes necessary in order to pass on successful genes. Evolution
dictates that the well adapted will reproduce and pass their genes onto
their offspring and thusly pass on their successful physical traits.
Apparently, considering evolution and taking in consideration the fact
that we only use 10% of our gray matter as it is, our brains have
developed above and beyond what is necessary for us to survive and
reproduce and pass on our genes. This goes against the theory of
evolution. Why would this phenomona occur if the laws of evolution
really apply?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+
Heather Jacobson
Darren,I really dont know how to reply, but great idea.You are a genius!
Ron
Rodney Munch wrote in article <34411a63...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:28:04 -0500, Heather Jacobson
> <Jac...@zeus.dsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Darron Nelson wrote:
> >
>
> Currently, I don't think that we will develop big heads in the
> future. I think, if it was really necessary, mother nature could
> increase our intelligence dramatically without increasing our head
> size. But for this to occur, I think the environment would have to
> change in such a way as to select out the less intelligent humans,
> which would require a drastic change, since we tend to help each other
> out so much.
>
actually we're an extremely agressive/competitive species, we tear
one another apart, if things look normal. We only are helpful (in present
pc climate), to the weak and handicapped, and so it's more like Mother
Nature wants us to be less fit in the future.
Jim Meritt
In article <61jemc$3...@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, p...@ecce-terram.de
says...
>Another possibility: 90% of the cells do nothing. Highly unlikely,
>since the neurons linked to a special process (like seeing) die, if
>one looses the function (like an eye). [Besides, 90% would be
>extremely wasteful. The brain is an expensive organ as it is - the
>very least those alleged unused cells should provide is
>redundancy. Which they don't.]
Actually, I'd say "no identified function". But since we haven't identified
very many functions at the cellular level, that really isn't saying much...
Anyway, I concur with the falseness of the original "1-%" statement, since I
checked into that before and found it so,
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The facts simply
are and belong to none.
Peter Brülls
uhs...@ohsu.edu:
> In article <343C0555...@zeus.dsu.com> Darron Nelson <nel...@zeus.dsu.com> writes:
> >From: Darron Nelson <nel...@zeus.dsu.com>
> >Subject: Re: The Future of Human Intelligence. Large Bulbous Heads?
> >Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:12:38 -0500
>
>> There is no evidence suggesting that an increase in intelligence
>> requires a more massive brain. As it is, according to most experts, the
>> average human being only uses 10% of his/her brain anyway.
> What experts? Who said that? Or is this just something you heard once and just
> believed?
It's a common urban legend. The German weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT runs
a series on these factoids and covered this particular one a couple of
weeks ago.
From the article:
Scientology uses this phrase together with a picture of Einstein
(alleged to be the origin of the quote) in some of their ads. Other
alleged sources are William James, American psychologist and
philosopher, and anthropologist Margaret Mead.
Alice Calaprice, Princeton, publisher of a collection of Einstein
quotes, doubts the authenticity of the quote.
If all brain cells would be active at the time, you'd have something
awfully close of an epileptic spasm.
Hugo E. Barrios Bosch
Robert Clark wrote:
> uhs...@ohsu.edu wrote in article <uhs0403.7...@ohsu.edu>...
> | Ask your mother how she feels about heads getting bigger. Think
> evolution
> | would be willing to enlarge the birth canal so you can be smarter?
> Where did
> | you get the idea that performance and capacity were directly
> related
> to size?
> ...
>
On this end, I am a large bulbous tubular brain holder who can't stand
the size of
his intelligence. I have to do something to my hair.
If You get huge brains like mine, then the necks has to grow at least
twice as muscular
as it is now. Due to the ´hyperthrophia generallus´ principle ( See RM
Zine August 91 )
sooner or later the neck muscles end up choking the individual by
extremely pressing
his throat.
Not having the muscles developing to such prejudithical size would mean
having to say
"yes" al the time, even when one wanted to say "no".
As Bob says, having women with, let's say non-christianic measures in
term of pelvis, due to the well studied sindrome of: "Large Zabiol
Pumbaconch" that produce severe jeopardy at birth sessions. ( related to
the phoetus head size ).
The women adapted in that way for the homoungus head-orientated births
will have a very different appearence than today. They will look much
like cones. This will have a great effect on erothisism, in terms of
men declining interest on women, and getting increasingly interested in
the internet.
After nearly extintion, the human race will find a way to reduce back
the brain to its original size, and at the same time enlarge its
genitallia to the necessary size in order to fulfill the extra mile
needed into the evolved female.
So at the end of the evolution, the humanity will achieve a dick twice
the size of a head.
bull.net Cal King
In article <01bcc63b$4ac31400$c9d1...@rclark.op.net>, rcl...@op.net (Robert
Clark) wrote...
> Just heard on public radio about a report in the American Scientist,
>Sept-Oct 1997,
>http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html, that
>there has been a consistent increase of scores of IQ tests of the
>order of 3 pts. per
>decade on general tests and 7 pts. per decade on math oriented. So that
>if the average
> person today took a test created in the 1930's he would score 120,
> which is close to gifted. Because of this, IQ tests have to be
>consistently renormed so that the average is once again 100.
I heard a similar program (don't know if it was the same one) but the increase
in IQ is attributed to those test questions which deal with skills that are
similar to those used in playing video games, if I remember correctly. We may
not be getting any smarter, but perhaps simply better at playing video games.