5 ms·

Simply not true? Given exactly the same opportunity you think they cannot get comparable result? So you are saying there is genetic (dis)advantage to technical

Simply not true? Given exactly the same opportunity you think they cannot get comparable result? So you are saying there is genetic (dis)advantage to technical things that cannot be overcome?

yarg 6y ago
Ask people with foxp2 mutations whether or not genetics can convey insurmountable obstacles.
- onethought 6y ago
  I was referring to more subtle gene mutations in terms of the “average healthy human” kind of range. But you knew that.
  - yarg 6y ago
    Don't be disingenuous - you were attempting to overrule a reason based conversation with an emotional call to the notion of universal genetic equality. (So I dismissed you with a sarcastic quip.) That's not how evolution works, no matter how unfair you deem it to be. Life does not give a shit about fair - all that matters is what survives long enough to proliferate. Feelings be damned. The genes that convey contextually useful characteristics (although generally inclined to spread rapidly) are not at any point evenly distributed. In some context genes that were useful in ancestoral context loose their use, or even become a burden. Genes for intelligence may increase the ability to handle novel situations, but they also increase energy utilisation - which makes them a dietary burden.
    - onethought 6y ago
      You’ve attributed a lot more to what I said, than I actually said. Apologises for the trigger. Not my intent.
      - yarg 6y ago
        All good - I may have been reading between lines that were not there.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
phkahler 6y ago
Not sure if it's genetic, but if you've read the blub paradox about languages, I think there is something similar about how people think and solve problems. Maybe the higher level abstractions can be learned or maybe not. IQ is a real thing.
- onethought 6y ago
  IQ is a real thing and the vast majority of people’s IQ is comparable... which weakens the original point not strengthens it. The bulb paradox isn’t really a thing... just a single opinion from Pg right? I’m not sure I agree with it.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    My observations of people is that some forms of abstraction don't click with some people. What if there are 25 or 50 types of abstraction we need to master in order to be really high IQ? That would look a lot like PGs blub, and variations in which types individuals grasp could explain the distribution of IQ. Makes me wonder what it's like to be both smarter and less smart than I am. What pieces am I missing? What advantages do I have?
    - onethought 6y ago
      I don’t buy the blub analogy. There are lots of languages I don’t know that I know are more powerful than the ones I do... it isn’t even difficult to think about. I’ve met lots of people smarter than me too and I can easily identify why: oh she really knows more about x than me, or he’s very good at destructuring things...

Simply not true? Given exactly the same opportunity you think they cannot get comparable result? So you are saying there is genetic (dis)advantage to technical things that cannot be overcome?

yarg 6y ago

Ask people with foxp2 mutations whether or not genetics can convey insurmountable obstacles.

onethought 6y ago
I was referring to more subtle gene mutations in terms of the “average healthy human” kind of range. But you knew that.
- yarg 6y ago
  Don't be disingenuous - you were attempting to overrule a reason based conversation with an emotional call to the notion of universal genetic equality. (So I dismissed you with a sarcastic quip.) That's not how evolution works, no matter how unfair you deem it to be. Life does not give a shit about fair - all that matters is what survives long enough to proliferate. Feelings be damned. The genes that convey contextually useful characteristics (although generally inclined to spread rapidly) are not at any point evenly distributed. In some context genes that were useful in ancestoral context loose their use, or even become a burden. Genes for intelligence may increase the ability to handle novel situations, but they also increase energy utilisation - which makes them a dietary burden.
  - onethought 6y ago
    You’ve attributed a lot more to what I said, than I actually said. Apologises for the trigger. Not my intent.
    - yarg 6y ago
      All good - I may have been reading between lines that were not there.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

phkahler 6y ago

Not sure if it's genetic, but if you've read the blub paradox about languages, I think there is something similar about how people think and solve problems. Maybe the higher level abstractions can be learned or maybe not. IQ is a real thing.

onethought 6y ago
IQ is a real thing and the vast majority of people’s IQ is comparable... which weakens the original point not strengthens it. The bulb paradox isn’t really a thing... just a single opinion from Pg right? I’m not sure I agree with it.
- phkahler 6y ago
  My observations of people is that some forms of abstraction don't click with some people. What if there are 25 or 50 types of abstraction we need to master in order to be really high IQ? That would look a lot like PGs blub, and variations in which types individuals grasp could explain the distribution of IQ. Makes me wonder what it's like to be both smarter and less smart than I am. What pieces am I missing? What advantages do I have?
  - onethought 6y ago
    I don’t buy the blub analogy. There are lots of languages I don’t know that I know are more powerful than the ones I do... it isn’t even difficult to think about. I’ve met lots of people smarter than me too and I can easily identify why: oh she really knows more about x than me, or he’s very good at destructuring things...