6 ms·

I know people don't want to admit to genetic impacts on cognition but there have been pressures over many generations for these traits and those pressures have

I know people don't want to admit to genetic impacts on cognition but there have been pressures over many generations for these traits and those pressures have been different all over the world. Take the example of a genetic lineage living in a jungle where it is necessary to know the difference, availability, dietary qualities, medicinal aspects of thousands of plants. Not to mention predatory dangers, snake dangers, environmental dangers, etc. In this case, the individual with high aptitudes for memorization, categorization and pattern matching would survive at a substantially higher rate than those with lower aptitudes. Remember, a small band does not have the resources to support low producing members so they would not be artificially perpetuated.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
No; the individual with high aptitudes for memorisation, categorisation and pattern-matching would become the local healing expert, likely apprenticed to whoever was best at it before. Everyone else would focus primarily on the predatory and environmental dangers, plus their own specialisms (and, you know, everything else). Remember: we live in a society. So did our ancestors. Intelligence is a pretty general skill; all sorts of different selection pressures push it up, not least of all interpersonal politics; in a band of well-to-do humans who have elders, long-term survival is probably common enough that the dating scene has a higher impact on reproductive fitness than raw survival skill.
- kokanator 5y ago
  >in a band of well-to-do humans... Very sincere question. From my understanding, most bands were not well to do and specialization wasn't so common until recent history ( agrarian ages ). So in these instances wouldn't cognitive abilities be more generally valuable? Also, if you were a gathering type and needed to survive for a week away from your group the cognitive skills to recognize resources, weather, threats, etc as well as navigate back to your group would require a certain aptitude. Those without the aptitude would simply not return. Correct?
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > From my understanding, most bands were not well to do and specialization wasn't so common until recent history ( agrarian ages ). I don't know about ages, but in recent non-agrarian cultures (e.g. Buffalo-hunters in North America) there were often medical specialists. But if we're getting pedantic, individualism would also have been a lot lower; people tend to look out for each other when they live together. Your “memorisation skills improve survival” argument doesn't work all that well when the memorisation required is well within the ability of almost all modern humans, if that's what their lives are centred around. (How many pieces of trivia does the average person know about celebrities? And that's not even deliberately-learnt knowledge.) > Those without the aptitude would simply not return. Correct? Those without the aptitude wouldn't go on such an expedition in the first place, if they had any sense in them. You're trying hard to think of hypothetical scenarios where your hypothesis is true, and not hypothetical scenarios where your hypothesis is false. If I get to come up with loads of situations where my theory is true, I can justify any theory to myself. That's why scientists care so much about falsification.
    - kokanator 5y ago
      I get what you are saying. So let's start with the hypothesis then. We must ask a question first to begin to create tests ( thought experiments in this case ). "Environment and/or society ( which is part of your environment ) apply selective pressures favoring cognitive abilities. These selections produce increased cognition in decedents indicating genetic influence in cognitive abilities." Human cognition has not remained stagnant over time. It has evolved. This evolution of cognition was driven by selective forces regardless of those forces being social or environmental or combination thereof. It is important to not confuse technology with our ability to think. However, there is a point where cognition allows for the advancement of knowledge and technology. Somehow we reached that point. To assume that once we reached this point, human cognition stopped evolving would be more elective than attempting to explore hypothetical situations as applied to our understandings of past peoples to help analyze the question. We know that we can force selection for intelligence in other mammals [0]( dogs in this thread ). We also know there are significant indications of intelligence related to genetics in humans [1]. ( the wikipedia names a number of caveats, however there remains significant evidence that a portion of intelligence is determined genetically ). The fact that societies advance to where the selective pressure for cognitive abilities reduces is recognized and not part of this argument. The argument is specifically regarding the selection for intelligence. It is also understood that IQ can be increased through training and society.[2] [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA555235.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA555235.pdf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
wolverine876 5y ago
Is there evidence to support this, or is it just Internet speculation? For example, do we know what traits would favor someone in a jungle? Have you lived in a jungle or researched the question? Do we know how evolution works? One thing I believe I understand is that evolution takes far longer than people imagine. A few centuries is nothing. Humans have been in their current evolutionary form for around 200,000 years. Adaptations are not evolution, and our genetics change and adapt during our lifetimes. My children will not be genetically better at typing than the original homo sapiens. Think of that: You are not genetically smarter than humans of 200,000 years ago; someone then is just as able to be a scientist as you are. All of our advantages are from other factors. Another thing I've learned is that claims need evidence; that's what separates the wheat from the infinite chaff, the science from the witchcraft. The parent comment would require evidence to qualify for even a high school essay.
- newfriend 5y ago
  > Do we know how evolution works? One thing I believe I understand is that evolution takes far longer than people imagine. A few centuries is nothing. Humans have been in their current evolutionary form for around 200,000 years. Evolution is a continuum. There is no "current form", it is constantly changing with every new human that is born. > Adaptations are not evolution, and our genetics change and adapt during our lifetimes. My children will not be genetically better at typing than the original homo sapiens. Your offspring will have different attributes than you. This is evolution. > Think of that: You are not genetically smarter than humans of 200,000 years ago; someone then is just as able to be a scientist as you are. All of our advantages are from other factors. This is conjecture. You don't know that modern humans aren't "genetically smarter" than those from 200,000 years ago. Neanderthals existed up until around 40,000 years ago, all the while interbreeding with other humans. > Another thing I've learned is that claims need evidence; that's what separates the wheat from the infinite chaff, the science from the witchcraft. The parent comment would require evidence to qualify for even a high school essay. Meanwhile, you provided zero evidence.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Evolution is a continuum. There is no "current form", it is constantly changing with every new human that is born. It's an inspiring philosophical concept, but it's like saying 'the world changes with every breath you take'. > Your offspring will have different attributes than you. This is evolution. They have different attributes for many reasons that have nothing to do with evolution (and are not hereditary). And any real evolutionary changes are so small that they practically don't exist. > This is conjecture. You don't know that modern humans aren't "genetically smarter" than those from 200,000 years ago. It's not conjecture; it's based on evidence: I can't cite the exact science off the top of my head, but humans have been biologically the same for around 200,000 years. > Meanwhile, you provided zero evidence. You are the one making the claims; you need to provide the evidence. I'm not going around the Internet finding citations for everyone.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

No; the individual with high aptitudes for memorisation, categorisation and pattern-matching would become the local healing expert, likely apprenticed to whoever was best at it before. Everyone else would focus primarily on the predatory and environmental dangers, plus their own specialisms (and, you know, everything else). Remember: we live in a society. So did our ancestors. Intelligence is a pretty general skill; all sorts of different selection pressures push it up, not least of all interpersonal politics; in a band of well-to-do humans who have elders, long-term survival is probably common enough that the dating scene has a higher impact on reproductive fitness than raw survival skill.

kokanator 5y ago
>in a band of well-to-do humans... Very sincere question. From my understanding, most bands were not well to do and specialization wasn't so common until recent history ( agrarian ages ). So in these instances wouldn't cognitive abilities be more generally valuable? Also, if you were a gathering type and needed to survive for a week away from your group the cognitive skills to recognize resources, weather, threats, etc as well as navigate back to your group would require a certain aptitude. Those without the aptitude would simply not return. Correct?
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > From my understanding, most bands were not well to do and specialization wasn't so common until recent history ( agrarian ages ). I don't know about ages, but in recent non-agrarian cultures (e.g. Buffalo-hunters in North America) there were often medical specialists. But if we're getting pedantic, individualism would also have been a lot lower; people tend to look out for each other when they live together. Your “memorisation skills improve survival” argument doesn't work all that well when the memorisation required is well within the ability of almost all modern humans, if that's what their lives are centred around. (How many pieces of trivia does the average person know about celebrities? And that's not even deliberately-learnt knowledge.) > Those without the aptitude would simply not return. Correct? Those without the aptitude wouldn't go on such an expedition in the first place, if they had any sense in them. You're trying hard to think of hypothetical scenarios where your hypothesis is true, and not hypothetical scenarios where your hypothesis is false. If I get to come up with loads of situations where my theory is true, I can justify any theory to myself. That's why scientists care so much about falsification.
  - kokanator 5y ago
    I get what you are saying. So let's start with the hypothesis then. We must ask a question first to begin to create tests ( thought experiments in this case ). "Environment and/or society ( which is part of your environment ) apply selective pressures favoring cognitive abilities. These selections produce increased cognition in decedents indicating genetic influence in cognitive abilities." Human cognition has not remained stagnant over time. It has evolved. This evolution of cognition was driven by selective forces regardless of those forces being social or environmental or combination thereof. It is important to not confuse technology with our ability to think. However, there is a point where cognition allows for the advancement of knowledge and technology. Somehow we reached that point. To assume that once we reached this point, human cognition stopped evolving would be more elective than attempting to explore hypothetical situations as applied to our understandings of past peoples to help analyze the question. We know that we can force selection for intelligence in other mammals [0]( dogs in this thread ). We also know there are significant indications of intelligence related to genetics in humans [1]. ( the wikipedia names a number of caveats, however there remains significant evidence that a portion of intelligence is determined genetically ). The fact that societies advance to where the selective pressure for cognitive abilities reduces is recognized and not part of this argument. The argument is specifically regarding the selection for intelligence. It is also understood that IQ can be increased through training and society.[2] [0] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA555235.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA555235.pdf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

wolverine876 5y ago

Is there evidence to support this, or is it just Internet speculation? For example, do we know what traits would favor someone in a jungle? Have you lived in a jungle or researched the question? Do we know how evolution works? One thing I believe I understand is that evolution takes far longer than people imagine. A few centuries is nothing. Humans have been in their current evolutionary form for around 200,000 years. Adaptations are not evolution, and our genetics change and adapt during our lifetimes. My children will not be genetically better at typing than the original homo sapiens. Think of that: You are not genetically smarter than humans of 200,000 years ago; someone then is just as able to be a scientist as you are. All of our advantages are from other factors. Another thing I've learned is that claims need evidence; that's what separates the wheat from the infinite chaff, the science from the witchcraft. The parent comment would require evidence to qualify for even a high school essay.

newfriend 5y ago
> Do we know how evolution works? One thing I believe I understand is that evolution takes far longer than people imagine. A few centuries is nothing. Humans have been in their current evolutionary form for around 200,000 years. Evolution is a continuum. There is no "current form", it is constantly changing with every new human that is born. > Adaptations are not evolution, and our genetics change and adapt during our lifetimes. My children will not be genetically better at typing than the original homo sapiens. Your offspring will have different attributes than you. This is evolution. > Think of that: You are not genetically smarter than humans of 200,000 years ago; someone then is just as able to be a scientist as you are. All of our advantages are from other factors. This is conjecture. You don't know that modern humans aren't "genetically smarter" than those from 200,000 years ago. Neanderthals existed up until around 40,000 years ago, all the while interbreeding with other humans. > Another thing I've learned is that claims need evidence; that's what separates the wheat from the infinite chaff, the science from the witchcraft. The parent comment would require evidence to qualify for even a high school essay. Meanwhile, you provided zero evidence.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Evolution is a continuum. There is no "current form", it is constantly changing with every new human that is born. It's an inspiring philosophical concept, but it's like saying 'the world changes with every breath you take'. > Your offspring will have different attributes than you. This is evolution. They have different attributes for many reasons that have nothing to do with evolution (and are not hereditary). And any real evolutionary changes are so small that they practically don't exist. > This is conjecture. You don't know that modern humans aren't "genetically smarter" than those from 200,000 years ago. It's not conjecture; it's based on evidence: I can't cite the exact science off the top of my head, but humans have been biologically the same for around 200,000 years. > Meanwhile, you provided zero evidence. You are the one making the claims; you need to provide the evidence. I'm not going around the Internet finding citations for everyone.