5 ms·

'I was disadvantaged ipso facto I am simply genetically gifted'. Could it, perhaps, be that those causal elements in your environment do not work precisely in

'I was disadvantaged ipso facto I am simply genetically gifted'. Could it, perhaps, be that those causal elements in your environment do not work precisely in the way you presume to work? That it's not simply a 'good' upbringing that raises good people? Do you not -- for instance -- have a drive to succeed because of your prior disadvantages in life? Is not the lack of early-life support a driver of your own ambitions?

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Oh bull. We know intelligence has some genetic component, or else a sufficiently trained monkey would do calculus. We just don't entirely know what "intelligence" is well enough to measure its precise heritability.
- corin_ 13y ago
  In a debate about how things work, "you're wrong because we know you're wrong" isn't a useful argument. As to comparison to other animals, we also know that there is a genetic component to being able to live under water, as fish can do this and humans can't, this doesn't mean some humans are better than others at living without air.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    The difference being that humans aren't descended from fish, but are descended from apes. We know that some kind of incremental genetic "improvement" to our intelligence must have evolved and then become universal throughout the populations that speciated to become modern humans.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      First, to be pedantic, we aren't descended from apes, just very closely related to them with a common ancestor. Second, is there any evidence that the evolutionary history of intelligence was linear? How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, as opposed to it happening gradually?
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        > How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, This question seems kind of confused. But we can say with complete certainty that it's not the case that "one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did" because generations don't happen at any particular time. Imagine your ancestor through the paternal line 30 generations back from you (that is, your father's father's father's... father). If you call him generation 1, then you're generation 31. But other people born in the same year as you, also descended from him, will not all be generation 31. And if you married one of them who was, for the sake of argument, only 28 generations removed from him, your children would be, in this labeling scheme, simultaneously generation 32 and generation 29. The reason I say your question is confused is that the model where there was a "single change", and all humans today descend from it, requires several generations to take hold (as it gradually increases its population share), but you appear to posit only one.
        corin_ 13y ago
        The most simplistic scenario in which a change could happen in "one generation" is if there is one man today born with a mutated gene that protects him against X, and tomorrow X happens which kills all men in the world except him, leaving him to impregnate many women, and all future generations would be descended from him. Not saying that has ever happened (I've no idea, for all I know it might have but does seem fairly unlikely), but in theory it's possible.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        The question is how you would get a single allele that gets you from lower apes to fully sapient humans in one mutation, in one individual, that also protects against something which killed off everyone else.
        corin_ 13y ago
        It wouldn't have to be a single mutation, but let's say intelligence is linear from 1 (apes) to 5 (humans). At some point an animal mutated from 1 to 2, then 2 to 3, etc. Each step the more intelligent version ended up killing off the weaker version (either through violence or just through better survival in nature), and we ended up where we are at 5, which all humans begin at and our surroundings (i.e. nurture not nature) can modify that 5 down to 4.9 or up to 5.1 I'm incredibly not an expert on evolution (it shows I'm sure!), but from a logical point of view that seems like it's feasible at least - whether it's incredibly likely or incredibly unlikely I've no idea.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      Not fish per se, but we sure as hell are descended from underwater dwellers.
- jpwagner 13y ago
  Intelligence is not a scalar. This article should make you rethink your example: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelligence-aymu-matsuzawa-kyoto http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelli...
  - rational_indian 13y ago
    >Intelligence is not a scalar. It doesn't have to be. But it does vary from person to person (even if non linearly). What would you say affects the intelligence of people with mental retardation?

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Oh bull. We know intelligence has some genetic component, or else a sufficiently trained monkey would do calculus. We just don't entirely know what "intelligence" is well enough to measure its precise heritability.

corin_ 13y ago
In a debate about how things work, "you're wrong because we know you're wrong" isn't a useful argument. As to comparison to other animals, we also know that there is a genetic component to being able to live under water, as fish can do this and humans can't, this doesn't mean some humans are better than others at living without air.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  The difference being that humans aren't descended from fish, but are descended from apes. We know that some kind of incremental genetic "improvement" to our intelligence must have evolved and then become universal throughout the populations that speciated to become modern humans.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    First, to be pedantic, we aren't descended from apes, just very closely related to them with a common ancestor. Second, is there any evidence that the evolutionary history of intelligence was linear? How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, as opposed to it happening gradually?
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      > How do we know that there wasn't a binary-like change where one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did, and all humans today are descended from that single change, This question seems kind of confused. But we can say with complete certainty that it's not the case that "one generation didn't have our level of intelligence and the next did" because generations don't happen at any particular time. Imagine your ancestor through the paternal line 30 generations back from you (that is, your father's father's father's... father). If you call him generation 1, then you're generation 31. But other people born in the same year as you, also descended from him, will not all be generation 31. And if you married one of them who was, for the sake of argument, only 28 generations removed from him, your children would be, in this labeling scheme, simultaneously generation 32 and generation 29. The reason I say your question is confused is that the model where there was a "single change", and all humans today descend from it, requires several generations to take hold (as it gradually increases its population share), but you appear to posit only one.
      - corin_ 13y ago
        The most simplistic scenario in which a change could happen in "one generation" is if there is one man today born with a mutated gene that protects him against X, and tomorrow X happens which kills all men in the world except him, leaving him to impregnate many women, and all future generations would be descended from him. Not saying that has ever happened (I've no idea, for all I know it might have but does seem fairly unlikely), but in theory it's possible.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        The question is how you would get a single allele that gets you from lower apes to fully sapient humans in one mutation, in one individual, that also protects against something which killed off everyone else.
        corin_ 13y ago
        It wouldn't have to be a single mutation, but let's say intelligence is linear from 1 (apes) to 5 (humans). At some point an animal mutated from 1 to 2, then 2 to 3, etc. Each step the more intelligent version ended up killing off the weaker version (either through violence or just through better survival in nature), and we ended up where we are at 5, which all humans begin at and our surroundings (i.e. nurture not nature) can modify that 5 down to 4.9 or up to 5.1 I'm incredibly not an expert on evolution (it shows I'm sure!), but from a logical point of view that seems like it's feasible at least - whether it's incredibly likely or incredibly unlikely I've no idea.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    Not fish per se, but we sure as hell are descended from underwater dwellers.
jpwagner 13y ago
Intelligence is not a scalar. This article should make you rethink your example: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelligence-aymu-matsuzawa-kyoto http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelli...
- rational_indian 13y ago
  >Intelligence is not a scalar. It doesn't have to be. But it does vary from person to person (even if non linearly). What would you say affects the intelligence of people with mental retardation?