3 ms·
I feel most of what you said simply contradicts me. That you have not bothered to do basic research here is evident: >No, it follows from straightforward reaso
by scythe 13y ago
I feel most of what you said simply contradicts me. That you have not bothered to do basic research here is evident:
>No, it follows from straightforward reasoning about natural selection. How could intelligence be selected for if it does not have a fitness advantage? If it has a fitness advantage, why has it not reached fixation? And so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
This is why. It should be the first goddamn thing you look up. Or, you know, a systematic review of some sort. Not your intuition. If something doesn't serve the primary drivers of the evolution of intelligence --which by no means must select for general intelligence as measured by the Raven Progressive Matrices Test, then it need not be selected for! This isn't, of course something you should take from me. Read something. By someone who actually studies biology. u.u
- gwern 13y ago> I feel most of what you said simply contradicts me. I feel I provided clear argument and at least as many citations, combined with less sloppy research and supercilious arrogance. And I note that you aren't bothering to address a single one of my points, such as pointing out that your confident claims about choline supplementation seem to be totally false. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence I am sure you will be glad to explain to me, beyond a bare URL. > If something doesn't serve the primary drivers of the evolution of intelligence --which by no means must select for general intelligence as measured by the Raven Progressive Matrices Test, then it need not be selected for! I never said evolution optimizes performance on a RAPM and most of the essay was about this.