cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (07/14/89)
In article <5480@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jps@cat.cmu.edu (James Salsman) writes: >In article <2061@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes: >> From article <5453@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, by jps@cat.cmu.edu (James Salsman): >> > In article <2037@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) writes: >> > >> > > IQ runs in my family. >> > >> > Please do not interpolate that idea: if you do, then >> > you will be running the risk of >> > >> > racism ... 1. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior. >> >> I don't know what to make of that. I think it was sent in anger, >> because it doesn't make sense. And it looks like an attempt at a >> public insult. I hope it is not. > >Goodness, I was certainly not trying to be offensive in any way, >but the logical extention of one's family is one's race, and >if any person makes that *interpolation* of the concept, they >are racist. Men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women. Whether that statement is true or not is a question of scientific fact that can be established by making appropriate measurements. To suggest that men are - on average - stronger than women is not sexist. It is a question of fact which can be settled one way or another. People from the north of Europe are on average taller and paler-skinned than people from the south of Europe. Once again this is a question of scientific fact, that can be established (or refuted) by measurement. To suggest, for example, that Germans tend to be bigger and paler than Portuguese is not racist. It is a question of fact which can be settled one way or another. It is also true that bigness and paleness tends to run in families, i.e., there is an inherited component. Since just about every quality which varies between individual people also varies on average between races, sexes, occupational groups, etc., it would be remarkable co-incidence if IQ - or any other parameter of mental performance - did not. It is of course racist to suggest that just _because_ someone comes from Anglo-Saxon stock, that she is therefore stupider than a Chinese, just as it is sexist to suggest that _because_ she is a woman, that she is therefore muscularly weaker than a man. These are racist and sexist suggestions because the individual variations of intelligence and strength are larger than the average differences between these groups. Even if it does turn out to be a scientific fact that Chinese inherit - on average - smarter brains than Anglo-Saxons, being "superior" is a very general, complicated, and context-dependent question, that certainly doesn't follow from slight genetic variations in this or that quality. It also has nothing to do with whether all citizens should receive equal educational opportunities, equal access to health care, voting rights, and so on. It's true that racists like to suggest that their prejudices are substantiated by science, and that their own racial stock is better in lots of ways than the rest; but this does _not_ mean that assessing the inherited component to various human qualities (under certain defined degrees of enviromental variation), and assessing the average variations of these qualities across various groups, is necessarily a racist (or sexist) thing to do. On the face of it, suggesting that Chinese and Anglo-Saxons inherit exactly the same quality and type of brains (for example) seems as silly as suggesting that they inherit exactly the same physique, skin, and digestions. Awareness of the widespread nature of sexist bias does mean that there is an unusually large proportion of women among the scientists investigating differences between the sexes - it's politically safer for women to do such research. For the same kind of reasons, investigating the differences in mental powers between the races is probably best left to those of the sillier races, such as the Anglo-Saxons (from what I remember of such research as has been done on this question, Anglo-Saxons come pretty low in the racial IQ league tables). Now, if you'll just wait a moment while I put on my best Anglo-Saxon asbestos attitude... -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (07/18/89)
In article <458@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: > > On the face of it, suggesting that Chinese and Anglo-Saxons inherit > exactly the same quality and type of brains (for example) seems as > silly as suggesting that they inherit exactly the same physique, skin, > and digestions. While it is fairly clear that natural selection could tend to favor darker skin in equatorial latitudes, intelligence would seem to be an advantageous survival characteristic under almost any set of circumstances. There is only one species of Homo sapiens, and the genetic differences between races are really minuscule. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (07/18/89)
In article <602@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: > >While it is fairly clear that natural selection could tend to favor >darker skin in equatorial latitudes, intelligence would seem to be >an advantageous survival characteristic under almost any set of >circumstances. If intelligence did not have survival advantages, why did it evolve in the first place? If populations are separated from each other, is it not conceivable that evolutionary pressures in one environment might not differ from those in another, thus producing a differential effect? It's a very touchy question, because if it were true that orientals were more intelligent than the other races, it might lead to racist theories and discrimination.
mpl@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mary Patricia Lowe) (07/19/89)
In article <602@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >While it is fairly clear that natural selection could tend to favor >darker skin in equatorial latitudes, intelligence would seem to be >an advantageous survival characteristic under almost any set of >circumstances. There is only one species of Homo sapiens, and the >genetic differences between races are really minuscule. >-- At the risk adding a a nature vs nurture component to this discussion, lets not forget that intelligence is multifactorial having both genetic and environmental components. In the context of the global culture we are evolving toward and with our perspectives global communication, mobility and social dynamics doesn't the question of racial intelligence already seem outdated? -- -patti mary patricia lowe computing services division mpl@csd4.milw.wisc.edu university of wisconsin - milwaukee
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (07/19/89)
In article <602@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >In article <458@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: >> >> On the face of it, suggesting that Chinese and Anglo-Saxons inherit >> exactly the same quality and type of brains (for example) seems as >> silly as suggesting that they inherit exactly the same physique, skin, >> and digestions. > >While it is fairly clear that natural selection could tend to favor >darker skin in equatorial latitudes, intelligence would seem to be >an advantageous survival characteristic under almost any set of >circumstances. There is only one species of Homo sapiens, and the >genetic differences between races are really minuscule. If intelligence was always adavantageous, then there wouldn't be so many successful stupid animals around, such as beetles, sharks, and crocodiles. The cost of running a human brain is pretty severe - I seem to remember about 20% of the average energy expenditure. The point, however, is not simply whether intelligence is or is not in general advantageous, but just _how_ advantageous it was in the various different evolutionary histories through which the various races have passed, and which have produced the obvious differences, such as skin colour (a sunlight adaptation), or different proportions of musle/tendon lengths in the legs (running adaptations), or alcohol detoxification systems (an adaptation to boozing), etc.. I'd be surprised, for example, if these different histories hadn't produced differences in eyesight, smell, and of course, intelligence; and not just in their average values, but in the shape of the distribution curve. It does seem clear that the differences in intelligence between races are dwarfed by the range of individual variation, and the variation due to environmental variation, but I don't think we have good enough data yet, or even the measuring tools, to say that it is minuscule. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
mbb@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (martin.b.brilliant) (07/19/89)
From article <3072@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, by geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks): > ..... if it were true that > orientals were more intelligent than the other races, it might lead > to racist theories and discrimination. Not if we remember what some of us have said already. If you say orientals are more intelligent, you mean that in some statistical sense. If you practice racism, you make decisions about individuals on the basis of race. The fact is that there are many individuals of any race A who are more intelligent than many individuals of race B, regardless of your definitions of A, B, race, and intelligent. The definition of "many" does make a difference; I would estimate it as at least one-third of the race, probably more. Proof by contradiction: if that were not so, the question of which race is more intelligent would have been obvious a long time ago. I have no problem with statistical comparisons of race with race. But we all have a problem when someone makes a false extension from facts about averages to facts about individuals. The false extension is racism; the statistical fact is not. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!hounx!marty1 or marty1@hounx.ATT.COM Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (07/20/89)
In article <3072@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > > If populations are separated from each other, is it not conceivable > that evolutionary pressures in one environment might not differ from > those in another, thus producing a differential effect? Can you suggest what one of the "differential evolutionary pressures" might be? I again want to state that all humans have essentially the same genetic compliment. No one race of humans has "evolved" beyond the others, if evolution is defined to be the assimilation of a positive random genetic mutation. What exists among humans is only variation in the expression of a common pool of genetic information. The levels of genetic intelligence within a population fit a standard probability distribution; that is, 95% of the population is within two standard deviations of the mean. Consider an isolated population of one million humans selectively bred for intelligence for ten thousand years. The mean level of intelligence within this hypothetical population might be higher than that of the rest of humanity, but the absolute number of individuals with any given level of intelligence would still be greater in the general population. Furthermore, any random mutation, ultimately resulting in a truly evolved human, is very much more likely to occur in the larger population. The human with the highest genetic potential for intelligence that has ever existed on the earth is most likely a peasant in China, and he or she is probably still alive. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/21/89)
In article <603@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: }In article <3072@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu }(Gordon E. Banks) writes: }> }> If populations are separated from each other, is it not conceivable }> that evolutionary pressures in one environment might not differ from }> those in another, thus producing a differential effect? } }Can you suggest what one of the "differential evolutionary pressures" }might be? Beats me. But I would be willing to bet that those "pressures" which bear upon something so hard to measure reasonably as IQ vary widely. Maybe you would feel better thinking "color of horses". It may cloud the judgement less. Heck, there is always just random variance over space that could produce "pockets" of some trait regardless of, or even in spite of, environmental characteristics. }The human with the highest genetic potential for intelligence that has }ever existed on the earth is most likely a peasant in China, and he or }she is probably still alive. Probably. Simply because most of the people that ever existed are Chinese peasants. What good is "highest genetic potential" without the information & tools with which to use it? Similiar to commenting upon the lift capabilities of a Saturn V (with no fuel tank or launch facilities). "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world." - Calvin ............................................................................ jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (07/21/89)
In article <603@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >In article <3072@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu >(Gordon E. Banks) writes: >> >> If populations are separated from each other, is it not conceivable >> that evolutionary pressures in one environment might not differ from >> those in another, thus producing a differential effect? > >Can you suggest what one of the "differential evolutionary pressures" >might be? > It's hard to do this without risk of seeming to suggest a particular people might have evolved to have more or less intelligence than another, but I'll give it a go: Suppose one tribe lives in an environment where the food supply is plentiful (coconuts and bananas dropping off the trees, etc.) such as a nice tropical island, few preditors, no inclement weather, etc. vs. another tribe that lives among hostile neighbors in a difficult environment and has to live day by day by their own wits. Might not the dumber members of that tribe be eliminated much quicker than the first? Even social and cultural conventions might produce a selective advantage, for example suppose one tribe values scholarship, professional and priestly classes (making them more marriageable), while another has celibate scribes and priests and allows the largest warriors polygamous mates. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to suppose differences may show up, and rather quickly, actually. >I again want to state that all humans have essentially the same genetic >compliment. No one race of humans has "evolved" beyond the others, if >evolution is defined to be the assimilation of a positive random genetic >mutation. What exists among humans is only variation in the expression >of a common pool of genetic information. > >The levels of genetic intelligence within a population fit a standard >probability distribution; that is, 95% of the population is within two >standard deviations of the mean. Of course, we're all of the same species. And I agree that variations between (at least the larger) populations are small compared to the variations of individual within each population. What we can't say is the the mean of each population is the same, or how different they really are. It would just be somewhat amazing if they all were exactly the same, wouldn't it? But of course, that is what our current American culture insists upon maintaining, not only with respect to intelligence, but even athletic prowess. Suggestions to the contrary are met with charges of racism and often loss of employment.
rks@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Sitaraman) (07/24/89)
In article <458@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: > >People from the north of Europe are on average taller and paler-skinned >than people from the south of Europe. Once again this is a question of >scientific fact, that can be established (or refuted) by measurement. To >suggest, for example, that Germans tend to be bigger and paler than >Portuguese is not racist. It is a question of fact which can be settled >one way or another. It is also true that bigness and paleness tends to >run in families, i.e., there is an inherited component. > >Since just about every quality which varies between individual people >also varies on average between races, sexes, occupational groups, etc., >it would be remarkable co-incidence if IQ - or any other parameter of >mental performance - did not. > Well, I think that certain qualitites can evolve much much faster than others. Skin color, size and certain other external characteristics belong to the former. Our essential biological characteristics like the structure of the heart etc etc and things like IQ (whatever that means) probably take many many tens of thousands of years to change. If one is to beleive the anthropologists, the human race diverged and setteled in various parts of the world less than a hundred thousand years ago. And our ancient river valley civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus are less than 10,000 yrs old. All this a miniscule amount of time in evolutionary terms. (For example we diverged from our nearest cousins, the apes, more than 6 million yrs back and only 2 percent of our genes are different from theirs !!). So I don't think a trivial few tens of thousands of years can produce an evolutionary change in our mental powers. Though other external changes can occur even after a few lifetimes. Ramesh Sitaraman ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARPA: rks@notecnirp.princeton.edu | If I had had more time, I could SPRINT:(609) 683 1979 (Home) | have written you a shorter letter. (609) 452 5389 (Off) | -Blaise Pascal
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (07/31/89)
In article <603@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >In article <3072@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu >I again want to state that all humans have essentially the same genetic >compliment. No one race of humans has "evolved" beyond the others, if >evolution is defined to be the assimilation of a positive random genetic >mutation. What exists among humans is only variation in the expression >of a common pool of genetic information. Quite so. The same is true of dogs. But if it came to racing a poodle against a greyhound I'd bet on the greyhound. On the other hand, if I wanted a smart dog I'd get a poodle. >The levels of genetic intelligence within a population fit a standard >probability distribution; that is, 95% of the population is within two >standard deviations of the mean. This is tautologous. It was PRESUMED by those constructing IQ tests that the results OUGHT to fit a normal distribution; so they fixed the test so that they did. There is no other reason why the distribution should be normal: many simple physical measurements have skewed normal distributions, bipolar distributions, etc.. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (07/31/89)
In article <18330@princeton.Princeton.EDU> rks@notecnirp.UUCP (Ramesh Sitaraman) writes: >In article <458@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: >>Since just about every quality which varies between individual people >>also varies on average between races, sexes, occupational groups, etc., >>it would be remarkable co-incidence if IQ - or any other parameter of >>mental performance - did not. >Well, I think that certain qualitites can evolve much much faster >than others. Skin color, size and certain other external >characteristics belong to the former. Our essential biological >characteristics like the structure of the heart etc etc and >things like IQ (whatever that means) probably take many many >tens of thousands of years to change. > .... >So I don't think a trivial few tens of thousands of years can >produce an evolutionary change in our mental powers. Though other >external changes can occur even after a few lifetimes. You assert that there are essential characteristics which take a long time to respond to selective pressure, and external characteristics which respond rapidly. Evidence? You assert that IQ is one of the essential characteristics. Evidence? Note that the largest and most rapid recent evolutionary change which the human race has suffered is a very considerable change in brian size; this is usually presumed to be correlated with becoming cleverer. If we accept your assertions, this is one of the most unlikely evolutionary changes to have happened. How come? -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Ben Burch) (08/02/89)
In article <482@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: > >Quite so. The same is true of dogs. But if it came to racing a poodle >against a greyhound I'd bet on the greyhound. On the other hand, if I ^^^^ >wanted a smart dog I'd get a poodle. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >-- >Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 >Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University >5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK We have not had aquaintance of the same poodles, obviously! -Ben Burch (aicchi!dbb)
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (08/03/89)
In article <482@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: >In article <603@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP I wrote: >> ... all humans have essentially the same genetic compliment. No one >> race of humans has "evolved" beyond the others, if evolution is >> defined to be the assimilation of a positive random genetic mutation. >> What exists is only variation in the expression of a common pool of >> genetic information. > > Quite so. The same is true of dogs. But if it came to racing a poodle > against a greyhound I'd bet on the greyhound. On the other hand, if I > wanted a smart dog I'd get a poodle. The fact remains that no matter how you breed a dog you still have a dog. There is no way that you can get one that can understand Newtonian mechanics. It simply isn't there. A fundamental genetic change would have to be assimilated by the canine population in order to make that sort of breakthrough. In all likelihood, no such positive genetic mutation exists within one of the races of human beings either. There is no characteristic that you can obtain by selective breeding that can't happen by chance. The "smartest" dog is most likely to be some old yaller mongrel. >> The levels of genetic intelligence within a population fit a standard >> probability distribution; that is, 95% of the population is within >> two standard deviations of the mean. > > This is tautologous. It was PRESUMED by those constructing IQ tests > that the results OUGHT to fit a normal distribution; so they fixed the > test so that they did. There is no other reason why the distribution > should be normal: many simple physical measurements have skewed normal > distributions, bipolar distributions, etc.. Whether a characteristic such as the "level of genetic intelligence" can be measured is irrelevant; we have a pretty good idea that it exists. If it could be measured reliably, being a slowly varying characteristic of 5 billion people, it would probably fit a normal distribution. Do you really have any evidence that they "fixed" the test? -- "If Asians are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks, then we must be just right." -- The Boys in the Hall. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (08/04/89)
In article <611@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: > The fact remains that no matter how you breed a dog you still > have a dog. There is no way that you can get one that can > understand Newtonian mechanics. I guess you never saw Stanford's famous frisbee-catching dog. Best half-time show in college football. --Barry Kort
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (08/05/89)
In article <611@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >In article <482@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: >>In article <603@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP I wrote: >>> The levels of genetic intelligence within a population fit a standard >>> probability distribution; that is, 95% of the population is within >>> two standard deviations of the mean. >> >> This is tautologous. It was PRESUMED by those constructing IQ tests >> that the results OUGHT to fit a normal distribution; so they fixed the >> test so that they did. There is no other reason why the distribution >> should be normal: many simple physical measurements have skewed normal >> distributions, bipolar distributions, etc.. > >Whether a characteristic such as the "level of genetic intelligence" can >be measured is irrelevant; we have a pretty good idea that it exists. >If it could be measured reliably, being a slowly varying characteristic >of 5 billion people, it would probably fit a normal distribution. Do >you really have any evidence that they "fixed" the test? Nothing to do with "fixing" - check any textbook on the construction of IQ tests - it's the way it's done. Like you, they presume that "it is a slowly varying characterisitc ... which would probably fit a normal distribution". But in a social creature like man, I find it just as plausible that the best evolutionary compromise might be an uneven bipolar distribution, which would tend to provide the average tribe size with at least one smart guy to solve the really difficult problems, but not so many as to make the tribe unmanageable by the leadership. I'm not arguing this - I merely want to point out that we simply don't yet know anything about the distribution of intelligence in human populations; nor do we have a clue as to whether the average Nobel prizewinner is twice as smart as the man in the street, or two hundred times as smart. IQ is not a linear scale, it's simply a ranking order mapped onto numbers and massaged statistically in a vain and foolish case of physics envy. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (08/05/89)
In article <611@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >In article <482@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: >>In article <603@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP I wrote: >>> ... all humans have essentially the same genetic compliment. No one >>> race of humans has "evolved" beyond the others, if evolution is >>> defined to be the assimilation of a positive random genetic mutation. >>> What exists is only variation in the expression of a common pool of >>> genetic information. >> >> Quite so. The same is true of dogs. But if it came to racing a poodle >> against a greyhound I'd bet on the greyhound. On the other hand, if I >> wanted a smart dog I'd get a poodle. > >The fact remains that no matter how you breed a dog you still have a >dog. There is no way that you can get one that can understand Newtonian >mechanics. It simply isn't there. A fundamental genetic change would >have to be assimilated by the canine population in order to make that >sort of breakthrough. In all likelihood, no such positive genetic >mutation exists within one of the races of human beings either. There >is no characteristic that you can obtain by selective breeding that >can't happen by chance. The "smartest" dog is most likely to be some >old yaller mongrel. Your presumptions may in fact be correct, though nobody knows for sure. They are beside the point, however. The question was whether there might be small but noticeable differences in average intelligence between races. The great variety of domestic dogs shows what variation can easily be selected for within the dog genetic pool, and while dog intelligence is usually left to look after itself, there are noticeable average variations between breeds. I know of no reason to suspect that the range of variation in the human genetic pool is less than that of dogs. And as you imply, the smartest human will probably be an extreme heterozygote too, i.e., a multi-racial hybrid. So much for the master race! -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
rks@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Sitaraman) (08/05/89)
>>In article <458@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: > >You assert that there are essential characteristics which take a long >time to respond to selective pressure, and external characteristics >which respond rapidly. Evidence? > >You assert that IQ is one of the essential characteristics. Evidence? I agree that I have no evidence that IQ is such a characteristic. It was only an (educated?) conjecture. Especially as we dont yet know how to measure it. > >Note that the largest and most rapid recent evolutionary change which >the human race has suffered is a very considerable change in brian size; Is this really true ? The Neanderthals are supposed to have had a bigger brain than us but they were certainly not more intelligent. In fact Neanderthal sites round the world shows such remarkable similarity indicating a complete lack of innovation. >this is usually presumed to be correlated with becoming cleverer. If we >accept your assertions, this is one of the most unlikely evolutionary >changes to have happened. How come? I don't think we have become any cleverer in the past 50,000 years or so (in terms of intrinsic cleverness). In my understanding, the evolutionary change that anthropologists propose that caused the so called "great-leap forward" is the of the larynx that helped us communicate with a larger variety of sounds. With this new communication, we could collectively utilise the brain power of the entire community past and present and what this resulted in is history ! Ramesh ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARPA: rks@notecnirp.princeton.edu | If I had had more time, I could SPRINT:(609) 683 1979 (Home) | have written you a shorter letter. (609) 452 5389 (Off) | -Blaise Pascal
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (08/20/89)
In article <18526@princeton.Princeton.EDU> rks@notecnirp.UUCP (Ramesh Sitaraman) writes: >>>In article <458@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm [me]) writes: >> >>You assert that there are essential characteristics which take a long >>time to respond to selective pressure, and external characteristics >>which respond rapidly. Evidence? >> >>You assert that IQ is one of the essential characteristics. Evidence? > >I agree that I have no evidence that IQ is such a characteristic. >It was only an (educated?) conjecture. Especially as we dont yet >know how to measure it. When we're talking about how easily a characteristic will respond to selective pressure (in the evolutionarily short term - i.e., not waiting around for new mutations to occur), the important question is how many factors (genes) influence the characteristic: if only a few, then the characteristic will occur, or not, in a relatively few forms; if many, then the characteristic will vary in a finely graded fashion. Colour blindness occurs in the 'switched' fashion characteristic of being affected by only a few genes, whereas intelligence (whatever it may be), seems to occur in a graded fashion. Therefore it should be affected by many different genes, and therefore it should respond easily, in a graded fashion, to selective pressure. Consequently, if you actually wished to breed for intelligence, just by using the simple breeding techniques used by animal livestock breeders, you could. This would apply whether you were breeding rats, dogs, or people. In fact, some working dog breeds, such as sheepdogs, have been selected by breeders for general intelligence, among other things, and as a consequence are smarter - on average - than the average dog. Of course, in any selection program, sooner or later you come up against the limits set by the gene pool in question, and then you have to wait for new mutations. In some cases, the natural population has already been selected so severely for the characteristic in question that it is already at the limits. In these cases the individuals will show little variation in that characteristic. I think I read somewhere that cheetahs were pretty much at their genetic limits as far as speed was concerned. But the observed considerable natural variation in human mental performance argues against human intelligence being up against the genetic stops in this way. Indeed, since our language and culture are such an effective way for the many to benefit from the insights of the few, the best evolutionary strategy for humanity would seem to be a population which produced extreme sports of variously specialised mental talents, even to the extent where these might be individually disadvantageous, against a background level of general docility. Note, for example, that genius is not simply being very smart at something or other, there is also the important sweat factor, i.e., the temperament which produces the necessary devoted hard work. >>Note that the largest and most rapid recent evolutionary change which >>the human race has suffered is a very considerable change in brain size; > >Is this really true ? The Neanderthals are supposed to have had >a bigger brain than us but they were certainly not more intelligent. >In fact Neanderthal sites round the world shows such remarkable >similarity indicating a complete lack of innovation. Yes, but as you go on to point out, there may be very important _social__ differences. For example, maybe the _average_ Neanderthal was _more_ inteligent than the average human today, but Neanderthal language and culture wasn't up to the task of benefitting from the insights of the few. The average human is a rotten innovator, he just happens to be very good at copying the innovations of the occasional human genius. >I don't think we have become any cleverer in the past 50,000 years >or so (in terms of intrinsic cleverness). In my understanding, >the evolutionary change that anthropologists propose >that caused the so called "great-leap forward" is the of the larynx >that helped us communicate with a larger variety of sounds. With >this new communication, we could collectively utilise the brain >power of the entire community past and present and what this >resulted in is history ! > > Ramesh Quite so. You have explained the wonderful mechanism by which the human race can collectively get round to sending a man to the moon, despite the fact that most individual humans couldn't even invent a mousetrap. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK