andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2012-03-06 11:00 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Interesting Links for 06-03-2012

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-03-06 12:20 pm (UTC)(link)
The argument in Algernon's Law is basically "If there was a simple way to increase human intelligence then nature would already have delivered it."

The flaw is that dogs could say the same thing. Or monkeys could. Or humans could say it about their sense of smell.

We arrived where we are, evolutionarily speaking, through a series of tiny adjustments to fit in well in a specific situation. If the situation has changed (and things like The Flynn Effect and our massively different living conditions compared to our ancestors indicate it has) then small changes might viably improve us in ways that weren't viable in the past.

[identity profile] ciphergoth.livejournal.com 2012-03-06 12:34 pm (UTC)(link)
But there wasn't a simple way for any of those animals to improve their intelligence. There was only a complex way fraught with downsides. Apes paid a huge price to increase their intelligence.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-03-06 12:37 pm (UTC)(link)
There must have been many, many, simple ways for them to improve their intelligence, one tiny step at a time. They didn't change all at once, after all.

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-03-06 12:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Incidentally, it is worth pointing out also that the Flynn effect is incredibly rapid in evolutionary terms. If we take a really modest estimate of 10 IQ points in 100 years... (some studies have seen more than 3 times that)... now project that onto an evolutionary timescale of (say) 100,000 years. That makes 10,000 points of IQ increase in that span.

OK, it's a totally silly projection (ludicrously so) but the point is that the best current evidence is for an absolutely startlingly quick increase in IQ when we're thinking about evolutionary timescales.

Of course there's lots of "what does IQ testing really measure" sort of arguments to be made.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-03-06 12:38 pm (UTC)(link)
From my own reading, my best guess is that there is a genetically strong component of maximal intelligence, and then whether we get anywhere near that point is down to our education/experience/food. I suspect The Flynn Effect is about improving these three things.

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-03-06 12:44 pm (UTC)(link)
You may well be right on this. It would be absolutely startling if IQ were improving at that rate for other reasons.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-03-06 12:46 pm (UTC)(link)
I blame oestrogen in the water supply. It's turning us into women, who are clearly smarter.

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-03-06 12:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I'd make a dreadful woman... the stubble for a start.

[identity profile] gwern branwen (from livejournal.com) 2012-03-07 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
> Or humans could say it about their sense of smell.

I'm glad you picked that example. Do you know how dogs get such a good sense of smell? By devoting a huge chunk of their expensive calorie-sucking protein-built brain to it. And keep in mind, dogs already have smaller brains than their wolf forebears - so the instant they no longer needed as much brainpower (because the humans were doing some thinking for both), their brains shrunk. And you are arguing that their brains should have *increased* under their pressures?
firecat: red panda, winking (Default)

[personal profile] firecat 2012-03-07 04:06 am (UTC)(link)
The argument in Algernon's Law is basically "If there was a simple way to increase human intelligence then nature would already have delivered it."

But it DID.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only