Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #493856 > unrolled thread
| Started by | a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-20 10:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-24 09:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 70 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-20 10:25 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 14:40 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-20 21:55 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-20 15:28 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:54 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-20 15:21 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-20 15:29 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:57 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-20 22:34 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-06-20 22:34 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. peterwezeman@hotmail.com - 2018-06-21 00:48 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 06:11 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:40 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 21:10 -0500
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-23 03:38 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 05:37 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 22:32 -0500
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 07:34 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:03 -0500
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:12 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2018-06-25 21:41 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 08:32 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 10:49 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 11:06 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 12:19 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 12:44 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-06-26 10:06 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-26 00:19 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2018-06-26 00:04 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-26 14:42 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 10:46 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 10:07 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 10:50 -0400
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-27 08:30 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-26 08:17 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-20 22:29 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:00 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-20 16:30 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:53 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:56 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2018-06-20 21:22 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-21 14:53 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 10:38 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-21 13:12 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-21 20:43 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-21 14:39 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-21 14:59 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-21 18:28 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-22 03:53 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-26 00:25 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-26 14:49 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-27 08:32 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-22 14:23 +0300
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-06-22 07:49 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> - 2018-06-22 09:11 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-06-22 16:43 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-06-22 17:13 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-26 00:28 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2018-06-23 10:50 +0100
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-23 13:34 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-23 07:13 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-23 15:35 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2018-06-23 17:13 +0100
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-24 16:27 +0000
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-06-23 07:49 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Steve Dodds <sdodds@nova-optical.com> - 2018-06-20 16:42 -0600
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 18:01 -0500
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 16:16 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-06-22 19:20 -0700
Re: OT - For most of history, humans got smarter. That's now reversing. "artyw2@yahoo.com" <artyw2@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-24 09:40 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | mcdowell_ag@sky.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-25 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d057f55-9631-4b67-979a-bacb36892607@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #494108 |
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:38:02 AM UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini wrote: > Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote in > news:XnsA90A16157B959melchizedek@216.166.97.131: > > > Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote in > > news:XnsA9096C9749CDEtaustingmail@69.16.179.43: > > > >> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in > >> news:67856068-af4e-45ef-a39e-ad9f54df54c9@googlegroups.com: > >> > >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-4, > >>> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > In article > >>>> > <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>, > >>>> > John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote: > >>>> > >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini > >>>> > >Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: > >>>> > >> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to > >>>> > >> take an IQ test. > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your > >>>> > >worth as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of > >>>> > >the end of the world. > >>>> > > > >>>> > >Having said that: > >>>> > > > >>>> > >For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking > >>>> > >people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and > >>>> > >good-looking people with the goal of raising a family with > >>>> > >perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and good-looking > >>>> > >kids. More recently, large families have gone out of style > >>>> > >and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a > >>>> > >significant number of children. Discuss possible outcomes > >>>> > >of this? > >>>> > > >>>> > You had lots of siblings? > >>>> > > >>>> > I would expect a terrible plague of people posting thinly > >>>> > disguised Marching Morons nonsense in the one group where > >>>> > people are likely to recognize the source. -- > >>>> It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was a > >>>> major premise of the whole eugenics movement. The Nazi party > >>>> notoriously adapted it into their own policies. Forced > >>>> sterilization on eugenic grounds has been carried out in > >>>> western countries until surprisingly recently. > >>> > >>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our > >>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve unless > >>> its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant within the > >>> population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. This > >>> is true for every evolved trait. > >> > >> You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many different > >> definitions of intelligence there are. > > > > Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us > > capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those > > trait(s) evolved. Evolution requires inheritance. > > That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types have been > documented scientifically. > > And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic > component. > > > > So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable. > > > Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it. > > Do you not believe in science? > > -- > Terry Austin > > "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." > -- David Bilek > > Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. Some recent science - article at https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1-000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be reporting an article in Nature Genetics An international team conducted a large-scale genetic association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence, significantly expanding our understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA90D56E82372Etaustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #494213 |
mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote in
news:4d057f55-9631-4b67-979a-bacb36892607@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:38:02 AM UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA90A16157B959melchizedek@216.166.97.131:
>>
>> > Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote
>> > in news:XnsA9096C9749CDEtaustingmail@69.16.179.43:
>> >
>> >> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:67856068-af4e-45ef-a39e-ad9f54df54c9@googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-4,
>> >>> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James
>> >>>> Nicoll wrote:
>> >>>> > In article
>> >>>> > <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>> > John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>> >>>> > >Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>>> > >> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to
>> >>>> > >> take an IQ test.
>> >>>> > >>
>> >>>> > >I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of
>> >>>> > >your worth as a person, or that declining scores are a
>> >>>> > >sign of the end of the world.
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > >Having said that:
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > >For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>> >>>> > >people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and
>> >>>> > >good-looking people with the goal of raising a family
>> >>>> > >with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and
>> >>>> > >good-looking kids. More recently, large families have
>> >>>> > >gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are left
>> >>>> > >to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
>> >>>> > >possible outcomes of this?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > You had lots of siblings?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I would expect a terrible plague of people posting
>> >>>> > thinly disguised Marching Morons nonsense in the one
>> >>>> > group where people are likely to recognize the source.
>> >>>> > --
>> >>>> It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was a
>> >>>> major premise of the whole eugenics movement. The Nazi
>> >>>> party notoriously adapted it into their own policies.
>> >>>> Forced sterilization on eugenic grounds has been carried
>> >>>> out in western countries until surprisingly recently.
>> >>>
>> >>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our
>> >>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve
>> >>> unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant within
>> >>> the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren.
>> >>> This is true for every evolved trait.
>> >>
>> >> You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many
>> >> different definitions of intelligence there are.
>> >
>> > Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us
>> > capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those
>> > trait(s) evolved. Evolution requires inheritance.
>>
>> That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types have
>> been documented scientifically.
>>
>> And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic
>> component.
>> >
>> > So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.
>> >
>> Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it.
>>
>> Do you not believe in science?
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>>
>> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
>> -- David Bilek
>>
>> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
>
> Some recent science - article at
> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1-
> 000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be
> reporting an article in Nature Genetics
>
> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic
> association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic
> loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence, significantly
> expanding our understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive
> function.
>
And nurture is still far more important.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgtubk$hm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #494228 |
On 6/26/2018 8:32 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: > mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote in > news:4d057f55-9631-4b67-979a-bacb36892607@googlegroups.com: > >> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:38:02 AM UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini >> wrote: >>> Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote in >>> news:XnsA90A16157B959melchizedek@216.166.97.131: >>> >>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote >>>> in news:XnsA9096C9749CDEtaustingmail@69.16.179.43: >>>> >>>>> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>> news:67856068-af4e-45ef-a39e-ad9f54df54c9@googlegroups.com: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-4, >>>>>> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James >>>>>>> Nicoll wrote: >>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>> <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>> John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini >>>>>>>>> Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to >>>>>>>>>> take an IQ test. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of >>>>>>>>> your worth as a person, or that declining scores are a >>>>>>>>> sign of the end of the world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having said that: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking >>>>>>>>> people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and >>>>>>>>> good-looking people with the goal of raising a family >>>>>>>>> with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and >>>>>>>>> good-looking kids. More recently, large families have >>>>>>>>> gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are left >>>>>>>>> to produce a significant number of children. Discuss >>>>>>>>> possible outcomes of this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You had lots of siblings? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would expect a terrible plague of people posting >>>>>>>> thinly disguised Marching Morons nonsense in the one >>>>>>>> group where people are likely to recognize the source. >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was a >>>>>>> major premise of the whole eugenics movement. The Nazi >>>>>>> party notoriously adapted it into their own policies. >>>>>>> Forced sterilization on eugenic grounds has been carried >>>>>>> out in western countries until surprisingly recently. >>>>>> >>>>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our >>>>>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve >>>>>> unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant within >>>>>> the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. >>>>>> This is true for every evolved trait. >>>>> >>>>> You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many >>>>> different definitions of intelligence there are. >>>> >>>> Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us >>>> capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those >>>> trait(s) evolved. Evolution requires inheritance. >>> >>> That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types have >>> been documented scientifically. >>> >>> And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic >>> component. >>>> >>>> So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable. >>>> >>> Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it. >>> >>> Do you not believe in science? >> >> Some recent science - article at >> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1- >> 000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be >> reporting an article in Nature Genetics >> >> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic >> association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic >> loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence, significantly >> expanding our understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive >> function. >> > And nurture is still far more important. > "The beatings will continue until intelligence improves." (Though probably not in a way the beater will like.) -- Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation instinct are running screaming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA90D711316F28taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #494238 |
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:pgtubk$hm$1@dont-email.me:
> On 6/26/2018 8:32 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote in
>> news:4d057f55-9631-4b67-979a-bacb36892607@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:38:02 AM UTC+1, Ninapenda
>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>> Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA90A16157B959melchizedek@216.166.97.131:
>>>>
>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in news:XnsA9096C9749CDEtaustingmail@69.16.179.43:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:67856068-af4e-45ef-a39e-ad9f54df54c9@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>>> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James
>>>>>>>> Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>> John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>>>>>>>>>> Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to
>>>>>>>>>>> take an IQ test.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of
>>>>>>>>>> your worth as a person, or that declining scores are a
>>>>>>>>>> sign of the end of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having said that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>>>>>>>>>> people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and
>>>>>>>>>> good-looking people with the goal of raising a family
>>>>>>>>>> with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and
>>>>>>>>>> good-looking kids. More recently, large families have
>>>>>>>>>> gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are left
>>>>>>>>>> to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
>>>>>>>>>> possible outcomes of this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You had lots of siblings?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would expect a terrible plague of people posting
>>>>>>>>> thinly disguised Marching Morons nonsense in the one
>>>>>>>>> group where people are likely to recognize the source.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was a
>>>>>>>> major premise of the whole eugenics movement. The Nazi
>>>>>>>> party notoriously adapted it into their own policies.
>>>>>>>> Forced sterilization on eugenic grounds has been carried
>>>>>>>> out in western countries until surprisingly recently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our
>>>>>>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve
>>>>>>> unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant within
>>>>>>> the population to affect the ability to have
>>>>>>> grandchildren. This is true for every evolved trait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many
>>>>>> different definitions of intelligence there are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us
>>>>> capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those
>>>>> trait(s) evolved. Evolution requires inheritance.
>>>>
>>>> That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types have
>>>> been documented scientifically.
>>>>
>>>> And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic
>>>> component.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.
>>>>>
>>>> Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it.
>>>>
>>>> Do you not believe in science?
>>>
>>> Some recent science - article at
>>> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-
>>> 1- 000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be
>>> reporting an article in Nature Genetics
>>>
>>> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic
>>> association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new
>>> genomic loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence,
>>> significantly expanding our understanding of the genetic bases
>>> of cognitive function.
>>>
>> And nurture is still far more important.
>>
> "The beatings will continue until intelligence improves."
> (Though probably not in a way the beater will like.)
>
There's a masturbation joke in there somewhere ("beating off"),
but I'm too busy with the T-1 Upgrade From Hell (and too lazy) to
dig for it.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgu3kj$4n4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #494240 |
On 6/26/2018 11:06 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:pgtubk$hm$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 6/26/2018 8:32 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote in
>>> news:4d057f55-9631-4b67-979a-bacb36892607@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:38:02 AM UTC+1, Ninapenda
>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>> Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:XnsA90A16157B959melchizedek@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote in news:XnsA9096C9749CDEtaustingmail@69.16.179.43:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:67856068-af4e-45ef-a39e-ad9f54df54c9@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James
>>>>>>>>> Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>>>>>>>>>>> Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>> take an IQ test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of
>>>>>>>>>>> your worth as a person, or that declining scores are a
>>>>>>>>>>> sign of the end of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>>>>>>>>>>> people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and
>>>>>>>>>>> good-looking people with the goal of raising a family
>>>>>>>>>>> with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and
>>>>>>>>>>> good-looking kids. More recently, large families have
>>>>>>>>>>> gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are left
>>>>>>>>>>> to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
>>>>>>>>>>> possible outcomes of this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You had lots of siblings?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would expect a terrible plague of people posting
>>>>>>>>>> thinly disguised Marching Morons nonsense in the one
>>>>>>>>>> group where people are likely to recognize the source.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was a
>>>>>>>>> major premise of the whole eugenics movement. The Nazi
>>>>>>>>> party notoriously adapted it into their own policies.
>>>>>>>>> Forced sterilization on eugenic grounds has been carried
>>>>>>>>> out in western countries until surprisingly recently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our
>>>>>>>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve
>>>>>>>> unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant within
>>>>>>>> the population to affect the ability to have
>>>>>>>> grandchildren. This is true for every evolved trait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many
>>>>>>> different definitions of intelligence there are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us
>>>>>> capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those
>>>>>> trait(s) evolved. Evolution requires inheritance.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types have
>>>>> been documented scientifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic
>>>>> component.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not believe in science?
>>>>
>>>> Some recent science - article at
>>>> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-
>>>> 1- 000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to be
>>>> reporting an article in Nature Genetics
>>>>
>>>> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic
>>>> association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new
>>>> genomic loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence,
>>>> significantly expanding our understanding of the genetic bases
>>>> of cognitive function.
>>>>
>>> And nurture is still far more important.
>>>
>> "The beatings will continue until intelligence improves."
>> (Though probably not in a way the beater will like.)
>>
> There's a masturbation joke in there somewhere ("beating off"),
> but I'm too busy with the T-1 Upgrade From Hell (and too lazy) to
> dig for it.
>
The original line was supposed to be a joke about how companies treat
their employees, "The beatings will continue until morale improves" but
you've given that a whole new spin now.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA90D81A80B272taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #494243 |
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:pgu3kj$4n4$1@dont-email.me:
> On 6/26/2018 11:06 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
>> news:pgtubk$hm$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2018 8:32 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> mcdowell_ag@sky.com wrote in
>>>> news:4d057f55-9631-4b67-979a-bacb36892607@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 6:38:02 AM UTC+1, Ninapenda
>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA90A16157B959melchizedek@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote in news:XnsA9096C9749CDEtaustingmail@69.16.179.43:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:67856068-af4e-45ef-a39e-ad9f54df54c9@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>> peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, James
>>>>>>>>>> Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> , John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take an IQ test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of
>>>>>>>>>>>> your worth as a person, or that declining scores are
>>>>>>>>>>>> a sign of the end of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>>>>>>>>>>>> people have sought out other intelligent, healthy and
>>>>>>>>>>>> good-looking people with the goal of raising a family
>>>>>>>>>>>> with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and
>>>>>>>>>>>> good-looking kids. More recently, large families have
>>>>>>>>>>>> gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are
>>>>>>>>>>>> left to produce a significant number of children.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Discuss possible outcomes of this?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You had lots of siblings?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would expect a terrible plague of people posting
>>>>>>>>>>> thinly disguised Marching Morons nonsense in the one
>>>>>>>>>>> group where people are likely to recognize the source.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> It's not just from _The Marching Morons_; this idea was
>>>>>>>>>> a major premise of the whole eugenics movement. The
>>>>>>>>>> Nazi party notoriously adapted it into their own
>>>>>>>>>> policies. Forced sterilization on eugenic grounds has
>>>>>>>>>> been carried out in western countries until
>>>>>>>>>> surprisingly recently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our
>>>>>>>>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve
>>>>>>>>> unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant
>>>>>>>>> within the population to affect the ability to have
>>>>>>>>> grandchildren. This is true for every evolved trait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're dancing on the grave of the idea of how many
>>>>>>>> different definitions of intelligence there are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely. But regardless of what trait or traits make us
>>>>>>> capable of thinking better than (for example) a dog, those
>>>>>>> trait(s) evolved. Evolution requires inheritance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is one type of intelligence. Dozens of other types
>>>>>> have been documented scientifically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And most of them do not appear to have fuckall of a genetic
>>>>>> component.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, however defined, 'intelligence' is inheritable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to the peer reviewed research, for most of
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not believe in science?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some recent science - article at
>>>>> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almos
>>>>> t- 1- 000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence claims to
>>>>> be reporting an article in Nature Genetics
>>>>>
>>>>> An international team conducted a large-scale genetic
>>>>> association study of intelligence and discovered 190 new
>>>>> genomic loci and 939 new genes linked with intelligence,
>>>>> significantly expanding our understanding of the genetic
>>>>> bases of cognitive function.
>>>>>
>>>> And nurture is still far more important.
>>>>
>>> "The beatings will continue until intelligence improves."
>>> (Though probably not in a way the beater will like.)
>>>
>> There's a masturbation joke in there somewhere ("beating off"),
>> but I'm too busy with the T-1 Upgrade From Hell (and too lazy)
>> to dig for it.
>>
> The original line was supposed to be a joke about how companies
> treat their employees, "The beatings will continue until morale
> improves"
Yeah, I got that.
> but you've given that a whole new spin now.
>
I live to serve.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fd01fa4-4b9d-41a8-a204-89e16a32ec9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #494213 |
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:41:38 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote: [snip] > Some recent science - article at > https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-discovered-almost-1-000-new-genes-associated-with-intelligence > claims to be reporting an article in Nature Genetics > > An international team conducted a large-scale genetic association > study of intelligence and discovered 190 new genomic loci and 939 > new genes linked with intelligence, significantly expanding our > understanding of the genetic bases of cognitive function. The abstract is available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6 ObSF: It will be interesting to see how recent biological advances (there have been quite a few in the last couple of decades) will affect SF. IT advances have more immediate impact on SF because they are easy to see and project into the future, but in the long run biological advances may be just as important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 00:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <fpe484Fi6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #493936 |
Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's >no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough >variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. >This is true for every evolved trait. Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) than average modern brains. To some, that latter point supports the marching morons hypothesis already. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hamish.laws@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 00:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26fc9185-327f-4b75-8c90-7dee019a1305@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #494217 |
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+10, Greg Goss wrote: > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > > >We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's > >no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough > >variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. > >This is true for every evolved trait. > > Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out > very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) > than average modern brains. > What were the body sizes though? The ratio of brain size to body size seems to be a slightly less inaccurate indicator of intelligence than brain size alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pAxq79.636@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #494220 |
In article <26fc9185-327f-4b75-8c90-7dee019a1305@googlegroups.com>, <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+10, Greg Goss wrote: >> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's >> >no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough >> >variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. >> >This is true for every evolved trait. >> >> Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out >> very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) >> than average modern brains. >> >What were the body sizes though? >The ratio of brain size to body size seems to be a slightly less >inaccurate indicator of intelligence than brain size alone. Well, I can't give you numbers. But one of the BBC documentaries (_Walking with Cavemen_, probably) has a sequence where a contemporary (that is, _H. sapiens_) primatologist is standing in the African landscape with am ealy hominin CGI'd next to him. The hominin comes up to about mid-forearm on him, and he's one of the small-brained types ... but he has enough-brains that when he sees the CGI'd predator stalking him, he runs away. This is all very vague; it's been a while since I've seen the program and it's early in the morning. I'll try watching the DVD this afternoon and re-post with better details. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 10:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pgtql6$19gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #494225 |
On 2018-06-26 8:42 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <26fc9185-327f-4b75-8c90-7dee019a1305@googlegroups.com>, > <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+10, Greg Goss wrote: >>> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's >>>> no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough >>>> variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. >>>> This is true for every evolved trait. >>> >>> Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out >>> very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) >>> than average modern brains. >>> >> What were the body sizes though? >> The ratio of brain size to body size seems to be a slightly less >> inaccurate indicator of intelligence than brain size alone. > > Well, I can't give you numbers. But one of the BBC documentaries > (_Walking with Cavemen_, probably) has a sequence where a > contemporary (that is, _H. sapiens_) primatologist is standing in > the African landscape with am ealy hominin CGI'd next to him. > The hominin comes up to about mid-forearm on him, and he's one of > the small-brained types ... but he has enough-brains that when he > sees the CGI'd predator stalking him, he runs away. Neanderthals and Cromagnons aren't early hominids. But they weren't notably bigger than modern humans. It's likely though that the extra brain size was devoted to a relatively superior ability to process sensory input.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA90D6705730E4taustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #494230 |
David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pgtql6$19gq$1@gioia.aioe.org:
> On 2018-06-26 8:42 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article
>> <26fc9185-327f-4b75-8c90-7dee019a1305@googlegroups.com>,
>> <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+10, Greg Goss
>>> wrote:
>>>> Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our
>>>>> intelligence. There's no way intelligence could evolve
>>>>> unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough variant within
>>>>> the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren.
>>>>> This is true for every evolved trait.
>>>>
>>>> Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though
>>>> laid out very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were
>>>> bigger (slightly) than average modern brains.
>>>>
>>> What were the body sizes though?
>>> The ratio of brain size to body size seems to be a slightly
>>> less inaccurate indicator of intelligence than brain size
>>> alone.
>>
>> Well, I can't give you numbers. But one of the BBC
>> documentaries (_Walking with Cavemen_, probably) has a sequence
>> where a contemporary (that is, _H. sapiens_) primatologist is
>> standing in the African landscape with am ealy hominin CGI'd
>> next to him. The hominin comes up to about mid-forearm on him,
>> and he's one of the small-brained types ... but he has
>> enough-brains that when he sees the CGI'd predator stalking
>> him, he runs away.
>
> Neanderthals and Cromagnons aren't early hominids. But they
> weren't notably bigger than modern humans. It's likely though
> that the extra brain size was devoted to a relatively superior
> ability to process sensory input.
>
Here's an interesting discussion of current theories:
http://www.tested.com/science/life/454072-why-bigger-neanderthal-
brains-didnt-make-them-smarter-humans/
https://tinyurl.com/pydjxj4
TL;Dr: Neandertal's brains developed in areas that enhanced
individusla survival, Cromagnon's brains developed in areas that
enhanced cooperative survival. Which is why we're still around, and
they're not. (Evoplution doesn't give a shit about individual
survival, only the ability to procreate.)
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 10:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ahk4jdtl7ijq01vcls9ak161oonf73qpcl@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #494217 |
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:19:38 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > >>We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's >>no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough >>variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. >>This is true for every evolved trait. > >Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out >very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) >than average modern brains. > >To some, that latter point supports the marching morons hypothesis >already. More likely our brains have gotten more efficient. Brain tissue is expensive, so smaller, more efficient brains would be a pro-survival trait. Brain efficiency varies a lot. Look at parrots or crows -- they're much, much smarter than any mammalian brain that size. -- My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar. See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 08:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <fphld5Fkt1pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #494224 |
Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:19:38 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >>Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out >>very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) >>than average modern brains. >> >>To some, that latter point supports the marching morons hypothesis >>already. > >More likely our brains have gotten more efficient. Brain tissue is >expensive, so smaller, more efficient brains would be a pro-survival >trait. Nerves are damned slow. If you can make things work with a smaller brain, then the intra-brain links speed up dramatically. Smaller brains are not JUST more energy efficient. >Brain efficiency varies a lot. Look at parrots or crows -- they're >much, much smarter than any mammalian brain that size. Parrot / Crow brainpower has always bothered me. There's no way a brain that size should be that smart. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pgtled$5el$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #494217 |
On 6/25/2018 11:19 PM, Greg Goss wrote: > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We're smarter than any other animal, and evolved our intelligence. There's >> no way intelligence could evolve unless its (a) inheritable, and (b) enough >> variant within the population to affect the ability to have grandchildren. >> This is true for every evolved trait. > > Neanderthal braiins were bigger than Cromagnon brains (though laid out > very differently) and average Cromagnon brains were bigger (slightly) > than average modern brains. > > To some, that latter point supports the marching morons hypothesis > already. > Or we're evolving more efficient brains. -- Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation instinct are running screaming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pAn7t3.7z8@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #493885 |
In article <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>, John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili >Kujisalimisha wrote: >> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ test. >> >I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth as a >person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of the world. > >Having said that: > >For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have sought >out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people with the goal of >raising a family with perhaps five or ten intelligent, healthy and >good-looking kids. More recently, large families have gone out of style >and only the "less favoured" are left to produce a significant number of >children. Discuss possible outcomes of this? ObSF: Kornbluth, "The Marching Morons." Clue: People who don't seem (to you) very intelligent might have magnificant brains, but never had the opportunity for the education with which to fill them. Or (vide supra) don't judge a glass by its contents. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA907A2D626E11taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #493896 |
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:pAn7t3.7z8@kithrup.com:
> In article
> <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>, John
> Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an
>>> IQ test.
>>>
>>I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth
>>as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of
>>the world.
>>
>>Having said that:
>>
>>For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
>>sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
>>with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten
>>intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large
>>families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are
>>left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
>>possible outcomes of this?
>
> ObSF: Kornbluth, "The Marching Morons."
>
> Clue: People who don't seem (to you) very intelligent might have
> magnificant brains, but never had the opportunity for the
> education with which to fill them.
Or they are, in fact, very intelligent about things that Johnny is
very, very stupid at, and discounts the importance of because he
can't handle it. (This is, in fact, why IQ tests *cannot* ever
measure anything but the ability to take IQ tests. The mere fact
that it is a *written* test eliminates broad spectra of
intelligence from what it fails to measure.)
>
> Or (vide supra) don't judge a glass by its contents.
>
But in Johnny's case, we can certainly judge the contents by the
contents.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd2d59e2-d0be-4ccd-a1fe-dc00e5af46d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #493902 |
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:00:31 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in > news:pAn7t3.7z8@kithrup.com: > > > In article > > <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>, John > > Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote: > >>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula > >>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: > >>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an > >>> IQ test. > >>> > >>I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth > >>as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of > >>the world. > >> > >>Having said that: > >> > >>For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have > >>sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people > >>with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten > >>intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large > >>families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are > >>left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss > >>possible outcomes of this? > > > > ObSF: Kornbluth, "The Marching Morons." > > > > Clue: People who don't seem (to you) very intelligent might have > > magnificant brains, but never had the opportunity for the > > education with which to fill them. > > Or they are, in fact, very intelligent about things that Johnny is > very, very stupid at, and discounts the importance of because he > can't handle it. (This is, in fact, why IQ tests *cannot* ever > measure anything but the ability to take IQ tests. The mere fact > that it is a *written* test eliminates broad spectra of > intelligence from what it fails to measure.) > > I forgot that "intelligence" is a word that cannot be used without instantly getting some people upset. "Good-looking" is also pretty subjunctive, but most people at least know what it means for them. Is it at least safe to use "healthy"? Children never turn out exactly like their parents, but they do resemble them. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA907ABD9625FCtaustingmail@69.16.179.43> |
| In reply to | #493909 |
John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote in
news:cd2d59e2-d0be-4ccd-a1fe-dc00e5af46d2@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 7:00:31 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> news:pAn7t3.7z8@kithrup.com:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com>, John
>> > Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
>> >>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> >>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take
>> >>> an IQ test.
>> >>>
>> >>I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your
>> >>worth as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the
>> >>end of the world.
>> >>
>> >>Having said that:
>> >>
>> >>For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
>> >>have sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking
>> >>people with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or
>> >>ten intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More
>> >>recently, large families have gone out of style and only the
>> >>"less favoured" are left to produce a significant number of
>> >>children. Discuss possible outcomes of this?
>> >
>> > ObSF: Kornbluth, "The Marching Morons."
>> >
>> > Clue: People who don't seem (to you) very intelligent might
>> > have magnificant brains, but never had the opportunity for
>> > the education with which to fill them.
>>
>> Or they are, in fact, very intelligent about things that Johnny
>> is very, very stupid at, and discounts the importance of
>> because he can't handle it. (This is, in fact, why IQ tests
>> *cannot* ever measure anything but the ability to take IQ
>> tests. The mere fact that it is a *written* test eliminates
>> broad spectra of intelligence from what it fails to measure.)
>> >
> I forgot that "intelligence" is a word that cannot be used
> without instantly getting some people upset.
For values of "upset" that include me laughing at the moron.
> "Good-looking" is
> also pretty subjunctive, but most people at least know what it
> means for them. Is it at least safe to use "healthy"?
>
> Children never turn out exactly like their parents, but they do
> resemble them.
>
By and large, not because of genetics.
I'm still waiting for you to define intelligence. I'll be waiting a
long, long time, won't I?
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA907A237FAFDCtaustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #493885 |
John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote in
news:6fbd9cec-bd1b-4c85-9403-0c5495a773f2@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:40:51 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> The only thing an IQ test measures is the ability to take an IQ
>> test.
>>
> I don't think that an IQ test is a great measure of your worth
> as a person, or that declining scores are a sign of the end of
> the world.
Declining IQ test scores is a sign of nothing more than declining IQ
scores. There is no other meaning to it at all.
>
> Having said that:
>
> For centuries, intelligent, healthy and good-looking people have
> sought out other intelligent, healthy and good-looking people
> with the goal of raising a family with perhaps five or ten
> intelligent, healthy and good-looking kids. More recently, large
> families have gone out of style and only the "less favoured" are
> left to produce a significant number of children. Discuss
> possible outcomes of this?
>
Discussion is impossible without first defining what you mean by
"intelligence." (If you can come up with one - and only one - that is
universally accepted, and has some objective meaning, you will be,
literally, the most brilliant researching in the history of the
field.)
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web