|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 23, 2015 6:58:14 GMT
The subtext here is that communism is more natural than the terrible, non-pc fight for survival implied by capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 23, 2015 8:14:22 GMT
the social brain hypothesis—a bold idea, proposed in the 1980s, which suggests that living in groups drove the evolution of large brains. Social animals face mental challenges that solitary animals do not: they have to recognise the other members of their cliques, cope with fluid and shifting alliances, manage conflicts, and manipulate or deceive their peers. So as social groups get bigger, so should brains. This idea has been repeatedly tested and confirmed in many groups of animals, including hoofed mammals, carnivores, primates, and birds.which counters this idea The one very obvious fact countering this idea is that predators are invariably much more intelligent than their prey, that predators are almost always solitary animals and that their prey very frequently consist of herd- or communal animals. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 23, 2015 17:59:59 GMT
[The one very obvious fact countering this idea is that predators are invariably much more intelligent than their prey, that predators are almost always solitary animals and that their prey very frequently consist of herd- or communal animals. From what I have read about brain sizes, the link between intelligence and size is not that clear. In fact, Oppenheimer in his Out of Africa points out that both humans and Neanderthals had bigger brains 20 000 years ago than currently. Often this is explained by postulating that size matters up to a point and not thereafter. Oppenheimer also mentions that pigs have bigger brains than wild cats and that humans, even with the removal of brain tissue down to 700 cm3 (normal about 1400 cm3), can lead reasonably normal lives. The real shock comes with a graph he produces which shows that human cultural development accelerated vastly during brain reduction! Accordingly, whether in fact big brains equate to intelligence over the entire spectrum, seems dubious. Once this is admitted, the question is, over what range does the correlation hold (if at all). |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 24, 2015 6:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 24, 2015 7:34:37 GMT
All of which, in the end, comes back to the question of: What is intelligence, really? And as with almost everything, there isn’t really a good answer.
(A funny story about IQ. At least, I think it is funny. When it was first devised, intelligence testing was very much associated with technical aptitude – e.g. maths, logic, spatial manipulation, reasoning, etc. So it worked out that men were, on average, about 20 IQ points more intelligent than women. This is something that rapidly became very un-pc, of course, so intelligence testing was revised and broadened to include things such as verbal skills and so forth, up to the point where men and women became equally intelligent.)
Anyway, since I’m a prejudiced human, I tend to think of intelligence as something that humans are good at. Or would like to be good at. Or equivalently, that the more humanlike something’s behaviour is, the more intelligent it must be.
An alternative way to think of intelligence is as the ability to survive. In which case cockroaches, who’ve been around for thousands of millions of years and who will probably outlive us by that much as well, must be substantially more intelligent than what we are. (They’re not great in the brain-size stakes either).
Edited/Added:
For what it’s worth, my working definition of intelligence is as follows:
The ability to hold, manipulate, generate and develop sophisticated ideas – together with the ability to apply these ideas to the (whichever/any) environment you find yourself in to make a material difference. (This will certainly exclude any insect, or any other creature other than man, from having human-like intelligence.)
What is a sophisticated idea? I’m not too clear on that, but it has to do with complexity and with the extent to which it spans seemingly disparate areas of ability/experience/knowledge.
That’s why I’m not too enthusiastic about IQ as a measurement of intelligence. (And that is not sour grapes – mine used to be very good, albeit sadly declining every passing year.) I feel that intelligence is more validly determined by talking to a person and evaluating the breadth and scope of his rationally justifiable interests and beliefs.
In the end, intelligence as really something which is observed in retrospect, by observing what has been created and achieved.
Maybe this is IQ’s main failing, the pretence that it is able to predict the essentially unpredictable before the event. In the case of individuals, at any rate. With respect to population averages it is a totally different story.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 24, 2015 17:40:13 GMT
All of which, in the end, comes back to the question of: What is intelligence, really? And as with almost everything, there isn’t really a good answer. (A funny story about IQ. At least, I think it is funny. When it was first devised, intelligence testing was very much associated with technical aptitude – e.g. maths, logic, spatial manipulation, reasoning, etc. So it worked out that men were, on average, about 20 IQ points more intelligent than women. This is something that rapidly became very un-pc, of course, so intelligence testing was revised and broadened to include things such as verbal skills and so forth, up to the point where men and women became equally intelligent.) Anyway, since I’m a prejudiced human, I tend to think of intelligence as something that humans are good at. Or would like to be good at. Or equivalently, that the more humanlike something’s behaviour is, the more intelligent it must be. An alternative way to think of intelligence is as the ability to survive. In which case cockroaches, who’ve been around for thousands of millions of years and who will probably outlive us by that much as well, must be substantially more intelligent than what we are. (They’re not great in the brain-size stakes either). Edited/Added: For what it’s worth, my working definition of intelligence is as follows: The ability to hold, manipulate, generate and develop sophisticated ideas – together with the ability to apply these ideas to the (whichever/any) environment you find yourself in to make a material difference. (This will certainly exclude any insect, or any other creature other than man, from having human-like intelligence.) What is a sophisticated idea? I’m not too clear on that, but it has to do with complexity and with the extent to which it spans seemingly disparate areas of ability/experience/knowledge. That’s why I’m not too enthusiastic about IQ as a measurement of intelligence. (And that is not sour grapes – mine used to be very good, albeit sadly declining every passing year.) I feel that intelligence is more validly determined by talking to a person and evaluating the breadth and scope of his rationally justifiable interests and beliefs. In the end, intelligence as really something which is observed in retrospect, by observing what has been created and achieved. Maybe this is IQ’s main failing, the pretence that it is able to predict the essentially unpredictable before the event. In the case of individuals, at any rate. With respect to population averages it is a totally different story. Many good ideas. Somehow (to pursue one of your themes) it is assumed when we get to humans, that IQ and survival are related. Contrasting us with what has survived (sometimes much longer than us), is a good way of showing the error involved. What we have probably achieved is the (excessive) domination/exploitation of our environment. Is this not a result of living in societies? We breed like rabbits (in itself probably a result of social incest) and then have to plunder resources to sustain that behaviour. It also is assumed that humans thrive in societies and that that is a supreme good. For myself I would like to live on an island, as far away from (other) humans as possible. For a while, anyway. In so far as I am not an island, it is with supreme reluctance that I depend on the whims and fancies of others. In fact it appears that some people think (erroneously as it turns out) that we are very clever to live in societies and that our brain size can be attributed to that. Now they want to condemn the entire human race to the urban jungle. They are not happy if one pursues individualism, self-reliance and hints at survival on one's own terms. Anyway, to get to IQ. I was not good with those tests and in fact treated their results (often not revealed and only hinted at) with a mixture of disdain and amusement. I could not really see the point of a test which has very little effect on one's career. Perhaps that has changed. Anyway, my average score resulted in me being allotted a slot as an overachiever. I have never been quite sure whether that is a compliment or insult. It seems to me that it must be exceedingly difficult (stating the obvious) to design a test to measure IQ. Such a host of imponderables are involved in human success - yes (as you say), explicable in retrospect only. Discipline, determination, background, nutrition, exercise, hobbies, travel, verbal ability, creativity, societal integration - all play a role - I don't pretend that it is a complete list and in fact would be disappointed if it is. There also is the question of what exactly success in human terms is? I suspect that one will have to settle for monetary income to get some objective standard. But then, what about procreation, sports and the judgement of history? What I think is that an IQ test should measure the bare bones of the brain. This, in my view, is speed and memory (the latter being a speed thing as well, really). Most people can grasp most concepts, process most manipulations and remember most things if given enough time. Speed is what separates the men from the boys or the girls from the women or the gays from the queers - I try not to leave anyone out. |
|
