Quote:
Originally Posted by mike alexander
For that matter, the idea of a generalized, independent thing called intelligence seems to me to fly in the face of evolution. Whatever intelligence is, it doesn't exist outside of the local environment where it is applied and selected for. A highly intelligent Bushman might very well get himself quickly killed in rush-hour New York, and an intelligent Manhattanite might very well quickly starve to death in the Outback.
|
Not sure your test is descriptive of the issue, Mike. How about this:
Take 1000 Mahattanites with 500 being in a low IQ group and 500 high. Put them in the outback (not together - this is an individual thing). Devise a metric to judge how well they do, say survival time. I submit the mean survival rate of the high IQ group will probably be significantly longer than that of the low group.
To illustrate the mechanism, I imagine a member of the high IQ group quickly realizing that the situation is dire and immediately thinking about survival needs: water, food, shelter, protection from things that kill you and signaling for help. He may not know much about these things, but he's smart enough to know he has to figure a way out or die. He will know to be very careful - a broken leg will mean death. The low IQ person will wonder why his cell phone has no bars and start wandering in search of better reception.
Same thing in reverse, although all 1000 of the aborigines will probably get locked up by Homeland Security before a day is up.
