Quote:
from Delvo:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike alexander
the idea of a generalized, independent thing called intelligence seems to me to fly in the face of evolution.
|
If that were true, then evolution could not produce different populations whose members generally have different levels of intelligence, which would mean that ours is equal to a frog's or a coral's.
|
I don't see it that way. That's comparing intelligence within vs. between species. Substitute 'size' for 'intelligence' to see what I'm driving at. Within species (within sex for dimorphic species) there is generally a small difference in size, with some of that due to environmental factors (nutrition, for example). In the abscence of fast food, human mass range is within about a factor of two. Height has an even smaller range (excepting such outliers as glandular conditions). But no matter how hard you try you will not produce a 140 lb bullfrog.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike alexander
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.
|
That's because of factors other than intelligence. It doesn't prove or disprove anything about intelligence because it's on another subject.
|
This may be where we are divergent. I see intellectual capacity not as a thing in itself but as one of the tools we carry around as organisms to help us get through the day (As a thought experiment, it would be interesting to have a Bushman (Kalahari type) or Australian aboriginal (Outback type) devise a test of general intelligence and give it to Terman or Pearson). As I said earlier, it's the application in the local environment that will determine relative success. And since local environments must be learned, transferring beween them should be done with great caution. As an example, SAT scores in America may have a strong determination on how well you do in life, hence (in a general way) enhancing your reproductive success (smarter, wealthier). On the other hand, there seems to be a correlation between schooling and number of offspring, with higher education levels correlated with fewer children. Is this due to higher intelligence as measured by school success, or due to a shorter reproductive span due to the same schooling? Or even other factors?
A local environment may favor faster reflexes, or a good sense of balance, or a sharper sense of smell over intelligence as primary survival factors.
And as a skeptic, I am wary of any group that devises a test of relative superiority utilizing factors most prominent in that group.