|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Bad news for you: I took the advice of your first two words, "think rationally".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Richard.
I'll thank you not to send me spam e-mails in the future, but to reply to the board directly.
... and I'll teach you ... First show me that you have something to teach other than arrogance, dogma and a closed mind. Show me that you have an understanding of the real world and not just propoganda. Learn what your intellectual failings are before you presume to teach. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carson O'Genic Junior Member (Idle past 6143 days) Posts: 20 From: San Francisco, CA Joined: |
What is a 'creative order'? Sounds like something someone created.
Either way, I disagree completely that relatively simple thngs can't come together to creat more complex things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
RAZD, I just came across your post on this Vanderbilt study. Fascinating stuff.
I had previously come across studies that suggested greater creativity in relatives of schizophrenics (as opposed to the cliche of the mad artiste). There is a broad streak of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder in my family, as well as one of musical, literary, and mechanical/engineering creativity in those not fully afflicted. Here is a multimedia presentation of the study you quoted:
Oddball Creativity--Multimedia Report
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cool.
His theory can also explain research which shows that a disproportional number of schizotypes and schizophrenics are neither right nor left hand dominant, but instead use both hands for a variety of tasks, suggesting that they recruit both sides of their brains for a variety of tasks more so than the average person. Ambidextrous too? Perhaps this too shows why this schizophrenia is still part of the gene-pool: an intermediate stage that is beneficial to the whole population. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
RAZD writes: Ambidextrous too? Ambidextrous in early childhood--that was knocked out of me by those who feared my sinister powers. But I retained some unusual bimanual dexterity, including the ability to type more than 130 wpm on a qwerty keyboard by age 11. In my youth I eliminated that pesky backhand issue in tennis by switching hands--all my returns were forehand returns: drove my opponents to distraction and sometimes allowed me to defeat players of much greater overall skill; I also switch-hit in baseball. Curiously, I lack the typical left/right differential in bicep and calf muscle diameter as well. Another interesting correlation (DISCLAIMER: anecdotal, no scientific claim implied): Women are generally credited with a more balanced use of brain hemispheres. That research is often misunderstood (via the popular press left brain/right brain mishmash). Back in the days when I published, my manuscripts were often assumed to be the work of a woman (I used first initial/last name) when read by women editors, rarely so when read by men; one distaff editor explained that she made the assumption based on the "subtle emotional intelligence" of the work (perhaps I've changed since then... ).
Perhaps this too shows why this schizophrenia is still part of the gene-pool: an intermediate stage that is beneficial to the whole population. I think that is precisely the case. There is some data to suggest that the progression from genetic propensity to full blown psychosis requires an environmental trigger, prenatal (viral) or otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... that was knocked out of me by those who feared my sinister powers. Doncha just hate that? Jealousy is what it is. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Ambidextrous in early childhood--that was knocked out of me by those who feared my sinister powers. Another lefty? Those right-handed conformists have a lot to answer for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Sorry I didn't read through the whole thread, but I like the OP and had something to say, or more accurately a question to ask
1 is there some minimal brain size needed? 2 are there certain brain areas needed? 3 is there a method of measuring intellegence based simply on brain size? I have no clue the answers to these questions. But this question:
4 is there any evidence to show that intellegence has increased over time?
I will answer with another question.I recently saw a special on national geographic channel about the discovery of a "wolfe boy" A boy raised by wolves. I don't remember all the specifics, but a scientist, or a psychologists took him to try and raise him, and teach him to be accepted in society. It was tough, and the boy did not respond very well. Having been raised by wolves, he did not appear intelligent at all. He was no smarter than a wolfe. Funny millions of years of evolution gone in the blink of an eye. So my question is if we get smarter over time, and evolution, then why was this boy so "dumb"? Is that evidence against "intelligence increasing over time" I will add, that from watching that, I see our intelligence is based directly on what the person before has discovered, and how well it has been taught to us, which forms our "neural networks?" which allows us to take that thinking to the next level? Our species has the ability to communicate better than any other species, which allows us to be "smarter". Is that ability the only thing, or main thing that allows us to become smarter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
riVeRraT writes:
This is actually a bit misleading. I recently saw a special on national geographic channel about the discovery of a "wolfe boy" A boy raised by wolves. I don't remember all the specifics, but a scientist, or a psychologists took him to try and raise him, and teach him to be accepted in society. It was tough, and the boy did not respond very well. Having been raised by wolves, he did not appear intelligent at all. He was no smarter than a wolfe. Funny millions of years of evolution gone in the blink of an eye. There are quite a few books, research article, etc of feral children. You might want to google on "feral child" - there is probably a lot online. It is known that if they are not exposed to language early enough, they will never be able to acquire it very will (the so-called critical age). However, they might have a lot of intelligence, but they are unable to display it in ways that we can discern. This message has been edited by nwr, 11-21-2005 09:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
It is known that if they are not exposed to language early enough, they will never be able to acquire it very will (the so-called critical age). However, they might have a lot of intelligence, but they are unable to display it in ways that we can discern.
Which leads back to the other question I posted. Is our intellligence heavily relying on our ability to communicate. I wold think there is 2 kinds of intelligence, natural instincts, and intelligence over time. Or intelligence carried over from generation to generation. The boy in the show displayed intelligence, but nothing really beyond what he learned from the wolves. He started learning quickly, that is compared to a wolfe, but slowly compared to any other child. He also had a hard time displaying affection, and was just as wild as the wolves. I wonder if he felt there was a God, when he was in that state.Helen Keller knew about Jesus before anyone ever taught her, she just didn't know his name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Is our intellligence heavily relying on our ability to communicate.
This is going to depend on what you mean by "intelligence". We don't have very good definitions. The ways that we assess intelligence depend on the ability to communicate. In Message 4 I commented on the Flynn effect (the rise of average IQ over time). James Flynn, who discovered that effect, does not believe that intelligence rises. Rather, he takes the rise in IQ as an indication that IQ is not actually measuring intelligence. Many believe that IQ and other measures of intelligence are culturally biased. The wolf boy was raised in the culture of wolves. The ways that we assess intelligence are biased toward our own culture and do not adequately reflect the ways that intelligence would be expressed in a wolf culture. I guess we are drifting a little off topic for this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
He also had a hard time displaying affection, and was just as wild as the wolves.
This could be explained by the lack of human socializing, and recognizing that he was displaying wolf socialization. See Lifelong benefits of cuddling your baby (click) for examples of differences in socialization of humans by different human behavior.
"It may come as no surprise to parents, but cuddling your baby provides them with social benefits for years afterwards, according to scientists.
Not that one study is conclusive, especially given the numbers of subjects (18). They found a clear link between love and attention in the early years and healthy emotional responses in later life. " {changed subtitle, fixed display} This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*24*2005 02:41 AM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Carico Inactive Member |
So how is thinking we are more intelligent than people in the past not more arrogant? "He who exalts himself will be humbeled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." I hardly think that boasting is a sign of superior intelligence. It's the easiest thing in the world to do. So no, we are not only not more intelligent, we are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before! I agree with the scientists who say we are in a state of decay which is evidenced by people who call themseves intellignet thinking that we descended from apes. That theory sadly epitomizes our degree of decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
So how is thinking we are more intelligent than people in the past not more arrogant? "He who exalts himself will be humbeled and he who humbles himself will be exalted." I hardly think that boasting is a sign of superior intelligence. It's the easiest thing in the world to do. So no, we are not only not more intelligent, we are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before! I agree with the scientists who say we are in a state of decay which is evidenced by people who call themseves intellignet thinking that we descended from apes. That theory sadly epitomizes our degree of decay. Which scientists? Further, we have longer lifespans than ever before. Better medicin than ever before. Higher standards of living than ever before. We get to keep our teeth longer than ever before. More people are fed than ever before. The population is larger than ever before. I agree that there is alot of suffering and crappyness in the world. And I agree that human stupidity combined with great power is a recipie for destruction. But your idea that people before were "just as" smart as people today is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Open your eyes and look around you. See what mankind has accomplished and be greatfull. Not too long ago your lifespan would have been estimated at 30. This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 01:16 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024