08 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckDo you realise (no I'm not attacking you, perhaps rephrase?..); Have you
I can't believe the quality of posts in this thread.
I was just going to say 'because they're thick'!
ever thought about how if we as a unique species have existed for 200 000
(!) years, that even the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens that wandered out of
Africa some 70 000 years ago and started the first known civilisations in the
middle east, were no more intelligent than the people left behind, and
furthermore: that we're no more intelligent than those original African
emigrates?
Kinda humbles your world, doesn't it?
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageChess is merely a hummer that gives to the thesis of the White and to the thesis of the Black a shape; when both players are dull their "truth" is rubbish; when both players are advanced their "truth" is interesting; when the players have diferent strength their "truth" is like the result of a war; when both players are specialists their "truth" is amazing; when the players are the two best of the world sometimes their "truth" brings enlightenment.
But CHESS IS TRUTH!
I look forward to reading your next installment.
In any case, "truth" is just a notionšµ
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieHomo sapiens appear to have colonized all of Africa about 150,000 years ago, moved out of Africa 70,000 years ago, and had spread across Australia, Asia and Europe by 40,000 years ago.
Do you realise (no I'm not attacking you, perhaps rephrase?..); Have you
ever thought about how if we as a unique species have existed for 200 000
(!) years, that even the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens that wandered out of
Africa some 70 000 years ago and started the first known civilisations in the
middle east, were no more intelligent than the people l intelligent than those original African
emigrates?
Kinda humbles your world, doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration#Pre-modern_migrations
So the actual migration took some 30,000 years. That's 30,000 years of adaptation
to new climates.
It was 30,000 years ago that humans took a giant leap forward in their cognitive
abilities and we began to see some of the attributes of modern human society.
Was it the increased ability to cope with environmental challenges from the migration that allowed for this leap? I don't know.
But I will say that believing that modern human intelligence has not evolved since
the first migration belittles the incredible feats of adaptation that homo sapiens have
endured for thousands of years.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAnd who is to say that one of those 'adaptations' was an increase in intelligence? Maybe it was a decrease. Maybe both. It also depends on how you define intelligence.
But I will say that believing that modern human intelligence has not evolved since
the first migration belittles the incredible feats of adaptation that homo sapiens have
endured for thousands of years.
The various races have clearly evolved some difference characteristics such as skin color and hair type. It is quite possible that we have differences in our brains. But what those differences may be is hard to say. I suspect that variation in intelligence is so great within a race that it dwarfs the variation between races.
As for average intelligence, I am fairly sure it has gone up especially amongst the wealthier people - not genetically but rather due to nutrition and a more educational environment. Certainly average height has increased.
09 Feb 09
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt has been shown that under harsher conditions, lower intelligence leads to a
And who is to say that one of those 'adaptations' was an increase in intelligence? Maybe it was a decrease. Maybe both. It also depends on how you define intelligence.
The various races have clearly evolved some difference characteristics such as skin color and hair type. It is quite possible that we have differences in our brains. But what those differe ...[text shortened]... r due to nutrition and a more educational environment. Certainly average height has increased.
more successful birthing pool.
I agree with you that the 'type' of intelligence is very important to define. I also
agree with you that the average African is no less intelligent than the average
European or American. However, I would say that there is a marked difference in both
conceptual intelligence (Europeans) and mechanical intelligence (Africans).
I'd say this is likely to be born out of settlers having to adapt to a variety of
different climates and to use innovation to overcome environmental pressures.
As for the inter-continental variation argument, it's poppycock. There may be
more variation within Mr Kiplings cakes than there is between Rowntree's range
but the two are still distinguishable as separate manufacturers which in this
instance is geography.
The point is that although there is greater variation, there are a series of traits
that are more similar within a group than across continents.
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI have not heard that before. Do you have any references? And where do the other races fit in?
However, I would say that there is a marked difference in both
conceptual intelligence (Europeans) and mechanical intelligence (Africans).
[b]The point is that although there is greater variation, there are a series of traits
that are more similar within ...[text shortened]... re are significant differences between male and female. Any studies must take that into account too.
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]
I have not heard that before. Do you have any references? And where do the other races fit in?
[b]The point is that although there is greater variation, there are a series of traits
that are more similar within re are significant differences between male and female. Any studies must take that into account too.
Will get back to you on that one. But answer me this question honestly.
Presented with an African and European, would you be able to say which is which?
Presented with an African and a Jamaican, would you be able to say which is which?
Answer honestly now.
[i]
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI will assume that we are talking about Jamaicans of African Origin and Europeans who were brought up and reside in Europe and Black skinned Africans who were brought up in Africa.
Will get back to you on that one. But answer me this question honestly.
1. Presented with an African and European, would you be able to say which is which?
2. Presented with an African and a Jamaican, would you be able to say which is which?
Answer honestly now.
It depends on what you mean by 'presented'. If I had the photos, I would know 1 but not 2. because of their skin color and general looks.
If I could speak to them over the phone I would know 1. and 2. based on accent.
If I could communicate via text only then I might know 1. and 2. based on word usage and grammar etc.
Based on an intelligence test, I don't think I could answer 1. or 2.
I once met a Scottish lady of African origin and it took quite a while to get used to. She spoke, thought and acted just like any other Scottish person and for some reason that seemed really weird.
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are plenty of born-and-bred black Europeans -- but I'd probably be able to tell them apart from black Africans, much as it's not too hard to tell a white African apart from a white European, American, Australian, etc.
I once met a Scottish lady of African origin and it took quite a while to get used to. She spoke, thought and acted just like any other Scottish person and for some reason that seemed really weird.
10 Feb 09
1 edit
By intelligence I mean our capacity to learn, store information and
predict future to some extent using previous experiences. I find it hard
that the brain has changed so much during only a few hundred thousand
years that we would be able to clearly make the point that we're now
more intelligent than our ancient forefathers/mothers.
Unlike skin and superficial attributes, the brain's been neatly tucked
away inside a thick skull protected by skin, flesh and warm blood.
There's no reason to think that in the days when hunting, propagating
and caring for the immediate off-spring were the main everyday issues,
people born with slightly higher intelligence would have an advantage to
the average caveman in terms of reproducing.
Many of us don't even know how to make decent tools to survive in
nature with only what nature provides. That is proof enough for me that
our intelligence (in terms of what we can achieve) is almost certainly
completely the result of education and encouragement to critical and
constructive thinking. Without the training we're probably just above the
average chimp on an intellectual scale.
I think.
10 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by JigtieOne theory is that due to the brain's succeptibility to disease that intelligence
By intelligence I mean our capacity to learn, store information and
predict future to some extent using previous experiences. I find it hard
that the brain has changed so much during only a few hundred thousand
years that we would be able to clearly make the point that we're now
more intelligent than our ancient forefathers/mothers.
Unlike skin an raining we're probably just above the
average chimp on an intellectual scale.
I think.
was selected for as an indication of health. I don't buy into that.
The brain has many subtle ties with the body. It controls the arms so that a
young maiden may be wooed by acts of complex movement such as juggling,
hunting and fighting.
It is reflective of skin and hair so that red-heads might be firey and blondes dippy.
Most importantly though, it controls language. That much sought after ability to climb
into a maidens knickers after unravelling whatever mysterious combination they
held.
Of course this kind of selection process only really thrives in a rich, adaptive
environment.
A question for you regarding the importance of timscales in evolution.
Why hasn't the humble crocodile evolved?
10 Feb 09
Does anybody else see how void these evolutionary arguments are? You can pick and choose your preferred characteristics and argue for diametrically opposite results.
There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races. The "giant leap" that qu1ck mentions was due to nurture, not nature. 30.000 years of unlocking the potential in our brains through progressively stronger stimulation since birth. Remember that things like IQ test* results improve with formal education.
* A measure of intelligence I dislike, but it serves to illustrate a point. The test may be narrow in scope, but this example serves to show that education can improve problem-solving ability (in that scope).