by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends
You know it does take a bit of creative thinking to be able anylize this stuff. We have ideas based on intangable details, or abstracts impingeing upon evolution of brain size and effeciancy of function when the need for survival has been relaxed somewhat.
The best we can do is a guestimation based on how many variables we find influencial in what we are trying to determine. Probability is all we can say.
BTS, it is unclear if this decline is genetic or cultural. Nature vs Nurture. The article you posted also brought out that better education and nutrition raised IQ's for a while, and perhaps we have reached the peak of what those measures can do, and so will go through a stabilizing effect. In other words, those measures have done all they can do.
IQ can fluctuate, according to that article, so I think looking at how we educate would be a very good start. When it comes to evolution though, only genetic changes will have an impact. Could it be the start of an Idiocracy, where the less intelligent just out produce the more intelligent, or are there environmental factors?
So many avenues to research---hopefully we won't grow to stupid to find the answers. LOL
I'm not sure, though, how my agreement with the "science" that a study purports to support with evidence warrants some of the derison it has here.
Reading that first article on the Flynn Effect, hmm, seems to confirm my feelings. We know that new neural paths can be forged; that's how we can change our thinking patterns, even at an older age (NLP).
If the brain is not stimulated (and let's face it, our educational system is desiged to train children to be good workers, not good thinkers) at a young age, then children's natural curiosoty and love for learning becomes stifled.
t
Yeah, Idiocracy. Interesting flick.
Gerald Crabtree, lead author of the study published in the journal Trends in Genetics, claims the brain drain has been going on for centuries.Crabtree, a professor of pathology and developmental biology, suggested our intellectual peak came when humans were mostly nonverbal and were stressed out trying to think of ways to not get eaten by wild animals.
I also think the article debunks the notion that belief in God is what dumbs man down; rather, it seems to be saying that reliance on science is the culprit. What do you think? . . . AGuest.
I disagree. When you look at the possible time-frame covered (verbal communication in hominidae may be as old as 2.5M years), then this process has been going on much longer than the influence of science . . . . much longer. In fact, the process corresponds much more closely with the advent of superstition and religious belief, which is more closely aligned with the introduction of verbal communication. Science's influence has come so late on the time frame considered, as to not even be a factor.
What the article is clearly saying to me, is that through the mitigation of direct threat to survival by predation, some areas of mental agility have weakened because they are no longer used . . . this is evolution ie; changes in response to environment. Evolution is linear . . . devolution is not a scientific concept in terms of being an opposite to, or reversal of evolution.
Ironically . . . it is high-level contemporary science that has brought us this information. It could equally well explain the persistence and continued prevalence of superstition and belief, in spite of an absence of tangible evidence.
Brain size is not necessarily an indication.
Because we are 98% genetically similar to chimps we may be able to use brain data derived from other primates and apply it to human brain science. David Attenborough in his series "Life of Mammals" stated that the larger the primate brain the larger their social intelligence and therefore the larger groups they form. Humans have the largest groups and we also have the largest brains of all primates (I think). So it should be logical to say that if our brain size is decreasing so will our social intelligence. I definitely see that in our society, most people don't understand people.
-Sab
I think you are simplifying things, Sab. All traits are within a spectrum. Bigger brains, within that spectrum, don't make smarter individuals. Also important, is what areas of the brain are more developed than other areas? Quality over quantity. We can't teach a Chimp to speak. They just don't have that potential. But studies show they may have some potential for language, as they can pick up on some symbolism and be creative with sign language. It's important to determine if they are really making a language connection, with sign language. For instance, if you teach them the symbol for banana, and that motion yields a banana, then that may just be behavioral and not really language----a trick. But they have shown some potential for going beyond that, which is exciting.
And you have to consider other factors when it comes to brain size. Cold weather is a pretty big factor. Northern humans are not smarter than Equatorial humans, so something else is causing selective pressures to produce a larger brain.
The nature/nurture argument is endless too. Add to that our brain's amazing ability to reroute and rewire, and we are shoulder deep into a very complex question that will not be answered simply.
