by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends
Brain size is largely irrelevant and an over-simplification. A red herring.
People can be born with half a brain, and grow into a normal human being, go to college and earn a degree. Some have not even discovered that half the brain is missing until late in life.
http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.nz/2009/09/man-with-half-brain.html
Shelby I think you are bringing your religious mindset to a scientific question.
Scientists argue vehemently about stuff all the time, its how they arrive at truth. Nobody gets huffy because others don't agree.
In religions like yours its all about authority - or at least questionable claims of authority. That doesn't work here.
The proposal in your OP may be valid or not but no intelligent person is going to accept it without further investigation and there is just not enough evidence to form an opinion.
So, with the Baboons, is there something in their environment that makes stronger social connections in the brain at a young age, and something in other primate environments that cause these connections to be trimmed earlier? And of course, this cultural pressure can also come into play with evolution if it affects their fitness.
The reason why I think the Baboons do so well is that they are able to communicate with each other in a relatively peaceful manner. Their chatter is an actual language that has been studied. It's not just random jargon, it's an actual language with a repeatable pattern. It seems that a large brain is needed for a large social capacity and without that social capacity the primate species has a top end. On the other hand Homo Sapiens don't seem to have a top end at all, we actually change our environment and continue to transcend through time. Like when we set down on Mars for example, our brains will immediately look to develop the land so that it can be inhabitable. At first there will be many "impossibilities", but eventually we will find solutions. We don't just look, we look to improve. At this point in our evolution the size of brain isn't going to be like a dial that controls our top end intelligence, but I think their is enough data to support the claim that it's connected to a social intelligence and directly determines how large our groups can be before becoming unsustainable.
-Sab
It's important to use critical thinking when looking at articles on science. That particular article was not scientific
The article, no, dear NC (peace to you!). The study the article is based on, though? I did try to get into it but can't without a subscription. It is published in a very reputable magazine, though (Trends in Genetics) and I personally don't see why, albeit making the topic more "entertaining", the article is off-base. I heard about the article on the news (ABC). Since I've heard of no rebuttals, corrections, or rescissions of the article, I see no reason why to dismiss its assertion. Again, I get that the content is more... "entertaining" than "scientific," but so what? The gist is the same. And actually, that kind of proves the points, doesn't it?
I can't tell if this is a hypothesis, which has not been severely tested, or if it graduated to theory, where it will continue to be tested.
My understanding is that when there is "evidence"... it has been tested and graduated past the point of theory... so as to be fact. That was the foundation of my point, my question: if there IS such EVIDENCE, then that means it is FACT, yes? And... do you (readers) agree or disagree with the FACT. Now, if someone had said, "Wait, I don't believe there's EVIDENCE," then... okay. But it seems to be that those who disagree are disagreeing with the evidence. At least to the extent the article says such exists. I, though, agree with that evidence (which purports to be genetic, as a result of culture - which I also agree with: don't use a muscle... and the brain is a muscle... and all that).
We also have to be careful of the conclusions we draw from the data. Our education does not necessarily affect our genome, and that's the key.
I certainly have to. I’m not a scientist or geneticist. I do find it interesting that some here seem to think that only some here are “qualified” to agree... or disagree... with a scientist/geneticist. I wonder what the basis for that it, though. I mean, I was more than willing to say, as to this matter, yes, science IS right. It is curious to ME, then, that certain others are not... but that that’s okay.
Just because we don't read sun dials anymore does not mean we have lost the ability to do so. We learn what we need to survive. I'd venture to say that if you took someone from the age of sundials and popped them on a computer with 3 windows open, they'd have a hard time, unless they were taught. We can teach a person to read a sun dial today, we just don't invest the time and resources into it because it is obsolete. Instead, we teach the kids how to log onto the internet, and then hopefully, also teach them to be critical of the information and how to determine if their sources are solid, etc.
Yes, and that is why I stated that I don’t think ALL humans are devolving intellectually. But I do think most are... and more will. And I base that on my own observations (and the field I work in gives me plenty of opportunities for that, not just on a micro level, but on a macro level. Most folks don’t realize it but housing is a HUGE industry. HUGE... and connected worldwide).
Famers today probably don't know how to plow a field with oxen.
Where, in Kansas? Okay. They still know how in Zimbabwe or similar, though. And I KNOW they still use mules, etc., for smaller farms... because I have family that do.
We wouldn't call them dumber, because they hop up onto a John Deere and run a very dangerous piece of machinery instead.
No, we wouldn’t. And I don’t think the article is saying it’s as quick as that. It’s just saying that it’s a FACT that due to progresses in our quest to relieve stress and make things “easier”, we have given up some of our intellect. Because we don’t HAVE to think as much/hard. I believe this had led to many who probably needed to KEEP some of that... mmmmm... “edge”... losing it. Greatly, if not altogether.
Kids today are not taught to flint knap---and that doesn't make them dumb. Instead, they are blending audio and video and making youtube videos. That is some pretty sophisticated thinking.
SOME kids, yes. MOST kids? I’m not so sure. I think you could teach those kids how to read a sundial. I think you would find yourself hard-pressed to teach some others kids how to read an analog clock, let alone a sundial. I mean, don’t the modern high school aptitude tests... and current U.S. drop-out and academic standing rates (compared to those worldwide) show that we really are experiencing SOME challenges in this regard? And the article DID say that it was nominal... and most likely will be changed in the future.
But that doesn’t negate that it’s occurring... does it?
I did a quick search looking for this research, because taking a reporters word for things is never a good call. I didn't find anything, but I didn't look hard. I'd love to see Scientific American cover the story, because they will approach it in a scientific manner.
Well, okay. Please to share that with us if you ever come across it. I will also keep a lookout for the study itself. In the meantime, here are a couple/few more articles that might include additional info and/or pertinent links:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/11/stanford-university-researcher-says.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/humans-getting-dumber-stanford-study_n_2121823.html
Here are some other points of view -
From a professor of politics: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/02/26/are-people-getting-dumber/thinking-in-more-sophisticated-ways
Note, the study (written by an American genetics professor) seems to be legit (the study, not its conclusions), based on this last article, which includes a statement in opposition from a UK genetics professor: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-intelligence-peaked-thousands-of-years-ago-and-weve-been-on-an-intellectual-and-emotional-decline-ever-since-8307101.html
There are other pressures on natural selection, and that may play a role too. The more education a woman has, the less children she gives birth to. This could translate into our most intelligent people not passing on as many genes.
Yes. I am not sure the study speaks to that, but this sounds like more corroboration than refutation. Just a different theory as to why.
But there are also plenty of intelligent people that don't get an education, so it may be difficult to measure. In countries where religion dicatates, and a curious or intelligent woman steps out of line, we may lose her genes from the gene pool. Think of Malala and her intelligence, and how they have tried to kill her, thereby preventing those genes from passing on. Start killing women for being intelligent, and stupider boys are being born too, since these women would also give birth to boys.
Again, other theories that may contribute. But, they contribute, not refute.
That's just a bit of hypothesis, as I have nothing to support it, but they are some of the thoughts I would have in mind when looking at research like this.
Yes. I didn’t get from the articles that the particular cause studied here was still a theory at this point, though, but has been proven scientifically by a geneticist. I get that there may be... mmmmm... counter-balances (i.e., those who are increasing in intelligence)... but it seems they are a minority and that really wasn’t the point anyway.
The big question is how much is genetic and how much is just cultural? That's difficult to determine at times, but culture does exert selective pressures.
I’m not sure the cultural was involved in THIS particular study... and its conclusion. My understanding it is that was a genetically-oriented study and based on THAT... we’re devolving intellectually. Again, some are benefiting from the technological advances, but are we as a species? Right NOW? Again, the article suggests the author believes we will catch up. In the MEANTIME, though, I can see what the author says is occurring.
Brain size is not necessarily an indication. Our brains have grown smaller. Populations that inhabit colder regions for many generations will have bigger brains. This has nothing to do with intelligence, but may be due to less sunlight and the extra room we need to process things visually.
I couldn’t even respond to that as I have no idea whether brain size plays a part or not. In some instances we say brain size dictates/is an indication of intelligence; in some we say it does/is not. I know people with big heads that are as stupid as the day is long... and some with tiny heads that are pretty intelligent, IMHO. Very, actually. So I can’t opine on that one. (Note, I used to think “hmmmmm”, though, when I would hear someone argue that the larger the brain the more intelligent, while stating that pre-modern “humans” with large skulls/brains were actually less intelligent, etc. I would wonder, Now, how you can have that both ways? Then I realized it was whatever the one needed it to be to support their assertion. So I stopped worrying about it.
It's a complex subject, and one study won't give us all the answers.
Complex, perhaps. I know I don’t have the academic background... or intellectual prowess... to say that that is true or false. Some things can be shown in one study, some can’t. I dunno.
I do know that we shouldn't look at what kids can do today and compare it to what the parents are able to do, and use that as evidence. Sure, grandparents may have been great at building barns, making quilts, building fires, hunting---whatever---but give them a video game control and let's see whose smarter then.
What can I tell you? It was a scientific study. Far be it from ME to argue with it (wink!).
I'm sure the research will continue, and we will get our information from scientific sources with much less spin.
And what, if such reveal the same results, that we ARE getting dumber? More “research”... until one says we aren’t? Which one be true, though?
Just some thoughts. This really isn’t life or death for me, dear ones... so let’s try and keep it easy, like Sunday morning... shall we?
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
I do think that as we get deeper into understanding DNA we will be able to do scans and make changes with sophisticated machines that will keep our brain functions functioning at better and better levels.
Maybe be even quick and fast acting reprogramming machines break up any thought loops with better software maybe even better and more efficient quantum functioning moduals interphased with our own brain should more that counter act such a brain drain.
My understanding is that when there is "evidence"... it has been tested and graduated past the point of theory... so as to be fact.
No.
Not even wrong.
The study the article is based on, though? I did try to get into it but can't without a subscription.
Think about this for a minute. Why in the world would they make the evidence hard to get to? Why not just publish the evidence for all to see and make the article link to it. Why make people pay to verify a claim? I am not saying the evidence doesn't exist, but they most certaintly want you to focus on the conclusion rather than the data and that's a red flag, big time. The scientific community is about money because the world is about money. Funding is like gas for a car, it doesn't matter if you have a Lamborghini or a beat up 1988 Honda Civic with 400k mileage, without fuel they both don't go.
This is my number one beef with Science in general. It has progressed to the point where the data collected can often only be done with highly sophisticated technology which means you have to have gobs of money in order to work on the cutting edge of science. So now they have to make getting to the data cumbersome because laypeople are simply not going to have the time and resources to replicate their expensive processes. Yet this process just creates an informational gap and contributes to the class problem of society in general. It sounds like faith to me and putting faith in man is a dangerous venture.
-Sab
Sab - Science is more difficult than religion where you get to make stuff up.
There is absolutely nothing preventing anybody from studying hard for many years and mastering any field of science that interests them.
Scientific journals aren't free - so what?
There is absolutely nothing preventing anybody from studying hard for many years and mastering any field of science that interests them.
Oh really, what about a whole population getting dumber? Which is what your community purports. "Studying hard" is just a subjective term that people use to assert that what they did can also be done by others. It's very Watchtower-esque. My point, Cofty, is that I personally cannot replicate the experiments of high end science simply because I lack the time and monetary resources. Without funding I am just a bottom feeder and not really part of the scientific community. This has created a "science guru" model that is unsustainable even from a scientific perspective. The whole point of science is to put everybody on the same page as far as data goes. Unfortunately that data is just not available to everyone. The root of ALL evil is money. Within a monetary-based system Science will go progressively downhill. Science is already largely demonized by a majority of the population. This is mainly because the advocates of science arrogantly tell people to "study hard" and guarantee results when really no one should be able to guarantee anything, much less a perfect understanding of the universe as told by scientific theory.
-Sab
