swilow
Bluelight Crew
I got to thinking about this subject matter after encountering a few different ideas about whether humans are, in fact, getting smarter. One would argue that, with the proliferation of technology and increased scientific understanding of reality, humans are getting more intelligent (or at least getting more intelligent in certain area's).
An interview that I saw with Neil de Grasse Tyson. He countered this idea by saying (paraphrasing) that there is no biological reason for humans to be getting more intelligent; intelligence, in itself, isn't a trait that neccesarily leads to increased procreation. The mixing of genes through mating is more likely related to physical attractiveness and other perceived traits, rather then the ability to crunch complex numbers in ones head, understand and/or posit complex meanignful scientific expositions or other hallmarks of "intelligence". There is also the notion that there isn't a scientific or mathematical center in the brain that can be strengthened though inheritance, an that evolution doesn't entail the inheritance of learned traits. There's no reason to think that the son of a mathematician will be as smart as their father/mother; traits are not inherited in that way.
There is also the sexy-son hypothesis. The idea behind this is that, for a mother, the most desirable trait in a son is physical/sexual attractiveness. This attractiveness means that the son will spread his mothers genes more widely. The important genetic component isn't what tangible impact these traits have in the real world (having symmetrical features doesn't really positively effect survival or provide any physical benefit, besides more sexual partners), but the fact of sexual attractiveness, in and of itself. So a female may choose a partner that has no other beneficial traits, and might be a vicious asshole, but is sexually appealing. At no point does intelligence play a role in mate-selection, according to this hypothesis at least. I'm not sold on it, because I think that sexual appeal is largely related to perceived beneficial physical traits of a person. But it makes some sense, and is an idea that excludes intelligence from mate selection. I think it is probably outdated, but is still interesting in its own way.... Of course, humans are not statistics and are capricious; something which can never be quantified IMO, so I don't know if this idea is that applicable.
What do you guys think? Sure, we are all using complex machinery in our daily lives, and are reaping the benefits of more complete scientific and physical knowledge of the world, but I don't think this means that our capacity for understanding has increased. Perhaps the sudden profusion of mathematical/technological/physical complexity is related to the a large population of humans having maintained continuity of knowledge for an extended period. The person who uses mathematics to design an engine doesn't need to completely understand the physics and mathematics behind every component; they do not need to rediscover the rules of calculus every-time they wish to use it in calculations. Rather, they learn the rules that others have elucidated before them, sometimes over several thousand years. That humans can draw from knowledge obtained several thousand years ago is an amazing feat. It makes me believe that housing and organisation of knowledge is the vital component here, rather then increased ability to understand that knowledge. Humans are certainly intelligent, but perhaps it is our memory, our language and our institutions that maintain this, rather then genetic mixing.
An interview that I saw with Neil de Grasse Tyson. He countered this idea by saying (paraphrasing) that there is no biological reason for humans to be getting more intelligent; intelligence, in itself, isn't a trait that neccesarily leads to increased procreation. The mixing of genes through mating is more likely related to physical attractiveness and other perceived traits, rather then the ability to crunch complex numbers in ones head, understand and/or posit complex meanignful scientific expositions or other hallmarks of "intelligence". There is also the notion that there isn't a scientific or mathematical center in the brain that can be strengthened though inheritance, an that evolution doesn't entail the inheritance of learned traits. There's no reason to think that the son of a mathematician will be as smart as their father/mother; traits are not inherited in that way.
There is also the sexy-son hypothesis. The idea behind this is that, for a mother, the most desirable trait in a son is physical/sexual attractiveness. This attractiveness means that the son will spread his mothers genes more widely. The important genetic component isn't what tangible impact these traits have in the real world (having symmetrical features doesn't really positively effect survival or provide any physical benefit, besides more sexual partners), but the fact of sexual attractiveness, in and of itself. So a female may choose a partner that has no other beneficial traits, and might be a vicious asshole, but is sexually appealing. At no point does intelligence play a role in mate-selection, according to this hypothesis at least. I'm not sold on it, because I think that sexual appeal is largely related to perceived beneficial physical traits of a person. But it makes some sense, and is an idea that excludes intelligence from mate selection. I think it is probably outdated, but is still interesting in its own way.... Of course, humans are not statistics and are capricious; something which can never be quantified IMO, so I don't know if this idea is that applicable.
What do you guys think? Sure, we are all using complex machinery in our daily lives, and are reaping the benefits of more complete scientific and physical knowledge of the world, but I don't think this means that our capacity for understanding has increased. Perhaps the sudden profusion of mathematical/technological/physical complexity is related to the a large population of humans having maintained continuity of knowledge for an extended period. The person who uses mathematics to design an engine doesn't need to completely understand the physics and mathematics behind every component; they do not need to rediscover the rules of calculus every-time they wish to use it in calculations. Rather, they learn the rules that others have elucidated before them, sometimes over several thousand years. That humans can draw from knowledge obtained several thousand years ago is an amazing feat. It makes me believe that housing and organisation of knowledge is the vital component here, rather then increased ability to understand that knowledge. Humans are certainly intelligent, but perhaps it is our memory, our language and our institutions that maintain this, rather then genetic mixing.
Last edited: