|
Post by robeiae on Nov 19, 2016 13:41:45 GMT -5
Well, they're not card-carrying idiots. That's the point. They're intelligent enough, especially when it comes to marketing themselves and manipulating the masses (sounds like someone else, no?).
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 2, 2016 22:44:29 GMT -5
I'm gonna be "That Guy" and disagree with the main premise of the article. The argument that IQ is the result of sexual selection has been peddled by Geoff Miller for years now. He's an evolutionary psychologist, and they don't exactly have what I'd call a good reputation in our field, mainly because most of EvoPsych is total bullshit. When the criticisms of a field far outweigh its contributions to science, it's kind of a red flag that its practitioners need to work much harder if they want to be taken seriously. So, I always take their " Just So Story" claims with a huge grain of salt. So, it wasn't surprising to me that one of his publications was linked to in the article. Just to dump on EvoPsych for a minute (yes, yes. I know this is probably a bit of "poisoning the well," but I just can't help it in this case). It is considered kind of joke by many in my field and in the life sciences (Full disclosure - I'm a research psychologist) because of their outlandish, unsupported claims, to the point that there are even "EvoPsych Bingo" games all over the internet that you can fill out whenever they release a study or interview. (like here: EvoPsych Bingo. Miller, in particular, is somewhat famous for a now ridiculed garbage study that claimed that exotic dancers make more money when they're ovulating. It was total crap, poorly designed, poorly analyzed, but it made headlines and Miller even used the worthless results to suggest that women should wait until they're ovulating to bother going on job interviews. He's also known for being a douchebag, claiming that fat people shouldn't pursue PhD's because they don't have the willpower to do their dissertation, just like they "[don't] have the willpower to stop eating carbs." Anyway... So, back to the questionable "IQ is the result of sexual selection" claim. It's not only specious, it's likely untestable (though Miller has offered some pretty weak arguments of how it could be tested scientifically). I mean, sure. It could be true, but there are other explanations as to how IQ developed that are just as plausible, if not more so. One such example is that it could be purely the result of " genetic drift." The Neaderthals migrated up north to the middle of what is now cold-ass Russia. It's been suggested that climatic changes may have quickly killed them off, given that homo sapiens appear to have taken over the former lands of the Neanderthals rather suddenly (could be argued to be a mild example of what Gould called ."punctuated equilibrium"). Were it not for that event, who's to say that Neanderthals would not still be here, just as intelligent as homo sapiens? (and, let's not forget our homo sapiens cousins who never seem to get any love in these discussions, Homo Sapiens Idaltu). Or, probablistically speaking, intelligence could've developed/thrived simply due to genetic hitchhiking. Our interests in music and arts could very well be rooted in ancient mate-attraction behaviors ("peacocking") that have continued on in our species, but are unrelated to intelligence. Genetically speaking, they were traits that were just along for the ride. So, though the development of IQ could have originally had nothing at all to do with sexual selection, it's likely that its development was due to a complex interplay of several evolutionary forces, of which selection is just one. And that's one of the main failings of EvoPsych; they don't really have a firm grasp of overall evolutionary theory. To them, everything is an adaptation; a result of selection (natural or sexual). Unfortunately, that severely truncates their perspective and conclusions because (natural) selection is only one of four main pillars of evolutionary theory. So, while it's maybe an interesting thought experiment to ponder whether or not intelligence is purely a "peacock feather" of sexual selection (like, as Mr.Cawdron pointed out, giraffe necks), it is misguided to state it as if it were a fact or even imply that it's a widely accepted scientific hypothesis (Miller has his acolytes, but he's still the main person peddling this idea). I'm not saying that it's completely wrong, per se. I just see it as an incomplete explanation that leaves out important details/alternatives. As with many things in life, it's much more complex than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2016 0:39:20 GMT -5
Just noting that this is one of my favorite threads on the site so far. Glad you dropped in to be "that guy," Opty -- it's cool to get your perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 4, 2016 0:15:21 GMT -5
Seriously, imagine the consequences of this: Kim and Kanye represent the ideal, the "fittest," as it were. I say this with humor, but I am actually serious. This isn't idiocracy at all; intelligence matters insofar as it's a tool to make one as appealing as possible and as capable as possible, when it comes to finding mates. "Ideal" isn't what "fittest" means from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, though. I might have misread that. Besides, everyone knows that Scarlett Johannson and Amber Heard are the real ideals. "Fitness" is a measure of how well an organism "fits" the environment (i.e., has the qualities that ensure high success for reproduction and survival). It's really less about sexual attractiveness, in the strictest sense, and more about being sexually indiscriminate when it comes to sexual partners (a Darwinian floozy, as it were). However, having sexually attractive traits certainly helps. Given that less educated, lower socioeconomic status people are much more likely to have multiple kids than more educated, more affluent people, the Idiocracy (especially given our new POTUS and incoming administration) might be more of a potential reality than we realize. This is another reason that I disagree with Miller's view (echoed in Cawdron's article and the Westworld episode) that intelligence is necessarily some sort of "peacock feather" for sexual selection. It oversimplifies the overall evolutionary process by diluting it down to just adaptation and selection (sexual or natural, i.e., "survival of the fittest"). Regrettably, it seems that natural selection is all that most people know of evolution although, as I pointed out above, it is only one of four main evolutionary mechanisms (the others being mutation, genetic drift, and genetic migration, although genetic hitchhiking is starting to gain steam in the research as another likely mechanism). Indeed, there have likely been several species that were chock full of sexually attractive traits that were eventually wiped out by climatological or geological events. Conversely, lots of dumb, ugly people breed like jackrabbits. That's not an insult or bad joke; it's simply (and unfortunately, depending on your perspective) a fact of life. Evolution is an (overall) nonrandom process that is propelled by both random (stochastic) and nonrandom mechanisms. Viewing intelligence as being purely a peacock feather implies that it came about through entirely nonrandom mechanisms while somehow magically avoiding all the nonrandom forces of evolution for eons.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 4, 2016 5:03:56 GMT -5
Optimus (Thanks for the link to evolution 101, btw. I've still got a window open on that, slogging through as I have time.) I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but why is Darwin always boiled down to "survival of the fittest?" The way I understand it, I see it as "survival of the fit" instead of "survival of the fittest." There's room on the evolutionary ladder for multiple traits to move forward, as long as none of those traits are contra-survival. Blondes haven't crowded out redheads, nor did Humans crowd out Gorillas, though we share a common ancestor back there somewhere. Indeed, multiple traits moving forward in each generation seems necessary for the process to continue. Pedantic, perhaps, but an important difference in viewpoint if one considers the question of competition vs. cooperation an important one philosophically. And since I see societies (and economies) as organic and evolutionary rather than mechanistic and determinant, I find the distinction important, if accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 7, 2016 20:25:01 GMT -5
Optimus (Thanks for the link to evolution 101, btw. I've still got a window open on that, slogging through as I have time.) I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but why is Darwin always boiled down to "survival of the fittest?" The way I understand it, I see it as "survival of the fit" instead of "survival of the fittest." There's room on the evolutionary ladder for multiple traits to move forward, as long as none of those traits are contra-survival. Blondes haven't crowded out redheads, nor did Humans crowd out Gorillas, though we share a common ancestor back there somewhere. Indeed, multiple traits moving forward in each generation seems necessary for the process to continue. Pedantic, perhaps, but an important difference in viewpoint if one considers the question of competition vs. cooperation an important one philosophically. And since I see societies (and economies) as organic and evolutionary rather than mechanistic and determinant, I find the distinction important, if accurate. Darwin's the one who called it that (some other guy actually coined the term...I forget who...but Darwin liked it so he started using it in his books), so he gets the blame for popularizing the term. The difference between "fit" and "fittest" is a semantic one, I feel, because they are in essence referring to the same thing. Darwin was (originally) referring to the survival/reproduction of whole species and not necessarily individual traits (though he did spend time discussing non-survival traits). Other traits can definitely be along for the ride - because non-adaptive mutations definitely happen - and multiple species can all adapt to surviving a particular environment by taking advantage of different traits unique to those species. So, while birds and apes (and various other species of life), on the whole, survived because they were "fit" for the environment, only certain species of birds and apes are still around today, because they were the "fittest." And, as you said, there's plenty of room for various species with various survival traits; but only the "most fit" survive over geologically long periods of time. But, even though natural selection is Darwin's major contribution and often considered the main driver of evolution, it is not the only influence on evolution. Dawkins takes a different angle, saying that it's not the species that is trying to adapt to survive, but the genes themselves ("The Selfish Gene"). It seems to me to be partially related to the idea of genetic hitchhiking, offering an explanation of how traits not necessary for survival can still continue and thrive. It's an interesting idea and has gained a lot of support over the years. And that takes me back to one of my main complaints with evolutionary psychologists; they don't seem to understand that there are other parts of evolutionary theory other than adaptation (natural selection). Non-adaptive mutation happens. Genetic drift (entire species suddenly dying off) happens. Etc. It also seems to me that many people in the public also believe that Darwin and Natural Selection is all there is to evolution. I'm not sure how to fix that, but it's how pop culture works, I suppose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2016 21:49:12 GMT -5
Conversely, lots of dumb, ugly people breed like jackrabbits. That's not an insult or bad joke; it's simply (and unfortunately, depending on your perspective) a fact of life. And of course, when we're talking modern first world humans, lots of people with desirable genetic traits might choose not to breed. We have a lot more control over that now than we used to. I know quite a number of intelligent, healthy, attractive people who don't have children and don't intend to have them. Their genes won't go anywhere -- but others with (depending on your perspective) less desirable genes are going forth and multiplying.
|
|