The Role of Human Culture In Natural Selection 337
gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "... for the last 20,000 years or so, people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution. The force is human culture, broadly defined as any learned behavior, including technology. The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role. Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures, since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine. Because of this buffering action, culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, in the distant past. Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light. Although it does shield people from other forces, culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection. People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes, like new diets. And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces, 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution.'"
eugenics (Score:3, Interesting)
just wait until it becomes culturally acceptable to intentionally modify our genes using technology.
Re:eugenics (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider, for example, the historical trajectory of IVF. When it first became available, there was significant controversy(to this day, the official Catholic position is that it is contrary to natural law). However, because it delivered the results that people (even the people who condemned it) wanted, public perception warmed considerably. You have to look pretty damn hard to find people actively condemning the practice today, even among the sorts of religious hardliners who are stridently anti-abortion and quietly anti-contraception. Among people moderate enough to be considered "serious" in public discourse, the only controversies come up when somebody does something really tacky(e.g. Octomom) or there is some sob story of an infertile couple who can't afford to have the child they always wanted.
Consider also the example of Trisomy 21, Down's syndrome. The population level incidence is roughly 1 in 8000, and has remained fairly level. The individual incidence is strongly correlated with maternal age. In the western world, average maternal age has increased substantially. Downs incidence hasn't. Obvious(but unspoken) conclusion? Selective abortion.
Once sperm sorting gets reasonably cheap, I assume we'll see the same general warming of attitudes that we did with IVF. Proper genetic engineering will probably go the same way, though it really isn't developed enough for human use yet. Of course, it will be customary to vociferously condemn those who do it for the "wrong" reasons(hair/eye color selection, that sort of thing); but there will be enough medically compelling applications(you'd have to be a real asshole to oppose using genetic engineering to ensure that a child isn't born with cystic fibrosis, say) to make the tech commonly available. Once it is commonly available, the uses that everyone will find fashionable to condemn will be widely available, and widely popular.
Re: (Score:2)
And then what? We'll all get ponies?!?
Serious point though: if it ever becomes culturally acceptable to modify our genes in our -germ- cells and not just our somatic cells, then we will really have lost our humanity. I'm okay with someone modifying the genome in their muscle cells to cure their muscular dystrophy, I'm even okay with modifying your genome in your muscle cells to make them stronger, not just to fix a disease. But elective OR disease curing meddling with the genes in your testes or ovaries
Re: (Score:2)
The next generation has never been able to determine such things for themselves - that would imply that they have in times past gotten to pick their parents.
It also doesn't preclude them being able to modify their own genes, if such tech ever becomes widespread.
And when they mate, they DO determine their offsprings genetic makeup, same as every preceding generation has. It's called "hereditary traits" for a rea
Re: (Score:2)
And when they mate, they DO determine their offsprings genetic makeup, same as every preceding generation has. It's called "hereditary traits" for a reason.
From my perspective, there's something fundamentally different in directly determining one's children's genes and unintentionally determining their genes. It would be dehumanizing enough if people were running around intentionally mating to have children with specific characteristics, but few people do that because they generally have different goals in reproducing. It's fairly rare for people to -intentionally- select mates on the basis of genetics, and in the cases where they do that, I feel sorry for t
Re: (Score:2)
The rest, though, seems like emotive reactionary twaddle. Do I really have the "right to determine thi
Re: (Score:2)
We won't have a choice. Monsanto or something like it will be selling gene selection services without regard for it's long term consequences. They will bribe enough of congress to make any objection ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the article is that people are ALREADY practicing eugenics as a cultural force, and it is the dominant force in human evolution at this point.
People seek people who the current culture defines as "hot" - which changes over time. People adapt within a couple of generations to changes in food supplies. A good example is how the age of first menarche has dropped by 1/3 in 100 years, and how society has not only adapted, but reinforced, that trend.
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've long speculated that should our modern society continue in the way it's going, humans will develop better resistance to things like whiplash, since traffic accidents are the leading cause of death among children and one of the leading causes of death for people of breeding age.
I also expect to see women able to have children later and later into life. Before, your odds of surviving that long and having a healthy enough diet and good enough medical care were so low that there was no point for your body
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Funny)
Milk drinking is a direct result of culture - the domestication of cattle for meat and dairy. None of our human ancestors could ever drink milk from a wild Aurochs and survive - (think 2-3 meter horn span, one metric ton, and very touchy).
Re: (Score:2)
For that reason, I think our ancestors domesticated cattle, then happened to develop a gene to allow them to drink milk, then adapted milk drinking into their culture. Then again, we really don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thoughts.
Culture arose due to pre-existing minor genetic differences, not the other way around. TFA has it exactly backwards.
Human culture may have purely localized and temporal affects on the concentration of some traits, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that such cultural concepts as beauty lead to more fit or more plentiful offspring. Observations on the street might suggest exactly the opposite is true.
The 4 or 5 thousand years of large scale human cultural clustering is simply no
Culture is a meme (Score:3, Interesting)
First culture is a meme post.
Culture is a parasite and the host is people.
It just wants to propagate itself.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
First culture is a meme post.
Culture is a parasite and the host is people.
It just wants to propagate itself.
Burma Shave
Chinese Test Takers? (Score:2, Interesting)
So does this mean that the Chinese should be more inclined to do well in tests?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination
Circa 605 AD
Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis [wikipedia.org]
The write up is misleading on many levels, and reflects a very nineteenth century understanding of evolution. Fitness criteria are constantly changing, and success changes the fitness landscape. Of course culture will impact evolution. The idea that it could somehow protect from selection pressures is just silly. Culture may protect you from the cold, by giving you a fur coat. Or you could evolve a fur coat, but would you then claim that the fur coat protected you from selection pressures and 'slowed down' evolution? Evolution isn't going some place, it doesn't have a direction, so it is a bit misleading to talk about how fast it is going.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution isn't going some place, it doesn't have a direction, so it is a bit misleading to talk about how fast it is going.
That's not entirely correct. You can for instance not give a direction for Brownian Motion. But you can give its speed (it is called temperature).
Same for Evolution. While you can't predict the changes it will yield, you can measure the speed of change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, you can measure the speed of change. And the speed of change of the human genome has been increasing, not decreasing. The write up, however, presents a view of evolution as directed motion, not temperature. It presents a view where there are objective, external measures for fitness, where a species can be qualified as a success without reference to its environment. And it presents the rather odd view that our social environment and the natural environment are somehow different in regards to our genes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the reasons we were able to achieve such a large brain/body mass ratio is because we do NOT have a fur coat. >p> Humans have hair on the top of the head to protect against the heat of peak insolation, while the rest of the body is comparatively hairless, to allow for sweating.
Let your body temp rise by 5 degrees C and see how well you think. When doing nothing, the brain only uses 6 calories an hour. Thinking raises that to 90 calories an hour. In other words, spending most of your day thin
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, great article in SciAm recently on this very topic. We had to evolve hairlessness and lots of sweat glands before we could evolve big brains.
Re: (Score:2)
I see nothing wrong with a nineteenth century understanding of evolution. More modern versions have added little, much of which have lead nowhere.
Further, you have it exactly wrong. TFA and the writeup both exhibit a very recent understanding of evolution, not a nineteenth century one. You need only examine the Evolution Wiki article [wikipedia.org] to see this.
Fifty years after the arrival of rapid, cheap, global transportation is exactly the worst time to put forth a theory such as TFA mentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, the modern synthesis corrects many errors in the original theory, and adds a great deal to our understanding of evolution.
Maybe if you presented some concrete examples, I could understand what exactly you mean. But you don't, you just provide some generalities and vague speculation.
Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong. Wrong about what a scientific theory is, and wrong about the level of evidence for the theory. It is far from being theoretical in the popular sense of the word, and much closer to the popular understood meaning of the word 'fact.'
Re: (Score:2)
The bad old days all over again (Score:2)
"If a narrow definition of genocide is used, as favoured by the international courts, then during the Srebrenica massacre between 8,000 and 9,000 men and boys were murdered and the remainder of the population (between 25,000-30,000, women, children and elderly people) was forced to leave the area. If a wider definition is used, then the number is much larger ....."
- Bosnian Genocide [wikipedia.org]
Contradiction in terms (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Contradiction in terms (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand the definition of natural selection. The term exists in contradistinction to the term "artificial selection" which is to say, human controlled selective breeding of the kind that gives rise to domesticated animals. The llama is the result of artificial selection. Its wild ancestor, the guanaco, is the result of natural selection.
Take the well known example of lactose tolerance. Nobody ever conducted a lactose tolerance breeding eugenics program - our ancestors didn't coral whole villages and kill those who were lactose intolerant and force those who were lactose tolerant to breed with each other (this is how artificial selection works). Lactose tolerance in European and African populations where it is prevalent, arose through natural seleciton. Those that were able to digest milk as adults (i.e., the lactose tolerant ones) left more offspring in areas where milk was widely available. This is an example of natural selection, not artificial selection.
It is also a direct result of cuture. The only reason milk was and is available is because of the domestication of cattle, which is a cultural activity. So here is an example where natural selection, (the increase in lactose tolerance among adults), was influenced by culture, (the domestication of dairy cattle).
I"m a data point in favor of this... (Score:2)
Re:I'm a data point in favor of this... (Score:2)
My son inherited my 'resist authority' gene.
I'll continue to pay for that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Or your hand-me-down gaming computers...
Culture evolves too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Variation and Selection are sufficient conditions for evolution.
Not without Isolation.
And Isolation is quickly disintegrating.
need the margin in order for whole to advance (Score:2)
Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance...
The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it...
To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem
to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening
of a man or of a race. (Uncle Friedrich)
social evolution (Score:3, Informative)
the nobel prize winner, john eccles - brain neurologist considers the known/experienceable world to actually be comprised of three 'worlds' -- i) that of matter, ii) that of states of consciousness, and iii) objective knowledge -- 'the sum total of human culture':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)#Philosophy [wikipedia.org]
there is not only an evolution of the physical human form, but also an evolution in the states of consciousness mankind has achieved in order to attain to the states of consciousness which prevail in order to, for example make scientific and logical judgements -- evolution of consciousness, and its consequences must be taken be taken into account, because all that you see as the effects of HUIMANS -- cities, bridges, buildings -- is all due to a change in the consditions of consciousness that humans have developed.
in fact, the social organization may be more important than the material organization. there are enough physical resources and technological expertise on this planet to feed every woman, child and man on this planet -- given that we are adequately socially organized -- this is not yet the case, so war and poverty are not necessarily a lack-of-resources issue -- but a social one.
2cents from toronto island
jrp
Re: (Score:2)
You can't say civilization doesn't advance,
for in every war they kill you a new way. (Will Rogers)
Well this is obvious (Score:2)
What else explains why all little Chinese girls are born knowing how to play classical Piano?
(I kid, I kid)
Seriously though, this does seem rather obvious. People who cannot keep up with societies expectations do not have as much luck breeding. Duh.
Evolves the meme (Score:3, Funny)
You're saying we've been breeding for accountancy? (Score:2)
And we still can't run an advanced economy without bubbles?
You'd think at this point (Score:3, Funny)
Natural selection gives way to human selection (Score:5, Interesting)
More info from this article [theglobeandmail.com]
new American Scientist article about diet (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution is not...or is that naught? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always hope the current crop of Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.
I wouldn't bet [imdb.com] on that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can always hope the current crop of Neanderthals will be bred out as their namegivers had.
I wouldn't bet [imdb.com] on that.
You do know that movie was fiction, right? Hmm... maybe the current crop of religious neanderthals will just be replaced by a moviegoing crop of neanderthals.
Re: (Score:2)
Fiction? Yes. A gross exaggeration? yes. Insightful? Hell, yes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Insightful my ass. It was fun to watch, but that's it. The trend of the poor and uneducated breeding more than the well-educated upper classes has been with us for a long time now, yet our species has continued to improve technologically and the average IQ has continued to rise. You can poke fun at American popular-culture, if that's what makes you happy, but if you're going to suggest that the human race is about to start getting stupider then you'd better have some damn good evidence to support that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but if you're going to suggest that the human race is about to start getting stupider then you'd better have some damn good evidence to support that."
Texas. Australian Internet regulators. ICANN.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? The number 100 has continued to rise? :P
Smartass :)
On the off chance that you're serious - and for those who aren't aware - IQ tests are re-normalized periodically in order to keep 100 as the average. In other words, if a person today and a person 30 years ago took the exact same IQ test and got the exact same answers, the person writing it today would receive a lower score. So yes, the average IQ does keep getting higher, even though it stays at 100 :)
Check here for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real history demonstrates that the smarter (and therefore richer) members of society have had fewer children, but more that reach a reproductive age. This has been an environmental selection.
Idiocracy explores what happens when cultural selection overwhelms environmental selection. No, it is not a documentary. It is a thought study cast as humor.
Now, since you have such a disregard for this fictional thought study, please explain to the group what happens when the smartest people in mass decide not to re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(It probably does.)
Re: (Score:2)
No one's running around screaming "the sky is falling". Just that you consider the tale and its implications.
Except there are indeed people on slashdot who are running around screaming that idiocracy is coming true anytime anyone does anything stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You do know that movie was fiction, right?
I never thought of it as fiction so much as
A FRIKKEN HILARIOUS COMEDY
*sheesh*
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:5, Informative)
The people conducting that study were completely confused:
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.
Did I wake up in a parallel universe where Ike is still President?
conservatives don't pay (Score:2, Insightful)
for public or private resources
the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor
there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms". some people are their own worst enemy
the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in. if you do not invest in your soci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your agenda is showing. The world isn't black and white. You paint conservative idealism, yet don't point out the flaws in liberal idealism. Idealism is dangerous in general, since the solution is always in the grey area. Deciding on a solution to a problem based on the current situation always beats deciding based on an ideal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe
please tell me (Score:5, Insightful)
how the average lower middle class person is supposed to pay for healthcare in this country
the conservative answer is "shut up and get busy dying"
you don't have an answer beyond that, and it makes my blood boil. the cost of a sick society is much higher than the cost of a health care system which is attuned to taking care of people, rather than raping them for profit
"the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor"
The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
can you point to such a society for me please? this is a pleasant fiction to support your bankrupt thinking, as this country doesn't even exist
meanwhile, i can point to many countries without a strong central government which naturally gravitate towards a rich upper class and the vast majority being poor. i don't understand why you cannot see that without strong functioning social nets this is the inevitable result of your ideology. how many examples of how many third world countries with weak central governments and no protections do you want? and yet this third world status quo is EXACTLY what you are arguing for. can you not see the obvious result of your ideology?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor"
The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
can you point to such a society for me please? this is a pleasant fiction to support your bankrupt thinking, as this country doesn't even exist
You are incorrect. While the largest such country ceased to exist 1991, there are a few that still exist, including North Korea and Cuba.
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:5, Informative)
Don't let actual charitable individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet fool you. Wealthy people by and large donate because there is a net gain in it for them.
I would urge you to especially look into information about Charitable Remainder Trusts.
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:4, Interesting)
I will speak to this.
Based on world per capita income levels, I am quite wealthy. In fact, my income is beyond the dreams of avarice of the inhabitants of several sub-Saharan peoples.
Last week I bought 5 Casual Day stickers benefiting the American Red Cross. They cost $2 apiece, which is equivalent to me working four days in the field on a Guatemalan farm.
Have I not done enough?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can with the American Tax Code. Ask Warren Buffett sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
While saving 5 cents may seem like nothing, when talking about this kind of money, it gets big. It's not always "charitable foundations" though. Typically the money is spread somewhat evenly a
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Back up your wild assertions with some links, or everyone will be forced to conclude you just made that up. Here's one rebuttal to the assertion: http://immorallogic.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberal-vs-conservative-giving.html [blogspot.com]
Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.
The idea that liberals give away 'other people's money' is ludicrous on the face of it. Liberals don't pay taxes? We're putting our money towards charity, too, but charity is a public good, and we demand that you pay your fair share of this shared good. When I give to a charity, you benefit. because the charity makes society a better place. Charities make the hungry and homeless less desperate, and less likely to steal your stuff. They make the useless and uneducated into productive citizens who grow the economy. Charities do all kinds of beneficial things, and everyone benefits, which is why everyone should pay.
it would be nice if your lip service (Score:2)
translated into reality
but the simple truth is that those who say dismissively "charity will take care of it" don't actually give to charity
such that the giving must be compulsory, for the sake of those who don't understand they are part of a society, they derive their income from a healthy functioning society, and so must be compelled to pay the maintenance they owe but don't understand. their animosity towards this compulsory payment is not derived from a superior way to run a society, but a simple stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I thought your 'lip service' comment was directed at me, and I was all set for a good huff. But it must not have been directed at me, because the actual body of your comment agrees with me.
BTW, I like your new sig. What ever happened with the movie? Last I checked on your blog, (a while ago) I think it was actually in post production. Any release? Any showings? It sounded kinda cool. I know we get in great big huffy arguments a lot, but I don't actually dislike you.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your stance on religious "giving", I think you're wrong in your overal conclusion. Try this article for starters.
(disclaimer: I have no idea what the politics of that site are, I just googled and followed the first hit that seemed reliable)
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
--
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, I will run that by you one more time. Do try to keep up.
People in desperate situations do not just give up and die. They take desperate actions. Not only do they not contribute to society, not only are they a drain, they are dangerous, and a destabilizing element.
Keeping people from desperation thus benefits society. Yes, they are 'freeloaders,' but that is better than being a desperate animal with the brains of a human. And, because people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, when we help people out, they want to pay it back and contribute to society. They aren't freeloaders for long. They become productive, and as I'm sure we both agree that the economy is not a zero sum game, the more productive members of society we have, the more we all benefit.
See? Everyone benefits. So why should some people get away without paying for that benefit? If they are in a desperate situation themselves, I could understand, but if they can afford to pay for this benefit, and they don't, why should they continue to receive all the other benefits that come from living in a mutually beneficial society?
What statistics do you suggest I look at, exactly? And where do you get the idea I'm a liberal? I'm far scarier than that. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like your point about liberalism and taxation - to put it simply, nobody gets to vote for spending just other people's money on a cause, they have to include raising their own taxes with everyone else's.
However, I have to take exception to this:
Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing
Re: (Score:2)
You should really get out in the real world yourself instead of quoting Rush Limbaugh talking points. Where are these alleged studies? Or do you just believe they exist because your tin god tells you so?
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that *public* resources should be used to help corporations.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:4, Insightful)
*Except banks and investment firms. Oh, and Halliburton and Blackwater.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or, "Liberals want a welfare state. Conservatives want a corporate welfare state."
bad form to quote myself, I know...
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, yes. Slashdot... where correlation does not mean causation unless the study supports your prejudices.
Does high IQ produce the bent away from conservative values and religion? Or does high IQ cause one to feel "superior to the masses", arrogance and then a rejection of these values? The study is not able to go into this.
And assuming this is the same study as the one I read... was done on a college population (brilliant sampling technique, I must admit). It also found that the "ubermensch" has an average IQ of 103. Clearly our atheist, liberal overlords are far beyond what I can even imagine intellect wse.
Re: (Score:2)
It also found that the "ubermensch" has an average IQ of 103.
Which is per definitionem above average for all, because the average IQ is defined to be 100.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am quite aware of this. The OP makes it sound like there is a titantic difference. Again, if this is the same study I read, it focused on college students.... which makes me wonder if 103 is really above average given the demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my goodness, someone doesn't understand how the IQ scale works. It is the percentage of intellectual age to actual age, and 100 is, by definition, average for any given age group.
You must be a conservative, right? It shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I tend to be more liberal than conservative.
And if you are looking at college students, the average should be above 100 because of selection bias. So, I would think it is YOU who does not understand the bell curve.
Now, having said that, this study is not the one I was thinking of. This one trackedkids from a younger age through young adulthood.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, duh, right. Selection bias for college students, I thought you were talking about age because that is all the article mentions:
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
But you were talking about a different article that you had read, which DID focus on college students. I thought we were still referring to the article grub had mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
It's within the margin of error.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Placebo effect (Score:2)
In contrast, groups of people who believe in some unseen being that helps them, won't need another person to actually give them the "sugar pill", they can more often self-administer it. This can help the survival of their group.
I suggest that this might affect the "natural selection" too.
If the costs (too many human sacrifices, too much killing et
Re: (Score:2)
> Too bad smarter people tend to breed less.
That is just natural selection doing it's job...
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad smarter people tend to breed less
That's true, but it's a very recent phenomenon, and it only applies to developed/rich countries. Historically, in some cultures (notably Far East and city-dwelling Jews of Medieval Europe) the higher your IQ, more children you had in general. Just from my own personal knowledge... my maternal grandmother's dad was a rich self-made guy around the turn of century in Korea. Again, generally speaking, higher IQ people usually make more money than lower IQ people. Now the culture in the Far East at the time was
Re: (Score:2)
And you seem to put atheism as a tenant and pillar of intelligence.
So atheism pays rent to intelligence? The word you're looking for is "tenet" not "tenant."
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe... so I did.
Atheism paying rent to intelligence is an awfully funny philosophical picture though...
Re: (Score:2)
Suppression of the majority by the minority, I suspect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can argue back and forth about who has evidence, since the tendency is to simply dismiss the other side's evidence as non-evidence... with any debate, that's the case. Just look at the AGW debate.
The ideological side of the AGW debate, sure. On the science side, it's quite a bit different.
The word "evidence" has a pretty clear meaning. If you can submit actual evidence, I'd be more than happy to look at it. On the other hand, if all you can do is pull out Pascals Wager, a God of the Gaps argument, or a claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics ... then you don't actually understand what the word "evidence" means. Those types of arguments should be rejected offhand, regardles
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Atheism is a belief"
Only if not collecting stamps is a hobby.
But having a passion to stop others collecting stamps and become active about it IS a hobby. He/she active engaging in such activies feels rewarded by such activities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Education can contribute to IQ, though. We've been seeing a steady rise in IQ points for quite a while now, and the best theories I've seen suggest that it's directly caused by the rise in abstract-thinking skills amongst the general populace. Since abstract thinking is a learned behavior, this certainly suggests that IQ measurements - no matter how well designed - will be influenced by the level of education of the person being tested.
Re: (Score:2)
Organisms can (de)activate genes during life!? (Score:2)
Yes, yes they can. Plants in particular have crazily complex mechanisms for enabling/disabling genes (since that's pretty much the only way they can adapt to changing environments). But animals do it too.
The enzyme that allows you to digest lactose is a protein, lactase. This protein is coded for by a particular sequence of DNA. Another sequence of DNA controls whether or not the first sequence is active and producing the enzyme it codes for.
Traditionally the lactase gene is disabled after weaning. But