Racial differences...

[Viking]

Everything comes at a price. That's why we are not as fast as a cheetah and as strong as a horse, nor is a mollusc as creative as us. They are not worthwhile.

Abstract thinking and complex reasoning benefit you, in your environment. To others, it may be a detrimental waste. It can be a waste in general, or it can even get in the way of a more useful mode of thinking, perhaps more verbal, communicative oriented. The ability to understand how to get to that fruit that's hanging just out of reach is as important as the ability to understand and settle in-group conflict. Both intelligences vary between populations and within populations, and even the spread of variation within the population differs.

Capacity for empathy in some environments means people cooperate better, increasing their survival chance. In other environments, it may be detrimental. Agression rates may vary. Abstract thinking varies.

But just how expensive is gaining that little extra bit of intelligence anyway? It doesn't have to cost much.

Humans are not that weak; I don't know how strong an animal of with our build-up could be in theory, but it's not long ago that we were hunters. Still some humans can hunt down their prey using sheer strength:



And this is a specie that has "focused" on brain power.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But just how expensive is gaining that little extra bit of intelligence anyway? It doesn't have to cost much.

But to what end? It is a waste, a detriment. I don't need to track a kudu. It is almost like asking why I don't have the hearing of a cat, or the smell of a dog.

Intelligence is not a linear process of progression, from dumb to smart as evolution progresses. It is in many ways more akin to size. Size must suit the animal, there is no such thing as a scale that runs from small / inferior to large / superior. A mouse would starve it were the size of an elephant. An elephant would be defenseless it were the size of a mouse.

Likewise, cognitive abilities must suit the entire design, suit the purpose for which it is needed. In this sense, more evolutionary / philosophically than psychologicaly, intelligence has no absolute scale.


To a dog, I am a wizard. I can tell by some supersense, without so much as a sniff, where to find canned dog food next month. To me, a dog is a wonder. What to me is an empty forest, is to the dog a world rich in information - between those trees a male karibou, hurt and in distress, passed three days ago. An olfactory system, nose and nerves, a million times more complex than mine.
(The symbiosis between man and wolf is one of the great wonders of the modern age - such a bummer it must've been for the other animals!)



Speaking of your Khoisan video: would they be more genetically disposed to wander around outside, to be in the company of a small band of men, more disposed to seek reward on a short timescale, than me? I must say I can't help but wonder. The implications are devastating. If true, then far from maintaining respect and equality, taboos surrounding differences create inequality if the basic premise of genetic equality is false. For one, it can force the minority to act as the majority, resulting in the minority being forced to abstain from what it excells in, and forced to do what it is lacking in.
If I were to be transported to a society where most everybody is better in tracking, but worse in verbal expression, I'd hate to be told I'm equal only for me to have twenty hours of tracking courses in school and two hours of language courses - because odds are, a society that breeds trackers, is organised around tracking. I would be had in this scenario! I'd be considered a dumbass when I'm really not. I would get frustrated, skip school, hang outside, be agressive.


I predict a coming collision between the accumulating body of scientific data regarding human evolution and differentiation, and the PC shibboleth that all men and all populations are exactly equivalent. This last assumption has become so deeply ingrained in science and society that it is a complete career destroyer to publicly question the idea.
The result of this, however, is that philosophy, politics and ethics are not at all equipped to deal with inequality. And hence seek to keep the genie in the bottle for as long as possible. Whereas I would take Napoleon's approach: one must accept the inevitable, and work it towards one's advantage.

[Viking]

But to what end? It is a waste, a detriment. I don't need to track a kudu. It is almost like asking why I don't have the hearing of a cat, or the smell of a dog.

It's not a waste, because it has a greate possibility of being beneficial. That's not to say that other traits could be much more beneficial, such that the intelligence remains unchanged for the most part while species evolve.

Intelligence is not a linear process of progression, from dumb to smart as evolution progresses. It is in many ways more akin to size. Size must suit the animal, there is no such thing as a scale that runs from small / inferior to large / superior. A mouse would starve it were the size of an elephant. An elephant would be defenseless it were the size of a mouse.

That's how you like to define intelligence, but with other definitions it can more easily be viewed as a linear scale.

To a dog, I am a wizard. I can tell by some supersense, without so much as a sniff, where to find canned dog food next month. To me, a dog is a wonder. What to me is an empty forest, is to the dog a world rich in information - between those trees a male karibou, hurt and in distress, passed three days ago. An olfactory system, nose and nerves, a million times more complex than mine.
(The symbiosis between man and wolf is one of the great wonders of the modern age - such a bummer it must've been for the other animals!)

Are you going to call dogs intelligent? Molluscs too?

Speaking of your Khoisan video: would they be more genetically disposed to wander around outside, to be in the company of a small band of men, more disposed to seek reward on a short timescale, than me? I must say I can't help but wonder. The implications are devastating. If true, then far from maintaining respect and equality, taboos surrounding differences create inequality if the basic premise of genetic equality is false. For one, it can force the minority to act as the majority, resulting in the minority being forced to abstain from what it excells in, and forced to do what it is lacking in.
If I were to be transported to a society where most everybody is better in tracking, but worse in verbal expression, I'd hate to be told I'm equal only for me to have twenty hours of tracking courses in school and two hours of language courses - because odds are, a society that breeds trackers, is organised around tracking. I would be had in this scenario! I'd be considered a dumbass when I'm really not. I would get frustrated, skip school, hang outside, be agressive.

Is it necessarily the ones at the highest end of the IQ scale who fare the best in human society? You would perhaps have been labeled a dumbass, but successful =/= intelligent. I think that intelligence can help in learning the skill of tracking (it's kind of an abstract concept), but if they had instincts or prior knowledge and/or experience that you don't have, then you'll probably be lacking.