Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!dmark From: dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Genetics and IQ Message-ID: <9159@cs.Buffalo.EDU> Date: 10 Aug 89 02:07:48 GMT References: <3229@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <4537@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: dmark@sunybcs.UUCP (David Mark) Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Geography Lines: 31 In article <4537@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <3229@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, by geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks): > >" ... If problem X is such a serious problem that its solution promotes >" survival of the individual, then intelligence will be selected for. >" Obviously this occurs, otherwise, we'd all still be Chimps, no? Why do you >" think we became intelligent in the first place? > >A uniformitarian argument: intelligence was once selected for, >therefore it is the presumption that it is now being selected for. Ok. Greg, I thought you were going to point out that intelligence may have been selected for directly up until, say 50,000 years ago, but has not been selected for since our culture became sufficiently complex. The third possibility is: >But what if special intelligence never was selected for? It may have >been manual dexterity that was the advantage, and intelligence got a >free ride on the extra control mechanisms needed for dexterity. There is a very strong inverse correlation between mean number of children per family and mean family income. This is certainly the case in the US and Canada, and I imagine pretty much the rule in the "developed" countries at least. So, we can say that human poverty is being very strongly selected for at present. :-) And, since there is probably at least a mild positive correlation between intellectual ability and income, that means there probably is currently selective pressure on human intelligence in the DOWNWARD direction. :-) * 2 David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu