Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (171799)	10/3/2005 12:25:14 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Chromosomes function largely as switches for directing cell development. What is becoming more clear now is that there is interplay with the environment which can accomplish, or at least impact the same thing. The are some genes such as the Hox complex which are very fundamental to developing the basic body plan, so they are active in embryo development, but not in the adult body. Other genes are active throughout your life to handle all the complex requirements of keeping you alive and healthy. The unfortunate problem for understanding it is that there is lots of complex redundancy in some areas, while others are subject to single gene control (and errors unfortunately). Physics & math have a beauty based on minimalism, and symmetry (or sometimes broken symmetry) etc, while the biology looks like a horrifyingly complex mess, but very interesting even so. But if the Y chromosome is handed down, it must get added in after the baby decides to be a male. Much like random apostrophe's get added in for some reason: You get all your genetic material at conception. At around 12 weeks, the male/female sexual parts start developing in the body plan, but it is around week 16 that the associated brain differences start. Both are controlled by chromosome switches. This looks like a potential weak link in sexual development, in that the body & brain sexual selection occur at different times, and probably using some different genes. One might immediately suspect the possibility of getting four different outcomes, female body & brain, female body & male brain, male body & brain, male body & female brain. There is an additional wrinkle in the mothers hormonal levels in the womb might impact things as well. Bits of research show some evidence for the above, and current trials with sheep are actually trying to demonstrate control of the above process to achieve any desired outcome. Very interesting. One can play with words and define words to mean what you want them to mean. But there are intelligence researchers who in fact can measure intelligence, and it's not some capricious unquantifiable attribute. It's quantifiable, like height and weight. But first you must define intelligence. That is why I gave some results that seem to contradict each other. SAT scores vs. college GPA at Stanford. They both are reasonable measures of intelligence, or many people are wasting lots of money. How could there be a negative correlation? Heck, even a poor positive correlation is IMO an indictment against one or the other.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (171799)	10/3/2005 3:05:39 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Maurice, re: "One can play with words and define words to mean what you want them to mean. But there are intelligence researchers who in fact can measure intelligence, and it's not some capricious unquantifiable attribute. It's quantifiable, like height and weight. It takes a great deal of intelligence to define intelligence, much less quantify it. The potential combinations of abilities that make up "intelligence" are numerous. It's not only conceivable but probably likely that there have been people who could do quantum physics and yet not drive an auto without getting into a series of wrecks. Too stupid to drive safely but smart enough to do quantum physics? Is that intelligent? "No" and "yes." With so many aspects of intelligence to consider, how do you quantify it? And then how do you deal with the issue of speed of thinking as opposed to clarity of thinking? I attended a pretty good law school that had some tough admission standards. One of the top three THINKERS in the school was a guy who often came up with some surprisingly complex reasoning...the next day. His ability to think through layers of complex issues was amazing but he couldn't play cards with us because it took him too long to decide which card to play. He thought he wasn't bright because he was slow. One day he told me he was going into a field of law that didn't require a lot of talent. I asked him why and he said; "I don't have the horsepower to compete with guys like you." As smart as he was, I had to explain to him that fast wasn't the same thing as brilliant. He was a modest, introspective person and I think it was the first time he'd ever considered that possibility. Throughout his entire student life he'd fallen short of achieving really high test scores on IQ and other ability tests because they were all timed; timed, but not timed for his slower thinking speed. One of the questions on the most commonly used verbal IQ tests used to ask something like; "if it takes two men 1 hour to complete the task, how long will it take for 4 men to complete the task." One of the answers was 1/2 hour and one of the answers was "cannot tell from the information given." I chose the "cannot tell" answer and later discovered that answer was...wrong. I always wondered if they were repairing a watch or moving a 500 pound refrigerator but no one said. Another question had a picture of a snowy scene and they asked what didn't fit in the picture. In the picture they showed there was a tier of firewood that had no snow on the top of the logs. The logs were dark and the pile was heavy. I've SEEN snow melt off dark, heavy masses first because of the amount of heat dark colors will absorb and that heavy masses will store. That, however, was the "wrong" answer. g. How intelligent were the people who attempted to quantify intelligence using those tests? No sour grapes; I scored highly but I wasn't impressed with the process. I think most tests that purport to measure intelligence do a good job of measuring how well you can learn. How well you can think, however, is a much more important question and one that is much more difficult to measure. I went to school with a lot of amazingly good learners who couldn't think for shit. I still see them. Many of them are addressed as "Doctor." Too bad. I think C. Rice is a fine example of that kind of "intelligence." And yes, in terms of aptitudes, with respect to gender or racial differences it's silly to think that on average "we're all the same." It's even more silly, however, to pigeonhole individual people based on gender or race. Each of us is what he or she is, have the abilities we have and only time and experience will sort us out. We don't need to feel constrained by some statistical probability that may or may not be reflective of the unique abilities that each of us may possess. Ed