Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JWE

Curious about something. Given that the Homeric Greeks understood concept, as well as us, efficiency, materials, etc.; and further given that wars cull the best of us; I wonder if we as a race are as smart as we were 3,000 years ago?

Maybe the Greeks had 1 or 2 % shit-hot dudes in the mix. Can we find that many now? I know this is also a Darwinian question, but it does have to do with intelligence. Does intelligence randomization decrease as the +3 sigma population is eliminated?

ORIGINAL: Big B
Duck in John, it has way wandered off topic - but it's a worthy point. Besides, if you are familiar with the writings of Homer, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Thucydides - you can at least argue they were quite intelligent citizen-soldiers (without going into the philosophers)[;)]

As for me - I'll admit I didn't finish college, but I have been a passionate reader of history.

ORIGINAL: JWE
Thinking about it though, I guess back then the top of the heap did get to pillage the enemy women; keep them genes going round. Doubt if Achilles was miffed with Agamemnon over Briseis just because she could put a nice shine on his greaves.

ORIGINAL: Big B

Duck in John, it has way wandered off topic - but it's a worthy point. Besides, if you are familiar with the writings of Homer, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Thucydides - you can at least argue they were quite intelligent citizen-soldiers (without going into the philosophers)[;)]

As for me - I'll admit I didn't finish college, but I have been a passionate reader of history.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I try to teach college history and this is WAY beyond my pay grade...

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea
If human intelligence was due to the accumulation of a large number of small genetic effects, then we would be better able to explain it with reductionist thinking (as the molecular biologists want to do) and it would be susceptible to change by truncation selection (killing off the smartest or the dumbest).

However, human brain size and intelligence changed extremely rapidly in early humans whose interbreeding populations were very small so that stochastic effects play a more important role in genetics. Then it is more likely to involve the sort of changes described by Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolution. From this standpoint human intelligence can be viewed as an emergent property not just functionally, but genetically as well. Reductionist arguments aren't nearly enough.

Complex traits that appear in this fashion have large amounts of non-additive genetic effects and the genetic variability is quite resistant to change by truncation selection. For this reason, eugenics was not only morally reprehensible but doomed to failure. Likewise, the practice of tyrants for millenia of killing the "smart" members of a subjugated population in order to breed a population of slaves is also pointless. The underlying genetic variation in intelligence now is probably the same as for the ancient Greeks. The genetics of intelligence involves potential intelligence and Herwin pointed out some important ways that environment affects realized intelligence.

Human intelligence, for better or worse, is what it is and has been for a long time.

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

If human intelligence was due to the accumulation of a large number of small genetic effects, then we would be better able to explain it with reductionist thinking (as the molecular biologists want to do) and it would be susceptible to change by truncation selection (killing off the smartest or the dumbest).

However, human brain size and intelligence changed extremely rapidly in early humans whose interbreeding populations were very small so that stochastic effects play a more important role in genetics. Then it is more likely to involve the sort of changes described by Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolution. From this standpoint human intelligence can be viewed as an emergent property not just functionally, but genetically as well. Reductionist arguments aren't nearly enough.

Complex traits that appear in this fashion have large amounts of non-additive genetic effects and the genetic variability is quite resistant to change by truncation selection. For this reason, eugenics was not only morally reprehensible but doomed to failure. Likewise, the practice of tyrants for millenia of killing the "smart" members of a subjugated population in order to breed a population of slaves is also pointless. The underlying genetic variation in intelligence now is probably the same as for the ancient Greeks. The genetics of intelligence involves potential intelligence and Herwin pointed out some important ways that environment affects realized intelligence.

Human intelligence, for better or worse, is what it is and has been for a long time.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea
If human intelligence was due to the accumulation of a large number of small genetic effects, then we would be better able to explain it with reductionist thinking (as the molecular biologists want to do) and it would be susceptible to change by truncation selection (killing off the smartest or the dumbest).

However, human brain size and intelligence changed extremely rapidly in early humans whose interbreeding populations were very small so that stochastic effects play a more important role in genetics. Then it is more likely to involve the sort of changes described by Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolution. From this standpoint human intelligence can be viewed as an emergent property not just functionally, but genetically as well. Reductionist arguments aren't nearly enough.

Complex traits that appear in this fashion have large amounts of non-additive genetic effects and the genetic variability is quite resistant to change by truncation selection. For this reason, eugenics was not only morally reprehensible but doomed to failure. Likewise, the practice of tyrants for millenia of killing the "smart" members of a subjugated population in order to breed a population of slaves is also pointless. The underlying genetic variation in intelligence now is probably the same as for the ancient Greeks. The genetics of intelligence involves potential intelligence and Herwin pointed out some important ways that environment affects realized intelligence.

Human intelligence, for better or worse, is what it is and has been for a long time.

That’s really interesting COTS. I’ve always been comfy with truncation because it’s logical. But I’m a physical sciences person, best I ever did in Bio was find the frog spleen, so what do I know.

But I’ve always been fascinated with the idea of intelligence as applied to ‘simulated’ or ‘artificial’ intelligence. A decision model can be as complete and complex as your processing power can make it, but when you’re done, what you got is structurally rational, self-consistent, and deterministic.

Warfare (avoiding the philosophy) is inherently irrational and inconsistent, and it seems to respond to intelligence in the human contextualization of the term. AI decision models can apparently provide a reasonable basis for infrastructure support and ‘laying out the Smorgasbord’, so to speak, but how often has ‘intelligence’ chosen the marginal option with breathtakingly successful results?

Can’t be reproducibly done with randomization, because ‘intelligence’ seems to provide a means to, somehow, accurately choose when and how to implement the odd option somewhere in the middle of the list. Why that option? Why that way?

Sigh … guess I’m not intelligent enuf to get there from here.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Darn Harry, c'mon now, you know I have trouble with 3 sylable words.

ORIGINAL: herwin
I have trouble saying 3-syllable words--age related neurological symptoms--but it means I respect you.

G-night [>:]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

If human intelligence was due to the accumulation of a large number of small genetic effects, then we would be better able to explain it with reductionist thinking (as the molecular biologists want to do) and it would be susceptible to change by truncation selection (killing off the smartest or the dumbest).

However, human brain size and intelligence changed extremely rapidly in early humans whose interbreeding populations were very small so that stochastic effects play a more important role in genetics. Then it is more likely to involve the sort of changes described by Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolution. From this standpoint human intelligence can be viewed as an emergent property not just functionally, but genetically as well. Reductionist arguments aren't nearly enough.

Complex traits that appear in this fashion have large amounts of non-additive genetic effects and the genetic variability is quite resistant to change by truncation selection. For this reason, eugenics was not only morally reprehensible but doomed to failure. Likewise, the practice of tyrants for millenia of killing the "smart" members of a subjugated population in order to breed a population of slaves is also pointless. The underlying genetic variation in intelligence now is probably the same as for the ancient Greeks. The genetics of intelligence involves potential intelligence and Herwin pointed out some important ways that environment affects realized intelligence.

Human intelligence, for better or worse, is what it is and has been for a long time.

I suspect it was a female choice mechanism. Ever read a description of bower birds? They're more creative than humans, and it seems to have been driven by female choice.