I agree completely with that. Though i fear it is more due to trial and error. A look at any history book will reveal mankind's mistakes. That is the value of history, it ensures a steady progression towards an ideal.(Though sometimes our ideas foster stagnation.) My question to YOU, is whether or not, as you put it, those "good genes" have gotten better. Are you BORN more intelligent than a fuedal serf, or an American colonist, or will someone from 2096 be NATURALLY more intelligent?
I remember reading that children of a smart person and a stupid person tend to be smart, like the intelligent part was the dominant gene. But then, they haven't found genes that can account for more than 3-4 IQ points, so maybe it's due to upbringing after all. But just because they haven't found them doesn't mean they aren't there.
I don't know :surrender:
I'm no anthropologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Man's ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge is a unique faculty(Barring perhaps migrational patterns). It is a point where mankind diverges from animalia. ...
It is not unique to humans, although humans generally appear to do this to a greater degree than other known animals. If one compares the behaviors of a mature animal with those of an immature one, one will typically be able to discern a significant difference which is naturally attributed to greater experience with the world, which is to say, greater knowledge.
And don't you think cultures also mature.. accumulating wisdom (if only limited to a certain line of development.) So if a person is born later in his culture's evolution, he'll seem smarter.
Or maybe wisdom doesn't accumulate. Each generation has to start over.
The collective knowledge can grow, but it is still up to the individual to access that knowledge. In other words, our collective knowledge being greater than during any other point in history, does not mean that people will seem smarter; they still have to put in the effort. Intelligence is just as much an innate gift as it is a result of motivation, determination, and effort.
The question is, are there currently more humans which value wisdom and intellectual growth than during any other point in history? Well, that's certainly debatable. I do not know. What do you think?
Turns out you can predict at an early age if someone is going to drop out of high school.
Is that so? Can you point me to the title of this book, please? I would be interested.
Yeah I think our minds have 'evolved' in that we as a whole society have weeded out the good from bad ideas and beliefs (memes?) in a way similar to how natural selection weeds out good from bad genes.
I'm no anthropologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Man's ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge is a unique faculty(Barring perhaps migrational patterns). It is a point where mankind diverges from animalia. My question to you, is whether or not our ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge has evolved, or developed, and if so why? In short, are individuals such as Chris Langan or Stephen Hawking more/less "INNATELY"intelligent than those like Locke or Satre, or even men(not exclusively) like Aristotle or Plato.(It is not limited to philosophy, just throwing names out there.) Is this decay/progression of intelligence incidental? Is it consequence of man's trek through time? Or does the mind simply evolve?(Excuse any generalizations)
In order for the catloging to take place one must first be able to abstract experienctial information and project experiential information into other situations and other media. The indexing of information says nothing about the brain processing power. Indexing information is simply another aspect of the ability to project the need for information from experience. the accumulation of information since the inception of indexing historically coupled with the changing culture surrounding the access, implementation, and the indexing itself of said indexing makes it impossible to compare a classical philosopher and a modern quantum astrophysicist. The math being more complex does not necessarily mean one is "smarter" than the other especially given the core information indexed from which the thinker is drawing his/her abstractable information.
If you had met traveled or lived with so called primitive people you might recognize their superior intelligence in specific arenas. The medical technological differences between any two times/places/cultures does not reflect on the intelligence of said people it reflects on a historical sequence of events leading there. A book that might interest you that treats this subject might be Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond in which you will find a wonderful bibiolography of articles by neurologists, anthropologists, economists, biologists etc...