[lit-ideas] Re: How Civilization accelerated Human Evolution
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 08:31:01 +0100 (BST)
Consider this use of the term "intelligence":
>An increase in intelligence was required in order for homo sapiens to
learn how to farm. And then further increases as well as other
evolutionary changes were required in order to learn how to reduce
disease, adapt to eating foods that were not significant when they
wandered as hunter-gatherers or herders.
Cochran and Harpending end with a discussion of the Ashkenazi Jew. Evidence
exists, they argue, that their intelligence (and peculiar diseases) were not
created by “bottlenecks” but by natural selection. These Jews (as
opposed to Jews living in Muslim countries for example) worked in “white
collar” activities as money lenders and in more modern times especially
starting in the 19th century in science and mathematics,
excelled. They began doing this about 800 years ago; then in the early
1800s when many of them opened up to enlightenment ways of thinking,
their money-lending intelligence enabled them to excel in mathematics
and science.>
What is lacking above is any analysis that separates out "intelligence" in
terms of 'nature' and 'nuture': "intelligence" based on "cultural evolution"
and "intelligence" based on "genetic evolution". In the absence of any adequate
separating out, it may be a category mistake of sorts, where this
"intelligence" is a facet of "cultural evolution", to posit "that their
intelligence (and peculiar diseases) were not created by “bottlenecks” but by
natural selection" (where "natural selection" is a purely W1 affair but
"intelligence" is not).
That there may be a fundamental category mistake of sorts being made is
indicated by the way
"intelligence (and peculiar diseases)" are referred to as if they are both on
the same level: whereas "peculiar diseases" are something to be understood
purely in W1 terms, while "intelligence" involves understanding in terms of the
W1 brain, the W2 of 'mind' and the W3 of the 'contents' on which the 'mind'
operates.
To refer to people of Jewish descent in terms of their "money-lending
intelligence", and how this "enabled them to excel in mathematics
and science", is hardly acceptable as a proper explanation: and it may be
suggested that Jewish people had advantage over, say, Irish and Italian when
they emigrated to America because culturally they had worked trades in cities
rather than being agrarian peasants: agrarian peasants need do no more than be
a human workhorses, without developing the kind of cultural "intelligence"
needed to run a business. The cultural value put on mathematics etc. is likely
much less with agrarian peasants of the Irish and Italian type than with people
in trades: but if one is an agrarian peasant of the Chinese type, performing
the complex assessments and measurements needed to maximise output from
paddy-fields, then mathematical and science-based thinking will likely be
valued in a similar way to where someone is in a city trade - because it is so
useful.
We should perhaps be much more careful than the authors, and it is a useful
start to have terminology that separates out the W1, W2 and W3 aspects of
"intelligence" - rather than taking "intelligence" in a lumpen way. For
example, the phenomenon of greater Asian proficiency in mathematics may have
little to do with their W1 brain having greater facility with mathematics and
much more to do with (a) the agricultural system of paddy fields that long
required a scientific/mathematical approach for its success, and the impact of
this on the cultural value placed on science and mathematics; (b) that their
number systems make maths easier (adding 'seven tens and five' and 'five tens
and six', in words of even shorter syllable, is easier 'mentally' than adding
'seventy five' and 'fifty six' as in English: in English the words may need to
be translated into numbers to perform the calculation whereas in other
languages the mathematical character of the
calculation is more transparent in the natural language used); (c) that they
have a greater culture of "persistence", which is very useful in developing
maths and science skills.
Donal
ex-Lion Tamer
London
On Saturday, 10 May 2014, 14:48, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I read The 10,000 Year Explosion, How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution
by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, 2009.
If “natural selection” isn’t at work raising intelligence and adapting us to
new technology then it is something very like it. Cochran and Harpending
marshal a number of evidences demonstrating key evolutionary advances. Our
becoming lactose tolerant for example enabled our ancestors to raise cows for
milk giving them a 5 to 1 advantage over those who raised cattle for food.
The “10,000 year explosion” in their title refers to agriculture. When our
ancestors could stop wandering about with herds of cattle and settle down in
fixed locations to farm, this necessitated the creation of ‘elites’ needed to
guard their property, govern disputes and assemble them in order to fight
groups of intruders bent on robbing them of their property and women. But
towns centered on clusters of farms had advantages over wandering tribes of
herders – eventually. Attila and his Huns were herders rather than farmers,
but the potential was there for farmers to produce larger armies.
An increase in intelligence was required in order for homo sapiens to learn how
to farm. And then further increases as well as other evolutionary changes were
required in order to learn how to reduce disease, adapt to eating foods that
were not significant when they wandered as hunter-gatherers or herders.
Cochran and Harpending end with a discussion of the Ashkenazi Jew. Evidence
exists, they argue, that their intelligence (and peculiar diseases) were not
created by “bottlenecks” but by natural selection. These Jews (as opposed to
Jews living in Muslim countries for example) worked in “white collar”
activities as money lenders and in more modern times especially starting in the
19th century in science and mathematics, excelled. They began doing this about
800 years ago; then in the early 1800s when many of them opened up to
enlightenment ways of thinking, their money-lending intelligence enabled them
to excel in mathematics and science.
Cochran and Harpending allude to the possibility that Israel being a cross-road
to a number of invasions and a lot of traffic may have benefitted from
increased genetic variation, but they find no indication that Jews 2000 years
ago were smarter than the norm for that time. Perhaps that is why they didn’t
draw a parallel to the modern-day U.S. We have had an influx of the brightest
people from all over the world especially after World War II. Hasn’t the
resultant genetic variability enhanced intelligence in a significant few?
American entrepreneurs do seem to be developing new technology at a greater
rate than other nations. Could the reason for this be to some extent due to so
many bright people having moved to the U.S. in the 20th century?
And I also wondered about the heritability of things learned. The Ashkenazi
Jews learned money lending and this enabled them to become leading scientists
and mathematicians in the 20th century. Cochran and Harpending don’t go
beyond “natural selection” to account for the reasons for this. Somehow in the
past 800 years the smarter Ashkenazi Jews had more children than the dumber
ones and thus were able to produce Einstein-level brilliance by the 20th
century. And yet Cochran and Harpending describe some serious illnesses that
are also found in the Ashkenazi Jews which would seem to argue against
inordinately larger families for these Jews than the norm.
Everyone on this forum knows that if we study a subject a lot and then keep on
studying it; eventually we will know more about it than almost anyone we know –
assuming we start our study with adequate intelligence. This seems to me what
the Ashkenazi Jews started doing 800 years ago. But is natural selection an
adequate explanation for what happened in the 20th century, for Einstein for
example? We know there are genetic “triggers” of various sorts; mightn’t the
intense study needed for mastering money-lending have triggered an intellectual
benefit that was to some extent heritable? Maybe not, but it doesn’t seem as
though there were enough generations for natural selection to explain those
results.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
