Besides this text above the line below, what was written here was a response to an article I was reading. I changed my approach many times. It didn't help that I was watching Thelma and Louise while typing. This article is basically a LOG of my thought process in regards the the aforementioned article.
>Insert funny here<
I like big words! You other people can't deny! When a big word shows up in your face!...
>/End Funny here<
The rest of this article may be found dry, confusing, and lacking qualities of entertainment. Though I realize divulging thought process information can stripping of my most personal privacies and thus potential scrutiny, so stripping of my personal securities as well, I believe there are things to be learned from even incompletely expressed thoughts.
I believe to a certain degree some intelligence may be inherited, but for the most part, it's not as important as the "nurture" part of the nature vs nurture.
scientists say we use less than 10 percent of our brains, so if we only inherited 50% of our brains from our parents, we still have a chance of being much smarter than our parents even if we have less brain. so why don't we?
apparently, we are not born with the "keys" to unlock the huge amount of unused mental capacity that we already have. that's where the "nurture" comes in. we may be born using "10%" of our brain, but that nurture can provide the "keys" to the other 90% of our brains. -- correction -- did research -- apparently the "10%" is a myth.
Nature VS Nurture
There are discussions around the globe of what's more important, nature or nurture when it comes to the human mind.1
I think in the beginning stages (pre-birth), nature is most important, because the chance to nurture isn't there so much. After birth however, I think nuture is most important.
The problem with judging intelligence is giving it boundaries. As the number of things we have a potential to learn and discover have no boundaries, neither does intelligence.
Nature and nurture are both basically the same thing. In human terms, nurture is that which is molded by humans or human developed systems, nature is that which is molded by anything else.
Intelligence has no boundaries. As th
I think homosapiens evolve relative to their circumstances. If TV's are everywhere, people will become excellent observers of TV. Each person experiences an individual perception of what's in front of them so while 100 people may be watching TV, one of those people may be studying the knobs and buttons on the TV instead. Those other 99 people will ask that one persona about the movie and he will say I don't know, they will assume he is stupid. However, obviously, if he were to ask them about the knobs on that TV, it would appear as if those 99 of people were stupid.
Intelligence is relative.
I've met gangsters on the street who may not be able to recite philosophical quotes, but are able to grasp the concept of them far greater then some mathematicians.
In this case, it sounds like your referring to intelligence as not the ability to survive. Obviously, if you were, it would seem as though these "less intelligent" people
Intelligence is relative.
If there were ever a world shaking nuclear war, who would be more likely to survive, the 1 intelligent person for every 100 people, or the 99 "dumb" people? In that circumstance, it would seem as though it was the "dumb" person who was most smart. And some may say it were obvious they were the most intelligent, for they retained their survival instincts!
I think those who are most intelligent are of three types of people, really... First, the people who can see the direction of things, because then they can focus their skills, and two, the person who while may not be able to tell the direction of things, understands that the generally observed key to survival is "well roundedness" as a jack of all trades is much more likely to have the ability to adapt well than a master of one, and third, someone who realizes all of these things, including that the mere definition of intelligence is changeable, as with what a person knows.
As Bruce Lee said, "be water my friend." We are pottery that can be molded however we choose. As long as we nourish it (take care of ourselves), we can continue to mold and even completely reshape ourselves, so long as we are not vain, and we do not cook ourselves solid. Eventually though, even the best pottery cracks and crumbles. Of course, pottery lasts longer if it's not used and is stored well as in a museum, but what good is it then? Unused, it's just something to look at.
The perception of intelligence is relative, whether the current definition of it is or isn't.
If there were ever a world shaking nuclear war, who would be more likely to survive, the 1 intelligent person for every 100 people, or the 99 "dumb" people? In that circumstance, it would seem as though it was the "dumb" person who was most smart. And some may say it were obvious they were the most intelligent, for they retained their primal survival instincts! Look, that person had 50 kids! He was the Einstein of that era!
As Bruce Lee said
We are pottery that can be molded however we choose. As long as we nourish ourselves, we can continue to change and even completely reshape ourselves, so long as we are not vain, and we do not cook ourselves solid. Eventually though, even the best pottery cracks and crumbles. Of course, pottery lasts longer if it's not used and is stored well as in a museum, but what good is it then? Unused, it's just something to look at.
I think it's not the question of whether intelligence is declining or rising. I think it's rather "where" is our intelligence directed now. Our intelligence is like pottery, what we learn depends on what we need or want to learn.
I think the gap between genetically intelligent and the not so is getting larger. However, I believe the assumptions of what constitutes intelligence is corrupt.
The definition of intelligence is what's at steak here really. The modern definition of intelligence doesn't seem to incorporate or give credit to "primal" intelligence and the use thereof.
If primal intelligence is given any a higher authority than abstract intelligence, then perhaps intelligence is rising. However, in this time (2007), abstract and intelligence in communications is considered of the highest authority, so in that sense, I would say intelligence may be declining slightly.
The perception of intelligence is just as important as intelligence itself as well. I've met gangsters "on the street" who have better reasoning using abstract methods than "bookworms" of society, however their abstract reasoning is applied in a less fortunate area of life, so it would seem they are less smart, they are truly only in a different situation, and more and more people are becoming poor (the gap between rich and poor is growing), so those poor people have less a chance (not "no" chance, but "less") of applying their mental skills in areas the upper levels (richer, more intelligent by modern standards - 2007) peoples "areas of interest" or "noteworthy subjects of applied thoughts."
Who can blame the supposedly "less" smart or "less" rich person however. Instinctively, it is a "waste of time" to focus on mental achievements when ranking at the lower end of society, so it may be perceived as "self-destructive" to spend time on things seemingly not relevant. One must have a "higher calling" for example, the betterment of mankind for the good of the whole (which would include oneself and ones family, friends, loved ones). That higher calling would be the "drive" to do things not typically necessary. But who is really smarter? Perhaps neither. One may fail, but together they both know. The next time, it may be the other who fails, but still, together, they both know, they both win.
That's enough for now, I've spent a few hours trying to express my thoughts in understandable terms... You'll see what I mean if you read my thought log, seeing everything I've typed trying to get this out:
>end article here>