The anti-racist plausibility dilemma

[untermensche]

Well, yeah. But you're not saying that if a human newborn does not get exposed to certain modes of thinking that that child will have the intelligence of an amoeba, are you?

While human DNA codes for a highly-intelligent brain that is capable of abstract reasoning, logic, symbolic thinking, and complex social and emotional cognition, these faculties only develop to normal, healthy levels if a child achieves a series of neurodevelopmental milestones throughout their formative years.

If a child's environment doesn't provide the necessary stimuli, or provide noxious stimuli, then the child can develop cognitive deficiencies. For example, young children learn number skills such as cardinality, counting order, and abstract numbers. These abilities aren't learned automatically as the brain grows; they emerge while the child performs counting exercises during play and early education. If these opportunities are limited or denied to the child then they will be slow to develop. (The kitten's eyesight is an extreme example of such a phenomenon, but it is the same in principle.)

If the development of fundamental cognitive skills like these are affected by the mental stimulation a child receives then it follows that researchers need to ensure that such variation in environment doesn't confound their analysis.

I don't think the DNA codes for high intelligence.

It gives general commands to the developing brain. The neurons migrate long distances and half die. This can't be under direct genetic control. It has to be under general control with contingent action based on changing circumstance.

Sometimes by sheer luck high intelligence arises.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If intelligence is not heritable, then evolution and natural selection cannot be true. Every creature would be as smart as an amoeba. Let's do away with Lysenko's ghost.

Intelligence is heritable the way vision is inheritable.

They have done experiments where they have covered the eyes of newborn cats.

If the cat's brain does not get visual stimulation at critical periods the cat will never see, even when the coverings are removed.

The brain goes through a critical stage of development in terms of vision.

The same is true, but more subtle and complicated, with intelligence.

There is a basic intelligence and then there is the intelligence that is either exposed or not exposed to certain modes of thinking at an early age.

Nowhere, except in intelligence, do people think that environment and exposure do not play critical roles in final expression.

Which is the explanation for most if not all of the observed differences between the races. That does not mean that there are not genetic effects, though. Genetics sets the maximum, a crippled environment can keep people from reaching that preprogrammed maximum.

 

[bigfield]

While human DNA codes for a highly-intelligent brain that is capable of abstract reasoning, logic, symbolic thinking, and complex social and emotional cognition, these faculties only develop to normal, healthy levels if a child achieves a series of neurodevelopmental milestones throughout their formative years.

If a child's environment doesn't provide the necessary stimuli, or provide noxious stimuli, then the child can develop cognitive deficiencies. For example, young children learn number skills such as cardinality, counting order, and abstract numbers. These abilities aren't learned automatically as the brain grows; they emerge while the child performs counting exercises during play and early education. If these opportunities are limited or denied to the child then they will be slow to develop. (The kitten's eyesight is an extreme example of such a phenomenon, but it is the same in principle.)

If the development of fundamental cognitive skills like these are affected by the mental stimulation a child receives then it follows that researchers need to ensure that such variation in environment doesn't confound their analysis.

I don't think the DNA codes for high intelligence.

By 'high intelligence' I mean compared other species. The capacity for complex language, abstract reasoning etc. is in our DNA.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think the DNA codes for high intelligence.

By 'high intelligence' I mean compared other species. The capacity for complex language, abstract reasoning etc. is in our DNA.

I think the DNA codes for a human brain.

The capacities of that human brain depend on exposure and experience. They need stimulation, as in the vision of cats, and some of it at a very early, at an age we don't think needs it, in the womb even, to develop fully.

But once in a while a rare human brain arises by sheer chance. What we might call a genius.

A very rare event so not likely a product of genes. More likely just the product of luck.

 

[jjjjusta]

IQ is just one highly imperfect measurement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[fromderinside]

Is Tapatalk encoded in your phone's DNA? Happy day after TG anyway. DNA codes specific molecule chemical stuff which becomes part of one's brain part that does neural stuff which is used by persons to to computational stuff which is used by block headed psychometric dunderheads in white lab coats who often know little about statistics or behavior who produce IQ tests.

Imperfect doesn't get close to the bottom of that pit.