6 ms·

Minute differences in genomes lead to large differences in phenotype. Ever heard of databases of SNP's or CNVs? A single base change can make a world of differe

Minute differences in genomes lead to large differences in phenotype. Ever heard of databases of SNP's or CNVs? A single base change can make a world of difference. Actually, I'm not basing this on anecdote, as there is a ton of literature to back me up here. The first thing I searched for is quite remarkable for a single generation: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r44140388u23t768/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/r44140388u23t768/ But, without going to the extensive literature, are you seriously claiming that the rate of learning is EXACTLY the same for every human, or that the variance is so tiny that differences are negligible? Both claims are provably false if you have a quick look at the literature.

fmora 16y ago
I do agree that some people may have higher learning rates than others but the differences are too small to matter. I will even agree that there may be outliers, a super tiny amount of the population (although I've never met one, and some that are considered true geniuses have some serious mental deficiencies). Overall the differences when it comes to the general population are too small to be that much significant. The people getting phd degrees have in general the same degree of potential learning ability as the general population. If there were really that big of a difference between their potential ability to learn as opposed to the general population than they would be passing this down to their kids. Since you claim that the difference is so large than with careful breeding we should be able to produce a super race of geniuses within a couple of generations. That is not how evolution works. Improvements are infinitesimally small and I don't see why would intelligence be any different. We all evolve as a species, not as individuals. I do not get the sense that we have been getting that much smarter based on our overall written history of the past thousand years. The reason why some choose to pursue a phd and some don't is the same as why some choose to pursue a career as a painter, musician, writer and why some just choose to be a blue collar worker. It is what they feel passionate about. Some don't feel passionate about anything. Culture and environment also play a major role and this is really what makes a difference between people choosing to do a phd or not. If you or your peers tell you that you cannot get a phd and believe it then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There are differences in rates in learning but they are not large enough to matter. Culture and environment play a major role. Edit: Not even Einstein could be called an outlier. He was a bright person but I hardly believe that his potential ability to learn was that much higher than yours or mine. He was even considered mediocre by many of his professors. It really was luck that he happened to be born at the right time in history to be able to make the contribution he did. Even he had to ask one of his mathematician friend for help when doing the mathematics for relativity. (you need to read his biography). Newton considered a giant of physics was considered a pretty ordinary student. He didn't amaze anybody by showing a high potential for learning during andy of his school years nor did anybody imagine that he would come to make such huge contribution to physics.
- corruption 16y ago
  Please read the literature. There is plenty of evidence that directly contrasts your viewpoint from the last 50 years. And by the way, your second point is directly contrasted by the article I linked to.
  - fmora 16y ago
    I read a couple of paragraphs. Is one thing to do a study on rats then to do a study in humans. This doesn't disprove my claim. Edit: Also, it seems that you are implying that the differences are so huge that we should have a lot of retarded people walking around us. The proof that the gaps in intelligence are small should be obvious by simply looking at your environment. There are people getting phd's from all corners of the world. China, Japan, USA, Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia. How did those same genes that enable people to get phd's get to places so far away as China or Japan which have been isolated for so long? Even for thousands of years? The thing is that those genes have been there all along for thousands of years. I think I already agree that there are differences but I do not agree that the differences are huge. Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us. Another example is the Mayans, also isolated for thousands of years from Europe. Independently invented the zero and developed a Mayan calendar unequal on precision until recently. Many of their descendants have gone on to get PHD's. If there were really large differences then some groups of people would not even be able to get PHD's. Again, the there are differences but they are tiny. Yes, there are studies saying that there are huge differences between groups of people but frankly many of these studies are questionable and sometimes they almost seem to carry a hidden agenda.
    - corruption 16y ago
      > Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us. Have you read the literature on IQ? These differences exist, whether you will accept it or not is a different question.
- 16y ago
loewenskind 16y ago
>Both claims are provably false if you have a quick look at the literature. Which literature? You're doing a bit of a (probably unintentional) bait and switch here if you mean the article you submitted. The article talks about learning rates of rats. Rats don't have language. How does having language change the picture [1]? We can't answer that, and therefor we can't know how applicable information about rat learning rates is to humans. [1] Language certainly makes us more intelligent but there's also been studies that suggest that language may also dampen certain inherent abilities. In other words, maybe some people are born with drastically more "powerful" brains but language removes their advantages effectively evening out the field. There is way too much we don't know about all this stuff for anyone to have such firm opinions on the mater. Certainly such limiting ones of "well, you're just not smart enough to ever be able to do this".
- corruption 16y ago
  We are both making a claim. He has provided no evidence at all, and obviously hasn't read the literature. The claim here is that the variance in learning rate is absolutely tiny. Think about this. He's basically claiming that despite a large known population variances in IQ and MA, there is no variance in learning rate. Despite research showing ritalin increases learning rate in a large fraction of society, this increase was meaningless. Despite verbal learning test normative data showing non zero variance, the variance is still zero. There is a large body of literature comparing learning rate in different populations in both human and animal models. Take any study on learning rate, even the ones comparing "normal" to abnormal. Go to the methods and find the variance for each group. See it's non-zero, but often so large that differences between groups is hard to see. Now, if you accept that learning rate has a non-zero variance, and also that learning rate decreases over time (well supported in the literature as well, and no I'm not going to find papers) and that time is finite, then the only conclusion you can make is that some people have a much higher chance of doing well academically. Not only that but there will be some people who despite trying will never be able to do well. I don't see how stating this shocking to anyone at all - in a population of some 7 billion, there are millions of people >3 standard deviations from the mean.
  - 16y ago

fmora 16y ago

I do agree that some people may have higher learning rates than others but the differences are too small to matter. I will even agree that there may be outliers, a super tiny amount of the population (although I've never met one, and some that are considered true geniuses have some serious mental deficiencies). Overall the differences when it comes to the general population are too small to be that much significant. The people getting phd degrees have in general the same degree of potential learning ability as the general population. If there were really that big of a difference between their potential ability to learn as opposed to the general population than they would be passing this down to their kids. Since you claim that the difference is so large than with careful breeding we should be able to produce a super race of geniuses within a couple of generations. That is not how evolution works. Improvements are infinitesimally small and I don't see why would intelligence be any different. We all evolve as a species, not as individuals. I do not get the sense that we have been getting that much smarter based on our overall written history of the past thousand years. The reason why some choose to pursue a phd and some don't is the same as why some choose to pursue a career as a painter, musician, writer and why some just choose to be a blue collar worker. It is what they feel passionate about. Some don't feel passionate about anything. Culture and environment also play a major role and this is really what makes a difference between people choosing to do a phd or not. If you or your peers tell you that you cannot get a phd and believe it then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There are differences in rates in learning but they are not large enough to matter. Culture and environment play a major role. Edit: Not even Einstein could be called an outlier. He was a bright person but I hardly believe that his potential ability to learn was that much higher than yours or mine. He was even considered mediocre by many of his professors. It really was luck that he happened to be born at the right time in history to be able to make the contribution he did. Even he had to ask one of his mathematician friend for help when doing the mathematics for relativity. (you need to read his biography). Newton considered a giant of physics was considered a pretty ordinary student. He didn't amaze anybody by showing a high potential for learning during andy of his school years nor did anybody imagine that he would come to make such huge contribution to physics.

corruption 16y ago
Please read the literature. There is plenty of evidence that directly contrasts your viewpoint from the last 50 years. And by the way, your second point is directly contrasted by the article I linked to.
- fmora 16y ago
  I read a couple of paragraphs. Is one thing to do a study on rats then to do a study in humans. This doesn't disprove my claim. Edit: Also, it seems that you are implying that the differences are so huge that we should have a lot of retarded people walking around us. The proof that the gaps in intelligence are small should be obvious by simply looking at your environment. There are people getting phd's from all corners of the world. China, Japan, USA, Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia. How did those same genes that enable people to get phd's get to places so far away as China or Japan which have been isolated for so long? Even for thousands of years? The thing is that those genes have been there all along for thousands of years. I think I already agree that there are differences but I do not agree that the differences are huge. Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us. Another example is the Mayans, also isolated for thousands of years from Europe. Independently invented the zero and developed a Mayan calendar unequal on precision until recently. Many of their descendants have gone on to get PHD's. If there were really large differences then some groups of people would not even be able to get PHD's. Again, the there are differences but they are tiny. Yes, there are studies saying that there are huge differences between groups of people but frankly many of these studies are questionable and sometimes they almost seem to carry a hidden agenda.
  - corruption 16y ago
    > Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us. Have you read the literature on IQ? These differences exist, whether you will accept it or not is a different question.
16y ago

loewenskind 16y ago

>Both claims are provably false if you have a quick look at the literature. Which literature? You're doing a bit of a (probably unintentional) bait and switch here if you mean the article you submitted. The article talks about learning rates of rats. Rats don't have language. How does having language change the picture [1]? We can't answer that, and therefor we can't know how applicable information about rat learning rates is to humans. [1] Language certainly makes us more intelligent but there's also been studies that suggest that language may also dampen certain inherent abilities. In other words, maybe some people are born with drastically more "powerful" brains but language removes their advantages effectively evening out the field. There is way too much we don't know about all this stuff for anyone to have such firm opinions on the mater. Certainly such limiting ones of "well, you're just not smart enough to ever be able to do this".

corruption 16y ago
We are both making a claim. He has provided no evidence at all, and obviously hasn't read the literature. The claim here is that the variance in learning rate is absolutely tiny. Think about this. He's basically claiming that despite a large known population variances in IQ and MA, there is no variance in learning rate. Despite research showing ritalin increases learning rate in a large fraction of society, this increase was meaningless. Despite verbal learning test normative data showing non zero variance, the variance is still zero. There is a large body of literature comparing learning rate in different populations in both human and animal models. Take any study on learning rate, even the ones comparing "normal" to abnormal. Go to the methods and find the variance for each group. See it's non-zero, but often so large that differences between groups is hard to see. Now, if you accept that learning rate has a non-zero variance, and also that learning rate decreases over time (well supported in the literature as well, and no I'm not going to find papers) and that time is finite, then the only conclusion you can make is that some people have a much higher chance of doing well academically. Not only that but there will be some people who despite trying will never be able to do well. I don't see how stating this shocking to anyone at all - in a population of some 7 billion, there are millions of people >3 standard deviations from the mean.
- 16y ago