Adaptation to environments, including social environments, through natural and sexual selection is the linchpin of evolution. Remembering this means knowing why scientific racism is ridiculous. To argue that races or ethnic groups differ innately in intelligence, however defined, is exactly equal to an assertion that intelligence has proven less adaptive for some people than for others. This at minimum requires an explanation, a specifically evolutionary explanation, beyond mere statistical assertion; without that it can be assumed to be bias or noise. Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence—the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies—a moment’s reflection should demonstrate why this is an unlikely scenario.
(bolded part mine)
Shouldn’t this part be uncontroversial? Brains are expensive.
“Beyond mere statistical assertion” So his response to “All the statistics show racial IQ differences” is simply to say “that’s irrelevant unless you have a concrete theory to explain why that happened”? A moment’s reflection dismissing something as an “unlikely scenario” is exactly the opposite of how science should be done.
If there is a single variant with large effect, like torsion dystonia, then its appearance in one group is likely due to different tradeoffs. But if IQ is driven by mutational load, populations might differ in age of reproduction and thus in mutational loads without having different tradeoffs between traits. In the long run, elevated mutational load should select for simplified design, but that could be a very long run.
Of course, but the distinction isn’t useful in this context. Proxies for intelligence, like large heads, became maladaptive, so intelligence itself declined along with cranial size. It remains valid for the original argument—that the assertion that for some groups, large craniums (or other traits that augment intelligence) may have become a liability, isn’t controversial.
Have certain human societies been less full of complicated humans since the Toba bottleneck? Remember that human genetic diversity is quite low compared to other species.
Even if the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis is correct, it isn’t invulnerable to selective forces pushing in the other direction, like parasite load, lack of resources, small founder populations, island dwarfism, and so on. We’ve seen the Flores hominids, we know it happened.
Human intelligence won’t miraculously keep increasing in any and all environments. Lack of genetic diversity doesn’t factor into it.
(bolded part mine)
Shouldn’t this part be uncontroversial? Brains are expensive.
“Beyond mere statistical assertion” So his response to “All the statistics show racial IQ differences” is simply to say “that’s irrelevant unless you have a concrete theory to explain why that happened”? A moment’s reflection dismissing something as an “unlikely scenario” is exactly the opposite of how science should be done.
Beware of identifications and tautologies.
If there is a single variant with large effect, like torsion dystonia, then its appearance in one group is likely due to different tradeoffs. But if IQ is driven by mutational load, populations might differ in age of reproduction and thus in mutational loads without having different tradeoffs between traits. In the long run, elevated mutational load should select for simplified design, but that could be a very long run.
Yeah, that assertion also looks obviously true to me—heck, high intelligence seems to be maladaptive in current Western society!
and the obvious horror scenario
I guessed you had linked to Idiocracy.
That’s not exactly about intelligence being maladaptive, though.
Of course, but the distinction isn’t useful in this context. Proxies for intelligence, like large heads, became maladaptive, so intelligence itself declined along with cranial size. It remains valid for the original argument—that the assertion that for some groups, large craniums (or other traits that augment intelligence) may have become a liability, isn’t controversial.
Have certain human societies been less full of complicated humans since the Toba bottleneck? Remember that human genetic diversity is quite low compared to other species.
Yes, evidently the ones with the lower IQs.
Even if the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis is correct, it isn’t invulnerable to selective forces pushing in the other direction, like parasite load, lack of resources, small founder populations, island dwarfism, and so on. We’ve seen the Flores hominids, we know it happened.
Human intelligence won’t miraculously keep increasing in any and all environments. Lack of genetic diversity doesn’t factor into it.