You don’t need to build a cathedral. Mass ritual murder grave suffices.
Well sure but the absence of mass ritual murder graves from Medieval Europe is a poor indicator of lack of religious craziness. As it is for Stone Age Europe.
What is your point exactly?
Modern humans populations don’t seem that different in their potential for religious craziness. This suggest other possible factors must be at play here. Even differences in intelligence are apparently small enough to be something we don’t agree about despite differences of brain volume between some populations being in the realm of 100+ cc. But presuming there are in fact differences in intelligence and these can be measured sufficiently with IQ as a proxy, it needs to be pointed out that Inuit’s have I think the largest brains of any ethnic group, yet don’t have the highest IQs (though their IQs are higher than the Native American average).
Brain volume correlates with IQ.
It does. I think it is a 0.4 correlation. However sometimes statistical differences make such comparisons misleading, since obviously female brains are on average smaller than male brains, yet the general consus seems to be that there are no differences in mean IQ and no differences in general average levels of cognitive ability.
I don’t like the data from comparison between genders or between races. We have very strong biases on such topics. Not so long ago one would say that obviously the blacks and the women are much dumber.
Very strong real world consequences too, strong inclination for beliefs in beliefs.
With regards to modern human potential for religious craziness, once again there’s very strong inclination to believe its not related to race, unless proven so beyond all doubt. It’d be more illuminating to do study on just the white males or just the white females, then there’s less potential for bias, and less noise too.
It is however pretty accurate data. One dosen’t get a rationalist pass for simply “disliking” it. MRI scans basically match weight of brains after autopsy match measurements of volume in skulls. Reports of bias systematically corrupting even such simple measurements have been greatly exaggerated.
My point with invoking the possibility of such differences was that we are faced with the dilemma of either being right and no systematic difference in ability stems from this systematic and comparably large difference in brain size or the resulting systematic difference in ability has been tiny enough to be either tricky to detect or small enough for us to paper over it and pretend it is not there.
Whatever the interpretation this should be pretty directly related Bayesian evidence to the likley effects of recent shrinkage.
The issue is not the brain volume difference data but the IQ testing and all the issues that go along with it. It is such a loaded topic if you start comparing IQs between races.
And I can see how totally rational scientist could opt to mess some with the data or adjust the tests to not find any difference. Hell, I myself personally have declined to answer the race question on some programming contest (which was by the way utterly dominated by whites and asians; yet i don’t want anyone using this data as a prior whenever someone black tries to apply for a job. I asked why they needed race questions, they said that the data is important for their sponsors, for hiring decisions basically, so here you go. They just correlate everything, then they see, ok whites have better median performance, then when evaluating black candidate they use lower ability as a prior).
Furthermore, different races usually go along with different cultural backgrounds, and the cultural backgrounds influence the IQ test results.
The gender issues are even worse.
Anyhow, your claim basically is that we agree on the brain volume differences between races, which is true, and that we don’t equally agree on intelligence. In my opinion that could as well be an artefact due to difficulty of measuring the intelligence. Brain volume is a physical fact, and it isn’t something we can disagree on as long as science works at all. The relative weights the different skills should have on the IQ test, and the degree of advantage given by the test to those raised in particular cultural background (matching the skills to those perceived important by test writer), those are matter of opinion.
Measuring the brain volume difference between races gives indisputable evidence whenever there is, or isn’t, a difference. Measuring the IQ test results, however, is very disputable.
Anyhow, your claim basically is that we agree on the brain volume differences between races, which is true, and that we don’t equally agree on intelligence
I don’t recall specifically claiming that there are differences in intelligence here. I do however consider it a plausible hypothesis but one that dosen’t trouble me either way since in about three or four decades when the genetics of personality and intelligence are cracked we will have our final answer. I didn’t wish to open a debate on this in this thread, otherwise I would have opened with more than a one line summary of some craniometric data. The reason I mentioned it at all is that I don’t think one shouldn’t discard relevant information needlessly.
If in one’s estimation there probably aren’t any differences in intelligence update on your model of shrinkage accordingly to this data. If in your estimation there probably are difference in intelligence you should also update your model of shrinkage accordingly.
There really shouldn’t be much of a dilemma here. Of course one’s beliefs about shrinkage naturally will propagate in the other direction. But if you start walling off information that could potentially cause one to update in one way or the other on modern variance of ability, one will eventually need to wall off a lot of science.
I’m a little confused. Are you disagreeing that shrinkage took place, or are you disagreeing that brain volume relates to the ability?
From earlier post:
My point with invoking the possibility of such differences was that we are faced with the dilemma of either being right and no systematic difference in ability stems from this systematic and comparably large difference in brain size or the resulting systematic difference in ability has been tiny enough to be either tricky to detect or small enough for us to paper over it and pretend it is not there.
There’s a perfectly good explanation for having well agreed data that the brain volume varies between populations, yet not having well agreed data that intelligence or other functionality varies between populations: it is straightforwardly true that the variation in intelligence is both dramatically easier to paper over AND we’d be more inclined to paper it over, than craniometry. Ten percent difference between brain volumes can’t be papered over. Ten percent difference in any intelligent function easily can.
Basically, the data we have on intelligence (or tendency towards religious craziness) across ethnic groups is utter and complete garbage. That is not same thing as having evidence for zero variation.
edit: that is to say:
I do not believe that if there was 10% variation of some function across races or genders, such a difference would be reliably agreed upon.
If you take IQ test of same person twice—or take two different tests—there’s much, much less agreement than if you do craniometry using MRI or between different MRI machines or between different methods of doing craniometry. That is to say, our intelligence-sensor got dramatically larger error than our brain-volume sensor, and the data from intelligence sensor would be judged inconclusive for same degree of difference for which the MRI data would be judged nearly indisputable.
In light of this, lack of agreement on this topic constitutes very poor evidence in favour of zero variation of intelligence or it’s various aspects (such as rejecting crazy nonsense). You only stick with zero variation if zero variation is a simplest hypothesis—but independence of intelligence from volume is not a simple hypothesis, but instead a very very surprising one, with potential to overturn much of our understanding of evolution as the larger heads have significant costs.
However, I entirely agree that if we were better able to measure intelligence, and were better able to agree upon the intelligence and its variation across races, then lack of evidence for variation of intelligence and the like across races in presence of variation of brain volume would constitute significant evidence in favour of independence of intelligence and other related functions from brain volume.
You don’t need to build a cathedral. Mass ritual murder grave suffices.
What is your point exactly? Brain volume correlates with IQ.
Well sure but the absence of mass ritual murder graves from Medieval Europe is a poor indicator of lack of religious craziness. As it is for Stone Age Europe.
Modern humans populations don’t seem that different in their potential for religious craziness. This suggest other possible factors must be at play here. Even differences in intelligence are apparently small enough to be something we don’t agree about despite differences of brain volume between some populations being in the realm of 100+ cc. But presuming there are in fact differences in intelligence and these can be measured sufficiently with IQ as a proxy, it needs to be pointed out that Inuit’s have I think the largest brains of any ethnic group, yet don’t have the highest IQs (though their IQs are higher than the Native American average).
It does. I think it is a 0.4 correlation. However sometimes statistical differences make such comparisons misleading, since obviously female brains are on average smaller than male brains, yet the general consus seems to be that there are no differences in mean IQ and no differences in general average levels of cognitive ability.
I don’t like the data from comparison between genders or between races. We have very strong biases on such topics. Not so long ago one would say that obviously the blacks and the women are much dumber. Very strong real world consequences too, strong inclination for beliefs in beliefs.
With regards to modern human potential for religious craziness, once again there’s very strong inclination to believe its not related to race, unless proven so beyond all doubt. It’d be more illuminating to do study on just the white males or just the white females, then there’s less potential for bias, and less noise too.
It is however pretty accurate data. One dosen’t get a rationalist pass for simply “disliking” it. MRI scans basically match weight of brains after autopsy match measurements of volume in skulls. Reports of bias systematically corrupting even such simple measurements have been greatly exaggerated.
My point with invoking the possibility of such differences was that we are faced with the dilemma of either being right and no systematic difference in ability stems from this systematic and comparably large difference in brain size or the resulting systematic difference in ability has been tiny enough to be either tricky to detect or small enough for us to paper over it and pretend it is not there.
Whatever the interpretation this should be pretty directly related Bayesian evidence to the likley effects of recent shrinkage.
The issue is not the brain volume difference data but the IQ testing and all the issues that go along with it. It is such a loaded topic if you start comparing IQs between races.
And I can see how totally rational scientist could opt to mess some with the data or adjust the tests to not find any difference. Hell, I myself personally have declined to answer the race question on some programming contest (which was by the way utterly dominated by whites and asians; yet i don’t want anyone using this data as a prior whenever someone black tries to apply for a job. I asked why they needed race questions, they said that the data is important for their sponsors, for hiring decisions basically, so here you go. They just correlate everything, then they see, ok whites have better median performance, then when evaluating black candidate they use lower ability as a prior).
Furthermore, different races usually go along with different cultural backgrounds, and the cultural backgrounds influence the IQ test results.
The gender issues are even worse.
Anyhow, your claim basically is that we agree on the brain volume differences between races, which is true, and that we don’t equally agree on intelligence. In my opinion that could as well be an artefact due to difficulty of measuring the intelligence. Brain volume is a physical fact, and it isn’t something we can disagree on as long as science works at all. The relative weights the different skills should have on the IQ test, and the degree of advantage given by the test to those raised in particular cultural background (matching the skills to those perceived important by test writer), those are matter of opinion.
Measuring the brain volume difference between races gives indisputable evidence whenever there is, or isn’t, a difference. Measuring the IQ test results, however, is very disputable.
I don’t recall specifically claiming that there are differences in intelligence here. I do however consider it a plausible hypothesis but one that dosen’t trouble me either way since in about three or four decades when the genetics of personality and intelligence are cracked we will have our final answer. I didn’t wish to open a debate on this in this thread, otherwise I would have opened with more than a one line summary of some craniometric data. The reason I mentioned it at all is that I don’t think one shouldn’t discard relevant information needlessly.
If in one’s estimation there probably aren’t any differences in intelligence update on your model of shrinkage accordingly to this data. If in your estimation there probably are difference in intelligence you should also update your model of shrinkage accordingly.
There really shouldn’t be much of a dilemma here. Of course one’s beliefs about shrinkage naturally will propagate in the other direction. But if you start walling off information that could potentially cause one to update in one way or the other on modern variance of ability, one will eventually need to wall off a lot of science.
I’m a little confused. Are you disagreeing that shrinkage took place, or are you disagreeing that brain volume relates to the ability?
From earlier post:
There’s a perfectly good explanation for having well agreed data that the brain volume varies between populations, yet not having well agreed data that intelligence or other functionality varies between populations: it is straightforwardly true that the variation in intelligence is both dramatically easier to paper over AND we’d be more inclined to paper it over, than craniometry. Ten percent difference between brain volumes can’t be papered over. Ten percent difference in any intelligent function easily can.
Basically, the data we have on intelligence (or tendency towards religious craziness) across ethnic groups is utter and complete garbage. That is not same thing as having evidence for zero variation.
edit: that is to say:
I do not believe that if there was 10% variation of some function across races or genders, such a difference would be reliably agreed upon.
If you take IQ test of same person twice—or take two different tests—there’s much, much less agreement than if you do craniometry using MRI or between different MRI machines or between different methods of doing craniometry. That is to say, our intelligence-sensor got dramatically larger error than our brain-volume sensor, and the data from intelligence sensor would be judged inconclusive for same degree of difference for which the MRI data would be judged nearly indisputable.
In light of this, lack of agreement on this topic constitutes very poor evidence in favour of zero variation of intelligence or it’s various aspects (such as rejecting crazy nonsense). You only stick with zero variation if zero variation is a simplest hypothesis—but independence of intelligence from volume is not a simple hypothesis, but instead a very very surprising one, with potential to overturn much of our understanding of evolution as the larger heads have significant costs.
However, I entirely agree that if we were better able to measure intelligence, and were better able to agree upon the intelligence and its variation across races, then lack of evidence for variation of intelligence and the like across races in presence of variation of brain volume would constitute significant evidence in favour of independence of intelligence and other related functions from brain volume.