There is no contradiction in believing that a prototypical human is smarter than most humans. Perhaps the variance in human intelligence is mostly explained by different degrees of divergence from the prototype due to developmental errors.
I don’t get this. Surely the variance is on both sides of the mean. I’m guessing the prototype is not the mean, but then I don’t see how the variance relates to the prototype being smarter than most humans. What determines the prototype? Wouldn’t it make more sense for us to model others on the mean? That ideal prototype seems a silly prior.
Incidentally, intelligence is a bell-curve. This paper says its variance is from mutation-selection balance. I.e. it is a highly polygenic trait giving it a huge mutational target size, which makes it hard for natural selection to remove its variance.
This paper says its variance is from mutation-selection balance. I.e. it is a highly polygenic trait giving it a huge mutational target size, which makes it hard for natural selection to remove its variance.
That’s what I said in the comment you are replying to.
If you want to predict how someone will answer a question, your own best answer is a good guess. Even if you think the other person is less intelligent than you, they are more likely to say the correct answer than they are to say any particular wrong answer.
Similarly, if you want to predict how someone will think through a problem, and you lack detailed knowledge of how that person’s mind happens to be broken, then a good guess is that they will think the same sorts of thoughts that a non-broken mind would think.
There is no contradiction in believing that a prototypical human is smarter than most humans. Perhaps the variance in human intelligence is mostly explained by different degrees of divergence from the prototype due to developmental errors.
I don’t get this. Surely the variance is on both sides of the mean. I’m guessing the prototype is not the mean, but then I don’t see how the variance relates to the prototype being smarter than most humans. What determines the prototype? Wouldn’t it make more sense for us to model others on the mean? That ideal prototype seems a silly prior.
Incidentally, intelligence is a bell-curve. This paper says its variance is from mutation-selection balance. I.e. it is a highly polygenic trait giving it a huge mutational target size, which makes it hard for natural selection to remove its variance.
That’s what I said in the comment you are replying to.
OK. I just fail to see the utility of this concept of ‘prototypical human intelligence’ for issues touched on in the OP.
If you want to predict how someone will answer a question, your own best answer is a good guess. Even if you think the other person is less intelligent than you, they are more likely to say the correct answer than they are to say any particular wrong answer.
Similarly, if you want to predict how someone will think through a problem, and you lack detailed knowledge of how that person’s mind happens to be broken, then a good guess is that they will think the same sorts of thoughts that a non-broken mind would think.
Yay! I got it! Thanks for putting up with me.
Thank you for keeping after him! I didn’t see that resolution coming either.