From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:22:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1992Apr17.202219.4336
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Apr16.084319.6689@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.043127.239@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <GERRY.92Apr12165028@onion.cmu.edu>
>> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>>But many people might call me names if I were to say that at birth I
>>>was endowed with greater potential for mental achievement than he.
>
>The way I look at it is that the mind is like a muscle. You can work
>it out to improve it.

To some extent, yes.  On the other hand, the body can create new muscle cells;
not so for neurons.

>
>It's the same with mental potential. If you train real hard and spend
>your life solving lots of puzzles, your apparent IQ might rise to be within
>10 points (say) of the highest in the world.

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence that this isn't true. 
Limits appear to be established very early in life.  The question of to what
degree these limits are genetic, the result of pre-natal care, or the way a
child is raised in his early years is still open to debate.

>It is the little 10 that is genetic and the rest was hard sweat. As
>Thomas Edison once said "Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration."

A combination here of proof by assertion and argument from authority.


[Lots of further unsupported assertions deleted]

>My guess is that it is impossible to measure the inherited potential.
>Simply because being the smaller component, it gets lost in the noise.

The physical sciences abound with cases in which useful data can be extracted
even with a signal-to-noise ratio of less than 1%.

>An important question is "is it meaningful to want to measure the
>inherited component."
>
>Is it a useful quantity? Because if intelligence is 99% training,
>who cares?

Well, certainly if you've decided to assume your conclusion, there's no reason
to muddy the water with facts, now is there?

>>But humans live in all sorts of environments, and we're at the stage at
>>which we're now *modifying* hte environment, especially the mental
>>environment.  So perhaps the definition of intelligence will change?
>>Perhaps the relevant potentialities of today are not those of tomorrow
>>or yesterday?
>
>A very good point. What was that film when a bunch of people got
>stranded on a desert island and it was the butler who became the
>leader?

_Lord_Jim_, I think.  By the way, it started out as a book.

>In this environment he was the most intelligent. Administrators
>and nuclear scientists would be useless for solving problems in
>this new environment. The bulter was trained with more practical
>was of thinking.

The point of the book was that he was actually the most intelligent even before
the shipwreck, and that once the social barriers that had forced him into his
inferior social position were removed, his natural abilities became obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.