RE: I Used To Be A Fan But I Am Now Shocked, Disgusted And Appalled With Sam Harris
July 20, 2017 at 10:25 am
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2017 at 10:48 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(July 19, 2017 at 2:25 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think any phenomenon so complex as intelligence has both genetic and environmental factors.
Nah I think intelligence is entirely innate. I think that -- like with some mental illnesses like Bipolar Disorder for example -- the environment can help activate certain genes but it can't create them. And I also think having your intelligence nurtured by the environment can strongly unlock that intelligence and make it appear like it has been created or that it wasn't there before and you just got 'made more intelligent', but I don't believe that's actually possible. The way I define intelligence: it's an innate capacity/potential that can be unlocked, encouraged, fostered and fed but it can't be created or made.
Knowledge and learning and memory is a different side of the coin to ultimate capacity for understanding/ultimate potential of comprehension/intelligence, IMO.
However: merely a difference of definition on our parts will make us reach two equally respectable conclusions, of course.
(July 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: And that goes back to my question of how can you conclude using common sense that there are equal measurements of a value that isn't measurable.
And that just goes back to my point that your null hypothesis is completely backwards. The null hypothesis is that all races' intelligence levels are either equal or insignificantly different and we'd require evidence of the contrary for that null hypothesis to be falsified. The null hypothesis is not that different races have significantly different intelligence levels the null hypothesis is that different races have at most insignificantly different intelligence levels. Getting the right null hypothesis is where the common sense comes in. When it comes to recognizing the most parsimonious hypothesis that's where you actually have to use your own intelligence... your own intelligence which has evidently failed you here.
(July 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I don't think this can be argued against.
I strongly disagree and have the complete opposite opinion.
Quote: To give an obvious example, there are lots of ways childhood neglect or abuse could reduce a person's mental capacity.
To go against your so-called 'obvious' example (which I prefer to think of as an oversimplified assumption) here is my, perhaps counterintuitive (but to me far more obvious than your position), counter argument: Childhood neglect or abuse doesn't reduce a person's mental capacity it fails to foster it/ it neglects it/ it damages the person mentally or neurologically so their capacity can no longer be reached. But restriction is different to reduction. Even if in practice a person's capacity is so damaged that they are unable to ever reach their full mental capacity it is still in principle the same and it's not in principle impossible for them to ever reach it. And perhaps there are people who can recover some, or even all, of that capacity in time and with correct therapy... largely depending on how bad the abuse was. And still: even if they can't it doesn't mean it's not there anymore. There's a difference between something that has become unreachable and something that isn't there.
(July 19, 2017 at 6:04 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The learning environment of a child, and even of adults, can and does physically modify the brain, and it is not genetically programmed.
But this is exactly my point... when the environment changes someone's brain it is still an alteration of their innate brain's capacity... it doesn't create or destroy someone's intelligence it can only affect an innate intelligence that is already there.
