I think the evidence for the existence of different cognitive adaptations is weak, and that culture and environment are sufficient explanations for the data.
-
-
Replying to @RCownie @gcochran99 and
Is there evidence that culture is MORE important than adaptations? A reasonable person might be agnostic between explanations in the absence of evidence, rather than assuming it must be entirely one or the other.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TeaGeeGeePea @gcochran99 and
So Occam's Razor points to culture alone. But I grant that brain adaptation *could* have happened. I just don't see clear evidence of brain differences between populations.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @TeaGeeGeePea and
> I just don't see clear evidence of brain differences between populations. So differences in brain volume and neuron count just don't count? Or are those caused by "culture"?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @TeaGeeGeePea and
Cross off "skull caliper" again on second bingo card.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @CovfefeAnon and
Rather than linking to the essay on "bingo" again, I'm going to ask: what is your problem with measurement? Are you pro-ignorance?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TeaGeeGeePea @CovfefeAnon and
You're trying to make a triple bank-shot of invalid (or at best very weak) inferences: 1. No-one cares about brain volume in itself 2. You're claiming brain volume is correlated with IQ
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @TeaGeeGeePea and
[but correlation on individuals within a group doesn't imply anything about inter-group differences, which may have different causes] 3. And claiming group differences in selection for IQ in the past.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @TeaGeeGeePea and
[but strongest selection in the past was on diseases, and correlates of IQ such as reaction time and perhaps decision-making skill seem generally useful, not with different usefulness to different groups.]
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @TeaGeeGeePea and
So yeah, I think it's a joke when you try to make this chain of flawed inferences. You like the fact that you can measure brain volume. And I think it's pointless to measure something that can't be reliably connected to what we care about.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The joke is that you either deny differences in average brain volume or deny that average brain volume is related to intelligence or deny that intelligence can be measured and you switch from one to the other. These are the argumentation tactics of someone knowingly lying.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.