[IMPORTANT UPDATE: Just How Smart are Philosophy Graduate Students]
I’ve come across some archived posts by Half Sigma concerning Obama’s intelligence. See here, here, here, and here. These posts have me thinking about the intelligence of undergraduates in various disciplines, including philosophy, the sciences, and law. I’m going to first talk about philosophy and the sciences, leaving law to a future post. I should be upfront that I was a philosophy undergrad and I have a vested interest; but I aim to be as unbiased as possible.
Few of us that have had dealings with analytic philosophers in universities would say that philosophers are dim-witted; indeed, most will agree on the fact that professional, analytic philosophers are bright, regardless of the wacky views that some appear to propound. Yet, I’m interested in any quantified evidence of their smarts relative to other disciplines. It would be wonderful if we could round up the ivy-league universities and have the philosophy, mathematics, physics, economics, law, and medicine departments take a high-range IQ test. We could then simply look at the data. However, nothing to my knowledge has been done. So we must look elsewhere.
We do have a decent amount of evidence of the intelligence of undergraduate majors: from the GRE and LSAT. I shall argue that (undergraduate) philosophers are among the brightest; they approximately match the intelligence of those typically thought to be the elite—mathematics and physics undergraduates.
Let’s take each standardized test in turn beginning with the GRE. I shall only focus on the GRE that existed from May, 1994 to September, 2001. It had three sections that tested verbal, mathematical, and reasoning ability. This GRE is a good approximation of intelligence because of its g loading. In fact, Mensa accepted this GRE as qualification for entrance into their program; you need a total score of 1875 to be admitted (each section is scored out of a possible 800). The new version with the analytical writing section isn’t accepted, which suggests that Mensa found, like the newer (post 1995) SAT, the test to not correlate well with other IQ tests.
Thus, the older GRE is the best one to use in score comparison. ETS, the creators of the test, found that this version quantified three real abilities, which made it superior to its previous two-ability version (it tested only verbal and mathematical ability). See here for details.
Let us, therefore, look at how undergraduate philosophers did on the GRE. I found a chart here. They did well but not well enough. Physics majors came first with an 1899 total; Mathematics majors came second with an 1877 total. Economics majors did well coming in fourth with an 1857 total; but philosophy majors came in ninth with an 1803 total.
Yet, I have the hunch that the GRE score total shouldn’t be used in assessing who’s smartest, because the mathematical ability section is a poor indicator of real intelligence or intellectual ability. It turns out that my hunch isn’t so far off the mark. General intelligence manifests itself through lower-stratum abilities depending on what one’s intelligence is being applied to. See here for more details. We have fluid, crystalized, and other manifestations of general intelligence; we also have an even lower-stratum of abilities such as verbal, mathematical, and reasoning. For example, g could manifest itself through the context of a large body of knowledge. So we want to assess a person’s crystalized intelligence in this context. But to assess a person’s crystalized intelligence, we might want to assess their verbal, mathematical, and reasoning abilities. Yet, it turns out that some abilities have greater g-loading than others. Grady M. Towers explains:
All seven factors correlate highly with the general factor, but some correlate more highly than others. The two with the highest g loadings are the verbal and reasoning factors. Psychometricians sometimes make use of this by constructing their tests from verbal and reasoning items to the exclusion of other types of items. This can both shorten and improve a test. Those tests that load highly on the verbal factor are said to be culture loaded, and those that make use of reasoning items to the exclusion of verbal items are said to be culture reduced. (This is an oversimplification, but will have to do for now. ) The Concept Mastery Test is a good example of a highly verbal, culture loaded test, and the Raven Progressive Matrices is a good example of a culture reduced test that loads highly on the reasoning factor alone. A test like the Cattell III, which Mensa uses as an entrance examination, is almost evenly divided between these two kinds of factors.
He speaks about factors where I am speaking about abilities. I’m doing some fudging here, but clarifying the differences between “factors” and “abilities” involves discussing different stratum-theories of intelligence such as the the Cattell-Horn-Carroll CHC theory and its competitors. However, the general point that Towers makes, which I shall now utilize, doesn’t depend on the minutiae of the g-stratum theories debate. The point is that the verbal and analytical reasoning GRE sections have much greater g-loading than the mathematical ability section. Indeed, Towers goes on to say:
The only really successful efforts to make use of part scores appear to be in the SAT and the GRE, where both a verbal and a quantitative score are given. The quantitative score was thought to be a better predictor in the physical sciences and engineering, and the verbal score to be a better predictor in the arts and humanities. The latest evidence tends to show that this is an oversimplification. The current findings indicate that quantitative ability is a good indicator of choice of field, but that verbal ability is a better predictor of grades, even in highly mathematical subjects.
So we should really be focusing on the verbal GRE section in assessing who’s smartest. We should also include the reasoning GRE section since it is highly g-loaded, and furthermore, the math-heavy disciplines do just a well as in the mathematical ability section. (I should stop here before moving on to quickly note that commenters, Tim and Chevo, from this post explain that the means and standard deviations on the individual sections are very different in the GRE. The verbal ability section has a much lower average and smaller deviation than the mathematical section. Taking this into account will alter the score placements.)
Let’s combine the verbal and reasoning scores from the above chart. Physics majors have a total of 1180; Math majors have a total of 1163; Economics majors have a total of 1159; computer science majors have a total of 1150; however, philosophy majors have a total of 1206, which places them first among the brightest.
Now, one could rejoin by pointing out that the verbal section, though it is highly g-loaded, will hide a score depression regarding international students (e.g., Asians) who only have a working knowledge of English; and physics, mathematics, economics, and other math-heavy disciplines have a sizable proportion of internationals. Thus, the rejoinder will be that if we take this hidden score depression into account, then we will find that the math-heavy disciplines will surpass philosophy majors in smarts.
Is there data available that takes the hidden score depression into account? Not that I know of for the GRE, but we do have data for a very similar standardized test: the LSAT. The LSAT, for all intensive purposes, is a lengthier combination of the verbal and reasoning GRE sections. It has the analogies, reading comprehension, and the other wonderful bits from the verbal GRE section; and it has the exact same type of analytical, reasoning questions from the reasoning GRE section. I think that the LSAT is superior to the GRE for evaluating the smarts of philosophy majors relative to physics and mathematics majors, simply for the following reason: it’s reasonable to believe that the LSAT is self-selective for those physics and mathematics majors that are strong with the English language. So we don’t need to worry about a hidden score depression because internationals that only have a working knowledge of English will simply not bother with law school and the LSAT. Instead, they will go on to math-heavy graduate program. Those physics and mathematics majors that are strong in English have the same talent as the internationals (these disciplines are generally self-selective, only the strong survive), but might pursue Law for other reasons.
An economist actually has data concerning the average LSAT scores for 29 undergraduate majors, including physics, math, economics, and philosophy. Physics and mathematics are combined (there are few of these majors that have the desire to go into law school) for a first place average of 157.6 (the LSAT is scored out of a possible 180; the average score is roughly 150). Philosophy and religion are combined (I don’t know why) for a second place average of 156. Economics comes third with 155.3 average. The standard deviation for the LSAT is roughly 10, so these majors all average half a standard deviation above the mean.
Judging from the previous chart on GRE scores, philosophy majors frankly outclass theology/religion majors in both the verbal and reasoning sections. This tells me that if we separated the philosophy majors from the religion majors for the LSAT average, then we would find that philosophy majors match the physics/math average, or at least come very close to it. Furthermore, by sheer numbers of test takers, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a large number of philosopher majors that match the number of the best and brightest physics and mathematics majors.
I’m open to any thoughts about this, certainly if there is data that confirms or denies what I have argued for in this post.
ggw_bach
6 January 2009
unless it has a practical effect or influence, all the philosophising that you do is just a head game, mental gymnastics.
I have all the respect for those in chairs at universities; but that is a protected ecosphere that can really spawn some chaos
Lover of Wisdom
6 January 2009
Hi ggw_bach:
Can you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that the the philosophizing that I, Lover of Wisdom, did in this post is the equivalent to mental gymnastics, or that what philosophers typically do when philosophizing is equivalent to mental gymnastics?
Just curious…
Will Robinson
14 January 2009
Philosophy polluted by religion? Surely not.
Lover of Wisdom
14 January 2009
Hi Will Robinson:
I take it that you are referring to the last paragraph I wrote? If so, there is a big difference between saying “Philosophy polluted by Religion,” and “Philosophy majors outclass Religion majors.” I take the former to refer to an academic discipline or belief set being tainted by another academic discipline or belief set, while the latter to refer to a group of students that score higher on the GRE than another group of students.
Which part are you referring to?
Will Robinson
15 January 2009
I was being somewhat facetious, but it makes sense to me that philosophy, relying heavily on reason and independent thought, attracts generally brighter folks than religion which, even though it can certainly be highly complex, relies largely on rote dogma, conformance to group mores, and thus unoriginal thinking.
I’m neither a philosopher, religious nor an historian, but I suspect many great minds, philosophers, have butted heads with religious leaders before.
Nice blog. You write well.
Lover of Wisdom
15 January 2009
Hi Will Robinson:
Thanks for the kind words; I appreciate them. Sorry I didn’t pick up on the facetiousness. I’m not good at recognizing those things from text alone.
You might not be aware of it, but there’s been a huge revival of religiosity in contemporary analytic philosophy—specifically Christian philosophers. They probably now make up about 1/4th of the total philosophical community, and many of them happen to be the best in their respective sub-disciplines. I’ve gathered from interacting with some of them that they are very professional and wouldn’t fit your description; but, unfortunately, many others today, and historically, do.
Anonymous
29 January 2009
as a biased math major, here is an alternative explanation for LSAT score distributions. Few of the top math and physics students (even those who have strong verbal skills) even contemplate going to law school and subsequently take the LSAT, except for some mediocre students. Philosophy majors are far more constrained in their career choices, and as a result, far more of the top philosophy students end up taking the LSAT.
This generates an upward bias in LSAT scores for philosophy majors (compared to an unbiased sample) and a downward bias for math/physics majors.
maggi
29 January 2009
as a biased math major, here is an alternative explanation for LSAT score distributions. Few of the top math and physics students (even those who have strong verbal skills) even contemplate going to law school and subsequently take the LSAT, except for some mediocre students. Philosophy majors are far more constrained in their career choices, and as a result, far more of the top philosophy students end up taking the LSAT.
This generates an upward bias in LSAT scores for philosophy majors (compared to an unbiased sample) and a downward bias for math/physics majors.
Lover of Wisdom
4 February 2009
maggi:
That is a good point; I’m going to address it soon in a new post. I’ll be addressing your concern by comparing GRE scores of admitted graduate students in philosophy next to the average philosophy undergraduate GRE score.
I’m then going to connect it with your concern by showing that there isn’t an upward bias in LSAT scores. The mediocre philosophy undergraduates go to law school too.
maggi
6 February 2009
thanks
showing there’s no upward bias for phil students is good but not sufficient.
You’ll should ideally also show that there is no downward bias for math/physics students.
Lover of Wisdom
6 February 2009
Hi maggi:
Don’t worry, I taking all things into consideration. I’m researching for my post now, and I’m starting to find that there is a downward bias for philosophy undergraduates taking the LSAT.
My post won’t pop up for a while though—I can’t get everything done as quickly as I wish.
Lover of Wisdom
2 March 2009
maggi mee:
How about I tell you my strategy and you can tell me if it’s viable. To show that there is no downward bias for math/physics majors, I could show the standard deviation above the mean that they test on LSAT is roughly the same to, or better than, how they test on the GRE. So looking at a more recent listing of LSAT scores by major, physics/math majors test at .79 SD above the mean while they (Physics) test at .80 SD above the mean on the GRE.
I can do the same thing to show that there is no upward bias for philosophy majors, just by looking at the same links. They test at roughly the same standard deviation above the mean on both tests. But I what I would really like to do is compare the philosophy graduate students to the physics/math graduate students; I’d like to see the difference in quality from the undergraduate- to the graduate-level, GRE/LSAT score-wise. I think there is a much bigger difference in quality for the philosophy student population than the quantitative heavy population. If that’s the case, then it would show that there isn’t an upward bias for philosophy undergraduates on the LSAT.
maggi mee
3 March 2009
Hi,
I don’t really like your new proposed strategy (or rather your interpretation of the results).
If I’m reading your original post right, the reason you use LSAT scores is that GRE scores are biased downward for math/physics students because of the verbal section (and I think it is not just because of the over-representation of foreigners amongst math/physics students, but also because of compression at the top of GRE math scores.)
If that is right, then our interpretation (of the fact that relative performance in the LSAT and GRE is the same for physics majors and philosophy majors) should be that there is a downward bias in LSAT scores for math/physics majors relative to philosophy majors. That is, if we correct for the verbal GRE scores, “true” overperformance in the GRE for math/physics majors should exceed 0.8 s.d., yet math/physics majors only overperform the LSAT by 0.8 s.d., which suggests a downward bias in LSAT scores (possibly due to selection bias in which students take the LSAT).
I’m also somewhat unconvinced of your last point, that showing that philosophy grad students outperform philosophy undergrads more than math/physics grad students outperform math/physics undergrads implies that there is no upward bias in LSAT scores for philosophy students relative to math/physics majors, because of the presence of many other outside options for smart math/physics majors. A substantial fraction of my friends who would have done great in any grad school instead chose to go into wall st or to google etc. These people wouldn’t have taken the LSAT; the math/physics majors who take the LSAT are generally those who find all such options closed to them, and thus the downward bias is especially severe for math and physics. In the case of philosophy, the relative paucity of outside options beyond grad school and law school moderates the corresponding downward bias.
Lover of Wisdom
3 March 2009
Hi maggi mee:
This is good; I’m going to think about it and come back later to respond.
Lover of Wisdom
15 March 2009
Sorry, maggi mee, I forgot to respond. I will as soon as I can sit down a write a coherent reply. I haven’t forgotten you.
Lover of Wisdom
26 March 2009
maggi mee:
“If I’m reading your original post right, the reason you use LSAT scores is that GRE scores are biased downward for math/physics students because of the verbal section (and I think it is not just because of the over-representation of foreigners amongst math/physics students, but also because of compression at the top of GRE math scores.)”
Let me start with just this portion. That isn’t my reason. My reason for using LSAT scores is that the GRE verbal has a higher g-loading than the GRE quant. It is similarly true for the old analytical reasoning section. The higher g-loadings will better help us proxy intelligence levels by GRE scores. The LSAT is, for all intensive purposes, the combination of the GRE verbal and analytical reasoning sections.
maggi mee
27 March 2009
Sup. You write in the original post
“Let’s combine the verbal and reasoning scores from the above chart … philosophy majors have a total of 1206, which places them first among the brightest … Now, one could rejoin by pointing out that the verbal section, though it is highly g-loaded, will hide a score depression regarding international students … if we take this hidden score depression into account, then we will find that the math-heavy disciplines will surpass philosophy majors in smarts … is there data available that takes the hidden score depression into account? … we do have data for a very similar standardized test: the LSAT… it’s reasonable to believe that the LSAT is self-selective for those physics and mathematics majors that are strong with the English language.”
which certainly suggests that you try to take into account that the GRE verbal stats are biased downwards for math/physics students, and that you use the LSAT because it does not have this bias. But in a later comment you then claim a lack of bias (due to selection) of the LSAT (w.r.t math/physics students) by pointing out that math/physics students perform above the mean at about the same level for the LSAT and the GRE. Under the assumption, as is made in your post, that the GRE is biased downward for math/physics students, I would say the claim does not follow, which is the point of my post above.
Now – if you wish to abandon the argument above (apologies if i misstate it) and return to the point that the LSAT is more highly g-loaded than the GRE math section, then I reiterate a couple of points about selection bias:
first, making a simple cost-benefit argument, there will be a selection effect amongst those taking the LSAT for those who have stronger verbal abilities relative to quant abilities. Under reasonable assumptions about how potential test-takers decide whether to take the test (i.e. anything other than a naive cut-off rule) and assuming reasonably that math/physics students have a comparative disadvantage at verbal intelligence (while phil students are disadvantaged at math), the result of comparing LSAT scores will be biased against math/physics students and in favor of phil students.
second, as I mentioned before, because math/physics students have many more outside options beyond grad school (and law school), only the worst math/phys students would take the LSAT, which creates a severe downward bias.
I don’t think you successfully address either source of bias in your arguments.
alsomike
28 March 2009
“indeed, most will agree on the fact that professional, analytic philosophers are bright, regardless of the wacky views that some appear to propound”
I found this sentence reveals a great deal about your perspective on intelligence and expectations for how intelligent people behave. You make an exception for philosophers’ “wacky views” — very open-minded — and yet no exceptions are deemed necessary to excuse modern physicists’ equally wacky views.
The message here is that we should unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of physics, despite constant revision, because their intelligence manifests in ways that support your political biases. Equally intelligent people such as philosophers can also be entered into the circle of privilege, but only so long as we are prepared to pardon them for having come to the wrong conclusions — politically or intellectually.
It seems your perspective on intelligence is remarkably narrow and dogmatic, as if the main outcome of IQ is being right. What if intelligence is more than just that?
Lover of Wisdom
28 March 2009
Hi alsomike:
“The message here is that we should unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of physics, despite constant revision, because their intelligence manifests in ways that support your political biases. Equally intelligent people such as philosophers can also be entered into the circle of privilege, but only so long as we are prepared to pardon them for having come to the wrong conclusions — politically or intellectually.”
You misunderstand my statement; that isn’t my message at all. I’m am simply referring to the fact that there are bright individuals that propound false ideas. This is true for philosophers, physicists, economists, and many others.
alsomike
28 March 2009
I’m am simply referring to the fact that there are bright individuals that propound false ideas.
So now the ideas & disciplines that you disagree with aren’t just wacky, they are also categorically false. You make my point for me.
maggi mee
29 March 2009
alsomike,
The phrase that you pounced on is tangential to the point that LoW is trying to make. As for your conclusion, it’s hard to see how LoW’s post would suggest that he thinks “the main outcome of IQ is being right”. Perhaps the issue is that you have an alternative perspective on intelligence. Perhaps you could educate us on this topic.
alsomike
29 March 2009
maggi mee, I’m not taking issue with the conclusions of this post. The issue is that LoW would like to equate intelligence with sharing his political worldview, which is that political and moral questions are ultimately answered through rational analysis of objective facts. High IQ individuals have a proven ability to perform this function, so their judgment on those questions is more trustworthy. This is an interesting move, because it seems to implicitly take the opposite position: politics is not resolvable objectively, so we must instead turn to the science of IQ measurement to do it for us!
The existence of large numbers of high IQ individuals who disagree with him on this is thus quite inconvenient.
maggi mee
31 March 2009
alsomike, I don’t think that LoW tries to “equate intelligence with sharing his political worldview” in this post. Perhaps your critique would be more appropriately made in another of his posts.
Lover of Wisdom
31 March 2009
I admit that I’m not sure how my political inclinations dictate a narrow concept of intelligence. I didn’t try to imply that “politics is not resolvable objectively, so we must instead turn to the science of IQ measurement to do it for us!” I disagree with that: politics are resolvable objectively regardless of whatever science of IQ measurement we have.
Lover of Wisdom
31 March 2009
maggi mee:
Just to respond to your last comment to me. Sorry, I didn’t read your earlier post carefully. You are right about my intentions about switch to the LSAT because of the downward bias on the GRE-verbal. And you are right about what the correct interpretation should be.
alsomike
1 April 2009
An interesting reply, which again confirms my point. Political questions are normally understood to have a non-objective basis, which is why they are resolved through democracy rather than science or otherwise objective means. To say that politics is resolvable objectively is in fact anti-politics, because effectively, it says “It is no longer necessary for you to engage in political debate, organizing, even voting. Instead, we scientists will rationally determine on your behalf, the answers to all political questions.” Since the average person no longer has the ability to participate in government, and it is controlled by a minority of privileged elites according to their ideology, it is effectively anti-democratic.
The parallels between Plato’s tiered social organization of bronze, silver and gold souls — gold corresponding to rational, intelligent individuals — are very strong, so at this point I will leave it to Karl Popper’s The Open Society and It’s Enemies .
Douglas J. Bender
5 August 2009
And what of the possibility that one’s chosen field skews WHERE one’s “general intelligence” manifests? For example, physics and math majors are apparently more INTERESTED in those fields, and so would need to focus more intently on mathematics-related topics in order to succeed. Philosophy majors, on the other hand, are apparently more INTERESTED in philosophy, which requires being more adept in language. I don’t think one’s INTEREST should be held against one in assessing one’s intelligence, which seems to be the implicit case in limiting the comparison of IQs to test sections which only involve verbal and analytical skills, rather than taking one’s reasoning skills as a WHOLE, which would include one’s mathematical ability.
The same basic argument for using only the verbal and analytical portions of the “old” GRE when assessing intelligence could also be used to argue that only the verbal portion should be used. But this skews the results towards English majors, who typically have very poor mathematical ability. It seems much like asking who is the strongest, then limiting the test to bench-pressing, while ignoring squats and dead-lifts.
Lover of Wisdom
9 August 2009
Hi Douglas:
I don’t think my argument, as detailed above, works as well as I’d like. But we should be careful to remember that a person’s academic interests is dictated, in part, by his ability and cognitive profile. A person who tilts toward better spatial abilities will more naturally gravitate toward engineering and experimental physics. A person who tilts toward better verbal abilities will gravitate toward literature and poetry.
I have another post that you might find interesting: additional-thought-to-testing-crystalized-and-fluid-g
Douglas J. Bender
9 August 2009
However, if “g” is truly “general”, then it isn’t biased towards one area or another. Thus, people of theoretically equal “g” might gravitate towards widely-differing areas (English versus Mathematics, say) based simply on their personalities and, thus, personal interests. Those whose “tilt” is influenced more by ability than by interest would then likely have less “g” (everything else being equal).
Of course, some might be equally mediocre in both verbal and mathematical abilities, while someone else might be mediocre in only one area but brilliant in another. Therefore, I give up.
thekingpin68
30 October 2009
Well done, blog.
‘Judging from the previous chart on GRE scores, philosophy majors frankly outclass theology/religion majors in both the verbal and reasoning sections. ‘
No surprise. One reason may be that most students (even at Master and Doctoral levels) of religion are more interested in practical aspects of ministry than hard-core philosophical theology, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Biblical Greek and Hebrew, for example.
‘I was being somewhat facetious, but it makes sense to me that philosophy, relying heavily on reason and independent thought, attracts generally brighter folks than religion which, even though it can certainly be highly complex, relies largely on rote dogma, conformance to group mores, and thus unoriginal thinking.’
In my secular UK MPhil and PhD thesis only projects, I was forced to approach my topic, theodicy/problem of evil, from a variety of perspectives within theism and atheism with philosophical theology, empirical theology/statistics and philosophy of religion. There was plenty of original thinking involved.
Frankly, I value science, mathematics, and language and look to learn more on these subjects in my spare time over the years. I have had to pour so much into my Biblical Studies, Theology and Philosophy of Religion degrees and would like to spend more time on general knowledge.
Cheers:)
PhD almost there.;)
John
14 November 2009
As a math major, I will say this: I do not know which of the best are better, nor do I think it’s relevant. But it is not surprising that these majors are all close to the top.I think that Mathematics and Philosophy are more similar than most people think- both emphasize proof, logic, and the ideas of careful analysis and solid logical foundations. The thinking employed by the two disciplines are not so different.
WhoCaresWhatMyNameIs
8 July 2010
Verbal is more dependent on rote memorization rather than problem solving in comparison
to mathematical ability therefore it makes no sense to say that verbal is a better indicator
than math in determining intelligence.
John Smith
5 October 2010
An argument for writers and philosophers being the most intelligent members of society follows:
1. Our intellectual abilities reached its high point with the advent of behavioural modernity approximately 70 to 45 thousand years ago in our hunter-gatherer past with the evolution of abstract language.
2. Studies of present day hunter gatherers show that their numerical understanding is… 0ne, two, many. Geometric abilities though are more advanced in order to produce symmetrical prismatic stone blades. Art is also at a reasonably developed stage. Nevertheless, clearly abstract language is at a higher level of development at this key juncture in human evolution.
4. This is why Writers (Story Tellers in our hunter gatherer past) and Philosophers (Logical Thinkers in our hunter gatherer past) can come from any stratum of society- as essentially no training is required other than that which is hardwired at birth. Hence the competition to succeed in these two fields is maximal. Therefore there has been more time for evolution to have selcted for greater ability in abstract language than any other intellectual ability. This will inevitably lead to them always being the smartest in any society at any time.
Douglas J. Bender
6 October 2010
How philosophy originated:
“Ow. Ow. Ooog, why you do that to me?”
“Me don’t know. Me think about it.”
Ooog, the first philosopher, currently fossilized from the Bronze Age as “The Thinker”.
John Smith
7 October 2010
Dear Douglas J Bender,
Logical Thinkers as a description for the philosophically minded members of a hunter-gatherer band is lazy on my behalf. Wisdom and its accumulation with age is a better description for the roots of philosophical abilities. Indeed anthropologists have found that one of the key advances in the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens is survival of people into their old age which must have been facilitated by the selective advantage that logical arguments based on experience would have conferred. Please note that life expectancy can easily reach 70 even in hunter gather societies and that men at least can father children into their mid sixties.
You also seem to underestimate the intelligence of people in what may be regarded as a primitive form of subsistance. Please note that whereas in our industrial societies less intelligent and healthy people can survive to pass on genes, in hunter gathrerer societies relatively speaking only the optimally adapted will survive to reproduce. If you need any convincing about the selective advantages that wisdom could confer then I suggest you try and survive for half a year in your local forest.
P.s. bronze age people were farmers!
Next time try and be a bit more intelligent with your comments
Love – J. S.
Douglas J. Bender
7 October 2010
Dear John,
Ooog offended.
John Smith
7 October 2010
Ooogy Darling
Aww…. poor baby xx Let me start up a nice fire to make u feel cosy again. I’ve been out camping wild many times so i’ve got a bit of experience. I’ll need significant visual spatial type mathematical abilities in designing the fire stick and to make sure the geometry of firewood cone is just right so that we can cuddle up as long as possible P.s. I’m a guy if you hadn’t noticed but with ur last name (bender-means gay/homosexual in the u.k.) i’m sure u’ll feel quite comfortable. LOL. xx But i’m afraid our language abilities are going to have to be on a higher level of intelligence if we are to successfully pass on our technology to our little kids. We have to stop being gay first or maybe we could just keep it a secret from the wives. ww. Thats going to require serious language communication skills. Now the wise among the band a.k.a. philosophically minded with their dissociative perspective on the world are going to be the best at teaching these innovations in technology. E=mcsquared can wait till our society is well developed enough to deal advantageously with the burden of supporting those with autistic traits. Our great great great ….. grandaddy that lived 60 000 years ago and passed his y-chromosome onto all living men must have been one smart guy! hope ya feelin betta xx cuddle cuddle cuddle
Jay
Douglas J. Bender
7 October 2010
Dear John,
Ooog now disgusted.
(By the way, my reference to “Bronze Age” was in the context mentioning a “fossilized” thinker, which is actually a metal statue; often, important items are “bronzed” to preserve them. I take it you didn’t catch that, oh word- and language-master.)
John Smith
7 October 2010
Dougie,
Im not a word and language master – my education is in biology… I just like to read widely. In fact i’ve neglected my language skills throughout life. I would have missed the point you made regardless with reference to the bronze age “fossilised thinker” but unless i’m retarded compared to you then that sentence could be far more clearer. Unless your writing style is more further developed than hemingway and i simply can’t follow the nuances.
Also, isn’t the point of this forum to link back to the main topic which i have endeavoured to do unlike your caveman stories. Stop being disgusted and start seeing the hunter gatherer instinct in you and in the people around you. The world will become amazingly more clearer. Promise.
My point is very simple…
For most of human evolution we were hunter gatherers and we didn’t get significantly more intelligent once we had developed abstract language because it allows you to do everything else you will ever need to. Evolution for greater intellectual abilities in language and other abilities like maths though did not stop. But to improve on a mode of intelligence we have to start with an ore and then extract the metal. If you look at my previous posts it is abundantly evident that the metal ore that language was extracted from was superior than that of any other human intellectual ability e.g. maths, art etc
Clearly certain abilities like those in music, philosophy, writing, mathematics, art are regarded in a higher light than others because they are seen as pure forms and are practiced on the whole by those that don’t have to waste their time on experiments, bureaucracy etc. Of this select group i am just suggesting that language based endeavours will require greater intellectual capacity because the underlying modality has had a longer time to evolve. Dats All.
Peace xx
J.S.
Douglas J. Bender
7 October 2010
John,
“…but unless i’m retarded compared to you then that sentence could be far more clearer. Unless your writing style is more further developed than hemingway and i simply can’t follow the nuances.”
“Far more clearer”. “More further developed”. Irony is a cruel thing.
My original “Ooog” post was simply an attempt at humor. Those with little intelligence, or little evidence to support their views, are often quick to take offense. And the more intelligent a person, the less they will resort to name-calling and personal attacks, but will instead stick to the relevant points.
Evolution, however, is a fairy-tale for those who wish to reject the God of the Bible. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for common ancestry or the increase of genetic information through random mutation and natural selection. All the evidence points to LOSS of genetic information. “Just-so” stories don’t count for any more than my “Ooog” hypothesis.
And not only am I relatively widely-read, I actually tend to comprehend what I read. It’s a gift.
John Smith
7 October 2010
Dear Douglas,
Any neutral person reading our posts would agree that i have made the more intelligent responses. I judge people solely on their degree of originality. Having read your posts they clearly are lacking with regards to creative thinking relative to mine. Please reread my posts. My statements regarding the clarity of your bronze age jibe still hold but then again like i mentioned before prosodic use of language isn’t my strong point… so I don’t really care. By clearer i mean logically sound and not a lesser degree of complexity. P.s. The scientific evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelming. Please try to heal yourself of this delusion.
Daddy
Douglas J. Bender
7 October 2010
Sonny,
“Any neutral person reading our posts would agree that i have made the more intelligent responses.”
Hooey.
“I judge people solely on their degree of originality.”
And not their truthfulness or correctness or honesty or integrity. Makes sense for someone who buys into fanciful tales of Evolution. Some original story-telling there.
“Having read your posts they clearly are lacking with regards to creative thinking relative to mine. Please reread my posts. ”
Hooey, again. But I see no need to re-read your posts, as your “scenario” for the evolutionary advantage of philosophy and language is hardly “imaginative”, or convincing, let alone evidence-based. Unfortunately, you, like many blinded by Evolutionary stories, cannot discern the difference between science and supposition. It’s a blight on biology, and science itself.
(And unless you can honestly claim to have had a chance to graduate from high school by the age of 12, or to have been able to achieve GRE General scores (pre-2003) in the 2350 and above range, I submit that the intelligence scale tips in my favor. [Note that it was not I who brought into the discussion the issue of one or the other's intelligence or the intelligence of the other's comments. Nor was it I who began the name-calling and insults, and condescending remarks. As is typical for pseudo-intellectuals, when they and their arguments fail, they resort to personal insults and attacks. It's in their nature, evolutionarily speaking.])
John Smith
7 October 2010
Douglas,
As regards your “self reported” scores on intelligence tests… There is a HighIQ society on the internet called the Giga Society. From what i remember it selects using a test where only one in a billion people will qualify. Looking at the members of this incredibly select group you will find none of them seemed to have actually made incredible breakthroughs in Maths, Science, etc Congratulations on graduating so early from school! Real shame that someone with so much talent has been dogmatically blinded most likely by his parents. The theory of evolution by natural selection follows logically from its axiomatic foundations. There could be other mechanisms for evolution though. They probably are not that important except perhaps for particular trajectories if that is other mechanisms do exist at all. In terms of hard physical evidence for evolution there is genomic sequence data. Please stop insinuating that i started all this animosity when you responded to my post with a jibe. I can’t see any point continuing this argument. As regards to not being convinced by my arguments … this is a forum and not a place to present a thesis. There is enough logic in my arguments to build a more convincing case. In any case at least i’ve got something to debate rather than make silly comments. Have a nice life (I take it you are American) LOl xx
Best Wishes
God (tongue in cheek)
John Smith
7 October 2010
One last thing…
I’m worried that given the dates you mentioned that i might be adversely affecting a young impressionable mind. Please note that i’m just being silly and humorous throughout if you reread my posts. It would have been nice if oog could have chuckled along too. I’m quite sure that you are capable of great things and if you have not done so already then will in time make important contributions to the literature. My advice though is to question everything. Including your own religous beliefs. Is the theory of evolution really incompatible with the Bible? I’m assuming you are Christian. What religous authority do those who question evolution actually merit? Also do not respect anyone just because of their status including world famous academics. Forget wasting time on comparing yourself to others (something we are all increasingly guilty of in this modern society) be it through IQ tests, personal wealth etc It will just get you depressed and hold you back. Instead just concentrate on working really hard and constantly compete against yourself to do better in that aim.
To your future success!
John Smith
Cyberia
14 March 2011
To: John Smith
LMAO @ you telling Douglas to “question everything,” and then proposing the fundamental source of Western religious dogma: The Bible. Don’t strain your two lonely brain cells. You might need them someday.