(namingway)
As we can see here, 100 is the most common, with rates declining as we move towards either end of the scale.
Now, let's take a look at evolution. Over the course of the ages, evolution has always favored that which gave a species the largest chance of passing its genes on.
Since most people have an average IQ, that characteristic must therefore give the largest chance of reproducing.
Why is that? What's so good about having an average intelligence, from an evolutionary point of view? Why doesn't evolution simply make us smarter?
OK I have a minute to weigh in here and I think I had better before too many more misconceptions about the subject go unchallenged.
First off everyone take a deep breath and say after me:
"Individuals learn species evolve."
Then say:
"Evolution is not measured in decades or even a few generations for a species that lives as long as we do or has the gestational period we do. To talk about the evolution of intelligence in humans requires a detailed objective measurement that can be accurately assessed over millennium not decades or centuries, and definitely not years."
After that please realize that aside from assumptions with highly subjective measures for an idea, which itself resists hard definition; you have been essentially mixing apples and oranges.
So let's start at the beginning again even though Siberia and Jay have both made valid points they can only be discussed in evolutionary terms when making broad *cost/benefit* analyses that do not measure survival fitness by numbers of offspring alone. If that were the case then the lowest frog is vastly more fit than any of you.
)
As we can see here, 100 is the most common, with rates declining as we move towards either end of the scale.
Now, let's take a look at evolution. Over the course of the ages, evolution has always favored that which gave a species the largest chance of passing its genes on.
These are both assumptions but they also do not correlate to one another. They both are only true *on average* if at all.
Starting with the first:
IQ is a totally artificial measure that came into existence relatively recently and even if you are trying to measure over the last century there is no way you are actually studying evolution with any such analysis as much as social change. This is a classic confusion of memetics and genetics.
Since most people have an average IQ, that characteristic must therefore give the largest chance of reproducing.
Second, this is a statistical trap that you tricked yourself into. IQ is a floating measure, the average will
always be 100 (the mean) because the standards of measure change over time to adjust for changes in the basis of measure. It’s a little like the “curve” on an exam it is a measure of the living at any given period against one another not against evolution.
To be more clear, 100 represents the center point of a continuum, like zero between positive and negative numbers. However what is more important is that the actual number is meaningless across too many generations as the criteria must inevitably change to reflect changing conditions of measure. I cannot emphasize enough that this is not a valid extrapolation of the available data and essentially has no meaning with respect to intelligence over time as measured by IQ.
More importantly, intelligence as defined in evolutionary terms is not even necessarily measured by IQ depending on what you are defining it as and here is another problem because when you are talking about intelligence in terms of evolutionary psychology, you mean something very, very different than what is generally understood as represented by *IQ*.
Before you attempt to connect the first assumption you are making with the second be sure that you are able to define intelligence consistently for them both without depending on an abstract measure that you cannot under any circumstance apply objectively in evolutionary terms. BTW, just how are you defining intelligence?
That is a question I intend to return to in terms of evolutionary psychology and cognitive development. So let's look at assumption B again.
Now, let's take a look at evolution. Over the course of the ages, evolution has always favored that which gave a species the largest chance of passing its genes on.
This is only one measure of fitness and it clearly isn't necessarily most important one depending on your position in the environment. Yes it is a part of Dawkins’ view but it is not his entire point.
Survival fitness is measured by the ability to pass your genes on but also how well you prepare and equip those genes to pass themselves on (birthing vs rearing). Yes there are species where the kind of criteria you describe have been preeminent but count your lucky stars that you are not one of them or your life as a drone would be short lived.
In species where the fundamental imperative of evolution is just reproduction for simply passing on the genes males tend to be pretty expendable if not a down right waste of food, space and time; think bees, ants, wasps, etc.
So you are not wrong to describe such an imperative as existing but you are wrong not to see it in balance with a number of imperatives and child rearing and territorial control for security and life support, (food, shelter, defense, hunting, etc) are also vitally important. Reproductive quantity vs quality is a balance that relates directly to intelligence.
Third, survival skill is not the only important characteristic measure of intelligence that improves the ability for it to be passed on. BTW most evolutionary psychologists assume that not only your premises are mistaken but your conclusion is dead wrong.
So let's ask why?
There has been selection for intelligence and that is specifically because it increases your ability to survive. The price of being too stupid is extinction. Adaptation is not simply by chance it is also by skill and here again we enter the controversial area of memetics.
Survival skill is a measure of prowess and this translates into being a *provider parent*, regardless of whether you are bringing home the bacon, bread and butter or bonds. The only measure that changes is the nature of the environmental challenges: however the values for that measure are vitally important and highly subjective if you are trying to define it in terms of *IQ*.
Why is that? What's so good about having an average intelligence, from an evolutionary point of view? Why doesn't evolution simply make us smarter?
Before going on I noticed that kylyssa introduced a point I want to emphasize because I am full agreement. Except that I do think that “intelligence” when understood as an aspect of survival fitness is being selected for but not as a specific goal in itself as much as a necessary means to an end, survival.
Evolution has no "goals" or desires. Evolution doesn't DO anything, evolution is a description of what happens or has happened. "Natural selection" is even misleading. There is no "selection" there is what survives to reproduce.
We have goals but even Dawkins cringes when people misunderstand his use of the term selfishness in anthropomorphic terms for genes. IQ is how we measure fitness in human terms for social adaptation in relation to a combination of innate talent and social opportunity that is a response to environmental manipulation made possible by the evolution of human social structures. It is meaningless to talk of it in terms of environmental fitness however there are a number of measures for intelligence in evolutionary terms that are meaningful to discuss.
Some of these are:
Memory, communicativeness, pattern recognition, manual dexterity, reasoning capacity, (and here I am being intentionally controversial)
empathy and sympathy due to their social significance and intelligence is related to social ability. You will of course notice that only some of these overlap IQ parameters but even then they are weighted very differently as values and definitely as to how they are quantified.
These are also different from two more measures that don’t fit well into IQ as a measure of fitness as they relate directly to genetics but in human society are molded to fit the conditions of the moment; prowess and talent.
Beauty for example is a form of prowess and in reproductive terms really does have a lot to do with intelligence. Physically the body without the mind is never as seductive as when mind and body exhibit demonstrable prowess. Beauty in both males and females when expressed for mating is related to how well they are capable of
packaging themselves it is art more than science (talent as learned behavior). It takes real intelligence as prowess and talent to overcome a lack of the perfect body and attract the optimal mate but millions of people do it everyday.
I coined the phrase “seductive reasoning” from this aspect of evolutionary psychology as a skill; the ability to convince rather than prove. It defines seductive reasoning as “the of persuasion (argument) that creates conviction in the conclusion rather than a necessary objective proof”. Seduction is a goal.
Specifically goal oriented logic doesn’t need to be true it simply needs to achieve the intended result. If you think this is not a form of intelligence that describes a measure of fitness in reproductive terms then you probably aren’t getting any, err… I mean “it.”
Seductive reasoning is also the method of politicos, con men and lawyers, actors, courtesans, priests and prostitutes but is normally perceived of as “charisma”; it nevertheless describes intelligence as “talent” in evolutionary terms as well.
Why is that? What's so good about having an average intelligence, from an evolutionary point of view? Why doesn't evolution simply make us smarter?
So evolution isn’t making us smarter survival is. We are evolving higher intelligence to improve our ability to survive and the quality of that life we have.
What is good about “average intelligence” aside from all the fallacies that I have endeavored to disabuse everyone of, is that it “relates” in reproductive terms. It establishes a sympathetic standard that is the basis of long term human mating. By that I mean the kind of mating that is involved in child rearing not one night stands; social intelligence.
Often very high or very low intelligence “tends” to frighten or disturb average folks, so you will often see very intelligent people masking their intelligence to improve their “attractiveness” to a potential mate. While this behavior tends to be more common with women due to the large number of insecure males it is also present in males.
So please also understand that evolution isn’t making us smarter, getting smarter is improving our ability to evolve as a species and more importantly is also influenced by social behaviors described more by memes like, education, technology, socioeconomics, culture etc. than strict genetics. Social behavior improves the ability to pass on genes successfully too.
