I can tell you right now I am WAY smarter than GW Bush EVER could HOPE to be and I am not President.
Why? Because I don’t have a brother to help me STEAL an election.
I could run Hitler as Governor and Stalin As Lt Governor in Texas and as long as they were a Republican they’d win.
I find it odd how people equate achievement with knowledge. A lot of STUPID people graduate from TOP universities just as a LOT of TOP executives and scientists graduate from Small Colleges (Think Reagen --> Eureka College)
Marilyn Vos Savant was once asked “If you are the smartest women in the world, why aren’t you the richest.”
To answer the question “evolution DOESN’T DO WHAT IS BEST.” It does “WHAT WORKS.”
I can’t think of too many things that have been around longer than sharks, and as far as brain power goes they are pretty low on the scale. A lot of people seem to think that evolution is pushing every creature towards us, but the reality is that a bigger brain is a relatively recent experiment on the evolutionary scale of things. Considering how much damage we are doing to the earth, one could argue that it’s not a very successful experiment so far. We are ripping out the very ecosystem that keeps us all alive, and you’re only concerned about people who stub their cigarettes out on couches.
But then again, who am I to interrupt a good thread about GW bashing. Please, continue.
Stupid is relative. If not for the genius and world enlightening views of many who would have been considered stupid or useless…after all stupid is the social convention of “useless”, the idiot savants of our generation, much of our progress as a society would be negated. I think stupid depends more on where you are coming from, rather than “stupid people”. Perhaps there is a new evolutionary advantage to being “stupid”. Generally stupid implies being less aware…this could prove an evolutionary advantage to the unaware and lower blood pressured “stupid”.
No matter how intelligent two parents are, their child can end up with below average intelligence due to socialization and other external forces. It ain’t all in the genes.
That’s enough George Bush bashing. We are not going to have any more politics and we are certainly not going to have any more pot shots at the president.
Maybe the GW Bush debate could be moved to another forum.
Here are some random thoughts on the question:
The first two behaviors mentioned are not necessarily evidence of stupidity; they are more like, “I don’t give a shit about you.” The third is certainly ignorance worthy of the Darwin award and probably stupidity as well.
Just remember that fully 50% of the human population is below average.
But the real question is who mates and, above all, who gets to have the most children (and whose children get to mate most often and have the most children and …). Is there any correlation of this with intelligence? There are many organisms that have few if any brains (think about flies and plants) that do just fine in the Darwinian sense. Think about 165 million years of dinosaur evolution that apparently never evolved in anything with human intelligence. Even today, it is not obvious that in a Darwinian sense intelligence is a positive trait. I know some very intelligent people who have made a conscious decision not to breed. And some very stupid people who breed like flies. They may be poor, but they go on breeding.
In fact, looking at the evolutionary history of earth, I am astonished that human intelligence did evolve. After all, the ape that turned into man in east Africa, evolved into the chimp in west Africa. And while chimps are geniuses compared to the rest of the animal world, they are chumps compared to us and certainly never developed human type language, which is the great divide.
Hmmm… interesting points. Perhaps if I rephrase my question:
How is it that after 10 million years of evolution we have people of such stupidity that they will hold a lit firecracker in their hand to see what happens when it goes off? Or use a vacuum cleaner to simulate fellatio?
The George Bush remark was more about the stupidity of social conditioning (e.g. refusing to sign the Kyoto protocols because the USA economy will be hard hit (avoiding pain) even though it will help destroy the environment (creating pain)) than any inherent stupidity of the person himself.
Per your Bush comment, people almost always pick the short term over the long term, especially when acting in concert.
And one can argue that it’s remarkably stupid to sail west based on vague rumours of spices, or use a vehicle that kills millions of people annually, or eat potentially dangerous foodstuffs, and so on. Which is to say that recklessness (a.k.a stupidity) usually hurts the reckless one, but occassionally pays off every now and then.
That’s true, but I think the really intelligent realize that it is a good idea to have as much knowledge as possible so that you don’t have to reinvent everything from scratch for yourself.
Once again you are assuming that evolution is moving towards soemthing. Evolution isn’t about a final goal, it’s simply changing things. There’s no reason to assume that we’ll be any smarter 10 million years from now. In fact, there’s no reason to assume that we’ll even be around 10 million years from now. Thus far, the most successful creatures on the earth have been amazingly stupid. Also, human beings who are dumb as mud are quite rare, otherwise the darwin award list would be a lot longer than it is.
Part of what you are calling “stupidity” is in fact a natural curiosity about how things work and asking “what happens if…” Although it leads to some things that really make you wonder sometimes (like alternative uses of vacuum cleaners) it’s also the same trait that got us to the moon and back.
A cockroach isn’t going to ask “what happens if…” but evolution isn’t trying to create the ultimate creature. Evolution is all about successfully interacting with your environment. I think you’ve fallen into the trap of believing that we are better than cockroaches because we are somehow more evolved. Historically, though. cockroaches have a better track record for success than humans so far. There’s no reason to believe that Einstein is better for our long term survival than the ditz at the local quickie mart that couldn’t even make change for a buck when the computer went down.
Evolution does not equal “smarter” or “better,” no matter your definition of smart or good. Evolution simply means “adapted” or “not maladapted.”
As was pointed out above, what you consider smart might result in the human race destroying the ecosystem on which the species depends. Whereas one guy who uses a vacuum cleaner in the way you describe is not necessarily jeopardising his own survival or the survival of his offspring.
I just wanted to mention that The Mismeasure of Man was written considerably before The Bell Curve, but Gould produced a revised edition because the latter was trotting out the same old misconceptions for a broad new audience.
Evolution just means “changing” (literally, it just means “unfolding”…), specifically the changing of a population’s genotype over time. Evolution can occur without adaptation (see: genetic drift).
Quite correct; my mistake. Gould’s book originally predated the latter by about 13 years. How about, “it was written as a prescient counterargument to The Bell Curve?”
