(ken @ April 19 2005,00:35) Quote
I'm just curious what you mean. Â I think both attractiveness and intelligence follow independent normal distributions in the population. Â I also think neither is a measure of the worth of a person or a justification for treating a person differently.
I'm talking about race, not physical attractiveness. It's just theory, no more. Some people think, because Native Americans, New Guineans, etc. evolved in a population not dense enough to support epidemic diseases, and in a society not advanced enough to prevent or treat fatal accidents, that their wit, cunning, and retention of knowledge is greater than that of whites (just for example), whose main means of survival for many thousands of years has been disease resistance. It's complicated, and there's volumes written on the subject, but that's the jist in a sentence.
When you say "evolved," I think genetic differences, so if that's not what you mean, then the above would be equivalent to saying that coastal populations developed better sailing skills than landlocked populations. Â I.e., it's an adaptation that has nothing to do with physical selection. If you are saying those traits are due to genetic differences, there must be some research of which I'm not aware that ties "wit, cunning, and retention of knowledge" to genetics. Â If you're considering those traits a subset of general intelligence, than the above example isn't supported by any research I've seen on genetic influence on intelligence. Â Can you point me to any of the research on this? Mandatory disclaimer -- I'm just interested in the sociology aspects of the above. Â I don't think it can or should be used to justify poor treatment of obese people. dan[/quote] dah, in any event, the effect of evalution on the genetic build of people in the past 5,000 years or so is pretty slight, compared to the previous 500,000. the evalutionary effect on societies and cultures is much more pronounced in that time frame, but that doesn't appear to be what ken is trying to discuss.