Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kushal's avatar

What I am saying might sound silly. But I am born and raised in India. Our culture has always given utmost importance to grades. In fact, we overdo it. But now at the age of 40 facing one of the worst times of my life as a small business owner (thanks to COVID), I feel that no matter what happens at least I have my degree and my education with me. When I read the last part of your post I can't help but ask this question to you, does the west have a death wish? If one removes grades as a measurement criterion what else is left? I do not mean to say it should be the only factor, but it has to figure in the matrix somewhere right?

Expand full comment
Nathan Taylor's avatar

Good post!

Re "Around 200,000 years ago the growth of our brains leveled off, probably due to biological constraints. The large head of the human fetus runs up against the limits of the mechanics of childbirth."

I think most now believe the 1960s birth canal limitation idea is false, eg

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/health/birth-canals-evolution.html

Even wikipedia is pretty up to date on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_dilemma#Obstetrical_dilemma_revisited

Re the broader first sentence, I think the idea of biological constraints on brain has no data backing it. It's a flattering intuition for smart people to hold. So it never dies. If true, it would imply that there is a natural upper limit to IQ, and the breeders equation does not hold in the upward direction. Which is of course false. The obvious answer is an energy consuming brain is a trade off, and bigger brained people started having fewer children since 200k years ago, as the trade off hit the balance point. Which has plenty of evidence through all known human history, and plenty of data shows it applies right now in spades throughout the world. Also, consider Cochran et al 2006 paper. Must be false since breeder equation can't work due to these never stated mysterious biological constraints that don't exist. Gregory Clark also must be wrong too by the way. It's like being too tall. Evolution can always evolve to be a bit taller if selection favors it. It just selects until it's balanced against something. Often energy constraints. But for a cooperative hypersocial species, social selection constraints as well. Just not biological.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts