Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA & Intelligence . . . ? Sforza Outline & Add-ons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DNA & Intelligence . . . ? Sforza Outline & Add-ons

    I just wrote this outline after almost finishing Gene, People, and Languages. I thought it was interesting to share for first observations.

    Intelligence by Gregory Kent Haynes, March 2006
    1. ~1/3 genetics
    2. ~1/3 personal life experience
    3. ~1/3 cultural transmission

    Genetics [Individual]
    1. Migration
    2. Mutation
    3. Natural Selection
    4. Genetic Drift

    Personal Life Experience
    [Personal, Social]
    1. Home
    2. Neighborhood
    3. Community (school, church, playground)
    4. Environmental & Geographic Region
    5. Nation and World

    [Individual, Personal]
    1. Entertainment
    2. Hobby
    3. Work
    4. Diet
    5. Travel & Visitation

    Cultural Transmission
    Vertical (Biological or Social Relationship)
    [Individual*, Personal*, Social*, Public, Worldly]
    Direct
    1. Husband & Wife, Parent & Child
    2. Grandparents, Relatives, and Friends

    Indirect
    1. Public Figures
    2. Teachers, Authors, Entertainers

    Horizontal (No Clear-Cut Biological or Social Relationship)
    [Public, Worldly]
    1. Cultural Diffusion (Geographic, Social, Economical Barriers)
    a. Oblique Transmission (older generation than receiver)
    b. Cultural Epidemic (transmission with minimal contact)
    2. Ethnographic Data (egalitarian society and size, stratified social classes)
    3. Authoritarian Chief Influence and Government
    4. Inverse Mechanism (Homogenize Groups, several transmitters to one receiver ------reference: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, ISBN: 0-520-22873-1

  • #2
    intelligence in the making.

    Originally posted by GregKiroKH
    I just wrote this outline after almost finishing Gene, People, and Languages. I thought it was interesting to share for first observations.

    Intelligence by Gregory Kent Haynes, March 2006
    1. ~1/3 genetics
    2. ~1/3 personal life experience
    3. ~1/3 cultural transmission

    Genetics [Individual]
    1. Migration
    2. Mutation
    3. Natural Selection
    4. Genetic Drift

    Personal Life Experience
    [Personal, Social]
    1. Home
    2. Neighborhood
    3. Community (school, church, playground)
    4. Environmental & Geographic Region
    5. Nation and World ............etc
    A sapient and valuable summary which I have added to my database, with attribution; thanks, Greg!

    In personal life experience influencing intelligence, we are all roulette balls, but one cannot help focussing on a most significant personal event, to the brain, in the most dangerous two hours of most people's lives, head squeezing during transiting the birth-canal.

    70% of Massachusetts babies (no numbers on other groups yet) suffered brain damage during birth, detectable in brain sections by macroscopic areas of haemorhage followed by scarring. (A large Harvard Med Sch.Neurology study ca 1972 on sectioned brains of infants in first 2 yrs of life, made available due to deaths from other, non-traumatic, non neurologic, causes.)

    Natural selection by blind luck?
    There is some correlation in public health statistics, between parental poverty and bad birthing circumstances. Yet a campaign of midwife-guided home birthing, as against hospital birthing, reduced British infant and maternal mortality dramatically in the 1930's. (No data on comparative effects on later intelligence!)

    This birth trauma factor offers one explanation for the wide variation of biological intelligence often seen in children of the same two parents, even in the rich and famous!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by derinos
      A sapient and valuable summary which I have added to my database, with attribution; thanks, Greg!

      In personal life experience influencing intelligence, we are all roulette balls, but one cannot help focussing on a most significant personal event, to the brain, in the most dangerous two hours of most people's lives, head squeezing during transiting the birth-canal.

      70% of Massachusetts babies (no numbers on other groups yet) suffered brain damage during birth, detectable in brain sections by macroscopic areas of haemorhage followed by scarring. (A large Harvard Med Sch.Neurology study ca 1972 on sectioned brains of infants in first 2 yrs of life, made available due to deaths from other, non-traumatic, non neurologic, causes.)

      Natural selection by blind luck?
      There is some correlation in public health statistics, between parental poverty and bad birthing circumstances. Yet a campaign of midwife-guided home birthing, as against hospital birthing, reduced British infant and maternal mortality dramatically in the 1930's. (No data on comparative effects on later intelligence!)

      This birth trauma factor offers one explanation for the wide variation of biological intelligence often seen in children of the same two parents, even in the rich and famous!
      Nice point of view, Derinos, I have often wonder about our old community hospital. It had a bad reputation. When people walked into several of the wards, the smell of urine could make a visitor sick. Within a decade or two, the hospital closed. Some years later, I wrote some thoughts about how neurobiology and biochemistry differed. During that time, we were just introducing chemical mechanisms into textbook. Much different than Donald Duck teaching his nephews Organic Chemistry (hee hee hee) . . . I could not believe my graduate advisor at WSU could say such a thing to me?

      “The concept of memory begins with psychology, develops through neurobiology, and ends with chemistry. The generalities of psychology and neurobiology help with understanding the chemistry involved with the memory metabolic process. Psychology and education divide memory into four areas: cognitive, affective, psychomotor and time frame. Neurobiology divides memory into four postulates: changing stages, physical changes, memory traces and hippocampus and temporal lobes. In chemical terms, one could say that the close relationship between physiological memory and conceptional memory exhibits overlap between mechanisms.
      Skinner [1991, a] refers to learning and memory as resulting from functional or morphological changes in neurological synapses. These changes arise from the effects of external stimuli prompted by experiences. In medical and neurological classes, students are often taught this viewpoint. Conclusions are based upon experimental techniques ranging from drugs and surgery to detailed assumptions made from injuries. The assumptions are often proven with a battery of behavioral tests which are called classical methods.
      Recent studies combine new technologies with classical methods and biochemistry. Anatomical studies of damaged brains are now done with electromagnetic imaging. Lesion work and electrophysiological studies are done with positron emission tomography. And biochemical studies are decoding the structure, mechanism and genetics (cloning, sequencing, expression) of people.
      Two researchers who helped in the link between neurobiology and biochemistry were Hebb [1949, b] and Gold [1987, c]. Hebb [1949, b] suggested that learning is achieved by neuronal activity. As protein and DNA/RNA chemistry developed, the suggestion was challenged by social theorist and biologist as well as other professionals. Nevertheless, most modern evidence points towards metabolic factors and neural mechanisms as the primary cause for the transfer of training. Proteins are of secondary interest in the study of synaptic efficacy while DNA and RNA are of secondary interest in the study of phosphorylation. The synthesis of proteins is most likely associated with permanent memory. And DNA recognition sites ought to be considered as a control element in memory chemistry. 14 May 1992, The Developing Chemistry of Memory, Gregory Kent Haynes”

      What a viewpoint . . .

      Comment

      Working...
      X