| The change in the brains from early protohumans to homo was a change of kind not quantity. We evolved new mental apparatuses. On the other hand, from homo habilis/erectus to human, I do not believe there was a drastic change in kind of mental capacity, but rather, in a slow build in the technology of language made possible by our new mental apparatuses, which finally provided us a means for expressing and exploring complex ideas. The brain is a very complicated system. Like other complicated systems, it is very easy for it to break from small changes (and thus we see mental disorders). On the other hand, it is nigh impossible to make a very complicated and robust system more effective -- a small change here or there generally won't do it. So, barring us finding major physical differences in the brains of the general populace, they would seem to me to operate with roughly a uniform capability. The difference that people ignore between the evolution of the brain and visible traits like skin color, is that skin color is a very simple system. We can expect it to change quickly. On the other hand, for human mental capacity to change would require enormous amounts of time because of the complexity involved. It's possible there are modicums of difference in their operation, but it is unlikely to make a measurable difference between humans when compared with differences in the software of nurture, of culture, of 'thought'. As with computers, you'll get more out of a little software tuning than you will by shrinking transistors by a nm, and software tuning is much easier. As for twin studies, see my comment above. |
You've made a number of interesting observations that I never quite considered before. Do you have a blog/book/other source you would point to that encapsulates these ideas?
I also have a question: if what you're saying is true then why is general formal education so poor and ineffective? Is it that we're not tinkering at the right level with the 'firmware'?