[corruption]

It would be nice to believe that, but I would posit that output per unit of input differs. Given infinite time, anyone could obtain a Ph.D, but some people just find it easier than others. Those that find it easier are much more likely to do something great than someone who finds it extremely difficult and time consuming.

I know doing maths and statistics at university that there were many spending more than 40 hours a week studying and still obtained poor grades AND more importantly had less understanding than others doing no study.

Claiming that we are all equal is nice, but ignores the fact that the fundamental relationship between time invested and output is not constant between individuals.

Some of us run faster, some of us are leaner, some of us have beauty, some of us greater knowledge acquisition rates. There's nothing elitist about it in my opinion. I'm never going to be michael jordan, just like I'll never be Terrence Tao or Knuth, and I'm okay with that!

[fmora]

You will never be a michael jordan but if you practice hard enough you will become close. That is my point. The differences that you are talking are superficial differences. And how can you compare beauty to potential to learn? Beauty is on the eye of the beholder. Even in races the difference between the top world runner and his peers is not by much. Genetically speaking we humans are pretty much identical. Which means that all of us are given almost the same amount of tools to exist in this world.

>>I know doing maths and statistics at university that there >>were many spending more than 40 hours a week studying and >>still obtained poor grades AND more importantly had less >>understanding than others doing no study.

This is just an anecdote and you are using this as your entire argument to disagree with me. I find this incredibly disturbing. The first thing that a genius will tell you is that he had to work really hard at it. That nothing was free. He had to spend hours upon hours working at it.

[nostrademons]

"And how can you compare beauty to potential to learn?"

There's a big difference between potential to learn and actually learning. Yeah, everyone probably could, if they spent enough time at it, attain Ph.D levels of intellectual achievement. But they won't. At some point, they'll say "This is stupid. I have better things to do with my life," and go do those.

"Even in races the difference between the top world runner and his peers is not by much."

There's not much difference between the top world runner and his peers. There's a huge difference between the top world runner and you or me. The people at the top of the field are already putting in as much effort as is humanly possible. On top of that, they have talent. There're lots more people who also put in as much effort as is humanly possible, but find they're still nowhere close to the top. Usually, they get discouraged by this and choose a passion where their effort gives them a bit more reward.

"Genetically speaking we humans are pretty much identical."

That all depends on how broadly you define "identical". We share about 99.9% of our genes with other humans. We share about 98% with chimpanzees. Most people would say that there's a fairly large difference between a human and a chimpanzee.

In a broad sense, yeah, virtually everything alive is practically identical. A human and an ebola virus are made of the same elemental building blocks, and the roughly million-fold difference in their size and complexity is peanuts compared to the breadth of the universe or the minisculeness of the Planck length.

But most of what makes us human is the ability to discriminate, the ability to look at details and pick out tiny differences. So yeah, there's probably a few milliseconds separating the top two sprinters in the world. But those few milliseconds might as well be an eternity for them. The difference is probably irrelevant for a layperson, but it matters a lot for someone in the sport.

There's a distinction between "everyone is equal" and "everyone is equal at everything they do". The former is a way of defining equality - I find it a pretty useful way, but I recognize that this says more about me than it does about the world. The latter is just factually incorrect.

[fmora]

I would just add a couple of more nines to that 99.9%.

[nostrademons]

You would be wrong then:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/i...

I'm also wrong about the chimpanzees - recent research suggests that they share only 95% of genes with humans, not 98% - but at least I'm not off by a few orders of magnitude.

[fmora]

Read it, it doesn't state up to how many significant digits that percent is accurate so it doesn't prove I'm wrong. They may have just shorten it for brevity.

[nostrademons]

The convention in science is that you display as many digits as your measurement is significant to. If it were significant to two digits, it would've been 99%; if it were significant to four digits, it would've been 99.90%.

In any case, that number's backed up by several sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99478&page=1

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_...

[corruption]

Even if you did, a SINGLE base change can cause large differences in function. Thats one change out 3 billion, which is many more 9's.

[corruption]

Minute differences in genomes lead to large differences in phenotype. Ever heard of databases of SNP's or CNVs? A single base change can make a world of difference.

Actually, I'm not basing this on anecdote, as there is a ton of literature to back me up here. The first thing I searched for is quite remarkable for a single generation: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r44140388u23t768/

But, without going to the extensive literature, are you seriously claiming that the rate of learning is EXACTLY the same for every human, or that the variance is so tiny that differences are negligible? Both claims are provably false if you have a quick look at the literature.

[loewenskind]

>Both claims are provably false if you have a quick look at the literature.

Which literature? You're doing a bit of a (probably unintentional) bait and switch here if you mean the article you submitted. The article talks about learning rates of rats. Rats don't have language. How does having language change the picture [1]? We can't answer that, and therefor we can't know how applicable information about rat learning rates is to humans.

[1] Language certainly makes us more intelligent but there's also been studies that suggest that language may also dampen certain inherent abilities. In other words, maybe some people are born with drastically more "powerful" brains but language removes their advantages effectively evening out the field.

There is way too much we don't know about all this stuff for anyone to have such firm opinions on the mater. Certainly such limiting ones of "well, you're just not smart enough to ever be able to do this".

[corruption]

We are both making a claim. He has provided no evidence at all, and obviously hasn't read the literature.

The claim here is that the variance in learning rate is absolutely tiny. Think about this. He's basically claiming that despite a large known population variances in IQ and MA, there is no variance in learning rate. Despite research showing ritalin increases learning rate in a large fraction of society, this increase was meaningless. Despite verbal learning test normative data showing non zero variance, the variance is still zero.

There is a large body of literature comparing learning rate in different populations in both human and animal models. Take any study on learning rate, even the ones comparing "normal" to abnormal. Go to the methods and find the variance for each group. See it's non-zero, but often so large that differences between groups is hard to see.

Now, if you accept that learning rate has a non-zero variance, and also that learning rate decreases over time (well supported in the literature as well, and no I'm not going to find papers) and that time is finite, then the only conclusion you can make is that some people have a much higher chance of doing well academically. Not only that but there will be some people who despite trying will never be able to do well.

I don't see how stating this shocking to anyone at all - in a population of some 7 billion, there are millions of people >3 standard deviations from the mean.

[loewenskind]

>He's basically claiming that despite a large known population variances in IQ and MA, there is no variance in learning rate.

If this is what he's claiming it's obviously silly. A more plausible claim would be that the rate at which one could learn may be close to equal provided an optimum teaching method is used on a case by case basis.

What I mean here is: I think all the literature you're referencing about learning rates doesn't conclusively prove that it's the students at fault. It could be the teaching method. I've experienced first hand that some people who seemed to not "get it" for some subject could in fact understand it quite well when it was presented in a way they understood (perhaps they didn't see the relevance, perhaps they didn't have the proper frame of reference to understand the normal explanation or a poor grasp of those references).

For me it's just too simple to say "everything's fine, those people are just too stupid. Bad genetics". What if it's not? Then we're throwing away a lot of potential unnecessarily. And part of the reason I suspect this to be the case (to some unknown degree) is because plenty of teaching methods that are still in use are not even the best known method (e.g. how most schools teach a second language).

[corruption]

It is clear that there are genetic differences in brains that cause large differences in "learning rate" - for lack of a better term. Interpret this how you want, but it's obvious to those in the field what this means (I talked to a researcher today to check my assumptions here to make sure!).

It is what it is. If my optimised (via teaching, drugs, augmentation etc) learning rate is lower than your's then so be it. So what? Why do you feel the need to make us equals, I accept your superiority in learning rate and do not care one iota.

[fmora]

I do agree that some people may have higher learning rates than others but the differences are too small to matter. I will even agree that there may be outliers, a super tiny amount of the population (although I've never met one, and some that are considered true geniuses have some serious mental deficiencies). Overall the differences when it comes to the general population are too small to be that much significant. The people getting phd degrees have in general the same degree of potential learning ability as the general population.

If there were really that big of a difference between their potential ability to learn as opposed to the general population than they would be passing this down to their kids. Since you claim that the difference is so large than with careful breeding we should be able to produce a super race of geniuses within a couple of generations. That is not how evolution works.

Improvements are infinitesimally small and I don't see why would intelligence be any different. We all evolve as a species, not as individuals. I do not get the sense that we have been getting that much smarter based on our overall written history of the past thousand years.

The reason why some choose to pursue a phd and some don't is the same as why some choose to pursue a career as a painter, musician, writer and why some just choose to be a blue collar worker. It is what they feel passionate about. Some don't feel passionate about anything.

Culture and environment also play a major role and this is really what makes a difference between people choosing to do a phd or not. If you or your peers tell you that you cannot get a phd and believe it then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

There are differences in rates in learning but they are not large enough to matter. Culture and environment play a major role.

Edit: Not even Einstein could be called an outlier. He was a bright person but I hardly believe that his potential ability to learn was that much higher than yours or mine. He was even considered mediocre by many of his professors. It really was luck that he happened to be born at the right time in history to be able to make the contribution he did. Even he had to ask one of his mathematician friend for help when doing the mathematics for relativity. (you need to read his biography).

Newton considered a giant of physics was considered a pretty ordinary student. He didn't amaze anybody by showing a high potential for learning during andy of his school years nor did anybody imagine that he would come to make such huge contribution to physics.

[corruption]

Please read the literature. There is plenty of evidence that directly contrasts your viewpoint from the last 50 years.

And by the way, your second point is directly contrasted by the article I linked to.

[fmora]

I read a couple of paragraphs. Is one thing to do a study on rats then to do a study in humans. This doesn't disprove my claim.

Edit: Also, it seems that you are implying that the differences are so huge that we should have a lot of retarded people walking around us. The proof that the gaps in intelligence are small should be obvious by simply looking at your environment. There are people getting phd's from all corners of the world. China, Japan, USA, Mexico, Europe, Africa, Australia. How did those same genes that enable people to get phd's get to places so far away as China or Japan which have been isolated for so long? Even for thousands of years? The thing is that those genes have been there all along for thousands of years.

I think I already agree that there are differences but I do not agree that the differences are huge. Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us.

Another example is the Mayans, also isolated for thousands of years from Europe. Independently invented the zero and developed a Mayan calendar unequal on precision until recently. Many of their descendants have gone on to get PHD's. If there were really large differences then some groups of people would not even be able to get PHD's.

Again, the there are differences but they are tiny. Yes, there are studies saying that there are huge differences between groups of people but frankly many of these studies are questionable and sometimes they almost seem to carry a hidden agenda.

[corruption]

> Otherwise some of these groups of people, like china or japan who have been isolated for thousands of years, would have serious intelligence differences as the rest of us.

Have you read the literature on IQ? These differences exist, whether you will accept it or not is a different question.

[bmallerd]

Please don't cite evolution without fully understanding your claims. Evolution USUALLY works through tiny changes, but in certain situations the changes are dramatic and sweeping. If your proposed experiment was carried out, I would expect such a sweeping change. Further I would posit that a pre-mating barrier would form (in the form of contrasting mating rituals) and speciation would occur after sufficient time.

TLDR: Don't claim that Science supports your view if you don't really understand the theory.

[chegra]

Auto Generate your PhD: http://chegra.posterous.com/auto-generate-your-phd-thesis

I wrote this code as a laugh when I was doing my Master Dissertation.