fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
>
> > Come on, Fab - pointing out examples of brain differences explaining
> > behavioral differences is hardly convincing evidence that brain
> > differences are the right explanation in this case.
>
> My point is that behavior is more than cost-benefit calculations
> with IQ as an intervening variable.
I don't see why you - Fab - would need to say this? The cognitive
faculties you're talking about could simply alter the cost-benefit
calculations.
> My purpose in citing this kind
> of evidence is that behavior depends on cognitive faculties which
> are dependent on well developed parts of the brain. Damasio's book
> shows some evidence that brain differences *might* lead to behavioral
> differences. I'm not an anatomist, but I wouldn't be surprised if
> children's brains simply didn't have all the parts developed for
> correctly learning social behavior.
You should be very surprised if they lacked the parts, because children
do in fact cooperate some of the time.
> > Yes, there are cognitive abilities with low g-loading, and memory is
> > one. But now that I think about it, I shouldn't have let you get away
> > with citing memory differences in the first place. Children in fact
> > seem to have much *better* memorization ability than adults in numerous
> > respects.
> > Prof. Bryan Caplan
>
> It's well documented that long term memory is nil for children less
> than five years of age (doctors call it "pediatric amnesia") and
> is very spotty until about 12. Maybe children can remember strings
> of numbers well in labs, but they can't remember things from a year
> or two ago terribly well.
Actually, I was thinking about kids' amazing ability to learn languages,
which involves massive memorization.
> Also, while were at it, I think you overinterpret the G-loading thing.
I don't. Yes, there is a complex statistical process involved in
"constructing" g. But this construct correlates highly with our common
sense understanding of intelligence. It's the natural interpretation.
> My whole point is that obsessing over G might lead one to ignore
> the stuff that leads to G. In a lot of these IQ/behavior debates
> people seems to take extreme positions that IQ is this all powerful
> explanatory device, or that it is meaningless when it's neither.
Not all powerful, just one of the best available.
> I really think that some people are more intelligent than others
> and that this matters alot, but explaining everything in terms of G
> seems a bit dicey to me.
Explaining everything - dicey. Explaining seemingly stupid behavior of
children - who are already *known* to have much lower raw IQs than
adults - quite plausible.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He lives in deadly terror of agreeing;
'Twould make him seem an ordinary being.
Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction,
He'll turn against his most profound conviction
And with a furious eloquence deplore it,
If only someone else is speaking for it."
Moliere, *The Misanthrope*
