There IS a lot wrong about that conclusion...perfect example for our "correlation is NOT causation" files.
When teaching developmental psych., I often point out that it's very likely that the human race is the only species in which those who don't have the capability of fending for themselves (not including infants/children of course) - i.e., are mentally retarded - can expect to survive. (I'd expect that a mentally retarded pigeon or seagull wouldn't last long. I don't plant any conclusions about this point, such as that it "proves" that humans are kinder, etc. I just let them mull it over. Beth Benoit Granite State College New Hampshire -----Original Message----- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:18 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Stupid flies live longer: study - Yahoo! News According to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080604/sc_afp/switzerlandscienceanimal , a group of flies "had its intelligence boosted by Pavlovian methods, such as associating smell and taste with particular food or experiences. Over 30 to 40 generations, these methods led to flies which clearly learned better and remembered things for longer." I'm guessing that this is wrong (unless they have made a cataclysmic Lamarckian breakthrough). I presume that they used Pavlovian conditioning as a way to distinguish "bright" from "dull" flies, and then selectively bred the "bright" ones. In any case, th article then goes on to say that "the flies left in their natural state lived longer on average than their "cleverer" counterparts, with a lifespan of 80-85 days rather than the normal 50-60." This makes it sounds like the "natural" flies lived longer than "normal," which also can't be right. I assume that the "enhanced" flies lived not as long as normal. In any case, there is almost no general conclusion that can be drawn from this about the relationship between intelligence and longevity from this unless we know what systems were affected by the artificial selection. Obviously, many animals have been *naturally* selected for intelligence over the eons, without markedly shortening their lifespan. This case is more like that of dogs that are bred for a particular "look" and, in the process, are coincidentally selected for life-threatening weakness in their organ systems as well. The published speculation that "the increase in neural activity weakens the fly's life-support systems," doesn't make much sense. The journalistic reporting is probably worse than the original study. You may wish to use it in class (either in cognition, in evolutionary/comparative psych, or in critical thinking). Regards, Chris Green York U. Toronto --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
