Philosophy of Genetics

"Intelligent" brains develop differently

According to a recent New York Times article:

[R]esearchers found that average children (I.Q. scores 83 to 108) reached a peak of cortical [brain] thickness at age 7 or 8. Highly intelligent children (121 to 149 in I.Q.) reached a peak thickness much later, at 13, followed by a more dynamic pruning [thinning] process.

One interpretation ... is that the brains of highly intelligent children are more plastic or changeable, swinging through a higher trajectory of cortical thickening and thinning than occurs in average children. The scans show the "sculpturing or fine tuning of parts of the cortex which support higher level thought, and maybe this is happening more efficiently in the most intelligent children".

Our brains are not designed for truth

People use words in many different ways, but let's consider these three:

1. To convey facts
2. To rationalize what we see or do
3. To elicit a social outcome or effect

I would argue that #1 is the least frequent way we use words.  Usually, we use our words for their effect on other people, or to justify our actions after the fact.

Humans generally offer confabulations (false explanations) for our experiences because this is the way our brains are hard-wired.  We are not built for rationality, especially in our understanding of our own motives and those of other human beings.

Our words are often designed to elicit specific social ends, not convey objective truth.  For example, if a leader says “I owe it all to my subordinates”, he or she is really making a display ("I am self-confident, I speak for you"), to which the subordinates are programmed to respond (greater identification with the leader, greater affection and trust).  Words in this case are used to reinforce the social hierarchy, not convey truth.

Humans are so hard-wired to make up explanations (any explanation) to rationalize our actions, that we refuse to consider evidence to the contrary.  For example, even if a scientist is able to prove that a parent's behavior doesn't really have any lasting influence on his or her children’s basic personality and intelligence, that scientist will be chastised (or worse), because we are hardwired to (falsely) believe that parents do have an important influence. 

(Of course, the effect of (falsely) believing they have an influence on their children's personality keeps the parents around to provide food and shelter.  So false beliefs can have beneficial outcomes for society.)

Scientists are people, too, and most scientists are hardwired to feel stress when acting in an "anti- social" way.  So if society thinks you're crazy for proposing something (even if it can be easily and scientifically proven), most scientists shy away from it, and try instead to adhere to (false) social beliefs and norms.  Only those scientists who have the genetic variation (that allows their minds to stubbornly operate without the need for social approval) can perform accurate research in this area.

Since our brains are wired in this fashion, we cannot truly understand ourselves.  We bring certain innate biases to our self-understanding and motives, which seem so commonsensical, that anyone who questions our beliefs is ignored. We cannot study ourselves objectively, because our own hardwired categories of understanding don’t allow it.