Comment #define GEEK ( >= 2_std_dev_technophilia) (Score 1) 483
Disclaimer: the following is all wild-assed guesses and speculation. Please don't flame
Now, assuming we use that definition, what other cool insights might we get?
The most interesting speculation I have, comes from info from IQ studies:
male_avg == female_avg, male_std_dev > female_std_dev; /* i.e. males are both smarter AND stupider than females, on avg. */
From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense if you view males as expendable, (we are not the child bearers) and thus living test labs- if the Y chromosome codes for more extreme expression of genes, than you can select out beneficial stuff faster where it doesn't hurt the species. If half the males die from living this unbalanced way, well, the other half just have to impregnate two females on avg., who aren't affected by the Y chromosome.
So, from the above definition of GEEK, you're gonna get more male geeks than female geeks, just 'cause of the way the Y works. Also, if you're looking at ANY group more than 2 deviations from norm, you're probably going to find other oddities, simply because gets 'stuck' with these traits on the genetic level. Change a bunch of proteins to favor one specific trait, you'll probably get unanticipated side effects.
This doesn't mean that the oddities are the cause of the primary trait, or vice versa. For instance, studies have shown a positive correlation between myopia and high intelligence. Does this mean that whatever made my great^65 grandfather smart also made him see worse? Or vice versa? Nah, it probably means that those of my great^65_grandparents who were both blind AND dumb got themselves killed off, while those who were only one or the other (blind but smart, dumb but 20/20) survived.
So, now that I've put out some weird ideas, what conclusions do I have?
1. The study is not trying to call intelligence a disease
-It's just saying THEY found a correlation between certain traits. Whether its because (a.some technophiles are less interested in people, b. genetic intelligence to enjoy technical stuff offsets the evolutionary disadvantage of certain genetic problems, or c. the time spent on cool stuff comes at the opportunity cost of time spent socializing) is a topic for later investigation
2. More investigation is needed
-where? see above for some starter ideas, and submit your own
3. We have some new tools
-if you have some problems in common with group X, you can consult the literature written/take the meds made/use the W invented for group X. I have some ADHD traits, and yes, the stuff helps me, so I use it.
4. We are not absolutely limited by our genes, but we must take them into consideration
-the Y chromosome is the product of millions of years of evolution, but it doesn't work to our benefit all the time. So be aware of tendencies to excess if you're male, but don't embrace them. After all, monogamy works better for humanity than rutting (like deer) does...which is the model the Y chromosome has worked with for most of those years...
And some personal beliefs
5. There's a lot to learn still
6. New knowledge is not threatening
7. I believe in higher purposes, the existence of the soul, a Loving God(dess? both in one?), etc.
-a bit of a digression, but SO many people believe #6 is incompatible w/ #7, that I personally feel it must be said. Besides, people often take personal offense at certain ideas, feeling them to be demeaning, insulting, etc., but if #7 isn't incompatible w/ #6, what else is possible?
God gave us both brains and hearts. Let's use 'em.
Well, we've disposed of objections to research per se, so, anyone up for ethics/ practicality discussions? As in, the ethics of methods in research, of applications, and more importantly, the ethics and feasibility of the systems that apply the knowledge.
Darn, this became too long a post :p
Amateurs think tactics.
Professionals think logistics.
-Military saying, source unknown (to me)
Now, assuming we use that definition, what other cool insights might we get?
The most interesting speculation I have, comes from info from IQ studies:
male_avg == female_avg, male_std_dev > female_std_dev;
From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense if you view males as expendable, (we are not the child bearers) and thus living test labs- if the Y chromosome codes for more extreme expression of genes, than you can select out beneficial stuff faster where it doesn't hurt the species. If half the males die from living this unbalanced way, well, the other half just have to impregnate two females on avg., who aren't affected by the Y chromosome.
So, from the above definition of GEEK, you're gonna get more male geeks than female geeks, just 'cause of the way the Y works. Also, if you're looking at ANY group more than 2 deviations from norm, you're probably going to find other oddities, simply because gets 'stuck' with these traits on the genetic level. Change a bunch of proteins to favor one specific trait, you'll probably get unanticipated side effects.
This doesn't mean that the oddities are the cause of the primary trait, or vice versa. For instance, studies have shown a positive correlation between myopia and high intelligence. Does this mean that whatever made my great^65 grandfather smart also made him see worse? Or vice versa? Nah, it probably means that those of my great^65_grandparents who were both blind AND dumb got themselves killed off, while those who were only one or the other (blind but smart, dumb but 20/20) survived.
So, now that I've put out some weird ideas, what conclusions do I have?
1. The study is not trying to call intelligence a disease
-It's just saying THEY found a correlation between certain traits. Whether its because (a.some technophiles are less interested in people, b. genetic intelligence to enjoy technical stuff offsets the evolutionary disadvantage of certain genetic problems, or c. the time spent on cool stuff comes at the opportunity cost of time spent socializing) is a topic for later investigation
2. More investigation is needed
-where? see above for some starter ideas, and submit your own
3. We have some new tools
-if you have some problems in common with group X, you can consult the literature written/take the meds made/use the W invented for group X. I have some ADHD traits, and yes, the stuff helps me, so I use it.
4. We are not absolutely limited by our genes, but we must take them into consideration
-the Y chromosome is the product of millions of years of evolution, but it doesn't work to our benefit all the time. So be aware of tendencies to excess if you're male, but don't embrace them. After all, monogamy works better for humanity than rutting (like deer) does...which is the model the Y chromosome has worked with for most of those years...
And some personal beliefs
5. There's a lot to learn still
6. New knowledge is not threatening
7. I believe in higher purposes, the existence of the soul, a Loving God(dess? both in one?), etc.
-a bit of a digression, but SO many people believe #6 is incompatible w/ #7, that I personally feel it must be said. Besides, people often take personal offense at certain ideas, feeling them to be demeaning, insulting, etc., but if #7 isn't incompatible w/ #6, what else is possible?
God gave us both brains and hearts. Let's use 'em.
Well, we've disposed of objections to research per se, so, anyone up for ethics/ practicality discussions? As in, the ethics of methods in research, of applications, and more importantly, the ethics and feasibility of the systems that apply the knowledge.
Darn, this became too long a post
Amateurs think tactics.
Professionals think logistics.
-Military saying, source unknown (to me)
