For one who has a low probability of meeting his potential (genetic):
If he realizes this and places much value on himself, he will live uncautiously, as virtually his only chance at one day approaching that potential.
If he doesn’t realizes this and/or doesn’t places much value on himself, he may or may not live uncautiously.
For one who has a high probability of meeting his potential:
If he realizes this and places much value on himself, he will live cautiously, so as not to be unnecessarily reckless.
If he doesn’t realizes this and/or places little value on himself, he may or may not live cautiously.
Perhaps, despite not having an explicit knowledge of their potential or their probability of meeting it, many often have some form of intuitive knowledge of this, which makes them approach this issue as if they did have that explicit knowledge. There may have evolved in animals and later people, an instinct towards evaluating how far their phenotype is from meeting the average phenotype as was produced by their past kin.
It would be a form of fight/flight in a very broad sense of an animal’s life. A certain restlessness or lack thereof, relating to whether they have or haven’t developed physically and mentally (intelligence, maturity) as is natural for them to.
This is of course not referring to forms of potential is areas such as breeding, territory, allies and power, where the dynamic of drive and rest is more obvious.
Stuart, how can one realize his probability ? If one is born an idiot, he may think , 'my probability is low', let's not take any risks. However, he may still turn out to be an idiot savant.
Another way of;putting it, even with low genetic endowments, it may be possible for such a person to live up to the adage of -if not so smart, put in more work, and you may get farther then if you were precocious.Therefore why are you so laid back in your motivation? Even sub marginal people , on the most part , can come to realize this by and by. They may also be leery of taking unnecessary risks ,absent some insurance against malfeasance.
According to this theory, if one has the genetic potential to be more, they will have more motivation to do what they otherwise wouldn’t. So if one of low intelligence, has the ability to gain much in intelligence he will have a strong desire to do so, but if his genetic disposition is to be unable to go beyond a certain level of intelligence, he will have very little reason to take risks to obtain it. The fact is that one of low intelligence due to genetics can hardly fail to meet his potential, because life almost anywhere would always have sufficient challenges.
Also, keep in mind besides aspects of intelligence being the criteria for potential, there’s also various forms of maturity.
Evolution has no interest in intelligence, potential, or achievement.
Evolution is the result only of successful reproduction. It does not take intelligence to have 10 children, in fact most intelligent people tend to have fewer, or none. Children are insurance for the future, and most children worldwide are spawned to provide for the parents’ old age. The same emotional urges that have enabled parents to bring up the children with care and attention are the same that urges the children to care for the parents in old age. Grandparents encourage the same social ideology of family, as do parents. SO in social and somatic forms of evolution the selective factors promote large families.
What is being selected, in not more intelligent people, but people with more emotional intelligence, who are poor, and living on the edge of poverty.
If that was true, the amount a creature reproduces, and how long they reproduce, would keep getting higher and higher, throughout history and pre-history.
The biggest, strongest, smartest animals generally reproduce less often than the weak little high metabolism guys.
If one of low intelligence has the ability to acquire higher intelligence, how can a genetic disposition prevent it? If he has the ability, wouldn't that include both genetic and environmental factors? And if not, can not a deficiency in one be compensated by a surplus in the other?
What was meant was that, in circumstances where genetics put a ceiling or limit on one’s intellectual potential have relatively little difficulty in being achieved due to the circumstances of his environment, then, according to this theory, he may have some instinctual knowledge of that fact, and wouldn’t be inclined to take great risks for the false hope of becoming more intelligent than is possible.
Right. And speaking towards the idea of the genetic deficiencies already being known, then the environment becomes the compensating factor.
I believe I’m starting to understand the issue you present. If one is in an environment that is already challenging enough for its intellectual development, then it will have no need to take risks to increase the challenge, but if an environment is not challenging enough, then it will have reason to take risks to increase its challenge.
Normally in the latter case we may think of that person as having an above average genetic potential of intelligence, but even one with a low genetic potential for intelligence may find his environment under challenging. In which case, of course, there would be much effort he can use and risks he can make to increase those challenges.
I didn’t really consider this situation, because it initially seemed very unlikely, but that’s only because I overlooked certain things. For example, if one has always had people looking after him, giving him no challenges concerning more basic needs, and yet, rather than the norm of challenging his intellect in other ways, such as through pure academics, he is actually given reason not to challenge himself in that way, such as if he lives in a culture that encourages ignorance, then even if genetically an idiot, he may find he lacks challenges.
Then, as to the issue of maturity, which I know you haven’t been speaking to, I realize that people left immature from an unchallenging environment rarely seem to push themselves into maturity.
That realization weakens the theory stated in the OP. But, even assuming now that people with too little challenges don’t have a evolutionary imperative to increase them, those with plenty of challenges may still have an evolutionary imperative to not increase them.
Intelligence isn’t defined here as something describing a certain higher state of mind that only some individuals possess, it’s defined as an evaluation of a higher life form’s mental abilities in general.
This issue is oriented towards evolution in a far broader sense.
Yes, that's it. There are relationships between the environment, potential and actual intelligence, risk taking, genetic endowment, and insight. I think where risk taking comes in, is where either there is benefit to be had to improve on an underdeveloped intelligence, and the caution against taking risks is overcome by an insight into the possibility to compensate for low genetic gradient.
But it is also a question of need, how important is it to the person at hand to overcome genetic deficiency? Is it a matter of life or death, or merely an appearance of it? (In most cases it's neither one or another, but many shades of grey, and what is going on in the person's mind is a mix of real and unreal aspects of what underlying risks, potentials, needs to actualize, etc. are.
Another cumbersome factor in the caution to overcome, is a conditioned blockage, a kind of fearful reluctance, caused by magnified obstacles , deemed unworthy of the expand of energy. A whole series of rationalizations may be set into why potential needs to expand intelligence should not be acted upon. This caution to activate the potential repeated in various contexts, becomes the negative attitude, and what develops is a chronic state of rejecting any and every attempt at self improvement. No amount of insight or will , at this point can overcome any genetic deficiency, since what has set in, usually confirms the deficiency, rather then tries to overcome it.
You were speaking more to the corrections I made, as in the text you quoted in your last post above, rather than the OP, where the theory is that one would be very inclined to overcome obstacles to achieving potential.
A new issue has come to mind, that of the general state of one’s kin. One may risk more in an environment where one’s kin existence is in peril. Even if not one’s direct lineage, one’s siblings or cousins lineage may factor in. But, with this new development the issue becomes far too complex.
There are too many variables concerning any given person’s role in their general kin group, to make an educated theory on how cautious or incautious he may be based on the state of his kin group.
I find I’m back to the beginning in trying to find why it is that some have the unshakable need to progress oneself at a pace that places longevity of life in serious question and why some don’t. But, its worth further exploration if there are any ideas.
Wouldn’t the potential be a range? In this schema let’s say the person that has a high probability of meeting his genetic potential is thus someone who had decent parenting and education, some solid finances behind him or her and so could become…the physicist or whatever that generally requires some kinds of supportive nurture, statistically, to help the nature bloom. But then this good circumstances person might reach a higher part of that range of potential if he or she took risks. I can make up scenarios if the idea seems off.
And then, what are risks and what is caution. For some their potential may include risktaking skills and needs. IOW they thrive or their skill set thrives when there are risks. The opposite kind of example might be true also. Genetic potential is also not like a sum - not that you said that, but just mulling here. IOW Joe doesn’t have genetic potential 5, whereas Jean has 7. Joe may have 12 in this areas and a very dangerous 1 in this area and so finding his best path might include risktaking and caution in a mix depending on different areas of his life. I suppose I am challening the notion that one could potentially assess one’s potential and then look at circumstances and then decide one needs to take risks more than the equivalent guy from the middle class family over on Dover street, Joe knows. He might need to take less risks than that guy, overall, or in some areas. And then give their genetics, Joe might be in the right environment for his particular skill set, even though most would not be, say.
Intuition is pretty much a given here. It would be beyond logical reasoning abilities to map all this out. Though the reasoning mind could certainly provide feedback and options and help analyze the past.
I would think it is more a sense of what the individual can do, what is going on. A kind of psychic self evaluation.
How one has been nurtured since birth and the risks he’s personally willing to take both factor in. According to my theory in the OP, if he has the proper nurture he will have less need to take risks to come close to his potential, but certainly the degree of risks he takes will determine how close he comes to fully meeting his potential.
That’s true, which is why I told Obe that this subject may be far more complex that I first tried to make it.
Yes, more complications. Intelligence and maturity, as good examples, may conflict to some extent. For example, to obtain a certain degree of wisdom, one needs to have spent much time alone, but to have done so precludes him from having the interactions with people that would help him develop his maturity. I don’t know for certain if one must, to an extent, sacrifice one for the other, but it’s difficult to see how it could be otherwise.
(Also, I don’t know why you called it “a very dangerous 1”. If his potential in one area is very low then this will either become exceedingly obvious in how unsuitable he finds himself for surviving in his environment, where meeting his potential will hardly be a factor so much pushing it to excesses trying to stay alive, or, he will simply find it to not be a problem. Having a high potential, according to my initial theory, may be dangerous, since he might be willing to risk much to obtain it.)
My intent was that should a person assess these risks, it would be based on knowledge he’s learned from himself, hardly relating, in this case, to knowledge of others. If he knows he’s had discontent unrelated to “breeding, territory, allies and power, where the dynamic of drive and rest is more obvious”, that has often led him into situations where his survival wasn’t overly likely, then he may decide to take this instinctual matter into his own hands - in a sense, by assuming the discontent relates to him being far from is potential, then actively trying to find what it is (keep in mind, this will be in terms that don’t relate to the more easily measured standards of success provided for use in people evaluating each other) and to what he must do to obtain it, still realizing that he’ll likely find himself in dangerous situations, but with a conscious plan made in advance to mitigate these risks as much as possible.
I agree, I think I was partially addressing those issues earlier in this response, so to avoid repeating myself I won’t add anything more.