5 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
So how malleable is IQ? I've taken 5 (+1 childhood one) IQ tests in my life, out of curiosity to see how they change, and I've had some pretty big jumps over my life, up and down.
This leads me to question just how malleable IQ is. Up until a few years ago, the answer was "not at all", but currently much of the literature seems to be conflicting. Even the meta analyses contradict eachother often.
What is the current state of our knowledge about the plasticity of IQ in 2016?
6 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
It is the year 201600. You are a digital life form who lives in a world where your kind has, for several intents and purposes, transcended the laws of the universe.
-You are in possession of an infinitely divisible currency.
-You are gambling in a Casino that accepts any division of currency and will allow you to make wagers as risky as you like. .01% chance for 10000x payout, .0025% chance for 40000x payout, it's up to you.
-You have an infinite amount of time.
You begin by wagering half of your currency at an already arbitrarily high risk. You fail your first bet and try again, half the money and four times the risk. After a few more failures you're betting absolutely minuscule amounts of currency at an absurd risk per wager. Assuming you are willing to continue this forever, will you absolutely win a wager eventually, despite the sum of the total odds never reaching even half of your original absurdly high risk wager?
Original Sin and Human Origins
28 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
On another board I was discussing the possibility of Original Sin with a Catholic tripfag. I promise this is /sci/-related so hear me out.
For some context, the RCC affirms that Original Sin entered the world through a transgression made by two humans at some point in early history (Adam and Eve), which was then passed on to their descendants to cover the whole of humanity. It is helpful to think of original sin as a super dominant but invisible 'gene' present in anyone who can trace their lineage back to Adam or Eve.
Now the traditional interpretation of how this played out is strict monogenism, i.e. Adam and Eve were the first ever humans. There is no evidence for this and isn't worth entertaining.
The new, competing interpretation is that Adam and Eve were the first humans to be given a 'rational' soul (and original sin along with it), and that they were NOT the only anatomically modern humans around at the time.
The new interpretation states that Adam and Eve acquired original sin, then through their descendants spread it to the rest of the 'pool' of early humans over the course of following generations. One such descendant could have been one of humanity's Universal Common Ancestors, or the MRCA before humanity branched out and spread all over the world. If I'm not mistaken, in order to cover the entire human race this MRCA would need to have existed about 65,000 years ago; any earlier would imply that, to this day, there are isolated pockets of people on earth who don't have rational souls.
Now this is not a parsimonious explanation nor is it intended to 'prove' Adam and Eve but it is a decent attempt at clearing away the contradiction between Catholic doctrine and human evolutionary origins. I'd be interested to hear what /sci/ thinks.