The Roots Of Thought

I recently read Freakanomics (see related blog link to the right), and one of the issues the authors explored was extent to which parenting can affect child development. After analyzing a large amount of data, they concluded that playing classical music, reading to your kids, etc. probably has a negligible effect on their development. Rather -- according to their analysis -- the key determinent is genetics. Smart parents breed smart kids. Dumb parents breed dumb kids. Smart people who adopt kids birthed of dumb parents...well, at least someone loves these kids. If this is all true, my kids will be fucked.

But, is that really true? Leaving aside the racial/eugenics undertones of some of their analysis, the authors certainly analyze a vast amount of data, but there is a certain conceit to their virtually religious adherence to the notion that data can answer the question of what makes a child apt to be smart. Data is infinitely manipulateable depending on how creative you want to be. Moreover, this conceit rests on a fallacy (which in turn rests on a bed of lettuce): that intellectual development is static and immutable. Does 2 coming together with 2 make 4? Or is 4 the coming together of 2 and 2? Does 2 have to come before 2 in becoming 4? If you think so, what to make of the coming together of 3 and 1? Or 1 and 3? It probably depends on who Sesame Street is sponsoring on a given week.

So, the question is whether we are hardwired at birth to process information in complex ways or whether we can train our brains to process information in complex ways, at least more deductively (which is probably more productive).

IQ, in my opinion, is derivative of the way we think as much as the amount of brain mass at our disposal. Most problems are knots. Untieing the most complex knots are not the providence of special breed or special stock.

More often than not, we don't think far enough. I do not agree with Noam Chomsky on much -- which I am sure troubles him greatly -- but I do agree with him on one key notion: intentions are irrelevant to judging the morality or rightness of actions, only consequences matter.

But, I find that mostly intentions, not consequences, drive many people's decision-making/thought processes. It is kind of a narcissistic, two-deminsional way of thinking at some level: what you do is based on how you think you'll be perceived for doing it. Many people do things because they feel they are doing the right thing -- mostly right for themselves -- without contemplating the consequences. A lot of things that we do that are "dumb," could probably be avoidable if we spent a few seconds mapping out the consequences.

But, then again, can you blame an inductive, intention-based actor if they are acting in service of an honorable principle? What of religion, then. Nevertheless, I believe that intellect can be shaped effectively by changing reactive thought to proactive thought. Call me naive. But, rest assured I have considered the possibility.