Are we discovering more than we can process?

[P3nT4gR4m]

But that is not evolution.  Full stop.

Agreed. The malleable of the human brain is the product of evolution... the exercise of that malleability is not.

Technology augments evolution. Information technology especially adds another layer to the already evolved brain. Deep inside you've got the "reptile bit" (correct me if this is pseudoscience but I've heard it so many times I almost believe it) and then, wrapped around that is loads of evolved shit that eventually developed meta-consciousness. Now we augment our rather shoddy and haphazard memory functions with organisers and kick our sense of direction up a gear with gps and satnav. Hell, even our wicked sick grunting skillz are given a whole new dimension with mobile phones and email.

It's nothing new, we've been upgrading natures finest hour ever since Ugg picked up a sharp stick and totally pwned his first dinosaur, it's just that now it happens so fast that nobody even compares it to evolution. Nature would take millions of years to give us sonar just like bats but we were swimming thousands of feet under the ocean and kept bumping into shit so we spent a couple of months making our own sonar instead. The human being, in this day and age, is capable of communicating remotely with humans on the other side of the planet. How do you like them apples mr whale? We can fly, we can travel on land at speeds in excess of 200mph, we can kill an antelope from 2 miles away, just by crooking our index finger.

The evolution bit you're talking about, sure that isn't changing at any noticeable speed but then evolution was rendered utterly irrelevant tens of thousands of years ago. There's a new kid on the block, us, our technology it evolves too. A hell of a lot fucking faster. Our brains don't need to naturally select their way into being able to deal with this shit. We'll be quaffing new chemicals and plugging shit into them a long time before it becomes a problem or, as is more often the case, shortly thereafter .

[Kai]

To OP: Yes.  Taking a wide angle view and trying to digest everything new that people figure, re figure, stuble into, or remember would eb like going to a chinese joint every day and ordering everything on the menu...and they make a new menu with new dishes every day.  

Some people know an incredible amount about very focused things.  I do a little, and folks like Kai do to a really impressive degree.  no one specializes in everything at once though.

I agree with this, Richter. There is so much information available and communicated these days. Of course, information was always present, it just wasn't communicated and made available in the same ways and amounts as it used to be. The resulting information overload is like a constant attacker of distraction and apathy that must be countered an equal amount.

The solution to this pollution isn't dilution, it's concentration. Instead of just passively taking in everything, actively choose and limit the information that's attacking, first by eliminating the unnecessary sources, and second by better controlling the necessary ones. The prime example of unnecessary sources is television broadcasting, and if eliminating it makes you worry about just what happened to jill and phil this week, perhaps you should consider whether that is completely unnecessary as well. Necessary sources, like telephone, email, the Internet, and conversation, can't for the most part be eliminated in this modern world unless you want to become a hermit, but they can be limited and filtered, both actively and automatically. I have a series of email folders that any mail in my inbox must make it through before I even am willing to pay attention to it. All the rest gets deleted, immediately, and my inbox is always kept /empty/. Because in this world where most information is completely irrelevant to me or my life, I need ways to figure out what IS relevant and quickly cut the rest out so I can stay focused.

[Kai]

Pent:

1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.

2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.

[Requia ☣]

Pent:

1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.

2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.

[Kai]

Let me make this clear: In order for natural selection to NOT operate, at least one of the following conditions must be met.

1) The nonexistence of variation. I'm pretty sure the laws of physics deny this from ever happening.

2) Variation must not be inherited from one generation to the next in any form, by any mechanism.

3) Whatever offspring are produced, they must always (always) survive to reproduce OR their deaths must be completely random.

4) The organisms in question are immortal, like, Highlander immortal. Unkillable by any means.

5) Organisms are "spontaneously" generated and do not reproduce.

The above is part of a long term thought experiment I've had with my colleagues. We have yet to discover any situation that could in practicality occur where natural selection would not function, not just on earth, but anywhere in the universe there are replicating homeostatic variants.

[Triple Zero]

I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve.  Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors? 

I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them.  That's new.

So, yes.

I think that resonates with what Cram said about the nerve-attenuation syndrome.

I definitely think there's a kernel of truth in that. But I believe it works a bit differently. Since ADHD (and related by comorbidity, autism) are both conditions of the brain, it's my belief that those conditions have always (or at least since a long time) existed, but that the recent flood of digital ubiquitous data has changed the practical consequences of these conditions from what used to be just another character trait, to a syndrome that is actually problematic in our current information overload society.

At least, I believe that's the case for me. Being diagnosed with ADD and some mild sort of autism, I can pinpoint quite clearly, a lot of troubles leading up to my burnout a few years ago, started when I got cable Internet at home, and started to consume information by the truckload. I think I'm addicted, actually. I know it's not good for me, and that I get a lot more done if I manage to stay offline for most off the day, but ... it's a lot like cigarettes or alcohol, "just one more".

[Triple Zero]

It's just different information, and the stresses we put on it.

I mean, if you were living in the Amazon, and you had to deal with an environment that could kill you 50 ways in 10 minutes, every day of your life, you'd consider that a lot of information to process, right?

I don't know, I've never been in the Amazon, but I think it's different because at least all that information is of the same kind. The stuff I dump into my brain every day is very different topics. Then again, I'm biased, an Amazon-dweller would probably think my information is all the same kind, and his, well you got different plants, and animals, and day and night time and poison and violence and dehydration and and and

In some way it gets to the psychology of marketing... people find what the brain naturally is attracted to, and then exploit it.  So it's not the amount of information, it's the way that information is presented.  And if we learn how our brain works, we can set up meta-barriers to it.  Which means we're not dealing with information overload, we're dealing with bastards who are trying to manipulate us.

Which is not exactly new.  Just more clever.

Yes. I truly feel this deep in my being, every time I walk in the IKEA.

Somehow I fear it will be much worse when I come to visit the USA, though. OTOH it'll be easier to block out because most of it is foreign and doesnt apply to me.

THAT is a nurture vs. nature debate that is well, sketchy scientifically.  For one thing...a lot of ADHD and autism diagnoses are popping up not because people are getting it at a faster rate but because the science behind the diagnosis is changing.  So whereas before so-and-so was a "problem child," now they are autistic or have ADD.

Yes. That's another way to say it. But I also think that, for ADHD (dunno about autism), a few decades ago, it wasn't that much of a problem to get by, because, as LMNO said, the psychology of marketing was not as advanced yet to manage to successfully capture your attention all the fucking time. I'd expect people with ADHD to have a lot more trouble dealing with that. Same with the potentially infinite amount of information clickable online.

[Adios]

There are days the collective intelligence of this board makes me feel like a complete moron. In a good way.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm curious as to what people think has changed or is in the process of changing in the environment that would cause the brain to evolve.  Do we really think we are absorbing or are subject to more knowledge than our ancestors? 

I've heard the "ADHD epidemic" blamed on childrens inability to stay focussed with so many distractions crafted and targeted towards them.  That's new.

So, yes.

I think that resonates with what Cram said about the nerve-attenuation syndrome.

I definitely think there's a kernel of truth in that. But I believe it works a bit differently. Since ADHD (and related by comorbidity, autism) are both conditions of the brain, it's my belief that those conditions have always (or at least since a long time) existed, but that the recent flood of digital ubiquitous data has changed the practical consequences of these conditions from what used to be just another character trait, to a syndrome that is actually problematic in our current information overload society.

I've had the same thought before.  I'm sure I'm more ADD than not, but for the most part it doesn't cause problems I can't find a way to work around.  Sure, I currently owe about $50k on a few years of taxes I somehow got too distracted to file.. but I've figured out how to work around that one.  Now.

The thing which gets me is that I'm pretty sure that fewer kids with ADD end up being doctors.  If you can't relate to the bouncy kid who is testing the patience of its parents, you're more likely to medicate to "fix" that kid.  This is just self-indulgent supposition, but the thought still makes me angry.

[Adios]

Pent:

1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.

2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.

Wait. As humans we can see and understand the world around to some degree. We adapt to it, or at least try to. Some adapt faster with less friction. Some ignore it altogether. Some are luke warm about it. Why does evolution require centuries? If everything is speeding up why not evolution?

Hunter-gatherer skills are no longer required by the vast majority. The human race is no longer locked in a test of pure survival. Organizational skills now carry more weight than being a good protector.

[Requia ☣]

Evolution doesn't just mean change, but rather change do to some members of the group reproducing and others not.  That takes time, especially for a species as long lived as humans.

[Captain Utopia]

Well.. if the average age of first time mothers is now about 25 (in the US), then isn't that a greater factor in our evolution than our total lifespans?  You don't need too many generations before noticeable effects start occurring.

It's now commonplace for people to migrate countries, continents.  Not so long ago it was common for people to die within a few miles of where they were born.  Now geeks of all flavours self-select over the internet.  I have a feeling we're gonna see some interesting mutants in this century.

[Kai]

Pent:

1) We never rendered natural selection irrelevant. It is just as much in operation now as it ever was. Just because we don't see the selective pressures many people associate with this concept, does not mean that variation in a population is not selected against based in inherited traits. And social selection is yet another biological offshoot of natural selection. As Darwin noted, artificial selection is no different than natural selection in mechanism, just in selection pressures.

2) Those other things you're talking about? They're not evolution. Please don't get me started.

Wait. As humans we can see and understand the world around to some degree. We adapt to it, or at least try to. Some adapt faster with less friction. Some ignore it altogether. Some are luke warm about it. Why does evolution require centuries? If everything is speeding up why not evolution?

Hunter-gatherer skills are no longer required by the vast majority. The human race is no longer locked in a test of pure survival. Organizational skills now carry more weight than being a good protector.

Evolution can be summarized in one of two ways: 1) Change in gene frequency in a population over time and 2) the selective elimination of individuals and lineages. Adaptation in the form you are using refers not to an evolutionary change in a population that better suits the organisms to their environment, but an acclimatory change, an individual's physiological or behavioral adjustment to changes in their environment. This is why biologists refer to adaptation and acclimation separately, so they don't get confused in conversation.

The changes you refer to above, and most of the changes referred to in this thread, are addressing aclimation. Acclimation, or the ability to acclimate, may very well be an adaptation, but the event of changing physiology or behavior in the individual is not an adaptation.

So, in rewording your above statement:

"As humans we can see and understand the world around to some degree. We acclimate to it, or at least try to. Some acclimate faster with less friction. Some ignore it altogether. Some are luke warm about it."

You can see with the appropriate rewording the statement makes more sense and is not a logical statement that permits the jump to "therefore, why not evolution?", because individual acclimations do not indicate evolutionary changes.

[Kai]

Well.. if the average age of first time mothers is now about 25 (in the US), then isn't that a greater factor in our evolution than our total lifespans?  You don't need too many generations before noticeable effects start occurring.

It's now commonplace for people to migrate countries, continents.  Not so long ago it was common for people to die within a few miles of where they were born.  Now geeks of all flavours self-select over the internet.  I have a feeling we're gonna see some interesting mutants in this century.

Okay, it is quite clear that you do not understand the framework on which you are trying to converse within.

[Captain Utopia]

Then please enlighten me?