Does anybody agree with this cognitive evolution book's argument that some cultures make people smarter? What's the LSAT score impact of gangsta rap? street culture? ebonics?
Ah finally, some direction
. How are they defining "smart"? I think some cultures are better at imparting skills currently valued by our "meritocratic" society.
I'm slowly (very slowly) wading through the book. But from what I gather it's saying that patterns of thought physically alter the brain, and make new kinds of thoughts possible, which then further alter the brain in a continuing spiral. It keeps saying that what we know is what we demonstrate first in our physical brain form and then this is reflected in our surrounding society. ( a collection of brains in action)
It seems to say that if you walk through a neighborhood you see a snap shot of the thinking patterns of the people who live there. A chaotic area reflects disordered thinking.
There's a lot of technical stuff about how the brain created the thumb and so forth which made man's ancestors able to think and do different kinds of things.
I haven't come across a definition of smart yet, but it does appear to state that people are inherently equal (Homo sapiens) and that IQ scores are not immutable (evolutionary jerks), but standardized achievement test scores on average do reflect what in fact people know ( how they think) at any given point. The book claims that people must do what they can't do until they can do it. Then their brains are wired differently and they can do more.
There's a great line "illiteracy does not spawn literature."
I would imagine that in law school disordered thinking is not advantageous. Learning how to think like a lawyer has to change the brain.
Is it easier being a 3L than a 1L?
re: that final question, I think there are more factors involved in the answer to that question than how the brain has "evolved" through two years of law school.
Still, I agree with the idea that some cultures/ethnicities (through their norms) and blood-lines (through the genetic make-up of the brain) do a better job at producing analytical thinkers than others. A comparison of average IQs across cultures and ethnicities and races shows that to be true.
And I see that we are all "equal" in the sense any culture or race lagging behind in this respect can "catch up" by changing certain thought patterns and mental activities while reinforcing others.
Would have to disagree with you here, Mortimer. I submit that it has been proven time and time again that environment, more so than race or culture alone, is the predominant factor in determining mental ability/analytical acumen. To the extent that one's environment is dictated or defined by racial or cultural barriers, then you have a point there, but I would be careful to distinguish which one is the controlling factor here. If Frank Lucas had been born into an environment such as, say, the Hamptons or something like that, he could have easily been the next CEO of Merrill Lynch or Chairman of American Express.
The factor of race is definitely relevant when we're talking about the conditions in the U.S., but I would have to submit that it plays a secondary roll to environment for purposes of determining the ability to think.
-Just call me Randolf 
Oh, Randolf, I was definitely NOT trying to say that environment is a non-factor. Wouldn't culture be considered an environmental factor?
I do believe that genetics is also a factor, but I certainly would not exclude upbringing and conditioning. Which set of factors (genetic vs. environmental) is most responsible for analytic thinking is debatable. Personally, I see no reason to think that it can't be moreso genetics for one great thinker and upbringing/environment for another great thinker and maybe split even for a third. Depends on the circumstances.
Would you exclude genes as a factor in cognitive or analytical ability?
-Mort
Obviously our genetic make up is ultimately responsible for everything that we are, biologically speaking. There's no escaping that. But for purposes of this debate, if we are to isolate those factors that are most responsible for producing analytical thinkers, once we assume that we're all (mankind) composed of roughly the exact same stuff going on at a genetic level (10 fingers, 10 toes, two eyes, etc.), the difference between analytical thinkers and non-analytical thinkers becomes one of upbringing and environment.
Now you bring up an interesting twist to environment - and that is the fact that environment is largely shaped by culture & race. Whites tend to live around other whites, blacks around other blacks, professionals around other professionals, blue collar workers around other blue collar workers, etc.
Environment is an interesting dynamic made up of many different factors. What's even more interesting is when we take a an astute young white male like Winthorp, take away his job and put him in the ghetto and simultaneously take a downtrodden young black male like Valentine, pull him out of the ghetto and give him an ivy league job. The proof is all around us everyday - people from well off families tend to do well academically. This makes sense when you consider that once you can eliminate negative environmental factors, such as where your next meal is coming from or where you will sleep tomorrow, etc. you can begin to allow your brain to analyze items more academic in nature such as mathematical formulae, logic problems, and the like.
- Randolf