Here’s an interesting quote from scholar Paul Broca which I found on page 83 of Stephen Jay Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man:
A prognathous [forward-jutting] face, more or less black color of the skin, woolly hair and intellectual and social inferiority are often associated, while more or less white skin, straight hair and an orthognathous [straight] face are the ordinary equipment of the highest groups in the human series (1866, p. 280)….A group with black skin, woolly hair and a prognathous face has never been able to raise itself spontaneously to civilization (pp 295-296)
This quote is fascinating because it provides evidence for racial differences in intelligence, independent of IQ tests (indeed the quote predated IQ tests). It’s also interesting because HBD deniers will often say that the very idea of genetic differences in intelligence is meaningless because different genes react differently in different environments. So just because group A scores lower than group B in the United States doesn’t mean group A is genetically smarter, because maybe in some other country, group B would score higher than group A.
But Paul Broca is taking a historical perspective, and saying that at no point in history has a population with a common syndrome of genetic traits (dark skin, woolly hair, prognathous face) ever created a civilization. This suggests that genes that cause this phenotype also cause relatively low IQ, in whatever environment they are found in.
In his landmark 1974 book Race, scholar J.R. Baker listed 21 criteria for civilization (pp 507-508):
1. In the ordinary circumstances of life in public places, they cover the external genital organs and the greater part of the trunk with clothes.
2. They keep the body clean and take care to dispose of its waste products.
3. They do not practice severe mutilation or deformation of the body, except for medical reasons.
4. They have knowledge of building in brick or stone, if the necessary materials are available in their territory.
5. Many of them live in towns or cities, which are linked by roads.
6. They cultivate food plants.
7. They domesticate animals and use some of the larger ones for transport (or have in the past used them), if suitable species are available.
8. They have a knowledge of the use of metals, if these are available.
9. They use wheels.
10. They exchange property by the use of money.
11. They order their society by a system of laws, which are enforced in such a way that they ordinarily go about their various concerns in times of peace without danger of attack or arbitrary arrest.
12. They permit accused persons to defend themselves and to bring witnesses for their defense.
13. They do not use torture to extract information or for punishment.
14. They do not practice cannibalism.
15. Their religious systems include ethical elements and are not purely or grossly superstitious.
16. They use a script (not simply a succession of pictures) to communicate ideas.
17. There is some facility in the abstract use of numbers, without consideration of actual objects (or in other words, at least a start has been made in mathematics).
18. A calendar is in use, accurate to within a few days of the year.
19. Arrangements are made for the instruction of the young in intellectual subjects.
20. There is some appreciation of the fine arts.
21. Knowledge and understanding are valued as ends in themselves.
Baker found that Caucasoid populations developed all 21 components of civilization in four independent places:
1) The Sumerian in the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates
2) The Cretan
3) The Indus Valley
4) Ancient Egypt
East Asians also scored a perfect 21, in China’s Sinic civilization. The Native Americans achieved roughly half of the 21 criteria in the Maya society of Guatemala and almost as much in the Inca and Aztec societies.
Virtually none of the 21 criteria for civilization were achieved by sub-Saharan Africans or Australian aborigines.
This historical evidence is extremely important because it suggests that modern racial differences in IQ go back thousands of years, and almost certainly tens of thousands of years and are not just cultural artifacts of modern American IQ testing. For example on page 111 of his book Understanding Human History, scholar Michael Hart writes: Indeed, it appears that not a single major invention of the last 20,000 years was made in sub-Saharan Africa.
By contrast, Hart claims that over 30,000 years ago, Europe already had the Aurignacian tool industry, cave paintings, and possibly sewing needles, and over 20,000 years ago, Europe had early ceramics, the Solutrean tool industry, and the bow and arrow, and over 10,000 years ago, Europe had the Magdalenian tool industry, harpoons, fish hooks, and spear throwers.
Pumpkin Person 
What caused the Native Americans to be so backward in civilization and IQ if they lived in the same climes as Europeans/Chinese/Indians?
They were obviously on the way, just what caused that 2000 year gap between the Aztecs and South Asians?
Jared Diamond’s answer in light of HBD doesn’t fit.
According to Richard Lynn, climate alone can’t fully explain racial differences in IQ. The other major cause is population size. Races with historically smaller populations did not not evolve as much IQ, because the odds of a high IQ genetic mutation occurring by chance go way down when the gene-pool is small. This would explain why Negroid agriculturalists (i.e. congoids) score much higher than Negroid hunter/gatherers (capoids), and why large population Mongoloids (i.e. East Asians) score much higher than small population Mongoloids (i.e. Arctic people, Native Americans)
The population in Africa get bigger and when a population size is big there is more chance to have genius, Do you think that the IQ in Africa will increase in the future?
I believe that selection for lower IQ didn’t occur until a while in the Americas for the Siberians. This is how the Aztec, Maya and others were able to accomplish what they did. Over time their IQ dropped.
The Aztecs were pretty advanced, the Maya more so. Tons of accomplishments, and what makes them even better is that they were done in complete isolation.
PP if you can, try to estimate the IQ of the maya in their golden age. I’d enjoy that post. Thanks
The OP of this thread appears rather ignorant of African people. Are you telling me that the civilization of Ethiopia, which stretches back more than three thousand years and which is mentioned in the bible, did not receive any points under this rubric? Or how about the civilization from which Mansa Musa came, the world’s richest man whose gold inflated half the known world as he made the pilgrimage to Mecca?
According to eminent geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Ethiopians are a hybridized population. Only 60% of their genes are indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa with 40% coming from the Caucasoids of the Middle East, and much of Ethiopian society may have been created by Middle Easterners who continued to maintain strong relations with Ethiopians (who were historically the most respected of the black peoples)
We also have to take in account that Ethiopian didn’t mean actual modern Ethiopians. Ethiopian was a general term for Blacks of Eastern Africa, this includes Nilotic peoples. Nilotic peoples were played a major part in early Nubia and later Nubia.
Ancient Nubia, a place that for a long time enjoyed a mutual respect with Egypt, then later had was conquered by Egypt, then conquered Egypt, saved Hebrews from Assyrians, got pushed back by Assyrians to Thebes, fought the Romans, won and lost, but apparently put up enough of a fight that the Romans saw fit not to tax them, which is weird because the Romans loved collecting taxes.
Mansa Musa, the World’s richest black man, was part of a later empire. Baker’s analysis was confined to early civilizations.
Americans civilizations are later civilisations too
It’s also interesting because HBD deniers will often say that the very idea of genetic differences in intelligence is meaningless because different genes react differently in different environments.
Many more reasons than that. But, if the above point is true, then civilization or lack thereof isn’t any indicator: what is smart within civilization may not be smart in hunter-gatherer society.
at no point in history has a population with a common syndrome of genetic traits (dark skin, woolly hair, prognathous face) ever created a civilization. This suggests that genes that cause this phenotype also cause relatively low IQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:African-civilizations-map-pre-colonial.svg
What you mean to say is “based on an author who created arbitrary criteria for civilization that ensured only ‘caucasoid’ and ‘Asian’ peoples fit the bill, X never created a civilization.’
According to everyone else, however, this assertion is wrong.
There’s also the fact that iron metallurgy may have been independently invented in Africa, which means that rather than a stone-bronze-iron-age progression (like Europe), there was a stone-iron-age progression. If true, that is nothing short of incredible.
Many more reasons than that. But, if the above point is true, then civilization or lack thereof isn’t any indicator: what is smart within civilization may not be smart in hunter-gatherer society.
By that logic, animals are just as smart as people.
And wikipedia is not a reliable source. It’s monopolized by special interest groups.
By that logic, animals are just as smart as people.
Smart behavior in civilization may be different than smart behavior in hunter-gatherer society. This doesn’t imply anything about humans vis a vis animals. A human in both civilization and hunter-gatherer society will outperform an animal in either setting on the behaviors of interest (i.e. solving equations or making tools). And civilization may also foster intellectual development in one person but stifle it in another, and hunter-gatherer society, the same.
So, if it’s a universal quality, 2) applies. If it’s a quality that isn’t universal (and instead just the recognition of mastery or high proficiency for a constellation of skills), then both 1) and 2) apply.
And wikipedia is not a reliable source. It’s monopolized by special interest groups.
Feel free to substantiate this claim at any time.
Smart behavior in civilization may be different than smart behavior in hunter-gatherer society
That’s not the point. The point is whether populations that create civilizations in the first place are smarter than those that don’t. It seems like common sense that they are, generally speaking.
Feel free to substantiate this claim at any time.
Literally anyone in the World is free to edit Wikipedia. The burden is on you to show the information is reliable.
It seems like common sense that they are, generally speaking.
You need to assume that ‘smart’ is a universal quality among humans and that those who are smart in hunter-gatherer society will remain ‘smart’ in civilization, which gives them an incentive to create civilization. Up until recently, civilization wasn’t that great of a bet versus hunter-gatherer society.
And if it’s such common sense, then were NW Europeans dumber than everyone else until ~ 1k years ago?
The burden is on you to show the information is reliable.
It actually isn’t, because wikipedia has generally become recognized as a reliable source in the context of a discussion like this.
Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology,[7] pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard.
Legal rulings have relied on wikipedia, it’s been found to have error rates on par with Encyclepedia Britannica, etc.
At this point in wikipedia’s history, someone challenging its authority at this level of discussion should give a reason why it’s inaccurate on this particular topic.
You need to assume that ‘smart’ is a universal quality among humans and that those who are smart in hunter-gatherer society will remain ‘smart’ in civilization, which gives them an incentive to create civilization. Up until recently, civilization wasn’t that great of a bet versus hunter-gatherer society.
Well generally scientists do assume that civilizations signal intelligence. Humans are considered smarter than chimps largely because we have civilizations and they don’t. Astronomers define “intelligent life” on other planets as life with a civilization we could make contact with. Anthropologists estimate the intelligence of pre-humans largely by looking for signs of primitive culture or technology (in addition to brain size).
HBDers are simply applying the same standards to racial comparisons that scientists use for other intelligence comparisons. It’s only controversial for political reasons, not scientific ones, & it violates Occam’s razor to treat racial comparisons as an exception this general standard.
And if it’s such common sense, then were NW Europeans dumber than everyone else until ~ 1k years ago?
Just because there should be a correlation between intelligence and civilization does not mean the correlation should be perfect.
It actually isn’t, because wikipedia has generally become recognized as a reliable source in the context of a discussion like this.
Wikipedia is generally reliable, but on topics like race where people are deeply emotionally invested, you get a lot of people who devote their lives to pushing agendas, and as a result, the normal checks and balances don’t work.
But having said that, I’m not sure the map you linked to even contradicted the source I used because it did not define its criteria for civilization, nor did it specify the type of civilization (Baker limited his analysis to originating civilizations)
“Intelligent life” is not defined through civilization. It’s use of language, use of tools, and self-awareness. That’s it, that’s all.
And humans are concerned smarter than chimps because humans use language, tools, and are self-aware — all to a higher degree, and it’s mainly language. It’s not just ‘civilization.’
Primitive culture and technology is not necessarily ‘civilization.’
So no, as usual the standards you just laid out aren’t the actual standards.
The drake equation does not assume that intelligent life leads inevitably to increasing technology or to super advanced civilization.
And astronomers even admit that defining intelligent life is an extraordinarily difficult task.
Just because there should be a correlation between intelligence and civilization does not mean the correlation should be perfect.
And the vast majority of the “caucasoid” originators of western civilization became much dumber, as well. It’s far from ‘perfect.’
it did not define its criteria for civilization
Baker’s criteria aren’t the only criteria or even the authoritative criteria, if the outlined civilizations are widely considered to be civilizations. So, the original point stands: according to everyone else, the statement is wrong and the only source that seems biased is yours.
*considered
And the reason why it’s difficult to just put those traits on a continuum from hunter-gatherer, to ‘civilized,’ is that between species, there’s a clear difference. Within humanity, it’s more complicated. Hunter-gatherer society may have rewarded an individual’s wits and cunning more, or required them more. So the degree of proficiency required with what was available may have been deeper, versus a more broad grasp of many things in civilization. Civilization is more predictable, hunter-gatherer life requires constant adaptation. It’s not set in stone, but that’s the point: it could go either way.
“Intelligent life” is not defined through civilization. It’s use of language, use of tools, and self-awareness. That’s it, that’s all.
Chimps use tools:
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/javascript:void(0);
Chimps have a primitive language:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28023630
Chimps have self-awareness:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimpanzees-self-awareness-110504.htm
All of these abilities are relative, and civilization reflects such abilities on a grand scale. Buildings made of brick and stone, the cultivation of food plants, the domestication of animals for transport, and the use of wheels are all examples of advanced tool use. The invention of a written script is a quantum leap forward in linguistic communication, because it allows you to communicate with people living centuries after you die so that knowledge can be passed on for generations. Concepts like money and property require an understanding of ownership and thus self-awareness as does the taboo against cannibalism, nudity and torture and the awareness of ethical responsibilities.
The drake equation does not assume that intelligent life leads inevitably to increasing technology or to super advanced civilization.
No, but it does assume that civilization can ONLY emerge from intelligent life, which right away implies a strong causal correlation. As one Drake equation junkie puts it I believe that given enough time, a high intelligence species will eventually produce high technology, including those technologies associated with radio communication.
http://www.maybusher.com/DrakeEquation.aspx
Face it, intelligence and civilization are inextricably linked. To argue otherwise only hurts your credibility.
And the vast majority of the “caucasoid” originators of western civilization became much dumber, as well. It’s far from ‘perfect.’
It’s also far from zero.
Baker’s criteria aren’t the only criteria or even the authoritative criteria, if the outlined civilizations are widely considered to be civilizations. So, the original point stands: according to everyone else, the statement is wrong and the only source that seems biased is yours.
Well notice how Paul Broca qualified his statement: A group with black skin, woolly hair and a prognathous face has never been able to raise itself spontaneously to civilization
In other words, if the civilization was largely created by outsiders, it doesn’t count.
I never said there wasn’t a link of any kind. I explained why, between humans, attempting to assign “more intelligent” to civilization vs hunter gatherer isn’t so simple. Your links about chimps etc. we’re already anticipated and dealt with.
The height of civilization selects against intelligence. Brain size has decreased since the dawn of civilization. There’s evidence that pre-civilization the same innovations reappeared over and over again because everyone had to re-invent the wheel, i.e. no instruction manuals for abstract thought, yet innovation kept occurring. So writing also helps the less intelligent thrive. It’s not so clear.
Face it, one being a marker for intelligence doesn’t mean the other is a marker against intelligence.
That HI is necessary for advanced civilization doesn’t make it sufficient or the only possible outcome for all HI life.
And it’s nice that one person somewhere has an opinion about something.
Re: the correl…taking the tons of confounding factors into account, I’d say it gets much closer to zero. Most scholars don’t even believe people like Lynn have the direction right.
And like I said: you have one individual’s criteria. It doesn’t seem like anyone else agrees with them or agrees with his application because they believe SSA had several civilizations. Any reason to trust his criteria over everyone else’s?
Last…
Arguing against the notion of different genes reacting differently to different environments by holding up an environment that may be disadvantageous to one set of genes and arguing that that gene set never sought out or created that environment is a non-starter.
The height of civilization selects against intelligence. Brain size has decreased since the dawn of civilization. There’s evidence that pre-civilization the same innovations reappeared over and over again because everyone had to re-invent the wheel, i.e. no instruction manuals for abstract thought, yet innovation kept occurring. So writing also helps the less intelligent thrive. It’s not so clear.
That’s all irrelevant because my argument’s not that a civilized life style requires more intelligence than a hunter-gatherer life style, but rather that creating a civilization in the first place requires more intelligence than never creating one. Thus the existence of a civilization is strong evidence that its creators exceeded a certain cognitive threshold; thus we should find that on average, peoples who created civilizations are more intelligent than those who didn’t (at least at the time they created it).
Re: the correl…taking the tons of confounding factors into account, I’d say it gets much closer to zero.
But you agree there would be a correlation & that it would be positive.
And like I said: you have one individual’s criteria. It doesn’t seem like anyone else agrees with them or agrees with his application because they believe SSA had several civilizations. Any reason to trust his criteria over everyone else’s?
Well your source for what everyone else thinks is wikipedia and it says:
The cradle of civilization is a term referring to locations identified as the sites of the emergence of civilization.
In Western European and Middle Eastern cultures, it has frequently been applied to the Ancient Near Eastern Chalcolithic (Ubaid period, Naqada culture), especially in the Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Levant) and Egypt, but also extended to sites in Asia Minor (Anatolia), Armenia[1] and the Iranian Plateau (Elam). Other civilizations arose in Asia, among cultures situated along large river valleys, notably the Indus River in the Indian Subcontinent (present day Pakistan and northern India)[2] and the Yellow River in China.[3] Civilizations also arose independently in Norte Chico in present-day Peru,[4] the Andes and in Mesoamerica. If writing is considered an indicator of civilization, the earliest “cradle” to have writing was Sumer (Jemdet Nasr) in Mesopotamia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
Sub-Saharan Africa is not listed as one of the places where civilization emerged, though it was obviously later acquired there.
Last…
Arguing against the notion of different genes reacting differently to different environments by holding up an environment that may be disadvantageous to one set of genes and arguing that that gene set never sought out or created that environment is a non-starter.
Defining all civilizations as a single environment is pretty broad. A similar argument could be made to argue chimps are just as smart as people, but simply choose not to use advanced language and tools because they create environments that are biased against chimp genes…at a certain point it just sounds nutty.
That’s all irrelevant because my argument’s not that a civilized life style requires more intelligence than a hunter-gatherer life style, but rather that creating a civilization in the first place requires more intelligence than never creating one
Civilization is ‘created’ over long stretches of time. In a group of individuals who are all capable of innovating mentally and have no need of writing, the first person to say ‘let me write this down’ is not the ‘smartest’ one, even though he’s just started to ‘create’ civilization. The same critique applies: it being a point for does not make its absence a point against.
Sub-Saharan Africa is not listed as one of the places where civilization emerged, though it was obviously later acquired there.
Your claim is that SSA never created a civilization, not SSA didn’t create a civilization at a certain time. NW Europe also isn’t in the ‘cradle’ of civilization. Bottom line, according to everyone else besides your lone author, this claim about SSA false, which suggests your author is biased, not everyone else. Do you have any indication we should take his word over everyone else’s?
The original point still stands: if hunter-gatherer society made X smart but group Y dumb, then group Y creating civilization and becoming smarter does not mean that they are intrinsically smarter than group X. Group X would not work toward that goal over long periods of time because it is not good for them.
Your response has been many forms of, ‘you could say the same about chimps.’ Realize though, that a) this is a different argument than your original argument (that civilization or lack thereof undoes different reaction norms), and b) that a human will intellectually outperform a chimp raised in the same environment — regardless of environment. Whereas with humans, it’s not so clear. So it simply isn’t the same thing.
Swank I seriously think that you are a troll or very stupid
Civilization is ‘created’ over long stretches of time. In a group of individuals who are all capable of innovating mentally and have no need of writing, the first person to say ‘let me write this down’ is not the ‘smartest’ one, even though he’s just started to ‘create’ civilization.
Of course if you assume a priori that everyone has the same intelligence then by definition there is no correlation between intelligence and civilization (or anything else), but all you’ve done is made a circular assertion.
Your claim is that SSA never created a civilization, not SSA didn’t create a civilization at a certain time.
You’re confusing “created a civilization” with “had a civilization”. SSA did the latter, not the former.
The original point still stands: if hunter-gatherer society made X smart but group Y dumb, then group Y creating civilization and becoming smarter does not mean that they are intrinsically smarter than group X. Group X would not work toward that goal over long periods of time because it is not good for them.
Your response has been many forms of, ‘you could say the same about chimps.’ Realize though, that a) this is a different argument than your original argument (that civilization or lack thereof undoes different reaction norms),
My original argument was that the low intellectual performance of sub-Saharans today is not because American society is uniquely unsuited to their genotype (the reaction norm argument made by HBD deniers), because according to Michael Hart’s claim about no major sub-Saharan inventions, that low intellectual performance has been replicated across 20,000 years of massive environmental change.
Now you’re trying to argue that sub-Saharans perform fine intellectually in an environment that suits them, but we have no way of testing that hypothesis, because according to you, just the act of putting their intelligence to the test (i.e. inventing technologies, creating civilizations) causes the environment to become unsuitable for them, and thus they fail the historical test. Do you know what we call an untestable hypothesis? Unscientific. If one’s theory is not falsifiable, then by definition, it’s not science.
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
b) that a human will intellectually outperform a chimp raised in the same environment — regardless of environment. Whereas with humans, it’s not so clear. So it simply isn’t the same thing.
In humans, the best interracial adoption study found that the major white > mulatto > black IQ gap remained unchanged when all three groups were reared in the same upper middle class white homes. It’s by no means clear that the human > chimp IQ gap would remain anywhere near the same size if both humans and chimps were raised from birth by chimps. In fact, one could argue that humans raised from birth by chimps would be severely retarded and possibly perform even worse on an IQ test than a chimp raised by chimps. So if anything the norm reaction argument might be even stronger when discussing inter-species IQ comparisons.
It’s the weekend so you can take your time responding…I’ve never seen anyone anywhere respond to comments faster than Swank. You must check this blog literally every 15 minutes of the day and night.
Of course if you assume a priori that everyone has the same intelligence
This was not assumed. One part of the group represented the smartest of the hunter-gatherers who did not need to write things down. The individual who needed to write something down was the less intelligent member of the group.
You’re confusing “created a civilization” with “had a civilization”. SSA did the latter, not the former.
No, you’re using standards used by no one else to define what “create a civilization” means. So again, I ask you, is there any reason we should take the standards of your author versus everyone else?
Now you’re trying to argue that sub-Saharans perform fine intellectually in an environment that suits them
I’m not arguing that at all. I am telling you why your argument does not speak to whether different genes react differently in different environments. Two points — offered evidence doesn’t speak to the point in contention, and the offered evidence is wrong anyway.
because according to you, just the act of putting their intelligence to the test
You seem unaware of how many assumptions you need to make to even conclude that by doing this you are ‘putting their intelligence to the test.’
Do you know what we call an untestable hypothesis?
It’s not even untestable. Take children from hunter-gatherer society at birth and raise them in civilized society and do the opposite for children born in civilization.
It’s by no means clear that the human > chimp IQ gap would remain anywhere near the same size if both humans and chimps were raised from birth by chimps
Save the cases of children who are raised by animals and nevertheless have developed distinctly human behaviors (either in the wild or when brought into society) or in other cases ascending fast to the tip top of their respective animal hierarchies.
It’s the weekend so you can take your time responding
It’s not difficult to respond to you: you’re usually extremely wrong and have no idea how your biases are affecting your judgment. It’s comedy.
Swank I seriously think that you are a troll or very stupid
I know that you are very stupid.
pp is hilarious.
she claimed much earlier that humans started getting dumber as soon as they became civilized!!!
so it takes smarts to start a way of life that requires less smarts?
uhhhhhh….
drrrrrrrr….
or maybe pp is just high.
and swank is 100% RIGHT.
until about 200 years ago civilization had absoilutely NOTHING to recommend it.
that is, it was TYPHOS. life was HARDER for most of its people. AND they didn’t live any longer than savages = hunter gatherers.
the triumph of cynical reason (the antithesis of Sloterdijk?) is that all of human techne has nothing to recommend it other than longer and/or easier life.
would you rather be a CEO and bon vivant in Manhattan and die at 80 or live to 160 in New Guinea.
civilization dangles so many boubles in front of people they’re mesmerized and forget that they’re human, naked apes, they can outrun a horse and climb trees, they are the peak of creation.
of course life expectancy is less in New Guinea than in Manhattan (but not much less), but that’s NOT the point.
btw, for the ignorati, “typhos” is Greek for “smoke”. it’s the name the ancient Cynics gave to all the baubles and bullshit of civilization…and that was in ancient Greece! Diognenes was born 2400 years ago! imagine what he’d think of Apple and cable tv? he’d likely urinate all over one of Apple’s “genius bars”.
people in general, but especially stupid people, take the current “situation” as if it were Nature herself.
rather than as something totally artificial/man-made and contingent.
This was not assumed. One part of the group represented the smartest of the hunter-gatherers who did not need to write things down. The individual who needed to write something down was the less intelligent member of the group.
And so your point is what? You think there’s a negative correlation between intelligence & inventiveness? Do you honestly believe that?
No, you’re using standards used by no one else to define what “create a civilization” means. So again, I ask you, is there any reason we should take the standards of your author versus everyone else?
Because he did a systematic analysis for comparing races holding them all to the same standard, and the standard he chose (originating civilizations) was especially appropriate because it largely reflects the inventiveness of each race independently of what they copied from others.
I’m not arguing that at all. I am telling you why your argument does not speak to whether different genes react differently in different environments.
Which requires you to legitimize an unfalsifiable argument; which puts you outside of science.
Two points — offered evidence doesn’t speak to the point in contention, and the offered evidence is wrong anyway.
Point 1 is non-scientific, and point 2 is just semantics rather than substance (your quibbling over what ‘create a civilization’ means).
You seem unaware of how many assumptions you need to make to even conclude that by doing this you are ‘putting their intelligence to the test.’
No I’m extremely aware that inventions and cultural achievements are a crude proxy for intelligence, but when averaged out over entire human races scattered over many countries, I would expect there to be a positive correlation between the average intelligence of an entire race and their average number of inventions, cultural “advances”, etc. This is no different from anthropologists estimating the intelligence of Homo erectus from the type of tools they made, but your anti-HBD bias prevents you from applying these basic common sense scientific standards to human races.
Is it 100% conclusive? Of course not! But it’s one more piece of evidence that can be elegantly explained by HBD while HBD deniers just cook up more ad hoc excuses.
It’s not even untestable. Take children from hunter-gatherer society at birth and raise them in civilized society and do the opposite for children born in civilization.
Swank, I suggested we compare the inventiveness of different races over thousands of years of environmental change in order to see if the racial IQ ranking is stable across time and place. You countered that this method is useless for estimating IQ in different environments, because just the act of inventing something puts them all in the same environment (civilization).
Your exact same argument applies to transracial adoption studies. By your logic, we can’t measure the IQ of kids adopted into different environments because just the act of having them sit still, follow instructions, and concentrate on an IQ test puts them all in the same environment (civilization).
By your own standard (which you’ve failed to apply consistently) a norm reaction HBD critique is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific.
Save the cases of children who are raised by animals and nevertheless have developed distinctly human behaviors (either in the wild or when brought into society) or in other cases ascending fast to the tip top of their respective animal hierarchies.
I hate to break it to you but Tarzan was a fictional character. In the few document cases where feral children have actually taken an IQ test, they score spectacularly low. As an HBD denier you should know that. Now their scores tend to improve as they spend more and more time in the human environment, but some never seem to surpass the linguistic skills of a chimp. I have no doubt that the human > chimp IQ gap is greatly reduced when humans and chimps are both raised and tested in the wild, so reaction norms is every bit the problem for interspecies IQ comparisons as it is for interracial IQ comparisons and you’re wrong to suggest otherwise.
It’s not difficult to respond to you
Judging from all the mistakes you’ve made, apparently it is. 🙂
In the example, the only reason x was ‘inventive’ is because he couldn’t keep up with his betters. Or in other words, necessity is the mother of invention. If one group does not need the invention but the other does, then it’s not a comment on their relative intelligence or inventiveness either way.
Because he did a systematic analysis for comparing races holding them all to the same standard
Do any other anthropologists use his standards or not? It does not seem like they do. Please provide evidence if this is not the case.
I suggested we compare the inventiveness of different races over thousands of years of environmental change in order to see if the racial IQ ranking is stable across time and place.
You’re not testing the “inventiveness” of different races and no, you didn’t suggest that. You suggested looking at whether X or Y created a civilization devoid of any context, which, as we see going on in this discussion, requires several unsubstantiated assertions — i.e. this is per se a sign of relative inventiveness, that IQ = intelligence, that creating a civilization necessarily takes more smarts than not, etc.
Re: “inventiveness,” you’d need to first show that given the same precipitating variables, i.e. high population density, limited resources (or abundant resources densenly concentrated with sparse resources surrounding), which necessitate keeping track of who owns what/being careful with farming/food, etc., which necessitates creating complicated systems of doing just that, certain groups respond with civilization and certain groups don’t.
Of course, it seems like when those factors combined in SSA (which wasn’t densely populated, and had a large amount of resources, among other things, making the confluence of those variables rarer), SSA responded with civilizations. Whites couldn’t successfully settle much of SSA after encountering it either despite accumulated centuries of civilized knowledge.
I would expect there to be a positive correlation between the average intelligence of an entire race and their average number of inventions, cultural “advances”, etc. This is no different from anthropologists estimating the intelligence of Homo erectus from the type of tools they made
It is very different. You are attempting to take the context out of the entire discussion. The particular behaviors you are talking about that anthropolgists use to assess sophistication exist within and without civilization. They assess the behaviors relative to the likely conditions in which the peoples found themselves.
““The psychologist Michael Cole and some colleagues once gave members of the Kpelle tribe, in Liberia, a version of the WISC similarities test: they took a basket of food, tools, containers, and clothing and asked the tribesmen to sort them into appropriate categories. To the frustration of the researchers, the Kpelle chose functional pairings. They put a potato and a knife together because a knife is used to cut a potato. “A wise man could only do such-and-such,” they explained. Finally, the researchers asked, “How would a fool do it?” The tribesmen immediately re-sorted the items into the “right” categories.”
Civilization may have displaced hunter-gatherers by sheer accident: you can fit more people into a smaller area, regardless of how terrible or stupid the entire operation is. No matter how smart hunter-gatherers were, their population densities were much lower, which meant that civilization would win by default.
But it’s one more piece of evidence that can be elegantly explained by HBD
As typical for HBD claims, “if we ignore everything else and just pretend it was X, then HBD explains a lot!”
Your exact same argument applies to transracial adoption studies. By your logic, we can’t measure the IQ of kids adopted into different environments because just the act of having them sit still, follow instructions, and concentrate on an IQ test puts them all in the same environment
A) the fact that it may or may not apply to another study doesn’t bear on whether the claim is falsifiable, B) this specific claim can be falsified: twin pairs test in different formats.
And the claim regarding civilization/hunter-gatherer society can be falsified in the way I say as well. Crossing reaction norms have been found in plants or animals when experiments similar to the above are conducted. As Sternberg said in 1997: “The P = G + E model is thoroughly reductionistic and is invalidated by recent advances in molecular biology and developmental neuroscience.” So it’s far from an “unscientific” theory.
some never seem to surpass the linguistic skills of a chimp.
Fine, to settle this dispute, we can confine the ability to what the evidence supports. What humans seem to have that animals lack is a capacity to acquire language. Some scholars say that this ability is confined to a critical period and the evidence supports this fact: feral children who were recovered during this critical period far surpassed a chimp’s linguistic skill. The ones who were recovered after were a more mixed bag. This suggests that the ability humans have (at the very least) is the ability to become intelligent, given the right environment (exposure to language). So, tracking what we know about an ability shared among all humans with humans raised with animals, the humans definitively demonstrated this ability over animals.
In the example, the only reason x was ‘inventive’ is because he couldn’t keep up with his betters. Or in other words, necessity is the mother of invention. If one group does not need the invention but the other does, then it’s not a comment on their relative intelligence or inventiveness either way.
The same argument could be used to claim Homo erectus was just as smart as modern humans.
Do any other anthropologists use his standards or not? It does not seem like they do. Please provide evidence if this is not the case.
They obvious use similar criteria because they’ve come to similar conclusions about where civilization independently emerged. From wikipedia:
The Columbia Encyclopedia, in its article titled “Civilization,” says that the earliest civilizations developed in the following parts of the world: “Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, the central Andes, and Mesoamerica.”[10] Since the 1990s, scholarship has defined Norte Chico in the coastal area of present-day Peru as another independent site of civilization.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization#Single_or_multiple_cradles
.
You’re not testing the “inventiveness” of different races and no, you didn’t suggest that. You suggested looking at whether X or Y created a civilization devoid of any context,
If you read the entire post you’ll see I did also talk more broadly about the record of inventions, even predating civilizations by tens of thousands of years.
which, as we see going on in this discussion, requires several unsubstantiated assertions — i.e. this is per se a sign of relative inventiveness, that IQ = intelligence, that creating a civilization necessarily takes more smarts than not, etc.
By that standard we can’t show that modern humans are smarter than Homo erectus. You could just as easily argue that creating all our technology doesn’t necessarily take more smarts or inventiveness than their crude stone tools.
Re: “inventiveness,” you’d need to first show that given the same precipitating variables, i.e. high population density, limited resources (or abundant resources densenly concentrated with sparse resources surrounding), which necessitate keeping track of who owns what/being careful with farming/food, etc., which necessitates creating complicated systems of doing just that, certain groups respond with civilization and certain groups don’t.
Again, by that standard we can’t show that modern humans are any smarter than Homo erectus.
Of course, it seems like when those factors combined in SSA (which wasn’t densely populated, and had a large amount of resources, among other things, making the confluence of those variables rarer), SSA responded with civilizations. Whites couldn’t successfully settle much of SSA after encountering it either despite accumulated centuries of civilized knowledge.
Citation?
It is very different. You are attempting to take the context out of the entire discussion. The particular behaviors you are talking about that anthropolgists use to assess sophistication exist within and without civilization. They assess the behaviors relative to the likely conditions in which the peoples found themselves.
How is it different? Anthropologists look at the technologies (i.e. stone tools) and cultural advances (i.e. cave art) to assess the relative intelligence of various hominins. Baker and Michael Hart are simply applying the same standard to human races. It is you who are violating Occam’s razor by assuming that human races are a special case that can’t be assessed by conventional anthropological standards.
As typical for HBD claims, “if we ignore everything else and just pretend it was X, then HBD explains a lot!”
But that’s how science works. You MUST ignore other explanations because there are literally thousands of them, and if every scientist had to rule out all other possibilities before advancing an idea, virtually no theory would get off the ground.
So we have a fact: Group A independently developed a civilization; Group B didn’t.
We have a hypothesis to explain the fact: Maybe Group A is smarter than Group B.
Then we look for evidence to support the hypothesis: Does group A have bigger brains than group B? Do they score higher on IQ tests? Do they have faster reaction times? Do they occupy a higher branch on the evolutionary tree? Is there a plausible explanation by which they could have evolved more intelligence (i.e. colder climate)? As the answer to such questions becomes “yes”, the hypothesis becomes more and more plausible, because now instead of being consistent with one fact, it’s consistent with several. Theories that are consistent with many facts are parsimonious & elegant…
A) the fact that it may or may not apply to another study doesn’t bear on whether the claim is falsifiable, B) this specific claim can be falsified: twin pairs test in different formats.
Okay so you admit that testing someone in different format allows you to test them in different environments. The same logic applies to observing how many inventions a people have made in the last 20,000 years of environmental formats or how many civilizations they have independently created. When the same race that showed lower intelligence in the ancient world via historiometric analysis also shows low intelligence in the modern world via psychometric testing, then we have a consistent pattern across space and time. Of course any pattern can be dismissed if each part of it is attacked by ad hoc arguments.
Fine, to settle this dispute, we can confine the ability to what the evidence supports. What humans seem to have that animals lack is a capacity to acquire language. Some scholars say that this ability is confined to a critical period and the evidence supports this fact: feral children who were recovered during this critical period far surpassed a chimp’s linguistic skill. The ones who were recovered after were a more mixed bag.
This suggests that the ability humans have (at the very least) is the ability to become intelligent, given the right environment (exposure to language).
So you were wrong to suggest that the human > chimp cognitive gap was environmentally independent. As you say, it depends on the right environment.
The same argument could be used to claim Homo erectus was just as smart as modern humans.
Save the fact that in that case we know that both groups encountered similar conditions and can see how both responded to those conditions by observing their tools, customs, etc.
They obvious use similar criteria because they’ve come to similar conclusions about where civilization independently emerged
And yet they came to wildly divergent conclusions as to whether SSA ever created a civilization. So no, there’s nothing ‘obvious’ about it. Your argument has nothing to do with the cradle of civilization. The quote reads “at NO point in history.” It doesn’t say at ONE PARTICULAR POINT in history or during the time periods applicable to the cradle of civilization.
And even if the argument is that only the first instances of world civilization ‘count,’ then it suffers from the severe flaw of special environmental conditions seeming to drive civilization creation rather than any real special innate group conditions. The same genetic ‘stock’ of each group existed in many other places than where the respective civilizations arose, suggesting that environmental factors made the difference.
You have yet to give a reason to discount the fact that anthropologists cite several indigenous pre-colonial SSA civilizations, in direct contravention of the original contention that at NO point in history did SSA create a civilization. The wiki map is the beginning and end of it: the statement is incorrect.
Baker and Michael Hart are simply applying the same standard to human races
You have yet to even show they are using the same standards.
But that’s how science works.
No, it doesn’t. Your hypothesis is ‘genes act the same in all environments and norms don’t cross,’ and the way you ‘test’ it is by saying ‘X created civilizations and Y didn’t.’ It simply does not speak to the hypothesis because of the assumptions I detailed, which nearly requires one to simply assume the hypothesis is true. The fact that you can’t leave the argument as is to directly confront or support the hypothesis proves my point: first, the argument about ‘chimps’ and next the argument that the converse of your hypothesis is ‘unfalsifiable.’ Those are different arguments. Nevermind that you are completely ignoring the wide opinion that SSA created civilizations of its own, which is definitely not how science works.
The same logic applies to observing how many inventions a people have made in the last 20,000 years of environmental formats or how many civilizations they have independently created
You aren’t applying the ‘same logic’ or falsifying the claims in the way specified. Me: take the two genotypes and put them in the respective environments of interest. You: take a look at how all genotypes have fared with respect one environment.
So you were wrong to suggest that the human > chimp cognitive gap was environmentally independent.
Not at all. A reaction range itself can be genetic. In an environment common to humans (society), humans outclass animals. No other animal, in any environment, has demonstrated this ability, and researchers have tried. Further, the argument of ‘the same can be said about us versus chimps/elephants/etc.’ is uncompelling: no one believes interspecies variation is subject to the same metrics as intraspecies variation and certainly no one else believes it matters because they test for crossing reaction norms within plant and animal species. And they find them..
Save the fact that in that case we know that both groups encountered similar conditions and can see how both responded to those conditions by observing their tools, customs, etc.
So human races living at the same time live in conditions too dissimilar to compare, but modern humans, Homo Erectus, and Homo habilis, all lived in similar comparable conditions despite being separated, in some cases, by millions of years of environmental change and accumulated knowledge? Makes no sense.
And yet they came to wildly divergent conclusions as to whether SSA ever created a civilization. So no, there’s nothing ‘obvious’ about it. Your argument has nothing to do with the cradle of civilization. The quote reads “at NO point in history.” It doesn’t say at ONE PARTICULAR POINT in history or during the time periods applicable to the cradle of civilization.
Swank, any civilization that was not one of the cradle civilizations was not created, by definition. There were about half a dozen created civilizations which then spread throughout the world.
And even if the argument is that only the first instances of world civilization ‘count,’ then it suffers from the severe flaw of special environmental conditions seeming to drive civilization creation rather than any real special innate group conditions.
Special environmental conditions and the innate intelligence of the races likely both played an independent role to determining where the original civilizations emerged.
You have yet to give a reason to discount the fact that anthropologists cite several indigenous pre-colonial SSA civilizations, in direct contravention of the original contention that at NO point in history did SSA create a civilization. The wiki map is the beginning and end of it: the statement is incorrect.
Which anthropologists cite “several indigenous pre-colonial SSA civilizations”? Did the wiki map cite any anthropologists or was it just Afrocentric sources? And did the wiki-map even claim they were indigenous?
You do realize that SS Africa had great contact with Caucasoids prior to Western colonization, right? Indeed prior to 1500 SS Africa was divided into very different parts: The exposed zone, which had been influenced by Muslim and European explorers, and the secluded zone which had not. The exposed zone had some impressive kingdoms, but the secluded zone remained extremely primitive well into the early 19th century.
You aren’t applying the ‘same logic’ or falsifying the claims in the way specified. Me: take the two genotypes and put them in the respective environments of interest. You: take a look at how all genotypes have fared with respect one environment.
I’m not looking at how populations have all fared in one environment. I’m looking at how much historical evidence of intelligence they have shown in tens of thousands of years of environments. Did they build one of the original civilizations? How many important inventions did they create in the last 20,000 years?
Not at all. A reaction range itself can be genetic. In an environment common to humans (society), humans outclass animals. No other animal, in any environment, has demonstrated this ability, and researchers have tried.
Ignoring the fact that you have no idea what reaction norms are, you can say the same about racial differences. Mongoloids and Caucasoids outclass other humans. No other population has demonstrated the ability to independently raise itself up to civilization and they have tried. Further, virtually no one other than a Mongoloid or Caucasoid has demonstrated the ability to make a single important invention in the last 20,000 years.
So human races living at the same time live in conditions too dissimilar to compare
Different continents etc. provide the difference conditions, it’s not just a function of time. And the other different species also were dissimilar to modern humans in other ways.
Swank, any civilization that was not one of the cradle civilizations was not created, by definition
likely both played
Then you are saying that caucasoids in the middle east were all genetically smarter than caucasoids in europe and the same for the other racial groups. Because the theory is that the ‘civilized’ races are all of the same genetic stock for intelligence, it remains a non-starter, because the vast majority of each race, despite having equal genetic intelligence to the creators, failed to develop civilizations. Thus, creating civilization does not per se entail a genetic difference between groups.
And no, it’s not ‘by definition.’ You are using a standard that no one else uses. The quote itself doesn’t say “create/originate [all of/the first] civilization,” it says “create a civilization.”
Which anthropologists cite
If you believe wiki is biased, then it’s on you to state why or how or that the civilizations somehow aren’t real. When a cursory wiki search thoroughly invalidates (and the map shows many civilizations) a claim…the claim is what is suspect, not wiki.
You do realize that SS Africa had great contact with Caucasoids prior to Western colonization, right?
You realize that many of the East African civilizations that had contact were already established, which is why they established contact and grew, and not the other way around, right? You realize that many scholars believe the peoples who founded Kemet were tropical Africans from the south, right?
Did they build one of the original civilizations? How many important inventions did they create in the last 20,000 years?
A) Your original quote is a civilization, B) those are both metrics that are relative to one environment —> civilization.
Ignoring the fact that you have no idea what reaction norms are
No, I spoke correctly. A reaction range. I wasn’t referring to a reaction norm in that sentence. The top end of a human’s reaction range for language acquisition is far higher than any animal’s by the best available evidence. So ignoring the fact that you misread…
No other population has demonstrated the ability to independently raise itself up to civilization and they have tried
Nope. By the evidence, all human groups are quite capable of mastering the skills necessary for civilization: agriculture, literacy, etc. That’s the difference here. And as I’ve discussed, the independent development of civilization is most likely due to environmental conditions (the areas have roughly similar conditions, despite the differing groups). So the ability you speak of doesn’t really speak to innate differences, the constellation of skills necessary for civilization can be mastered by every human group, which makes the comparison worthless in the ether (as you have presented it). You have had to summon several other arguments to even contend with the reaction norm argument, which makes my original point: your original evidence didn’t speak to the issue. And last, the data point you wanted to rely on uses standards not deployed by any other scholar in the field and is directly at odds with even a basic wiki chart.
You can have the last word.
Different continents etc. provide the difference conditions, it’s not just a function of time. And the other different species also were dissimilar to modern humans in other ways.
Very vague rebuttal. The fact of the matter is that anthropologists routinely compare the cultural and technological achievements of different hominins to rank their relative intelligence, even though said hominins lived a million plus years apart…yet you insist contemporaneous races living on different continents are completely incomparable. Both time and space affect living conditions and it’s biased to insist on controlling for one but not the other.
Then you are saying that caucasoids in the middle east were all genetically smarter than caucasoids in europe and the same for the other racial groups. Because the theory is that the ‘civilized’ races are all of the same genetic stock for intelligence, it remains a non-starter, because the vast majority of each race, despite having equal genetic intelligence to the creators, failed to develop civilizations. Thus, creating civilization does not per se entail a genetic difference between groups.
But it should be correlated with genetic differences, particularly when the group lived on multiple continents and thus had ample opportunity to stumble on the right conditions. Caucasoids may have failed to create a civilazation in Europe but they created multiple civilizations in Asia. Mongoloids created civilization in both Asia and the Americas. By contrast Negroids did not create a civilization anywhere in Africa, nor did the negroid type races (australoids) indigenous to Southern Asia and Australia create civilization. There’s even evidence that negroid type people lived in the Americas prior to the Native Americans, but it was the latter (Mongoloid) group that developed a civilization there.
So despite being indigenous to 4 different continents, Negroids type races did not create civilization anywhere. That kind of consistency across time and space is genetic.
And no, it’s not ‘by definition.’ You are using a standard that no one else uses. The quote itself doesn’t say “create/originate [all of/the first] civilization,” it says “create a civilization.”
The term “create” implies “originate”, which is why creativity is largely synonymous with originality. I suppose I could have said “independently created a civilization” but that seemed redundant and log-winded.
If you believe wiki is biased, then it’s on you to state why or how or that the civilizations somehow aren’t real. When a cursory wiki search thoroughly invalidates (and the map shows many civilizations) a claim…the claim is what is suspect, not wiki.
Did I say they weren’t real? No. I said they didn’t emerge independently. Did the wiki map say otherwise? Wikipedia does not list sub-Saharan Africa as the location of any of the originating civilizations.
You realize that many of the East African civilizations that had contact were already established, which is why they established contact and grew, and not the other way around, right?
No, I don’t realize that, since they’re not considered to be one of the originating civilizations.
A) Your original quote is a civilization, B) those are both metrics that are relative to one environment —> civilization.
Civilization is not the environment. Civilization is the collective phenotype. The environment is where and when the civilization was created. Certain genotypes interact with certain environments to produce the civilization extended phenotype, while other genotypes do not produce civilization no matter what environment they’re placed in.
No, I spoke correctly. A reaction range. I wasn’t referring to a reaction norm in that sentence. The top end of a human’s reaction range for language acquisition is far higher than any animal’s by the best available evidence.
The point is Swank, you originally stated “that a human will intellectually outperform a chimp raised in the same environment — regardless of environment. Whereas with humans, it’s not so clear. So it simply isn’t the same thing.”
In other words, you originally implied that human > chimp cognitive differences fit the P = G + E model while race differences might fit the P = G x E model. That’s clearly not the case and might even be the opposite.
Nope. By the evidence, all human groups are quite capable of mastering the skills necessary for civilization: agriculture, literacy, etc.
Huge difference between mastering the skills when shown to you by others, and spontaneously independently raising yourself up to civilization. It’s the latter ability that is genetically lacking in some populations, in my humble opinion.
Only for clarification:
The point is Swank
Yes, and because you wanted to debate that point, I pared back the ability (removing the ALL environments qualifier) to demonstrate that there is a clear intellectual difference between humans and chimps. No chimp, in any environment, can do what virtually all humans can do, so long as other humans are around. Thus, the reaction range (which is G + E) for humans is different than it is for chimps re: intelligence, which renders the reaction norms between them irrelevant. However, this method of comparison isn’t valid between humans because every group of humans has individuals who display very high intelligence. So, norms of reaction are worth investigating, and indeed, within species, researchers do investigate them.
PP,
“The invention of a written script is a quantum leap forward in linguistic communication”
Language was only invented in 5 civilizations.
The Maya, the Harrapan, the Dravidians, the Chinese and the Egyptians. All other locations had language brought to them.
http://chem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html
How does that relate to intelligence in your eyes? How does originality—when culturally and genetically isolated—factor into the intelligence of ancient peoples? Have you ever thought about something like that?
How does that relate to intelligence in your eyes? How does originality—when culturally and genetically isolated—factor into the intelligence of ancient peoples? Have you ever thought about something like that?
There seems to be a non-trivial correlation between racial IQ today and racial achievements thousands of years ago.
“By that standard we can’t show that modern humans are smarter than Homo erectus. You could just as easily argue that creating all our technology doesn’t necessarily take more smarts or inventiveness than their crude stone tools.”
Mayr and Gould argued this. I understand why they did, though they were horribly wrong.
What is your IQ Swank ?
Your IQ + 70. If you have a point to make, make it.
110 I think but I of course let our friend answer.
😉
😀
So you don’t want to answer to my question ?
Any points to be had from the sockpuppets?
I tested into gifted education twice as a youngster (moved) and received scores on all standardized tests I’ve taken above 99th tile. Figure it out for yourself.
Oh and triple 9 stanines.
So sad…
Swank, swank, swank…
C’mon man !
😦
“Oh and triple 9 stanines”
In french plz
🙂
So you don’t have a point. As usual.
How old are you ?
(I need to know)
😉
At this point I conclude you have nothing of substance to say.
If you misunderstood my point let me know: I’ll explain it to you
How old are you ?
I am to lazy to give arguments on a shitty mobile phone and in english (I am french).
It’s a global observation of your comments on this blog.
And in this case it’s about a particular point of your argumentation.
🙂
Well then you should have no problem pointing out exactly what’s wrong. I’ll be waiting.
If group A excels in environment X and group B excels in Y, judging B relative to A through both’s relative propensity toward Y in no way remarks on whether the environments have a different effect on each group. DUCY?
Your definition of intelligence.
Now assume your age plz.
Swank is a black with a mean iq of whites
i had no idea how cynical Apple was and yet how very un-Cynical.
for the retards: the contemporary meaning of the lower case “cynical” and the ancient “Cynical” are related, but the relation isn’t identity…far from it.
more beer please.
M9SZ pp.
What do you think about Nigeria ? It is a very populated country with a strong birth rate, genius can emerge ? (phillip emeagwali, aliko dangote, etc)
LOL !
Your pseudo… Let’s say that it is a coïncidence.
😀
Phillip Emeagwali was a moderately successful computer scientist whose claims of extraordinary achievements have been exposed as mostly fraudulent.
Btw the 13 isn’t respected by any civilisations.
SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE CIVILISATION WHO MADE A PERFECT SCORE IS WRONG !
Pumpkin I have a serious question.
Could you do a very approximative estimation of elephants IQ ?
I am also intrigued.
Thank you to ask this question !
Genetically talking humanity is divised in two races :
– Africans
– Non africans
(black africans of course)
1) i think it’s interesting that Native Americans only have IQs barely north of African Americans but they have created some fairly sophisticated civilizations. Nothing on the order of the Renaissance or Hellenistic of course but the Mayans did come up with calendars and a legal system and some of the other basics of civilizations on their own.
2) South Indians are pretty dark skinned (some of them are as dark as Sub-Saharans) but they have developed relatively advanced civilizations in the past. Additionally, many of them are pretty successful today in the sciences and business (I would know, I go to school with a bunch of them).
*Hellenistic Greece (of course!)
1) i think it’s interesting that Native Americans only have IQs barely north of African Americans but they have created some fairly sophisticated civilizations. Nothing on the order of the Renaissance or Hellenistic of course but the Mayans did come up with calendars and a legal system and some of the other basics of civilizations on their own.
If you believe in HBD, you also need to consider that the African American IQ gets about a 5 point boost from white admixture. If you compare unmixed African Americans with unmixed Native Americans, the IQ gap is about half a standard deviation. And if either race is held back by bad environment, it’s likely to be Native Americans, so it’s possible the genetic gap is even larger.
2) South Indians are pretty dark skinned (some of them are as dark as Sub-Saharans) but they have developed relatively advanced civilizations in the past. Additionally, many of them are pretty successful today in the sciences and business (I would know, I go to school with a bunch of them).
Dark skinned yes. Prognathous face and woolly hair? Not so much.
1) I guess my point is that you would never expect African Americans of average IQ 85, if left to their own devices, to create even a moderately advanced civilization. Yet Native Americans, who according to most studies have an average IQ of around 90 at most (even in good environments)(I read a paper on this recently, I wish I could find it again), created civilizations multiple times, in almost total isolation.
I’d figure Ancient Egyptians probably had IQs of a similar level but they could interact with advanced civilizations in Asia. Native Americans couldn’t.
2) South Indians actually have woolly hair quite frequently. Not as kinky as Sub-Saharans’ of course.
Jews are somewhat swarthy (compared to Europeans), have Jewfros, and are somewhat prognathic. And they’re the smartest race on Earth!
Razib Khan once got into a bitter fight on some Internet blog that I think is long since disappeared (maybe Inductivist?) over the idea that there is a pleiotropic connection between skin color/physical features and intelligence. He even said that he had gotten into similar debate with JP Rushton, who thought that primitive physiognomy per se caused lower intelligence. Of course, the peanut gallery watching the debate assumed that Razib was only getting so heated because of his own skin in the game (so to speak/pun intended).
Razib Khan once got into a bitter fight on some Internet blog that I think is long since disappeared (maybe Inductivist?) over the idea that there is a pleiotropic connection between skin color/physical features and intelligence. He even said that he had gotten into similar debate with JP Rushton, who thought that primitive physiognomy per se caused lower intelligence. Of course, the peanut gallery watching the debate assumed that Razib was only getting so heated because of his own skin in the game (so to speak/pun intended).
That sounds absolutely fascinating. I wish I had been there.
Here’s where it happened:
http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2011/12/skin-color-and-desirable-traits.html
Thanks for the link. Seems to me you could infer skin color directly causes IQ if albinos have high IQs across many environments
China’s Sinic civilisation don’t use torture ?
Any sources ?
I don’t have a source saying precisely that, but it’s implied in Rushton’s summary of Baker’s findings where Rushton writes (page 142 of Race, Evolution & Behavior: Third Edition) that Baker concluded that “Caucasoid peoples developed all 21 components of civilization in four independent locations…The Mongoloids also developed a full civilization in the Sinic civilization in China.”
The source is wrong because all civilisations use torture.
But let’s say it’s a detail.
I guess it depends how torture is being defined
Hello Pumpkin ! What do you think about the fact that mens who loves big ass are more r (r/K theory) and mens who loves big boobs are more K, its just a personnal observation 🙂
Thank you for the answer!
Men who love big either are more r selected.
Shocking !!!!
You guys are fucking racist !! Pumpkin Person you surely hate blacks but you have not the balls to say it in public so you hide yourself in a pseudonyme.
We are in 2015 and those theory are still believed by some morons….sad 😦
No Pumpkin isnt racist he is just to much rational for your little brain
I think the metis are the most powerful because of heterosis who make her bigger, healthier and more beautiful than the other race (maybe more intelligent^^)
Yes but then the blasians.
Pure west african+pure east chinese.
But the problem is that is not durable in the time.
We have to do the job again at each generation.
And mixed people have most risks to suffer of depression because of their difference. They can’t identifie theirself to others.
We are all fuckin equal holy shit, there is one race : homo sapiens !!!!
All I say is proved by genetic.
You are in pure spéculation and dream.
IQ does mesure nothing except a very tiny part of intelligence : academical intelligence !
Dude…you are the prototype of the stupid leftist.
😀
I always thought that it was a legend…
The sinic civilisation don’t use torture but communist chinese regime use torture, why?
Sinic civilisation have surely used torture like USA use torture nowedays and like the quasi totallity of actuals country use it in secret.
Hi Pumpkin 😉 Im black and I would know what is the African country with the highest iq (without ethiopia etc) if you have any idea? 🙂
I love your blog, it’s well documented!
Hey I’m black too! Good to see fellow Negroids in the HBD-sphere! They try to keep us out, but we keep fighting back and keep getting stronger! If only we can get a eugenics program started for raising our collective IQs. It will only take a few millenia to get to suitable levels, think.
Anyhow, I would put Nigeria at the top of the list. Still poor as hell and a dirty shithole, but they produce some successful people every now and again. Maybe average IQ 75?
Only a dictature could have the capacity to instaure an eugenic programme.
Africans are way too religious.
I remember you from My Posting Career!
@Kevin Orff
Huh?
I totally agree but that seem to deterministic for a scientific or correct approach there is a biaised that only god can judge or videla
Who have the bigger cranium Cruz or Winfrey ?? 🙂
Winfrey.
Oprah obviously. There’s no comparison:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-brain-size-of-the-worlds-most-successful-woman/
I am a pure abo and I have an IQ of 127.
I am on the fucking genius range on abo bell curve.
I have take the WAIS IV and scored a perfect 155 in IMT(work memo).
May be abos need to have a greater memory because no writted language.
What do you think about Serguei Brin and Larry Page (Google bosses)
There is a civilization in Ghana who declare the human rights before everybody (I don’t remember the name)
Pumpkin is there somebody in your family/friends who know you have created this blog ?
Hey pp could estimate the IQ of Walter White, Jessy Pinkman, Mike Ermanthraut, Saul Goodman ????????????????
And the IQ of Michael Scofield , Lincoln Burrows and Theodore Bagwell ??????
not a single major invention has been from jews…like hart.
except perhaps the alphabet. a ginormous invention, but very unlikely from the Jews.
from the Phoenicians (modern day Lebanese) is the official story. but they and the Jews abutted one another.
but, by pp’s logic, the Hebrews were INCREDIBLY stupid! especially compared to the Greeks and Romans!
UNTIL THE FIRST C BC THEIR ENTIRE CORPUS WAS THE OLD TESTAMENT.
the oldest Hebrew literature is from the 8th c. bc. it’s just the short prophets at the end of the OT.
‘mer’ca’s not a nation.
it never can be.
it’s euros are mixed euros.
an example of what gives me hope that ‘mer’ca may some day be a great country, a city upon a hill, God’s own country:
But given the genuine phenomenon of norms of reaction this seems impossible to me.
Best would be that SSA had a “right of return” like Israel, and that SSA was developed…it wasn’t a shithole that people left and said “good riddance!”
I for one have put some money in Africa ex-ZA.
I don’t expect SSA will be like Japan any time soon, but I DO expect it will develop, it will gets its TFR under control, it will cease being a shithole. The three Bs inter alia are PROOF that a 90+% black AFrican country doesn’t need to be a shithole. Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados.
btw if pp’s interested, which she isn’t,
the info on M9SZ on bloomberg is totally FALSE.
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/M9SZ:GR—FALSE.
http://marketsdocs.rbs.com/services/GetDocument.aspx?id=1c954098-227e-4f76-9378-f4853bf2130a&version=5—TRUE.
Pumpkin what was the IQ of the people of the Indus Valley ?
(in an actual first world environnement of course)
Pumpkin do you think that ancient non-europeans caucasoids have a higher genetic IQ than actual non-europeans caucasoid ?
Well someone sent me an email (probably you) suggesting that non-white Caucasoids may have had their IQs reduced from religious inbreeding. I suspect there’s some truth to that, but I think non-white Caucaoids were originally less intelligent than whites because they evolved in a warmer climate and because they’re a more archaic form of Caucasoid, however I think they got a brief genetic boost from the population explosion of inventing agriculture, but those IQ enhancing genes eventually spread to most other races, probably with the spread of agriculture, so it was a wash.
Btw, can you please post under one name. Using many names confuses people.
Yes it was me but I’m don’t use so many differents names, I have only post a few months ago under an other name.
Thanks you for your answer.
As you may know, I went into more detail about middle eastern IQ here:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/iq-cold-winters-agriculture-the-rise-fall-of-the-middle-east/comment-page-1/
Pumpkin what is your IQ ?
It’s way up there.
Pumpkin what is your IQ ?
Let’s just say it’s commensurate with being an elite science blogger.
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/2/41/htm
Latest paper by Lars Penke can tell us a bit about evolution of intelligence differences, if they’re really that ancient.
“[W]e know that intelligence is substantially heritable (40%–80% in adulthood in developed societies), Chabris and colleagues [1] rightly concluded that few, if any, reported associations with genetic markers are replicable. Initial reports from candidate gene studies were not replicated in increasingly well-powered genome-wide association studies (GWAS). The most powerful GWAS meta-analysis so far only reported 13 results with miniscule effects and a polygenic prediction explaining 1.3% of the IQ variance [2].
A promising explanation for this shortfall seemed to be that newly occurring mutations and rare genetic variants, both not tagged well in GWAS, introduce variation to intelligence.”
And
“Using GCTA several groups [1,12,13] showed that a bit more than half of the IQ heritability found in twin studies can be explained based on common genetic variants alone.”
Maybe between individual within pop. diffs explained by the de novo mutations while between pop. explained by common variant?
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/roland-fryer-wins-the-john-bates-clark-medal/
The above write-up by Cochran may also be helpful on discovering the evolution of IQ in different races; we need to use the breeder’s equation. Cochran is obivously right about everything.
Swank is mistake the fact that many millions of SSA live out of their ancestral or supposed prefferencial environment. Swank like many other smart ( but not wise )leftists, use intelligent ways to deny some obvious truth or facts.
I agree about nausean unilateral enphasis on racial differences, without consideration of multiple PERSPECTIVES, like, is right to say “differences in intelligence is relative like differences in intelligence among different but correlated bird species in galapagos archipelago is relative”. Same way is right to say “blacks on average are less smarter than whites”. Seems contradictions but it’s not because are talking about or in different PERSPECTIVES, a direct comparative perspective based on civilizational parameter and the second in non-hierarchical or indirect comparative perspective, where no there a central parameter. To survive blacks aren’t inferior than other races. To compete with other races as Whites, without jewish parasite, blacks are similar to aboriginal ( both as collectivities and not by individual comparison). To adapt in novel anthropomorphic environments blacks tend to fail collectively.
Good leaders have all differences. Look today to stupidity of “democracy” among white populations?? Hyper cultural masculinization is other Stronger factor to explain the existence of primary problems in ssa societies or derived. Kill the ghetto alphas.
Orloff and cochran share some similarities….
Hello Pumpkin,
What’s the average IQ of Jeopardy contestants? I’ve been invited for tryouts and I share a birthday with Ken Jennings but I’m afraid my IQ is too low (scored 19 out of 19 on Wechsler Information, though).
Unrelated question: What does an median GRE score equate to on an IQ scale?
That’s an interesting question. General knowledge, along with vocabulary (word knowledge) have long been thought to be two of the single best single measures of intelligence, so Jeorpardy skill should correlate highly with IQ. But I don’t know what the average IQ would be because I don’t know how competitive it is.
I could probably estimate it from the racial demographics of Jeopardy contestants.
If you scored 19/19 on Information [equivalent to 145+ if expressed on the IQ scale (U.S. norms) and 143+ (U.S. white norms)] I would definitely tryout. If you underperform at the tryout, you’ll only look bad to the people there, since presumably the tryouts are not televised, and make sure you don’t sign any commitment to appear on TV until you’re confident you’ll do okay.
People who take the GRE, I would guess, have the typical IQ of college grads, so about 113 (U.S. norms) or 110 (U.S. white norms).
http://polymatharchives.blogspot.in/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html
More evidence for the diminishing returns of IQ above a certain point (in this case, IQ 133).
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? I am a special guest like Robert Mugabe…
I took it out of moderation. The computer put it there by mistake.
if your report is true, which i doubt btw, no worries…
the very smart are “different”.
how could they not be?
and in a society like the US where all difference…is pathologized, is ipso facto pathology, the very smart are marginalized…or tend to be…not because of some conspiracy but just as a result their difference…their salient obtrusive difference.
but so what?
better to reign in hell than serve in heaven…
of course hell and heaven switch senses here.
all i care is if my life expectancy is abbreviated. i’d like to have 100 children, but likely will have none. not much of a problem really…and beaucoup bucks can’t add more than a few years to your life expectancy…and what they do add is likely not from the bucks per se but from the IQ it takes to make big bucks…that is, controlled for IQ more money likely adds nothing to life expectancy.
it’s why Watson beat Jennings and Rutter…
there are pure…do you know the answer questions…which Watson always knew…
then there are…can you figure it out questions…which Watson never knew.
that is, “information” is only sufficient to be a champion if you’re really really high on it.
i answered as many as another guy on my team…both of us were at the top of the regionals of College Bowl…he was one of the smartest guys i’ve ever met…but he was a Russian major and I a math major…so on an IQ test i’d likely do a little better than he…but he’s a securities lawyer for one of the five “magic circle” law firms…and i’m a warehouse boy…his gig is in Moscow…he didn’t go to a top law school…but he spoke Russian.
another example of how inefficient ‘mer’ca’s opaque and biased elite uni admissions are…
Harvard placed four time but never won…and lost to no-name schools.
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/College_Bowl#Top_four_finishers_of_CBI_National_Championship_Tournament_.281978-2008.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Bowl#Top_four_finishers_of_CBI_National_Championship_Tournament_.281978-2008.29
God you’re such a dumb black guy.
Harvard won in 1994 and came in second in 1997.
Beat U Chicago and lost to U Virginia.
Mugabe and Swank, if you idiots still think that you can cite people like Gould and Lewontin for anti-HBD arguments, think again: http://www.unz.com/article/vignettes-of-famous-evolutionary-biologists-large-and-small/
Once again, it has been conclusively proven that those who rail against HBD are unequivocably FRAUDS
Blacks don’t produce civilization because the same reason why jews: higher levels of anti social personality.
Yes, and also at the opposite spectrum of anti-social-ness. Jews would be the White Collar criminal, stealing money from you when you’re not looking and blacks are the low class criminal, assaulting you and then robbing you. One group have the highest IQ, and the other the lowest. Jews brag about credentials and material well being as the pinnacle of achievement, blacks about primal pleasure and women as their destination end points.
“But Paul Broca is taking a historical perspective, and saying that at no point in history has a population with a common syndrome of genetic traits (dark skin, woolly hair, prognathous face) ever created a civilization. This suggests that genes that cause this phenotype also cause relatively low IQ, in whatever environment they are found in.”
It could plausibly suggest that there is something about the tropical environments in which such features evolve that is not as conducive to the development of advanced civilisations. For example, its warm all year round, its humid and the place is teeming with life so a) you don’t need much in the way of clothing, b) there’s no pressure to build warm shelters c) you don’t have to try hard to find food.
Of course, the need to do these things may well select for intelligence but it seems plausible that these conditions alone could be sufficient to inhibit the development of advanced civilisations, which its possible those people have enough intelligence for.
Besides, sub saharan Africans did develop some degree of civilisation, even though they got agriculture later on.
I favour genetic explanations for things in general but I’ve always liked geography so I like to consider geographical explanations too.
Also, to play devil’s advocate, Australian aborigines were a relatively small population on an island by themselves. Its not fair to compare that to (western) Eurasia where there were many populations that could influence each other, where there was a greater number of individual geniuses who could innovate due to a much larger population, where knowledge and technology spread wherever they were invented. The caucasian civilisations were not truly independent of one another as they were built on each other or had some common basis in that civilisational zone.
Even though Australia is big, you wouldn”t expect one island of people, cut off from the bulk of the human population to do as well.
The main opinion among experts seems to be that caucasoids & mongoloids both independently created civilization several times….
Also telling is that caucaoids & mongoloids independently created civilization in the very places where the aboriginal “negroids” had failed to do so like the Indian subcontinent and the Americas.
which ‘negroids’ lived in the Americas?
Are there IQ differences between more and less caucasian Indians or between north and south?
Pumpkin is wrong as a matter of fact on Broca, who was not in any way referring to the cradle of civilization and instead was referring to all of history.
His entire claim is that failure to develop civilization during a certain time period is a test of relative group intelligence.
pumpkin has added this claim about negroids occupying several continents, tacitly realizing that the only way the argument has any compelling force is if the groups in question occupied the regions in question and responded differently.
The evidence on australoids in the Americas is very weak, and evidence of negroid peoples in the other areas where civilization were developed is weak as well.
Actually, on review, it’s quite possible that proto-australoids contributed the most to Indus Valley civilization.
Though it seems to be subject to quite a bit of dispute.
Ah I wonder why…
Swank, i don’t think cradle of civilization refers to a specific time period, but rather to specific locations where civilizations emerged independently. In theory you could have a cradle civilization right now if there were some culture that were sufficiently isolated from all previous & extant civilizations
The cradle civilizations all emerged at around the same time period in history (maybe 2k years…pretty short time scale). So yes, if one believes that only the cradle civilizations were created, then one believes that only civilizations created during a certain time period can be created.
If you’re now entertaining this new cradle theory, then your earlier statement that “any civilization that was not one of the cradle civilizations was not created” is incorrect.
So you admit that some unspecified degree of isolation may be enough for a non-cradle civilization to have been created.
Swank, the point is not when a civilizations emerged, it’s whether it emerged independently.
My interpretation was that broca was referring to independent civilizations; & yes all independent civilizations happened to occur within a certain time frame, but they are defined by their independence, not their age
Yes but the natural consequence of your position is that only civilizations that emerged during a certain time period could or can be considered to be ‘created.’ No one else holds that view, otherwise there would be no other founders of any civilization beyond the founders of the original civilizations. No one talks this way. To found is to originate.
The fact that Broca says ‘create a civilization’ should be the largest clue. Broca and co certainly did not hold your view, nor did they mean this when they referred to Africa. They certainly didn’t believe that the Greeks didn’t create ‘a civilization,’ or that the civilization in Greece or Rome wasn’t ‘created.’ Read the full quote. They meant that no civilization could be found in SSA among the native people.
The bottom line is you object to me using the word “created” only for independent civilization because you feel the dependent civilizations also deserve credit for their creativity. And I agree, it’s a bit misleading because it causes people to think that blacks had no civilization at all, which is false..
So from now on, I’ll just say “independently created” to avoid confusion, and I think this is what Broca meant because he said: “A group with black skin, woolly hair and a prognathous face has never been able to raise itself spontaneously to civilization ”
Note that Broca qualified his statement by saying “raise itself spontaneously” instead of just “raise itself”. So it’s likely Broca knew blacks had civilization in the exposed zone in sub-Saharan Africa but he felt they were incapable of creating a civilization without outside help.
And I’m sure Broca knew that the Greeks had not spontaneously raised themselves to civilization either, however Greeks are Caucasoid & Caucasoids had independently created civilization in other places.
Note that Broca qualified his statement by saying “raise itself spontaneously” instead of just “raise itself”.’
And note that the very next line of the quote states that African negroes have never given their societies stability. Broca’s peer Agassiz described it as thus: “there has never been a regulated society of black men developed on that continent.” He described such a result despite the fact that Africans had the example of earlier civilizations. No one at the time made the distinction you’re trying to make here.
And sure, Greeks are “caucasoid,” but there are many groups of caucasoids. So, because the Greeks achieved civilization after the middle eastern, indian, americas caucasoids, the Greek caucasoids were dumber? I doubt anyone backs that interpretation. And if you say “well they achieved great things, regardless of outside influence,” then the West, East, and South African civilizations also had their own achievements.
“The Igbo-Ukwu bronzes amazed the world with a very high level of technical and artistic proficiency and sophistication which was at this time distinctly more advanced than bronze casting in Europe.” “The high technical proficiency and lack of known prototypes of the Igbo-Ukwu bronzes led to initial speculation in the academic community that they must have been created after European contact and phantom voyagers were postulated. However research and isotope analysis has established that the source of the metals is of local origin and radio carbon dating has confirmed a 9th-century date, long before the earliest contact with Europe.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Igbo-Ukwu.
*I included caucasoids in every area because believe it or not, I’ve seen arguments and discussion of caucasoids having started civilization everywhere.
which ‘negroids’ lived in the Americas?
These ones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
Are there IQ differences between more and less caucasian Indians or between north and south?
Native Americans with white admixture have higher IQs than pure Native Americans according to Lynn’s research. There is no IQ difference between Native Americans in North America vs South America which Lynn found a bit anomalous because South America has more malnutrition.
And note that the very next line of the quote states that African negroes have never given their societies stability.
I don’t know what he said after the part Gould quoted, but if he said what you claim, that needn’t imply he denied any civilizations existed in sub-Saharan Africa. Even hardcore HBDers like Michael Hart admit there were kingdoms in the exposed zone of sub-Saharan Africa, so surely Broca was aware of this. You might be right that he dismissed even the exposed areas as uncivilized, but as I said, the fact that he qualified his statement by saying “spontaneously” raised to civilizations, might suggest he was dismissing non-spontaneous civilizations, and doing so helps his argument.
Broca’s peer Agassiz described it as thus: “there has never been a regulated society of black men developed on that continent.” He described such a result despite the fact that Africans had the example of earlier civilizations. No one at the time made the distinction you’re trying to make here.
You could be right, but then they would have to explain why the kingdoms in the exposed parts of black Africa were not civilizations.
And sure, Greeks are “caucasoid,” but there are many groups of caucasoids. So, because the Greeks achieved civilization after the middle eastern, indian, americas caucasoids, the Greek caucasoids were dumber? I doubt anyone backs that interpretation.
There are many factors besides just intelligence that affect who independently creates a civilization so we should expect some smart groups to fail to do so, especially if they’re a small population confined to a small region. But when a very large group fails to do so on several entire continents, then it’s a pattern.
The Igbo-Ukwu bronzes amazed the world with a very high level of technical and artistic proficiency and sophistication which was at this time distinctly more advanced than bronze casting in Europe.” “The high technical proficiency and lack of known prototypes of the Igbo-Ukwu bronzes led to initial speculation in the academic community that they must have been created after European contact and phantom voyagers were postulated. However research and isotope analysis has established that the source of the metals is of local origin and radio carbon dating has confirmed a 9th-century date, long before the earliest contact with Europe.
Do mainstream North American scholars in the field generally believe this to be true or is it considered fringe by the standards of First World academia? Also, this might have been created by Muslim Caucasoids who have been entering sub-Saharan Africa since the seventh century:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3424501553/islam-islam-sub-saharan.html
I don’t know what he said after the part Gould quoted, but if he said what you claim, that needn’t imply he denied any civilizations existed in sub-Saharan Africa
It’s not that I ‘might’ be right, it’s that I most likely am right. The viewpoint I articulated was widely held, the second half of Broca’s own quote supports my interpretation, his original quote on this page supports my interpretation, and the fact that much of our archaeological SSA discoveries are more recent supports my interpretation (why would Michael Hart have access to the same set of knowledge as Paul Broca? Michael Hart is from an entirely different era). Your interpretation requires a leap that no one else seems to make: namely, that no civilizations after the cradle civilizations were actually “created.” Again, no one talks this way.
then they would have to explain why the kingdoms in the exposed parts of black Africa were not civilizations.
They likely didn’t know about them to a sufficient level of detail, pumpkin. For example, the “exposed parts” to them were probably Arab civilization, and it wasn’t until later on when complex African societies were revealed to have existed in the areas pre-Islam that the picture became more complicated.
But when a very large group fails to do so on several entire continents, then it’s a pattern.
The vast majority of each racial group “failed to do so on several entire continents.” So then either the vast majority of each racial group was dumber than the small fraction of the racial groups that “created” civilization or, the areas had several geographic, climate, and other environmental features in common, which seems to be the case. And as I noted above, there’s evidence that proto-australoids created Indus Valley Civilization.
Also, this might have been created by Muslim Caucasoids who have been entering sub-Saharan Africa since the seventh century:
Unlikely, there’s a lot of evidence that these developments were independent. For example, ‘Archaeological sites containing iron smelting furnaces and slag have been excavated dating to 2000BC in Lejja and 750BC in Opi both in Nsukka region about 100 Kilometers east of Igbo-Ukwu.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Igbo-Ukwu
Do mainstream North American scholars in the field generally believe this to be true or is it considered fringe by the standards of First World academia?
I’ve presented the wiki page which suggests the latter. It’s definitely not a “fringe” position.
What about iron metallurgy in Africa? A position subject to much dispute but also not a “fringe” position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_metallurgy_in_Africa#Archaeological_evidence_for_the_origins_and_spread_of_iron_production_in_Africa
Copper metallurgy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_metallurgy_in_Africa
Yoruba numerals which have a base 20 numeral system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_numerals
*latter is unlikely.
It’s not that I ‘might’ be right, it’s that I most likely am right. The viewpoint I articulated was widely held, the second half of Broca’s own quote supports my interpretation, his original quote on this page supports my interpretation,
No it doesn’t. As I keep telling you, he qualified his statement by saying never “spontaneously” raised to civilization, implying he was .aware of black civilization but needed a qualifier to dismiss them.
But let’s say you are right. What’s the point?
and the fact that much of our archaeological SSA discoveries are more recent supports my interpretation (why would Michael Hart have access to the same set of knowledge as Paul Broca? Michael Hart is from an entirely different era). Your interpretation requires a leap that no one else seems to make: namely, that no civilizations after the cradle civilizations were actually “created.” Again, no one talks this way.
No one talks that way? That’s a semantic argument, not a substantive one.
They likely didn’t know about them to a sufficient level of detail, pumpkin. For example, the “exposed parts” to them were probably Arab civilization, and it wasn’t until later on when complex African societies were revealed to have existed in the areas pre-Islam that the picture became more complicated.
Citation?
The vast majority of each racial group “failed to do so on several entire continents.” So then either the vast majority of each racial group was dumber than the small fraction of the racial groups that “created” civilization or, the areas had several geographic, climate, and other environmental features in common, which seems to be the case.
The one feature that every single independent civilization has in common is that it was built by non-negroids. Being non-negroid was a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for civilization to independently emerge.
And as I noted above, there’s evidence that proto-australoids created Indus Valley Civilization.
And as you noted above, that evidence is disputed.
Unlikely, there’s a lot of evidence that these developments were independent. For example, ‘Archaeological sites containing iron smelting furnaces and slag have been excavated dating to 2000BC in Lejja and 750BC in Opi both in Nsukka region about 100 Kilometers east of Igbo-Ukwu.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Igbo-Ukwu
This evidence is controversial:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=JFSSMeNTAVkC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=iron+in+sub-saharan+africa+diffused+clark+and+brandt+1984&source=bl&ots=60yUy3RkNC&sig=XnHLnJlqeKsp9xuV7Olf9ya1mAY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=avpFVeq-I8WggwSbs4DgAg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=iron%20in%20sub-saharan%20africa%20diffused%20clark%20and%20brandt%201984&f=false
But even if true, it doesn’t change the big picture.
As I keep telling you
You keep trying to hang your hat on the word ‘spontaneously.’ Spontaneous and independent are not the same word, and independent is not even listed as a synonym for spontaneous. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english-thesaurus/spontaneously#spontaneously__2. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/spontaneously. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spontaneous. Spontaneous is more about volition coming from within, and independence is more about complete freedom from outside influence. Broca likely meant that blacks had never taken it upon themselves to develop a civilized society, like most of his contemporaries. You get to where you get by ignoring the full context of the quote, the fact that the distinction you’re making was not made by anyone else at the time, that most of the civilizations in SSA had not been discovered at that time, and that people currently do not talk this way or make that distinction.
But let’s say you are right. What’s the point?
That afaik only you are trying to say that only civilizations developed at a certain time (that is the natural consequence of your position) were actually created. No one else I know of views civilization creation this way, including experts in the field.
No one talks that way? That’s a semantic argument, not a substantive one.
The one feature that every single independent civilization has in common is that it was built by non-negroids.
When someone creates a standard used by no one else in the field to evaluate many findings in that field, it’s likely that that person is not using the correct standard. The one feature all caucasoid populations who built civilization had in common was also more negroid admixture than those who didn’t. Unless you want to say that the other, less negroid admixed Caucasoids were dumber because they did not “independently create” civilization, the point is weak.
Citation?
Read the wiki pages. Most of the archaeological discoveries in SSA or West Africa didn’t happen until long after Broca and co. were dead.
And as you noted above, that evidence is disputed.
Baker’s book is disputed. Most everything every HBD scholar has ever published is vigorously disputed and treated as fringe. The point is that even this distinction you’re trying to make made by no one else has a fair probability of being false.
But even if true, it doesn’t change the big picture.
You’re right, it won’t change your obviously strong priors.
You keep trying to hang your hat on the word ‘spontaneously.’ Spontaneous and independent are not the same word,
They’re close enough. Webster defines spontaneous as:
5 :developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
http://i.word.com/idictionary/spontaneous
Broca likely meant that blacks had never taken it upon themselves to develop a civilized society, like most of his contemporaries.
We’ll never know what he meant & frankly who cares. He’s not here to defend himself; I am. And I’ve told you what I meant.
That afaik only you are trying to say that only civilizations developed at a certain time (that is the natural consequence of your position) were actually created.
I said that only civilizations that emerged independently were created , meaning they were not copied from others. If that’s limited to a certain time, then that’s just the way history unfolded. But as I said, from now on I’ll say “independently created” to be extra clear.
No one else I know of views civilization creation this way, including experts in the field.
You’re making a vacuous semantic point, not a substantive argument. I’ve already said I would use the term “independently created” instead of “created” yet you still keep repeating yourself
When someone creates a standard used by no one else in the field to evaluate many findings in that field, it’s likely that that person is not using the correct standard.
The field agrees with me that Negroids never had an independent civilization. That’s the point
The one feature all caucasoid populations who built civilization had in common was also more negroid admixture than those who didn’t.
That means nothing. Negroids were the only one of the three major races that never had an independent civilization. Now you can grasp at straws & say the Caucasoids who had independent civilizations had some Negroid blood, but you’re just cherry picking a subset of data & ignoring the big picture.
Unless you want to say that the other, less negroid admixed Caucasoids were dumber because they did not “independently create” civilization, the point is weak.
The exception that proves the rule.
Also, unlike Europeans, Negroids failed to independently create civilization on 4 different continents.
Read the wiki pages. Most of the archaeological discoveries in SSA or West Africa didn’t happen until long after Broca and co. were dead.
If your only source is Wikipedia, your research is fringe.
Baker’s book is disputed
Who disputes the part I cited?
Speaking of grasping at straws, that’s the medical sense of the word. The reason why independent is not listed as a synonym for spontaneous in that sense is that the event seems random. Seeing as how no one views civilization development as random, that’s not likely the sense in which Broca meant it. Instead, he likely meant it in the normal sense: a choice that comes from within not from without. A people can make the choice to civilize, and Broca — and his colleagues — are saying that blacks never did so. That is not the same thing as them developing civilization using ideas or influences from elsewhere, Broca’s colleague brings up the failure of SSA to make this choice despite outside examples and influence. Again, this is in line with common thinking of the time, Broca’s next words, and Broca’s colleagues words, etc.
You’re making a vacuous semantic point, not a substantive argument. I’ve already said I would use the term “independently created” instead of “created” yet you still keep repeating yourself
If the field does not agree with what you mean by “independently created,” then the field does not agree with your conclusions about what negroids have “independently created.” It’s that simple. The field refers to what you refer to as “independently created” as “the first civilizations to develop.” No one in the field believes “history unfolded” as you do, equates “first civilizations to develop” with “only civilizations ever independently created,” and therefore believes that no other civilizations were “independently created.”
Your actual test is just ‘negroids did not have one of the first civilizations that developed.’
The exception that proves the rule.
Also, unlike Europeans, Negroids failed to independently create civilization on 4 different continents.
What exception? Every single caucasoid population that according to your lone definition “independently created” civilization had a higher negroid admixture than those populations who did not. So by your own test then, the caucasoid populations without the admixture were dumber.
And the evidence that negroids were in South America is much weaker than evidence that proto-australoids created Indus Valley civilization. So, if you want to throw the latter point out, then the former gets thrown out. I don’t mind keeping the former point in, because then it admits the latter point.
If your only source is Wikipedia, your research is fringe.
See above for why this is not true.
Who disputes the part I cited?
There are generally 10 criteria for civilization, and about half of those are widely agreed upon. No one else uses Baker’s criteria.
Speaking of grasping at straws, that’s the medical sense of the word. The reason why independent is not listed as a synonym for spontaneous in that sense is that the event seems random. Seeing as how no one views civilization development as random, that’s not likely the sense in which Broca meant it.
Yawn. Tedious pointless hair splitting. We’ll never know what Broca meant unless we find another quote clarifying; it can be argued from both sides & it doesn’t advance your case either way, so don’t seek blood from a stone
Instead, he likely meant
Irrelevant
If the field does not agree with what you mean by “independently created,” then the field does not agree with your conclusions about what negroids have “independently created.”
But since the field does, then it does.
The field refers to what you refer to as “independently created” as “the first civilizations to develop.”
Wrong. The field refers to about six civilizations as BOTH independent and among the first:
These were among the six civilizations worldwide that arose independently
http://www.quora.com/Considering-world-history-which-are-the-oldest-civilizations-known-corresponding-to-the-specific-regions-of-the-world-which-embarked-the-history-of-those-corresponding-regions
It is one of six civilizations globally to arise independently
https://kidskonnect.com/history/ancient-egypt/
The Andean region is widely recognized as the locus of development of one of the worlds six major independent civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andes)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/506281?uid=3737720&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21106691396343
No one in the field believes “history unfolded” as you do, equates “first civilizations to develop” with “only civilizations ever independently created,” and therefore believes that no other civilizations were “independently created.”
As the quotes above show, many in the field believe civilization emerged independently only about six times & all other civilizations originate from the big six.
Your actual test is just ‘negroids did not have one of the first civilizations that developed.’
No the test is independent civilizations. Now independent civilizations tend to be first because the first civilizations civilize almost everyone making it impossible for future folks to raise themselves to civilization on their own & if they were able to, they would have likely been among the first already
Every single caucasoid population that according to your lone definition “independently created” civilization had a higher negroid admixture than those populations who did not.
The Negroid admixture was trivial.
So by your own test then, the caucasoid populations without the admixture were dumber.
Based on this one historical test, yes, but this test is more accurate for comparing the 3 main races then for comparing sub-groups, because the former are scattered over multiple continents & thus have had many opportunities to create a civilization under different kinds of conditions & circumstances.
And the evidence that negroids were in South America is much weaker than evidence that proto-australoids created Indus Valley civilization.
No it’s not. They found Negroid skulls over 9000 years old. You can’t argue with a skull:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm
See above for why this is not true.
Swank. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. If you can’t link to those actual sources, your claims are fringe.
There are generally 10 criteria for civilization,
Citation?
and about half of those are widely agreed upon.
Citation?
No one else uses Baker’s criteria.
And yet they reached similar conclusions to Baker about where civilization emerged independently
Not really, not if you consider the context of the time.
Wrong. The field refers to about six civilizations as BOTH independent and among the first:
They are among the first and tied because they arose independently, not because they are the only civilizations that could have ever been or were ever independently created. They collectively created civilization, but were not the only civilizations independently created.
That is why several other later peoples are referred to as creating civilizations.
“Civilizations also arose independently in Norte Chico in present-day Peru,[3] the Andes, Mesoamerica, and Iron Age Sub-Saharan Africa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
The Negroid admixture was trivial.
False. In the Indus Valley, regardless of who created it, the australoid mixture was very high.
In Ancient Egypt it was very high.
And in the Middle East the admixture varies but it’s still significant.
because the former are scattered over multiple continents
The Middle East is Asia. Negroids were likely on two continents, Africa and Asia. Caucasoids were on three.
No it’s not. They found Negroid skulls over 9000 years old. You can’t argue with a skull:
“The archaeological record offers no support for models of multiple, racially distinct migratory waves into the Americas.”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgw6nX59YNBDIO2EUk3LIeHfazKlXfSFA5uYw05vphk/edit?pli=1
“Neves’ conclusions have been challenged by research done by anthropologists Rolando Gonzalez-Jose, Frank Williams and William Armelagos who have shown in their studies that the cranio-facial variability could just be due to genetic drift and other factors affecting cranio-facial plasticity in Native Americans.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race#The_first_Americans.3F
Whereas proto-australoids are known to have been in the Indus Valley before the Dravidians and to have started developing more complex society. The evidence on this point is stronger than it is on your point, which is more fringe.
Swank. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. If you can’t link to those actual sources, your claims are fringe.
As I stated above, wiki is a reliable source. If you believe the pages I linked to are inaccurate or actually represent “fringe” then you need to demonstrate why.
Citation?
Google the term ’10 criteria of civilization’ to get a sense of how popular they are. Here’s a paper with them.
http://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/140526/
They are among the first and tied because they arose independently, not because they are the only civilizations that could have ever been or were ever independently created.
The quotes say “the six independent civilizations” not “the first six independent civilizations”.
They collectively created civilization, but were not the only civilizations independently created.
They’re referred to as the six independent civilizations of the world, so obviously other civilizations are not independent.
That is why several other later peoples are referred to as creating civilizations.
“Civilizations also arose independently in Norte Chico in present-day Peru,[3] the Andes, Mesoamerica, and Iron Age Sub-Saharan Africa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
Nice try. In my opinion it’s totally obvious you added that line to Wikipedia yourself.
On April 24, in this very thread I cited that Wikipedia article as not listing sub-Saharan Africa as one of the independent civilizations. Less than a week later, someone edits the wikipedia article to add sub-Sahara using your exact argument (iron):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&diff=prev&oldid=659902348
And now, less than a week later, you quote the line that was recently added to Wikipedia almost certainly by you. LOL
False. In the Indus Valley, regardless of who created it, the australoid mixture was very high.
Citation? Preferably one you didn’t write yourself.
In Ancient Egypt it was very high.
Citation?
And in the Middle East the admixture varies but it’s still significant.
Says who?
The Middle East is Asia. Negroids were likely on two continents, Africa and Asia.
Even if you deny they were on the Americas, they were on three continents counting Australia
Caucasoids were on three.
Correct
“The archaeological record offers no support for models of multiple, racially distinct migratory waves into the Americas.”
Scientists beg to differ:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ancient-voyage-of-discovery-1303874.html
Whereas proto-australoids are known to have been in the Indus Valley before the Dravidians and to have started developing more complex society.
Complex society != civilization
As I stated above, wiki is a reliable source.
So you admit you can’t back up what you say with experts in the field, only anonymous edits on Wikipedia that could be written by anyone in the World, including you?
Did I also write African Civilizations by archaeologist Graham Connah detailing the numerous instance of the archaeological record supporting indigenous urbanization and civilization in many instances of proposed outside influence?
the force majeure of civilization was Nature and not the nature of those who would become “civilized”.
namely climate change.
the drying out of N Africa and the Middle East, including S Pakistan (Mohenjo-daro), forced irrigated agriculture as means of subsistance…and this forced “civilization”.
a white namibian, whom steve shoe met on a train in China echoed the sentiment of the priest in Keep the River on Your Right…it’s EASY to make a living in SSA (as it was in Amazon basin Peru), so…
1. there have been few if any “monumental architecture type” civilizations in SSA (or Amazonia)…and…
2. the people may be “lazy” but not stupid.
Did I write Waves of Time: Long-Term Change and International Relations, written by British Archaeologist K.R. Dirk and states that “independent state formation almost certainly occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa…”
subsistence.
Diversification of populations happen ”expontaneously”. People x migrate from hot to cold environment. This new conditions cause change of selection pressures and rare phenocognitive variant like highly abstract ( or long term mental simulation ) thinking turn in the beggining a FIXED minority genetic combination possibility to in the future, be selected for many people by differentiative fertility rates. But, all human populations can select rare and special variants and all them can sculpture it. The differences happens in the processes and selection results wich can be unique because the uniqueness interactive combination among events, environment and genes, both uniques in their respective interactive development during space and time. ( Go back to the future paradox or Asimov paradox… Asimov?? I don’t know, lol).
Swank,
what do you think about the title of this post?? Racial differences in intelligence are older??
From what point of view?
Whether it’s true? It’s possible. Based on the content, you can see I don’t believe it’s well-supported.
By capacity to build complex societies, symbolisms as empire state building and african or melanesian tribes environments. Philosophy and the possibility to explore the sideral space. What do you think about empathy distribution around the world?? Black men are more empathetic than white??
It’s a complicated question. Developing a state requires complex moral choices that many may view as unsavory: hierarchies, the justification of hierarchies, and cheap labor — i.e. slavery.
The Ancient World could have had an Industrial Revolution…arguably, at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria#Inventions
The reason why it didn’t, according to some, is that labor-saving technologies would free up too many muscles and foment resentment at societal inequality. And perhaps it’s coincidence that the Industrial Revolution came along when Western Civilization was starting disabuse itself of those notions.
Swank,
proto-australoids are not subsaharian negroids.
Exactly Pumpkin,
there’s a pattern, universal pattern. I think average lower intellligence of subsaharian variant is not a result of pleitropy with dark and other subsaharian features but a result of a strong male domination in subsaharian societies. Local hooligans hyper masculinized black african men dominate so-called african ”nations” since early times. Gene-culture co-evolution. African male on average are more risk behaviour and more individually competitive. It explain higher intraracial violence among them. The thug culture is a modernization of incompatible culture to produce civilization. Even warrior civilizations need a ying yang balance.
The lower average intelligence is caused by lack of exposure to the ice age, which selected for high intelligence in modern humans.
Subsaharian intelligence profile have different traits. Cold or inospit environment select firstly cooperation wich are strongly correlated with higher intelligence. High functioning psychopaths on general are disastrious.
In cold environment, cooperative men was more selected than competitive men. Black men on average have dominant personality, so-called ”alpha” personality. Many black men ( specially bantu and ioruba variants) in the same space tend to produce a non-empathetic, non-cooperative and hyper masculine- values societies. Corruption, non-empathetic way of interact…, the bullymen there a lot within Black race. One of reasons to existence of racism against blacks are exactly because this behavioural results of hyper masculinization of black race by gene- culture interaction.
Can you or someone explain the sheer ruthlessness and masculinity of the Mongols? They seem to be the opposite of what people think of East Asians. Further, I’m thinking had Genghis Khan went into Sub Sahara, he would have gone into his slaughtering mode with the local population, but blacks would have put up a good fight due to their culture of violence as well.
Santo – Yes, it’s true. I have seen African Immigrants here in the USA, and they seem to lack any cooperation or genuine warmth with their relatives. I’ve worked with a few in the past, and I remember some of their relatives would come into the workplace and see them. They were always in a combative mode with their interactions among their own relatives. They always seem aggressive and argumentative.
Yes, typical male behaviour. Pride and higher self esteem. When the woman is lost in a unknow city, she search help. Man try to find the right path alone.
Swank,
i thought you don’t believe that bigger brains were physiological expression of intelligence… But to say that modern ”civilized man” are less smart than ”old proto-negroid-looking pre-civilized man” BECAUSE their bigger brains you change quickly your position.
White modern man have on average bigger brains than black modern man = bigger brain is not physiological expression of intelligence
Old negroid-lookish man had bigger brains than modern civilized (White and east asian) man = bigger brain is undoubtely the physiological expression of intelligence.
Contradiction?? :-B
BECAUSE their bigger brains you change quickly your position
I didn’t change my position. I pointed out that the assumptions held by HBDers on the one hand (bigger brains = more intelligence) do not support other assumptions made by HBDers (civilization = smarts or civilized lifestyle = smarts, because brains have gotten smaller since the dawn of civilization).
Even civilization down brain size, white people, on average, have bigger brains than black people. You can admit it at least* And, on average, more complex social environment need more complex activities made by more complex minds. But you already see that i’m not a typical hb-d. I know and already lived with many ”smarts” and i prefer being around real (empathetic) people than many this so-called ”smarts”.
This facts don’t change my perceptions. Well, consciousness are negatively correlated with iq.
You use this example of brain size to prove that ”modern man are stupid than pre-civilized man”.
Kill down syndrome kids is civilized**
”Civilization”, ”specially today”, and in WRONG HANDS ( stupid jews, anglos, chineses etc), is a perverse joke. But it doesn’t mean that all civilization is essentially wrong.
Human beings are very young species.
Men have larger brains than women, yet there isn’t an IQ gap between them. Newborn black babies have the same brain size as newborn white babies and environmental factors known to have a causal effect on IQ are known to disproportionately affect one group more than another.
HBDers were crowing about “at birth” brain size gaps showing that the differences between rich and poor were genetic. Well, once again, the same assumptions lead to contradictory results.
And no, I didn’t use it to “prove modern men are stupid than pre-civilized man,” I pointed out the many assumptions that went into the suggested metric, and one of them was that there are arguments that, based off HBD assumptions, undermine the metric.
Men have larger brains than women, yet there isn’t an IQ gap between them.
WRONG!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUHOzdF5oVE
Newborn black babies have the same brain size as newborn white babies
WRONG!
The races differ in average brain size and this shows up at birth. Rushton (1997) analyzed the enormous US data set known as the Collaborative Perinatal Project. It recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). The results showed that at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, the East Asian children in the study averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children.
Click to access RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf
eureka!
pp’s “job” is limo driver.
gotta switch to the Dardanelles Campaign.
with a picture of mel gibson…my hero.
btw, do men have larger brains than women merely on average or do they have larger brains when matched for overall body size too?
The largest gap that’s been found is on the order of 3.66 points; it’s not a permanent gap and the results in the area are mixed. There probably isn’t a real gap between men and women. Regardless, the sex difference in brain size is larger than the racial difference in brain size, yet the largest gap found is much much smaller.
Regarding the head circumference stats, every time a scholar reviews Rushton’s work on the issue, they find numerous methodological errors. Intelligence New Findings and Theoretical Developments references another study on black and white infant head size.
Swank,
you are very dishonest. Environmental factors are not same than genetic factors.
Blank slate mean all of us have unique stories with unique experiences and perceptions, based on our genetic background predispositions in interactions with our environments, action and reaction in nano to macro scale levels and in short to long term, that will be builded during our lifes. Alcoholism vice is not genetic as blue eyes, but yet is genetic in their essential basis ( of course) where environment can and generally will have a huge effect because no there action without scenario. If our society no have a alcohol lucrative market, no would have alcoholics.
I believe in cultural conditioning by cohersion, but humans ARE genetics, when ”we” talking about genes, ”we” talking about beings.
Your contradictions are evident but i never see a criminal without conscience admit their crimes.
Is funny when you compare supposed poor environment of ”blacks”… In Murrica??? Murrican blacks if were treated as a separated nation would one of the better nations in quality of life. Poor nutrition??? Many afromurricans are fat!!
Your ”giftedness” is useless to make him understand the reality and beggin for it.
First, no one is arguing from a pure blank slate perspective. Second, it seems like you’re talking about some sort of GE correlation and taking the view that certain genotypes seek out certain environments. Maybe. Maybe not.
Last, one can have poor nutrition and be overweight, santo.
But if you feel like I’m being dishonest or arguing in bad faith then why continue talking to me? It’s hard to discuss anything with anyone once they accuse you of bad faith.
Excelent plan by Swank: we go now give (force) a healthy diet to blacks, who can’t do it themselves, and in few generations, the ”iqs” will grow.
Smart and (self) conscious people TEND to choice by healthy diet and not, better nutrition make us smart. You are always wrong.
Indeed, Miestro Santo. There is so much evidence that the higher IQ, that is, higher SES people are probably genetically rich and genetically healthy. Not only in diet, but check this out: http://t.co/P0U1esNePR
If the lower class and upper class people work at same job, the lower class tend to do worse. It’s obviously genetic.
xcelent plan by Swank: we go now give (force) a healthy diet to blacks, who can’t do it themselves, and in few generations, the ”iqs” will grow.
Smart and (self) conscious people TEND to choice by healthy diet and not, better nutrition make us smart. You are always wrong.
I never proposed any such plan for “blacks.”
If malnourishment decreases IQ, which no one denies, then providing a malnourished or at-risk-for-malnourishment individual with proper nutrition will raise their IQ from what it would have been.
The ‘they’re poor and fat because they’re stupid’ line of attack is inaccurate. Poor people live in conditions that are known to lower IQ, e.g., higher exposure to lead. It’s not so simple.
Blind point of so-called cognitive tests can be exemplied by types like Swanky.
Better nutrition can improve ”iq”, by few points. It’s not a miracle. Is not so simple. If pollution cause problems, then we go expect chinese urban people have decrease of their intelligence in the future.
Your premisses here are not even pseudoscience but a kind of religion, wishfull thinking.
Most blacks in Brazil eat healthier than black americans. I’m not seeing any particular improvement of their intelligence.
Real Flynn Effect talk about few points in iq with better environment, if there are a genetic potential to improve. Those studies showing improvement by 30 points in iq are surreal.
Stupidity is not the same than impulsivity. I’m impulsive but i’m not stupid. Higher intelligence correlated with self and or cognitive control. Cognitive control is good to fight against our predispositions as eat in excess. Intelligent people are more predisposed to have higher will force to fight against their gene-behavioural programmation. But, impulsivity just correlate with ”stupidity”. Is natural but is not intrinsical that civilization/higher intelligence require less impulsivity.
I can understand your pet theory ”evolutionary vicious circle”, when ‘bad’ actions accumulate during certain space and time, can produce bad phenotype and the regulation this behaviour can change positively but, no have any evidence about it and a lot of smart people have bad health habits.
Blacks in Amurrica in the past, have similar food diet than whites, and today, epidemic obesity in Uass again, affect many, many whites too.
When strong social rules are eliminated, less ”smart” people ”degenerate” behaviourally worst than other cognitive castes.
Unfortunately, many humans are as our pets. Without supervision, they will be dominated by your imediate will. Deny it is expose them to own lucky.
This ”wallmart-fat- people” or iq = 80, are disproportionally Black.
Most blacks in Brazil eat healthier than black americans. I’m not seeing any particular improvement of their intelligence.
Any evidence for either proposition?
Better nutrition can improve ”iq”, by few points. It’s not a miracle. Is not so simple.
No, the difference between a malnourished individual and a normal individual will be marked. You’re thinking of ‘normal’ versus ‘better than normal.’
Blacks in Amurrica in the past, have similar food diet than whites
Untrue. If a higher % of group A is malnourished than group B, then the groups don’t “have the same diet.”
no have any evidence about it and a lot of smart people have bad health habits.
There’s plenty of evidence that people in poverty live in conditions that are known to lower IQ.
Those studies showing improvement by 30 points in iq are surreal.
But they are real. And you’re right, “nutrition” doesn’t explain FE. And FE really isn’t as simple as “shifting environment X SDs to the right,” because the amount one would have to shift on the curve doesn’t make sense. Individuals 50 years ago didn’t have an environment on the order of 4-5 SDs worse than today’s.
Kevin,
no there such thing ”genetically upper class”, but i no doubt that social classes tend to express, not so perfectly, the cognitive quantitative variation of human populations. Smarter ( but not so smart) tend to occupy intelectual, creative and complex-technic jobs, because ”less qualified” people can put entire society in danger because higher probability to commit mistakes. ”Natural” work division, not so natural because human societies are far to be perfect, but job occupations are based on cognitive phenotypes. A way to harmonize human bio-diversity with social environment demands.
There is such a thing as genetically better, and such people form the upper classes organically. Our society, and basically most societies, have been a genetic / IQ meritocracy
let no one get it wrong, Galton was right, and is right today: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/01/24/measure-for-measure-5
Not, you are rich Kevin??
no there ” organic upper class”, sorry!!
And, social familiar security network, specially in collective cultures, can help people with economic problems. Different in many black families, where all or most them is in economic insecurity.
Smart people on average, build the ”home” to make family after. Many blacks have kids earlier. The poverty vicious circle.
Victorian ( subjacent metaphorically) context doesn’t apply for all contexts.
Galton, was a genius, but he wasn’t right in all what he said.
Convenience
Galton make many studies about the correlation between madness and genius, but Kevin choice to believe in Terman giftedness famous study.
When Galton talk in metaphoric way about pseudo-naturality of social classes, Kevin use him because it’s convenience for their thought line.
You are not alone Kevin, extremely common, usual human thinking called convenience. I’m interest in the truth and called ”upper classes” around the world, with exceptions, look evil and selfish.
“1. In the ordinary circumstances of life in public places, they cover the external genital organs and the greater part of the trunk with clothes.”
The overwhelming majority of pre-colonial blacks did
“2. They keep the body clean and take care to dispose of its waste products.”
The overwhelming majority of pre-colonial blacks did, contemporary India struggles reaching this level.
“3. They do not practice severe mutilation or deformation of the body, except for medical reasons.”
The overwhelming majority of pre-colonial blacks didn’t. Are castration, circumcision or tattoos included in that requirement.
“4. They have knowledge of building in brick or stone, if the necessary materials are available in their territory.”
Baked mud brick is the most common building material in Africa, construction stone is non-existent in most parts of the continent.
“5. Many of them live in towns or cities, which are linked by roads.”
All pre-industrial cultures were mostly rural (over 90%) even those that are known as city-states actually controlled vast agricultural areas.
“6. They cultivate food plants.”
All black Africans did before colonization
“7. They domesticate animals and use some of the larger ones for transport (or have in the past used them), if suitable species are available.”
All black Africans did before colonization, keeping large animals was made impossible in tse-tse flag infested areas but Africans had domesticated large animals where it’s possible
“8. They have a knowledge of the use of metals, if these are available.”
All Black Africans did.
“9. They use wheels.”
Wheels were not used in Africa, mostly because tse-tse fly did not allow to have large animals to tract them. Btw, pre-columbian Americans had no wheels either.
“10. They exchange property by the use of money.”
Cowry shells and manillas were trade commodities.
“11. They order their society by a system of laws, which are enforced in such a way that they ordinarily go about their various concerns in times of peace without danger of attack or arbitrary arrest.”
Lol, traditional African societies have well established traditional law systems, however being free of arbitrary threats is something that millions of individuals still do not enjoy across the world, not only in Africa.
“12. They permit accused persons to defend themselves and to bring witnesses for their defense.”
Lol
“13. They do not use torture to extract information or for punishment.”
Lol again
“14. They do not practice cannibalism.”
The overwhelming majority of black Africans didn’t do that in pre-colonial times
“15. Their religious systems include ethical elements and are not purely or grossly superstitious.”
African traditional religions and witchcraft are two different things
“16. They use a script (not simply a succession of pictures) to communicate ideas.”
Sahelian Africa has used Arabic derived scrips for centuries, the Incas had no script at all.
“17. There is some facility in the abstract use of numbers, without consideration of actual objects (or in other words, at least a start has been made in mathematics).”
Traditional Africa made use of basic mathematics useful for agricultural work and trade.
“18. A calendar is in use, accurate to within a few days of the year.”
Major West African cultures have their own calendars, remember they are agriculturalists.
“19. Arrangements are made for the instruction of the young in intellectual subjects.”
Traditional West African societies have elaborate age based fraternities in which knowledge is passed through initiation.
“20. There is some appreciation of the fine arts.”
Many examples of realistic art exist in pre-colonial West Africa
“21. Knowledge and understanding are valued as ends in themselves.”
African cultures all tried to make sense of the world, the Sahel had higher learning centers that were even prominent in the whole islamic world.
According to baker black africa achieved virtually none of those things.
Baker is wrong.
I don’t use the name “Afrosapiens” for no reason.
Edit tse-tse flag, to tse-tse fly if you can.
It seems pretty extreme to say that none of these 21 criteria for civilization occurred in sub-Saharan Africa, many African cultures had high quality metal working and textile industries before Brittan even had its own textile industry. At least a few of these criteria are shared by almost all African societies with some exceptions
I’m pretty sure harpoons and the bow and arrow were and spear thrower were invented in Africa and that ceramics were invented independently
I would argue that many African societies were roughly on par with pagan Scandanavia. See this: