I’m reading James Flynn’s new book Does Your Family Make You Smarter? and I’m absolutely blown away by how subtle and creative his ideas are. Unlike many environmentalists, who simply nitpick the research of IQ hereditists, Flynn actually makes his points with great statistical creativity.
In order to understand this book, you must first understand that according to the conventional wisdom, our IQs have three main causes:
- Genes: The effect of genes on IQ can be measured by correlating the IQs of identical twins raised apart (though the correlation should be reduced a bit for shared prenatal environment)
2. Family environment: The effect of family environment can be measured by correlating the IQs of unrelated people raised in the same home.
3. Chance environment: These are random environmental events that affect our individual IQs, but don’t effect our siblings raised in the same family. For biological determinists like Arthur Jensen and I, these might be getting hit on the head with a golf ball or not getting enough oxygen in the womb. For cultural determinists like Flynn, these might be having a school teacher who inspires you to learn. The effect of chance environment on IQ can be measured by noting that there’s a higher IQ correlation between the same person tested twice, then there is between two identical twins raised in the same home. In other words, you are more similar to you, then you are even to your identical twin raised in the exact same family, so there are obviously unique environmental effects that make even identical twins raised together, individuals.
Now according to Jensen’s (1998) summary of kinship and adoption studies, genes explain about 45% of the IQ variation in childhood, 65% of the variation in adolescence, and about 80% in later maturity. Family environment explains about 35% of the IQ variation in childhood, and near zero by late adolescence. Meanwhile chance environment explains about 25% at all ages.
Why does family environment go from 35% to zero percent? The conventional wisdom is that people with high IQ genes do well in school and end up in stimulating adult environments, and these adult environments replace the effects of family environment. Further, because their genes caused these adult environments, the effect shows up as genetic variance.
Flynn’s brilliant insight
I’m going to do my best to explain Flynn’s ground-breaking new method. Although so far I’ve only read the first few chapters, I hope I’ve at least partly grasped the concept (it’s pretty subtle):
High IQ adults outperform high IQ children on tests, both because of age differences, but also because by adulthood, high IQ genes create high IQ environments, creating a multiplier effect.
By contrast average IQ adults score higher than average IQ children, ONLY because of age differences. In a normal curve, by definition the average person is, on average, average in genes and environment.
Thus by subtracting the test performance gap between average IQ adults and average IQ kids, from the performance gap between high IQ adults and high IQ kids, you get a pure measure of the effect of non-chance environment on test performance.
What this brilliant method shows is that on tests that I have always known are quite culture reduced, like using colored blocks to form designs, the effect of non-chance environment vanishes by the early teens, while on tests that are obviously cultural (vocabulary), non-chance environment persists into adulthood.
To me, the beauty of this method is that two tests could have the exact same heritability, but one test could be heritable for indirect reasons (genes causing environments that improve test performance) while the other test is heritable because genes directly affect performance.
How ironic that Flynn, the man best known for debunking the notion of culture reduced tests via the Flynn effect, may have unintentionally proven they exist after all.
Pumpkin Person 
the so-called “shared environment” having zero effect and the “chance environment” having residual effect is totally meaningless outside the P = G + E model.
that is, the so-called “chance environment” is 99% just different people reacting differently to the same environment.
but jayman and densen are too fucking retarded to know this.
so here’s what densen does (and steve “random micro-worlds” shoe does too):
1. he makes a totally absurd assumption that P = G + E.
2. then forgets that he’s making an assumption, and concludes that shared environment has no effect, but “random micro worlds/chance environment” explains all of the variance left after that part which is explained by genes is subtracted.
densen was retarded or he was a liar. it’s one or the other or both.
for example in the minnesota study the wais FSIQ correlation of identical twins raised together was .88. of those raised apart .69.
supposing a test-immediate retest reliability of .95 this means iirc that…
1. only 7.4% of the variance is explained by “random micro worlds”.
2. 20% is explained by shared environment.
BUT the “shared environment” of identical twins raised together really is shared, or it’s FAR closer to being shared than it is for fraternal twins.
FAR!
So you’re not objecting to the dichotomy of shared vs unshared environment, you just feel studies comparing identical twins raised together to fraternal twins raised together underestimate shared environment, and that only studies comparing identical twins raised apart to identical twins raised together should be used?
obviously when two people are genetically identical they can share the same environment. but the effect of the environment on any one genome will vary with the genome.
when two people have different genomes it’s not clear that they can ever really share an environment in the sense of sharing the same effect of a given environment.
that is, the shared environment effect in the minnesota study is just an average. it doesn’t say anything about what the effect of an optimal environment would be on a given genome.
If your reaction norm argument is true in the U.S., then shared environment, as measured by the IQ correlation of unrelated people raised in the same home, and shared environment, as measured by the DIFFERENCE in IQ correlation between identical twins raised together vs raised apart, should be larger for the latter than the former, because the identical twins raised together share an environment that affects their specific genome the same way, while unrelated people raised together only share an environment that raises or lowers IQs on average, but not for every unrelated pair.
only MZ twin studies are meaningful. yes.
but if it could be shown that the joint distribution, f, of some measure of genetic distance between individuals, d, and phenotypic difference, p, has a linear conditional mean (that is, f(d|p) is a straight line), then it would be possible to avoid all the problems of twin studies and the shared womb of twins…
the conditional mean could simply be extrapolated to d = 0. and from the mean difference, p, at d = 0, the heritability could be calculated easily.
furthermore the perfect-ness of the measure of genetic distance would be irrelevant. the joint probability density function would “include” this error. so with a large enough sample the extrapolation would have very little error.
this is essentially what GCTA is.
but whether the joint distribution is bivariate normal or some other distribution with linear conditional mean…i don’t know.
but if it could be shown that the joint distribution, f, of some measure of genetic distance between individuals,
The key word is individuals. Sforza published genetic distance data on populations (not individuals), and Lynn published IQ data on populations. For a while I’ve been thinking of doing a GCTA type analysis on this data. Do you think it would give good results?
that is, the MUCH lower heritability estimates from GCTA are not at all vitiated by the imperfection of the genetic distance measure, if the joint distribution really does have a linear conditional mean.
NOT. AT. ALL.
because although the measure of genetic distance is imperfect for different people. it is perfect for identical twins. that is, identical twins have genetic distance = 0.
so of course cockring has a post claiming “the twins were alright” alluding to the song by The Who “the kids are alright”.
so did charles “the cross burner” murray on one of his blog posts. iirc it was for “the american enterprise institute”.
both ignored that:
1. the GCTA estimated h^2 was MUCH lower than that of twin studies.
2. the GCTA studies were still only on very geographically restricted populations, like the scots.
murray is not the small town farm boy with high SAT scores he claims to be. he’s the son of a big business executive, and it shows.
1. the GCTA estimated h^2 was MUCH lower than that of twin studies.
But iirc GCTA only measures additive heritability, so we should expect it to be a lot lower than twin studies
If your reaction norm argument is true…
https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/you-are-correct-sir-jpg.338948/
these were ADULT twins. there average age was 41 iirc.
…their average…
so anyway flynn is just another fucktarded psychologist.
in the entire history of psychology no one with an IQ over 100 has ever gotten a phd in psychology.
Autism hurts^^^
Id estimate trumpocalypse IQ to be 100. Even tho he’s clearly autistic his IQ is 2 standard deviations above the autistic average. So he’s been able to avoid hospitalization or treatment
I agree. I seem to be out of place here as a non-autistic. Oy vey.
mental retardation hurts ^^^
mikey still has the dent in his head from that john daly drive.
Mugabe-
you are a fan of Apocalypse Now/other Vietnam movies?
What about nonshared-environment?
Flynn calls that “chance environment”.
Whats his book called? Got a BnN link?
It’s called “Does your family make you smarter?”
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/personality-psychology-and-individual-differences/does-your-family-make-you-smarter-nature-nurture-and-human-autonomy
This guy was diagnosed with ADHD as a child, grew up to become a NYPD police officer, and now graduating from medical school in his mid 40s.
http://abc7ny.com/careers/retired-nypd-officer-becoming-a-doctor-all-despite-a-learning-disability/1491181/
I don’t know exactly what is his racial makeup. Looks like he’s a brown caucasoid, with a dab of sub-saharan.
So this guy could considered as a late bloomer?
PP, I always found juvenile black kids to be smarter and more socially developed than the other racial groups. I remember a few of my classmates in elementary school who were black and they were very bright for their age. There’s a certain attractiveness to their juvenile intelligence. But once they reach adulthood, many blacks just tail off and lose out to the other groups, and it all becomes downhill going forward.
Low heritability in childhood, raised with environment, genes take effect at adulthood, higher heritability at adulthood etc.
adhd is like asd. 90% of diagnoses are bullshit.
Yeah, but not all cases are.
But most…….
It’s most common in Blacks, and less in Asians AND “Hispanics”….
I guess it’s not the “dumb spics’ causing issues” again.
Mongoloids are the master race!
ADHD is bullshit.
The symptoms that describe adhd are inherent psychological traits in almost all children, you wont actually figure out who really has it until adulthood. i just turned 20 and I still shows symptoms, where i sometimes get random bursts of energy and its always been hard to pay attention unless i had a huge interest in the subject. Other peers who thought they had it eventually grew out of it.
I had an outstanding link about how it’s garbage and don’t real. I’ll dig for it, it was really good.
Don’t get me started on those ADD/HD drugs either.
I was diagnosed with both ADD and ADHD as a kid. I took…. Concerta for a bit in high-school. I stopped taking it in 3 days. I felt like a zombie, a shell. It was like I didn’t have emotions. I felt like a robot. My friends asked me what was wrong with me because I was acting so different.
I guess to Big Pharma, I was ‘acting normal’. They make mountains of shekels “””misdiagnosing””” people.
Hmmmm….
amphetamine works for everyone, not just those diagnosed with ADD.
that is, it improves performance at some tasks for everyone.
and low dose amphetamine isn’t harmful.
so what you get is doctors acting as drug dealers.
better just to have amphetamine and cocaine sold in the supermarket.
btw, i think all libertarians should be shot.
Big pharma is conspiracy theory bullshit. I know i have adhd, most get misdiagnosed because all children are wound up and cant pay attention.
but they’re right about drugs…or most drugs. wrong about everything else.
prostitution and gambling wouldn’t exist in an ideal world. they persist, because their punishment is nothing compared to that for drug dealing.
libertarian = perverted sociopath.
I agree fully. The drug war is a farce. I used to be an lolbergtarian a few years ago. Ugh. Never again.
and of course cocaine used to be sold in the supermarket.
in coca-cola and…
it’s funny that alcohol withdrawal can kill, yet it’s legal to buy as much as you want.
the only drugs for which withdrawal can be lethal are:
alcohol, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines. and they all kill in the same way…
delirium tremens.
I’m more interested in the cases where people with very low childhood IQs become successful adults, especially in academia. Robert Sternberg became a Yale professor studying intelligence despite allegedly scoring low on IQ tests as a child. He says he had crippling test anxiety.
Scott Barry Kaufman is another intelligence expert teaching at an elite school who claims to have scored very low as a kid:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/the-perils-of-giving-kids-iq-tests/277715/
Because IQ doesn’t always mean success. One with low IQ with the right motivation can become successful.
peepee proves that the proles are their own worst enemy.
1st trumpocalypse fuck you
2nd I was also diagnosed with ADD as a child although I outgrew all symptoms by the age of 20
Then you didnt really have it.
PP,
Will you please explain more about cultural multipliers and gene heritability. Genes can make it more likely that you increase your cultural knowledge outside family environment. I like reading but most of the time I don’t understand what I read but I at least try. My mom homeschooled me until I was 8. When I went to real school I was held back from third grade to second grade.
IQ numbers change with age so my number might go up again as I am learning how to eat right, get rid of stress and increase self-awareness.
FSIQ
2009 age 22 (108)
2015 age 28 (113)
(g)
2009 age 22 (115)
2015 age 28 (130)
The internet is definitely a multiplier of the Flynn Effect because of relevant information but it is different than books in that distractions are more prevalent. Some people search for articles on IQ and read Wikipedia well others completely drawn to music videos and pop stars. I’m bought half and half.
Will you please explain more about cultural multipliers and gene heritability. Genes can make it more likely that you increase your cultural knowledge outside family environment.
Well imagine you have high IQ genes, but are born to poor uneducated parents. At age four you might score 90 because they didn’t teach you anything. But by age seven, you might score 110 because after a few years of school, you’ve caught up to your classmates who had worse genes but better home environments. By age 25, your IQ might be 120, because your high IQ genes caused you to get a PhD, thus surpassing 99% of your birth cohort in education.
However in my opinion, such a person almost always had a 120 IQ, but the tests just didn’t show it at young ages because almost all tests (especially the Raven) are culturally biased. The difference is that for adults, they are culturally biased in favour of smart people, so they end up measuring real intelligence in spite of themselves.
Flynn probably has a very different interpretation, but so far I’ve only read the first several chapters of his book.
I found my answer, PIQ is always highly heritable in childhood and experiences only modest incrases. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608007000635
Flynn’s new book has some innovative data on this point. It seems family environment has a large effect on vocab & raven & small effect on visual-motor tests
It appears as if Santoculto is partying over “PresidentA” ‘s impeachment;
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/18/1379514873452/Dilma-Rousseff-Do-I-look–010.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=3cae0263b60fba0e8d9883885a888f4c
How did we go from arguing to just all agreeing on 1 topic?
Also why does everyone here seem to have been diagnosed with a “disorder” at some point in their life.
OR have a disorder but has not been diagnosed?
The commenters of this blog.
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest”
As for ADHD, it’s been empirically proven to be real, but in only like 10%, or some other astronomically small number I can’t recall off the top of my head, of cases.
I for one am just slightly socially reclusive and have bouts of depression.
But relative to you guys, I’m ‘A-okay’
10% of diagnosed cases, I mean.
That seems like an accurate analogy, is pumkin the guy who later gets a lobotomy? Or is he nurse?
I suspect Pumpkin is the Nurse……..
Videla is the guy who get’s the lobotomy… 😉
I guess that means videla is the good guy lmao
PP certainly wants to lobotomize Videla..
I’m not crazy.
out of all the regulars, you’re most sane, with perhaps the exception of Melo.
But that’s not saying much, at all 😉
While i dont always agree with race realist i will admit he is definitely one of the more level headed folks around here. Im actually not that crazy compared to some of these commenters, im logical but also im just really really really weird. I have yet to meet someone with a similar ballance of personality quirks, logical reasoning, and interests that i do. Not trying to be arrogant or anything.
I wouldnt blame him, videla needs a lobotomy.
the point of that movie was that the nicholson character wasn’t crazy.
then you should take it as a compliment.
Like who? I mean i got adhd and autism, but im pretty sure the majority of people here are “normal”If not then its probably EGI. Santo is autistic, anime kitty seems autistic and mugabe makes shizophrenic accusations, but other than that i dont know
who else has a disorder.
For 5 years they said I was schizophrenic. Now they say I am autistic. I saw a video that said the wiring of white matter tracts cause autism because a normal brain is wired in a certain way. But I still take the shots which confuses me because why would you give shots for schizophrenia to a person with autism? Those two mental disorders don’t go together. It must be because just stopping is a bad idea with meds. I do have trouble with sensory integration but I don’t know if it is because of Autism. This may have been caused by repressed emotions. I barely function because I don’t want to cry. This stops me from most intellectual activities I want to do. I don’t want to cry. Yet recently I have been crying and my mind became much clearer. Mental breakdowns are not fun but I feel better getting rid of everything that is repressed, all at once. I can’t express my true thoughts and feelings around most people. And one thing that causes me such frustration is that my goals are above my abilities so I fail all the time. I feel worthless because of it. I took an MRI brain scan 7 months ago but they won’t tell me if my brain is miswired.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/somatic-symptom-disorder/basics/definition/con-20124065
EGIs are a bitch.
Like the “Nationalists” who come on here, get exposed as supremacists, then feel no need to respond because their EGIs are telling them ‘I is right’…
“Like the “Nationalists” who come on here, get exposed as supremacists, then feel no need to respond because their EGIs are telling them ‘I is right’…”
“Oy vey goy. I’m such a “nationalist” that I don’t think Palestinians should have a State!! Hehehehehe.”
Shit, even Dr. Duke supports them. I, as a nationalist, support them. Even better that it’s against Jews too. But if you thin whites are being “genocided” and don’t think the Pallies are, then you’re a fucking idiot because the Jews are making it pretty damn obvious. Muh double standards.
Anime kitty,
well autism and schizophrenia patients have a lot in common. I think its very possible that you share traits of both, not much is known about either disorder and thats very frustrating
William,
What i meant was that people with similar phenotypic mentalities will congregate together because of similar genes. So it wouldnt surprise me if a lot of people here had mental disorders of equivocal nature.
Not only is Sean Last a hypocrite with his views, he also believes the “superior” canard. I smacked him down on his blog in the comments on that. Etc etc
I think many HBDers are disingenuous (preaching to the choir here, this blog and it’s commenters are generally pretty good on his subject);
They really rape the genetic facts;
The origins of Whites in general, the SW Asian ancestry in Europeans, and vice versa, etc. (also outright lying and claiming Spaniards, South Italians have higher proportions of said ancestry);
As for the whole “Nationalism” debate, it’s just that, a debate.
The EGI idea is not yet quite on the same solid footing as Rushton work, etc.
Egi made a helluva lot more sense than anything rushton ever said. Imo
Melo-
Why?
Perhaps just anecdotal evidence, but people from the Levant are basically indistinguishable from Euros;
The new Brazilian President, Michel Temer, is the son of Lebanese immigrants.
Yet he looks Italian;
William,
Because i don’t expect biology to be perfectly symmetrical but i do expect genes to want to preserve themselves.
I’ll credit Wilburt with pointing out obvious nonsense from altrighters. If only that much.
They suffer from “reverse Derrida” syndrome.
Vox Day being the only exception faik. Did Willy get around to reading him?
Maybe one or two things, I can’t recall.
But I will.
I do sometimes read VDare. I used to follow Steve King and Tom Tancredo on facebook, but they never posted anything.
The rest are retards, almost unequivocally and objectively.
They’re no more “pro-White” than George Will. All of their outlook on life is very anti-White, they’d do better in some Amazonian tribe than in any White majority country.
I.E. Andrew Anglin.
Not all Levantine Arabs look European. A lot of them do, but I wouldn’t say most. Ashkenazim are more Euro in appearance.
I’m surprised the late Steve Jobs is never mentioned by anyone else on this blog, in regards to his IQ, wealth and genetic makeup. He’s part Levantine from his dad’s side.
Near Eastern Caucasoids in America are like the Ashkenazim, and they also have better food. Most of them are wealthy and educated. Not just the Levantines, but Armenians, and I also include the Greeks, and even the Turks (who are less acculturated).
Jobs is an excellent example of a high IQ guy who got rich despite not attending an elite school (though Mugabe dismisses this since his partner attended one)
As for Armenians, they seem pretty smart, judging by my favourite director, Atom Egoyan. They also look very Jewish
Many NYC Jews did not attend elite schools and have become elitists, when it comes to income and residential neighborhoods.
School affiliation don’t matter, if you have personal connections.
School affiliation don’t matter, if you have personal connections.
That’s what the Dale-Krueger study found: Once you control for SATs and what college you applied for, actually attending an elite school added nothing to your future income UNLESS you came from a minority (i.e. Obama) or working class background (i.e. Bill Clinton).
But LOTB argued the study was meaningless because they used SAT scores to measure college eliteness which I though was a weak critique because SATs are a good proxy for college prestige AND if their measure of college eliteness was so bad, why did it show a causal effect on the success of minorities and proles.
Minorities in America are generally not very successful, and that includes East Asians. South Asians being an exception and Jews, if you want to count them as a minority group.
And this is the reason why East Asians lose out, despite those having an Ivy League education, because the degree in Harvard is suppose to provide you with elite connections, but America is still a race based tribal society, when it comes to class ascendancy. Jews know how to play the game, that even their less elite members become elite.
I’m skeptical that Mugabe attended an Ivy League school.
Mugabe has said he was “kicked out of his French class in his Sophomore year pf High School”;
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/10/06/hannibal-lecter-vs-jorge-videlamugabe/#comment-18120
yet the Ivies are, at least in the modern day, very stringent in foreign language learning requirements.
He claimed he went to Princeton?
Not possible considering his own claims;
https://admission.princeton.edu/applyingforadmission/academic-preparation
PP can thank me later 🙂
Mugabe never claimed to have attended an Ivy League school. You’re thinking of Marsha or Mugabe’s dad
Oops.
Wasn’t his dad a Prosecuting attorney?
Jobs is an excellent example of a high IQ guy who got rich despite not attending an elite school (though Mugabe dismisses this since his partner attended one)…
reed is very good school, and even though woz went to ucb, he didn’t need it.
what i say is:
1. jobs was technically incompetent. he was just a salesman/marketer.
2. woz was a technical savant.
3. jobs had smart biological parents and very good adoptive parents, but i doubt his SAT scores (or adult IQ) were in the top 1%.
4. jobs grew up in silicon valley.
1. jobs was technically incompetent. he was just a salesman/marketer.
He also seemed to be a visionary with a lot of creative ideas, but needed higher IQ nerds to figure out how to make them happen.
Flynn’s best contribution remains his highlighting of the multiplier effect.
But even that is pretty obvious.
Even then, Lynn knew of it in the 70s.
But even that is pretty obvious
The multiplier effect was obvious, but what Dickens and Flynn realized that was much less obvious, was that the multiplier effect explains how IQ can be so genetic WITHIN generations, and 100% environmental BETWEEN generations.
only 8 weeks till halloween
Can’t wait. Are you the same “Anonymous” who liked horror films?
Yep, that’s me. Not a fanatic but I did watch Creep and that one short you posted with Abe Vigoda as the mobster looking to extend his life. 🙂
Probably going to replay a castlevania game or two in honor of halloween, they’re not particularly scary but I love the setting and the music.
Any idea what the average Neanderthal IQ might have been?
I see some links saying they were smarter than us which led to their downfall. I don’t know if I buy it though.
And sub-saharans were the only group who did not mix with neanderthals. Perhaps it’s true, because blacks did not come up with a civilization and a written language.
Furthermore, the most important American cities are seeing a black exodus for a number of reasons. But one can make a case that others do not want them around — does the neanderthal theory hold true with this?
My impression is that it’s a moot point.
What matters is what Brain Size is.
How Whites, Asians, and Amerinds got our ‘bigger than Black’ brain size doesn’t seem to matter, although I could be oversimplifying.
That’s a fascinating question. I always assumed it was similar to the white IQ minus 13.
Why minus 13? Because those ethnic groups that were isolated from the population explosion of the last 10,000 years, seem to have IQs 13 points below their macro-race or the macro-race they resemble.
Possibly because they missed out on very new high IQ genes that only occurred when population hit critical mass & these genes probably lessened the dependence on sheer brain size (which is metabolically expensive & physically burdensome) by allowing brain efficiency
So Amerindians and Inuits (despite the huge brains of Inuits) are about 1 SD below East Asians
Bushmen, pygmies & Australoids are about 1 SD below other black peoples (i realize many consider australoids a different race but their phenotype is similar to african)
So neanderthals who evolved in Europe, would probably be about as smart as whites 10,000 years ago
On the other hand, based on genetic distance & their lack of civilization, steve hsu estimates their IQ at about 70
But whites never independently created civilization either. Civilization seems to require a warm climate, but not so warm that the people have very low IQs. That’s probably why it started in the Middle East which had a good balance of warmth and IQ
But, this “isolation” theory is very counter-intuitive when you consider that Amerinds had a more intense form of natural selection, immediate death in the winter.
In that case, “mutations” and such, would be irrelevant.
I thinks some of the arguments are “no spcs in the U.S.”, obviously politically motivated, not to play “the race card”. It’s just that the argument being presented is very counterintuitive.
It could be politically motivated but to me it’s pretty logical.
Originally Lynn argued the colder the climate, the higher IQ.
But then Lynn discovered that some populations had low IQs even controlling for climate, so obviously climate alone couldn’t explain the data so he was forced to introduce a second variable to explain the anomalies
He proposed their small populations prevented new high IQ mutations from occurring. Alternatively I say their populations were very isolated.
Regardless of whether you think HBDers have racist motives, you need an explanation for why Amerindians, arctic people, bushmen, pygmies & australoids all score way below others of the same climate
The low population/isolation theory seems like the most parsimonious explanation
perhaps.
The problem with the Bushmen analysis is that they broke off *before* Bantus/other Sub-Saharans, which would perhaps back up a lower IQ.
The opposite is the case with Amerindians.
The Amerindians, still, as a raw size, have Caucasian + Sized brains. This may indicate that the “we moved towards bigger brains” is not true, but that it was just an immediate response to climate (surface area, etc.)
Also, as I said above it can’t be; “they went to a cold climate and stayed dumb yet survived”. That’s not how HBDers claim HBD works.
If that’s the case then the entire “cold winters” theory, and all of HBD, is virtually bunk.
Those populations with low IQs in the Arctic don’t have big population sizes. Big populations means more of a chance for mutations to arise for high IQ… Simply explained. Cols winter theory isn’t jeaprodized.
RR- I understand.
But why didn’t they die?
And I thought there was very little data on Arctic people IQ?
Arctic people probably had barely enough intelligence to survive. That’s why their brains needed to be so huge. Being too isolated to acquire the new brain efficiency genes, the only way to get their IQs up to 91 was to get the brain to become as large as feasible.
The other possibility is that all these isolated groups are actually a lot genetically smarter than they seem, but are being held back by culturally biased tests and a culture of alcoholism.
Any attempt is really just speculation. You will not be able to know the IQ of neanderthals until genes for IQ are discovered. “isolation theory” has no evidence for it either it’s a “just so” story used to explain away contradicting data. I’m sure neanderthals were incredibly intelligent whether they were smarter than us is something we may never know, maybe they were more like asians with big spatial IQs?
smart how?
an IQ test for neanderthals would be nothing like one for humans.
would humans score higher than neanderthals (big brained neanderthals) on such a test?
maybe. maybe not.
the neanderthals aren’t around to test, so it’s stupid to speculate.
if mazes are an IQ test for rats, would humans in a labyrinth like a rat’s maze do it faster than a rat did his maze?
maybe.
maybe not.
measures of intelligence are only meaningful within a given species.
obviously.
If you define intelligence as g, and g is different between species than within them, then you perhaps can’t ranks animals by intelligence.
And yet we do.
It’s taken for granted that humans are the smartest animal, because despite being physically disadvantaged, we turn the situation around to our advantage, subduing animals twice our size, strength & speed & surviving on every corner of the globe
So if you define intelligence as the capacity for adaptive behavior, which is extremely g loaded among humans, but transcends humans, you can rank different animals on a single scale.
Mazes would be but one situation humans & animals could adapt to. A large battery of diverse tests could yield a sample of adaptive behavior from which an aggregate score could be derived
Even without an interspecies g factor, if different test batteries highly correlated (even as all the subtests within said batteries did not), then the method would arguably be scientific, and animals could be assigned IQs on a scale where the human white mean is 100 (SD 15)…many animals might have negative IQs on this scale
The real problem is different animals have different sensory systems, incentive structures & physical abilities, so finding a diverse battery if tests that is fair to all, or even many, would be challenging
And it may turn out that humans are not as smart as we think we are on an individual level, but the key to our success is our COLLECTIVE intelligence: language, which allows us to pool our intelligence
Neanderthals might be smarter one on one, but humans might be smarter 100 on 100
The same might also be true of some racial comparisons: whites vs East Asians, Jews vs whites
The more verbally gifted races might be smarter collectively and the more spatially gifted races, smarter individually
Of course language is also a physical ability (vocal chords to speak, hands to write) but i speak only of the mental component
Neanderthals lacked the physical ability to make certain sounds, even if they were as verbally smart
“an IQ test for neanderthals would be nothing like one for humans. measures of intelligence are only meaningful within a given species.”
Neanderthals and homosapiens were not that different. Though the shape of neanderthal’s heads makes me question the difference in cognitive balance the too species shared.
“but the key to our success is our COLLECTIVE intelligence: language, which allows us to pool our intelligence”
I don’t think verbal intelligence exists at all in other animals(except maybe dolphins), it is definitely an advantage.
PP we got linked to here.
http://www.xenosystems.net/chaos-patch-125/
Yes i noticed we both got linked there. Very cool
And couldn’t someone also conceivably have genes that make them more susceptible to detrimental influence of environmental or circumstantial factors on test scores, such as lack of sleep? Thus such people if tested repeatedly would have highly variable IQ results.
to keep my word peepee would have done better to buy:
blnd, ukcm, or fcpt on the LSE, rather than GBPs.
but they recovered before i’d decided.
if there’s another crash, i’ll buy them
british land reminds me of the bland corporation.
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/cc46ff25-5f65-4e96-b64c-dd0949380723
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-smarter-brains-blood-thirsty.html
that or the huge increase in penis size.
both.
all it takes is
one
charismatic
german
politician.
and…
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/evil/images/5/52/Game_Over.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151207180809
btw “total war” comes from clausewitz, one of mark spitznagel’s heroes.
it is time to take off the silk gloves?
one must find his hero in the past…not in the present…or in the future.
this is what the mystic of Meßkirch teaches…of course.
even though he fucked hannah arendt, the guy was a prophet…so far as “prophet” means anything…
and as soloveitchik said, the highest aim of man (or woman) is to be a prophet.