The more I think about the upper paleolithic revolution, also known as the mind’s big bang, the great leap forward, or behavioral modernity, the more I think it fits perfectly with Richard Lynn’s theory that exposure to the ice age caused high IQ to evolve.
The upper paleolithic revolution (UPR) refers to a sudden explosion in culture that occurred in the archeological record around 50,000 years ago. According to scholar Richard Klein, it was caused by a brain mutation that occurred in East Africa 50,000 years ago that allowed humans either the intelligence or language to leave Africa and conquer the World. The only problem with Klein’s theory is no such 50,000 year old mutation has yet been discovered, and most scientists seem to think humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and most of the evidence for this great leap forward seems to come from Europe, not Africa.
For example here’s a fascinating list of the 10 oldest works of art ever discovered. Notice how anything older than 50,000 years ago does not really qualify as art. Only after 50,000 years ago do we get real art, and notice how all the oldest real art was found in Europe.
I think what probably happened is that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and probably had a mean IQ of 72 (genetically and phenotypically). Then about 70,000 years they left Africa, and were exposed to the challenges of building watertight shelters with strong insulation and animal skin walls, learning to make fire, creating warm clothes and mastering the complex art of sewing, and figuring how to hunt large animals since plants were not around. The low IQ people, and low IQ tribes could not adapt to these challenges, leaving higher IQ people as the survivors.
So by about 39,000 years ago, the IQs of the proto-Caucasoids in Europe had finally reached the 80s, and they had discovered not only the art of drawing, but had the spatial ability to draw realistic forms despite having never been exposed to art, and by 38,000 years ago, were making impressive sculptures.
Alternative theory
Another theory, popularized by Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending in the book The 10,000 year explosion is that this cultural revolution was caused by gene flow from Neanderthals, which somehow dramatically improved the cognition of modern humans.
One problem with this theory is that Neanderthals went extinct partly because they LACKED these abilities, so it’s ironic to suggest they gave them to us. Of course it’s always possible that the unique COMBINATION of human and Neanderthal brain genes produced an intellect far greater than either species on its own, but why entertain such a speculative idea when there’s a much simpler explanation that has repeatedly proved useful in the field of HBD: cold winters select for higher IQ.
Pumpkin Person 
Fire was invented by homo erectus, neanderthals lacked those qualities because they were in a cold environment, art in europe survived because they lived in caves (because of the cold) and a cave painting is less exposed to the elements than a outside rock painting that africans were doing because they didnt need to do it indoors…..jus sayin
And not coincidentally, brain size started increasing when fire was discovered. That’s what drives brain size.
Intelligence brings about inventions …not the other way around…this is because of homeostasis…also because of homeostasis genetic iq goes down after an invention…equilibrium would have been reached after all.
@Chikoka- He was getting at nutrition, I think.
Fire enabled certain foods to be consumed that increasing brain size?
Willie, yes you are correct.
Cooking is very important because it increases the bioavailability of nutrients most of the time. This has important consequences:
1) More nutrients = better health
2) Humans needed less time for foraging. Therefore, they had more time for other activities such as making tools. Some of these activities had higher cognitive demands.
3) Lower chance of bacterial infections which led to higher populations.
etc..
Deal with it! gets it as well. For a human to have a brain our size eating a vegetarian diet, we’d have to eat over 9 hours to get enough kcal to power a brain that big. That’s obviously not viable. Bipedalism freed our hands so we could eventually make tools. The first tools were used to mash foods which made it easier to get nutrients. Once erectus had fire brain size increased due to more nutrients and caloric energy. We could get more energy in less time.
The energetic cost of the brain is a linear function of the cost of its neurons.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/45/18571.abstract
You need to look at evolution through a nutritional point of view.
This limitation was probably overcome in Homo erectus with the shift to a cooked diet. Absent the requirement to spend most available hours of the day feeding, the combination of newly freed time and a large number of brain neurons affordable on a cooked diet may thus have been a major positive driving force to the rapid increased in brain size in human evolution.
“3) Lower chance of bacterial infections which led to higher populations.”
and it would be argued this allowed mutations for high-IQ to be spread sexually…..
“allowed mutations for high iq to spread sexually”
That’s the point. =^)
Adversity is what causes progress. With a poorer diet evolution has to make up for it by increasing genetic iq so the balance is maintained. that is why athletes in places of low oxygen (mountains) outdo athletes where there is plenty of oxygen (read nutrients). And their descendants do so too even when the decendants are subsequently raised in high oxygen environments.Low oxygen forces the body to compensate with higher amounts of red blood cells, low brain nutrients causes the body to compensate by increasing nootropic factors. Note that IN THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTs the low oxygen group and the high oxygen group perform identically. It is only once the playing feild has been leveled that the previously disadvantaged one gets his upper hand.
Distance runners have lower BMI. For instance the Kenyan distance runners have a BMI of 21.5 on average. Lower BMI is correlated with a higher Vo2 max. And the training they do is conducive to raising their Vo2 max. Distance runners have different somatypes. Distance runners use oxygen more efficiently.
You don’t need to tell me about populations in high altitudes buddy. I know all about the cardio-respiratory system.
I have a background in HMS, I love this stuff. And with a poorer diet, the organism can’t reach its genetic potential. That’s critical to having a high IQ. Nutrition is one of the most important things in the history of our species. It drove brain size. Bipedalism, tools, fire, cooking, meat. That’s why we are “us” with our linearly scaled-up primate brains.
Fire “makes us human”.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/28/what-caused-human-brain-size-to-increase/
But yea. Subpar nutrition means you can’t hit your genotypic IQ. Etc. Nutrition drives evolution when you think about it.
Excuse me. Bipedalism freed our hands which allowed us to make tools which then led to the control of fire and then cooking. That’s the time line the fossil record shows. Moreover, becoming bipedal was another reason why our brains increase in neuronal capacity.
Lucy had pelvic architecture that showed she was on the way to bipedalism. There are also bipedal footprints of australopiticenes 3mya. That’s when brain size began increasing and there was a huge increase in brain size after the advent of fire and cooking….
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/animal_behavior/HOMO_EVO.HTM
Racerealist you seem to always contradict your self.If Cold environment is a nootropic BECAUSE its a disadvantage….then why cant low nutrition be a nootropic BECAUSE its a disadvantage…you didnt even read my post i see…
E.g B vitamins are necessary for a healthy brain. If b vitamins are in short supply the brain rewires itself by mutation to survive in an environment that has few B vitamins by making its use of those B vits it gets more efficient. That means that when this person with (NOW) effecient B vitamin usage meats up with someone without effecient B vitamin usage and they are both given the same amount of Vitamins to live off. The guy who has effecient use of those vitamins (because of prior lack) will have a higher intelligence naturally…..is all this lost on you?
Conversely…once b vitamins are plentifull (because of the invention of fire and cooked food) the brain does not NEED to make effecient use of them and people who would have died from being innefficient metabolizers of b vitamins survive. When there is a shortage once more , those without the fire will be more effecint users of what little b vit there is and so have a greater intelligence
quote
==========
Excuse me. Bipedalism freed our hands which allowed us to make tools which then led to the control of fire and then cooking. That’s the time line the fossil record shows. Moreover, becoming bipedal was another reason why our brains increase in neuronal capacity.
Lucy had pelvic architecture that showed she was on the way to bipedalism. There are also bipedal footprints of australopiticenes 3mya. That’s when brain size began increasing and there was a huge increase in brain size after the advent of fire and cooking….
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/animal_behavior/HOMO_EVO.HTM
===========
yes thats the time line. What you have to understand is that inventions (even thinking) are an expression of homeostasis, just like sweating…inventions are not the drivers of intelligence….adversity is. The NEED to have fire made us more intelligent…not the invention itself…tell me after we invented fire …if we didnt NEED anything else would we have it?
“then why cant low nutrition be a nootropic BECAUSE its a disadvantage…you didnt even read my post i see…”
Why can’t hotter climates be a nootropic? Is that not a disadvantage, as Melo brought up yesterday?
Do malnourished Africans have more efficient vitamin and mineral metabolisms than people who don’t have nutritional deficiencies? If so can you cite a source? I have this one source on malnutrition in Africa. If you can prove to me that Africans have a more efficient vitamin and mineral metabolic I will concede that point to you.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm
“If b vitamins are in short supply the brain rewires itself by mutation to survive in an environment that has few B vitamins by making its use of those B vits it gets more efficient”
I of course don’t doubt this. However the nutritional quality of the food in N environment is 100 percent related to the climate of the area. If b vitamins are in shit supply, as they are in Africa, full brain growth cannot occur. One of the most important b vitamins is b6. It regulates mood and keeps the brain from shrinking into old age.
“..is all this lost on you?”
No it’s not dude. I have a background in nutrition. I handle people’s nutrition every day. I’m well aware of the deleterious effects of lack of certain vitamins on cognition and growing to full potential. I have to renew my CEUs every few month for my license, I have to hear lectures monthly about nutrition and strength training. (currently going for my strength training license)
“When there is a shortage once more , those without the fire will be more effecint users of what little b vit there is and so have a greater intelligence”
I don’t disagree. But a hierarchy of meat would been devastating to Man after we discovered fire and used it to cook which then rapidly caused the expansion of our neuronal capacity. Once we can got used to eating meat, we wouldn’t be able to get the same nutrients from a plant-based diet, and as seen in my article on cooking and brain size, brain size would have shrunk with out meat eating for an extended period of time.
Without meat, and for instance without a big supply of meat for let’s say a few generations, those with smaller less metabolically demanding brains would have survived. It’s not possible to power our brains on a plant-based diet. We’d have to eat for over 9 hours a day. Great apes eat for 10 hours a day on average, and that’s just to power it’s body. Clearly, looking at other primates, their plant-based diets is not conducive to a bigger brain. They, in turn, had bigger guts and a smaller brain. With the advent of cooking, gut size decreased while brain size increased.
There is a metabolic limitation that results from the number of hours available to feed and the low caloric yield of raw foods which then impose a trade-off between the body size and number of neurons which explains why great apes have small brains in comparison to their bodies. Metabolically speaking, a body can only handle one or the other: a big brain or a big body. This metabolic disadvantage is why great apes did increase their brain size, because their raw-food diet is not enough, nutritionally speaking, to cause an increase in brain size (Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel, 2011). Can you imagine spending what amounts to one work day eating just to power the brain you currently have? I can’t.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/45/18571.full
So without meat there would have been a decrease in brain size if this occured after we got the nutritional boost.
“the NEED to have fire made us more intelligent, not the invention itself”
I disagree. After the advent of cooking we then had access to tons of beneficial vitamins and nutrients that were paramount for brain growth and functionality. It was after we began eating meat that our cerebral cortex began expanding.
“if we didn’t NEED anything else would we have it?”
Fire is exactly what made us human. As I’ve shown, a plant-based diet isn’t conducive to large brain, only a large body. Eating meat powers the brain, along with us not having to chew for hours on end just to power our brains. If we had smaller brains we would have bigger guts. Eating meat decreased our gut size and increased our brain size.
Brain tissue is metabolically expensive but there is no significant correlation between brain size and BMR in humans or any other encephalized mammal, the metabolic requirements of relatively large brains are offset by a corresponding gut reduction (Aiello and Wheeler, 1995).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744104
Fire itself was the driver for our intelligence due to it giving us the ability to cook meat. Without that, we’d still be eating plants and have small brains and big guts.
And if you think about the primate diet, they eat for hours on end. They need big guys to store all of the less calorically dense foodstuffs they eat. Meat is “heavy” on the stomach. So with the advent of fire and cooking, we spent less time eating which in turn selected us for smaller stomachs and larger brains. See Aiello and Wheeler (1996).
. How does eating meat change genes. Theres three levels ….genes…the proteins the genes code for (hormones, enzymes..etc) and the nutrients that those proteins are made of.
Genes dictate hormone structure and hormone structure dictates how nutrients are used.
For your theory to be correct that flow of information has to work in reverse. Firstly how can that be even possible????????How can nutrients change genes. there are only two understood methods for genes to change…random mutations that survive because they are beneficial and random mutations that survive because of genetic drift…but this new theory of food changing genes. If this were possible why would we need all this gene splicing technology to do genetic engineering….reverse transcription and all…just give the organism food..lol
“How does eating meat change genes”
Are you serious dude? It’s not that meat eating changed genes (though I’m not particularly knowledgeable in that aspect), it’s that meat eating led to the survival of more hominid which increased the chance for high IQ mutations, which I’m sure some of them increased brain size as well.
“How can nutrients change genes”
Nutrients from food change genetic expression.
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/nutrients-nutrition-1949.html
Moreover it’s about the survival of more hominid which allowed for these beneficial mutations to spread through the population.
“random mutations that survive because they are beneficial”
Exactly. And with the advent of cooking, more beneficial mutations could arise and spread through the population since cooking killed bacteria and made food easier to chew and digest. This turning point in human evolution is the reason we are here today.
“If this were possible why would we need all this gene splicing technology to do genetic engineering”
It most definitely is possible. Do a bit of research on gene expression and nutrients.
http://m.advances.nutrition.org/content/1/1/8.full
Also look up nutritional genomics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritional_Genetics
quote
====
it’s that meat eating led to the survival of more hominid which increased the chance for high IQ mutations
====
the more hominid there are the longer it takes for a mutation to reach the entire population because it is competing with more genes. not to mention that this is true also for increasing the chance for low IQ mutations…these things are random after all.
quote
======
“How can nutrients change genes”
Nutrients from food change genetic expression.
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/nutrients-nutrition-1949.html
===
youre right..youre not knowleagable about these things….changing gene expression does not change genes..just their….well ….expression (think phenotype instead of genotype).
quote
====
And with the advent of cooking, more beneficial mutations could arise and spread through the population since cooking killed bacteria and made food easier to chew and digest.
====
the ease of chewing food does not cause a certain type of mutation to occur…mutations are RANDOM first (i.e. both good and bad happen equally) then they are SELECTED for.
if you can show how someone with low IQ genes was now not able to survive because of better available nutriention then i would agree that a selection process would have happened.
“the more hominid there are the longer it takes for a mutation to reach the entire population because it is competing with more genes. not to mention that this is true also for increasing the chance for low IQ mutations…these things are random after all.”
Ugh yea you’re right. I complete forgot that mutations spread faster in small populations. My bad. But if low iq mutations inferred no advantage they would be selected against (that’s not to say that selection against deleterious alleles will always occur).
“youre right..youre not knowleagable about these things….changing gene expression does not change genes..just their….well ….expression (think phenotype instead of genotype).”
I admitted I am not knowledgeable on what I just said. I’m going to look into it more now that I’m looking at evolution through a nutritionists point of view.
Environment can change gene expression. Diet is environmental.
If a gene is epigenetically altered to cause side effect X and then a gene that’s elsewhere in the genome helps to fix the negative side effect, then positive genotypic selection should occur. Though the nutritional change would need to last long enough so the phenotype doesn’t revert back.
“the ease of chewing food does not cause a certain type of mutation to occur…mutations are RANDOM first (i.e. both good and bad happen equally) then they are SELECTED for.”
Of course not. But the ease of chewing food allowed more energy to be taken and that effected both the brain and the gut. Moreover better nutrition would increase population size and the advantageous alleles ie for brain size and iq would persist. That would get selected for.
“if you can show how someone with low IQ genes was now not able to survive because of better available nutriention then i would agree that a selection process would have happened.”
Hmm. How about a thought experiment.
Low IQ personal a (P A) isn’t intelligent enough to learn how to cook. Though when meat eating began, important social skills developed. Like sharing which also increased the mother’s bond with the babe.
In times of scarcity when there was little to no high quality foodstuffs available, the more intelligent people could compensate with differing their diet due to higher intelligence while the lower IQ people did not and died.
With the epigenetic changes persisting over time along with dumber people not living, these mutations would then be able to persist in the population as they infer great benefits to the population.
===
Of course not. But the ease of chewing food allowed more energy to be taken and that effected both the brain and the gut. Moreover better nutrition would increase population size and the advantageous alleles ie for brain size and iq would persist. That would get selected for.
===
and how would they be selected for according to you;
===
In times of scarcity when there was little to no high quality foodstuffs available, the more intelligent people could compensate with differing their diet due to higher intelligence while the lower IQ people did not and died.
==
so does the invention of fire bring about scarcity and little to no high quality foodstuffs….
you have to understand the difference between expression of intelligence and causes of it…you have the horse before the cart in most of your posts.
say you had a balloon with elasticity say 15. You wont change the elasticity by blowing into it more…tho its elasticity would be EXPRESSED more.
in order to change the elasticity you have to change the actual balloon independant of its expression of its elasticity, blowing or nutrients in line with the topic.
Forgot about this thread.
“so does the invention of fire bring about scarcity and little to no high quality foodstuffs….”
The invention of fire softens food and braks down cellwalls to better digest all of the nutrients contained in the food.
“you have to understand the difference between expression of intelligence and causes of it…you have the horse before the cart in most of your posts.”
Dude let me repeat myself: “If a gene is epigenetically altered to cause side effect X and then a gene that’s elsewhere in the genome helps to fix the negative side effect, then positive genotypic selection should occur. Though the nutritional change would need to last long enough so the phenotype doesn’t revert back.”
When we first came out of the trees and became bipedal, we could then eat more food. We had a much broader range of eating and scavenging. In times of scarcity, the dumber ones died off while the smarter ones survived.
Without fire, we wouldn’t have had the trade-off between gut and brain (The expensive tissue hypothesis). Fire is what caused us to not eat for 8 hours per day. The surge in brain size 1.8 mya is linked to cooking.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121026-human-cooking-evolution-raw-food-health-science/
“so does the invention of fire bring about scarcity and little to no high quality foodstuffs….”
You can control fire and still have nothing to cook ya know…
This shows that africans were way ahead of europeans AFTER they left. Its a demonstration of relatively advanced mathematical concepts that were only discoverd in europe 20 000 years later (not even europe, the middle east) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone
Is anyone going to say anything on the ishango bone
No, that’s the kind of thing they don’t like to discuss.
AAAAAAnd still no one mentions the ishango bone lol
There is the Lebombo bone from Swaziland which is 43,000 old. But the goal is here is not to discuss science, it’s to cherry pick pseudo-evidences to advance racist theories. I’ve seen many anthropology blogs and fora where people are were informed about tally sticks, paleolithic technology and evolution, you should go there if you want to have interesting conversations.
The full upper paleolithic package (as most restriclively defined—many upper paleolithic technologies and much of said package being evident in Africa by ca. 160-70,000 bc) also appears in Southern Africa by 40-50, in Border cave—first link (showing no evidence of it having to anything to do with Europe or cold weather there or in Subsaharan Africa generally).
The upper paleolithic also formed in prehistoric Australia.
All African groups including those such as pygmies and bushman show full modernity, including artistic expression.
Fewer clearly artistic artifacts (like figurative art) may be known from Africa arround that period because much more archaeological research has been done in Europe (but new discoveries continue to be made). In addition, deep caves systems of the kind that have preserved many of the art works in Europe are less common in Africa and much of Asia than in Europe—though figurative rock paintings known from Apollo 11 cave S. Africa dating to 27,000 bc and synthesised paints are now known from 100,000 bc S. Africa, it is likely that painting occured (second link).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3421194/
http://www.livescience.com/16538-oldest-human-paint-studio.html
Edit: “In adition to evidence such as the two artifacts mentioned above, the full upper paleolithic package (as most restriclively…
You really arent going to say anything PP? For a moment i thought you had a bit of honesty and really beleived all you say….ha
I’ll look into it later. Unlike Afrosapiens I’m employed and won’t have time to respond to most comments until this evening.
ok cool.
Have you ever heard about something called holidays ?
Europeans didn’t ‘invent’ a lot of things. They got farming from the middle east as well as writing and I believe math. Writing was only invented in 5 parts of the world. Egypt, China, the Maya, the Dravidians and Sumeria.
http://rutchem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html
So clearly high IQ (if their IQs weren’t somehow higher) isn’t needed for things like this.
Moreover, the most fascinating one is the Maya since they were completely isolated from the rest of the world.
Surely that only puts a question on relevance of identifying advanced early european art as evidence of their greater IQ. just as writing in other groups doesnt mean that those groups have higher IQ. THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT.
The point is, do you need a high IQ to invent writing? Would the IQs of these peoples have been higher when they invented writing? I wonder about genetic IQs of ancient civilizations, say 2ky old.
The whole point is PP is using the invention of complex art as Proof that the upper paleothic started in europe. I’m agreeing with what you say becauses it stresses my point. Does complex art really need a high IQ…is the simmily to your…do you need a high IQ to invent writing
I don’t believe that complex art needs high IQ. You only need to look at the places in the world that have created a written language independently. Moreover, look at how all great civs in antiquity were in temperate climates. While the so-called Nordic master race were barbarians.
I strongly doubt you need a high IQ to invent writing independently. Though eventually another blogger and I are going to estimate IQs for ancient civilizations, we’re still hammering our a good formula to use for all people though.
apparently europeans couldnt halve or double 20000 years ago
Europeans didn’t exist 20kya.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/16/nordicist-fantasies-the-myth-of-the-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-aryans-and-the-origins-of-the-indo-europeans/
Modern races are new, etc.
The term europeans means the inhabitants of europe not necessarily a race…i’m reffering to people who were in a cold environment not being able to halve or double according to PP
At the very least, it shows that Africans 20,000 years ago had an understanding of doubling and halving:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=JrslMKTgSZwC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=ishango+bone&source=bl&ots=VteBaXMWFL&sig=yDKGyM1-8p8GT1Opm2l04arFj5E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijzeGm7pjRAhVD2IMKHc8qD_s4FBDoAQg3MAU#v=onepage&q=ishango%20bone&f=false
Anything much beyond that seems speculative given that early explorers found Africa to be virtually the most mathematically backward region on Earth. If they had such advanced understanding 20,000 years ago, it seems unlikely they would lose it.
Explorers wiped out much of african culture when they came. the reason it seems we were not mathematically advanced is because of the lack of writing. Interesting you should say that europeans could not half and double 20000 years ago
The islamized regions of West Africa have been on par with most of Europe for a long time. Then it’s clear that without writing, the other regions couldn’t do advanced mathematics. Nonetheless, there is appreciable geometry in equatorial Africa and mathematics knowledge isn’t more backward than in illiterate societies elsewhere in the world.
Click to access Mathematics_Africa.pdf
Chapter six is about complex mathematics without writing in Africa.
Europeans couldn’t halve or double 20000 years ago lol are you for real PP..?..Wow!
Europeans couldn’t halve or double 20000 years ago lol are you for real PP..?..Wow!
Did i say that? No
*SIGH* please follow your own reasoning
you
A. europeans show more intelligence than africans in the UP by complex art
B. implication because africans didnt do thsi art they COULDNT
by this logic;
me
(1).africans showed mathematical prowess with the ishango bone
(2).implication because europeans didnt show this they COULDNT
your analysis of mine was to reduce what african mathematical prowess it was to halving and doubling….but by (2) europeans dont even have this prowess .
basicaly the more you play down africans mathematical prowess the more you play down europeans because africans did more PROVENLY
“The islamized regions of West Africa have been on par with most of Europe for a long time. Then it’s clear that without writing, the other regions couldn’t do advanced mathematics. Nonetheless, there is appreciable geometry in equatorial Africa and mathematics knowledge isn’t more backward than in illiterate societies elsewhere in the world.”
From my knowledge base this is 100% correct.
The industrial revolution is what brought Europeans to the forefront of technological innovation- and it appears Ashkenazi Jews who are only half European, were responsible for a lot of it.
This theory of European “dominance” is true in the modern day but does not look holistically at history.
and all this is a function of Spatial IQ perhaps better in colder climates than other Caucasians or Blacks. Perhaps verbal IQ is the same.
Obviously a lot of European progress (until about 200 years ago, actually) was borrowed from the Middle East……
Doesn’t it speak volumes that Ashkenazi Jews can have their IQ driven up to the levels that it is, with their half SW Asian ancestry?
While part-Australoid Gypsies can not?
“Explorers wiped out much of african culture when they came. the reason it seems we were not mathematically advanced is because of the lack of writing. Interesting you should say that europeans could not half and double 20000 years ago”
Nicholas Wade agrees.
In Africa, population numbers were higher than in Australia, agriculture was quickly adopted and settled societies developed. From these gradually emerged more complex societies, including primitive states. But because of low population density, these political states did not enter the phase of political rivalry and sustained warfare from which empires emerged in Mesopotamia, the Yellow River Valley, and, much later, in the Andean highlands. The population of Africa in 1500 was only 46 million. The soil being mostly poor, there were few agricultural surpluses and so no incentive to develop property rights. For lack of the wheel and navigable rivers, transport within Africa was difficult and trade was small scale. For lack of demographic pressure, African societies had little incentive to the skills that trade stimulates, to accumulate capital, to develop occupational specialties or develop modern societies. The phase of state and empire building had only just begun when it was cut short by European colonization. (Wade, 2015: pg. 225. Excerpt from A Troublesome Inheritance)
“The industrial revolution is what brought Europeans to the forefront of technological innovation- and it appears Ashkenazi Jews who are only half European, were responsible for a lot of it.”
The printing press is what caused the intellectual explosion of Europe for the last 600years. Before that, Europe was not more advanced than other places with similar population densities, and civilization came late to Europe, even Greece had been preceded by impressive civilizations in the Near East, Asia and the Nile Valley as far south as the Sudan. HBDers generally don’t know how to explain it.
And yes, most of Europe’s progress has to be attributed to the Jews, they have played a major role in science and the economy. They’ve been the only population enjoying universal (male) literacy from antiquity to our current era.
PP is saying pure nonsense once again. Upper paleolithic technology and signs of behavioral modernity are found in Africa before Europe, this despite the quasi absence of caves in Africa, the very low level of archaeological exploration as well as the tropical climates that limits the conservation of materials.
Pumpkin is in complete denial of the extraterrestrial forms of life that have cradled and moulded human civilisation. If you look at the Pyramids, many engineers are baffled how such structures were created using the primitive resources, tools and processes of the time.
http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/khufu-numbers.html
Look at this guy for example. He has Time, Weight, Density, in his calcs and even gives a cursory nod to weather, war and plague.
He hasn’t thought – how the fuck was that proportion of Egypt’s labour force fed for 23 years (+10 years prep as his Roman historian source mentions) whilst diverted from productive activity like growing crops.
And then the slave masters, medics, policing, bureaucrats, transporters and so on associated with that?
And all their wives and children!!
There was no McDonald’s University back then although historical sources do mention the Nile was a most fertile region.
But. Its obvious.
I think you’re just trying to troll but fuck it I’ll have some fun.
“Pumpkin is in complete denial of the extraterrestrial forms of life that have cradled and moulded human civilisation. If you look at the Pyramids, many engineers are baffled how such structures were created using the primitive resources, tools and processes of the time.”
That’s not true:
Also watch this guy recreate stonehenge by himself
“He hasn’t thought – how the fuck was that proportion of Egypt’s labour force fed for 23 years (+10 years prep as his Roman historian source mentions) whilst diverted from productive activity like growing crops.”
I doubt the people building the pyramids were the same ones growing the crops. Egypt wasn’t really isolated either and is known for it’s cultural beauty.
Ancient Aliens is a cool show, though. Surprised they still have enough material to make new seasons.
It’s definitely “entertaining” to say the least, I watched it a lot when I was like 15. After the first few seasons the just started rehashing and repackaging old concepts.
If an alien race was technologicaly so advanced as to be able to reach earcth, why leave such relatively pathetic evidence? there should be levitating buildings and AT LEAST electrical fittings in the pyramids if that were so…
Pumpkins ego can’t take that another species helped human civilisation more than humans ever did. The nasty bigotry towards non-humans on this blog is breathtaking.
Which non-humans?
Pumpkin won’t unmod my comment because the truth is too dangerous. He’s happy for racists, islamophobes, homophobes, sexists, bigamists and paedophiles to say whatever they want but he draws the line on species. Sad.
which non-humans philo
@Chikoka-
Neanderthals!
but he’s trolling anyway.
Wrong. UFOs.
^^^^^ https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTY6Osp6Ss-gWn9NtluQb0VeUkWS2WxqJG9-m5fRNlhEb2QONu5NQ ^^^^^
Thats right Willie. The scientologists have known this for millennia.
You joke but speciesism is a real concept and it is not without merit. One cannot be truly moral if he eats meat.
I’m not joking. I’m a vegan trans speciesist.
sigh you’re literally unable to take it seriously.
I don’t care if Mugabe is mean to me or whatever. The man is smart as hell and has good taste. I’m enjoying The Razor’s Edge.
Short answer: No.
“Then about 70,000 years they left Africa, and were exposed to the challenges of building watertight shelters with strong insulation and animal skin walls, learning to make fire, creating warm clothes and mastering the complex art of sewing, and figuring how to hunt large animals since plants were not around. The low IQ people, and low IQ tribes could not adapt to these challenges, leaving higher IQ people as the survivors.”
Watertight structures would be better in a wetter environment…like africa
Humans had an incredibly varied diet which is one of the reasons we outcompeted neanderthals. We ate mostly plants and small game and din’t become fully accustomed to large game until the solutrean tool kit’s first appearance.
Ice age europe demonstrated the same deficiency in resources than other continents had, yet no other sub population developed an IQ equivalent to eurasians. A chunk of the world was going through glacial conditions at the time, It couldn’t possibly be the causation.
behavioral modernity appears 130,000-70,000 years ago, it didn’t become common until 50,000 years ago.
I really wish you would stop clinging to such shit even after I’ve dispelled it numerous times.
I don’t think you realize how parsimonious my competition theory really is.
“I don’t think you realize how parsimonious my competition theory really is.”
If you’d gather your thoughts betters that’d be cool. I like it but putting it into a few sentences for brevity is better.
It’s hard. My comments have been so long because there is so much activity going off in my brain. There is so much more I could say about this than I am actually able to articulate. I need to start keeping a notebook or something.
Watertight structures would be better in a wetter environment…like africa
Don’t be stupid. People with crappy structures and primitive mud huts survive all the time in Africa. In Europe such people freeze to death.
Humans had an incredibly varied diet which is one of the reasons we outcompeted neanderthals.
No that had nothing to do with it.
We ate mostly plants and small game and din’t become fully accustomed to large game until the solutrean tool kit’s first appearance.
Do you know what the ice age was? Have you ever heard of this cold season called winter? Have you ever walked through the snow? What plants?
Ice age europe demonstrated the same deficiency in resources than other continents had,
Bullshit! And you keep missing the point: if you weren’t smart in ice age Europe you’d FREEZE TO DEATH. You must be from California or something, because you just don’t get it when it comes to cold climate.
yet no other sub population developed an IQ equivalent to eurasians. A chunk of the world was going through glacial conditions at the time, It couldn’t possibly be the causation.
It wasn’t the ONLY causation but it was a major one. There’s a POWERFUL negative correlation between a population’s IQ and the winter temperature during the last ice age.
behavioral modernity appears 130,000-70,000 years ago, it didn’t become common until 50,000 years ago.
Actual art didn’t appear at all until 39,000 years ago.
I really wish you would stop clinging to such shit even after I’ve dispelled it numerous times.
I agree that occasional flashes of behavioral modernity were seen as early as 130,000 years ago, but the dramatic change didn’t happen until 50,000 years ago, possibly later.
I don’t think you realize how parsimonious my competition theory really is.
It’s not a bad theory. Indeed many years ago I sent Rushton an email asking him if competition from Neanderthals could help explain the higher IQs of non-Africans. But the problem with your theory is that it ONLY explains the high IQ of Europeans. Cold climate theory is more parsimonious because it explains the correlation between IQ and ancestral climate among all human populations.
Behavioral modernity was first seen when Man invented cooking.
Would you shut the fuck up about cooking already.
Am I wrong? Why so angry?
“Don’t be stupid. People with crappy structures and primitive mud huts survive all the time in Africa. In Europe such people freeze to death.”
He’s much less stupid than your answer is. Have you ever been in one of these “crappy structures and primitive mud huts” ? I’ve slept one night in one of these huts during a rainy season in Cameroon, they are perfectly waterproof and are made from materials that maintain a cool temperature.
In Europe they would just put a fire inside, build an Igloo or find shelter in a cave.
“Do you know what the ice age was? Have you ever heard of this cold season called winter? Have you ever walked through the snow? What plants?”
People didn’t survive the ice age on the ice sheet, they retreated to milder refugia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum_refugia
They would eat the ancestors of today’s domesticated winter fruits and vegetables, and ask your native ex-girlfriend for more information about cold winter wild foods. Lots of intellectually limited herbivore species survive cold winters, homo erectus himself has lived in China for hundred thousands of years. There is nothing credible in the cold winter theory, that nobody actually takes seriously.
He’s much less stupid than your answer is. Have you ever been in one of these “crappy structures and primitive mud huts” ? I’ve slept one night in one of these huts during a rainy season in Cameroon, they are perfectly waterproof and are made from materials that maintain a cool temperature.
I didn’t say all the structures in Africa are crappy, I said that even the crappy structures are enough to survive. That was the difference. In Africa, good construction = comfort. In ice age Eurasia, good construction = survival, and passing on of the genes that allowed said construction.
In Europe they would just put a fire inside, build an Igloo or find shelter in a cave.
And in Africa, even those Africans that couldn’t make fire still survived
People didn’t survive the ice age on the ice sheet, they retreated to milder refugia
What mild refugia? In much of ice age Eurasia it’s freezing everywhere for as far as a human can walk. Where I am in Canada it’s freezing everywhere within at least a 1000 km radius. You and MeLo wouldn’t last 1 hour if I dropped you in the Canadian woods today.
They would eat the ancestors of today’s domesticated winter fruits and vegetables,
The supply of such fruits and vegetables was way too small to meet the intense caloric needs of our Eurasian ancestors.
homo erectus himself has lived in China for hundred thousands of years.
And what was the ice age winter temperature in that part of China? Do you know your facts? I think not. Further, Chinese H. erectus may have had fur.
There is nothing credible in the cold winter theory, that nobody actually takes seriously.
Nobody takes any of HBD seriously for political reasons, not for scientific ones.
According to this study
Click to access wild_food_important_ecosystem_service_394na5_en.pdf
there are 38 animals, 152 mushrooms and 592 plants that are gathered from the wild in Europe
34% of Finland’s (very very cold place) fruit consumption comes from the wild.
On erectus and temperaturei can’t find anything concrete except for this.
https://books.google.com/books?id=LfYirloa_rUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=homo+erectus+China+temperatures&source=bl&ots=ggv4iZY40R&sig=DKYSzb_UL9n4a2bMYVGqV7FOF6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVjbvJoZfRAhXLyoMKHQ-ADn04ChDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=homo%20erectus%20China%20temperatures&f=false
Erectus could make fire so he could survive in northern China when it was cold. Do you have figures on the temperature around the time in northern China?
I didn’t say all the structures in Africa are crappy, I said that even the crappy structures are enough to survive. That was the difference. In Africa, good construction = comfort. In ice age Eurasia, good construction = survival, and passing on of the genes that allowed said construction.”
Good structures are essential in Africa, they allow people to shelter themselves from the intense heat that would cause deadly hydration, shelter from rain that would provoke a thermal shock and destroy food reserves as well as some tools. They also protect from disease carrying insects and ferocious beasts.
“And in Africa, even those Africans that couldn’t make fire still survived”
In every African village I visited there was always a fire alive somewhere. Fire is important for lighting because days are short, for cooking (some foods they eat are toxic if consumed raw), and to keep dangerous animals away. People also burn their fields to make them more fertile, Native Americans did it as well and it predates agriculture. But fire was controlled by homo erectus, it’s use is not considered a sign of behavioral modernity. One life threatening challenge that Africans face is finding and managing water in their 6 month dry season, it has the power to select for intelligence because you can’t live one day in the African heat without drinking.
“What mild refugia? In much of ice age Eurasia it’s freezing everywhere for as far as a human can walk. Where I am in Canada it’s freezing everywhere within at least a 1000 km radius. You and MeLo wouldn’t last 1 hour if I dropped you in the Canadian woods today.”
Temperate dry steppes is the ecosystem of Ukraine, Southern Russia and the North American Prairie. Nothing really impressive.
And you wouldn’t survive in the Sahel, the Savanna or the Rainforest.
“The supply of such fruits and vegetables was way too small to meet the intense caloric needs of our Eurasian ancestors.”
See my post above.
“And what was the ice age winter temperature in that part of China? Do you know your facts? I think not. Further, Chinese H. erectus may have had fur.”
Homo erectus fossils have been found in regions of northern China where winter is usually cold. They are not found only in the regions of Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Early Eurasians and Neanderthals may have had fur too, it is unknown. But if they were descended from furry Africans, these Africans would have been even more selected for intelligence to survive drought and heat.
“Nobody takes any of HBD seriously for political reasons, not for scientific ones.”
HBDers hold on to HBD for ideological reasons, if they solely relied on science, HBD wouldn’t exist.
https://www.willacather.org/edible-wild-plants-prairie
Here is a book for you if you need to survive on your own in North Dakota.
“Don’t be stupid. People with crappy structures and primitive mud huts survive all the time in Africa. In Europe such people freeze to death.”
What are you talking about? Mud is a great insulator. It’s probably an incredible pain in the ass to acquire mud or clay when the ground is frozen solid. So what’s the next step? Obviously animal skins, it’s not a huge leap in logic.
“No that had nothing to do with it.”
Yes it did lmao. We have always had fallback food for when particular prey sources were sparse. Neanderthals ate a lot of fish and vegetation as well, but still not to the extent as us. When we moved into europe the climate change and increased competition probably caused a lot of bigger game to face extinction, when this happened the neanderthal’s primary food source was gone and they did not have the necessary expertise to fall back on smaller game and vegetation to the extent cro magnon could. If anything cro magnon’s time in africa gave it a lot of useful experience and variety in skill.
“Do you know what the ice age was? Have you ever heard of this cold season called winter? Have you ever walked through the snow? What plants?”
….Plants grow in winter even in an ice age you dipshit.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/how-plants-survived-the-ice-age/
Cro magnon would eat berries, acorns, roots, and just about anything that was available. They were mostly big game hunters but neanderthals were even bigger.
“Bullshit! And you keep missing the point: if you weren’t smart in ice age Europe you’d FREEZE TO DEATH. You must be from California or something, because you just don’t get it when it comes to cold climate.”
It’s not bullshit I’m sorry you don’t accept facts. Deserts have virtually no big game to hunt at all.
I’m not missing the point. You just don’t have one. If you weren’t smart in a desert you would die of heat stroke. Same logic you just used.
I was born in Massachusetts……
“It wasn’t the ONLY causation but it was a major one. There’s a POWERFUL negative correlation between a population’s IQ and the winter temperature during the last ice age.”
Ah, see now you’re the one missing the point. Cold climate does select for IQ but only because it’s resources are deficient . MEANING AN EQUALLY DEPRIVED ENVIRONMENT WILL SELECT FOR IQ TOO AN EXAMPLE BEING DESERTS.
Temperature is irrelevant. The reason the correlation is so powerful is because Neanderthals and denisovans also inhabited those regions. We slowly transitioned into europe and so did our tool’s complexity, we didn’t just abruptly appear there. We met neanderthals in the middle east a couple times but we didn’t really get up in their ass until we hit europe that’s when you suddenly started seeing an explosion of aruignacian tools and art. Of course the temperature affected resources and by extension causes the variation we see within eurasia itself
“Actual art didn’t appear at all until 39,000 years ago.”
You mean actual drawings. Music is considered art and neanderthals made flutes.
“It’s not a bad theory. Indeed many years ago I sent Rushton an email asking him if competition from Neanderthals could help explain the higher IQs of non-Africans.”
Did he reply anything meaningful?
“But the problem with your theory is that it ONLY explains the high IQ of Europeans. Cold climate theory is more parsimonious because it explains the correlation between IQ and ancestral climate among all human populations.”
Bahahahahahaha!! Now is probably a good time to tell you that EAST ASIANS have the most neanderthal dna! Cro magnon is the ancestor of BOTH east asians and europeans. Neanderthals habitat range was mostly in europe but cro magnon later split into two groups. Even then asia had denisovans who were asian versions of neanderthals. I’ve heard jews have even more but I can’t find the source
“Would you shut the fuck up about cooking already.”
Lmao he’s not wrong pumpkin. That’s the fucked part.
“And in Africa, even those Africans that couldn’t make fire still survived”
Fire has more uses then just keeping warm…. Like keeping away insects and cooking food, hell even as a light source.
“You and MeLo wouldn’t last 1 hour if I dropped you in the Canadian woods today.”
Speak for yourself, I hunter gather as a hobby, This weekend I’ll post picture of this primitive log cabin my buddy and with only a hand axe. It took us less than a day and it was near freezing, the work kept our bood flowing which allows us to stay warm. It’s pretty impressive I think and it’s held steady for about 2 or 3 years now. I live in Virginia at the border of WV I also live in the rockies, In fact it was 6 degrees Farenheit a week or two ago. Just digging in the snow can create a well insulated igloo type structure. Everytime it snows heavy my friend and I are out there doing that exact thing. Again cro magnon didn’t just pop up randomly in europe. They probably noticed that it was getting colder and colder the more they traveled.
“Now is probably a good time to tell you that EAST ASIANS have the most neanderthal dna!”
Twenty percent more due to a back migration.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/23/why-do-asians-have-twenty-percent-more-neandrathal-dna-than-europeans/
From that same article:
“But the two-pulse hypothesis also poses a puzzle of its own. If Neanderthals became extinct 40,000 years ago, they may have disappeared before Europeans and Asian populations genetically diverged. How could there have been Neanderthals left to interbreed with Asians a second time?”
This blogger thinks the divergence date between eurasians is wrong:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-was-split.html
Archaeological evidence supports her but I don’t know.
Good structures are essential in Africa, they allow people to shelter themselves from the intense heat that would cause deadly hydration, shelter from rain that would provoke a thermal shock and destroy food reserves as well as some tools. They also protect from disease carrying insects and ferocious beasts.
Modern humans survived just fine in Africa without good structures for over 100,000 years
Temperate dry steppes is the ecosystem of Ukraine, Southern Russia and the North American Prairie. Nothing really impressive.
Average winter temperature during the Wurm glaciation was -5 centigrade in Europe. If that was the average, there were many days a year where anyone without warm clothes and shelter would freeze to death.
And you wouldn’t survive in the Sahel, the Savanna or the Rainforest.
But whites were able to colonize black Africa. Black Africans never colonized Europe. The recent ancestors of whites were Africans, so they likely inherited the cognitive ability to survive in Africa.
“See my post above.
If it were feasible to survive on a plant diet, they would have done so. Instead the archeological record shows humans and Neanderthals relied almost exclusively on meat in prehistoric Europe
Homo erectus fossils have been found in regions of northern China where winter is usually cold. They are not found only in the regions of Shanghai and Hong Kong.
According to this source, H erectus could not survive in really cold climates like Northern Eurasia:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=qG2tPzkN6HUC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=homo+erectus+could+not+survive+cold&source=bl&ots=kzQR5zuqQC&sig=IObNuL0z58TR8TwD_sEZXqzPZMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixrdjjjpnRAhXF44MKHcL1ASYQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=homo%20erectus%20could%20not%20survive%20cold&f=false
HBDers hold on to HBD for ideological reasons, if they solely relied on science, HBD wouldn’t exist.
You have it backwards. It’s HBD denial that would not exist if science were the sole criterion.
“Modern humans survived just fine in Africa without good structures for over 100,000 years”
We don’t know how fine they lived in Africa but you can’t say the structures aren’t good. What we know hover is that that they became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa, not in cold regions.
“Average winter temperature during the Wurm glaciation was -5 centigrade in Europe. If that was the average, there were many days a year where anyone without warm clothes and shelter would freeze to death.”
Southern Russia and Ukraine have same winter temperature. Winter doesn’t take people by surprise, temperatures decrease gradually and people warm themselves up before the cold becomes deadly. The basics of clothing and sheltering were already present in Africa, this added to fire made it not particulary challenging for humans to survive in europe. When an environment is not livable, it is uninhabited, humans don’t develop intellectual faculties to live in deserts or on the seas. Then population density is a function of habitability. If there must be some selection for intelligence, it would rather be triggered by competition for the best environments.
“But whites were able to colonize black Africa. Black Africans never colonized Europe. The recent ancestors of whites were Africans, so they likely inherited the cognitive ability to survive in Africa.”
Europeans colonized Tropical Africa with Victorian technology not as hunter-gatherers. They had known Africa long before and couldn’t settle there like they did in North America and temperate regions of the southern hemisphere. The Arabs never settled either and European conquest relied on local allies and mercenaries, colonial powers never had large white troops conquering tropical regions of the old world. There is no place in the tropics where unmixed whites are a majority population, They survived better in Minnesota than in the Congo.
“If it were feasible to survive on a plant diet, they would have done so. Instead the archeological record shows humans and Neanderthals relied almost exclusively on meat in prehistoric Europe”
I’m not saying they were vegetarian, even Pygmies in the rainforest eat a substantial quantity of meat. But wild plants were able to contribute to the diet of these populations to a large degree and it is still the case for the 5 million inhabitants of current day Finland. Plus gathering plants in the wild for food and medication demands important learning skills, differentiation ability and so on, whereas hunting, although cognitively demanding must have been easier in Eurasia where there were large mammals that hadn’t evolve to be as wary of humans.
“According to this source, H erectus could not survive in really cold climates like Northern Eurasia:”
Northern Eurasia like Siberia, Northern China was in their reach although mean temperature in the coldest month is -3.7°C in Beijing.
“You have it backwards. It’s HBD denial that would not exist if science were the sole criterion.”
First, HBD would have no place in academia without the neo-nazi organisation that funds its pseudo-research, an organisation that was explicitly created to “prove that the Negro is inferior to the white man”. Secondly, there is no organized HBD contradiction, there is no anti-HBD pioneer fund and there is no specialist in any of the scientific fields that HBD reinterprets that validates its theories.
Crypto-zoology, neuro-linguistic programming, nootropical enhancement, security analysis charting, Peter’s Map World Geography, acupuncture, mindfulness, brainwashing/Bernays Methods, Manichean History, Holocaust Denial, chemical manipulation of the populous, The Eye of Zion, meme magic/Cult of Kek, aura sensitivity-limbic system enervation, Acid Trips, physiognomy studies, eugenics/breeding, quantum mechanics, weather manipulation, asset price cartels in gold/currency/rare minerals, radioactive mutations, extraterrestrial life, The Deep State, secret depraved government psychology experiments, elite paedophile rings, spiritualism, mantra/chakra chanting.
Some of these have elements of truth in them and we don’t have the means to measure how much so or ‘prove’ them at all beyond deduction.
Some of the others above are completely true.
While still others are true, but not for the logical reasons commonly associated with them.
Here’s a list of more pseudosciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Meme magic is so stupid. I can’t believe people believe that stuff.
Just read some Carrie Fisher quotes
Aging is more terrifying than death. Carrie was acutely aware of what aging does to a woman. I wish I were 18 again. Depressing.
That’s not to say that beauty is the most important thing in life; aging comes with some positives.
I feel like an old lady and I’m only 23! Why? Idk. I’ve always been an extremely nostalgic person. Being a “high-powered” lawyer isn’t as satisfying as just being 18 and without a care in the world. Maybe I’m the only one who feels that way.
I feel the same way. I wish I was 18 again. I still look 20 so I got that going for me.
Everyone wishes they could live childhood again, to some extent. Some people like Michael Jackson went too far.
I think if someone really really wanted to, they could put the best elements of childhood back into their lives – adventure, games, hobbies and so on. One of the problems most adults have is alienation and isolation when they grow up. When you were a kid you just walked out the door and joined in.
And obviously some people get caught up in bad relationships, debt and other issues as adults that’s hard to unwind.
Damn I would hate to be younger again, there is nothing better than being a free adult who enjoys life as he pleases.
Carrie said all those things because in Hollywood its very important to look hot. It never occurred to Carrie to get a job where that wasn’t as important. Lots of actresses don’t end up venally clinging to glory with botched surgery and bipolar reactions to not getting a role. Some of them go the whole hog and sleep with producers and directors to get roles.
She would have been best off taking the route of many actresses who enjoy it for what it is, and move on with some maturity to raise kids, go to school, or get another job.
I’m sick of actresses complaining about ageism – you were picked cos you were hot, not because you could act you dummy.
Hollywood is contracting in size immensely following digital piracy – ever notice why only kids movies, sequels, remakes and superhero moves are only being made? Budget is tight as a choirboys ass as Father Liam used to say
EDIT: Ah,she did go down the sleeping with agents route.
Bipolar is a tough thing to live with because it almost always leads to weird behaviour, dopey beliefs, drug abuse and sleeping around a lot with dodgy dudes.
Get yo meds. Get your bff gurlfwend to keep an eye on u. Get a stable low stimulus environment. Get a counsellor and DONT DO DRUGS.
And become religious.
BPD affects women a lot more than men.
Philosturbator’s first resort is always to go to his DSM V manual when it should be the LAST RESORT!
^^ why?
Because almost everyone could be diagnosed with a mental illness if psychiatrists don’t show some restraint. Is it plausible that everyone is mentally ill? Not to me. Psychiatrists and Big Pharma need to be tamed. They’re not our friends!
There are people here that I don’t mention any mental condition at all in relation to them.
It’s just more apparent when I mention it because I have an insight to see it. In the same way I correctly diagnosed you with bipolar from your eyes.
Pro Tip: Autism is not a mental illness.
Not bipolar, just emotionally “intense” and maybe unstable.
My ex dumped me because I’m too “emotionally needy”.
I’ve become a cynic too like Mugabe… Fuck everything.
And will you please unmoderate me unless you clarify the rules and show which comments have been moderated.
Your comments are now screened because of your bizarre personal tirade against me yesterday
Santo’s been dead a long while. He’s gone to the great talkshow in the sky.
Higher iq men tend to be less promiscuous as seen in studies. If higher iq men less promiscuous, that would mean that higher iq men are more likely to remain monogamous. If monogamy led to better survival, more high iq men would survive and result in more high iq alleles.
In cold ice age Europe meant monogamy mattered much more, which is why the high iq alleles increased. However, we see monogamous civilizations, whether cold or warm, consistently overtaking and replacing polygamous societies, so climate is only one factor.
“we see monogamous civilizations, whether cold or warm, consistently overtaking and replacing polygamous societies”
Do we?
Viking society was very polygamist but it was swallowed up by prudish European Catholicism. The Mongols were polygamist but they were swallowed up by Islam. To my knowledge, Islamic Arab culture may be the only exception and even then, Islamic culture is adapting western culture more than the other way around.
Afrosapiens has pointed out that it is “difficult to survive” in more environments than just cold ones.
Now the question would be does that select for intelligence? Of course.
But in terms of a body’s mass/surface area ratio, cold environments would select for a higher one. Hence larger/more spherical brains have a higher ratio and allow less heat to escape.
Afroosapiens has pointed out it’s difficult to survive in more environments than just cold ones. It raises the question of whether intelligence is selected for in such environments…of course it is.
But in terms of the Body mass/surface area ratio, cold areas lend themselves to lower ones (allowing less body heat to escape). Hence larger/more spherical brains developed in colder areas…just look at Neanderthals.
Pumpkin Person: So by about 39,000 years ago, the IQs of the proto-Caucasoids in Europe had finally reached the 80s, and they had discovered not only the art of drawing, but had the spatial ability to draw realistic forms despite having never been exposed to art, and by 38,000 years ago, were making impressive sculptures.
I read on your blog that aboriginals in Australia have IQ’s in the 60’s. Aboriginals developed art 30,000 years ago and Austria doesn’t have cold snowy winters like Europe. How is this explained? (no snowy winters, IQ’s in the 60’s, art 30,000 years ago)
http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-spread-of-people-to-australia
Archaeological evidence shows that modern humans had reached South-east Asia by 70,000 years ago and that they had spread to Australia by at least 50,000 years ago
http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-spread-of-people-to-australia
Ochre and mineral pigments
Mineral pigments, such as ochre, provide the oldest evidence for human arrival in Australia. Used pigments have been found in the earliest occupation levels of many sites, with some pieces dated at about 55,000 years old. This suggests that art was practiced from the beginning of colonisation. Natural pigments were probably used for a range of purposes including burials, cave painting, decoration of objects and body art. Such usage still occurs today.
Aboriginals developed art 30,000 years ago and Austria doesn’t have cold snowy winters like Europe. How is this explained? (no snowy winters, IQ’s in the 60’s, art 30,000 years ago)
Australian aboriginals have IQ scores in the 60s, but their GENETIC IQs might be as high as the low 80s. How did they evolve such high IQs if they lack cold winters and were so genetically isolated? I suspect just the ingenuity to get from Africa to Australia so quickly, strongly selected for high IQ.
“I suspect just the ingenuity to get from Africa to Australia so quickly, strongly selected for high IQ.”
So quickly ?
From the time humans left Africa 70k years ago to the time they arrive in Australia 48k years ago, there is 22k years.
The coastal migration route from Lake Victoria in East Africa to New South Wales through Bab-el-Mandeb, Arabia, Persia and the ancient Sundaland is 19,000km long. They only traveled 863 meters per year. Now imagine they were under pressure to move and spent 2 hours per day intentionally walking to Australia, with an average human walking speed of 5km/h, they would have reached New South Wales in 5 years but they took 4400 times longer…
In comparison, Italy was reached 45k years ago, but it’s only 6,000km away from the great lakes of East Africa, the same distance as most of West Africa. Humans progressed to Italy at a speed of 240m per year. That was much slower, let’s say the inter-generational space was 20 years, children would have been born only 4,8km away from their parent’s birthplace. That’s where your theories about adaptation to novel environments loses a lot of sense, no human was born in a totally foreign place during migrations, they might have progressed slower into some environments but we can’t say it selected for intelligence, not even curiosity since hunter-gatherers move randomly, following game and in search of new territories to harvest plants. If I were a pseudo-scientist like HBDers, I would say that those who moved at the slowest pace did so reluctantly because they were pushed farther away by more evolved competitors who took all resources.
Pumpkin you seem to be doing a lot of genetics/anthropology posts lately. Not a particularly riveting subject personally.
Any more IQ profiles in the pipeline?
What’s your blog traffic like by the way? It seems your blog isn’t a visited as it was about a year ago when I first came across it. Maybe there is just more lurkers.
I’ll return to the IQ profiles soon, but anthropology helps us look at the big picture
Blog traffic is way up from a year ago but certain commenters are not as prolific as they used to be
Well done. Keep it up.
Fidel Castro was pretty handsome IMO
There a conspiracy theory he is Justin Trudeau’s real father.
you’re great.
Phil, the time line makes sense. And Ted Cruz is from Canada too. Hmmm….
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/we-investigated-those-damning-rumours-about-fidel-castro-being-justin-trudeaus-real-dad
Haha, maybe its my para schiz side, but knowing women as well I do, I’m inclined to believe Margaret had feelings for Castro. She looks smitten with him in pics. But this article seems to debunk it based on the timeline.
Castro was alpha though. I know how women react to Alphas. Most people don’t believe my observations. In particular non-alpha men.
I’ve read his autobiography/memoir and he is a great man. A patriot. And a great leader for his people. A true believer in opposing the likes of…Allen Dulles.
Ted’s dad was a CIA operative from Cuba in Miami.
See Oswalt here.Oswalt was not the JFK assassin. H was another CIA guy though. Which explains the picture.
Read ‘The Devil’s Chessboard’.
Allen Dulles is the most significant figure of the 20th century. If you understand Allen Dulles, you will understand how the system works, what it exists for, the type of people that it benefits and how they control the public.
This time I’m not trolling.
Fidel and Trump can’t both be alpha. Trump is the opposite of Fidel. He’s greedy, ugly, insecure, unlikeable, and vulgar. Only a gold digger would find Trump attractive.
How do you think he has his wife now? People think she’s attractive. That’s hilarious. She’s full of tons of surgery. How is that attractive? People call Trump alpha because of how he acts, but that’s the thing, that’s all it is: an act. Look at his stupid reality TV shows.
You’re right RR. Melania is a gold digger.
How is his behavior alpha? Because he grabs women by the pussy? Maybe Philosopher should explain. Is rape alpha?
Alpha is essentially a natural leader of men. Trump is a natural leader of men as is Castro.
Trump is not a natural leader. He’s just a good talker. And not even that, only proles with below average IQ’s bought into him.
Trump is a horrible speaker. How is he good? “I know a guy…. The people…. My friends…… This and that about mysterious people…..” Who the hell cares? People only think he’s a ‘good speaker’ because he’s ‘anti-PC’. But he only does that to get ‘support’, he won’t actually do what he says.
And he claims to be ‘draining the swamp’, yet he’s just adding more globalists to the ‘swamp’. Former ‘Goldman Sachs veteran’ Steve Mnuchin as the Treasury head? Great job. Israel and Bibi aren’t even worried about Steve Bannon either.
Trump played everyone, just like Obama did in 2008 and again in 2012. When will people get that none of these guys who ‘get elected’ are truly for us.
Think about it. Trump was backed by them, they put him up against Hillary. They leak stuff about Hillary to the public and then everyone runs with it hating her for over a year. Support ‘goes to Trump’ just as expected, and then he ‘wins’, just like they ‘wanted’. He then goes on with what they want to do. It was just an illusion of choice, and people don’t understand that. Whoever wins was chosen, we didn’t ‘choose’ him.
3D Chess
You must of missed the part where I said “and not even that”
PP
Don’t you think there are way more people who score a 1400 on the SAT than would be predicted by a normal IQ distribution ?
There is no way that the SAT is an IQ test .
I think the the SAT=IQ belief comes under the category of the emperor has no cloths.
The distribution is normal enough, but that doesn’t prove or disprove it’s an IQ test.
I use it as a rough proxy for IQ only because it’s often the only data I have to work with, but it’s not as good as official IQ tests.
pp
If you sat the SAT what do you think you would get ?
Probably an IQ equivalent of 120 on the verbal and 150 on the math
PP, why do you think Australoids have an higher genetic IQ than Congoids ?
In general humans that migrated from africa have higher IQs all round. This is because it takes different types of intelligence to survive in sparsely populated and foreboding terrains.
Following this, I would expect Madagascar Congoids to have a slightly higher genetic IQ.
PP, why do you think Australoids have an higher genetic IQ than Congoids ?
I think prior to the Neolithic revolution, australoids were smarter but after the Neolithic revolution, congoids caught up
He only believes that because he was shown Aboriginal rock art. Now let’ wait for his new theory when he googles “African rock art”.
https://www.google.fr/search?q=african+rock+art&espv=2&biw=1422&bih=771&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgxayj6JnRAhWC6xoKHSO9AdYQ_AUIBigB
In fact, he made up his theory because he decided that the upper paleolithic revolution and behavioral modernity happened only in Europe whereas the rest of the world would have been stuck in the middle paleolithic until a date he didn’t bother to share with us.
But since he decided to phrase his title as a question, the answer will be quite straightforward.
“Is the upper paleolithic revolution just another example of cold winters causing high IQ?”
No, humans colonized Europe with African-developed upper paleolithic technology. Plus, you can’t talk about another example when no other example exists.
I’m aware of African rock art but it took them much longer to reach that level of cultural development than Europeans did.
My approach was objective: I looked at a list of all the oldest art in the World created by people with no interest in HBD, and it just happened to show the upper paleolithic revolution happening exclusively in Europe. Prior to seeing that list I had believed it occurred in East Africa and then spread to Europe as leading scholar Richard G Klein believes (I even wrote a post about a brain mutation in East Africa 70,000 years ago)
But of course art is only one measure of behavioral modernity so perhaps Klein’s theory is still correct.
Yes youre right “art is only one measure of behavioral modernity”….the ability to halve and double is another.
“My approach was objective:”
Not really, first you created a difference between art and non-art. Whereas art is not judged by how impressive, realistic or complex it is but by the simple process of creating symbols and decorations without real survival value. Then, you acknowledge it, the upper paleolithic revolution is not restricted to art, it is a comprehensive set of technologies and new forms of social organization. Thirdly, you ignored that research has been more intensive and that the climate and geography of Europe allows far more preservation of ancient art, there are very few caves in the tropics and much more degradation due to climate.
There is a general consensus that all people on earth have advanced to the upper paleolithic, only the Aborigines, Bushmen, Inuits and some Indigenous Americans didn’t advance to the next step. What has been debated is whether populations independently transitioned to the upper paleolithic technology after they colonized various parts of Africa and the world or if they were all descended from the same upper paleolithic population, the latter hypothesis is more accepted now that some findings have revealed evidences of behavioral modernity appearing earlier than thought.
Not really, first you created a difference between art and non-art. Whereas art is not judged by how impressive, realistic or complex it is but by the simple process of creating symbols and decorations without real survival value.
I created this distinction to try to understand what anthropologists are talking about by the upper paleolithic revolution, because clearly art, if generously defined, predated the upper paleolithic, so I assume the REVOLUTION they describe refers to recognizable art.
Then, you acknowledge it, the upper paleolithic revolution is not restricted to art, it is a comprehensive set of technologies and new forms of social organization.
Yes, but art was the most striking difference. As Richard G Klein says, art indicates a truly modern human mind.
Thirdly, you ignored that research has been more intensive and that the climate and geography of Europe allows far more preservation of ancient art, there are very few caves in the tropics and much more degradation due to climate.
Even if that’s true, it’s negated by the fact that you’re far MORE likely to be find art in the tropics because there were far more people there.
There is a general consensus that all people on earth have advanced to the upper paleolithic, only the Aborigines, Bushmen, Inuits and some Indigenous Americans didn’t advance to the next step.
You’re confused. The indigenous Americans independently created agriculture, and there was major civilization in the Americas. They certainly advanced to the next step
All humans advanced to the level of art Europeans were doing 38,000 years ago, but Europeans appeared to have got their first.
As posted above (re: border cave etc.)
Fewer clear cases of figurative art may be known from Africa from arround that period (at least in part) because much more archaeological research has been done in Europe than in Africa—it seems likely that they existed considering the general technical/likely cultural level of many African Sapiens groups at the time, but not necessarily in places or locations conducive to preservation (but new discoveries continue to be made and hopefully will provide more information/fill out the picture ).
In addition, deep caves systems like those that preserved many of the art works of Europe are less common in Africa and much of Asia than in Europe—though for instance figurative rock paintings of animals are known from Apollo 11 cave S. Africa dating to 27,000 bc, and synthesised paints (as well as pigments/ochre crayons from the general period in Africa) are now known from 100,000 bc S. Africa at Blombos where it is likely that painting occured (second link).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3421194/
http://www.livescience.com/16538-oldest-human-paint-studio.html
“You’re confused. The indigenous Americans independently created agriculture, and there was major civilization in the Americas. They certainly advanced to the next step”
Some indigenous Americans had agriculture and some did not. Maize spread from southern Mexico south to the Northern part of South America and Central America and north futher north in cental America, to the American southwest, south east and parts of the north east. Most of the plains and much of the great lakes region, and the great basin, plateau, North West coast, California, subarctic, etc, never had agriculture.
http://www.snowwowl.com/mapcontents.html
“I created this distinction to try to understand what anthropologists are talking about by the upper paleolithic revolution”
A simple search on wikipedia would have spared a lot of time and questionning, if you wanted to know what this revolution was, you’d have found it with the link below. And I think you’re confused, the upper paleolithic is the revolution by itself, there is no revolution within the upper paleolithic. Likewise, we talk about the neolithic revolution because the neolithic is the revolution by itself, there is no revolution within the neolithic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic#Lifestyle_and_technology
“Even if that’s true, it’s negated by the fact that you’re far MORE likely to be find art in the tropics because there were far more people there.”
No, you find even more ancient fossils in temperate regions than in tropical Africa. Even African rock art has been more preserved in the Sahara and south Africa. In West Africa, where the different climates aretypically tropical, you find no records of human presence before 12,000 BC. It’s clear that you don’t know what tropical conditions are like.
“You’re confused. The indigenous Americans independently created agriculture, and there was major civilization in the Americas. They certainly advanced to the next step”
You’re talking of Mesoamerica and the Andine Altiplano, the natives of your country were still in the paleolithic.
“All humans advanced to the level of art Europeans were doing 38,000 years ago, but Europeans appeared to have got their first.”
No, upper paleolithic technology is found in all populations well before.
A simple search on wikipedia would have spared a lot of time and questionning, if you wanted to know what this revolution was, you’d have found it with the link below.
That link’s pretty good actually.
And I think you’re confused, the upper paleolithic is the revolution by itself, there is no revolution within the upper paleolithic.
My understanding from the work of Richard G Klein was that there was a dramatic change in behavior that occurred around 50,000 years ago.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/29/behavioral-modernity/
I can see a dramatic shift occurring in art, before and after this date, but that shift appears to have started in Europe (as far as we know), and yet Klein describes the shift as originating in Africa, and being the cause of the out of Africa exodus itself.
However the Wikipedia link you cite talks much more about stone tools, so perhaps even in Africa, there was a radical improvement in technology 50,000 years ago. I’m not sure what to think because Klein talks with such certainty about a radical change in culture occurring 50,000 years ago, and others like MeLo keep giving me links of behavioral modernity being twice as old.
“Even if that’s true, it’s negated by the fact that you’re far MORE likely to be find art in the tropics because there were far more people there.”
No, you find even more ancient fossils in temperate regions than in tropical Africa. Even African rock art has been more preserved in the Sahara and south Africa. In West Africa, where the different climates aretypically tropical, you find no records of human presence before 12,000 BC. It’s clear that you don’t know what tropical conditions are like.
No I get there was worse preservation but I’d expect this to be negated by the greater volume of art produced by a bigger population, assuming they were actually making art. By your argument how do we know African erectus wasn’t making art or H habilis
You’re talking of Mesoamerica and the Andine Altiplano, the natives of your country were still in the paleolithic.
If that’s all you meant, I agree
No, upper paleolithic technology is found in all populations well before.
It depends how you define upper paleolithic technology. There seems to be a disagreement in the field about when behavioral modernity emerged.
“yet Klein describes the shift as originating in Africa, and being the cause of the out of Africa exodus itself.”
PP, if you’re looking for a change to cause migration, look no further than the DDR4 and 7 alleles. They are highest in populations the further you go from Africa and almost nonexistent in Africa. That’s the change you’re looking for, in my opinion.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2015/12/02/genetic-reasons-for-human-migration/
A correlation of .85 was found with km traveled and rate of DRD4 allele frequency distributions, which support the hypothesis. Nomadic populations had a 10.4 percent higher rate of DRD4 long alleles than sedentary ones.
Hmm….
And can you clarify what you mean by behavioral modernity? Because a lot of “modern behaviors” have their origins in Africa and are millions of years old.
RR, this post goes into great depth:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/29/behavioral-modernity/
I remember that post. Didn’t get a chance to watch the video yet though. Anthropologists can talk about nongenetic things, but biological anthropologists can look at alleles of people who migrated the furthest from Africa and then correlate the distance traveled with the allele. I believe that’s the missing piece of the equation that you’re looking for.
If it means anything to you, the alleles I talked about are correlated with ADD and ADHD, which makes people restless. I believe you should look into that. It’s more aptly named “wanderlust”.
wanderlust may explain why people wanted to leave Africa, but it doesn’t explain the behavioral modernity that klein says gave them the skills to leave Africa.
“My understanding from the work of Richard G Klein was that there was a dramatic change in behavior that occurred around 50,000 years ago.”
I don’t know if specialists use behavioral modernity and upper paleolithic interchangeably. I think that one must be cautious when using dates, they are rough estimates. What they call abrupt changes might have actually taken place within several tens of thousand years, which is abrupt at the scale of evolution. So it might fit in a cultural evolution model just as well as in a genetic one.
“No I get there was worse preservation but I’d expect this to be negated by the greater volume of art produced by a bigger population”
Quickly after the OOA migration, the main centers of human population became India and the middle east, probably due to their more temperate climate. Yet, few artifacts were found there, the evidence is only genetic, and that same genetic evidence suggests that Europe’s population surpassed that of East Africa a few thousand years after.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/2/468.short
I had another more detailed link but I’ll let you find it on google scholar.
“By your argument how do we know African erectus wasn’t making art or H habilis”
Because he wasn’t making art in Eurasia either. Now there is one thing that must definitively get to your brain, it is that Africans were making art, you might not find it worthy of that qualification but specialist think it is. Moreover, you seem stuck with the idea that only the art you find admirable is a sign of upper paleolithic transition.
“It depends how you define upper paleolithic technology. There seems to be a disagreement in the field about when behavioral modernity emerged.”
The most commonly cited characteristics of that period are
-Tool sophistication
-Diversification of tool making materials
-Diversification of survival strategies
But I easily understand that you are uncomfortable with the idea that a mutation leading to improved technology could have been selected in Africa when no such thing is noticed by the time of the last glacial maximum 25,000 years ago.
You are not honest PP.
But I easily understand that you are uncomfortable with the idea that a mutation leading to improved technology could have been selected in Africa when no such thing is noticed by the time of the last glacial maximum 25,000 years ago.
No I’m fine with it, in fact I was arguing in favour of Klein’s mutation theory until recently.
I’ve never argued that climate was the ONLY factor that favoured the evolution of intelligence. I agree with Lynn that population size increases the odds of rare new mutants and 50,000 years ago, the greatest population of humans and near-humans were in Africa.
You are not honest PP.
Please no personal attacks.
“wanderlust may explain why people wanted to leave Africa”
They didn’t want to leave Africa, they had no maps, they were just between the sky and the ground, encircled by the horizon. Moreover, they went to Arabia through a landbridge, at the current location of Bab-el-Mandeb, so they were not even leaving a continent.
And the pace of colonization was so slow, they weren’t trekkers, only hunter gatherers whose lifestyle is mobile by nature.
RR,
I rather think a wanderlust allele would have been selected against in sedentary populations and regions that had higher densities for a longer time before sedentarization. Because having an inclination to leave the place where you get your survival resources from threatens your survival, whereas going to an empty land or living a nomadic life doesn’t make your survival dependent on a given place.
“And the pace of colonization was so slow, they weren’t trekkers, only hunter gatherers whose lifestyle is mobile by nature.”
Right. But the DDR 4 and 7 alleles correlate with distance from Africa. I know that correlation isn’t causation, but it POINTS to a causation.
It’s posited that the ‘restlessness’ from these variants caused the migration OoA. Here’s the source for my previous claim. Can’t find a pdf though, libgen doesn’t have it.
Population Migration and the Variation of Dopamine D4 Receptor (DRD4) Allele Frequencies Around the Globe
I perfectly understand that the causation would make sense, but selection against an allele that lowers people’s ability to stick to a place makes sense in a crowded environment. And the allele has higher frequency in places that reached their maximum carrying capacity later.
Maybe I can clear it up a little.
Behaviroal modernity =/= upper paleolithic.
The confusion comes from the fact that the upper paleolithic is when modernity became common but that was before a lot of artifacts were found in south africa
Austaralians and africans did produce upper paleolithic technology but it was still not on the level of complexity or frequency that eurasians displayed.
“I’ve never argued that climate was the ONLY factor that favoured the evolution of intelligence”
Can you please show me an instance of climate provoking a technological revolution in the magnitude of the upper paleolithic and the neolithic ? Do you realize that people moved from East Africa to Italy at a speed of 240m per year ? It means that someone living 40 years would have died 9.6km away from their birthplace. Going to a place where the climate, vegetation and wildlife are radically different from what we know requires moving thousands of kilometers, paleolithic humans took centuries to achieve that.
“I agree with Lynn that population size increases the odds of rare new mutants and 50,000 years ago, the greatest population of humans and near-humans were in Africa.”
That’s not only Lynn who says that, it’s a basis of evolutionary genetics. But at the same time, larger population favors cultural and technological progress even more efficiently than genetics. What can observe however is that all human populations, except those of Americas (due to a very tight bottleneck removing a lot of diversity), were large enough to adapt their phenotype to their environment, so if genes that could cause natural selection for IQ existed, IQs would follow racial lines.
“The confusion comes from the fact that the upper paleolithic is when modernity became common but that was before a lot of artifacts were found in south africa”
I think you meant after discoveries in South Africa
“Austaralians and africans did produce upper paleolithic technology but it was still not on the level of complexity or frequency that eurasians displayed.”
Reference please ?
“I think you meant after discoveries in South Africa”
No….
“Reference please ?”
If you’re looking for a particular study then no. It’s evident from many observations
one example is that Australian aborigines did not invent the woomera til thousands of years after the european atl. and the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_fibrecraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Technology
As you can see The indigenous australians had a great diversity of technology but it’s actual complexity was still inferior to cro magnon. I’m open to the possibility that there resources were perhaps too limited to parallel the efficiency of the aurignacian culture but the only real innovations they have is some water crafts and the boomerang.
Pumpkinperson whats the relevance of saying negroes were around 200 000 years ago when their IQ wasnt upper paleolithic yet. And if the difference between UP negroes and those 200 000 years ago is larger than that between the present day races that means that the genes for intelligence possesed by the 200000 negroes are not the same as those present…SO in a forum on IQ what relevance does the “fact” that negroes have been around since 200000 years ago have here?
Oh and you DO realise that what you can tell from mitochondrial DNA is what mitochondrial eve’s MITOCHONDRIA looked like. And not what race she was or what she looked like. That would need The cellular dna.
I believe 200,000 years ago, all Negroid tribes had the genetic IQs of todays Negroid hunter/gatherers (pygmies and bushmen), which I tentatively estimate to be 72. However during the Neolithic revolution, I believe there was a genetic mutation that occurred in the Middle east that raised the IQs of all non-isolated humans by at least 10 points, including most Negroid tribes, bringing them from 72 to a genetic IQ of 85.
This would explain both mainstream Negroids today score 13 points higher than Bushmen/pygmies, and also why mainstream East Asians score 13 points higher than Arctic people.
All this talk of IQ does it refference the flynn affect? Do you know that because of it blacks have higher IQ’s than whites had in in white america in the 60’s and so should be able to reproduce all their mathematics and science…..theres more youre not seeing…sorry if i’m off topic
Where are the innovations from black Americans today on the level of Europeans 70 years ago? Blacks and whites with the same IQs still differ a lot.
Even then, the gap has stayed the same since then, proving a genetic component in the black white IQ gap. Even if it’s not as large as we hereditarians believe it to be, there is evidence right there that there is a genetic component to the gap since it’s stayed the same in the past 70 years.
quote
====
Where are the innovations from black Americans today on the level of Europeans 70 years ago? Blacks and whites with the same IQs still differ a lot.
====
thats my point exactly…what is it we are measuring if it doesnt reffer to ability to make those innovations. we are all missing something.
“Where are the innovations from black Americans today on the level of Europeans 70 years ago? Blacks and whites with the same IQs still differ a lot.”
There is one thing you forget, African Americans are 40 millions now, whites were around one billion then. Though blacks are not completely absent from the innovation process, they have need to create separate innovations since they are included in a larger inovative society.
“Even if it’s not as large as we hereditarians believe it to be, there is evidence right there that there is a genetic component to the gap since it’s stayed the same in the past 70 years.”
No, it might just indicate that the environmental gap has remained the same.
flushton looted the pioneer fund.
Mug of Pee, please change your name to something less libelous and please return to posting under the Mugabe avatar
PP are you saying the difference of 13 IQ points made all the difference between lower and upper paleolithic culture?
no you didnt say that ….you say the 13 points only came at agriculture….what changed then between lower P negroes and upper P negroes?
at the point of the MASSIVE gene mutation what happened to the IQ of blacks when compared to previous blacks and by how much?
no you didnt say that ….you say the 13 points only came at agriculture….what changed then between lower P negroes and upper P negroes?
I think the average genetic IQ in Africa stayed around 72 from 200,000 years ago until the Neolithic revolution where it increased to 85 (except in bushmen and pygmies who were too isolated to access the new mutation from the middle east). This why the upper paleolithic revolution was not much of a revolution in Africa, rather just a gradual accumulation of knowledge.
But in non-Africans, there was selection for higher IQ, so the European upper-paleolithic revolution was much more revolutionary
I could be wrong though. I need to do more research.
And how do you scale the IQ’s that you mention given whites had an IQ of 72 at around 1800 due to the flynn effect
And how do you scale the IQ’s that you mention given whites had an IQ of 72 at around 1800 due to the flynn effect
White Victorians only had an IQ of 70 on culture biased tests like the Raven. On a culture reduced test they might have scored as high as 90, and of course their genetic IQ was at least 100.
“…until the Neolithic revolution where it increased to 85 (except in bushmen and pygmies who were too isolated to access the new mutation from the middle east).”
It is generally thought (e.g. by archaeologists and ethno-linguists) that independent plant domestication likely occurred in (some parts of ) Africa and there is not currently evidence of Middle Eastern influence in that regard. The domestication of the indigenous African yam and oil palm is attributed to the West African forest region, and another domestication event to/in the West African savannah region (around Mali/Senegal) of indigenous African rice (oryza glaberimma), millet and sorghum—around the mid neolithic. The agriculture of the East African horn and Northeast Africa however (distinct from the west) likely does have Middle Eastern origins and/or inspirations.
Middle Eastern ancestry is negligible to non-existant in most West and Central African (and many inner East African e.g nilo-Saharan) groups.
Edit: “, millet and sorghum—though exact dates are debated, full agriculture likely evolving locally in some places from the proto-cultivation of settled hunter gatherers/early proto agriculturists”
West Africans independently domesticated their local crops and they brought themm to the rest of SSA with the Bantu migration. Near-Eastern influence is impossible because the Sahara couldn’t be crossed before the domestication of the Camel. And like you say it well, there are no genetic, linguistic, cultural or archaeological signs of populations moving from North Africa to West Africa by the time of the West African neolithic. Things are different in the Horn of Africa where there are large Semitic speaking populations that originated from Yemen.
West Africans independently domesticated their local crops and they brought themm to the rest of SSA with the Bantu migration
According to Michael Hart, agriculture was never independently invented in sub-Saharan Africa.
Who’s Michael Hart ?
He has a wikipedia page that says
Hart published in 1975 a detailed examination of the Fermi paradox,[2] which has since become a theoretical reference point for much of the research into what is now sometimes known as the Fermi-Hart paradox.[3] Concerning Hart’s contributions to the study of the paradox, Geoffrey A. Landis writes: “A more proper name for [the paradox] would be the Fermi-Hart paradox, since while Fermi is credited with first asking the question, Hart was the first to do a rigorous analysis showing that the problem is not trivial, and also the first to publish his results”.[4] Robert H. Gray argues that the term Fermi paradox is a misnomer; he argues that it is not the work of Fermi, nor is it an actual paradox (rather an argument).[5] He views Hart as the proper originator of this argument, in his 1975 paper. Gray therefore proposes, that instead of the (standard, but in his view incorrect) name Fermi paradox, it should be known as the Hart-Tipler argument–acknowledging Hart’s priority as the argument’s originator, but also acknowledging Frank J. Tipler’s substantial extension of Hart’s arguments in his 1980 paper Extraterrestrial intelligent beings do not exist.[6]
Hart is an advocate of the Rare Earth hypothesis; he proposed a very narrow habitable zone based on climate studies. He advocated for this hypothesis in the influential book which he co-edited, “Extraterrestrials: Where are They”,[7] in particular in the chapter he contributed to it “Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe”.[7]:215–225
In 1996, Hart addressed a conference organized by Jared Taylor’s white separatist organization, New Century Foundation, publisher of American Renaissance. He proposed partitioning the United States into four states: a white state, a black state, a Hispanic state, and an integrated mixed-race state.[1]
At the 2006 American Renaissance conference, Hart, who is Jewish, had a public confrontation with David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and former Louisiana state representative, over Duke’s antisemitic remarks. Accounts of the conference say that Hart stood up, called Duke a Nazi (with expletive) and stormed out.[12][13]
Hart organized a conference held in Baltimore in 2009 with the title, Preserving Western Civilization. It was billed as addressing the need to defend “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity” from immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans. Invited speakers included: Lawrence Auster, Peter Brimelow, Steven Farron, Julia Gorin, Lino A. Graglia, Henry C. Harpending, Roger D. McGrath, Pat Richardson, J. Philippe Rushton, Srdja Trifković, and Brenda Walker.
….
What a serious reference…
There is no debate that the traditional crops of west Africa are domesticated forms of their local wild ancestors and that no magic semite went to teach Africans how to grow their local foods and then magically disappeared.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#Agriculture_in_Africa
PP
Which 100 point IQ do the victorians have genetically?….the one whites display NOW or the one they will displaw 30 years from now? …your not getting it
The one they display now. In other words, if we cloned white Victorians and raised them today, they would score at least as high as other whites today.
so if victorians were displaying an iq simmilar to the iq that blacks are displaying now…..why arent they both displaying simmilar innovation and acheivements?
They had similar IQs on culturally biased tests. Such tests can not be used to compare people in different cultures.
Hi race realist
This quote from PP shows exactly what i mean by the influence of the invention of fire on intelligence.
====
The one they display now. In other words, if we cloned white Victorians and raised them today, they would score at least as high as other whites today.
===
this was in reponse to the question which 100 points will the victorians score on an IQ test. Because every generation has a different 100 because of the flynn effect. So the flynn effect is a function of environment, i.e. the victorians score on iq tests is lower than present day whites because of the environment (particularly diet) they live in. But because their genes are the same as those of modern day whites, were they to be time traveled to present day and raised under modern conditions they would core the same on tests.
what does this mean? It means an approximately 20 point IQ difference change happened after diet was improved, but the change in diet did not change the genes of whites before and after 1700.
simmilarly the iq change that fire brought about was just maximising the potential of the genes that were ALREADY there.NOT to change them. Just like how the victorians genes were not changed in modern people but their potential was reached because the diet was more complete.
And to PP
What do think of ,that the cause of the flynn effect is t the Iodine fortification of foods tha happened recently.
And are you aware of the denosivans? I’ve never heard you say anything about them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan
Of course I’m aware of the Denisovans, but very little is known about them. The specific nutritional causes of the Flynn effect are mysterious, but Richard Lynn has made a persuasive case that whatever nutrients/disease reductions that has made folks grow taller and bigger brained over the 20th century has likely also improved biological intelligence to some degree.
“But because their genes are the same as those of modern day whites, were they to be time traveled to present day and raised under modern conditions they would core the same on tests.”
I don’t really know too much about Galtons methods in testing reaction time (PP?). I’ve not looked deeply into this though. I’ll get on it tomorrow. I won’t discount it, and I do believe that neanderthals had the potential to be as intelligent as we were.
I don’t even think I’ve ever talked about Victorians and IQ.
And by the way, you mean Victorians only. I’m a stickler on only using studies for the cohort it was on and not generalizing it to other populations. So you can’t say “all whites” and you’d only be comparing Victorians and their modern day equivalent.
“simmilarly the iq change that fire brought about was just maximising the potential of the genes that were ALREADY there.NOT to change them. Just like how the victorians genes were not changed in modern people but their potential was reached because the diet was more complete.”
My friend, fire did much, much more than maximize potential that was “already there”. Fire started with erectus, was that potential “,already there”? If you were saying this about neanderthals or Heidelbergensis, I’d agree with you.
Erectus was the first to control fire. That was what the neuronal count which eventually” capped” at 86 billion neurons. Neanderthals and Heidelbergensis had a similar amount of neurons as we do, which *implies* that they had the *potential* to be as intelligent as we were.
“potential was reached because the diet was more complete.”
You don’t need to tell me about the effects of diet on brain development.
And its funny that you think that diet has no effect on genes.
Didn’t we converse about that last point a few months ago?
Fire—and by extension cooking—makes us human.
You have the horse before the cart RR
I cant beleive i’m debating that intelligence produces inventions rather than inventions produce intelligence??????
Homo erectus evolved from a more primitive ape who had a smaller neuron count and this increase till erectus did not happen while there was fire…so whatever caused this increase was still occuring at the time of the invention of fire and continued to act even after hence the increae in neuron count.
And the nearnderthals did not have the potential we had because they had a far smaller frontal lobe size than smaller brained modern humans. Frontal lobes are the problem solvers of the brain , the seat of abstract reasoning, that is why elephants with bigger brains than us as well as dolphins who are closer cannot compete.
Lets start slowly, the brain is made of protein mostly. Genes code for this protein, The DNA produces smaller strands of mRNA (i know you know this already but bear with me ) that have a sequence of genetic bases. Each base is associated with a particular amino acid. So say there is 1 mRNA (for simplicity) that codes for all the protein in the brain. The Process goes like this.
1. the DNA produces this mRNA which has code for a protein sequence with 6 proteins.
2. The mRNA gets the proteins from the intracellular space (which came from the diet(food))
3. The mRNA collects goups of these 6 proteins and joins them to form different peptides that collect to form the brain.
Say there is a shortage of nutrients for the mRNA to join together. Say there is 12 amino acids. That means the mRNA will ultimately produce a brain with 2 protein strands.Two groups of 6 amino acids.
say the subject eats a bit more and there are 24 amino acids available? Now we have a brain with 4 strandsof protein. A bigger brain! 2X as big! but was the DNA affected or changed in any way? Nay the protein (nutrients) did not even interact with the DNA. IT only interacted with mRNA. And even then it did not change the mRNA.
so if the brain produces 1 mRNA for the brain (like we said for simplicity) then the more protein we feed it the more strands of protein it makes and the bigger the brain. But the DNA is unchanged. Which means if we cloned the people (same DNA producing 1mRNA) who ate 12 proteins, and brought them to a time when (because of fire) 24 proteins were available, they would produce the same bigger size brain as every other post fire person i.e. 4 strands of protein as opposed to 2. That is the change fire made. Those before fire would hve the same capacity to have the same brain size as those after if those after did not evolve further for other reasons.Its like wearing shoes to make you taller. After the invention of shoes the average reach of humanity went up but if we cloned those before that invenntion and brought them to now and they put on the same shoes..their reach would be just as high.
“so whatever caused this increase was still occuring at the time of the invention of fire and continued to act even after hence the increae in neuron count.”
Bipedalism and tool use.
‘And the nearnderthals did not have the potential we had because they had a far smaller frontal lobe size than smaller brained modern humans. Frontal lobes are the problem solvers of the brain , the seat of abstract reasoning, that is why elephants with bigger brains than us as well as dolphins who are closer cannot compete.”
Based on estimates neuronal amount is why I say this. Not saying anything concrete, just speculating.
I don’t need the lecture. You know that ten percent of the dry weight of the brain is made up of n-3 right? Neuronal amount began increasing due to our environment that was rich in n-3.
Buddy the point is, a plant-based diet cannot support a brain our size. We would need to eat for over 9.3 hours to amass enough sustenance to power our neurons. As it is now we need 519 kcal to power our brains, 1 cup of sugar. Cooking broke down the cell. Walls of the food and was pretty much pre digestion outside of the body (I’m using the term ‘cooking’ loosely), like using fire and mashing good to extract more nutrients for the brain.
“Those before fire would hve the same capacity to have the same brain size as those after if those after did not evolve further for other reasons.”
Ergaster had the same capacity as erectus? I strongly doubt it. Bigger brains evolved due to bipedalism, tool use, fire and cooking. Do you think that if gorillas somehow started to magically cool their food they’d be human in 2 million years? Diet imposes energy restrictions on what gets done with what energy is consumed. Shitty plant diet? You won’t grow a big brain. High kcal meat diet with surplus? You’ll grow a big brain.
“but if we cloned those before that invenntion and brought them to now and they put on the same shoes”
Disease aside…
We would not be here without fire. Without cooking meat we’d just be other apes living in Africa. That’s what makes us special. Cooking.
“so whatever caused this increase was still occurring at the time of the invention of fire and continued to act even after hence the increase in neuron count.”
Bipedal ism and tool use.
Buddy i cant help you….Tool use is a product of intelligence not tool use makes you intelligent.
Tools were invented to meet a need.
Tools created an equilibrium between needs and solutions, Something else had to break this equilibrium and cause further progress, tools maintained the equilibrium.
=============
Say you are hungry (need food)
so you do something about it (eat food)
will you look for more food and eat it right then afterward?what for?
==========================
say you need hunting tools
so you do something about it (invent the tools to hunt)
will you invent more tools when the problem is solved?What for?
==========================
If you do not understand this i’m sorry…
“Buddy i cant help you….Tool use is a product of intelligence not tool use makes you intelligent.”
Friend, we began getting more neurons once we came out of the trees and had a wider variety of food to eat. As we became bipedal, our brains (neuron count) got larger. Along with that came tool sophistication. Then eventually erectus controlled fire and that was the CAUSE of the increase in brain size for the past 1.8 my.
You’re really implying that tool use couldn’t have icreased protein intake which further led to more energy intake and a bigger brain? ….I see….
“If you do not understand this i’m sorry…”
I understand it. I’m hyst telling you how tool use led to better nutrition which gave us a boost in stature and size.
If you do not understand this I’m sorry…
RR
If you had read the Lecture you would have GOT me.
This is it in boiled down terms.
you have 5 workers that are building a house.
The more raw materials you give them the bigger the house can get , but you STILL have 5 workers, despite this increase in raw materials.
the workers are the genes, the raw materials represent nutrients.
if you UP the nutrients THATS where the extra size is going to come from , NOT because there are more workers (genes)
The genes just have more to work with, though themselves are not changed, just like the number of workers did not go up in order for there to be a bigger house.
INFACT
now that there are more raw materials the company can afford to layoff 1 worker because the extra raw materials mean that we are more likely to build the house.
So, if you add more nutrients the genes dont have to code so strongly for brain size to get the same brain size as before…..so they relax so to speak now that there is no pressure .
That is why you beleive a cold environment produces intelligence no? the cold environment meant that food was harder to get so you got more intelligent rying to get it.,
This means that NUTRIENTS were more scarce and THIS brought about a change in behaviour.
So your ADVERSITYS not your SUCCESSES drive you to be more intelligent.
Once an adversity has been conqured, it takes a NEW one to make you go forward .
The ATOM bomb was not invented because everything was fine. It was because something was wrong.
It takes something to be wrong to drive progress. If a TV is black and white instead of colur THAT disadvantage drives us to look for a way to make it a colour one. then we see that its not a Hologram then ..and so on…
Each time something WRONG makes us go forward….
Getting enough nutrients is something RIGHT. Yes it made the brain bigger but that was not a genetic change . So it was not permanent but we could still use this impermanent change for our advantage , which was the whole point.
Another wrong, perhaps the clan is forced to migrate to an area where the game cannot be hunted with the tools they already have. They will DIE if they dont get new ones.
So its not the tools they had that would make them invent a new type , but the problem that these tools that they have already, just dont work here.
Inventions change the niche to make it easier to live in.
You apparently believe Europeans are more intelligent than Africans because Africans had an easy niche to live in.
The invention of fire made the niche easier to live in.
By your reasoning this makes it more likely to lower IQ.
Good posts. Nice analogies.
“So, if you add more nutrients the genes dont have to code so strongly for brain size to get the same brain size as before…..so they relax so to speak now that there is no pressure.”
Adding more nutrients allowed for the brain to expand in size. Refer back to the other comment thread at the top about the diet type and the metabolic trade-off between what type of diet is eaten.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/45/18571.full
“Getting enough nutrients is something RIGHT. Yes it made the brain bigger but that was not a genetic change . So it was not permanent but we could still use this impermanent change for our advantage , which was the whole point.”
…But if a decrease in caloric consumption occurred for a long enough time, then the brain would shrink over time due to the amount of caloric energy needed to power it. Refer back to what I said about diet, and how through a long enough process that whatever changes occurred through dieting would stay in the gene pool if it increased fitness.
“Another wrong, perhaps the clan is forced to migrate to an area where the game cannot be hunted with the tools they already have. They will DIE if they dont get new ones.”
And selection would occur.
“You apparently believe Europeans are more intelligent than Africans because Africans had an easy niche to live in.”
Not really. I don’t really like the cold winter theory anymore. Africa doesn’t have just one clime, it has a ton of climes. There are ‘harsh’ conditions everywhere. So intelligence had to have gotten selected for for another reason. Is it ‘easy’ to live in Africa? Go to the middle of the Sahara or a rainforest for a few months and tell me how ‘easy’ life was.
“The invention of fire made the niche easier to live in.”
There was fire in Africa from erectus.
“By your reasoning this makes it more likely to lower IQ.”
See above. CWH is stupid.
Good posts. Nice analogies.
thankyou 🙂
Adding more nutrients allowed for the brain to expand in size.
having a hair cut makes you bald but this baldness is not transferable to the next generation. That’s what adding more nutrients did.
…But if a decrease in caloric consumption occurred for a long enough time, then the brain would shrink over time due to the amount of caloric energy needed to power it
It would only shrink temporarily and that shrinkage would not be transfered from generation to generation.
INFACT if the calories consumed become fewer the genes will get more optimal in the coding so they make effecient use of what little calories are there. The people will get a lower overall IQ because their environment is bad but their GENETIC IQ will increase as their brains adjust to it.
If you are placed on the moon you can jump higher than if you were on earth because of the lower gravity. But if you stay there for a while and get back to earth you will not be able to jump even as high as other earth people.
The easy conditions made you look stronger (you jumped higher) but in fact they ultimately made you weaker as your muscles adjusted to the ease.
If you were to go to jupiter (stronger gravity) i.e. you can barely jump (=fewer calories) when you do return to earth you will outjump everyone, because that fewer calories made your system stronger, you brain adjusted to fewer calories by becoming more effecient with what it was receiving.
If you can handle life on a poor diet what cant you handle when your diet is OK. BUT if you are accustomed to a good diet with all the nutrients you might not make it in lack becasue your system get worse. Harsh conditions are the formuler for the creation of sterner stuff.
Refer back to what I said about diet, and how through a long enough process that whatever changes occurred through dieting would stay in the gene pool if it increased fitness.
If a gene is epigenetically altered to cause side effect X and then a gene that’s elsewhere in the genome helps to fix the negative side effect, then positive genotypic selection should occur. Though the nutritional change would need to last long enough so the phenotype doesn’t revert back.
That reffers to genes modulating other genes not diet modulating genes.
There are two things we should not get mixed up.
Genotype and phenotype.
Phenotype is ultimately whats there.
Genotype (genes) code for phenotype but can only produce phenotype with the help of the environment.
Phenotype = genes + environment
in that equation the variable you will need to change in oreder for the next generation to have that change is genes.
You can change the environment which will lead to a different phenotype but ultimately only if this change affects the genes will this get to the next generation.
so
Brain size = genes + nutrients
replacing in the above equation.
If we make brain size bigger this could either happen by upping one of the two : genes or nutrients. If its genes then the kids will also have a bigger brain. If its nutrients then the brain will get bigger , but this size increase will not be transferred to the kids as only changes in the genes can do this.
So the shorter hours feeding made the phenotype change. The bigger brain was a phenotypic one not a genotypic one so it could not get passed from generation to generation.
A hair cut is a phenotypic change but it does not get passed down to the next generation. What you say would ultimately be if erectus began shaving his head every day then modern men would be bald.
…But if a decrease in caloric consumption occurred for a long enough time, then the brain would shrink over time due to the amount of caloric energy needed to power it.
You may have a point here.
If erectus spent the whole day eating then nature would conspire to thwart anything elses attempt to increase brain size because there would be not enough nutrience to support it. And this would be genotypic.
Only if there IS an option to grow the brain (more available nutrients) will the genes be able to change o do this.
So you have a point. E.g you may not need to drink water but having water near you will make it possible that when you DO need the water you can have it.
If you dont need a biger brain, but are eating enough for one you wont get it. But when for some other reason a biggger brain is required then that option of evolving in that direction becomes available.
So forgive me you have a point, but not exactly what you said. Fire gave evolution the option of making us more intelligent, something else made evolution take it.
If it wasn’t for fire , were there to be a need to adjust and getting better genes for faster muscles was an easier trick for evolution to pull than better genes for brain size as there wouldnt even be the nutrients to facilitate the bigger brain even if it coded for it.
Good debate 🙂
I fully get everything you’re saying. Necessity is the mother of invention. I agree. But it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
“It would only shrink temporarily and that shrinkage would not be transfered from generation to generation.”
You know of H. floresiensis?
“That reffers to genes modulating other genes not diet modulating genes.”
Yes, but the modulation is DUE TO the diet, and any diet change would need to last long enough—like increasing fitness—to stay in that population.
“So the shorter hours feeding made the phenotype change. The bigger brain was a phenotypic one not a genotypic one so it could not get passed from generation to generation.”
Yes.
Richard Wranger, primatologist and author of the book “Catching Fire” states that drastic changes on the ridge of the skull served as attachments for the facial muscles required for chewing. Molar and canine teeth reduced in size while the brain more than doubled in size in erectus. Since the shape of the bones in the body is directly related to the force imposed on them by the attached muscles, we should see a decrease or dissappearance of bones that are related to chewing with effort. What this indicates is that due to the control of fire, food became softer and it was easier to get nutrients and kcal and so they no longer needed large jaw muscles and teeth to eat their food, since they could control fire to maximize nutrition. And this is exactly what happened over many generations when erectus began to cook.
“If erectus spent the whole day eating then nature would conspire to thwart anything elses attempt to increase brain size because there would be not enough nutrience to support it. And this would be genotypic.”
If erectus didn’t make the shift to cooking we, really, wouldn’t be here today. That one event around 2 mya made it possible for us to be here. If erectus were still eating a plant-based diet with no meat and cooked food, his brain size wouldn’t have decreased and he would still have large teeth—but we see the opposite indicating that it was diet that caused these changes in erectus.
“So forgive me you have a point, but not exactly what you said. Fire gave evolution the option of making us more intelligent, something else made evolution take it.”
Yes. Fire was a tool to use to cook meat, meat has tons more energy and nutrients than plant-based diets. We could spend less time eating and more time doing…. if you think about it it’s probably this that caused all of the other things in hominin evolution, since feeding time drastically decreased we could go and do (and learn) other things that had a positive effect on our evolution.
“If it wasn’t for fire , were there to be a need to adjust and getting better genes for faster muscles was an easier trick for evolution to pull than better genes for brain size as there wouldnt even be the nutrients to facilitate the bigger brain even if it coded for it.”
Exactly. Without the correct nutrition, brain size will not grow. EVEN IF the hominin already had a big brain, if conditions are apt then he will lose the big brain.
Read this
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution-1/
And this
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/31/progress-in-hominin-brain-evolution/
Great discussion. We actually got somewhere.
PP I have a request. I’m sure you have tons of things in your backlog but I’d love to see a post on marijuana use and iq eventually.
Or video game use. I’m pretty sure video games have increased my motor reaction times at the least.
Yea I’m going to write about that this weekend. That’s very interesting. Would you day neuroplasticity has to do with it?
Yes
Just saying but all you noobs would get rekt trying to face me in any weed smoking or video game contest.
but non african couldnt halve and double while africans could…you DO need to do more research. in my opinion the level of sophistication in the ishango bones outshines any type of art even that done in the present era.
So Forbes top 100 highest paid celebs is out. Some observations:
1. 20% of the list is magical. Which is a lot, considering this is a worldwide list and many countries don’t have (((them))) priming their people’s minds to worship black magic. Adjusted for only the west, i’d say 30% magical.
2. In radio, Limbaugh has an outrageous income just behind Stern despite (((their))) media control. How is that happening?! I don’t listen to limbaugh. He must be hypnotising viewers.
3. Actors don’t make much anymore. They don’t have a direct predictable income alternative stream like musicians
4. Musicians are making a lot despite the industry as a whole being decimated by piracy/streaming. It’s from touring. We have a McKinsey superstar effect here – top 1% of musicians getting all the doe, most mid level ones and below eat McDonalds.
5. As the tax leaks show, Ronaldo made more the 88m. I assume most of these celebs have private bankers, so their collectives incomes are much more. This ranking is a very rough gauge. I’d hazard the golfers make much more based on this reasoning.
6. Models don’t make much. Same story as acting.
7. Highest paid actor is the Rock, a pro wrestler. Which shows how low Hollywood has declined from its 70s heyday. He’s not an actor. He cannot act. I liked him much more as a wrestler. He’s likeable but not what comes to mind as a ‘actor’.
8. Baseball is fading.
9. Notice how most musicians are making money on what they did 15 years ago plus….piracy has killed the industry, its the time lag that obscures it.
10. Diddy is a grade A psychopath. He makes money not because of his music is a clue. Its rare I see such an obvious path in a celebrity. Study Diddy, he’s a fascinating case study what happens when Jews use their verbal intelligence to bestow psychological force fields on minority psychopaths.
There’s a rumour diddy had tupac whacked. I believe it.
I see people talking about Tupac being killed because he was going to ‘wake blacks up’ and the government didn’t want that so they had him killed. I think Suge Knight is the suspect who had the hit to be honest. IIRC, Tupac was owed a ton of money from Death Row Records. He also had gang ties and got into a fight with a crip at the Tyson fight that night.
I enjoy a lot of Tupac’s music, he had a story to tell and he was an outstanding lyricist. Though I hardly ever listen to music. Not my thing.
I listen to Tupac’s music for entertainment value, but not much more than that. There’s nothing indicating that Tupac was a serious intellectual or even a deep thinker, even though he had songs where he was supposedly calling out the elites/”Illuminati”.
I remember seeing some Tupac interview where he was asked how he would reform schools. His response was to throw out everything related to math and old dead white people because “that wasn’t relevant”. Instead, there would be classes on sex ed, drugs, and scams (!).
Well there are smart people who say dumb shit on here.
I like how his lyrics were dumbed down enough for anyone to understand but very emotional and passionate to the point that even an intellectual could sympathize with it.
Changes is one of his best songs.
The fact that half the people at my job listen to Limbaugh must mean Jewish supremacy is not as strong as people claim it is.
How so? Isn’t Limbaugh a neocon?
True, but Limbaugh supports Trump, who supposedly (according to his online supporters) is not a neocon.
I guess Lion does not welcome you to his blog anymore. But more Anglo Prole bashing here, which makes more sense because PP is Canadian, and so he is a lesser Anglo Prole than Lion together with my Québec obsession.
Québec is the only North American region that doesn’t give a flying fuck about the Ivy Leagues, since McGill is a Canadian Ivy League perceived like a vacation resort than a real school of learning.
http://enoughwiththecrap.blogspot.com/2007/11/university-of-montreal-is-better-than.html
Only Anglo-Jewish dirtbags are low enough to mind control dumb Anglo Whites and 3rd world immigrants to be their poor servants.
And remember, the more you strive as an Anglo Prole, the wealthier these dirtbags become, and it’s only an Anglo Prole phenomenon, with America being on top.
Dude, McGill is better than UdeM. Jus cuz one guy says otherwise doesn’t mean he’s right.
McGill like most Anglo Prole institutions offer an array of fluff subjects — hence their pretentiousness.
And again, people go to McGill, because it’s a luxury resort, not a real place of learning. French Canadian companies do not hire anyone from this school.
And this is the reason why the world dislikes Anglo dirtbags who go to school to lay on the grass:
Why does McGill need a museum?
Visits p.m in ks to alternative media
Vox Day: 288
HBD Chick: 10
PP: 48
Lion: 33
Steve Hsu: 15
Scott Adams: 2900
Heartiste: 399
Mike Cernovich: 540
TYT: 693
Unz: 550
Nick Krauser: 100
Good Looking Loser: 191
Rational Male: 222
Stefan Molyneux: 160
Russel Brand: 28
Democracy Now/Amy Goodman: 1700
Michael Moore: 650
Thom Hartmann: 140
Intercept/Glenn Greenwald: 2400
Breitbart: 15000
Vox: 13500
Vice Media: 62177
Wikileaks: 367
Rense: 950
David Icke: 841
Alex Jones: 5100
If you leave out Vice media, alt right and alt left have about exact same amount of views @19-25m per month. But Vice is MASSIVE. Daily Mail which is a close to alt right paper in the UK, is 70m might balance that out though.
Source: http://www.trafficestimate.com/
I love doing little studies like this. Pumpkin, you are doing quite well for an individual part timer. Good job there.
The alt media altogether left and right gets about 150-200m visits per month I’d say.
CNN gets 150m, and WAPO/NYT combined get 130-140m…and they do daily news too so have a lot of casual consumers…..
Point being I think the alt media is a major phenomenon but I should caution that many alt media consumers visit multiple sites.
Even if you cut it in half I’d say 70/400-500=~14-18% of news media consumption online is now alternative. In other words, it only takes a small amount of information to get past Zion unsexplained to cause Brexit and Donald Trump.
Bravo human being 2016. I salute your search for truth.
This leaves out the financial media though.
Economist.com (Lord Rotshchild) went from 9m visits to 7.5m in 1 year…because like I said before, it is the Onion for high IQ people and people are catching on they are the butt of the trolling.
Open yo bodas goyim, open yo daughta legs goyim, send your sons to fight for ISRAEL hehheh,
Hahaha, Alex Jones is catching up with the Economist. Hahahaha. Its a crazy world.
Dildos on tv last week.
She’s not wrong about Ivanka Trump.
I haven’t seen the whole video yet
Philosopher is already dead…
if he ever was truly alive.
I wanted the video you linked. Yea she’s dumb for using the word “sovereignty” in that context but Tucker came across as a real asshole. He was extremely patronizing. However, she didn’t make her case. Some of that was Tucker’s fault. He used ad hominem which put her on the defensive.
Watched*
I don’t think Tucker won. He came across as an asshole who wasn’t interested in a serious debate. He just attacked her credentials. Wouldn’t be surprised if Tucker Carlson is a sexist. That’s the impression one gets.
Watch the full 10 minute video. Tucker comes across as a bully.
Philosopher casts his vote.
Lion censored my comment. Oh well. He’s no Pumpkin Person. He can’t take criticism.
What was the comment?
It was very mild. I asked him if having a “white sound” was the highest form of praise for him. Also, I said it’s unhealthy to view everything through a racial lens.
This was in response to his latest music video post.
Bloggers have to censor criticism sometimes because if you don’t, autistic readers like MeLo will think the commenters are making you their bitch
Autistics don’t understand that allowing criticism is a sign of strength not weakness but as a female, you have the social brain to get it
“Autistics don’t understand that allowing criticism is a sign of strength not weakness but as a female, you have the social brain to get it”
Mort de rire !
Posting dick pictures isn’t criticism. Sometimes he critiques you, most of the time he’s trolling you.
Posting dick pictures isn’t criticism. Sometimes he critiques you, most of the time he’s trolling you.
I know, that’s why 90% of his comments are in moderation
How long has that been going on? He’s a really good troll.
For a couple months.
Jeez…And he still fucks with you constantly.
If he posts something i think other people might find interesting or funny i let it through, even if its insulting to me, but 90% stays in moderation
Are dick pictures interesting to you?
You’re too lenient, but he is does make for a decent pet. Doesn’t he?
Sometimes when I’m busy with work, i don’t look that carefully at what I’m approving
But it’s interesting how persistently he posts given only 10% are approved
Makes me think he doesn’t care about his comments getting published. The goal is to get inside my head
I’m not the only one he does this too. He’s emailed famous professors just to call them antisemetic slurs
I think he once attended a famous scientists lecture just to disrupt it by sitting on a whoopie cushion
PP: Happy New Year!
I just made 2 comments on Lion’s blog — they just reiterate what you think about him and your view of the world.
Lion lives in one of the most blue, democratic, liberal region of America and he calls out all proles to embrace Republicanism.
Then there’s the re-segregation of America as the solution to curb human tribal instincts — there’s no other way. The French in Paris and the French in French Canada have failed to integrate its immigrants into French culture, despite creating a less competitive and less hostile environment than the one finds in America.
“Makes me think he doesn’t care about his comments getting published. The goal is to get inside my head”
Yaa…that’s what trolls do.
Philosopher
Don’t believe monthly visit figures, as they count the same people again and again.
Only trust absolute daily unique figures, but even that’s fuzzy because of the same people using different devices.