[Update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article included an estimate for anatomically modern humans that has since been removed]
[Second update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article underestimated the IQs of Australoids]
[Third update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article underestimated the IQs of H. erectus and chimps]
[Fourth update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article overestimated the IQs of Australoids]
[Fifth update Jan 3, 2017: Australoids, Capoids, Pygmies, and Neanderthals have all been removed because of lack of quality evidence]
[Sixth update Jan 17, 2017: Homo erectus and chimpanzees removed because of technical questions]
Below is a rough ranking of 16 different populations by estimated genetic IQ. I should note that many scientists consider all human races to have equal genetic intelligence, and the below numbers would be considered pseudoscience. All IQs have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 for aesthetic purposes.
Ashkenazim Genetic IQ 110
East Asians Genetic IQ 105
Whites Genetic IQ 100
Arctic people Genetic IQ 95
Southeast Asians Genetic IQ 95
Native Americans Genetic IQ 90
Pacific Islanders Genetic IQ 90
Dark Caucasoids Genetic IQ 90
Congoids Genetic IQ 85
Pumpkin Person 
Do Ashkenazim have pumpkin heads? If not, how does this fit into your grand unifying theory that pumpkin heads == bigger brains == more smarter?
First hit in Google for ‘Ashkenazi Jew brain size’ is PP:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/05/29/jewish-brain-size/
PP, why do you not like Cochran, Hardy and Harpending’s theory on Ashkenazi intelligence? I seem to recall you saying that before.
Based on my travels, I believe you are right about this totem pole, but with one observation:
South Asians are not the same as MENA peoples. They look different in aesthetic. This is usually a strong sign that the underlying genetics are different.
South Asians should be near East Asians in the pole.
South Asians have a different temperament as well. Less hot headed. Higher empathy. More feminine. I would say MENAs tend to be more alpha and south asians more gamma/omega. There’s that IQ/testoserone, R/K tradeoff again.
Indian women, for their nutrition levels and grooming, are among the most beautiful in the world. I always thought they were better looking than the Chinese women in Singapore.
A sure sign of a high empathy race.
Oh! Whats that? Socialism and non-violent activism took off in India? Democracy? – They are not the same as MENAs. Pakistan is an in between.
Many of the South Asian women I knew were hairy and smelled like curry.
A sure sign of a high empathy race.
Indians & Chinese are more clannish than Europeans. Clannish people are not known for having high empathy.
Financial Times has a headline: How Japan resists the populist virus.
Last time I ever logon to that site.
Google’s end of year review video is a cute Zionist brainwash exercise. Free hugs guy to contrast with the reality soft psychopath americans kill 13 times more whites than the other way around.
Zion also showcased Syrian refugee child in its blackmail urging gentile men to send white sons to war to be mutilated for Israel. Such smart people.
More gay love stuff.
More selling open borders/dismantling of white nation states.
If you have a non autistic IQ 120+ at this point and don’t see the glitches in the Illusion, I think you are beyond hope/black/jewish.
Big financial trend of 2017:
Institutional investors wake up and realise active investment is a fraud, scam and racket.
Look for hedge funds and mutual funds to shutter at higher rates and 95% of funds continue to not beat the index.
We will also see more pension funds, not run by bribed idiots, put money into ETFs.
Private Equity is ok for now…I think.
If you have a pension fund, look into what your fund manager is doing. If you see any of ‘alternatives’, any fund with a TER>1.5%, ‘venture capital’, ‘investment consultant’, ‘commodities’, ‘leveraged’, ask to put your money into a tracker and if you can’t set up a self invested pension and dump it into an MSCI World ETF, with about 20% in rock solid AAA bonds if you’re 40 years old + or more.
In America I’m well aware the fund industry has bribed politicians to make it harder for you to take away your pension money from them. Either stop paying into a pension scheme and max out your IRAs in ETFs put it into a quasi pension like student savings.
Stop giving these leeches money. #Draintheswamp.
Ever wonder why schools don’t teach personal finance, HBD, nutrition, martial arts, gun handling, real history, real psychology, real economics and so on?
You are bred to be indentured serveants.
We laugh at Russia/China/MENA….but yet we have the same plutocrat cartel thing, except our plutocrats are a large part Ashkenazi jewish, so you get the anti-white male push to make it seem like the ‘gentile white man elite’ problem is being tackled.
Its an Illusion
The most important part in that list is nutrition. It’s a major cause of making one a sheep. If you don’t know proper nutrition, you’re shut outta luck. That’s why people like myself exist.
fucktard.
100% indexing is 100% in-efficient.
the big trend is lower fees not the end of active management.
the numbers say there’s way too much active management and the fees are way too high, but the end game is less and lower not nothing.
and CEFs/”investment trusts” can be very good deals even with obscene expense ratios.
for example…EDD would be a deal if its discount to NAV sank to -15.4%…em local currency debt is a deal. right now its discount is only -11.5%.
i own lots of bond CEFs and 10 equity CEFs. i’m not being screwed. the discount to NAV makes up for the absurd fees.
Robert says he used hooked on phonics.
But he still can’t read, which is more embarrassing than Deal with Dyslexia who never had the privilege of The Secret, Bumblebee Man or Hooked on Phonics.
Did I say the end of active management is nigh (!) anywhere? No.
Did I say the vast majority investors, including institutional investors should avoid active management? Yes
Do I think there are areas where a good deal can be gotten in actives? Yes – some private equity.
Do I think the risk, time, stress and fees of manager selection are worth it for the average non private banked guy? No.
Are you aware of tax treatment on inv trusts and their leverage? If NAV is discounting at -10%; for the given risk levels of a levered inv trust, some of the discount valuation may be due to volatility rather than book values. Maybe the tax treatment is different in the US.
If you want a cleaner levered vehicle in terms of tax, fees, agency incentives, and often liquidity, why not go for a levered ETF or a levered sectoral ETF? Once you go into dartboard mode you may as well not being paying fees to another guy to throw darts around and throw darts yourself.
Maybe the ones you chose are not levered and the assets are not impaired for a good reason.
But in my story to Mikey Whipwreck McBeer Money, I said – there are thousands of professionals looking at these things everyday with teams of quants, specialists and quasi-insider contacts on speed dial…what are you seeing in these, that they don’t see?
Ask yourself that.
If you were physically in a room with these people, as I have been, ask yourself, do I still feel confident I can beat these guys. Every buyer thinks a seller is dumb and vice versa.
Again, maybe you hit it out of the ballpark based on pure work rate and coverage. But Mikey Blaze Beer Money is definitely not going to and will lose a lot of money.
In my observation, the only thing a retail investor brings to the table more than professionals is time horizon.
That’s why private equity tend to work better the public markets. And probably the only reason.
Robert wouldn’t answer my philosophy questions cos his ninja google skills are not fast enough.
Marx was the first philosopher to identify the link between capitalism and mental illness. Specifically, alienation and the isolation of the human in a specialised supply chain of indentured serveants
Those mental illness stats we see today aren’t pharmaceutical bribed doctors going AWOL alone, there is a very real melancholia and repression in capitalist societies as evidenced by alcohol abuse before Prohibition. Does anyone in America now not have a relation who does not have an addiction, mental illness, learning disorder, neuro-imbalance (i.e. autist/schiz)? – These are symptoms of a decaying plutocrat capitalist order.
Feudalism was softer on normal people.
And as evidenced by Opiod epidemic today.
Now – the 400 of Oliver Stone’s documentary – the 400 most powerful families in America – Du Pont, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Ford, Hearst etc – who remain largely the same as they pass their wealth through trusts and offshore vehicles, are what Trump is reaching out to.
The newer aristocracy, Zion, who used their high IQs and low empathy to make wealth post financial deregulation are a threat, not just to the 400 (who tried to overthrow FDR with General Smedley Butler’s Fascist march on Washington with 500000 soldiers #realhistory), but to the genetics of the public at large ex blacks…but intriguingly, even jewish proles.
Zion will defeat the 400, if they haven’t already done so. There is no Allen Dulles to protect them. Zion has seized control of the minds of the populace, and even the 400s children and business partners.
The 400 must be convinced Zion has gone too far.
That is the 3d Chess game at the highest level.
At the mid level, Trump must counter the deep state operatives/donors/foreign powers.
At the lowest level, keep popular support.
Genetics overrides economics. There are surely some in the 400 that will, like I, think genetics is worth siding with Trump for…even many non Zion jews/hispanics/asians.
what questions?
the hypertrophy of the financial sector is due to…
1. computers.
a. fewer people are required = lower labor costs.
b. “sophisticated” derivatives and higher leverage ratios are made possible. risk can be tracked in real time and measured more or less accurately…the 2008 crisis was caused by incompetent math geeks and executives who didn’t understand the maths.
2. post scarcity and “zion”.
no sector is more amenable to automation than finance.
they make nothing.
money is just information.
Mena guys are so clearly Mixed race that its laughable that they are even given a category. Perhaps its done to legitimize race mixing.
I remember reading a paper showing around 36% black admixture on the mothers side in the Mena region.
This is an image of a half white half East African man. He looks exactly like darker MENA types. (camera flash makes him look slightly lighter)
I remember reading chris brand mention that one of the major reasons for the fall Mideast was race mixing with blacks and south asians.
Philosopher
you’re right about there being a genetic difference between South Asians and Mena types
Here is a Y-DNA map
The Y-chromosome is transmitted from father to son , which means that any non-white admixture they have comes from the mothers side.
We can clearly see that the darker MENA types are the result of miscegenation between white men and Ethiopian women.
I should note that the Middle Easterners are a fairly varied ‘race’ themselves.
Iranian men do look more caucasoid/closer to Central Asians.
But the gulfies above in white towels look much more negroid.
Does this explain why Persia did better historically than the Saracens?
They don’t look all that different from the run in the mill, sand towels. Iranian elites are much Whiter than this.
And you have to understand that Iran is literally next to Iraq, and Arabs and Persians have been screwing each other’s women for centuries.
Roughly speaking Shia is Persian and Sunni is Arab from what I can tell. They are not exactly the best of buddies. Kind of like Proddies and Catholics in Europe – essentially a Celtic and Med/Germanic split.
I thought you were a schizo Middle Eastern. Iran became a majority Shia in the 16th century for political reasons, so it’s quite recent. Before that, Iran was a Sunni stronghold and the best Sunni scholars lived in Persia. What irony!
Please delete my first post as it doesn’t have the pics.
Thanks PP
They are all mixed race with the heaviest mixing happening in Yemen and Gulf.
Here is a pick i found of the former Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia who called Bin Ladin a CIA agent ! LOL
this is what the typical non-mixed Ara would look like . Very similar to southern European , with that light tan from the sun.
As for Saracens vs Persia im not an expert on other aspects of history but as for military/political dominance then there is no doubt that the Arabs were more successful, and the best example of that is that Iran uses the Arabic alphabet and they name their children with Arabic names.
Steve Sailer makes the observation that the elites of most Latin American countries are white.
Fascinating to think the elites of MENA are whiter as well.
http://www.unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/
Apparently the Romans/Greeks were more white before than now.
Although I’m in some mild doubt about the Nordic hypothesis on this. Its clear the Romans regarded the Germanics/Celts as an ‘other’.
And Italy still retains the highest IQ of European countries astonishingly enough.
“Apparently the Romans/Greeks were more white before than now.”
No they weren’t. That article is garbage.
“And Italy still retains the highest IQ of European countries astonishingly enough.”
Damn right.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/
PP has yet to talk. About Lynn’s “Italian IQ data”, wonder why.
PP has yet to talk. About Lynn’s “Italian IQ data”, wonder why.
I’m not that interested in the Italian debate, but it seems to me that Southern Italians are dark whites and thus higher than dark caucasoids but lower than whites. That would put them at about IQ 95 genetically.
RCPM shows no difference between the north and south or the south comes out above the north. There really is no genetic difference. Lynn uses PISA data to infer IQ test scores. School quality strongly affects PISA results as well. PISA isn’t good to infer IQ from. Too many confounds involved with it. Look at Anatoly’s map at Unz review. Clearly it’s not correlation too highly, iirc it’s less than .25.
It’s an interesting debate. Much more interesting than the black-white IQ gap debate in my opinion. Because this one can go either way, it could be genetic or environmental. I think the preponderance of evidence shows its largely environmental. School quality matters a ton.
Lynn also found the same for the Japanese as well, that IQ declined as you go south. However one huge problem I have with Lynn’s data is more of it is on adolescents. I’d love if his data collection were better and he used older samples. Inferring IQs of a while country from the IQs of children seems retarded to me.
@pumpkinperson
Did you know that Peninsula Arabs are typically hybridized with East Africans from slaving days? This could drive down their IQ from normal/hypothetical “Arab” levels.
I’ve read that the level of black admixture in the Arab world is very low.
CLARIFICATION
if you count them as full Arab when they are mixed with Black, the estimate for full Arab is lower than reality.
African DNA in Arabs is only on their mtDNA and at low levels, around 4 percent. This goes with what we know historically, with the Arabs castrating their African slaves.
Southern Italians are dark whites and thus higher than dark caucasoids but lower than whites. That would put them at about IQ 95 genetically.
I agree, I don’t see how Southern Italians could have the same average IQ as Northern Italians. I also don’t see how Southern Europeans could have the same average IQ as Northern Europeans.
It makes no sense from an HBD perspective, especially if you believe that cold climates select for intelligence, that brain size is correlated with IQ and that religiosity, criminality, corruption are negatively correlated with IQ.
Differences in genetic IQ among european ethnies are probably very small, that’s why they do not appear on a particular subtest (RCPM) took by a small part of a population in one study.
It wasn’t suppose to appear all in italics.
Here is the part I quoted (I have wrote the rest myself):
“Southern Italians are dark whites and thus higher than dark caucasoids but lower than whites. That would put them at about IQ 95 genetically.”
“Southern Italians are dark whites and thus higher than dark caucasoids but lower than whites. That would put them at about IQ 95 genetically.”
Holy shit haha I must have missed this garbage.
What the hell are you talking about PP? This is hilarious. Everything doesn’t fit neatly into your little categories. Southern Italians aren’t what you would term “dark caucasoid”.
Naglieri et al. (submitted for publication) studied the differences between the psychometric qualities of the CAS for the Italian and US standardization samples. Although the goal of that study was not to make regional comparisons, they did report that there were no significant differences (F(1, 806)= 2.19, p= .11) between the average CASItalian Full Scale standard scores (set at a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15) for students from the northern (M= 100.5; SD= 13.2), central (M= 101.2; SD= 11.9), and southern (M= 103.1; SD= 11.6) regions of Italy. The mean standard scores for the students in the north were only slightly lower than the mean for those in the south (effect size= .21). These results suggest that a test of intelligence that measures basic neuropsychological processes, and does not include academically laden verbal and quantitative tests, yields small differences between the regional groups. These findings also amplify the importance of measuring intelligence directly when comparing groups and argue against using reading, math and science test scores as “proxies for Intelligence” (Lynn, 2010a)
Ouch, Lynn…..
And check out table 1 of this paper.
Click to access 2012-damico.pdf
Your so-called “dark caucasoids” (Sicilians) score higher. PP please read Haak et al 2015 because your little names and people who (you think) fit into them make no sense.
Excuse me, “dark whites”. There are hardly any differences between the north and south. They are mostly cultural and come down to SES. Anything else is bullshit Lynn conjecture with no basis in reality. There are no intelligence differences in Italy contrary to what Lynn says.
There are no intelligence differences in Italy contrary to what Lynn says.
You can’t be so sure of that. PP might have exaggerate by puting Southern Italians genetic IQ at 95 but he isn’t entirely wrong. If you believe in HBD & cold climate selection of intelligence, Occam’s razor is more on his side than on yours.
“You can’t be so sure of that”
Im very sure.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1674
Don’t really care about cold winter theory anymore. Why did all of the great civilizations of antiquity exist in tropical or warmer climates and not in the pale cold north where people who grow ten pounds brains with IQs of 5000 existed? Why did all of the great civilizations, and hell, most of our modern behaviors, begin in Africa (including cultural transference and acquisition) that made us who we are today?
Anyway, he’s wrong. There are no differences between the two groups contrary to what high priest Lynn says. And don’t get me started on the supposed genetic differences with the supposed high MENA admixture. Don’t make me laugh Lynn.
Now that HBD threatens Race Realist’s people, he abandons HBD
The power of ethnic genetic interests
It doesn’t ‘threaten’ me. I couldn’t care less about people I don’t know, I care about the truth.
Lynn’s numbers are garbage. For instance, within Italy he used studies comparing children of different ages. Uses PISA numbers not knowing they’re strongly predicated on school quality; says the cause is ‘MENA admixture’ in Southern Europeans (ha). Lynn is wrong on Italy and Southern Europeans as a whole. Sorry PP, can’t be right all the time.
Lynn is wrong here. I’m not saying that because of EGIs, becaue I couldn’t care less about people that I do not personally know. My point is is that Lynn’s Italian ‘IQ’ numbers are garbage and it’s been shown time and time again that there are no differences in IQ between north and south Italians and the differences literally come down to culture.
Why did all of the great civilizations of antiquity exist in tropical or warmer climates and not in the pale cold north where people who grow ten pounds brains with IQs of 5000 existed?
It’s harder to create a civilisation in a cold climate than in a warm one. If you believe in cold climates being cognitively more demanding than warm ones.
Now that HBD threatens Race Realist’s people, he abandons HBD
The power of ethnic genetic interests
RR is a Southern Italian ? Then it explains a lot about his reaction.
“It’s harder to create a civilisation in a cold climate than in a warm one. If you believe in cold climates being cognitively more demanding than warm ones.”
The bigger brained, more cognitively able should have been able to figure out a way to do it, though.
“Then it explains a lot about his reaction.”
Yes, I like the truth; not lies. Lynn’s ‘numbers’ for Italy are trash. Read the link I provided.
Northern/Southern Italian divide has been circle jerked too many times. I think RR is correct, although anything south of Rome, becomes more prole as you head further down the boot. The issues stem from economic development and not much else.
I know some Southern Italians from their homelands, not bad people, but are slightly less intelligent than Northerners with more individuals having jet black hair.
Spaniards are a more interesting case. There is no disparity or phenotype difference between a Madrileño and a Granadino.
Greeks are even more disparate than Italians. Macedonians look nothing like Cretans. And Greeks are like your beloved Ashkenazim, unlike Italians, with more diverse phenotypes.
The Spaniards are an interesting case, especially Southern Spaniards who don’t conform to the Western European Marriage pattern, despite research has shown the blue hajnal line to be in Southern Spain with inbreeding and ethnocentrism. Southern Spaniards are well traveled, more so than Frenchmen and definitely Southern Italians.
The bigger brained, more cognitively able should have been able to figure out a way to do it, though.
You don’t know. Population was also smaller in those areas at the time, which also might be part of the explanation.
I noticed that you use a lot of insulting words like “trash” or “garbage” which indicate you are probably not in a cold, selfless research of the truth, but rather in an emotional reaction to an hypothesis you don’t like.
And again, Garcia Lorca, an Andalusian, Southern Spaniard who attended Columbia University, embraced American liberalism before any of Lion’s beloved SWPLs who are mostly of NW European ancestry or his own group the Jews.
Spaniards fucking rule!!!
Spaniards fucking rule!!!
Are you a Spaniard ?
Puerto Rican with direct lineage from Spain.
Garcia Lorca attended Columbia University before the Spanish Civil War in the late 1920s and was fascinated and enamored with Harlem’s black people. NYC’s White ethnics were all racist at the time, and Jews were equally racist as Italians when it came to blacks. And America doesn’t have many Spaniards, because they aren’t as prole as the other groups.
“You don’t know. Population was also smaller in those areas at the time, which also might be part of the explanation.”
Right. Where can populations get bigger?
“I noticed that you use a lot of insulting words like “trash” or “garbage” which indicate you are probably not in a cold, selfless research of the truth, but rather in an emotional reaction to an hypothesis you don’t like.”
I use the words all the time. Lynn’s Italian ‘IQ data’ is garbage, it’s trash. They are descriptors.
And it doesn’t bother me if it is true, but it most likely isn’t as I have shown to you. I’m just pointing out bullshit, EGIs has nothing to do with it. I don’t like a lot of hypotheses, doesn’t mean it’s for emotional reasons. I’ve looked into both sides extensively. Some of the things Lynn did (or didn’t) ignore are pretty big.
If you were to tell me that the IQ of Equatorial Guinea was 56 and I said no, that’s the IQ for developmentally disabled Spanish school children, would I be an Equatorial Guinean protecting my EGIs? Because it’s the same thing. That number from Lynn and Vanhanen is of developmentally disabled Spanish school children, not Equatorial Guineans.
In the last study with the WISC-R in Africa that Lynn (and Vanhanen) reported to substantiate their claim of low IQ among Africans, the IQ of a small sample 10–14 year-old children was found to be around 60 (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002). However, the use of this sample is an error. The average IQ of the people of Equatorial Guinea is based on a lengthy book chapter (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 1997). Although this chapter reports research conducted among members of an illiterate tribe in Equatorial Guinea, the WISC-R was not administered to these Africans. The forty-eight children, to whom the WISC (not the WISC-R) was administered, were from Spain, not from Equatorial Guinea. Clearly, Lynn (and Vanhanen) made a mistake in using this sample to estimate average IQ of Africans
Click to access 10.1016%40j.intell.2006.11.002.pdf
Yet this number still gets cited today.
And lol at some of the datasets being 6 to 12 year olds. Really representative. That’s pointing out bullshit, not ‘denying HBD’, as if I have to believe everything that Lynn or Rushton say.
I’m just saying that if all Southern Italians & all Northern Italians took the WAIS IV, the former would probably score lower than the later. That’s what suggest Occam’s razor. But because IQ differences between european ethnies are very small, they might not appear in your studies which concern a tiny part of the population.
Southern Italians are also more inbred than Northern Italians.
“Italians took the WAIS IV, the former would probably score lower than the later”
Baseless conjecture.
“That’s what suggest Occam’s razor”
And? Does that mean it’s true? So should we then not test the IQs of software Italy because of Occam’s razor?
“But because IQ differences between european ethnies are very small, they might not appear in your studies which concern a tiny part of the population.”
Prove it. The studies were representative. And Lynn’s “IQ data” rested kids of all ages across all provinces, lol huh?
“Southern Italians are also more inbred than Northern Italians.”
Yet IQs are not lower, if you took the time to read what I have provided.
PP, not agreeing with Lynn on everything doesn’t mean I’m now “denying HBD”. Because I’ve been critical of Lynn on this for over a year.
Northern Italians still cluster like southern italians too. No iq differences exist between the north and south. Read the links I have you. It’s just Lynn Nordicist bullshit.
“African DNA in Arabs is only on their mtDNA and at low levels, around 4 percent. This goes with what we know historically, with the Arabs castrating their African slaves.”
Which Arabs ? Sudanese people are predominantly subsaharan, Egyptians, Maghrebi, Yemeni and Saudi Arabs have a substantial degree of Subsaharan ancestry.
And for your information, the Arabs castrated all their male slaves, they didn’t even invent the practice, they borrowed it to the Byzantines. For, instznce the French city of Verdun used to be a castration center for the slave markets of the Mediterranean, the slaves were all Europeans.
“Now that HBD threatens Race Realist’s people, he abandons HBD”
True, I’ve noticed it too, HBD is good for him only if it says says his people are smart, strong and have big dicks. But no matter how biased his opinions might be, he’s doing more serious research than you PP.
“Which Arabs ? Sudanese people are predominantly subsaharan, Egyptians, Maghrebi, Yemeni and Saudi Arabs have a substantial degree of Subsaharan ancestry.”
I don’t recall. I read it a while ago.
“HBD is good for him only if it says says his people are smart,”
I actually used to believe Lynn here. Then I started reading responses he received on his articles and looked into it and changed my view. PISA ain’t food to gage IQ. It’s horrible. School quality, environment and SES all play a factor.
“strong”
Not really. Only a few Italians have even placed in the WSM and none won.
“big dicks”
Racial differences in penis size don’t exist.
“But no matter how biased his opinions might be, he’s doing more serious research than you PP.”
If conclusive evidence comes out that Southern Italians average 10 points below northern Italians, I will concede this. It won’t happen though. I’ve shown few studies showing there is absolutely no difference.
And we all have biases. It’s about minimizing them to discover truth to be honest.
Thanks for the kind words. I want true. Sure biases. Screw self interests.
And for your information I think a lot of Lynn’s data is garbage. Testing less than 50 5 to 12 year old of third world countries is that country’s average IQ? Lol no. Moreover Lynn compared Italians across regions at different ages. That’s retarded.
Most of his data is garbage. What do you think about using 50 10 year olds as a “representative sample” of that country PP?
“Then I started reading responses he received on his articles and looked into it and changed my view.”
Here is the biggest difference between PP and you, you are able to read contradictory information and to take it into consideration. But you’re more easily convinced by contradictory information when it has more pleasing implications for you. So you’re not immune to confirmation bias, no one is actually.
On the other hand, PP’s research is a joke, his only references are Pioneer fund charlatans, or carefully selected more or less serious non-HBD sources. He only makes statements and then cherry picks sources that confirm them, and when he can’t find such sources he simply creates his own data and theories out of the blue. That’s why many of his posts are mere astrology.
PP knows and learns too little for someone with such scientific pretensions.
“Here is the biggest difference between PP and you, you are able to read contradictory information and to take it into consideration. But you’re more easily convinced by contradictory information when it has more pleasing implications for you. So you’re not immune to confirmation bias, no one is actually.”
Everyone is biased. I get what you’re saying though. If 100 percent concrete information comes out that Lynn is right I will concede. I won’t contest concrete data.
I couldn’t care less about people I don’t know, so contrary to what PP says it’s not about EGIs. It’s about truth and good data. I point out a lot of bullshit in YouTube and other message boards like the Daily stormer and the right stuff. If it’s wrong I will say it is wrong if I know it is and will let people know. I’ll be the first one to admit that South Italians score lower, if it were actually true. But as you can see from what I have provided, it is not.
“On the other hand, PP’s research is a joke, his only references are Pioneer fund charlatans, or carefully selected more or less serious non-HBD sources. He only makes statements and then cherry picks sources that confirm them, and when he can’t find such sources he simply creates his own data and theories out of the blue. That’s why many of his posts are mere astrology.”
I think he doesn’t like when people disagree with him.
I used to be very averse to anti-anyone arguments that I liked. Now I’m much more critical of my own views and am starting to change them. I won’t pie a lot of your posts make a lot of sense to me. Also that intelligence paper on sexual selection really had me thinking and I’m ready to discuss that with you.
I can more than admit I was wrong. I just need concrete evidence. And Lynn doesn’t have concrete evidence that South Italians score lower than North Italians. Even then different come down to environment, culture and SES. That is a fact.
PP isn’t a scientist, he’s a social science major (what field?) which may explain why.
“Testing less than 50 5 to 12 year old of third world countries is that country’s average IQ? Lol no. Moreover Lynn compared Italians across regions at different ages. That’s retarded.”
Estimating IQ based on children is nonsense, especially when HBD says IQ is more genetic in adulthood. Moreover, a country’s economy and social issues are influenced by the quality of it’s adult population, not children whose economic participation is less important and who’s IQ tests are less reliable. People should also be tested in the same year, we never see height estimates made by averaging studies from the 70s and 2000s. And of course, the only samples that should be taken are those designed to be nationally representative, or at least representative of a given social category in a population.
If such quality data doesn’t exist, trying to use other sources is unscientific, and there is actually no equivalent to Lynn’s methods in science. I’m saying method but that’s yet another mystery because no one has been able to replicate his estimates with a sound explicit method.
That’s garbage.
Exactly. Environment, for better or worse, has an effect on IQ that young. To extrapolate information based on children that young with that small of a sample is retarded. All of his data is all over the place. Different years, samples, ages, etc. It’s retarded and does not reflect real IQs. Not to mention half of the countries are estimates based on surrounding countries. Lol.
His data set is largely garbage. Standardized testing has many confounds using it to estimate IQ is retarded.
As I said, because IQ differences among european ethnies are very small, they might not appear in your study which concern a tiny part of the population on the RCPM, which is only a subtest, and not a full IQ test.
Southern Italians are also more inbred, criminal, religious and are poorer than Northern Italians. All this is negatively correlated with IQ.
See page 6 of this paper. 747 children, which should be a representative sample, correct me if I am wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223712957_The_mean_Southern_Italian_children_IQ_is_not_particularly_low_A_reply_to_R_Lynn_2010
Also see page 131 here, sample of 809 children aged 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13.
Click to access 2012-damico.pdf
“Southern Italians are also more inbred, criminal, religious and are poorer than Northern Italians. All this is negatively correlated with IQ.”
So despite the data I provide, South Italians have lower IQs based on this, even when other tests show no difference?
Also.
The Mafia accounts for around a 20 percent drop in GDP in Southern Italy. To say that any differences in GDP can be accounted for without first controlling for things like this is dishonest. The presence of Mafia in areas shows lower growth and a sharper increase in murders. Each time homicides rise, GDP falls between 16-20 percent (Pinolli 2012). The presence of the Mafia had a devastating effect on the economies in that area between the 70s and 00s.
Click to access en_tema_868.pdf
Even the guy on my blog who said to “ask Razib” about it doesn’t know that Razib says genetic differences are modest and differences between the north and south come down to culture.
But yea just because those variables negatively correlate doesn’t mean they have lower IQs, as I’ve just shown you.
“His data set is largely garbage. Standardized testing has many confounds using it to estimate IQ is retarded.”
Yep, have you seen the last PISA ranking ?
China has added a couple more of her richest province to the test. And the performance is not that impressive, they are below the US in reading and they do well in maths and sciences but their school programs put much higher emphasis on these subjects than Western ones. But more importantly, their results are poor compared to the huge commitment they have to education.
If they added places like Sichuan or Inner Mongolia, China’s score would probably look mediocre. Yet, Lynn has used the 2012 ranking of the city of Shanghai as a proof that an IQ of 105 was a realistic estimate of the whole country.
“Yep, have you seen the last PISA ranking ?”
Yea and I laughed. So many changes in the wrong direction for PISA to test native iq. It’s an achievement test not an iq test.
“below us in reading”
Makes sense, they have a lower verbal, iq.
“If they added places like Sichuan or Inner Mongolia, China’s score would probably look mediocre. Yet, Lynn has used the 2012 ranking of the city of Shanghai as a proof that an IQ of 105 was a realistic estimate of the whole country.”
That’s a joke. It’s like the changes from the 06 PISA to 09 PISA showed Northern Italy stay the same or decrease while the south and islands increases substantially. Muh PISA and iq!!! It’s retarded to say PISA is an I test. It isn’t.
I doubt 105 is realistic for the whole country. It’s too large with many poor provinces. Though low scores in those areas may come down to school uppity, culture and environment.
“Makes sense, they have a lower verbal, iq.”
Hardly… Singapore is number one in reading but it is only 73% Chinese (maybe less among 15 year olds), the rest is mostly Malay and Tamil. Hong Kong comes second. But the two are extremely rich city-states. Taiwan is only one spot ahead of the US in reading, which is in line with a lower verbal IQ hypothesis, although South Korea and Japan are 7th and 8th. I think PISA scores have a lot to do with how school programs are designed.
I guess Lynn would have a hard time explaining how Trinidad and Tobago mostly African and East Indian population is doing better in maths and reading than whitish Argentina or Metizo Mexico.
“Muh PISA and iq!!! It’s retarded to say PISA is an I test. It isn’t.”
Exactly, and I know the countries of East Asia care a lot about their PISA ranking whereas European countries (or at least France) just don’t give a fuck.
“It’s too large with many poor provinces. Though low scores in those areas may come down to school uppity, culture and environment.”
Judging from China’s overall development, they must be in the mid-90s, their high valuation of intellectual work might increase their scores relative to similarly developed countries like Mexico and Brazil which possibly score closer to 90.
I’m sure a large part of the surveyed French students gave no fuck about the PISA if it wasn’t counted in their GPA.
“which is in line with a lower verbal IQ hypothesis”
The best study I know on this was on the Chinese. 30 year longitudinal study in Chinese IQ. They had a verbal IQ of 99.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/06/chinese-iq/
“I guess Lynn would have a hard time explaining how Trinidad and Tobago mostly African and East Indian population is doing better in maths and reading than whitish Argentina or Metizo Mexico.”
I say school quality. Don’t know what Lynn says.
“Exactly, and I know the countries of East Asia care a lot about their PISA ranking whereas European countries (or at least France) just don’t give a fuck.”
Yep. Motivation matters.
I agree about China’s IQ.
“I’m sure a large part of the surveyed French students gave no fuck about the PISA if it wasn’t counted in their GPA.”
Right. Motivation matters a ton. Though I don’t know if there is a way to control for that.
Fact of the matter is, tk draw a genetic conclusion off of PISA is retarded.
747 children, which should be a representative sample, correct me if I am wrong.
747 children are hardly representative of a whole country. Especially since the difference I suspect is probably small, it’s not like the black-white IQ gap.
How were these children chosen ?
So despite the data I provide, South Italians have lower IQs based on this, even when other tests show no difference?
I never said that. These are simply some clues.
“The best study I know on this was on the Chinese. 30 year longitudinal study in Chinese IQ. They had a verbal IQ of 99.”
There is a laughable mistake in your article. When you say the Chinese have fewer children because they are K selected. Come on… Haven’t you heard about the one child policy ? And if you have heard of it, do you know that China had a fertility rate of 6-7 children per woman when they decided their population had to stop growing ?
Maybe you believed they are now 1.4 billion down from 3 billions some centuries ago.
I say school quality. Don’t know what Lynn says.”
He’d say “unrepresentative elite students”.
I’m starting to look into the neurobiologic effects of physical exercise. I’m starting with the wikipedia article and I’ll look at the cited studies. I’m interested because I love sports and I always thought our bodies and brains evolved to be active and idleness made people dumb. I’m sure we’ll have conversations about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise#Structural_growth
“747 children are hardly representative of a whole country. Especially since the difference I suspect is probably small, it’s not like the black-white IQ gap.”
Are Lynn’s ‘numbers’ ‘representative’?
I have already conceded that the difference may be extremely small, say 2 to 3 points. But it’s nowhere near 10 points. That’s hilarious.
“How were these children chosen ?”
I can’t find the main paper but the reference is:
Belacchi, C., Scalisi, T.G., Cannoni, E. e Cornoldi, C. (2008). Manuale CPM. Coloured Progressive Matrices. Standardizzazione italiana. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
They were able to establish the locations of those 747 children. Other data shows they do not score lower and what shows they do ‘score lower’ doesn’t come down to IQ.
“I never said that. These are simply some clues.”
Doesn’t mean it’s true.
“There is a laughable mistake in your article. When you say the Chinese have fewer children because they are K selected. Come on… Haven’t you heard about the one child policy ? And if you have heard of it, do you know that China had a fertility rate of 6-7 children per woman when they decided their population had to stop growing ?”
I didn’t know the number of children per women they had previously. But Eurasians do have a 2 percent decrease in fitness compared to Africans over time. It’s from deleterious Neanderthal alleles.
“He’d say “unrepresentative elite students”.”
lol
“I’m starting to look into the neurobiologic effects of physical exercise. I’m starting with the wikipedia article and I’ll look at the cited studies. I’m interested because I love sports and I always thought our bodies and brains evolved to be active and idleness made people dumb. I’m sure we’ll have conversations about that.”
I should’ve looked into this years ago. Will do now. Clearly physical activity is good for brain health as bipedalism was pretty much the reason why we are able to afford these big brains. When we became bipedal we freed up 75 percent more kcal for other energy requirements—big brains being one of them.
Are Lynn’s ‘numbers’ ‘representative’?
I have already conceded that the difference may be extremely small, say 2 to 3 points. But it’s nowhere near 10 points. That’s hilarious
So we agree ? I have already said that the genetic IQ gap between N.Italians & S.Italians might be very small. 10 points is probably the genetic IQ gap between Dark Caucasoids & Whites.
Doesn’t mean it’s true.
Are you saying that S.Italians aren’t more religious, more criminal & poorer in average than N.Italians ?
“So we agree ? I have already said that the genetic IQ gap between N.Italians & S.Italians might be very small. 10 points is probably the genetic IQ gap between Dark Caucasoids & Whites.”
Possibly. Though I have shown that there is no gap whatsoever.
“Are you saying that S.Italians aren’t more religious, more criminal & poorer in average than N.Italians ?”
No. I’m saying that just because S. Italians rate higher on those variables doesn’t mean that they have lower IQs than the N Italians.
Possibly. Though I have shown that there is no gap whatsoever.
You have shown there is no gap between a few hundreds of N.Italians kids & a few hundreds of S.Italians kids on RCPM which is often used as a subtest in IQ tests.
No. I’m saying that just because S. Italians rate higher on those variables doesn’t mean that they have lower IQs than the N Italians.
That’s why I call these clues and not proofs .
“You have shown there is no gap between a few hundreds of N.Italians kids & a few hundreds of S.Italians kids on RCPM”
As well as on the CAS (cognitive assessment system). Reference here, can’t find the paper.
Naglieri, J. A., Taddei, S. & Williams, K. (submitted for publication). US and Italian children’s performance on the Cognitive Assessment System: A cross cultural equivalence study. Manuscript submitted for publication to Psychological Assessment
D’Amico et al conclude:
Our examination of intelligence test score differences between the north and south of Italy led to results that are very different from those reached by Lynn (2010a). Our results demonstrate that by using intelligence tests to assess differences in ability rather than using achievement scores as a proxy for intelligence, children from the south of Italy did not earn lower scores than those from the north of Italy. Rather, they were even higher in Raven’s CPM.
Read the paper.
There is no gap dude, and if there is, as we both agree, it’s small, 2 to 3 points, negligible. Environment, SES and culture all matter here.
Long before Milan, Venice and Turin, there were Rome, Naples and Messina. Some people say that the ex Kingdom of the Two Sicilies became backward under quasi-colonial Spanish Bourbon rule and then further impoverished by the Italian unification that caused massive capital flight to Lombardy, Veneto and Piedmont.
“Some people say that the ex Kingdom of the Two Sicilies became backward under quasi-colonial Spanish Bourbon rule and then further impoverished by the Italian unification that caused massive capital flight to Lombardy, Veneto and Piedmont.”
This. Here’s a good read on that.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9511-cultural-recuperation-and-the-case-of-southern-italy
This is a militant piece but there must be some truth in it. I have seen what he talks about with my own eyes.
Northern Italy isn’t just richer than the Mezzogiorno, it is richer than most of Western Europe. The whole center of Milan looks like the most exclusive neighborhoods of Paris and opulence is everywhere.
But Napoli is just a mess, it looks like a Moroccan city, even the center of cities like Dakar and Abidjan is more orderly. It stinks, everything’s in disrepair though you see the city has a glorious past. They’re not even trying to improve the surroundings of the top tourism spots. Discussing issues with the locals is impossible, too many taboos. Like when I first tried to make joke about Mafiosi, I’ve had never put myself in such awkward situation. To the foreign eye, the Mezzogiorno just looks hopeless.
Have you ever been to Italy ?
I’ve never been to Italy but I understand how the history of Italy led to environment differences and differences in wealth between the north and south. The implications of this are still felt today and is one reason why the south ‘underperforms’ compared to the north.
Hum, it’s funny to see how history suddenly becomes an reasonable explanation to why one group underperforms in a society. I promise I didn’t want to trap you. But now that you say it, I’m impatiently waiting for your upcoming Black History Month articles.😉
I have no opinion about Italian IQs and I’m starting to move away from seeing IQ as a relevant measure of anything. But what I know is that Southern Italians wouldn’t be the first victims of Lynn’s charlatanism. He gives Ireland scores in the low 90s (He’s a Ulster Protestant). He has also found a Sudanese friend and they associated to prove the people of Darfur were inherently inferior (There is an ongoing genocide in the region).
“Hum, it’s funny to see how history suddenly becomes an reasonable explanation to why one group underperforms in a society. I promise I didn’t want to trap you. But now that you say it, I’m impatiently waiting for your upcoming Black History Month articles”
Lol. I was going to do some last year but it slipped my mind. I’ll probably do a few next month. I am starting to see how culture and environment (irrespective of Italian IQ) can shape intelligence and other facets as a whole.
Check out the Cognitive Assessment System. It’s a neuropsychological theory of intelligence based off of PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive).
http://www.hmhco.com/hmh-assessments/other-clinical-assessments/cas2
Apparently the black-white gap shrinks to 4.8 points here and gaps between whites and ‘Hispanics’ shrink as well. Here’s the paper for the black-white CAS assessment.
Researchers have typically found a mean difference of about 15 points between Blacks and Whites on traditional measures of intelligence. Some have argued that the difference between Blacks and Whites would be smaller on measures of cognitive processing. This study examined Black (n = 298) and White (n = 1,691) children on Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive processes (PASS theory of intelligence) as operationalized by the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS). Regression analyses, controlling for key demographic variables, showed an estimated CAS Full Scale mean score difference of 4.8, which is smaller than that found with traditional IQ. Correlations between the PASS scores and achievement were similar for Blacks (median of 0.70) and Whites (median of 0.64). Moderated regression analyses showed no interaction effect for race by CAS Full Scale with achievement, suggesting that there are similar relationships between the CAS and achievement for Black (n = 298) and White (n = 1,691) groups. Nonsignificant interactions resulted when the Black and White child groups were analyzed with smaller matched samples (n = 298; n = 298). These results add to the growing body of literature supporting the validity of the PASS theory as measured by the CAS and the utility of the theory for assessment of minority students.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ806734
Lynn’s bullshit with Italy comes down to Nordicism (a ‘movement’ I’ve had a lot of run ins with over the years…. Delusional isn’t even the word). There’s some myth that northern Italians are Nordics while southern italians are a mixed race people of European, Arab and African ancestry and that’s they they’re so poor. It’s basically italian stereotypes with fluff of (false) biological theories purporting southern italians to be inferior. It was started by Cesare Lombrosio, a northern Italian, in the early 1900s and it still exists today.
“He has also found a Sudanese friend and they associated to prove the people of Darfur were inherently inferior (There is an ongoing genocide in the region).”
Lol I’ve not heard this. Got a link?
There is no gap dude, and if there is, as we both agree, it’s small, 2 to 3 points, negligible. Environment, SES and culture all matter here.
If there is a small genetic IQ gap, it might not appear in 2 studies on a few hundreds of children who took subtests and not full IQ tests. There might be a lot of very poor place in S.Italy where the people have a lower IQ (genetic & phenotypic), and I guess children used on your studies are not from these areas.
Those children were used in the study because the location of the children could be established. The other cited study also no gap. And the data comes from the recent Italian intelligence standardization in 08 iirc. I strongly doubt there is one though. How many Italian IQ studies can you find? Then, how many fit certain criteria? And there is much, much more wrong with Lynn’s data, this is something I’m focused on because what Lynn says on this is not true. Have you read any paper I’ve given you?
Those children were used in the study because the location of the children could be established. The other cited study also no gap. And the data comes from the recent Italian intelligence standardization in 08 iirc. I strongly doubt there is one though. How many Italian IQ studies can you find? Then, how many fit certain criteria? And there is much, much more wrong with Lynn’s data, this is something I’m focused on because what Lynn says on this is not true. Have you read any paper I’ve given you?
Those S.Italians children probably weren’t from the poorer areas of S.Italy where probably both the genetic & phenotypic IQ are lower. Also, that’s only a few hundreds of children, not really representative if you expect to find only a small gap.
Btw, S.Italians are more inbred than N.Italians, it would be unlikely that they have the exact same genetic IQ since inbreeding decrease IQ.
“I am starting to see how culture and environment (irrespective of Italian IQ) can shape intelligence and other facets as a whole.”
Yes, and speaking about Southern Italy, the differences in performance are in large part artificial. There is a huge informal economy that doesn’t appear in official statistics and that prevent local governments from receiving tax income to maintain public services and infrastructure. Corruption is high, and the mafia has a negative impact on society. The Mezzogiorno has issues but it is still a very developed region with excellent health indicators, significant private wealth and very high quality of life. It is similar to the French overseas departements of in the Caribbean. There is no need to look for explanations in the nature of the people.
“Check out the Cognitive Assessment System. It’s a neuropsychological theory of intelligence based off of PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive).”
Maybe it’s my turn to be more easily convinced by studies with more pleasing implications but this measure looks more robust. The reason for this is not because it shrinks the gaps but because they have designed it based on observed brain activity, which differs a lot from “g” which is an artifact of convergent correlations.
“Lynn’s bullshit with Italy comes down to Nordicism ”
If Northern Italians are Nordics, the French are polar bears…
“Lol I’ve not heard this. Got a link?”
I can’t find the link anymore, Lynn’s accomplice is Khaleefa, look for Lynn & Khaleefa if you want to see the studies in Sudan as well as other MENA countries.
“Those S.Italians children probably weren’t from the poorer areas of S.Italy where probably both the genetic & phenotypic IQ are lower. Also, that’s only a few hundreds of children, not really representative if you expect to find only a small gap.”
How do you know this? Can you back your claim in the first sentence? You saying ‘they probably were this or that’ is meaningless. Something is that or this, therefore it’s true.
Even then, this debate is about the cause of the economic and intelligence differences. A gap of two or three points does not explain those and other variables. If you’d have read the papers I have provided you’d have seen that.
“Btw, S.Italians are more inbred than N.Italians, it would be unlikely that they have the exact same genetic IQ since inbreeding decrease IQ.”
“It’s unlikely” “It’s this, it’s that”. The data shows otherwise. There are explanations for PISA differences (Lynn’s main point) that aren’t genetic in nature (it’s heavily affected by environment and school quality). That’s really his main point and it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny because PISA is garbage to infer IQ from.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236631160_Problems_in_deriving_Italian_regional_differences_in_intelligence_from_2009_PISA_data
How do you know this? Can you back your claim in the first sentence? You saying ‘they probably were this or that’ is meaningless. Something is that or this, therefore it’s true.
You are being dishonest because what I say threaten your EGI, even if you clame otherwise. I never had the arrogance to assert my hypothesis was absolute truth, unlike you. I simply said your studies weren’t sufficient to prove that there was absolutely no genetic gap since the gap I suspect might be very small, and I simply explain what make me think that it’s unlikely that S.Italians are perfectly equal of N.Italians in terms of genetic IQ. That’s all.
“It’s unlikely” “It’s this, it’s that”. The data shows otherwise. There are explanations for PISA differences (Lynn’s main point) that aren’t genetic in nature (it’s heavily affected by environment and school quality). That’s really his main point and it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny because PISA is garbage to infer IQ from.
That’s the difference between you and me. You assert things like they are absolute truth, I don’t.
Inbreeding decrease IQ, that’s a well known fact, so this is reasonable to think that between 2 similar populations, the more inbred one is genetically dumber.
Stop talking about Lynn btw, I never cited him.
Saudi Prince in a coma and his dad
Saudi prince in a coma and his dad another prince
Sorry the other pic should read ” Prince” This pic is the coma pic
I couldn’t help myself.
AHHHHHH WHAT A FUCKING GOOD SONG I HAVENT HEARD YEARS!!!!
SO GOOD. JUST SO GOOD. MY NAME IS PHIL AND I ENDORSE THIS ADVERTISEMENT.
The Greeks were definitely whiter as the predominate Y-Chromosome haplogroup in Greece is J2 and that is the cousin of the I haplogroup which is the predominant haplogroup of Scandinavia.
IJ
I J
I1 I2 J1 J2
Scandinavia Balkans Arab Greek
(Sweden etc) (Croatia etc)
Having said that i have to say that Greece is still a majority white country.
the non-whiteness of Greece is exaggerated by rednecks .
The same goes for Spain which is ridiculous as the Spanish are completely white.
I remember listening to a radio show by David Duke where he said that after he announced that he was going to give lectures in Spain he received angry e-mails telling him that he was a traitor for speaking to the spanish invaders ! hahahahhaha
He had to explain the difference between the ethnic Spanish and Mexicans.
Spain’s ancient people were Celts from the North and the invading Phoenicians from the east — then you add the Sephardic Jewish and Moorish element. Spain is fairly a Semitic nation.
From what ive read Spain has 8% Phoenician and 7% Berber paternal ancestry,. There rest is native.
But in any case Spain is still white as Phoenicians and berbers with no black admixture are white.
It’s more than that, given the average appearance of Spaniards’ which tend to deviate further away from the Nordic Aryan ideal, more so than Northern Italians. Many Spaniards look Semitic as in Javier Bardem and his wife Penelope.
Phebecians aren’t “white” they are semetic. Barbers are “Caucasian”,, but not” White.”
For the Berbers, Arabization was a cultural process not a genetic one.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2004.00096.x/pdf
Spaniards are not White, not even by Italian standards. Italians used to call the Spanish, the moros.
There were also the ancient Iberians; indigenous people who were possible (more southern) ethno-linguistic relatives of the Basques/Acquitanians. People often forget them. Much of the ancestry of Spaniards comes from them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Iberian_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_language
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-lady-baza-iberian-art-one-most-important-piece-sculpture-served-as-funerary-urn-image74553178
Spaniards might be related to Levantines, given their Phoenician roots.
He has a slight Atlantic-British Isles look, with a strong Semitic features of West Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bisbal
Because David Duke followers are morons. That’s why he had to explain it.
sorry my Haplogroup thing didn’t come out well so i’ll try here
became
IJ ===> I and J
became
I ===> I1 ( Scandinavian i.e swedish etc ) and I2 ( Balkans i.e Croatian etc )
J===> J1 (Arab) and J2 ( Greek )
So Greeks are closer to Nordics on their fathers side (Y-Chromosome)
“So Greeks are closer to Nordics on their fathers side (Y-Chromosome)”
No they aren’t. Where do you get this stuff? They have, as you’ve shown, haplotype J2 which originate in the Levant.
closer genetically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJ
PP uses poor examples of representation. The East Asian and the South East Asian (who looks Northern) are smarter than the Jewish lady.
World famous magician early 20th century
Horowitz, concert pianist (never really liked his interpretations)
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbDa-birJVUBJYIVQw1FjQH6dUm4HK9fxh-CRZL_fc9cISG9hi
Yale Classics Professor
Carl Icahn, Investor
I think these identify pretty well the Ashkenazi aesthetic/personality.
Von Neumann, who’s supposed to be the greatest math guy of the last 200 odd years, is ashkenazi.
Notice the ticks and the wide eyed expression. Something going on there. Its hard to find any other interviews to say whether he was neurobalanced.
He also seems socially disjointed, but that could be just extremely high IQ not having tolerance for people to finish sentences. I met a Triple 9 guy with a similar personality. We had a debate about food.
Like me he’s been sacked a lot of times for being socially disjointed. But he’s not schiz. Just seen as domineering and pushy.
Wittgenstein or real name, Ludwig Moses, is another good example of high level Jew IQ. I think his philosophy is junk, but hes a smart man.
You can kind of see intelligence in someone eyes. There was a guy on Quora a few years ago that said he could do IQ testing based on a few techniques by measuring light from the eyes and so on. Pumpkin might want to research that.
People overrate Jews as much as imbeciles overrate America or NYC as the greatest cesspits of the world.
i think you are using the word Semitic in the modern context which is used by the jews.
Pre-WW2 physical anthropologists refer to jewish facial traits as ” Armenoid”
if you are referring to javier bardems skin tone then he is probably of Berber decent, but he is not representative of spain which is a white country.
Typical Spaniard
Bardem doesn’t look Berber. He’s is a J type from the Near East.
A Berber phenotype would be the gay writer Garcia Lorca.
And the soccer player is one of those Irish-Celtic Spaniards, and his phenotype is a minority in Spain, not a majority. Stop cherry picking, he’s a minority:
This guy is from Northern Spain:
He’s a Spanish Philosopher from Basque Country – that’s near the British Isles. He looks like a high IQ Jewish American Academic.
I highly doubt that he is J as the only branches of J found in Spain are Phoenician/ Greek, which is ancient.
All of such people were Christianized and so would have married into the spanish and look more like the picture i posted above.
Another possibility is that he is South American mestizo who moved to Spain , which has happened.
Its either berber or mestizo.
btw after looking into it i found that the basque country is the most ” Aryan” as Y-Chromosome R1b is 85% there, but around 60% for Spain as a whole.
Have you any idea who the Aryans are?
I used to think Greek film director Elia Kazan as a Jew. He turns out to be Greek:
And Greeks look more like Ashkenazi Jews than Italians.
Saw this guy in Twilight Zone.
Thought he was defo Jewish.
But he’s Greek as well, Kojak!!
Greeks and Southern Italians share ancestry. 37 percent of the Sicilian Y-DNA is Greek. They had Magna Gracea at Southern Italy and its islands for a bit. That’s why they look phenotypically and genetically similar.
It’s easy to explain why they look similar genetically and phenotypically.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/29/southern-italians-and-ashkenazi-jews-what-is-the-connection/
Southern Italians are more distant. Elia Kazan was Greek and he didn’t look Southern Italian. He looks Eastern Mediterranean (West Asian). Jews also look West Asian (Turkish, Armenoid).
Stop the fucking lie about Jews resembling Italians. Most Jews in America don’t like the guys at the San Genaro festival.
How many Jews look like Tony Danza or Danny Devito?
Hahaha
Tony Danza, Danny Devito, and the Jew character Judd Hirsch was in Taxi:
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/like-father-like-son-airdate-111281-danny-devito-judd-hirsch-marilu-picture-id93772088
I see no phenotype similarities between Danza/Devito with Hirsch.
Judd Hirsch however, shares similarities with Kazan, who’s Greek, Barbara Streisand (Jewish), and David Duchovny (Jewish), none of these individuals look Italian in anyway.
Jamie Lynn Siegler – She’s Jewish who played Meadow Soprano, and doesn’t look Italian.
But she does resemble Maria Menounos, who’s Greek.
JS are you saying that Spain suffered from miscegenation like other regions, or population displacement?
If that’s the case than how can Spain have a mean I.Q of 98 ? the same as Denmark.
No Spain didn’t. That’s just white nationalist garbage talking points.
Some anthropologists believe the Semitic and North African populations migrated to the Iberian peninsula pre-Roman times. The “Jewish” “Middle Eastern” look of many Spaniards did not mainly come from the Muslim invasion.
America’s miscegenation sucks — American Whites will intermarry the lowest of groups as in blacks, and high IQ sociopathic groups like the Ashkenazim in large numbers.
Now you know why America is doomed. It’s not good for civilization!
But then American Whites are the lowest of the Whites in the New World. True lumprenproles when compared to Latin Americana and Canadian Whites.
Maybe theres a lack of Von Neumann interview footage because he was realtalkin. Theres fuck all info or commentary he had about social topics like race, economics, politics, psychology, women’s rights, IQ or religion.
Funny that.
Not.
Seems like NBC/Comcast and Bloomberg have got the memo from their ashkenazi tribal kin at the CIA to push the Trump Russia braindead hoax. Even the jews know that if Trumpy is good for business it still won’t make up for being bad on their genetics.
((((Michael Bloomberg)))) – insidious, neocon, smart guy but lies all the fuckin time in interviews. Just lies lies lies.
“Ashkenazim Genetic IQ 110”
What the hell are you talking about? Have you seen the PISA 2015 results for Israel?
They are bad and so is the percentage of people who performs at a high level (compared even to European countries)
Israel is only 47.7 percent Ashkenazi Jew.
yes, so you would expect more people in top performing percentile, but you can see nothing of the sort
“Share of top performers in at
least one subject (Level 5 or 6)” is low compared to European or Asian countries (~14% vs ~20%)
Click to access pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
I was going to say that the AMH categoty measurement was unecessary and inaccurate. Im glad you fel the same
Give homo erectus the iq of 50 they deserve then you got yourself a deal.
I think 20 points more is apt. I’d also give give neanderthals more as well. Brain weight correlates well with g in non-human primates, better than EQ actually.
Herculano-Houzel shows that brains matter, bodies maybe not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21535005
Homo erectus, with a predicted neuron amount of 62 billion, would have to feed for over 8 hours to power his brain. Heidelbergensis, neanderthals, and sapiens would have had to feed for over 9 hours to sustain the amount of neurons in their brains, estimated between 76 to 90 billion. But clearly since erectus mastered fire and ate tubers and meat, he didn’t have to eat for that long.
If this is true, this raises an interesting question on the intelligence of neanderthals and heidelbergensis. It raises the question: is cultural transference the reason why we seem “smarter” than our ancestors who have the same amount around the same amount of neurons as us? It’s a thought provoking question.
Also as I showed yesterday, overall brain size best predicts cognitive ability in non-human primates, not EQ.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6321027_Overall_Brain_Size_and_Not_Encephalization_Quotient_Best_Predicts_Cognitive_Ability_across_Non-Human_Primates
What was erectus’ brain weight?
“I think 20 points more is apt. I’d also give give neanderthals more as well. Brain weight correlates well with g in non-human primates, better than EQ actually.
Herculano-Houzel shows that brains matter, bodies maybe not.”
“Also as I showed yesterday, overall brain size best predicts cognitive ability in non-human primates, not EQ.”
Maybe The indonesian and chinese erectus but not egaster.
I already told you the first study was showing that the number of neurons was better correlated to g irrespective of body size. The second study only measured apes and monkey’s relative intelligence not hominids. The criteria they used for relative levels of cognitive efficiency is too vague to be applied to homo
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3085754?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/232522019_fig1_Figure-1-Global-variable-means-for-each-genus-as-estimated-with-four-variations-of-a
Neanderthals and homo erectus were both humans I’m sure the correlation changes in that perspective. Cooking would amplify this, selecting for smaller guts and less prognathous facial features.
Ligament strength would probably shrink due to other reasons. Less pressure for physical strength as mental aptitude became more of focus, leaving the trees put less pressure on upper body strength and selected for taller individuals. We used to be almost as strong as neanderthals but once agriculture started our bones became very brittle.
EQ may only matter within the homo genus, and only as a side affect of other pressures. Meaning the reason why whales might be dumber than us despite their larger brains could be because of more benign reasons like less neuron density and the fact that they are completely aquatic.
You may be interested in this comparative chart of hominid cranial capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#List_of_species
“Neanderthals and homo erectus were both humans I’m sure the correlation changes in that perspective. Cooking would amplify this, selecting for smaller guts and less prognathous facial features.”
Using humans as a base, 86 billion neurons and 100 IQ comes out to about 1.163 IQ points per billion neurons. Erectus would be expected to have an IQ around 70, Heidelbergensis would be expected to have an IQ around 88 (76 billion neurons) and Neanderthals would be expected to have an IQ of 99 (85 billion neurons).
Just for the hell of it, I did the same with a few other hominins and came to:
Paranthropus: IQ 38 (33 billion neurons); Afarensis: IQ 40 (35 billion neurons); Habilis: IQ 46 (40 billion neurons); Erectus: IQ 72 (62 billion neurons); Heidelbergensis: IQ 88 (76 billion neurons); Neanderthals: IQ 99 (85 billion neurons) and Sapiens: IQ 100 (85 billion neurons).
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/01/14481/
Didn’t feel like doing anything different, so I used the same rules for Sapiens and other hominins. That’s what I came to. Thoughts? How should I modify non-human hominins?
My eyesight is great, but not that good to read that small print. What’s it say? (second link)
“Cooking would amplify this, selecting for smaller guts and less prognathous facial features.”
Along with selection for less body and muscle mass. The energy in would be used to power the brain (if it was high-quality energy from meat, etc).
“We used to be almost as strong as neanderthals but once agriculture started our bones became very brittle.”
Because we spent less time moving and more time stationary.
“and only as a side affect of other pressures.”
Like capacity for expertise?
” Meaning the reason why whales might be dumber than us despite their larger brains could be because of more benign reasons like less neuron density and the fact that they are completely aquatic.”
Less neuron density is the factor. We have higher neuron packing density in our cerebral cortex, fueled by cooking. Think about that. Erectus passed onto us how to cook. That cultural transference led to us, homo sapiens and without that cultural transference we wouldn’t be here today… hmmmm….
This is how, if true, we have more accomplishments than Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals, even though they theoretically had the same IQ as us: cultural transference and inheritance.
Thoughts on my theory? What should I modify?
“Using humans as a base, 86 billion neurons and 100 IQ comes out to about 1.163 IQ points per billion neurons. Didn’t feel like doing anything different, so I used the same rules for Sapiens and other hominins. That’s what I came to. Thoughts? How should I modify non-human hominins?”
That’s assuming the relationship is additive which may be too simplistic.
If your math is based off of assumed premises then it’s conclusions become speculations. How did they measure the number of neurons? Did they include glial cells in the study? If not, did they provide a sound justification for their irrelevance? The evidence becomes reliant on archaeological records which are not in neanderthal’s favor.
“My eyesight is great, but not that good to read that small print. What’s it say? (second link)”
it’s just genus comparison of g traits. but only on monkeys and apes.
“Because we spent less time moving and more time stationary.”
No, because our diet became nutritionally deficient, one of the reasons our brains decreased in size. As agriculturalists we actually worked harder and longer.
“Like capacity for expertise?”
No, Cooking, bipedalism, and IQ all selected for a decrease in body size, It has to because a big brain consumes a lot of energy.
“This is how, if true, we have more accomplishments than Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals, even though they theoretically had the same IQ as us: cultural transference and inheritance.”
It’s very intriguing but Im going to contest it and say that I do think there were significant intellectual differences between Homo sapiens and other archaic populations no due to cultural evolution. Neanderthals starved less than us and it’s possible this is due to them resorting to cannibalism more often than humans when resources are sparse. Meaning as you assumed they were probably less social creatures, but sociality itself is what refines technology and places pressure on high IQ individuals to breed. Meaning you kind of need intelligence for any cultural boom to begin with, if neanderthals had never reached that particular level than they would not have produced the sophistication we did. They had more elongated brains so their neurons were probably less dense and had slower processing speeds. I think your hypothesis explains the discrepancy of AMH and BMH but not between Homo sapiens and archaic hominids.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-caves-neanderthals-cannibals.html
“That’s assuming the relationship is additive which may be too simplistic.”
It’s a valid assumption, from all I’ve read on this so far ( a lot). Amount of total neurons matters for our cognitive ability. I think it’s pretty good, but I may be biased.
“How did they measure the number of neurons?”
Herculano-Houzel and Kaas (2011) write:
By applying the scaling equations described in table table1, we can predict the numbers of brain cells in pre-historic hominin taxa based on their brain mass (predicted from cranial capacity). While we find that predicted total numbers of neurons in the brain varied in Australopithecus and Paranthropus species within the same range as in great apes (predicted 27–35 billion neurons), a step to 50–60 billion neurons is predicted to have occurred in Homo species from H. rudolfensis to H. antecessor. H. erectus is predicted to have had a brain of 62 billion neurons on average, with over 50% more neurons than H. habilis. Remarkably, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis have predicted total numbers of neurons in the brain that fall within the range of variation found in modern H. sapiens (76–90 billion neurons [Azevedo et al., 2009]).
“Did they include glial cells in the study?”
Amount of glial cells is a 1:1 ratio.
“The evidence becomes reliant on archaeological records which are not in neanderthal’s favor.”
The point is, the possibility is that cultural transmission explains what we did, and the beginnings of, as PP implies with his ‘symbolic IQ’, is how we began to transmit things to other hominins. Then, we could transmit information better, which had huge implications for our evolution. This is making me rethink things. My mind is exploding thinking about these implications and what it means if they’re true.
“No, because our diet became nutritionally deficient, one of the reasons our brains decreased in size. As agriculturalists we actually worked harder and longer.”
Sedentary activity leads to a decrease in bone mass. Even then, they’d be more sedentary than the average hunter-gatherer due to their type of society.
A decrease in activity leads to a decrease in muscle mass. I’m not denying nutrient deficiencies, I’m just saying that sedentary behavior relative to hunter-gatherers is a cause as well.
“No, Cooking, bipedalism, and IQ all selected for a decrease in body size, It has to because a big brain consumes a lot of energy.”
And this is why we have a so-called ‘bigger brain’ than gorillas, when in actuality, they have evolved bodies that are unusally large based on the finding that humans have linearly scaled-up primate brains with the expected amount of neurons for its size. Hercualno-Houzel and Kaas (2011) say that this “discrepancy has been used as evidence that the human brain is about 3 times larger than it should be for a primate species of its body size”:
Gorillas and orangutans are primates at least as large as humans, but their brains amount to about one third of the size of the human brain. This discrepancy has been used as evidence that the human brain is about 3 times larger than it should be for a primate species of its body size. In contrast to the view that the human brain is special in its size, we have suggested that it is the great apes that might have evolved bodies that are unusually large, on the basis of our recent finding that the cellular composition of the human brain matches that expected for a primate brain of its size, making the human brain a linearly scaled-up primate brain in its number of cells. To investigate whether the brain of great apes also conforms to the primate cellular scaling rules identified previously, we determine the numbers of neuronal and other cells that compose the orangutan and gorilla cerebella, use these numbers to calculate the size of the brain and of the cerebral cortex expected for these species, and show that these match the sizes described in the literature. Our results suggest that the brains of great apes also scale linearly in their numbers of neurons like other primate brains, including humans.
“Neanderthals starved less than us and it’s possible this is due to them resorting to cannibalism more often than humans when resources are sparse. Meaning as you assumed they were probably less social creatures, but sociality itself is what refines technology and places pressure on high IQ individuals to breed.”
Of course. And there is evidence that brain size increases for expertise capacity and not IQ; read my recent article. When humans get into large groups, brain size begins to decrease. Check out the ‘social brain hypothesis’.
“Meaning you kind of need intelligence for any cultural boom to begin with, if neanderthals had never reached that particular level than they would not have produced the sophistication we did.”
Of course. But, I’ve shown there is empirical and theoretical evidence that expertise capacity increases brain size. I’ve also shown that people with Erectus-sized brains can have normal IQs. The point is, that the need for expertise, one of the things we needed for evolution, is why our brain size increased. Along with cooking, bipedalism, fire, meat eating, etc, this increased it more. This shows in the fossil record and this is a 100 percent viable hypothesis, as everything I’m saying follows the fossil record and what we know about human evolution along with this new evidence on neuron scaling; it’s a perfectly viable theory.
“They had more elongated brains so their neurons were probably less dense and had slower processing speeds.”
Hmmm…. see this….:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2098414-neanderthal-skulls-and-brains-may-have-developed-just-like-ours/
to RR:
Does it matter in which parts of the brain the neurons were concentrated (the distribution of the neurons)—I would think it would? As mentioned, neanderthals (proportionally) seemingly had less mass in certain areas more important to higher cognition, for instance the prefrontal cortex. Something similiar might have been true of heidebergensis relative to sapiens—and relative to neanderthals.
Cerebral cortex and prefrontal cortex. Humans have the most tightly packed cortices, and highest number, of neurons in those areas of the brain. Elephants have more neurons than we do, but 98 percent of them are concentrated in the prefrontal cortex which is mostly for the use of their trunk.
The prefrontal cortex is pivotal to ‘what makes us human’—the prefrontal cortex expanded a lot through human evolution right?
Excellent response.
“It’s a valid assumption, from all I’ve read on this so far ( a lot). Amount of total neurons matters for our cognitive ability. I think it’s pretty good, but I may be biased.”
No, I mean the actual ratio is possibly a subjective number, it may not be additive. Demonstrate that it is, otherwise it’s the same kind of pseudo calculations pumpkin produces.
I give you credit that it aligns with the neuron studies.
“And this is why we have a so-called ‘bigger brain’ than gorillas, when in actuality, they have evolved bodies that are unusally large based on the finding that humans have linearly scaled-up primate brains with the expected amount of neurons for its size. Hercualno-Houzel and Kaas (2011) say that this “discrepancy has been used as evidence that the human brain is about 3 times larger than it should be for a primate species of its body size”:”
What did this study mean by “body size”? Height, weight, mass? A combination of all? Body height and fat increased and muscle mass decreased over the course of our evolution. I assume weight increased but I don’t know.
“Of course. And there is evidence that brain size increases for expertise capacity and not IQ; read my recent article. When humans get into large groups, brain size begins to decrease. Check out the ‘social brain hypothesis’.”
Lol, I’m fully aware of the social brain hypothesis it’s a major component of my “competition theory”. IQ is a great measure of “expertise capacity.” You’re obfuscating intelligence again.
“Of course. But, I’ve shown there is empirical and theoretical evidence that expertise capacity increases brain size. I’ve also shown that people with Erectus-sized brains can have normal IQs. The point is, that the need for expertise, one of the things we needed for evolution, is why our brain size increased. Along with cooking, bipedalism, fire, meat eating, etc, this increased it more. This shows in the fossil record and this is a 100 percent viable hypothesis, as everything I’m saying follows the fossil record and what we know about human evolution along with this new evidence on neuron scaling; it’s a perfectly viable theory.”
First off, are you forgetting the genetic component of social theory? IQ tests do not measure social attributes(not the same as aptitude) because sociality is a driver of intelligence itself. Cultural learning happens on a micro scale almost always within species populations. K selected individuals prosper because they mature slower and absorb information. The population is still encepahlizing. Social intelligence is still a part of IQ and can be judged correctly but what make ssociality important is that it created all of the non intellectual artifacts of our cognition, that is something primarily social in nature. Emotional expression and symbolic behavior.
All your discussing is the neuro plasticity of the brain. I’m not denying any kind of social component but the archaeological record does not support a completely cultural transition through technology especially near the end where you’re so adamant it took place. We can try and verify your theory by looking at the archaeological record
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/05/19/human-success-social/
“These models:
The result of these models shows how the evolution of a social or smart human would differ. If people are learning from one another and then building on that learning then individuals don’t actually have to be that smart. Teaching technology lowers the “cost” of acquiring it. Everyone doesn’t have to start from scratch. This puts less pressure on the evolution of intelligence, slowing it down.
With less intelligence the rate of innovation is lower. That is, until intelligence evolves just enough that the next innovation becomes possible. Then that new technology explodes through the population. The result is “steps” of technological improvement. A punctuated equilibrium of stasis and innovation.
On the other hand, if being smart is the key factor then that makes intelligence very beneficial. Evolution drives it to develop rapidly. The result is a more consistent climb of intellect (and with it, technology).
Another key difference between the two is the range of technology present within each population. Intellect naturally differs between people. As such, if that’s the main driver of technological development then the technology they’re using would also vary. On other other hand, if it’s being learnt from others then – provided everyone has access to the same teacher – it shouldn’t vary as much.”
Starting from 50,000 years ago our Technology follows the cognitive niche model. When Homo sapiens spread throughout the world suddenly variation of tool complexity and rate of innovation skyrocketed(hyperbole). This continues to today. This means it was a cognitive leap, the neanderthals had a small one with the chatelperronian but the aurignacian was out of their cognitive capacity.
Starting 2.6 million years ago cultural learning seems to be the primary driver of tool reproduction but even then it wasn’t.
“tools Neanderthals made stayed the same for most of their existence. However, the techniques they used to make them varied and improved with time. This “stasis” was only skin (or rock) deep. Similarly, there were many innovations and improvements to how handaxes were made. So if you were to line up all the stone tools our ancestors made, they would seem to fit the pattern of the cultural niche. Except if you look out how they were made you’d see changes more similar to the cognitive niche.”
Unmoderate that pumpkin, also Race realist, that link doesn’t disprove my claim.
”Of course. And there is evidence that brain size increases for expertise capacity and not IQ”
The ability of a hominin/human (of group thereof) to acquire a complex skill set (and to create the area of expertise/body of knowledge, in the first place) and apply it creatively/flexibly to novel situatutions relates to intelligence/reasoning ability, perhaps (in the case of learning and applying) more so to the aspect of iq known as crystalized intelligence.
Edit: “…perhaps (in the case of applying skill sets/expertise)”
“Excellent response.”
To me or Jm8?
“No, I mean the actual ratio is possibly a subjective number, it may not be additive. Demonstrate that it is, otherwise it’s the same kind of pseudo calculations pumpkin produces.”
Well, if anything, it wouldn’t hold for Erectus, Heidelbergensis or any other hominin I did it for, but for Neanderthals, I think it’s good enough. They were as similar to us that it’s argued that they’re a subspecies of ours.
As you know, I’m a proponent of the biological species concept, humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, then they were at least a subspecies.
Moreover, humans and great apes conform to Herculano-Houzel’s cullular scaling rule; and since those primates diverged earlier and the scaling rules hold for them, then they should hold for at least Neanderthals, if not, in my opninon the rest of the hominins.
“I give you credit that it aligns with the neuron studies.”
Thanks. The thought popped into my head that Neanderthals could have had exactly the same intelligence as us when I read that paper a few days ago. For primates, these scaling rules apply. If these scaling rules don’t apply for other hominins, then the brain weight is a better indicator of intelligence than EQ is for hominins.
Neuronal scaling applies to primate brains, irrespective of species. Meaning, gorillas have bigger brains for their bodies, we don’t have bigger brains for ours (our neuronal count). The brain-body relationship is dependent on the species sampled, while neuronal scaling applies to primates irregardless of the species chosen. Therefore, it’s neuronal count that matters. Body mass, again, is a poor indicator of brain mass in primates.
Hercualano-Houzel and Kass (2011) put it perfectly:
So in primates, neuronal scaling holds, and that’s a better predictor of intelligence.
Better yet, here are neuron estimates based on brain weight from another study from Herculano-Houzel and Kaas (2007):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064932/table/T4/
“What did this study mean by “body size”? Height, weight, mass? A combination of all? Body height and fat increased and muscle mass decreased over the course of our evolution. I assume weight increased but I don’t know.”
Overall weight. Obviously an organism that weighs more is going to be larger in size. Body size compared to brain, It’s not height because we are talller than apes on average.
The point is, the cellular scaling rules fit both humans and gorillas showing that gorillas are the ones who have a body too big for their brain, not that we have a brain too big for our body.
“Lol, I’m fully aware of the social brain hypothesis it’s a major component of my “competition theory”. IQ is a great measure of “expertise capacity.” You’re obfuscating intelligence again.”
Obfuscating? I’m not an obfuscator.
IQ didn’t predict expertise in expert racetrack goers.
Cece and Liker (1986) measured the IQs of 12 of the experts, and found that they ranged between IQ 81 and 128 (“four were between 80 and 90, three between 90 and 100, two between 100 and 110 and only three above 120 Table 6”). The authors write: “whatever it is that an IQ test measures, it is not the ability to engage in cognitively complex forms of multivariate reasoning.”
https://experts.umich.edu/en/publications/a-day-at-the-races-a-study-of-iq-expertise-and-cognitive-complexi
Expertise in chess (see Erickson, 2000) and music (see Deutsch, 1982: 404-405) correlates poorly, or not at all with IQ.
http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10448 <<<>>>> music
“All your discussing is the neuro plasticity of the brain. I’m not denying any kind of social component but the archaeological record does not support a completely cultural transition through technology especially near the end where you’re so adamant it took place. We can try and verify your theory by looking at the archaeological record”
I actually was reading about the cultural niche hypothesis the other day, and I like it.
Niche construction is the process whereby organisms modify their own and/or each others’ niches, through their metabolism, their activities, and their choices. For instance, numerous animals manufacture nests, burrows, holes, webs and pupal cases; plants change levels of atmospheric gases and modify nutrient cycles; fungi and bacteria decompose organic matter; bacteria fix nutrients (see Odling-Smee et al. 2003, for a review of this literature). However, the defining characteristic of niche construction is not organism-driven modification of the environment per se, but rather the modification of the relationship between an organism and its relative niche (Odling-Smee 1988).
Click to access 10.1007%40s10699-008-9153-8.pdf
“There’s a lot of things that make humans unique amongst the primates. We walk upright, we have no fur, and we talk. Of all these features, two seem to have been vital during our evolution: our sociality and our intellect.”
Why not bipedalism, freeing our hands for tool use? That was the start of extracting more nutrients out of food by mashing them. Evidence of the first tool is around 2.5 million years ago.
We know there is evidence of fire around 1 mya, maybe 1.5 mya, being used to cook food. That’s a social thing. The sociality began there. Right or wrong?
““tools Neanderthals made stayed the same for most of their existence. However, the techniques they used to make them varied and improved with time. This “stasis” was only skin (or rock) deep. Similarly, there were many innovations and improvements to how handaxes were made. So if you were to line up all the stone tools our ancestors made, they would seem to fit the pattern of the cultural niche. Except if you look out how they were made you’d see changes more similar to the cognitive niche.””
That’s a good article and I’m going to read the references.
My argument can be simply boiled down to gene-culture co-evolution over 2 million years.
Nicholas Wade makes great arguments, and they helped sway me to this line of thinking. (Read his book if you haven’t.) Yes, institutions are genetic in nature, for instance. But each culture puts different selective pressures on the people in that culture compared to others. Gene-culture co-evolution is a great explanatory mechanism here. I also think the cultural change can definetely bring about genetic change, and obviously vice versa. It depends which happened in our evolution.
My number one claim is fire-making and meat eating being passed down, because that’s what selected for big brains while shrinking our guts (along with a decrease in muscle mass). I, of course, do not contest that intelligence drove tool making.
Cultural acquisition only occurs if the infant is cognitively able, which is obvious and I think doesn’t need to be said.
Here’s the main paper that article cites:
Click to access 10.1086%40686531.pdf
They say that there is gene-culture interaction that is seen in the fossil record by cultural and genetic stasis, which mirrors the “discontinuities in the arcaheological record of stone tools. It allows the rate of evolution to be affected by population size, and it allows the best possible behaviors to dominiate, which we see today. Cultural niche explains better than cognitive niche.
It can also be argued that the expertise capacity would come into plaly, and from learning a useful skill, this could also select for bigger brains as well.
Also, this:
“There is still some stasis. New methods weren’t being “evovled” every day. Which raises the question: just how much stasis would be expected under the cultural model? How much under the cognitive model? Perhaps any stasis is enough to disprove the latter, meaning culture really is key. But if some stasis can be tolerated we’re back to square one.”
However much stasis required until a need (genetic?) arose. You know I don’t deny heredity. But in the long term of human evolution, the very beginnings of ‘culture’, ie greatly beneficial survival traits, meant the beginnings of gene-culture co-evolution. This is why people, even hereditarians who say that people can remain in stasis and not change any. But then that means they deny the concept of gene-culture co-evolution. It’s a powerful concept with tons of explanatory power.
Do you think some stasis should be tolerated?
“The ability of a hominin/human (of group thereof) to acquire a complex skill set (and to create the area of expertise/body of knowledge, in the first place) and apply it creatively/flexibly to novel situatutions relates to intelligence/reasoning ability, perhaps (in the case of applying skill sets/expertise) more so to the aspect of iq known as crystalized intelligence.
Of course it does. And intelligence increased through hominins as tools got better.
Well said. There is evidence that ‘expertise’ leads to changes in brain mass, though and that they aren’t correlated, per se, with IQ tests.
The first study re: expertise has been criticized. There is also apparently, a criticism of this response by Ceci and Liker. Unfortunately, I cannot acess the full versions of either paper:
“Is it smart to play the horses? Comment on “A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity” (Ceci & Liker, 1986″).
“Ceci and Liker (1986b) presented data that they contended shows two things: (a) Handicapping harness races is a cognitively complex undertaking that can be captured by a multiple regression model, and (b) neither overall skill at handicapping nor the complexity of the mental model used is related to standard measures of intelligence. The first contention is not at issue. But the second contention, that handicapping performance is unrelated to IQ, is not supported by the data presented; in fact, the opposite conclusion seems more likely. The purpose of this comment is to point out errors frequently made in individual-differences research concerning population definition, sample selection, dependent and independent variable reliability and validity and interpretation of results…”
It seems hard to imagine how activities requiring complex reasoning ability could not correlate with iq, since iq is (or is desighned to be) a measure of reasoning ability (at least within certain cultural parameters—as some would argue). There may be a threshold of “expertise” at which iq becomes more important, where reasoning becomes more important, some skill sets/areas of expertise perhaps being more reasoning-intensive (I am not certain how much so the examples Ceci and Liker used—or the authors of the other study you cited—— were.
“To me or Jm8?”
You.
“As you know, I’m a proponent of the biological species concept, humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, then they were at least a subspecies.
Moreover, humans and great apes conform to Herculano-Houzel’s cullular scaling rule; and since those primates diverged earlier and the scaling rules hold for them, then they should hold for at least Neanderthals, if not, in my opninon the rest of the hominins.”
That’s subjective. Different species can have fertile offspring, two species with two different numbers in chromosomes can have fertile children. Two different species can also have the same number of chromosomes.
You’re still not getting it though. I asked you to show the relationship is additive. If you’re serious about this then you need to make sure it is empirically concrete.
“Cece and Liker (1986) measured the IQs of 12 of the experts, and found that they ranged between IQ 81 and 128”
That doesn’t mean anything it could just imply that there is a low threshold for the intelligence of horse racers.
I’m going to look more into the chess claim, because I am Highly speculative that something that takes long term planning and reasoning is not correlated to IQ.
Music expertise is subjective as well, knowing incredibly simple axioms is not the same as applying it in a digestible, influential manner.
Just because you know music theory doesn’t mean you’re good at making music. There are other factors that are non- cognitive as well.
“The sociality began there. Right or wrong?”
Wrong, the sociality began before we even left the trees.
“My number one claim is fire-making and meat eating being passed down”
I hope not, meat eating became prominent with scavenging as resources became sparse. It really had nothing to do with culture. Fire making I’m sure was discovered independently across hominid populations. It’s too simple not to.
“They say that there is gene-culture interaction that is seen in the fossil record by cultural and genetic stasis, which mirrors the “discontinuities in the arcaheological record of stone tools. It allows the rate of evolution to be affected by population size, and it allows the best possible behaviors to dominiate, which we see today. Cultural niche explains better than cognitive niche.”
Unfortunately the article will not load, but population size has negligible affects on Innovation between or even within populations:
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/26/technology-evolve-not-population-size/
“Which is of course, how the real works. No new skills are developed after school. Nothing new is ever learnt. Oh wait, my mistake. That’s absolute bullshit. Obviously, people can adapt, learn, and change after school. And this fact has some profound implications for these models. Tinkering with this single premise drastically changes the outcome; sometimes eliminating the link between population size and cultural complexity.”
“However much stasis required until a need (genetic?) arose. You know I don’t deny heredity. But in the long term of human evolution, the very beginnings of ‘culture’, ie greatly beneficial survival traits, meant the beginnings of gene-culture co-evolution. This is why people, even hereditarians who say that people can remain in stasis and not change any. But then that means they deny the concept of gene-culture co-evolution. It’s a powerful concept with tons of explanatory power.”
Stasis implies no selection pressure or necessity, Statsis would appear in both models but I would suspect that the variation would be small if it was cultural and this isn’t the case in the archaeological record.
I’m Aware that culture-gene coevolution model is resided in factuality but you’re applying it wrong.
It’s a false dichotomy, You define the theory as whole but then dichotomize it when convenient. I;m sorry but you can’t apply this theory between species. The evidence just doesn’t support it.
“You.”
Thanks.
“That’s subjective. Different species can have fertile offspring, two species with two different numbers in chromosomes can have fertile children. Two different species can also have the same number of chromosomes.”
It’s the best concept we have since it was developed in the 40s. What species model do you like? Non-ability to create offspring due to genetic isolation seems to me like it would denote ‘speciation’. Here’s a good look.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/30/jerry-coynespeciation-problems/
“You’re still not getting it though. I asked you to show the relationship is additive. If you’re serious about this then you need to make sure it is empirically concrete.”
Sorry, long day. Additive in the fact that 86 billion neurons equals 100 IQ points? It’s an assumption based on the conclusion of Herculano-Houzel and Kaas (2011). Even if it doesn’t hold for other hominins, I believe it does for Neanderthals. Also, it’s the amount of cortical neurons, in our cerebral cortex and PFC; as well as NPD; which I don’t think we can estimate for Neanderthals, so we can make some inferences.
Their brains were devoted to visual processing with elongated regions in the back of the brains near the visual cortex right? Hmmm. Have you any idea what the brain of an Inuit or similar person in a landscape like that of Neanderthals looks like? Like if there is any shift towards that type of brain? Because the visual processing of the Inuit is amazing. Like the Abos in Australia.
Check this out.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424
If anything, I believe it is possible that they could have been near our range in intelligence, based on these new things I’ve read.
“That doesn’t mean anything it could just imply that there is a low threshold for the intelligence of horse racers.”
I take that back. I need to revise what I wrote in that section. Jm8 pointed me to a comment on the paper.
“Music expertise is subjective as well, knowing incredibly simple axioms is not the same as applying it in a digestible, influential manner.”
When I think of ‘music expertise’, there’s a huge difference between that guy who plays at Carnegie Hall and the guy who plays just for fun. Is there not a certain amount of ‘expertise’?
I used to play the clarinet when I was a kid. Pretty cool instrument, I should splurge on a nice one for myself and start playing again. Anyway, there is an ‘expertise’ to mastering musical instruments. Sure there are those people who get brain injuries and become piano savants, and it does come naturally to some (a lot?) of people, but without practice in something—even with genetic giftedness—you won’t win or be better than someone else who’s less genetically capable than you and who works harder.
“Wrong, the sociality began before we even left the trees.”
Thanks.
“meat eating became prominent with scavenging as resources became sparse”
You also have to think that when we started hunting game—as I’m sure you know—we needed to become more social and work together to survive from the animals we hunted. More altruistic groups survived over non-altruistic groups. That is, more sociable groups survived over non-sociable groups.
“Unfortunately the article will not load, but population size has negligible affects on Innovation between or even within populations:”
Here:
http://libgen.io/scimag/index.php?s=Testing%20the%20Cognitive%20and%20Cultural%20Niche%20Theories%20of%20Human%20Evolution
Click on ‘Sci-hub Cyber’.
Thanks for the article. It does make ‘intuitive’ sense that bigger populations would have a higher chance for more innovations. I need to correct that ‘intuitiveness’ in the future.
“Stasis implies no selection pressure or necessity, Statsis would appear in both models but I would suspect that the variation would be small if it was cultural and this isn’t the case in the archaeological record.”
Evidence suggests stasis in hominin brain size a few times.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385680/
The Tasmanian example is a good link in the link you provided me. I read a paper on that last night.
“It’s a false dichotomy, You define the theory as whole but then dichotomize it when convenient. I;m sorry but you can’t apply this theory between species. The evidence just doesn’t support it.”
Can you explain?
Jm8, here.
This is the comment on Ceci and Liker’s paper
Click to access 10.1037%400096-3445.117.1.91.pdf
Their reply
Click to access 10.1037%400096-3445.117.1.96.pdf
“There may be a threshold of “expertise” at which iq becomes more important, where reasoning becomes more important, some skill sets/areas of expertise perhaps being more reasoning-intensive ”
Agree. I can see how, in this example handicapping, that knowledge of the sport would come in handy. I need to read these 2 papers though. This is interesting research though.
“Non-ability to create offspring due to genetic isolation seems to me like it would denote ‘speciation’. Here’s a good look.”
species and subpecies are incredibly subjective terms in biology. I don’t think your definition actually stands. Honestly how you define it is completely dependent on however much differential variation you think is too much variation
“Even if it doesn’t hold for other hominins, I believe it does for Neanderthals. Also, it’s the amount of cortical neurons, in our cerebral cortex and PFC; as well as NPD”
Wait homo sapiens has 86 billion neurons through out the entire brain not just in specific regions. IF that’s a whole brain estimate then it’s very possible that neanderthals had a lot of neurons but int he wrong regions of the brain especially if they had a proportionately large visual cortex. Accoridng to Sophic their corrected brain size comes out to about 1100cc which is around homo heidelbergnesis brain size
Also your calculations are slightly wrong, the average human IQ is 87 not 100, according to pumpkin.
87/86= 1.012
1.012* homo heidelbergensis’ neuron count of 76
is an IQ of 77 which is pretty close to me, pumpkin, and steve tsu’s estimates.
“Like if there is any shift towards that type of brain?”
There is, it’s not entirely dependent on colder climates that’s why abos have them
“Sure there are those people who get brain injuries and become piano savants, and it does come naturally to some (a lot?) of people, but without practice in something—even with genetic giftedness—you won’t win or be better than someone else who’s less genetically capable than you and who works harder.”
Well no shit bro, but the reason the correlation is so week is because music is not really a survival trait.. Or a less confusing way to put it is through an exmample.
Jay z is arguably the richest rapper alive. He’s not bad at rapping either. But he isn’t good either. According to this chart, he’s slightly high average in vocabulary.
The richest most succesful musicians are not the most intelligent they’re the most relatable which actually lowers their expected IQ closer to the mean populations.
“You also have to think that when we started hunting game—as I’m sure you know—we needed to become more social and work together to survive from the animals we hunted. More altruistic groups survived over non-altruistic groups. That is, more sociable groups survived over non-sociable groups.”
Absolutely.
“Click on ‘Sci-hub Cyber’.
Thanks for the article. It does make ‘intuitive’ sense that bigger populations would have a higher chance for more innovations. I need to correct that ‘intuitiveness’ in the future.”
Still not working, but by the looks of the html i think I may have already read it.
“Can you explain?”
Most experts would say culture is the dominant factor but I say it’s more balanced and equal. There is a distinction without an actual difference.
Tasmanians are the best example of this. Despite population cut off they still improved their techniques and methods. Socialization is a side affect of survival situations . Intelligence is brought about from this interaction. Intelligence must always increase along with with social knowledge otherwise statsis is present. The two are inseparable. If there is no pressure, then cultural becomes a more of a dominate force again.
The reason your theory fails with between species discreteness is because, there has to be selection pressure to induce gene-culture coevolution and produce technological innovation. If neanderthlas had no pressure to change they wouldn’t and subsequently their intelligence would remain constant. That’s why you only see tinkering within neanderthals but barely any innovation. They were less intelligent thn us because they were less social. They were less social because they were less intelligent. Do you get it now?
brain size is not analogous with intelligence. There were multiple times in our evolution where brain size was constant but the structure changed considerably.(pumpkin had videos explaining this but I cant find it.) I think it’s this:
Sorry forgot to posta link
http://poly-graph.co/vocabulary.html
Rapper vocabulary as you can see the most intelligent rapper sare form form the richest.
are far from*
“species and subpecies are incredibly subjective terms in biology. I don’t think your definition actually stands. Honestly how you define it is completely dependent on however much differential variation you think is too much variation”
If you can’t interbreed, you are no longer a species. Allopatric speciation makes the most sense, biologically speaking.
“Wait homo sapiens has 86 billion neurons through out the entire brain not just in specific regions. IF that’s a whole brain estimate then it’s very possible that neanderthals had a lot of neurons but int he wrong regions of the brain especially if they had a proportionately large visual cortex. Accoridng to Sophic their corrected brain size comes out to about 1100cc which is around homo heidelbergnesis brain size
Also your calculations are slightly wrong, the average human IQ is 87 not 100, according to pumpkin.
87/86= 1.012
1.012* homo heidelbergensis’ neuron count of 76
is an IQ of 77 which is pretty close to me, pumpkin, and steve tsu’s estimates.”
I used the average British IQ, obviously. You’re right here. And I’ve seen 89 as the average. Though I don’t know how much money I’d bet on that being right. Lynn’s data is shaky.
“There is, it’s not entirely dependent on colder climates that’s why abos have them”
Yea, whenever the terrain is flatish and you need better vision to see.
“Well no shit bro, but the reason the correlation is so week is because music is not really a survival trait.. Or a less confusing way to put it is through an exmample.”
Musical ability meaning ability to be good at an instrument is what I mean. One doesn’t need to be that intelligent to be a good musician.
“Jay z is arguably the richest rapper alive. He’s not bad at rapping either. But he isn’t good either. According to this chart, he’s slightly high average in vocabulary.”
When you’re ‘popular’ it’s not hard to sell a lot of stuff. I do agree rappers have huge vocabularies and even though I hate Eminem I see that he has a very high verbal IQ.
“Most experts would say culture is the dominant factor but I say it’s more balanced and equal. There is a distinction without an actual difference.”
I think that culture drives genetic change, and when peoples are genetically isolated, along with the geographic differences that occur, phenotypic changes due to culture will occur as well. It’s kind of like a self-selection pressure.
“Tasmanians are the best example of this. Despite population cut off they still improved their techniques and methods. Socialization is a side affect of survival situations . Intelligence is brought about from this interaction. Intelligence must always increase along with with social knowledge otherwise statsis is present. The two are inseparable. If there is no pressure, then cultural becomes a more of a dominate force again.”
Tasmanians are the best example of decreasing cultural complexity.
I wouldn’t say they’re inseperable. Because you don’t know what kind of chance factors that could have played out for discovery, that are obviously independent of intelligence.
You could also say that cultural stasis occurs because there is environmental stasis and therefore genetic stasis. The environment must change for this to occur. That’s what drives it. Environmental stasis > genetic stasis > cultural stasis (you could also say that certain things that certain peoples do in the environments they’re in lead to different selection pressures. Like let’s say an African village diverts water to another place where there was no water previously. They also had no malaria and no sickle cell. Once the water is introduced into the equation, selection for genes that protect against malaria can occur, which would be a fitness gain in that population. I’m sure you can think of other examples.
“The reason your theory fails with between species discreteness is because, there has to be selection pressure to induce gene-culture coevolution and produce technological innovation. If neanderthlas had no pressure to change they wouldn’t and subsequently their intelligence would remain constant. That’s why you only see tinkering within neanderthals but barely any innovation. They were less intelligent thn us because they were less social. They were less social because they were less intelligent. Do you get it now?”
Differing ‘institutions’, which are genetic in nature (due to environmental effects over time—evolution) lead to more genetic change between populations. Did you see the link I put last night about whales speciating due to ‘different culture’?
DId you also read this paper?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424
“brain size is not analogous with intelligence. There were multiple times in our evolution where brain size was constant but the structure changed considerably.(pumpkin had videos explaining this but I cant find it.) I think it’s this:”
Absolute brain size is good predicter. I’m much more interested in overall structure to the brain, not really the size. Look at Einstein’s brain. 1228 grams. I think he had more glial cells and a few more things. But it’s not understood. The story behind his brain is cool.
“If you can’t interbreed, you are no longer a species. Allopatric speciation makes the most sense, biologically speaking.”
Different species can produce fertile offspring, I already told you this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3378453
Allopatric specition is basically genetic isolation. Neanderthals were genetically isolated from us for quite some time. They were a different species, if we use your logic.
“I used the average British IQ, obviously. You’re right here. And I’ve seen 89 as the average.”
Too be fair though, since we engaged with neanderthals mostly in europe it still might be better to use mean white IQ
“Though I don’t know how much money I’d bet on that being right. Lynn’s data is shaky.”
No it’s not. At least not his later research.
Back when pumpkin was doing cro magnon IQ estimates I was looking into his studies quite a bit.
“One doesn’t need to be that intelligent to be a good musician.”
Maybe it doesn’t require much intelligence but instead more rudimentary mental assets like hand eye coordination.
“Tasmanians are the best example of decreasing cultural complexity.”
Not really, the article I showed you said that even when they lost technology the ones they retained still increased in complexity.
“You could also say that cultural stasis occurs because there is environmental stasis and therefore genetic stasis. The environment must change for this to occur. That’s what drives it. Environmental stasis > genetic stasis > cultural stasis (you could also say that certain things that certain peoples do in the environments they’re in lead to different selection pressures.”
That’s exactly what I was saying. Something Afro sapiens doesn’t understand.
“Differing ‘institutions’, which are genetic in nature (due to environmental effects over time—evolution) lead to more genetic change between populations.”
What do you mean by institutions?
“Did you see the link I put last night about whales speciating due to ‘different culture’?”
Yes, what that paper was saying was that behavioral plasticity evolved in those particular whales as a result of social organization brought upon by survival pressures. This behavioral plasticity allowed the whales to branch out into many varying environments and subsequently develop a wide variation phenotypic/genoptypic traits.
“DId you also read this paper?”
Yes, and no offense but it’s not really valid.
We bred with neanderthals very few times, it would have been impossible for us to just phase them out when we didn’t interbreed with them much.
Neanderthals peak in innovation was the chatelperronian culture. It was almost as complex as Cro magnon aurignaician culture and it only appeared 40,000 years ago, right when cro magnon entered europe. So it’s very possible they either stole it from us or it was innovative reaction from increased competition with us.
Neanderthals had survived many climatic changes but when humans came in the added affect of competition drove them to extinction.
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/04/19/neanderthals-stole-human-technology/
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/12/10/are-humans-smarter-than-neanderthals/
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/02/04/humans-could-have-driven-neanderthals-extinct-even-if-they-were-as-smart-as-us/
Also, here’ a link to similarities and differences between us:
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/01/28/how-similar-were-neanderthals-and-humans/
“Different species can produce fertile offspring, I already told you this:”
I know that, it’s a rare occurrence. The BSC makes the most sense in regards to evolutionary biology. And mules and hinnies usually can’t reproduce. Showing one anomaly doesn’t mean anything.
“Allopatric specition is basically genetic isolation. Neanderthals were genetically isolated from us for quite some time. They were a different species, if we use your logic.
You’re forgetting one component: ability to interbreed.They could still interbreed, and consistent fertile hybrids at that. That’s why the assimilation occurred and why Neanderthals are no longer here.
“No it’s not. At least not his later research.”
Such as? How many of his country estimates are of adult populations?
“Maybe it doesn’t require much intelligence but instead more rudimentary mental assets like hand eye coordination.”
Repetition is involved too.
“Not really, the article I showed you said that even when they lost technology the ones they retained still increased in complexity.”
He says:
“This is one of the key reasons these models produce a lack (or even reversal) of innovation in small groups. Only a small percentage will be excellent learners, meaning there will only be a few who can be excellent teachers. If the population is small then – in real terms – there simply aren’t enough teachers to go around.”
I disagree. You don’t need to be that intelligent to be a teacher. Especially to teach survival skills that depend on life or death. Mutations also spread faster in smaller populations, as I’m sure you know.
“What do you mean by institutions?”
Like this.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/06/06/conversation-with-francis-fukuyama-on-origins-of-political-order-event-3294
Wade argues that social institutions are genetic in nature, and that certain environmental factors impeded development of African societies from agriculture to more first-world societies due to their way of life, population size and other factors.
“We bred with neanderthals very few times, it would have been impossible for us to just phase them out when we didn’t interbreed with them much.”
Neanderthals could have also died off due to climate change and disease. Hmmm…. Smallpox blankets?
Here’s some more from genetic studies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/dna-neanderthals-modern-humans-genes_n_5168730.html
I think morphological differences—most important being pelvic differences—played a big factor in replacement.
We had smaller, narrower pelvises. We therefore were more athletic. Morphological differences between us were pretty big.
That probably accounts for a lot of it.
The paper he cites on complexity and cognitive ability talks about a larger brain being more metabolically expensive, but we know that brain metabolism is related to number of neurons. 6 kcal per billion neurons.
Oy, what a conclusion:
extant humans are a single species with surprisingly little genetic variation,
despite a misleading phenotypic variability (Ingman et al., 2000). This means extant humans all have the same cognition, even if that cognition varies slightly in interaction with different material-cultural situations.
Chris Stringer (who I’m sure needs no introduction) says they had some behavioral modernity.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14319.full
Both hominins used that skill at the same time.
The percentage of Neanderthal vowel speech was as large as modern humans.
Click to access 10.1006%40jpho.2002.0170.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=R2MaAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Evolution:+What+the+Fossils+Say+and+Why+It+Matters&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipmOjzpKrRAhUC6iYKHQN9BrIQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=stringer&f=false
I also seem to have been wrong, they are two distinct species.
Here’s a good link about ‘the point mutation that made humanity’:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/the-point-mutation-which-made-humanity/#.WG3ejfkrJEY
So a combination of morphology, brain differences and these genetic mutations. Seems like Neanderthals and humans had infertile children. I seem to have been incorrect in my assertion.
Check this out too.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-species-barriers-between-neanderthals-and-anatomically-modern-humans/
“And mules and hinnies usually can’t reproduce. Showing one anomaly doesn’t mean anything.”
Yes it does. It could mean that neanderthals interbred with us while still being a separate species.
“That’s why the assimilation occurred and why Neanderthals are no longer here.”
There wasn’t enough interbreeding for assimilation to occur.
“Such as? How many of his country estimates are of adult populations?”
You have no idea how much you’re asking from do you? I just had to search through a 19 page long science forum thread to find these for you.
The best I can do is give you a shit ton of links and a quite of my rebuttal to another fellow demanding proof of lynn’s data.
“Lynn and meisenburg did the same thing: “In 2010, Lynn and Meisenberg integrated all the international studies of reading comprehension, math and science understanding and showed that they are perfectly correlated with national IQs. Lynn and Vanhanen’s national IQ estimates were validated”
Click to access Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf
Even the main critic of Lynn’s work(Hunt) agreed that his emprical data was correct and praised Rindermann’s updated analysis: “Rindermann’s analysis found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. According to Hunt, due to there being far more data available, Rindermann’s analysis was more reliable than those by Lynn and Vanhanen. By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that nations investing in education lead to increased well-being later on”
“Regarding several methodology issues of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Hunt and Wittmann compared contemporary educational data from the Program for International Student Assessment with national wealth. They concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen’s empirical conclusion is correct, but they questioned the simple explanation that national intelligence causes national wealth”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001425
The only bit of controversy here seems to be the nurture/nature debate and accuracy regarding African IQ. Which should be obvious to anyone this means it’s a simple tug of war between contrasting ideology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence#Studies_of_national_cognitive_ability ”
“Wade argues that social institutions are genetic in nature, and that certain environmental factors impeded development of African societies from agriculture to more first-world societies due to their way of life, population size and other factors.”
Possibly true, but agriculture and civilization would have demanded other pressure towards g. So the discrepancies would quickly become genetic.
“He says:
“This is one of the key reasons these models produce a lack (or even reversal) of innovation in small groups. Only a small percentage will be excellent learners, meaning there will only be a few who can be excellent teachers. If the population is small then – in real terms – there simply aren’t enough teachers to go around.”
Ya but then he says:
“Even the Tasmanians don’t seem to follow this trend. Although it is true that they lost some technology once they became isolated, this is more than offset by increasing complexity and innovation in other aspects of the toolkit.”
“I disagree. You don’t need to be that intelligent to be a teacher.”
Im going to try and pretend you didn’t say that.
“Neanderthals could have also died off due to climate change and disease. ”
Maybe disease but neanderthals had already survived plenty of Climatic shifts before their extinction.
“This means extant humans all have the same cognition, even if that cognition varies slightly in interaction with different material-cultural situations.”
No it doesn’t only someone with a very fundamental misunderstanding in Biology could come to such a conclusion.
On another note, I’ve actually heard that Neanderthals would have had higher pitched voices.
“‘Yes it does. It could mean that neanderthals interbred with us while still being a separate species.”
For the moment I concede this until I further read into it.
“There wasn’t enough interbreeding for assimilation to occur.”
I’m beginning to believe so.
“You have no idea how much you’re asking from do you? I just had to search through a 19 page long science forum thread to find these for you.”
Solid. Thanks.
Lynn and Meisenberg 2010: PISA, TIMMS, etc. Garbage. I’d like Raven’s tests for adult populations other than test scores so easily effected by environmental factors.
“The only bit of controversy here seems to be the nurture/nature debate and accuracy regarding African IQ. Which should be obvious to anyone this means it’s a simple tug of war between contrasting ideology”
So it’s somewhere in the middle then. Nutrition, disease, parasite load, etc. I think they’d be around 80, maybe low 80s with all of those variable ameliorated.
With the African IQ debate, one of the main points of contention is who to use in the sample. Should sick and disaesed people be included because they’re representative of the population as Lynn says, or should those people be excluded and they should only count healthy people.
“Possibly true, but agriculture and civilization would have demanded other pressure towards g. So the discrepancies would quickly become genetic.”
Africans had agriculture, and developed it independently, contrary to what PP says.
Their population size was a large factor.
“Ya but then he says:”
This researcher shows that there was a decrease in complexity in clay figurine design, eating, changes in their tools due to what they had to eat, changes in the size of the settlements and their dwellings, etc. The Jomon could have become too large to sustain a less specialized subsistence strategy, since their decline in complex tools mirrored what they ate. The author hypothesizes that overspecialization in subsistence was the cause of the decline.
Click to access Habu%20Growth%20%26%20Decline.pdf
““I disagree. You don’t need to be that intelligent to be a teacher.”
Im going to try and pretend you didn’t say that.”
I’m talking in a survival sense. My usual scenario of an asteroid hitting the planet, destroying everything. Who would survive? Outback hicks (or even those people on those prepper shows on NatGeo) or rich pampered higher IQ people?
“Maybe disease but neanderthals had already survived plenty of Climatic shifts before their extinction.”
Smallpox blankets?
Disease could have been a large factor. Especially coming from Africa.
“No it doesn’t only someone with a very fundamental misunderstanding in Biology could come to such a conclusion.”
I didn’t write that, the authors of the paper did.
“On another note, I’ve actually heard that Neanderthals would have had higher pitched voices.”
Source?
“I’m beginning to believe so.”
“The model produced by Neves and Serva’s suggests that the 1-4% genetic mix present in the Eurasian genome could have come about with one interbreeding every 10 to 80 generations. These low rates of interbreeding could theoretically have led to the extinction of Neanderthals through a genetic lottery”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans#Genetics
“I’d like Raven’s tests for adult populations other than test scores so easily effected by environmental factors.”
No. You asked me to vindicate Lynns work, and I did. I showed Lynn’s numbers were empirically valid and that multiple other studies tested and repeated his findings. Even his major critics realized he was right. The only grievance was causal explanation which I agree was not founded in any meaningful evidence.
I am not getting into a nurture-nature debate with you. I have explained my views to you and others before on the subject matter. They perfectly coincide with culture-gene coevolution.
If you’re really wanting to know if adults or children were the test subjects I have to actually look at the data thoroughly and I work in the morning so that’ll have to wait til tomorrow.
“Should sick and diseased people be included because they’re representative of the population as Lynn says, or should those people be excluded and they should only count healthy people.”
“Africans had agriculture, and developed it independently, contrary to what PP says.”
Yeah, and it selected for higher intelligence. The racial discrepancy is still present, no matter the correction.
“This researcher shows that there was a decrease in complexity in clay figurine design, eating, changes in their tools due to what they had to eat, changes in the size of the settlements and their dwellings, etc. The Jomon could have become too large to sustain a less specialized subsistence strategy, since their decline in complex tools mirrored what they ate. The author hypothesizes that overspecialization in subsistence was the cause of the decline.”
What does this have to do with tasmanians? It seems the paper is actually disagreeing with your point:
“It should be noted that if the Middle Jomon represents the high-point of the Jomon culture in terms of population density and settlement size, the Jomon trajectory might not fit into the conventional, progressivist model of cultural evolution.”
Also, wouldn’t a high density population have a greater variation in sustenance strategies?
I’m just curious, it seems counter-intuitive.
“I’m talking in a survival sense. My usual scenario of an asteroid hitting the planet, destroying everything. Who would survive? Outback hicks (or even those people on those prepper shows on NatGeo) or rich pampered higher IQ people?”
Obviously higher IQ individuals would survive. If I was rich I’d have a secret “when shit hits the fan” bunker.
It also depends on what kind of apocalypse scenario we are talking about. If you really mean asteroid, like the one that killed off the dinosaurs, Then all humanity would just go extinct. No bunker could keep me or my incredibly inbred decedents fed for millions of years of darkness.
I eat like a Saiyan by myself as it is.
Just so you know, The best teacher isn’t necessarily the smartest person. But you do have to be at least somewhat smart o be a teacher because you have to actually grasp the concepts in a coherent psycho-visual form.
“Disease could have been a large factor. Especially coming from Africa.”
Like I said, maybe, but as Afro sapiens pointed out: Neanderthal decline was happening over a span of thousands of years. Small pox worked in less than 200.
“I didn’t write that, the authors of the paper did.”
I know, I was just saying that the arrived conclusion of the authors was such a huge leap from the original premise.
“Source?”
Used to be on wikipedia but it is not anymore.
The video is a little dramatic, but you get the point.
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/watch-and-listen-to-the-surprisingly-goofy-voice-of-a-neanderthal
H. erectus, chimps and australoids have all been given major upgrades.
Australoids at the same level as dark Caucasoids??? hmm…..
Australoids at the same level as dark Caucasoids??? hmm…..
In retrospect I overcorrected. I now have them 5 points below Dark Caucasoids. Lynn put their IQs at only 62, but PISA data suggests their IQs are around 82, but I figure their genetic potential is higher given their poor environments.
At first I thought it was a slight overestimation but honestly their native environment is very much a desert and the trek over to it was long and probably filled with novel pressures.
Where would you say the IQ of dolphins are pumpkin?
Dolphins don’t use tools, but they do recognize themselves in the mirror.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5937.full
Though that’s been challenged.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896571
Click to access Dolphin_cognition%20_2014.pdf
The second paper says “is dolphin intelligence special?”:
The answer to this question is very clear and it is both ‘no’ and ‘yes’. No, dolphin
cognition is not exceptional since there is not a single achievement that has not also
been shown in several other species. In some areas like learning of communicative signals, the data obtained in dolphins constitute one of the most remarkable examples of animal cognition [Herman et al.,1984]. In other areas like tool use, the cognitive
abilities of dolphins are less outstanding or even modest when compared to those of primates, parrots, and corvids. Even a final proof for mirror self-recognition would not grant exceptionality to dolphins since they still would find themselves accompanied by apes, elephants, and magpies. However, in all major areas of comparative cognitive science dolphins have been shown to achieve fast learning, high flexibility, and a swift transfer of learned knowledge to new contingencies. So, dolphins are in many respects cognitive generalists, performing at an overall high level.
Each dolphin has a signature whistle, and upon hearing it goes to where it was heard.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/13216.full
And dolphins can even remember these distinct whistles—their ‘names’—after decades apart.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1768/20131726
Here’s a very interesting article about a scientist who claims that dolphins are actually not intelligent at all, and that their brains are for thermoregulation, he is incredibly verbose but this is due to his anatomic vocabulary I think you should check it out.
http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php/the-latest-buzz/the-dolphin-pod/item/94425-the-dim-dolphin-controversy
Yea I read that. Manger says there are things wrong with the mirror test for dolphins. I also read that dolphins nudge a lot of things to the service, not just dead bodies. Hmmm.
I glanced at the study on the long-finned dolphin. The authors said that’s why the dolphins brain was that big and that’s why it had so many neurons—to regulate heat. And that’s why it’s brain was so big. Nothing really to do with intelligence. The human brain is superior in NPD and neuron amount in the prefrontal and cerebral cortices.
I’ll reply to your other comment this afternoon.
And I emailed Herculano-Houzel about the long-finned dolphin estimate. I quoted part of her book on cetaceans then asked her her thoughts on the estimate of long-finned dolphins. Her lab didn’t do use the isotropic fractionator on whale or dolphin brains yet. I hope she writes back to me!
Philosopher’s starting off the new year with a schizophrenic bang I see.
At lease when Mugabe is a loser, he’s drink-sodden. A sober man has no excuse but his schizophrenia.
Well you’re the expert on drink sodden losers.
Just a tip dude: alcohol isn’t good for your life expectancy. Also, Larry Darrell was not an inveterate drunk. Sophie Macdonald was! And what happened to Sophie?
What do you know about self-sacrifice anyway? You don’t seem alike at all. If he’s your hero, that’s odd.
I thought the IQ of chimps was -411 according to brain size & reaction time ?
So according to this new article there is more difference between Ashkenazis and Pygmies than between Pygmies and chimps ?
PP, can you answer to this ?
It’s no scientific, so don’t put too much weight into his “estimates”. If I have time tonight I’ll do something to that effect.
Read this paper.
Cognitive abilities of non-human primates directly correlate with brain size.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17510549
Maybe PP is right with his estimate, but to get atleast a semblance of a correct answer, it should be done how it says in this paper, correct me if I’m wrong.
I’ll get you the pdf in a bit.
Here’s the full paper for Deaner et al 2007.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6321027_Overall_Brain_Size_and_Not_Encephalization_Quotient_Best_Predicts_Cognitive_Ability_across_Non-Human_Primates
And this paper.
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/117912652/Roth-Dicke-Evolution-of-Brain-Intelligence
Intelligence has evolved many times independently among vertebrates. Primates, elephants and cetaceans are assumed to be more intelligent than ‘lower’ mammals, the great apes and humans more than monkeys, and humans more than the great apes. Brain properties assumed to be relevant for intelligence are the (absolute or relative) size of the brain, cortex, prefrontal cortex and degree of encephalization. However, factors that correlate better with intelligence are the number of cortical neurons and conduction velocity, as the basis for information-processing capacity. Humans have more cortical neurons than other mammals, although only marginally more than whales and elephants. The outstanding intelligence of humans appears to result from a combination and enhancement of properties found in non-human primates, such as theory of mind, imitation and language, rather than from ‘unique’ properties.
thought the IQ of chimps was -411 according to brain size & reaction time ?
That estimate was based on a validity generalization; the logic being that since humans were SELECTED to have bigger brains than chimps, then whatever difference we observe in brain size (and RT) must be much smaller than the difference in IQ, because the former differences are just a side effect of the latter.
But I no longer have faith in that method because it seems to lead to very huge differences so the logic seems oversimplified
So according to this new article there is more difference between Ashkenazis and Pygmies than between Pygmies and chimps ?
It’s plausible that there’s a 40 point genetic IQ gap (2.66 SD) between the smartest and dullest race, because there’s a 2.66 SD gap in brain size between the biggest brained and smallest brained race.
However I agree with you that the gap between pygmies and chimps seems way too small given the HUGE gap in brain size.
So either chimps are way dumber than laboratory research suggests, or they have some other trait to compensate for tiny brains (i.e. reaction time), or much of the oversized human brain in unrelated to our overall intelligence, but rather to our collective intelligence (i.e. language and theory of mind)
And excuse me PP. i didn’t mean to say your methods aren’t scientific. I rescind that statement.
If you have time tonight, mind taking a look at that paper (Deaner et al, 2007) and seeing what chimp IQ looks like using those methods?
And excuse me PP. i didn’t mean to say your methods aren’t scientific. I rescind that statement.
Neither of us are scientists to be honest and this is an extremely challenging field of science. That’s why I’m constantly changing my mind and revising estimates. We’re both just nerd wannabes.
Haha yea I know. Smarter people change their minds more often though.
https://techcrunch.com/2012/10/19/jeff-bezos-the-smart-people-change-their-minds/
I’m thinking about researching something. I switched my major to bio, maybe I’ll try to do something with that.
A simpler possibility is that IQ differences should only average a third as large brain size differences given the 0.33 correlation between IQ and brain size. So perhaps the chimp IQ of 35 is accurate but the racial differences need to be compressed big time.
And would you call Erectus and others ‘non-human primates’? If so, there’s a way to estimate their IQ by their brain weight (see Deaner et al, 2007). If they’re humans, then we can do what I did and use those estimates. For 62 billion neurons, I came to 72 IQ. 86 billion neurons and 100 IQ. Comes out to 1.163 IQ points per billion neurons, and multiply that by amount of neurons in the brain. Is that math right? What do you think?
Came to 99 IQ for Neanderthals and, surprisingly, 88 for Heidelbergensis who had 76 billion neurons. What do you think about that? That suggests that our culture is what sets us apart from them since they may have had the capacity to do what we did, but with the advent of culture and passing down advantageous abilities, an individual didn’t have to learn on his own, he can learn the handed down traits from his family.
Thinking about things in this light, with the neuronal evidence and the increase of brain size and neuron amount, it seems like what Gould said doesn’t seem so crazy after all….. Think about it. Bipedalism occurred around 3 mya. After that is when tools arose in the fossil record. Then, it shows that Erectus had control of fire. This, the beginnings of cultural transmission, was the catalyst in our evolution. Passing down the skill of fire-making and then using that fire to cook and eat meat was paramount in our evolution. Without that, we’d wouldn’t be able to afford the metabolic costs for our amount of neurons (which dictates brain metabolism, not brain size).
Think about the beginnings of cultural transmission by Erectus. That increased brain size, and with it, total amount of neurons and IQ. Then after, the hominids were more intelligent, had bigger brains, more neurons and higher IQs.
What do you think about this theory?
This is my argument:
If Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis had around the same amount of neurons as us, then it’s possible they could possibly had been as intelligent as us.
Cultural transmission is what set us apart from our ancestors, and that is what had us have better fitness and survival rates since we didn’t have to learn things on our own, we could learn them from people who have been doing them for their whole lives.
Then this suggests, that they had the capacity to be as intelligent as us, and what accounts for our accomplishments is cultural transmission and acquirement, not because we were more intelligent than them.
What do you think?
Deal with Dyslexia keeps mentioning how much she can’t read comments, how stupid she feels and various ways she feels like a fraud in her community college nightclub bouncer course.
It never occurred to Dildos what the secret to the universe is – visualisation.
Read this Dildos. This helped me a lot in my life.
Many years ago as an underweight, balding, poor, ugly young man I picked up this book in the charity shop and it changed my life. This book will teach you how to:
1. Overcome fear of speaking nonsense in public.
2. Visualise what you really want in life and bring it into reality with your imagination.
3. Use the laws of attraction to attract likeminded people who read The Secret into your life.
4. Make money in the safety and comfort of your home.
5. Relinquish negative feelings of injustice, cynicism, and self loathing at your looks or your dating history.
The Secret. Feel Good. Change Your Life.
I know it works, because I did it.
hooked on phonics worked for me.
my aunt gave me some “ice wine” from canada.
my first time with canadian wine.
i hope he’ll be gentle with me.
Your problems and mine are entirely different Philosopher.
Your remedy can’t be my remedy.
deal’s problems are she’s “two spirit”.
very sad.
I look like a successful person. No one says I’m a failure or a loser. I’ve got everything.
My problem is just that I don’t feel fulfilled with all I’ve got. It makes me seem ungrateful and whiny and hysterical. Maybe I am but it’s a genuine feeling even though I know Philosopher thinks I’m trolling.
That’s it Deal! visualisation . Imagine what you want to look like, how much money you want, all the comments you want to read, all the awards, prizes, recognition, fame!.
The Universe is based on the law of attraction. By directing our inward energy into the void we can bring things into being that are beyond the realms of human everyday life from the comfort of your home.
When I look back on my old life I must admit I get a bit emotional.
I was a struggling you man, walking down dark cobblestone streets with men with glum faces in shirt sleeves looking on. I remember the smell of cheap perfume doused with cigarette smoke and lager. The sirens calling. Cats slinking just out of sight around alley corners, and a thick smog that curdled equally in the streets of London and my neurotic mind.
I asked myself:
Do I dare,
Disturb the Universe?
I was a crustacean, scuttling along the sea floor. In my despair I asked myself – what is my greatest strength – my sensitivity, my loyalty, my stable income, my bowler hat and well pressed suit? No – my intelligence.
I immediately realised I must use my one strength to change the world and sought out secret knowledge.
And I found this in a book called ‘The Secret’.
It was a revelation ma soeur! I am Lazarus come back from dead. Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all.
The secret will improve your life! Only $5.99 on Amazon.
peepee’s list has two obvious errors.
1. abos aren’t that smart.
2. so-called “dark caucasoids” are a mixed bag. india, pakistan, bangladesh…the former raj…is not a homogeneous country. there are clever darkies and fucktarded whites…yeah…whites…in both pakistan and afghanistan there are people who look european.
india and pakistan have NUKES!
think about it…
the most famous people with surname khan…three pakis one fictional paki played by a 100% spaniard…
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/atlantic_live/speakers/2014/08/salkhan/vertical-headshot.jpg?1430156612
and then…only a white guy could play a s asian evil genius…
Montalbán was born on November 25, 1920 in Mexico City and grew up in Torreón,[6] the son of Spanish immigrants…
imran khan looks like a white guy…maybe maltese.
but his mother was just as paki as his father apparently.
there are a few so-called anglo-indians like diana quick…that’s not him.
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/u/TvyamNb-BivtNwcoxtkc5xGBuGkIMh_nj4UJHQKupcE26E5Y6ws1BlyCrzQYtceeKjuL0pj0AhMh/
Penélope Cruz could totally pass for a Pakistani or Northern Indian.
And don’t forget the Gypsies originated in India — now why did the Gitanos in Southern Spain thrived as a people, while their brethren in other parts of Europe mostly had nothing to show forth?
The Gyspy Kings of Spain
Perhaps PP’s theory of similar phenotype that leads to a better reception of out group by the in group majority.
Non-Gypsy-Southern Spaniard – Antonio Banderas
Furthermore, Spaniards were originally nomadic shepherds, not farmers.
Then this:
Spain’s fascination with rogue lowlifes who wander around begging and stealing during its Golden Age.
Italy does not have a mean I.Q of 102. Don’t be ridiculous
I don’t even believe that Northern Italy has a mean of 102.
I would give Italy a mean of 93 and North Italy a mean of 96 .
Italy is a second tier Euro country.
First tier: Germany, The Netherlands, Austria,Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Finland, U.K , Switzerland.
Second tier: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland
Third tier: The former communist countries
Get a load of this guy.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/31/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/
And you’re wrong. This one study shows North Italian kids had an iq of 106.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22925625
Did you base your comment on feelings or what?
Sebastian probably never read a history book.
And even by today’s standards Ireland is a first tier nation. Last I checked Ireland had a higher GDP pc than all those countries mentioned, and lower debt, remarkably.
This:
“[Update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article included an estimate for anatomically modern humans that has since been removed]
[Second update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article underestimated the IQs of Australoids]
[Third update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article underestimated the IQs of H. erectus and chimps]
[Fourth update January 1, 2017: An earlier version of this article overestimated the IQs of Australoids]”
Might explain that:
“many scientists consider all human races to have equal genetic intelligence, and the below numbers would be considered pseudoscience.”
Or the other way around…
Moreover, you could have chosen better looking persons as representatives, or even actual persons in the case of bushmen and polynesians. Because I know you wanted to associate low IQs with phenotypes you deem archaic but bushmen look like that:
https://www.google.fr/search?q=san+people&espv=2&biw=1422&bih=771&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI9fjo76PRAhWHXRQKHTvpAUcQ_AUIBigB
Kind of light skinned blacks with east asian features, nothing like the reproduction you put in picture.
And there must be something absolutely meaningless about “genetic IQ” if you put australian aborigines at the same level as subsaharan Africans, their ability to adapt to modern society is miles below that of blacks in Africa and the diaspora. Aborigines have a life expectancy of 70 years which is typical of first world lower classes or Eastern European countries, yet a college completion rate of only 3%, something comparable to the poorest African countries. Even in south Africa, after decades of apartheid, blacks have a college enrolment of 16%, Coloureds 14%, and south africa is a poor country with very low quality of life.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/life-expectancy/
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/education/aboriginal-students-in-higher-studies-at-university
http://www.che.ac.za/focus_areas/higher_education_data/2013/participation
Anyway, it’s interesting to see what you’ve been thinking about on the first day of 2017. Meanwhile, I was partying with the rich and famous, your crowd according to what you’ve claimed.
The bushmen are very neotenous, progressive features appear regardless of race. Something pumpkin has struggled with.
i think the logic with the australoids could be from the fact that they are more related to europeans than africans, so I guess he’s assuming their potential must be similar.
“The bushmen are very neotenous, progressive features appear regardless of race. Something pumpkin has struggled with.”
Caucasians are the least neotenous race. But I don’t think neoteny is what PP had iin mind, he just wanted rank groups according to their “similarity” to lower primates.
“i think the logic with the australoids could be from the fact that they are more related to europeans than africans, so I guess he’s assuming their potential must be similar.”
Non-Africans are all closer together than Africans within Africa, where most human diversity is. But I do believe that all groups have the intellectual potential of Ashkenazi Jews. Lynn’s data is complete BS and “genetic IQs” derived from it even more.
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t even know you replied to this comment.
“Caucasians are the least neotenous race.”
I thought australoids were?
“Montagu further said that the “European” skull was less neotenized than the Mongoloid, with the “Australian Aborigine” skull less neotenized than the European and the Neanderthal skull even less neotenized than the Australian Aborigine skull”
https://books.google.com/books/about/Growing_Young.html?id=EoTXLpEX-h4C
“he just wanted rank groups according to their “similarity” to lower primates.”
He told me his definition of progressive was one without intention, but the way he applies it implies he still misunderstands it.
“But I do believe that all groups have the intellectual potential of Ashkenazi Jews.”
I doubt it. I assume that no group has a potential lower than 80-85 IQ. 80 still sounds low to me.
“Lynn’s data is complete BS and “genetic IQs” derived from it even more.”
No it’s not, but I agree that it’s not really a “genetic” IQ but more like an IQ in the most ideal conditions.
“He told me his definition of progressive was one without intention, but the way he applies it implies he still misunderstands it.”
It implies ‘progress’ from ‘less complex’ to ‘more complex’. However, seeing how bacteria has remained unchanged as life’s mode throws a wrench into that.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/12/complexity-walls-0-400-hitting-and-evolutionary-progress/
Implying there is ‘progress’ in evolutionary biology signifies intent somewhere. There is no ‘intent’. Evolution just happens.
Implying there is ‘progress’ in evolutionary biology signifies intent somewhere
Lots of evolutionary concepts become metaphors for the human mind. For example, evolutionary adaptation implies intention, but non-human organisms don’t purposefully change their genes. Genetic interests implies genes have interests which they don’t
But evolutionary progress doesn’t imply intention even metaphorically, it just implies improvement or at least direction
Gravity has direction. No one intended that.
“It implies ‘progress’ from ‘less complex’ to ‘more complex’. However, seeing how bacteria has remained unchanged as life’s mode throws a wrench into that.”
No, more complexity is a statistical inevitability, assuming life is allowed to continue on long enough.
Evolution isn’t a ladder or even really a tree but more like a bush. Bacteria have not remained in genetic stasis and even then the trend is without intention, so why would all bacteria become extinct? They wouldn’t, just some species never had the necessary pressure to turn into anything more.
“Implying there is ‘progress’ in evolutionary biology signifies intent somewhere. There is no ‘intent’. Evolution just happens.”
Not if progress is defined as more complexity. But you’re absolutely correct. Evolution does “just happen” but that doesn’t mean trends are not reoccurring. Multiple species have wings, just as multiple species are intelligent. Progress doesn’t imply intention neither does it imply direction. It’s just an idiotic word game for an inevitable outcome.
That’s why I don’t think pumpkin really get’s it.
“No, more complexity is a statistical inevitability, assuming life is allowed to continue on long enough.”
Exactly. But the way he implies it is that there is a ‘drive’ to complexity, when I’ve shown countless times that it’s passive, not driven.
“Evolution isn’t a ladder or even really a tree but more like a bush. Bacteria have not remained in genetic stasis and even then the trend is without intention, so why would all bacteria become extinct? They wouldn’t, just some species never had the necessary pressure to turn into anything more.”
Darwin used a coral.
“The coral of life”:
“But you’re absolutely correct. Evolution does “just happen” but that doesn’t mean trends are not reoccurring.”
If that ‘trend’ doesn’t occur and the environment dramatically changes then the species will be wiped out. It’s just random mutations which then get selected for or against; the ones with more positive variations survive better than the ones with more negative variations. The positive traits increase in frequency and the negative traits decrease in frequency (though not always).
“Progress doesn’t imply intention neither does it imply direction.”
“Progress” most definitely does imply direction. Though there is no direction. It’s not possible for a selction process to ‘churn out’ ‘superior’ organisms. Evolution is all about variation.
“Multiple species have wings, just as multiple species are intelligent.”
Contingent convergance.
“It’s just an idiotic word game for an inevitable outcome.”
Pretty much. There is no outcome, no ‘endpoint’.
“That’s why I don’t think pumpkin really get’s it.”
He really doesn’t. Too enthralled with Rushton and Lynn.
“Lots of evolutionary concepts become metaphors for the human mind. For example, evolutionary adaptation implies intention, but non-human organisms don’t purposefully change their genes. Genetic interests implies genes have interests which they don’t”
Proving my point. Things just happen.
“or at least direction”
There is no ‘direction’. It just happens. Which way is it? Up? Down? Left? Right? Diagonal? A new direction we’ve not discovered yet?
“Gravity has direction. No one intended that.”
People argue that there is an intention behind gravity. Look up ‘the prime mover’ argument from Aristotle.
The average level of encephalization has gradually increased over the last 200 million years
Long term directional change
The number of neurons increased over the last 2 million years**
Direction implies a telelogical notion to evolution. Evolution is a non-telelogical process.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
The number of neurons increased over the last 2 million years**
Yet another example of progress
Direction implies a telelogical notion to evolution.
Everything implies theism to those who can’t grasp the scientific explanation
That’s why pre-science people are so religious
“Yet another example of progress”
Not really, PP. You don’t seem to understand that this ‘progress’ is driven by very important factors.
“That’s why pre-science people are so religious”
So why do so few people even believe in evolution today? There are three types of religious Christians: 1) those that believe evolution isn’t true; 2) those that believe that God is driving evolution; 3) those that believe that God exists but doesn’t have anything to do with evolution. The amount of people who believe in evolution is laughable, and is mostly due to religion.
Telelogical only means goal-directed, not that someone is orchestrating it.
It turns out that French Canadians are not prole. Far from the contrary, because Canadian French was the language of the aristocracy before the French Revolution. Modern day-Parisian French is a dressed up language by the commons who became the new bourgeois.
‘Deplorable’ Québécois accent has royal roots, linguist asserts
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/deplorable-quebecois-accent-has-royal-roots-linguist-asserts/article660839/
America’s Puritans with their emphasis on work ethic were strivers — hence the word Anglo Prole in an American context.
And talking about the totem pole. Anglo Prole education is so stratified like its social classes that its higher learning becomes almost unnatural and non-progressive, only to suit the capitalists:
http://irblog.eu/a-north-american-perspective-on-doing-a-phd-in-europe/
So yes, Jacques Lacan was right. Americans are obedient strivers that bend over for their capitalist masters, now bending over for the Tribe of Zion.
The pure lust for Ivy League degrees itself is prole, and pretty much an Anglo Prole Sphere phenomenon with its 3rd world immigrants.
I must say, I do feel very sorry for black women in general.
Pumpkin in an ironic way is correct that Oprah has done something incredible when you think about it.
Fully black women (not the pop singers/actresses today who are always halfies), are totally shunned in the media, film, ads and other things Zion uses. They have extremely tough lives usually. Most of the time they raise kids alone and face violence, incest, rape, addiction and other psychologically damaging phenomena.
Oprah’s achievement to become a black female self made billionaire in an industry that really is ‘rac-ist’ against black women is more impressive than Barack Obama winning the prez, or Jordan’s medals, or Wood’s trophies or Kanye’s Golden Records.
I actually think its harder for a fully black woman today to succeed. In the old days Aretha Franklin, Shirley Bassey, and Tina Turner could sell music on pure talent. Now women singers have to be eye candy. So its mulatto time.
Same with the AA hiring – its mostly black men. All the women are raising their babies alone.
Sad.
Studies show that WHITE WOMEN are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action
http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
AA is a shitshow. Its philosophically incoherent even on its own stated aims.
Eh, Deal. I’ve been thinking about something Pumpkin wrote very hard.
What do you think of this piece from Pumpkin?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/02/13/women-have-a-genetic-need-to-be-dominated-men-have-a-genetic-need-to-dominate/comment-page-1/#comment-44085
Philosopher is trying to wind me up again but that piece isn’t offensive. It’s just ridiculous. Sorry Pumpkin. It’s your second worst post after the Sasquatch one.
And who will sing their song?
Beyonce likes strutting around in a Blank Panther get up.
Who is black womenz biggest enemy?
Black men.
Not white men.
Touching. Zion brainwashes his subjects equally.
AHAHAHhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahaaa.
Anyone who thinks this lady is White, apparently has not been around enough Jews to tell you that their men lust after shiksas just like other non-white men.
And yes, for race realist, she could be another unattractive Sicilian mama mia from the Sopranos. But Italians don’t try to pretend their Northern Europeans.
Just watched Obama’s farewell speech…
Sounds ridiculous but it brought tears to my eyes. The end of an era…
Woo hoo!!!!!!
……
!!!!
So RR: The is the only Jew I can think of who looks absolutely Italian and he’s a value creator, not a parasite, which typifies most Italians:
Ned Steinberger, if you know who he is. He was the creator of these headless guitars and basses that were never all that popular among musicians. Short, squat with dark hair for a Jew and of course, very Italian in appearance. His father was a Nobel Peace Prize Winner in Physics.
The classic Latin greaseball look at old age, if one takes care of their health:
The only Ashkenazi Jew that I know who looks truly Italian:
Not a speck of West Asian phenotype in this man.
This being said, a phenotype of this type demonstrates productivity in a real sense, a value creator and nearly all Ashkenazi parasites do not even come this close. Many Southern Italians are of this type.