The cold winter theory is extremely important to HBD. In fact I don’t even understand how one can believe in racially genetic differences in IQ without also believing that cold winters select for higher intelligence because of the survival challenges of keeping warm, building shelter, and hunting large game. By contrast, warm climates select for small heads (and by extension smaller brains and low IQs) because in the tropics, an oversized head will overheat like a light bulb.
Nonetheless, there remains much skepticism of the cold winter theory, both from HBDers and HBD deniers. One such skeptic is commenter MeLo who writes:
Heidelbergensis’ brain size would be all you actually need to survive pretty much anywhere. Around 1200-1300 CC. It’s the same size as modern African hunter-gatherers(bushmen 1270), which implies bushmen are more than equipped to deal with cold conditions.
There are a couple problems with this reasoning:
The below map shows in red, the region where Homo heidelbergensis lived:
Below is a map of the World by temperature in January (cold climates are in Purple, very cold, in darker purple, and freezing in the very dark purple). Notice how little overlap there is between the Homo heidelbergensis range in the above map, and the purple ranges in the below map (let alone darker purple ranges).
Even Neanderthals, who were not only more evolved than heidelbergensis, but had bigger brains, and were physically adapted to the cold, scarcely lived in the coldest regions. There geographic range is shown in red below.
It seems modern humans are the only species in the Homo genus that is adaptable enough to survive extreme cold climates. I suspect that during prehistoric times, a tribe needed an average IQ of at least 90 to live with such weather. If the tribe’s IQ fell below 90, there wouldn’t be enough people who could quickly make fire, build warm, sturdy water tight shelter, sew weather tight clothes, and hunt scarce large game.
One definition of intelligence is the (cognitive) ability to use tools, and scholar Richard Lynn cites research by Torrence (1983), showing:
an association between latitude and the number and complexity of tools used by contemporary hunter-gatherers. He found that hunter-gatherer peoples in tropi-
cal and subtropical latitudes such as the Amazon basin and New Guinea typically have be-
tween 10 and 20 different tools, whereas those in the colder northern latitudes of Siberia,
Alaska, and Greenland have between 25 and 60 different tools. In addition, peoples in cold
northern environments make more complex tools, involving the assembly of components,
such as hafting a sharp piece of stone or bone onto the end of a spear and fixing a stone axe head onto a timber shaft.
Pumpkin Person 
I am now a full-on skeptic of Cold Winter Theory. I believe differing forms of sexual selection explain racial differences in IQ. I’m still formulating my thoughts in my head for a substantial post on this, I’ll probably just post it here (after my article Man the Athlete, coming tomorrow!).
“Even Neanderthals, who were not only more evolved than heidelbergensis”
Prove it. Heidi has an estimated neuronal count of 76 b (Neanderthals at 85 b and Man at 85). They may have had the same cognitive potential as we do. This implies that what sets us apart from them is cultural transference and acquisition *see Herculano-Houzel, 2016; Herculano-Houzel and Kaas 2011; Gould, 1996). That’s a pretty huge finding.
Remember that neuronal scaling holds for primates and Man, which means it would hold for our ancestors.
“If the tribe’s IQ fell below 90, there wouldn’t be enough people who could quickly make fire, build warm, sturdy water tight shelter, sew weather tight clothes, and hunt scarce large game.”
Any empirical data to back this up?
“hunter-gatherer peoples in tropical and subtropical latitudes such as the Amazon basin and New Guinea typically have between 10 and 20 different tools, whereas those in the colder northern latitudes of Siberia, Alaska, and Greenland have between 25 and 60 different tools.”
Please provide references!
Please give me the name of the study Lynn references.
And read this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence
Big heads in cold climes keep warm, smaller heads cool faster. That’s why the ‘anomaly’ of the Inuits et al exists; climate is the cause, but it doesn’t have anything to do directly with the size of the brain.
Looking at it in this perspective lends credence to Skoyle’s theory that brain size increased for expertise capacity, not IQ.
Click to access Skoyles%20Human%20evolution%20expanded%20brains%20expertise%20not%20IQ.pdf
“climate is the cause, but it doesn’t have anything to do directly with the size of the brain”
I meant to say climate is the cause for bigger brains, but the climate has nothing directly to do with intelligence.
And you also have to think that the modern races are new, ~10ky old. So modern modern-day Nordics weren’t battling Neanderthals (a mongrel race ~5 thousand years old according to Razib Khan). You have to think of all of the differing amounts of admixture from other populations as well. The Yamna is a good place to start.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279699012_Time_budgeting_and_hunter-gatherer_technology
Thank you.
The number of tools has to do with the amount of things available to eat. There is also a relationship between the percentage of the diet composed of a lot of large plants and tools. “Weapons and faculties are associated with the importance of animal resources in the subsistence pattern.”
See table 3.1 on pg. 15 and table 3.2 on pg. 16. Has to do with diet again. Hmmm…
Lynn dishonest again, citing research out of context without giving background into what the authors say and twisting research to fit his theory. Not surprised.
There’s more stuff to eat in the tropics RR. Giving the full context makes Lynn’s case stronger not weaker.
Do you even realize that if you look at it as expertise capacity increasing brain size you can explain what you’re speaking about in your article?
Let’s see. Looking at table 2 of Terrence 1983 we have:
Tiwi: 50 percent mobile resources, 50 percent immobile resources,
Iglulik (Inuit population): 3 percent immobile resources, 97 percent mobile resources
There are differing amounts of tools based on the amount of mobile and immobile resources (as well as animal resources). So it makes sense that there would be more tools for the Inuit which, as you rightly say, has been a factor in our brain size (neuronal count) explosion over 3my.
Hunter-gatherers differ based on location and have to do different things to survive. Shocking.
Hunter-gatherers differ based on location and have to do different things to survive. Shocking.
That’s how intelligence evolved. Increased need for behavioural plasticity
The ability to acquire expertise is part of intelligence
“There’s more stuff to eat in the tropics RR. Giving the full context makes Lynn’s case stronger not weaker.”
Giving the full context lends credence to my case.
“That’s how intelligence evolved. Increased need for behavioural plasticity”
Hominins with more neural columns could store more information in the columns. This is why brain size increased; those who had more neural columns could store more information and become ‘experts’ leading to increased brain size over 2my.
RR:
Briefly, Sexual selection as in women’s wider hips* (attractive)= Giving birth to bigger brained babies?
Obviously this reduces the risk of larger brained babies dying in child birth. Although when the hips are NOT wide enough, without a Caesaran section there would be selectin AGAINST intelligence.
*In bone structure, not fat. Although Oriental women tend to be thin, Rushton said they had wider birth canals.
PP:
How’s the most influential list going? Although I used to mostly troll on this blog, the comments section seems remarkably ‘cleanier’ since I last commented here a few weeks ago. Some moderation/bannings are good in responding to trolls.
I’m going to post the results of the reader poll (the lists you guys made soon) soon.
if the climate theory is true then why aren’t Eskimos the smartest humans?
I have been asking that question since 2007 and no one has given me an answer yet.
most of the HBDers wont even publish my comments because they don’t want anyone question their ideology.
“if the climate theory is true then why aren’t Eskimos the smartest humans?”
Because their brain size increased for expertise capacity, not IQ. Brain size is driven by climate but climate is not a driver of intelligence. Other things explain it.
“most of the HBDers wont even publish my comments because they don’t want anyone questioning their ideology.”
I think CWT is garbage now. I used to believe it, not anymore.
I think CWT is garbage now. I used to believe it, not anymore.
Believing in HBD without believing in cold winter theory is like believing in evolution without believing in selection. It makes no sense.
When are you going to take the WAIS-IV RR?
“Believing in HBD without believing in cold winter theory is like believing in evolution without believing in selection.”
Ridiculous. You’re pretty much asserting that CWT explains it, when I’m proposing something different that makes sense with the data you presented, as well as others have.
“When are you going to take the WAIS-IV RR?”
Going to look into it next week.
Without CWT, it makes more sense to believe the black-white IQ gap is environmental.
“Without CWT, it makes more sense to believe the black-white IQ gap is environmental.”
No it doesn’t. You’re acting as if that’s the only explanation.
“Believing in HBD without believing in cold winter theory is like believing in evolution without believing in selection. It makes no sense.”
It’s nothing of the sort. Selection, as in sexual, natural, etc. are pretty much observable and confirmed events. Cold Winters Theory definitely had evidence to support it’s explanation of the global trend in IQ and Latitude, but it’s only a potential one.
What he’s arguing is a form of sexual selection driving it and not the adaptation to cold winters itself.
“Without CWT, it makes more sense to believe the black-white IQ gap is environmental.”
No, seeing how that’s not the only form of selection to explain it.
“That’s how intelligence evolved. Increased need for behavioural plasticity
The ability to acquire expertise is part of intelligence.”
Correction, IQ “evolved” likely to be able to handle new situations cognitively better,
Expertise that RR had explain is due to the amount Of cultural accumulation and selection for reasoning to go with the cultural form of adaptation.
“Because selection pressures are not the only thing that drives evolution.”
Pretty much handing the debate over to RR.
“Another huge factor is genetic variation. As Lynn argued, arctic people had such small populations and i would add, were so geographically isolated, that the odds of a new high IQ mutation appearing were small.
But selection did use whatever little variation they had to make them as smart as possible which is why they have the world’s biggest brains.”
Yet you need to distinguish expertise from IQ as intelligence, otherwise you didn’t really answer the question while being consistent with the direct point of climate.
What would likely be a better explanation is the knock-on effects of the Winters through sexual selection such as in monogamy and polygamy, somewhat correlated with R and K selection in different tropics.
It’s nothing of the sort. Selection, as in sexual, natural, etc. are pretty much observable and confirmed events. Cold Winters Theory definitely had evidence to support it’s explanation of the global trend in IQ and Latitude, but it’s only a potential one.
Do you and RR have a better GENETIC explanation for the black-white IQ gap? No you don’t.
What he’s arguing is a form of sexual selection driving it and not the adaptation to cold winters itself.
And what evidence is there for this?
“Without CWT, it makes more sense to believe the black-white IQ gap is environmental.”
No, seeing how that’s not the only form of selection to explain it.
Provide evidence that sexual selection for IQ in whites better explains the black-white IQ gap than CWT does.
Correction, IQ “evolved” likely to be able to handle new situations cognitively better,
And part of being able to cognitively handle new situations better is absorbing information rapidly: Acquiring expertise.
Expertise that RR had explain is due to the amount Of cultural accumulation and selection for reasoning to go with the cultural form of adaptation.
Rewrite that sentence in English please, Phil.
Pretty much handing the debate over to RR.
Non Sequitur. Just because CWT is not the only factor in the evolution of racial IQ differences, doesn’t mean sexual selection is a better explanation for the black-white IQ gap.
“Do you and RR have a better GENETIC explanation for the black-white IQ gap? No you don’t.”
Uum…differences in sexual selection as RR pointed out?
“And what evidence is there for this?”
Well HBD chick has tons on sexual selection through time coupled with IQ and behavior in different groups, so with macro races wouldn’t be much different.
“Provide evidence that sexual selection for IQ in whites better explains the black-white IQ gap than CWT does.”
And in Europe causing differences through time.
“And part of being able to cognitively handle new situations better is absorbing information rapidly: Acquiring expertise.”
Except RR already demonstrated how expertise and IQ are different.
“Rewrite that sentence in English please, Phil.”
What’s hard to understand?
This is the type of reasoning I was referring to that connects to expertise.
” ‘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.” Moreover, Skoyler writes, expertise in chess (see Erickson, 2000) and music (see Deutsch, 1982: 404-405) “correlates poorly, or not at all with IQ.’ ”
“Non Sequitur. Just because CWT is not the only factor in the evolution of racial IQ differences, doesn’t mean sexual selection is a better explanation for the black-white IQ gap.”
Yet that wasn’t the only reason why I said it proves RR’s point. You admitting that on top of him using source distinguishing climate and it’s effects on expertise hands more credibility towards RR in understand IQ, brain size and it’s implications, and racial differences.
Well HBD chick has tons on sexual selection through time coupled with IQ and behavior in different groups, so with macro races wouldn’t be much different
I know RR is like the big brother you never had and you want to defend him, and no offense to HBD chick, who I respect, but if you think several centuries of manorialism in some parts of Europe is a better explanation for the 15 point-black white IQ gap than some SEVENTY THOUSAND YEARS of living in wildly different climates, then you’re obviously a very young child (either mentally, chronologically or both). But then you’re the same person who was arguing that whites engaged in colonialism out of the goodness of their hearts so it doesn’t surprise me. And you realize there’s evidence for a black-white IQ gap going back 20,000 years:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/05/has-the-black-white-iq-gap-existed-for-20000-years/
Long before manorialism and even before whites existed in their current form.
‘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.” Moreover, Skoyler writes, expertise in chess (see Erickson, 2000) and music (see Deutsch, 1982: 404-405) “correlates poorly, or not at all with IQ.’
The reason IQ correlates weakly with expertise is because IQ is general and expertise is domain specific, and IQ is (in theory) an innate ability, while expertise supposedly relies on ten thousand hours of practice. But OVERALL brain size also reflects overall general ability, not specific talents, (it’s not as though just one narrow part of our brain evolved increased size). Moreover, because expertise is acquired through endless practice, it’s not heritable, except to the extent that learning and memory are heritable, and these traits are measured by IQ. Moreover, there’s no evidence that expertise correlates anywhere near as well with brain size as IQ does, nor is their evidence that it correlates with brain size much at all, after controlling for IQ.
Expertise is not even really a trait in any meaningful sense. Expertise for what? Change the domain, and you change the part of the brain that’s being selected for. If you just mean the cognitive capacity for expertise in general, then no such thing exists independent of general intelligence.
“I know RR is like the big brother you never had and you want to defend him”
I’m a twin in case you were wondering, nice ad hominem there two, not desperate at all.
” and no offense to HBD chick, who I respect, but if you think several centuries of manorialism in some parts of Europe is a better explanation for the 15 point-black white IQ gap than some SEVENTY THOUSAND YEARS of living in wildly different climates,”
I used that as a example of breeding changes behavior and intelligence in different european subgroups, not just manoralism as a final step.
“then you’re obviously a very young child (either mentally, chronologically or both).”
And you obviously can;t read when I added to that link “And in Europe causing differences through time.”, giving it context.
” But then you’re the same person who was arguing that whites engaged in colonialism out of the goodness of their hearts so it doesn’t surprise me. And you realize there’s evidence for a black-white IQ gap going back 20,000 years:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/05/has-the-black-white-iq-gap-existed-for-20000-years/
Long before manorialism and even before whites existed in their current form.”
First of all I didn’t say manoralism was the reason, I said sexual selection and I used it to provide sexual differences.
Also, nice job once again with the ad hominems, this time it has nothing to do with the current situation nor was it actually what I said.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/04/07/darwins-terrifying-prediction/comment-page-1/#comment-50482
I explained repeatedly the different motivations of european missionary groups versus the militaristic section of the Empire and as well Darwin himself not even talking about the empire’s intentions, but the actual resources that natives recieved to rule out reasons towards a hypothesis.
I even linked an article criticizing European forms of assimilation. So you bring this up is more telling of your feelings on imperialism, your lack of understanding on Outbreeding, and overall lack of understanding history.
“The reason IQ correlates weakly with expertise is because IQ is general and expertise is domain specific, and IQ is (in theory) an innate ability, while expertise supposedly relies on ten thousand hours of practice.”
First of all, it’s not called “reason IQ”, second your theory would expect them to correlate, and third “expertise” IS an innate ability of head size.
“But OVERALL brain size also reflects overall general ability, not specific talents, (it’s not as though just one narrow part of our brain evolved increased size).”
Actually it just correlates with IQ, though RR’s article showing it’s direct function is information storage and using the stored information would be called multivariate reasoning like in tracking a foot print as RR’s article provides.
Moreover, because expertise is acquired through endless practice, it’s not heritable, except to the extent that learning and memory are heritable, and these traits are measured by IQ. Moreover, there’s no evidence that expertise correlates anywhere near as well with brain size as IQ does, nor is their evidence that it correlates with brain size much at all, after controlling for IQ.”
If you read RR articles, he provides that it IS heredity and that it does have a better correlation with head size than IQ through evidence.
“Expertise is not even really a trait in any meaningful sense. Expertise for what? Change the domain, and you change the part of the brain that’s being selected for. If you just mean the cognitive capacity for expertise in general, then no such thing exists independent of general intelligence.”
You clearly need to read the actual article as you clearly don’t understand how expertise is defined even though RR provided you a chart with Data and a link to his actual article on this.
I used that as a example of breeding changes behavior and intelligence in different european subgroups, not just manoralism as a final step.
Just because manoralism (which isn’t really sexual selection) might have selected for IQ for a few centuries in a few parts of Europe, doesn’t tell you anything about long-term sexual selection pressures between whites and blacks, and is in no way a better explanation for the black-white IQ gap than a 70,000 year difference in climate
I even linked an article criticizing European forms of assimilation. So you bring this up is more telling of your feelings on imperialism, your lack of understanding on Outbreeding, and overall lack of understanding history.
Phi, you sound like a brainwashed Uncle Tom who looks at whites and says “thank you massa for civilizing me and making me your slave. Miss HBD chick says you did that because outbreeding made you such a nice person”. God, you’re so embarrassing.
Actually it just correlates with IQ, though RR’s article showing it’s direct function is information storage and using the stored information
Actually storing information is a big part of what standard IQ tests measure. The general knowledge and vocabulary subtests of the Wechsler IQ tests have traditionally correlated with overall IQ better than virtually any other subtest.
If you read RR articles, he provides that it IS heredity and that it does have a better correlation with head size than IQ through evidence.
Cite one study showing expertise independently correlates better with head size or brain size than IQ does.
“I used that as a example of breeding changes behavior and intelligence in different european subgroups, not just manoralism as a final step.”
I meant as the direct mechanism, I meant to say that it was more like a “final step” or better yet “recent step” in causing group differences IQ and behavior.
I also meant to say “too”, not two.
“First of all I didn’t say manoralism was the reason, I said sexual selection and I used it to provide sexual differences.”
Meant differences in mental traits through sexual selection/breeding.
“Just because manoralism (which isn’t really sexual selection) might have selected for IQ for a few centuries in a few parts of Europe, doesn’t tell you anything about long-term sexual selection pressures between whites and blacks, and in no way is better evidence for the black-white IQ gap than a 70,000 year difference in climate.”
It does however show evidence of breeding styles contributing to changing behaviors in different populations.
Why it could not be a competing hypothesis you have not actually debunked.
“Phi, you sound like a brainwashed Uncle Tom who looks at whites and says “thank you massa for civilizing me and making me your slave. Miss HBD chick says you did that because outbreeding made you such a nice person”. God, you’re so embarrassing.”
Wow…where to begin? First of all I didn’t deny that the empire itself had intentions for resources with lack of regard to the people, all I did was distinguish missionaries from that entity.
We are discussing “morals” only because you brought them up when Darwin ruled out lack of resources with his contention with civilization and fertility on native people.
I’m a Uncle Tom for believing it? So is Jayman one too, because I’ve actually linked to him about it in our original argument on this.
So you are telling me that you boasting about cold-adapted populations being smarter (and with less crime I might add) did not develop a more complex form of Morality and philosophy about reaching out to others?
So RR can’t refuse CWT with another HBD based one but you can ignore thise despite that data? And furthermore Melo can’t refuse the assertions from TTTYE but you can with HBD’s data showing the results of outbreeding on IQ and behavior?
“Actually storing information is what standard IQ tests measure. The general knowledge and vocabulary subtests of the Wechsler IQ tests have traditionally correlated with overall IQ better than virtually any other subtest.”
Except in the wider scope of Multivariate reasoning that RR linked studies to showing nothing of the sort compared to the examples you gave.
“Cite one study showing expertise independently correlates better with head size or brain size than IQ does.”
Had I not both provided a quote used in RR’s article as well as linked to that article for you to do such?
It does however show evidence of breeding styles contributing to changing behaviors in different populations.
But no evidence of long-term sexual selection for IQ favouring whites over blacks
Had I not both provided a quote used in RR’s article as well as linked to that article for you to do such?
The quote proved nothing. Cite one study showing expertise independently correlates better with head size or brain size than IQ does.
To PP, while Manoralism may not be direct sexual selection, it does ties into K strategy outlooks to select for, cooperation, but this time with unrelated individuals.
Click to access iq-race-spearmans-hypothesis-eysenck-cattell-rushton-jensen-behavioral-brain-sciences-1985.pdf
Even Rushton agrees with that.
“Across-species comparisons demonstrate
that a variety of life history features correlate with these
reproductive strategies, including litter size, birth spacing,
parental care, infant mortality, developmental precocity, life
span, intelligence, social organization, and altruism (Wilson
1975)…… Moreover, one will tend to be more intelligent,
altruistic, law abiding, behaviorally restrained, maturationally
delayed, lower in sex drive, and longer lived. Thus diverse
organismic characteristics, not apparently otherwise related,
are presumed to covary along the K dimension. “
“But no evidence of long-term sexual selection for IQ favouring whites over blacks.”
Yet literature certainly exist connecting breeding style with mental traits diverging blacks and whites, such as R/K theory.
“The quote proved nothing. Cite one study showing expertise independently correlates better with head size or brain size than IQ does.”
The quote includes such studies, but fine.
http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10448
And here, it actually distinguish “expertise” from the type of info you talked about being stored a correlating with IQ.
“For appropriate challenging problems experts don’t just automatically extract patterns and retrieve their response directly from memory. Instead they select the relevant information and encode it in special representations in working memory that allow planning, evaluation and reasoning about alternative courses of action (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Hence, the difference between experts and less skilled subjects is not merely a matter of the amount and complexity of the accumulated knowledge; it also reflects qualitative differences in the organization of knowledge and its representation (Chi, Glaser & Rees, 1982). Experts’ knowledge is encoded around key domain-related concepts and solution procedures that allow rapid and reliable retrieval whenever stored information is relevant. Less skilled subjects’ knowledge, in contrast, is encoded using everyday concepts that make the retrieval of even their limited relevant knowledge difficult and unreliable. Furthermore, experts have acquired domain-specific memory skills that allow them to rely on long-term memory (Long-Term Working Memory, Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995) to dramatically expand the amount of information that can be kept accessible during planning and during reasoning about alternative courses of action. The superior quality of the experts’ mental representations allow them to adapt rapidly to changing circumstances and anticipate future events in advance. The same acquired representations appear to be essential for experts’ ability to monitor and evaluate their own performance (Ericsson, 1996; Glaser, 1996) so they can keep improving their own performance by designing their own training and assimilating new knowledge.”
“But no evidence of long-term sexual selection for IQ favouring whites over blacks”
What do you think blue eyes are? It’s highly possible that IQ is from sexual selection.
What do you think blue eyes are? It’s highly possible that IQ is from sexual selection
Anything a possible MeLo. Where’s the evidence that whites were more sexually selected for IQ than blacks?
If you don’t believe cold winter theory than why not consider some of the plausible non-genetic explanations for the black-white IQ gap?
My source was actually on the relationship between IQ and multivariate reasoning by mistake, here is the one on brain size and IQ
Click to access Skoyles%20Human%20evolution%20expanded%20brains%20expertise%20not%20IQ.pdf
My source was actually on the relationship between IQ and multivariate reasoning by mistake, here is the one on brain size and IQ
Where in your source does it cite an ACTUAL study showing expertise has a higher independent correlation with brain size than IQ does? Asking for the third time now.
As I’ve said, not sure if the comment shows up though, Rushton R/K theory would expect higher IQ selection in favor of whites over blacks linked to cooperation.
“If you don’t believe cold winter theory than why not consider some of the plausible non-genetic explanations for the black-white IQ gap?”
So you assume that people who disagree with CWT would have to advocate non-genetic hypothesis despite something like R/K theory (as I’ve already explained) supporting selection on different mental traits based on reproductive habits?
You have it backwards Phil. K traits did not sexually select high IQ, selection for IQ caused K traits because big brains need more parental care & a longer gestation & childhood.
“You have it backwards Phil. K traits did not sexually select high IQ, selection for IQ caused K traits because big brains need more parental care & a longer gestation & childhood.”
1. Show me where Rushton or anyone else said that K strategy breeding is the result of those traits like IQ rather than the source.
2. My example with manoralism shows that in breeding habit precedes the mental traits in response to selective pressures.
To pp,
What you are describing isn’t even how actual R/K works in nature, let alone humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
K traits develop in response to carrying capacity, thus traits like growth rate and parenting investment is selected for.
“In contrast, species living in stable and predictable environmental conditions tend to
evolve clusters of “K-selected” traits associated with low reproductive rates, high parental investment, and long intergeneration times. In reference to human evolution, Geary (2005) emphasizes whether the environment is relatively unexploited and resource-rich and can therefore facilitate rapid population expansion, which favors r-selection and entails the production of numerous but inexpensive oVspring. In contrast, when the environment is relatively saturated (has reached a high conspeciWc population density) and therefore occasions more intraspeciWc competition for limited resources, this favors K-selection and entails suYcient parental investment to produce less numerous but more competitive
A.J. Figueredo et al. / Developmental Review 26 (2006) 243–275 245
oVspring. ”
The selection itself being the cause of the traits, not big brains.
Click to access 00b7d5204dcc8c5160000000.pdf
Phil you’re very confused
r genotypes evolve when no matter how smart you are, there’s no way to guarantee survival so you might as well flood the environment with kids in the hopes that a few get lucky
k genotypes evolve when intelligent behavior guarantees survival so having a few kids but teaching them skills is the key to fitness
R genotypes evolve through sexual selection. K evolve through natural selection
You’re very confused. Before i knew you wre black i thought you were inbred white trash like the family in the Texas chainsaw massacre
You belong back on robert Lindsay’s white trash blog talking about Bigfoot even though lindsay himself is very smart
“Phil you’re very confused
r genotypes evolve when no matter how smart you are, there’s no way to guarantee survival so you might as well flood the environment with kids in the hopes that a few get lucky”
Then how does that make sense if big brains are selected for IQ and thus requires parental care if R selection does create constraints on IQ?
“k genotypes evolve when intelligent behavior guarantees survival so having a few kids but teaching them skills is the key to fitness.
R genotypes evolve through sexual selection. K evolve through natural selection
You’re very confused.”
No I’m not, I cited multiple sources showing both to be reproduction strategies in response to carry capacity, each with associated traits selected for them.
I’m certainly not confused unless you can provide an equivalent source(s) that would support your characterization of them.
“Before i knew you wre black i thought you were inbred white trash like the family in the Texas chainsaw massacre
You belong back on robert Lindsay’s white trash blog talking about Bigfoot even though lindsay himself is very smart.”
You know I notice a trend when you insult others, me included obviously, it’s typically associated with scanty arguments either in regards to quality or quantity.
BTW, funny you talk about inbreeding but act clueless on the result of outbreeding.
I meant to say “….if R selection isn’t restricted to IQ?”
Anyway, I see what you are trying to say….and the reason why it doesn’t make sense because both are based on carrying capacity and overall traits to compensate for it, not directly IQ.
Thus the focus becomes smaller populations, higher competition for survival, and longer development.
Also you seem to be misunderstand sexual versus natural selection as if the were polar rather than overlapping.
Sexual selection is natural selection and potentially occurs in both strategies as it is NOT selection to be able to to simply get a mate but specifically based on prefered traits in the other sex that influences their ability.
https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-selection
On one hand it could be mostly aesthetic, but on the otherhand there lies reason for that trait being desirable in the other sex like behavioral or physical function .
“Where’s the evidence that whites were more sexually selected for IQ than blacks?”
Their blue is evidence.
Blue eyes are a recessive trait, the first blue eyed individual was probably considered more attractive. I assume higher intelligence would be recessive as it mutated along, meaning the individual wold probably possess both traits and successfully pass them on. It turns out a significant portion of geniuses have blue eyes.
“R genotypes evolve through sexual selection. K evolve through natural selection”
You have that backwards. you’re conflating sexual selection with the appearance of sexually extreme phenotypes. Not to say they are completely separate entities.
I assume higher intelligence would be recessive as it mutated along, meaning the individual wold probably possess both traits and successfully pass them on. It turns out a significant portion of geniuses have blue eyes.
But high IQ people have less sex and fewer sexual partner than low IQ people, so how could high IQ be selected by sexual selection?
You have that backwards. you’re conflating sexual selection with the appearance of sexually extreme phenotypes. Not to say they are completely separate entities.
Sexual selection is what causes traits that have virtually no survival value to evolve like large sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics. That certainly describes r genotypes.
I meant to say that sexual selection isn’t just focusing on mating as oppose to adapting to the environment for resources (not making much sense as the strategies are based directly on environmental characteristics, thus showing how sexual selection from Natural selection as opposed to being a subset makes little sense as well).
Rather, it is the selection of traits that makes one more preferable for mating and, while often aesthetic, it also could work as indicators or direct traits for offspring success.
Both strategies involve this, as K wouldn’t work with just any mate combination especially in parental investment.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/11/extraversion-tool-for-mating-success.html
I meant to say
Instead of responding five times to every one comment I make, why don’t you take your time and just produce one quality coherent rebuttal. And proofread it.
“Where in your source does it cite an ACTUAL study showing expertise has a higher independent correlation with brain size than IQ does? Asking for the third time now.”
In the study it refers to not only IQ score of microcephaly patients, who small brains lack that additional problems separates from size, hemispherectomy patients, and this study on the direct link relationship of expertise, cortical column, and cerebral mass.
“38. One factor increasing a person’s expertise capacity is likely to have been brain size. Expertise, as noted, is linked to the number of chunks a person can hold and actively process. Capacity for expertise may be related to the number of cortical columns able to specialise neural networks in representing and processing them, and through this to cerebral mass (Jerison (1991). There is also some recent evidence that the increased information processing requirements of expertise lead to skill expansion over large areas of the cortex. Expertise in violin playing depends upon fine coordination of the left hand fingers and accurate coordination between the two hands. If expertise is related to increased cortical area devoted to
finger coordination, we would expect expert violinists to devote more of their brain to finger coordination. This is indeed the case. Expert violinists have two to three times as much area cortical area devoted to their left fingers as nonviolinists (Elbert, Pantev, Wienbruch, Rochstroh & Taub, 1995). Moreover, the need of expert violinists to coordinate their two hands leads them to develop a larger connection between the two sides of the brain dealing with motor coordination compared to nonviolinists (Schlaug, Jaencke, Huang, Staiger & Steinmetz, 1995). Thus, there is not only theoretical but empirical evidence that expertise needs large amounts of brain to store and actively process its informational chunks. This suggests that a strong connection should exist between the capacity for acquiring expertise skills and brain “:
In the study it refers to not only IQ score of microcephaly patients, who small brains lack that additional problems separates from size, hemispherectomy patients, and this study on the direct link relationship of expertise, cortical column, and cerebral mass.
Still no evidence of any practically significant relationship to brain size independent of IQ
“38. One factor increasing a person’s expertise capacity is likely to have been brain size. Expertise, as noted, is linked to the number of chunks a person can hold and actively process.
Which is also linked to IQ. Again, no evidence of any practically significant relationship independent of IQ.
Capacity for expertise may be related to the number of cortical columns able to specialise neural networks in representing and processing them, and through this to cerebral mass (Jerison (1991).
Again, no evidence of any practically significant relationship to brain size independent of IQ
There is also some recent evidence that the increased information processing requirements of expertise lead to skill expansion over large areas of the cortex. Expertise in violin playing depends upon fine coordination of the left hand fingers and accurate coordination between the two hands. If expertise is related to increased cortical area devoted to finger coordination, we would expect expert violinists to devote more of their brain to finger coordination. This is indeed the case. Expert violinists have two to three times as much area cortical area devoted to their left fingers as nonviolinists (Elbert, Pantev, Wienbruch, Rochstroh & Taub, 1995).
Nothing to do with brain size
Moreover, the need of expert violinists to coordinate their two hands leads them to develop a larger connection between the two sides of the brain dealing with motor coordination compared to nonviolinists (Schlaug, Jaencke, Huang, Staiger & Steinmetz, 1995).
That’s an argument that expertise causes more brain size, the exact opposite of your point that bigger brains evolved to cause expertise. But even the former argument is limited because the studies looked at 1) specific brain parts, not overall brain size, 2) brain growth is limited by cranial capacity, and 3) no evidence that this effect is limited to any specific abilities associated with expertise (and no evidence such specific abilities even exist), but could apply to all forms of cognition.
Thus, there is not only theoretical but empirical evidence that expertise needs large amounts of brain to store and actively process its informational chunks. This suggests that a strong connection should exist between the capacity for acquiring expertise skills and brain “:
Knowledge and thinking in general need large amounts of brain to store and actively process information chunks. Again, no evidence of any practically significant relationship independent of IQ.
“But high IQ people have less sex and fewer sexual partner than low IQ people”
Exactly, having a big brain is costly, childbirth is more dangerous for the mother and as a result infants are born more vulnerable. On top of this, Higher IQ is possible because of a long life history, meaning humans are more “monogomous”. Therefore, it would make perfect sense that certain traits like height, blue eyes, larger genitalia(not testes) are used as compensation for the reproductive drawbacks of higher intelligence.
“That certainly describes r genotypes.”
Selection pressures are independent of climate. If we go by your logic and assume that environmental variability correlates with risk of failure, natural selection will be more active.
Exactly, having a big brain is costly, childbirth is more dangerous for the mother and as a result infants are born more vulnerable. On top of this, Higher IQ is possible because of a long life history, meaning humans are more “monogomous”. Therefore, it would make perfect sense that certain traits like height, blue eyes, larger genitalia(not testes) are used as compensation for the reproductive drawbacks of higher intelligence.
No it would make sense for intelligence to be selected against, unless the survival benefits of high IQ outweighed the costs, which they did.
Selection pressures are independent of climate. If we go by your logic and assume that environmental variability correlates with risk of failure, natural selection will be more active.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
“Still no evidence of any practically significant relationship to brain size independent of IQ.”
Had you actually read the link and paid attention to what I’ve type, it is evidence.
“Which is also linked to IQ. Again, no evidence of any practically significant relationship independent of IQ.”
And my other reading shows how that is different from IQ, also included in the link if you bothered to read.
“That’s an argument that expertise causes more brain size, the exact opposite of your point that bigger brains evolved to cause expertise.”
Except connections are limited by the number of cortical columns a person would have, a trait RR pointed specifically.
“But even the former argument is limited because the studies looked at 1) specific brain parts, not overall brain size,”
Yet cortical columns are units of the cerebral cortex, thus brains size would obviously be relevant there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex
Plus that is the particular area the distinguishes us from our ancestors in volume and proportion with the skull.
“2) brain growth is limited by cranial capacity,” Yes? You seem to be confusing the article’s type of “growth” with connection over volume, the number of columns being the brain size factor is essentially fixed in this situation.
” 3) no evidence that this effect is limited to any specific abilities associated with expertise (and no evidence such specific abilities even exist), but could apply to all forms of cognition.”
Except how, again, this is shown to be separate from IQ by supporting studies. That one study (that actually is an analysis on multiple studies) you ignored pretty much summarizes it.
“Knowledge and thinking in general need large amounts of brain to store and actively process information chunks. Again, no evidence of any practically significant relationship independent of IQ.”
See above and referred studies showing otherwise.
Had you actually read the link and paid attention to what I’ve type, it is evidence.
No it isn’t.
And my other reading shows how that is different from IQ, also included in the link if you bothered to read.
IQ is based on the idea of GENERAL cognitive ability (g), meaning all cognitive abilities are positively correlated. So it’s not enough to say the capacity for expertise is different from IQ yet still correlated with brain size. You must show a practically significant correlation INDEPENDENT of g. You can’t do that.
Except connections are limited by the number of cortical columns a person would have, a trait RR pointed specifically.
No evidence that that cortical columns have any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g.
Yet cortical columns are units of the cerebral cortex, thus brains size would obviously be relevant there
No evidence of any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g
Plus that is the particular area the distinguishes us from our ancestors in volume and proportion with the skull.
No evidence of any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g
Yes? You seem to be confusing the article’s type of “growth” with connection over volume, the number of columns being the brain size factor is essentially fixed in this situation.
No evidence of any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g
Except how, again, this is shown to be separate from IQ by supporting studies. That one study (that actually is an analysis on multiple studies) you ignored pretty much summarizes it.
I ignored them because they don’t exist. No evidence of any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g
I didn’t bother publishing your other comments because you need to limit yourself to one response at a time and making it thoughtful, rather than just blathering on and on.
“No it isn’t.”
Care for a further explanation?
“IQ is based on the idea of GENERAL cognitive ability (g), meaning all cognitive abilities are positively correlated. So it’s not enough to say the capacity for expertise is different from IQ yet still correlated with brain size. You must show a practically significant correlation INDEPENDENT of g. You can’t do that.”
Correction, g indicates a strong correlation between certain subtests under overall ability. There could be a subtest correlation but that deserves to be distinguished from an overall score correlation, as that determines how narrow the skill is.
As you said- “The reason IQ correlates weakly with expertise is because IQ is general and expertise is domain specific…”
An amendment though- “….and IQ is (in theory) an innate ability, while expertise supposedly relies on ten thousand hours of practice.”
Technically true, but what is actually innate is the capacity for expertise, and my citing of the study mentions explain why it’s more complex than the type of memory you say IQ tests for on general knowledge and vocabulary.
“No evidence that that cortical columns have any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g.”
Yet it was shown to be a stronger correlation with cortical column functions compared to overall G.
“No evidence of any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g”
Why would you repeat yourself in response on the matter of the relevance of the studied brain region?
You pretty much do the same with the rest of my responses, so clearly you aren’t being serious.
“I ignored them because they don’t exist. No evidence of any practically significant correlation with expertise INDEPENDENT of g.”
Again, you need to distinguish overall g from the number of subtests. Otherwise, How else would you explain the results from the studies on the association of IQ and expertise?
A proper response I’m looking for is actually looking at the specific methodology.
“I didn’t bother publishing your other comments because you need to limit yourself to one response at a time and making it thoughtful, rather than just blathering on and on.”
Sure, I’ll include them in this comment.-
“No it would make sense for intelligence to be selected against, unless the survival benefits of high IQ outweighed the costs, which they did.”
Reread what I’ve actually cited on R/K theory and what causes the traits to occur.
You also said that the violinists quote had nothing to do with brain size, did you miss that part on experts having larger cortical areas?
Correction, g indicates a strong correlation between certain subtests under overall ability. There could be a subtest correlation but that deserves to be distinguished from an overall score correlation, as that determines how narrow the skill is.
Yes but in order to support the expertise hypothesis, you need a study showing a non-trivial correlation between expertise (or the capacity for expertise) and brain size that is statistically independent of g or overall IQ.
Technically true, but what is actually innate is the capacity for expertise, and my citing of the study mentions explain why it’s more complex than the type of memory you say IQ tests for on general knowledge and vocabulary.
Then cite a study showing innate capacity for expertise has a meaningful correlation with brain size when IQ or g is controlled for.
“Nothing to do with brain size”
Has to do with cortical area.
“That’s an argument that expertise causes more brain size, the exact opposite of your point that bigger brains evolved to cause expertise. But even the former argument is limited because the studies looked at 1) specific brain parts, not overall brain size, 2) brain growth is limited by cranial capacity, and 3) no evidence that this effect is limited to any specific abilities associated with expertise (and no evidence such specific abilities even exist), but could apply to all forms of cognition.”
No idea why you split them up, they go together.
Surely you’ve heard of the study on racecar drivers and increased neural efficacy.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077764
Brain changes due to expertness.
Hippocampal brain changes in taxi drivers compared to controls.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/4398.full
Becoming an ‘expert’ changes your brain.
Again in London taxi drivers and bus drivers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024677
Cabbies in London who become ‘expert’ cab drivers have grey matter changes in their brain.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221101267X
Hmmm
That is, acquiring expertise changes the brain.
“Which is also linked to IQ. Again, no evidence of any practically significant relationship independent of IQ.”
Skoyles talks about that and writes:
Moreover, size would not be expected to increase cognitive competence more than modestly because larger brains have larger neurons and more myelinated axons connecting them (Deacon, 1990). It is perhaps because for this reason that people with larger than normal brains are not necessarily brighter (DeMyer, 1986); indeed,
there appears to be a plateau and perhaps a decrease in IQ in the largest brains (Reiss, Abrams, Singer, Ross, & Denckla, 1996).
Here is Deacon, 1990: http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9iZjAyMTkyODY5/10.1007%40bf02192869.pdf
DeMeyer, 1986: http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi8wODg3LTg5OTQoODYpOTAwNzIteA==/10.1016%400887-8994%2886%2990072-X.pdf
Reiss, Abrams, Singer, Ross & Denckla, 1996: http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTA5My9icmFpbi8xMTkuNS4xNzYz/10.1093%40brain%40119.5.1763.pdf
Re: Ceci and Liker:
Click to access 10.1037%400096-3445.115.3.255.pdf
“Actually storing information is a big part of what standard IQ tests measure. The general knowledge and vocabulary subtests of the Wechsler IQ tests have traditionally correlated with overall IQ better than virtually any other subtest.”
Re: Ceci and Liker.
“The quote proved nothing. Cite one study showing expertise independently correlates better with head size or brain size than IQ does.”
Ceci and Liker.
Surely you’ve heard of the study on racecar drivers and increased neural efficacy.
What does that have to do with brain size?
Hippocampal brain changes in taxi drivers compared to controls.
1) Hippocampal changes != increase in overall brain size
2) spatial processing != expertise
Becoming an ‘expert’ changes your brain.
How is that evidence bigger brains evolved for expertise and not for intelligence?
Moreover, size would not be expected to increase cognitive competence more than modestly because larger brains have larger neurons and more myelinated axons connecting them (Deacon, 1990). It is perhaps because for this reason that people with larger than normal brains are not necessarily brighter
How does pissing on the brain-size IQ correlation prove there’s a meaningful brain-size expertise correlation independent of IQ? It doesn’t. Try again.
Here is Deacon, 1990
Hi Deacon, 1990! Nice to meet you. Now can you introduce me to someone who actually proves your point.
Ceci and Liker.
That study has nothing to do with brain size. It’s about the correlation between IQ and expertise. How does proving expertise correlates poorly with certain forms of expertise prove it correlates with brain size? Answer: it doesn’t.
All that research and not a drop of evidence. Sad.
“Yes but in order to support the expertise hypothesis, you need a study showing a non-trivial correlation between expertise (or the capacity for expertise) and brain size that is statistically independent of g or overall IQ.”
Both I and RR brought up Cortical area as well as studies on brain size, IQs on microcephalic patients, and the lack of association between overall IQ and expertise.
“Then cite a study showing innate capacity for expertise has a meaningful correlation with brain size when IQ or g is controlled for.”
By control I believe you mean independent of as you said. Just wanted to state that the phrase could mean different types of investigations with context.
Anyway, Both I and RR supplied info showing little association between expertise and g with higher association between Cortical Area and g.
“That study has nothing to do with brain size. It’s about the correlation between IQ and expertise. How does proving expertise correlates poorly with certain forms of expertise prove it correlates with brain size? Answer: it doesn’t.
All that research and not a drop of evidence. Sad.”
The Cortical Area association that ties with Expertise as opposed to IQ along with studies on Microcephalic people who are not retarded (thus isolating the case of a small brain from the confounding factors of retardation) shows the effect on Rain size itself and IQ.
Anyway, Both I and RR supplied info showing little association between expertise and g with higher association between Cortical Area and g.
Cite a specific study that shows cortical area correlating better with expertise than it does with g.
Microcephalic people who are not retarded
Non-retarded microcephalics prove only that the correlation between IQ and brain size is very imperfect. It doesn’t prove that brain size correlates with expertise any better let alone independently of IQ.
“No it would make sense for intelligence to be selected against, unless the survival benefits of high IQ outweighed the costs, which they did.”
Nope. Intelligence is always selected against. Survival is irrelevant because mutations occur more frequently on non cognitive traits. So why evolve a big brain when I can just get bigger muscles?
Not to mention the fact that Intelligence has such a negative affect on reproduction it would be specific genocide if we did not have sexual traits coupled with it.
Of course though, you like the idea that the meek inherit the earth, so your EGI allows you to cling unto very erroneous concepts, which is why you think sexual selection and r selection have anything to do with eachother.
A trait selected for sexually isn’t the same thing as a trait meant for sex.
“Not sure what you’re trying to say here.”
Of course, well all I was saying was that following your…”logic” R phenotypes are propagated by natural selection not sexual selection.
“What does that have to do with brain size?”
Think about this in terms of evolutionary history. Those who have more expertise have differing brains than others who have no/little expertise. So over time, the experts will pass their genes. Also think about this in regards to the budding, new field of epigenetics. Genetic changes undergone in one generation can and will pass down to the next.
“1) Hippocampal changes != increase in overall brain size”
I linked the study to show that there are local plastic change in response to environmental demands. Becoming an expert at something, as seen in the studies on cabbies and cabbies and bus drives, changes the brain. Now think about it in terms of evolution.
“2) spatial processing != expertise”
… The expertise is navigating London, “being on The Knowledge”.
“How is that evidence bigger brains evolved for expertise and not for intelligence?”
Skoyles’ thesis is that bigger brains cause problems, for instance like childbirth, and so natural selection selected for bigger brains for expertise since a bigger brain means more neural columns in which to hold more information as expertise comes. The evidence from microcephalics shows that you don’t need a big brain for an IQ our range, suggesting that many Erectus may have possibly had IQs similar to ours.
Even Jensen says “it’s neither necessary nor efficient to have a large head for above average IQ.”
“How does pissing on the brain-size IQ correlation prove there’s a meaningful brain-size expertise correlation independent of IQ? It doesn’t. Try again.”
You’ve got it reversed. The .33-.4 correlation between brain size and IQ doesn’t negate the findings that people have IQs in the normal range despite Erectus-sized brains.
“Hi Deacon, 1990! Nice to meet you. Now can you introduce me to someone who actually proves your point.”
I was providing the citations in the quote, which should be done.
“That study has nothing to do with brain size. It’s about the correlation between IQ and expertise. How does proving expertise correlates poorly with certain forms of expertise prove it correlates with brain size? Answer: it doesn’t.”
IQ doesn’t correlate with expertise. Experts’ brains look different than non-experts. IQ did not predict expertise in the study done by Ceci and Liker. Expertise is a learned trait and this learned trait leads to local changes in the brain due to environmental effects. So, the argument is that since people can have IQs in the normal range with Erectus-sized brains then it’s possible Erectus had IQs in our range. Big brains cause a problem during childbirth, so reason big brains got selected for is due to a need for expertise during our evolutionary history which then got selected for.
Going back to the original argument, tool size and brain size increase in the fossil record. So the fact that Arctic populations have larger brains and more tools due to animal availability/species makes my argument, not yours, stronger.
“Cite a specific study that shows cortical area correlating better with expertise than it does with g.”
Well seeing how my sources show little association between expertise and IQ versus Expertise and Cortical Area, that alone should suffice.
IQ, as RR has already written about with hominids, has more to do with Neuron count.
“Non-retarded microcephalics prove only that the correlation between IQ and brain size is very imperfect.”
Actually it shows that, with other symptoms involved in retardation excluded, brain size doesn’t effect IQ directly to a meaningful extent that RR provides support from Jensen with such a occurrence.
” It doesn’t prove that brain size correlates with expertise any better let alone independently of IQ.”
Yet research with Cortical Area shows otherwise.
Well seeing how my sources show little association between expertise and IQ versus Expertise and Cortical Area, that alone should suffice.
Comparing different studies that define expertise in different ways and use different kinds of experts proves nothing. A study on experts at professional wrestling might show little relationship to IQ, but a study on experts at abstract math might show a correlation with cortical area because cortical area is a proxy for IQ. Again, you have no evidence that expertise has any meaningful correlation with brain size independent of general intelligence, and in fact on page 146 of the book “The g Factor”, Jensen notes that the more g loaded a cognitive task, the more it correlates with head size.
IQ, as RR has already written about with hominids, has more to do with Neuron count.
There’s not a single study in the history of science showing IQ is more correlated with neuron count than it is with brain size.
Actually it shows that, with other symptoms involved in retardation excluded, brain size doesn’t effect IQ directly to a meaningful extent that RR provides support from Jensen with such a occurrence.
In the biologically normal population there’s a moderate correlation between IQ and brain size so it has nothing to do with other symptoms of retardation. And the existence of non-retarded microcephalics does nothing to show that brain size is more related to expertise than IQ, unless you can also show that their small brains were impairing their expertise while preserving their IQs. You can’t show that.
To PP,
This recent article from RR may help.
“Comparing different studies that define expertise in different ways and use different kinds of experts proves nothing.”
1. Prove that they define Expertise differently.
2.Both actually used violonist to find association with Iq versus Cortical Area.
“A study on experts at professional wrestling might show little relationship to IQ, but a study on experts at abstract math might show a correlation with cortical area because cortical area is a proxy for IQ.”
That makes no sense whatsoever if you define the Cortical Area as a proxy for IQ sense that would mean that it would be expected to correlate with IQ, that comparison showing little association on that task.
“Again, you have no evidence that expertise has any meaningful correlation with brain size independent of general intelligence, and in fact on page 146 of the book “The g Factor”, Jensen notes that the more g loaded a cognitive task, the more it correlates with head size.”
Yet RR also noted how he said it wasn’t necessary for a High IQ, also by Jensen words. You are just showing an association, NOT the functional association.
Also, here is the rest of the quote from that page “….although the correlation is quite small, in most studies
ranging between +.10 and +.25, with a mean r ~ +.15.”
“There’s not a single study in the history of science showing IQ is more correlated with neuron count than it is with brain size.”
Yet I’ve just mentioned RR’s study with hominids that I’m sure you are familiar with as he mentioned it to you multiple times.
“In the biologically normal population there’s a moderate correlation between IQ and brain size so it has nothing to do with other symptoms of retardation.”
How do you know that those studies excluded retarded people, and even if it did that would also just reflect the past selection for both those traits, not necessarily. that one causes the other.
Correlation can mean causation, but not all the time.
“And the existence of non-retarded microcephalics does nothing to show that brain size is more related to expertise than IQ, unless you can also show that their small brains were impairing their expertise while preserving their IQs. You can’t show that.”
Yet we’ve shown a functional association between brain size (Cortical Area) and expertise.
2.Both actually used violonist to find association with Iq versus Cortical Area.
There is evidence that exercising your brain in anyway causes changes in the brain. This in no way proves expertise is more correlated with brain size than IQ is.
“A study on experts at professional wrestling might show little relationship to IQ, but a study on experts at abstract math might show a correlation with cortical area because cortical area is a proxy for IQ.”
My response to this point was a tad rushed, and looking at it again I want to go further with it’s issues.
Expertise, unless you would otherwise show it being inconsistent as was defined by RR, if correlated to IQ would still be expected to find association with professional wrestling.
But if you still want examples in more “sophisticated subjects”, then actually read this paper as it would cover studies on artists, chess players, and scientists alike.
http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10448
Correction,
By Neuron Count I meant Neuron density Count as pointed out in this article by RR.
“There is evidence that exercising your brain in anyway causes changes in the brain. This in no way proves expertise is more correlated with brain size than IQ is.”
Yet when it is compared to IQ as well as linked to information on Cortical Columns as noted by RR twice,
It does.
Yet when it is compared to IQ as well as linked to information on Cortical Columns as noted by RR twice,
Speculation on top of speculation. There are no studies showing expertise correlates with brain size independent of IQ. There are no studies showing low IQ experts make up for their low IQs by having big brains. There are no studies showing high IQ people with small brains are low in expertise
“Speculation on top of speculation. There are no studies showing expertise correlates with brain size independent of IQ. There are no studies showing low IQ experts make up for their low IQs by having big brains. There are no studies showing high IQ people with small brains are low in expertise.”
And what would you call you conjectures that just make simple explanations looking at correlates versus RR’s and Melo’s input of hominids actually testing them?
Information on what we know on expertise and Cortical Columns, the minimal effects of IQ on non-retarded, and the challenges of Early humans and evidence from tools of population differences in expertise comprehensively gives the idea backing compared to your limited assertions.
Question PP, you said that to make up for lack of brain efficiency mutations for IQ. So explain why they regardless were selecting for IQ with brain size despite their small population limiting variance instead of selecting for the stronger correlated IQ traits.
You could say that it was more visible through brain size, but what caused selection for brain efficiency genes during agriculture? Was it more visible there?
Or you could say that there was simply more variation in brain size, if so why that rather than brain efficiency if the later was stringer to IQ which the cold selects for?
“the minimal effects of IQ on non-retarded.”
Meant “..The minimal effect on Iq in non-retarded Microcephalic patients.”
Because selection pressures are not the only thing that drives evolution.
Another huge factor is genetic variation. As Lynn argued, arctic people had such small populations and i would add, were so geographically isolated, that the odds of a new high IQ mutation appearing were small.
But selection did use whatever little variation they had to make them as smart as possible which is why they have the world’s biggest brains
Native Americans & Arctic people are to mongoloids as pygmies, bushmen & australoids are to “negroids”: a small population geographically isolated subset that is less intelligent than the rest of the macro-race
(Note, i used negroids in quotes because australoids might not be negroids but they have a similar phenotype)
” As Lynn argued, arctic people had such small populations and i would add, were so geographically isolated, that the odds of a new high IQ mutation appearing were small ”
More illogical ramblings from Lynn.
Humans have been breeding tribally for the vast majority of human existence.
It doesn’t matter how large the ethnic group is. All that matters is how large the breeding population is .
The HBD view is based on the ridiculous premise that a Vanderbilt would ever marry a Thompson.
It doesn’t matter how large the ethnic group is. All that matters is how large the breeding population is
What do you think an ethnic group is? A breeding population.
The HBD view is based on the ridiculous premise that a Vanderbilt would ever marry a Thompson.
People from different social classes interbreed all the time, especially in prehistoric times when cavemen would just grab a random woman and rape her.
So Jimmy since you don’t believe in HBD, I assume that means you think blacks are genetically just as smart as whites?
Native Americans are completely different than ‘Mongoloids’. They also evolved in more temperate/tropical climes (a lot of them).
You also know that there were three migrations into the Americas, right? Also, genetic diversity and similarity decrease with geographic distance from the Bering strait. There also may have been further back migrations into Siberia. Human migratory patterns are a lot more complicated than in your fantasy world.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1207/12072012-native-american-migration
Genetic and similarity decreases as you go further from Siberia into the Americas. Wonder what that means.
What does the Yora tribe (a tribe located in Peru) have to do with the Han Chinese? Absolutely nothing.
Native Americans are completely different than ‘Mongoloids’
Wrong again, RR:
Source: http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2010_12_01_archive.html
Source: The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Source: The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Source: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.ca/2013/12/neanderthals-denisovans-and-everything.html
” As Lynn argued, arctic people had such small populations and i would add, were so geographically isolated, that the odds of a new high IQ mutation appearing were small.
But selection did use whatever little variation they had to make them as smart as possible which is why they have the world’s biggest brains”
Those statements are slightly contradicting, Native americans had big brains before they even arrived in america, subsequently they should had just as many high IQ genes. Higher inbreeding increases the rate of mutations.
Nothing more than special pleading and just-so stories.
You think smaller populations have more mutations? That’s the opposite of what Cochran and Harpending argue in their book The 10,000 year explosion:
For natural selection to have a chance, they argue, there need to be favourable mutations, or favourable combinations of existing alleles such as genes for blue eyes or pale skin. Cochran and Harpending concentrate on the Neolithic farming revolution as the beginning of major population expansions that provided enough mutations to accelerate genetic change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion
All Lynn is saying is that there are two major causes of racially genetic differences in IQ: cold winters (for selection) and population size (for mutations). Proto-Arctic people likely saw their brains get bigger in the last 15,000 years because that was the only way to make them smart enough to survive the extreme cold, but since brain size is only one factor in IQ, it was still not enough to get them much above 90. Had their population been bigger, they would have had mutations for brain efficiency, and thus wouldn’t have been so dependent on brain size alone to increase their IQs.
You can argue it’s a just-so story, but the combination of cold winters and population size explains almost every race’s IQ, and even explains Neanderthals. They too had lower IQ despite extreme cold because they also lacked the population size for mutations.
“You think smaller populations have more mutations?”
Actually I know they do.
“That’s the opposite of what Cochran and Harpending argue in their book The 10,000 year explosion:”
I don’t care.
“Arctic people likely saw their brains get bigger in the last 10,000 years because that was the only way to make them smart enough to survive the extreme cold, but since brain size is only one factor in IQ, it was still not enough to get them much above 90. Had their population been bigger, they would have had mutations for brain efficiency, and thus wouldn’t have been so dependent on brain size alone to increase their IQs.”
First of all their brains had been near that size since over 100,000 years ago. This is precisely why it’s a just- so story, what mutation did native americans lack?? “just that particular one”??? When did Europeans and East asians Acquire it? There is absolutely no evidence besides meaningless correlations used to cover up contradicting data.
“but the combination of cold winters and population size explains almost every race’s IQ, and even explains Neanderthals. ”
No it doesn’t.
“They had lower IQ despite extreme cold because they lacked the population size for mutations.”
That’s completly incorrect. In fact Neanderthals possibly suffered from mutational meltdown.
I don’t care.
That’s cool. But the reason I’m open to Cochran’s argument is that favourable mutations are lucky events, like flipping a coin six times and getting heads every time. That’s more likely to happen if you have many people flipping coins, just like favourable mutations are more likely to happen if you have more people having kids.
First of all their brains had been near that size since over 100,000 years ago.
No they weren’t, brain size increased dramatically as folks migrated North.
This is precisely why it’s a just- so story, what mutation did native americans lack??
The ones for brain efficiency
“just that particular one”???
They would have lacked mutations in general
When did Europeans and East asians Acquire it?
Probably in the last 10,000 years, when population size exploded in Eurasia, increasing the odds of new mutations
There is absolutely no evidence besides meaningless correlations used to cover up contradicting data.
The evidence is the worldwide correlation between racial population size during the last 10,000 years and IQ, and the obvious fact that rare random events (like favorable mutations) are more likely to occur in big populations.
That’s completly incorrect. In fact Neanderthals possibly suffered from mutational meltdown.
Neanderthals had fewer favourable mutations because there were so few of them. If a favourable mutation only occurs once per thousand births, then obviously a population with only 1000 people is going to have fewer than a population with 6000 people. How is this even an argument?
“That’s more likely to happen if you have many people flipping coins, just like favourable mutations are more likely to happen if you have more people having kids.”
Larger populations make the rate of variation increase, small populations and bottlenecks cause higher mutation rates.
“No they weren’t, brain size increased dramatically as folks migrated North.”
Yes they were. Idaltu and other african hominins had brain sizes more or less than 1400cc. Cro magnon was 1500-1600cc’s, 30 thousand years before any farming.
“The ones for brain efficiency”
Exactly, nothing but speculation.
“Probably in the last 10,000 years, when population size exploded in Eurasia, increasing the odds of new mutations”
Multiple ethnic groups have independently developed farming, including native americans. There is absolutely no reason they shouldn’t of had the same mutations
“The evidence is the worldwide correlation between racial population size during the last 10,000 years and IQ”
There is no significant correlation. Caucasoids are the most numerous race but do not have the highest IQ, however they do have the most variation in intelligence between their subraces
I agree that civilization caused higher intelligence, just not in the same way you do.
“How is this even an argument?”
Favorable mutations become fixated in a population through selection not randomness. Increased population size would only increase the variance.
It’s not an argument, because you don’t have evidence,
Larger populations make the rate of variation increase, small populations and bottlenecks cause higher mutation rates.
A huge population with a low mutation rate will have more mutations than a tiny population with a high mutation rate.
Yes they were. Idaltu and other african hominins had brain sizes more or less than 1400cc. Cro magnon was 1500-1600cc’s, 30 thousand years before any farming.
So you admit it increased as humans moved North.
Multiple ethnic groups have independently developed farming, including native americans. There is absolutely no reason they shouldn’t of had the same mutations
According to Richard Lynn they had a small population. He cites data claiming there were only 1 million Native Americans in North America in 400 BC. Also keep in mind that the Americas are geographically isolated from the rest of the World so mutations couldn’t spread to them.
There is no significant correlation. Caucasoids are the most numerous race but do not have the highest IQ, however they do have the most variation in intelligence between their subraces
Lynn studies more specific races: Arctic people IQ 91, East Asians IQ 105, Europeans IQ 99, Native Americans IQ 86, Dark caucasoids IQ 84, Capoids IQ 54, Congoids IQ 67, Australoids IQ 62, Southeast Asians IQ 87, Pacific Islanders IQ 85. The highest IQs were in those who had BOTH cold climate and large ancestral population (East Asians, Europeans). The lowest IQs were those who had BOTH warm climate and low ancestral population (Capoids and Australoids). The simplest explanation seems to be that cold climates select for high IQ, and large populations give enough mutations for high IQ.
“A huge population with a low mutation rate will have more mutations than a tiny population with a high mutation rate.”
Yet the mutation will only be statistical “noise” unless there is an actual selection. Secondly you should be specific , how large of a population, until the number of mutations outweighs that of smaller ones?
“So you admit it increased as humans moved North.”
Lol I never said they didn’t. That was completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. We had the same size brains as arctic peoples before we even left africa.
“He cites data claiming there were only 1 million Native Americans”
Yet neanderthals only had 70,00 individuals but evolved a larger brain than native americans, and starved less than them. Canada is colder than europe. Also what about south America?
“The lowest IQs were those who had BOTH warm climate and low ancestral population (Capoids and Australoids). The simplest explanation seems to be that cold climates select for high IQ, and large populations give enough mutations for high IQ.”
No, the lowest IQ populations are so because they had no selection for those traits. Random mutations are meaningless unless they become fixed in a population. Why use a explanation that relies on chance and just so stories? Capoids were at one point the most numerous race.
Since I’ve explained this to you a billion and one times, I’ll just repeat the best explanation is resource allocation mediated by social competition and selection pressure. Climate is irrelevant population size irrelevant, You use these extensions without understanding their cores principles.
Yet the mutation will only be statistical “noise” unless there is an actual selection.
Of course, but selection + mutations causes more evolution than selection alone. What Lynn argued was that cold winters provided the selection for high IQ and big populations provided the mutations for selection to pick from, so whoever had the most of BOTH evolved the highest IQs and whoever had the least of both fell genetically behind.
We had the same size brains as arctic peoples before we even left africa.
I don’t think so. You’re probably comparing well-nourished Pleistocene African brains with malnourished 19th century Arctic brains.
Yet neanderthals only had 70,00 individuals but evolved a larger brain than native americans,
I don’t think so. You’re probably comparing well-nourished Pleistocene Neanderthal brains with malnourished 19th century Native American brains. And even I admit brain size isn’t everything. You’re not seriously suggesting Neanderthals were as smart as Native Americans are you?
Since I’ve explained this to you a billion and one times, I’ll just repeat the best explanation is resource allocation mediated by social competition and selection pressure.
But the variables you describe are too broad to explain racial differences since they apply to almost every race. Higher IQ races tend to have evolved in colder climates with larger populations, so it’s perfectly natural to suspect those things may have caused their high IQs to evolve.
I’ve enjoyed reading this conversation. Some deep discussion about things I’ve never thought about before.
“Of course, but selection + mutations causes more evolution than selection alone. What Lynn argued was that cold winters provided the selection for high IQ and big populations provided the mutations for selection to pick from, so whoever had the most of BOTH evolved the highest IQs and whoever had the least of both fell genetically behind.”
Well you see, here’s the problem. What pretty much caused the population boom to begin with to modern IQs was pretty much agriculture.
The 10,000 year explosion pretty much provided how the groups that did or did not have agriculture at a certain time pretty much correlated with Macro Race IQ levels, and the only reason why one would think Cold Winters selected for IQ are two findings, large brains of Northern people and the North-South IQ cline.
Those two observations are however covered by RR and Expertise as well as Melo’s point on resource allocation.
“I don’t think so. You’re probably comparing well-nourished Pleistocene African brains with malnourished 19th century Arctic brains.”
Seeing how Inuits didn’t adopt agriculture, using your contention on malnourishment ties into that likely wouldn’t occur as strongly as it did to other populations.
“I don’t think so. You’re probably comparing well-nourished Pleistocene Neanderthal brains with malnourished 19th century Native American brains. And even I admit brain size isn’t everything. You’re not seriously suggesting Neanderthals were as smart as Native Americans are you?”
I believe his point is, despite the low population of native Americans, even lower populated neanderthals managed to select for large head sizes as you claim was for IQ. So If Native Americans, who developed independent Farming thus gained the mutations and selection pressures, why would they not the same for them under IQ selecting conditions of cold climates?
Furthermore, with my note on the Inuit’s lifestyle in context of malnourishment of agricultural people, they would’ve been the closest to Native American’s genetic potential.
“But the variables you describe are too broad to explain racial differences since they apply to almost every race.”
At the same pace in different geographies and time periods?
” Higher IQ races tend to have evolved in colder climates with larger populations, so it’s perfectly natural to suspect those things may have caused their high IQs to evolve.”
Yet see his old comment I linked on the topic.
“Of course, but selection + mutations causes more evolution than selection alone. ”
The number of mutations that are potentially present is more dependent on the rate of sexual encounter which I assume is highly correlated with population density(not size), in more variable climates like polar regions there are two major restrictions to a hominin’s existing social structure: Less resources and subsequently less food to sustain large populations necessary for survival. Eurasian hominins compensated through increased fusion fission(where large groups split up, to increase efficient foraging)by utilizing increased mobility(ADHD genes). These groups would meet back in a few years exchanging slight variations in culture and genes. Indeed, native american tribes even did this.
There is no actual excuse for colder populations, essentially increased population density also increases the chance of inbreeding in-turn increasing the number of available mutations AND allowing them to become fixated in the population.
“well-nourished Pleistocene African brains with malnourished 19th century Arctic brains.”
Arctic people are not malnourished. RR the almighty nutrition god said so.
Do you dare defy him?!?
“with malnourished 19th century Native American brains.”
According to lynn their average cranial capacity is 1358, so even with more genetic isolation, lower population sizes, and “malnutrition” their heads are no smaller than the average whites.
“And even I admit brain size isn’t everything.”
Within a species neural connections are less variable.
“You’re not seriously suggesting Neanderthals were as smart as Native Americans are you?”
No, but even with less intelligence they conquered Ice age europe, though their tough bodies, sharp senses, and cannibalism compensated for what they lacked in endurance, mobility and social structure.
“But the variables you describe are too broad to explain racial differences since they apply to almost every race.”
That’s ridiculous. Different races could be under the same pressures but with varying levels of severity.
“Higher IQ races tend to have evolved in colder climates with larger populations, so it’s perfectly natural to suspect those things may have caused their high IQs to evolve.”
The highest IQ places TODAY are a result of fertile soils, predictable climate, which allowed the first civilizations to grow and the political interactions that followed throughout history.
Hunter gatherer populations in the upper paleolithic utilized larger populations to help cope with colder weather, neanderthals didn’t.
Also, I cosign everything Phil78 says.
That’s ridiculous. Different races could be under the same pressures but with varying levels of severity.
Right, but unless you can say what those selection pressures were and measure them, it’s impossible to quantify and falsify, and it’s not a scientific hypothesis. Cold winter theory is scientific because there’s empirical evidence linking ancestral temperature and IQ:
We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational
reflection of climate. The highest correlations were 0.92 (rho=0.91) for skin color, 0.76 (rho=0.76) for mean high winter temperature, 0.66 (rho=0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho=0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs. These findings could also be viewed as congruent with, although not providing unequivocal evidence for, the contention that higher intelligence evolves in colder climates. The finding of higher IQ in Eurasians than Africans could also be viewed as congruent with the position of Diamond (1997) that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis.
Click to access Templer-Hiroko-Arikawa.pdf
If you, Phil, or RR wish to debunk CWT, you need to find another plausible selection factor that EMPIRICALLY CORRELATES with population IQ variation better than temperature/skin color.
“Arctic people are not malnourished. RR the almighty nutrition god said so.
Do you dare defy him?!?”
Whoever is saying that Arctic people are malnourished is an idiot, speaking out of their ass.
They get more than enough nutrition from what they eat.
Whoever is saying that Arctic people are malnourished is an idiot, speaking out of their ass.
They get more than enough nutrition from what they eat.
RR, it is exhausting cleaning up all your ignorance and confusion:
Hunger, malnutrition in Canada’s Arctic nears crisis
http://ecocidealert.com/?p=4132
“Right, but unless you can say what those selection pressures were and measure them, it’s impossible to quantify and falsify, and it’s not a scientific hypothesis.”
Well not only did RR point out the tool size differences between inuits and African HG people being directly linked to resource distribution, R/K application to animals in general is based on carrying capacity.
“Cold winter theory is scientific because there’s empirical evidence linking ancestral temperature and IQ:”
Funny, lets see what this actually says.
“We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational
reflection of climate. The highest correlations were 0.92 (rho=0.91) for skin color, 0.76 (rho=0.76) for mean high winter temperature, 0.66 (rho=0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho=0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs. These findings could also be viewed as congruent with, although not providing unequivocal evidence for, the contention that higher intelligence evolves in colder climates. The finding of higher IQ in Eurasians than Africans could also be viewed as congruent with the position of Diamond (1997) that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis.”
Not only does it say that just the observation itself was validated and only agrees with CWT, but it also points out consistency with a non-genetic theory in general.
We don’t disagree with the observation of IQ from North to South on a Global scale, what we disagree with is the reasoning behind the CWT, not that it isn’t genetic or linked to HBD principles.
“If you, Phil, or RR wish to debunk CWT, you need to find another plausible selection factor that EMPIRICALLY CORRELATES with population IQ variation better than temperature/skin color.”
Or….how about actually investigating the mechanisms rather than just comparing correlations and making conjectures like the implications of breeding with IQ and how that is tied within R/K theory (based on carry capacity) applied to Humans.
To PP,
You said 19th century malnourished people, yet this current phase is due to abandonment of traditional food for market food.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41994470?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
19th century was just a rough estimate. The point is most arctic crania that MeLo is considering were probably collected from people who died AFTER their traditional way of life was disrupted by modernity & so they don’t reflect how big their brains were during their glory days
“Right, but unless you can say what those selection pressures were and measure them”
I just did. You must not read my full replies, or at least the links I present you.
“Cold winter theory is scientific because there’s empirical evidence linking ancestral temperature and IQ:”
CWT isn’t even a theory nor is it a hypothesis, it is a correlation. Literally only one parameter.
“you need to find another plausible selection factor that EMPIRICALLY CORRELATES with population IQ variation better than temperature/skin color.”
No we don’t, don’t be stupid correlation is not causation so it literally proves nothing. Just for shits a giggles, social competition correlates more with brain size and IQ than climate does. The study was even done by the original propagators of CWT.
“The similar curvilinear relationship between twentieth-century temperature
variation and CC is highly consistent with this finding. However, the unique effect
of population density remained significant and was several times larger than that of
the δ18O variable. This is not to say that climatic variation was not a potentially
important selective factor during hominid evolution, but rather it does not appear to
have been the primary selective pressure for hominid brain evolution, at least not in
the past 1.9 million years”
Click to access Bailey-Geary-2009-Human-Nature.pdf
I also have evidence that territory sizes would have gotten larger in more northern climates resulting in further encephalization for the exclusively north hominins. Eurasions had to compete with another species of hominin(neanderthals) and hunt huge game like mammoths(which were already used to humans), which no other subpopulation had to do. All of those points are more than sufficient to explain the IQ gap between races. Agriculture and urbanization is just the Icing on top.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248411002284
In fact the CWT is the outcast theory, the social brain hypothesis is the preferred model in anthropology so technically it is YOU who must provide more evidence than some useless correlation.
No we don’t, don’t be stupid correlation is not causation so it literally proves nothing.
Correlation is necessary but not sufficient evidence of causation
Just for shits a giggles, social competition correlates more with brain size and IQ than climate does. The study was even done by the original propagators of CWT.
What correlates among primates in general is not necessarily what correlates among human populations.
Eurasions had to compete with another species of hominin(neanderthals) and hunt huge game like mammoths(which were already used to humans), which no other subpopulation had to do. All of those points are more than sufficient to explain the IQ gap between races. Agriculture and urbanization is just the Icing on top.
That’s valid. Maybe I’m 100% wrong and the cold was just incidental and the real selection was from competition with Neanderthals (I asked Rushton about that years ago, but he didn’t respond). One way to test the competing hypotheses would be to take a bunch of populations and correlate their IQs with both their ancestral climates and their level Neanderthal admixture (a proxy for how many Neanderthals they encountered). I may do this if I can find enough data. If the latter correlation is higher, then the Neanderthal theory becomes more plausible. I think we both agree agriculture was the second major factor, though I was arguing that it caused increased population size and you were arguing new selection pressures, but I’m not fussy on that point.
In fact the CWT is the outcast theory, the social brain hypothesis is the preferred model in anthropology
That’s because anthropology rejects racial differences in genetic IQ and focuses mainly on how human intelligence evolved in Africa.
“19th century was just a rough estimate. The point is most arctic crania that MeLo is considering were probably collected from people who died AFTER their traditional way of life was disrupted by modernity & so they don’t reflect how big their brains were during their glory days.”
To test the weight of that “probability”, we need to find the date of that study.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/anatomy.htm
At 1907 they barely touched 1500.
“The point is most arctic crania that MeLo is considering were probably collected from people who died AFTER their traditional way of life was disrupted by modernity & so they don’t reflect how big their brains were during their glory days”
Well I tried finding where lynn originally got his data from but for some reason I cannot find it.
It lead me to this article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1990.92.1.02a00150/abstract
but the references within it’s data does not pull up any results. If you find anything let me know.
Though it could be irrelevant even with “malnutrition” their brains are bigger than whites
Here are Jensen’s thoughts on Templer and Arikawa 2006:
The main limitation of such a study design is that correlations obtained from this type of analysis are completely non-informative regarding any causal or functional connection between individual differences in skin pigmentation and individual differences in IQ, nor are they informative regarding the causal basis of the correlation, e.g., simple genetic association due to cross-assortative mating for skin color and IQ versus a pleiotropic correlation in which both of the phenotypically distinct but correlated traits are manifested by one and the same gene.
Click to access 10.1016%40j.intell.2005.04.003.pdf
There are two more critiques of the study along with Jensen’s thoughts as well.
Melo which citation of Lynn’s are you looking for?
Here is the full paper for what you linked above.
Click to access 10.1525%40aa.1990.92.1.02a00150.pdf
Look at the appendix in the link I gave for the citation Melo provided. Gives a whole list of ethnic cranial capacities. Interesting that the Hottentot are 1330 cc.
The association with latitude, showing larger cranial capacity as head shape gets rounder with the habitation of cold climates, explains most of the variance. The relation with subsistence is suggestive, but more work is needed to distinguish the contribution of weight gain and other body form factors.
…
So far, climate and body size empirically explain much more of the variance than do cultural variables. Changes in subsistence patterns have probably affected the endocranial volume variation by directly influencing body size.
Hmmmm
“Here is the full paper for what you linked above.”
Thank yo but I already found that paper, In the paper’s appendix it says that the measurements are from:
“Beak, K. L.
1987 Problems and Issues with Human
Brain Size, Body Size and Cognition.
Homo 37:148-160. ”
and
“World
Cultures (vol. 3, no. 3, 1987). ”
I cannot find either, and they are necessary in determining the nutrition status of arctic peoples.
@meLo
“…and hunt huge game like mammoths(which were already used to humans), which no other subpopulation had to do.”
(some) African and other tropical/hot weather populations (SouthSoutheast Asian) hunted elephants and other large mammals, e.g. hippos, wildebeasts, rhinos—some perhaps now extinct (and other large animals), and megafauna have existed in much of the world.
Early hunter gatherers in most zones often hunted a mixture of large and small/medium game (moose/elk/auroch/deer in most temperate zones—bison in N America, deer being aming the most widespread; and gazelles/antellopes/wildebeasts/wild cattle—and various small to largish hoofed mammals/other animals in the Near East/Africa/South Asia).
Australia also had some megafauna, most now extinct.
“Beak, K. L. 1987 Problems and Issues with Human Brain Size, Body Size and Cognition. Homo 37:148-160”
Can’t find this one.
“World Cultures (vol. 3, no. 3, 1987).”
Seems to be a textbook, can’t find this either.
Pumpkin
“What correlates among primates in general is not necessarily what correlates among human populations.”
Even though it said “hominid” it was particularly talking about the genus homo, especially within the last 2 million years around the time of homo erectus. Before then the climate was probably the dominate factor in Australopithecus and Homo Habilis’ encephalization.
“One way to test the competing hypotheses would be to take a bunch of populations and correlate their IQs with both their ancestral climates and their level Neanderthal admixture (a proxy for how many Neanderthals they encountered). I may do this if I can find enough data.”
Well according to wikipedia east asians have the most neanderthal dna either due to higher positive selection in east asians or a second breeding event.
Interestingly, there is no mitochondrial neanderthal dna present in our genome implying that most admixture comes from male neanderthals breeding with female homo sapiens. It makes sense, because in northern climates males become the dominant providers, and african males may have not been able to adequately acquire food in an unfamiliar environment especially since women are the majority food providers in warmer regions. I think it’s more likely though that Hybrids born in neanderthal communities(usually with a neanderthal mother) simply didn’t survive.
“I think we both agree agriculture was the second major factor, though I was arguing that it caused increased population size and you were arguing new selection pressures, but I’m not fussy on that point.”
It’s both. Population size increases variation but that’s meaningless without selection pressures. Oprah is a good example. She has a pretty big head because of the variation within african peoples and by theory should have a high intelligence. Unless everyone thought she was attractive or if everyone within an SD of Oprah’s brain size suddenly died, her phenotype would always remain an outlier, never the average.
“That’s because anthropology rejects racial differences”
Maybe so but, there were two opposing forces when hominins made it to europe, the need for larger territory for more efficient foraging, and the inability to sustain those large groups to defend that territory because of less resources. Fission-fusion tactics solved this, but the only way to manage such social organization is increased brain size. This concept perfectly coincides with the social brain hypothesis and racial IQ gaps while not forgetting the contribution of climate.
“focuses mainly on how human intelligence evolved in Africa.”
That’s because most of encephalization occurred in africa. The CWT does have it’s mainstream counterpart called the Climate Variability hypothesis, that deals with hominin evolution as a whole and not racial discrepancies.
“Early hunter gatherers in most zones often hunted a mixture of large and small/medium game”
I know, but there are stark differences between regions. For example megafauna in Native america, and Australia had never encountered hominin’s before and would have no real reason to fear them, making their extinction that much easier. The Megafauna in Eurasia and Africa had plenty experience with humans and knew what they were capable of. However, in Eurasia lived the second most intelligent hominin after us who was already the Apex predator of its territory. Not only did Eurasians have to be intelligent enough to hunt mobile megafauna in Ice age conditions they also had to compete with eachother AND Neanderthals over these resources. This would increase the rate of conflict and in resource deprived areas the risk of failure increases causing an arms race in technology and intelligence. Native americans and Australian Aboriginals only had to deal with eachother and oblivious animals. Sub saharan africans didn’t have to deal with neanderthals.
@ meLo
“Well according to wikipedia east asians have the most neanderthal dna either due to higher positive selection in east asians or a second breeding event.”
It does not seem to correlate necessarily with IQ, since the above
also seema to apply to other East Asian and other proto-mongoloid/Eastern Eurasian descended groups generally, like Amerindians (according to the source—the Sankaraman study—the Wikipedia article cites, which for instance, features a probably strongly Amerindian—but likely not purely so—Mexican population,), The Mexican sample—1.22% neanderthal (table 1 MXL under “American”) is more Neanderthal than all Caucasian groups, but a bit less than pure Asians (likely, at least partly from their southern European/Spanish admixture.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072
Native Americans, like Asians, seemingly have more Neanderthal than Europeans
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/modern-humans-more-neanderthal-than-once-thought-studies-suggest/
“The Nature study found Beijing residents with Han Chinese ancestors had the highest Neanderthal DNA rate: 1.4 percent. Los Angeles residents of Mexican descent had 1.22 percent Neanderthal DNA. In Europe, Finns had the highest Neanderthal DNA rate with 1.2 percent. Utah residents with northern and western European roots came in at 1.17 percent. And Puerto Ricans had only 1.05 percent Neanderthal in them.”
I am not sure whether southern Oceanians like Australian natives and Papuans (who are slightly closer to East Eurasians than they are to Caucasian) have more neanderthal dna than caucasians as well. I remember something to that effect, but forget the source (and will try to find it if it exists)
It may rather be that most neanderthal genes come from males in part because neanderthal males, (being of a much more muscular, strong, and robust subspecies) would likely have more easliy sexually overpowered sapiens females (when they wished to do so) than the equivalent with the species reversed (If I am not mistaken female neanderthals may have often been stronger than sapiens males).
Also, neanderthal females, with their extreme robusticity (facially and in body shape) and muscularity (relative to sapiens), may have tended to seemed excessively masculine to sapiens males and thus sexually less appealing.
Edit: “…… sexually overpowered or abducted sapiens females (when they wished to do so), as has often occured historically in ancient and primitive cultures in times of conflict—…”
To Jm8,
For Oceanic populations the neanderthald DNA is actually now thought to be that of Denisovans.
For Native Anericans, One blogger noted the high amount of Neanderthal Dna in Natives possibly is compounded with denisovan, which makes sense seeing Oceanic people from ancient times were the First to reach America, both the North and South American people having DNA of such populations though the former is particularly aligning with the Jomon/Ainu people in mtdna.
For Oceanic populations the neanderthald DNA is actually now thought to be that of Denisovans.
Oceanic people have neanderthal dna as well, like all known non-Africans. I’m just trying to find out how much, and whether or not it is at all elevated relative to West Eurasians/Caucasians.
“For Native Anericans, One blogger noted the high amount of Neanderthal Dna in Natives possibly is compounded with denisovan, which makes sense seeing Oceanic people from ancient times were the First to reach America,”
There is no evidence of significant Oceanic ancestry (in the sense of Papuan/melanesian/Australoid-like) in most current north American Natives. Such peoples have not likely contributed much to most surbiving groups, though traces may exist in some regions (like the west coast of south America). The levels of Denisova in most East Asian groups is extremely low (about less than half a percent) and than in Amerindians canlikely be distinguished from Denisovan anyway
“both the North and South American people having DNA of such populations though the former is particularly aligning with the Jomon/Ainu people in mtdna.”
The Sankaraman study also shows that it is likely higher in (many groups of) Amerindians than in Caucasians (not suprising since Amerindians and Asians are related).
Jomon/Ainu and Amerindians both descend from similar (autosomally related) proto-mongoloid groups from Central and N.E Asia. They do not cluster with modern Oceanians (or so called “Australoid”/Australoid like groups) like Papuans of Australians, who do not belong to the Eastern Eurasian/proto Mongoloid descent group, but rather Ainus are closer genetically to East Asians/Amerindians than to others (though they are from an early divergent offshoot from proto-Asians.)
The (somewhat superficial) resemblance sometimes noted between some Ainu and native Australians (in terms of certain facial features), may be the result of the conservation of certain early (basal) features from an early Eurasian ancestral population lost in other groups (combined with convergence)
To Jm8,
Well I found this study https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/32/10/2665/1210305/Denisovan-Ancestry-in-East-Eurasian-and-Native
Oceanics have denisovans ancestry at 3.8-4.8% compared to their general ancestry of between 11-16%, still more than West Eurasians.
Asians, including Native americans, come out at .13-.17, significantly lower.
Also in siberian and NA groups, it was correlated with PNG admixture.
Now, a confounding factor for admixture indicating competition would be genetic sweep the genome has gone over, archaelogy maybe better in some population more than others.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/neandertal-ancestry-going-going-gone.html
As well as some more though by this blogger,
(my last post is to Phil)
Edit:
…”though traces may (do seem to) exist in some regions (like the west coast of south America and parts of Brazil). The levels of Denisova in most East Asian groups is extremely low (about less than half a percent) and than in Amerindians and neanderthal admixture can likely be mostly distinguished from Denisovan anyway.”
Cont:
“Also, neanderthal females, with their extreme robusticity (facially and in body shape) and muscularity—and possible hairiness.
Also: to Phil:
Well I guess there are small traces of some ancient Oceanian-like ancestry in East Asians (including Native Americans), which (is not so suprising since it) could reflect the early history of proto-Eastern Eurasians, when their paleolithic ancestors lived in a more southern part of East Asia before migrating northward—arround the time of the (rough Oceanian/proto-East Eurasian) “split” shown arround Thailand/South China in the human migration map(and similar maps on the page) linked below (the more nothern parts of their present range) and may have interacted a little with certain proto-Oceanian peoples whose lands overlapped
https://www.google.com/search?q=homo+sapiens+migration+map&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3pZSzxNvSAhWBhZAKHYgpAjoQ_AUIBigB&biw=1132&bih=794#imgrc=hxN3clsh2mFwIM:
Perhaps their (East Eurasians’/Amerindians’) elevated level of Neanderthal ancestry is shared with Oceanians
Does it say anything about neanderthal admixture in Papuans/Australians/Melanesians compared to western Eurasians (or Eastern Eurasians? I can’t seem to find much but will keep looking.
Genetic sweep could also indeed be a factor.
Cont:
“…and may have interacted a little with certain proto-Oceanian peoples whose lands overlapped theirs.”
To Jm8,
In that particular study it was mainly focused on Denisovan but it may have some data on neanderthals but I can’t recall anything specific.
I do know another study that shows, in general, higher Archaic ancestry in east Eurasians than West but it may suffer from not distinguishing from Denisovans and isn’t as specific as the Denisovan Study.
It’s Worth Noting though, despite the imperfections, Melo’s use pf admixture as indicators for competition is salvageable from a Macro Race perspective as the variation in Native Americans would most likely be post competition flucuation due to genetic drift and/or sweep.
As for Oceanic people with their higher archaic ancestry composed of Neanderthals and Denisovans, I think it should be put in the context of regional variation of adaptation and Stakes of competition in the context of their environment as Well as genetic sweep occurring less with them.
“Native Americans, like Asians, seemingly have more Neanderthal than Europeans”
Truth be told it’d be better to look at the correlation between encounters with other Hominin populations and IQ but like I said, most of the micro variation we see between nations is due to political and historical events. I’m just arguing That the macro discrepancies we witness are because of competition in environments with high risk of failure.
Even then the reason native americans have more neanderthal dna is because they are more related to East asians. They still reaped the benefits as Native americans and arctic people have brain size’s around the same as eurasians. North america had no neanderthal populations.
There were no denisovans In australia, they only ranged from siberia to some pacific islands. Meaning the interaction must of happened somewhere in southeast asia, where large game is sparse. The bones of denisovans are very robust and similar to neanderthals, suggesting they would have been poorly acclimated to any tropical environment. This implies denisovans in australasia had different phenotypes than the ones in siberia. They had an incredibly low genetic diversity and lacked particular genes for brain growth. For whatever reason east asians didn’t breed with them. Truth be told I’ve always speculated the Aboriginals are smarter than their IQ performances show.
Even africans have some level of archaic admixture, but the difference in eurasia was that we were migrating a to completely new environment where another hominin had already mastered it’s domain. Heidelbergensis in africa wouldn’t of been much of a challenge, but maybe the animals were. Complete opposite in Australia.
To Melo,
Your point on Australia lacking Denisovans makes sense as it was PNG admixture that was correlated to the denisovan magnitude in modern populations, the study found none with Australians.
Your speculation with Denisovan variation in climate adaptation lines up with my my own, due to the Concentration in the Pacific populations. Hell, neanderthals varied despite most living in similar latitudes.
“PNG admixture”
? I know Anthropology not Genetics you may have to explain the significance.
“Your speculation with Denisovan variation in climate adaptation lines up with my my own, due to the Concentration in the Pacific populations. ”
I agree with your point that the large amount of admixture present in australasians is more due to positive selection for those traits than it being from a high rate of sexual encounters between the two hominins. This could be the case with east asians too, Cro magnon had the largest brain size out of any hominin and were the first to confront neanderthals in their main territory.
East asians did not produce with denisovans despite the fact that most fossils have been found there, implying that they were very few in number. Also I have heard australasians bred with a third type of archaic human. See the thing is, if there is no large risk of failure, and the rate of encounter is low, encephalization will not occur(or at least it’d be very slow).
To Melo,
PNG would be the common abbreviation for Papua New Guinea, my study on Denisovan DNA contends that they would be close to the original Sapiens inhabitants of SE Asia.
As for Selection I was more focused on other areas of encounter selecting against the traits in genetic sweep and other ones just retaining them, but now that you introduced positive selection that does make sense.
One of the skeletal charts I gave PP in the taxonomy thread presented alot of variation of Mandible shape in Oceanic populations, like representing the different diets they have and cases were archaic variants would be useful.
It also displayed that, though different in ancestrally relevant phenotypes of the skull, they share a similar face morphology of Africans likely due to climate.
It might gives some clues on what kind of hominid phenotypes are preffered in extreme conditions of Tropics, possibly indicating Archaic specimens in low latitudes being preferred in certain regards.
Peter Frost has covered this along with the long lifespan on Rhodey and Erectus in Africa.
http://www.unz.com/pfrost/archaic-admixture-in-africans/
While competition likely occur, failure probably wasn’t as high.
“PNG would be the common abbreviation for Papua New Guinea”
Ohhhhhhh, my bad.
” but now that you introduced positive selection that does make sense.”
Indeed I think it’s reasonable to assume that populations moving into unfamiliar environments would benefit from interbreeding with groups that already evolved beneficial traits.
“It might gives some clues on what kind of hominid phenotypes are preffered in extreme conditions of Tropics, possibly indicating Archaic specimens in low latitudes being preferred in certain regards.”
Well the thing is that this concept is independent of climate but does not leave it out. On average higher lattitude climates should indeed have fewer resources to gather, but obviously places like the Sahara desert and even some tropical rain forests have very little sources of protein. In theory populations there should encephalize more than African temperate environments.
To Melo,
Correct on the significance between resources and climate.
By “extreme” I meant to included implications of resources, not just temperature.
“You can argue it’s a just-so story, but the combination of cold winters and population size explains almost every race’s IQ, and even explains Neanderthals. They too had lower IQ despite extreme cold because they also lacked the population size for mutations.”
Most—if not all—HBD ‘theories’ are just-so stories. Cold winter IQ fantasies? Just-so story. Rushton’s r/K selection theory? Just-so story. Cochran and Harpending’s Ashkenazi IQ theory? Just so story. The same holds true for all EP hypotheses as well. Are there any EP hypotheses that can be independently verified of the data they’re trying to explain? I’ll answer for you: No.
Highly recommend this book:
What’s the difference between a just-so story and a hypothesis? All scientific theories are stories to explain how the world works. The ones that explain the most about reality become accepted & the ones that don’t get dismissed.
The ones that explain the most about reality become accepted & the ones that don’t get dismissed.
this comment demonstrates peepee never attended university. sad!
evo psych is pseudoscience. none of its theories are theories. they explain everything and therefore nothing just like freudianism.
a theory makes predictions of facts which have not been observed AND it indicates exactly what those facts are…no room for interpretation.
CLASH = trash!
vikings and mongols were very peaceful people!
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ppvx8g/a-closer-look-at-nunavuts-notoriously-high-murder-rate-324
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Greenlands-homicide-rate-so-high
evo psych people need to be raped to death by blackzilla.
Not only did i attend university but when i phoned rushton while still in high school, he said “what about you? You seem very knowledgable. Are you a PhD student somewhere?”
As for your point, cold winters theory does make predictions. It predicts genomic IQ predictions will correlate negatively with skin color.
Mugabe, agreed. PP, name a falsifiable EP hypothesis. A just-so story is an ad-hoc explanation. Cold winters theory is a just-so story.
Cold winters theory is very falsifiable. It can be largely falsified by showing any of the following:
1) A non-negative correlation between skin darkness and genomic IQ predictors
2) A non-negative correlation between skin darkness and IQ in kids adopted into similar homes
3) A non-positive correlation between cranial capacity and latitude in the fossil record.
4) A non-positive correlation between latitude and cultural and technological progress in the archeological record.
Of course, as you know, in science, virtually nothing is ever 100% proven or 100% debunked, but the more predictions a theory fails to make, the less credible it is, and the more predictions it successfully makes the more plausible it is.
1) “genomic IQ predictors” aren’t real.
2-4 are things that show evidence for the hypothesis, they’re not something that can ‘falsify’ the hypothesis because you know they are true.
What novel facts does CWT predict? How do you test the CWT hypothesis? How do you falsify it? 1) is not possible because there are no “genomic IQ predictors” and 2)-4) are just things known before the formulation of CWT. You either need independent evidence that CWT isn’t a just-so story or you need to argue that ad-hoc justifications are valid (they’re not).
What Mugabe said “a theory makes predictions of facts which have not been observed AND it indicates exactly what those facts are…no room for interpretation.” is true, and no, 1) is not a prediction. How do you know other factors don’t cause 1)? I can formulate a plausible story to fit the data opposite of what CWT “says” and it’d be just as “valid.” There would be no way to independently verify either hypothesis. Therefore they’re just-so stories.
What falsifiable predictions does CWT make? Can you name a falsifiable EP hypothesis?
What novel facts does CWT predict?
That genomic predictors will correlate positively with skin colour and ancestral latitude in the worldwide population
How do you test the CWT hypothesis?
By measuring the skin colour and DNA of people all over the world and calculating the correlation between genomic IQ prediction and skin darkness
How do you falsify it?
By showing a positive or zero correlation between skin darkness and genomic IQ predictors, instead of the negative correlation CWT predicts
1) is not possible because there are no “genomic IQ predictors”
Yes there are, they’re just not very good yet, but they’re still good enough to show statistically significant differences between the darkest and lightest humans, if such differences exist
and 2)-4) are just things known before the formulation of CWT.
But the archeological record is constantly improving and we’re discovering new things every day. Some of them do falsify CWT according to Jm8, but I suspect the big picture is still supportive of CWT but I could be wrong. Michael Hart actually made several predictions of facts that were not known at the time of his book that could falsify CWT, though unfortunately most of his predictions were so obvious that I wasn’t impressed when they were verified (i.e. pygmies scoring low on IQ tests)
You either need independent evidence that CWT isn’t a just-so story or you need to argue that ad-hoc justifications are valid (they’re not).
Genomic predictors correlating with skin colour is independent evidence and such a study could be done any time
How do you know other factors don’t cause 1)? I can formulate a plausible story to fit the data opposite of what CWT “says” and it’d be just as “valid.” There would be no way to independently verify either hypothesis.
You could take a bunch of African hunter-gatherer volunteers and place them in the Canadian wilderness in the summer, keep them there for a 6 months, and see if those who could adapt to the gradually lower temperatures scored higher on IQ tests compared to those who had to be removed from the experiment for their own protection. If there was no IQ difference between the groups, you’ve falsified the idea that cold selects for IQ.
You’re never going to be able to 100% prove any evolutionary theory unless you invent a time machine and go back and actually observe, but what we can do is accumulate more and more evidence that supports or debunks it. The reason HBD is considered a joke is you have thousands of academics constantly trying to discredit it for political reasons, but in reality, it’s no better or worse than most evolutionary theories.
“You’re never going to be able to 100% prove any evolutionary theory unless you invent a time machine and go back and actually observe …”
So you admit that CWT—and all EP hypotheses—are ad-hoc explanations—just-so stories—that are not able to be independently verified.
Define verified. The amount of evidence it takes to convince philosopher of HBD is a lot less than the amount of evidence needed to convince me which is a lot less than the amount of evidence needed to convince you. My point is that cold winters theory is no less falsifiable than:
1) Bergmann’s rule
2) Allen’s rule
3) light skin evolving for vitamin D
If CWT is a just-so story, it’s in good company
Independent verification is the generation of novel facts from said hypothesis.
1 and 2 come from observations which then generate hypotheses for each rule which have been verified. 3 has physiological and theoretical justification behind it. None exists for the CWT. It’s a just-so story.
1 and 2 come from observations which then generate hypotheses for each rule which have been verified.
So does CWT. The observation was light skinned peoples 1) have more advanced cultures 2) score higher on IQ tests 3) have bigger brains, and 4) have better reaction times, so maybe they’re more intelligent. Why might they be more intelligent? Maybe because they had to learn how to survive the cold, instead of living in the same warm environment that primates have lived in for tens of millions of years. And/or maybe bigger heads keep you warmer but had the side effect of making you smarter.
3 has physiological and theoretical justification behind it. None exists for the CWT. It’s a just-so story.
Physiological justification for CWT: cold adapted races have bigger brains. Bigger brains have more neurons and more connections between neurons, as well as greater myelination which increases speed. Cold adapted races have faster & more consistent reaction times, at least according to early studies suggesting faster brains which can learn more over time
Theoretical justification for CWT: In other animals, encephalization (a proxy for intelligence) increases when populations colonize novel environments, presumably because they needed to learn new things. Humans who colonized the North have bigger brains, even for their body size.
“Maybe because they had to learn how to survive the cold, instead of living in the same warm environment that primates have lived in for tens of millions of years. And/or maybe bigger heads keep you warmer but had the side effect of making you smarter.”
How is this verifiable? The fact that you said “maybe” means that’s its a just-so story. “Maybe” Y, instead of your X. Why not Z instead of X or Y?
“Cold adapted races have faster & more consistent reaction times, at least according to early studies suggesting faster brains which can learn more over time”
I’ve provided justification for why non-cold adapted races have less consistent reaction times; they are just as fast but show less consistency in the measure.
“Humans who colonized the North have bigger brains, even for their body size.”
This is because bigger heads retain more heat. It’s not logical to make the leap that this then leads to higher “IQ” and that this is then evidence for the CWT. That’s part of the just-so story. Melo has also done a good job of showing how the CWT is a just-so story as well.
And your point on Hart with his “obvious predictions” is a good point because the predictions/hypotheses that matter are non-obvious ones.
Which EP hypotheses can be falsified? All of your points for the falsifiability of the CWT are not hypotheses that would lead to its falsifiability because you already know the outcome!
“Maybe because they had to learn how to survive the cold, instead of living in the same warm environment that primates have lived in for tens of millions of years. And/or maybe bigger heads keep you warmer but had the side effect of making you smarter.”
How is this verifiable? The fact that you said “maybe” means that’s its a just-so story. “Maybe” Y, instead of your X. Why not Z instead of X or Y?
It’s verifiable by noting that encephalization tends to increase among all animals when they migrate to novel environments. You could even do an experiment. Take a bunch of wild mice, birds, fish, etc and move them to a totally different environment and see if their brains get bigger. You could also observe them to see why they’re getting bigger. What advantage are the bigger brains conferring. But better yet, do the experiment on African hunter/gatherers as I suggested above.
I’ve provided justification for why non-cold adapted races have less consistent reaction times; they are just as fast but show less consistency in the measure.
I’d have to see the specific study. This research cited by Rushton/Lynn found differences in speed, though I would not be surprised if better research contradicts them. But consistency is even more correlated with IQ than is speed, though the reasons for this are speculative.
This is because bigger heads retain more heat. It’s not logical to make the leap that this then leads to higher “IQ” and that this is then evidence for the CWT.
It is logical if you assume (as Suzana Herculano-Houzel does) that more neurons cause more intelligence. Then the addition of more cerebral neurons will increase intelligence, even if the selection pressure had nothing to do with intelligence. Neanderthals may have added more muscle to stay warm, not to get strong, but the added muscle still made them stronger did it not? And why is brain size evolving to make us smart a just-so-story but brain size evolving to make us warm a legitimate theory? Wouldn’t it be more logical for evolution to select for fat around the skull, which is metabolically a hell of a lot cheaper than brain size, if the only benefit was warmth?
That’s part of the just-so story. Melo has also done a good job of showing how the CWT is a just-so story as well.
Which of his arguments convinced you?
Which EP hypotheses can be falsified? All of your points for the falsifiability of the CWT are not hypotheses that would lead to its falsifiability because you already know the outcome!
afaik, there’s never been a study correlating genomic IQ predictions with skin color. I know some internet HBDers have correlated genomic education with race, but not genomic IQ. And these HBDers did their research AFTER CWT had been around for decades, so they were making true predictions from CWT of facts unknown at the time. The hunter/gather experiment I suggested also has an unknown outcome. It’s quite possible it will show no correlation with brain size or IQ.
“It’s verifiable by noting that encephalization tends to increase among all animals when they migrate to novel environments. You could even do an experiment. Take a bunch of wild mice, birds, fish, etc and move them to a totally different environment and see if their brains get bigger. You could also observe them to see why they’re getting bigger. What advantage are the bigger brains conferring. But better yet, do the experiment on African hunter/gatherers as I suggested above.”
No need, we already tracked the social record within mammals and it shown that the only trend in longitudunal EQ increases were among lineages that became more social, like primates and ceataceans, not just mammals in general.
Second, this already poses a problem. That is, why would we expect these animals to increase in EQ when the ancestors of Neanderthals, creatures already increasing in EQ, didn’t compared to Africans that stayed? You say genetic diversity but exactly how many African HG then would be enough? Given their rarity today we may not even have enough to justify it the experiment even assuming the procedure was adequate.
Back to neanderthals, as well as Asian Erectus, they merely increased in brain size but their proportions clearly didn’t change nearly as much as the sapien lineage has despite having comparable capacities.
This clearly shows that cold environments simply went in a different direction altogether, along with trends seen in their body as well to adapt to their environment.
Sociality, as EQ appiles to mammals, can certainly explain it as neanderthal have been shown in the remain’s stratification to have weaker, more solitary lifestyles compared to humans and have different anatomy in regard to their language.
This also consistent with the study both Melo and I discussed with you showing Variability and resource alloocation being more pivotal in brain development than temperature differences, as well as further extending this the competition with additional studies. I have no idea why We are even retreading Lynn’s theory only to reassert these old points.
“I’d have to see the specific study. This research cited by Rushton/Lynn found differences in speed, though I would not be surprised if better research contradicts them. But consistency is even more correlated with IQ than is speed, though the reasons for this are speculative.”
Even assuming so, that still leaves more room for confouding between internation ethnic groups testing for this ability.
And given both of these scientist’s history at sloppy data collecting and hypothesizing (Rushton in my opinion more so than Lynn just by frequency), I wouldn;t be surpised of any contradiction.
This is because bigger heads retain more heat. It’s not logical to make the leap that this then leads to higher “IQ” and that this is then evidence for the CWT.
“It is logical if you assume (as Suzana Herculano-Houzel does) that more neurons cause more intelligence. Then the addition of more cerebral neurons will increase intelligence, even if the selection pressure had nothing to do with intelligence.”
But we aren’t measuring Neurons how are we? Going just by brain size and not controlling for other factors, what would we concluded by comparing neanderthals to modern humans or for that matter cromagnons to modern humans?
Asseler man, that oldest skeleton aligning with modern West Africans, was larger in cranial capcity in Modern Negroids yet would we assume it was smarter?
“Neanderthals may have added more muscle to stay warm, not to get strong, but the added muscle still made them stronger did it not?”
See my point on the implications similar brain size but dissimilar brain shape between Homo Sapiens and neanderthals and you would know how this doesn’t work.
“And why is brain size evolving to make us smart a just-so-story but brain size evolving to make us warm a legitimate theory?”
Because it is a trend that is directly comparable and testable in biomechanic in modern and ancient comparison in specimens, while intelligence is far less understood in terms of biology to test.
“Wouldn’t it be more logical for evolution to select for fat around the skull, which is metabolically a hell of a lot cheaper than brain size, if the only benefit was warmth?”
You assume it would be cheaper to select for fact distribution around the brain compared to head size (AKA surface area), and you also assume it would be “either or” when both fat and surface area are selected for in animals adapting to to cold within some principle that balances to two factors out to make them more optimal for insulation.
“Which of his arguments convinced you?”
I’ve disussed a few from a longitudinal perspective.
“Which EP hypotheses can be falsified? All of your points for the falsifiability of the CWT are not hypotheses that would lead to its falsifiability because you already know the outcome!”
“afaik, there’s never been a study correlating genomic IQ predictions with skin color. I know some internet HBDers have correlated genomic education with race, but not genomic IQ. And these HBDers did their research AFTER CWT had been around for decades, so they were making true predictions from CWT of facts unknown at the time. The hunter/gather experiment I suggested also has an unknown outcome. It’s quite possible it will show no correlation with brain size or IQ.”
What’s also quite possible is the large room for causality left open in blogger based research (unreliable) with education (not IQ, even assuming it is an apt measure of intelligence) assuming that they relate to factors of ancestral climate.
No need, we already tracked the social record within mammals and it shown that the only trend in longitudunal EQ increases were among lineages that became more social, like primates and ceataceans, not just mammals in general.
And for those who colonized new niches. There’ve been at least a couple studies showing this.
Second, this already poses a problem. That is, why would we expect these animals to increase in EQ when the ancestors of Neanderthals, creatures already increasing in EQ, didn’t compared to Africans that stayed? You say genetic diversity but exactly how many African HG then would be enough? Given their rarity today we may not even have enough to justify it the experiment even assuming the procedure was adequate.
You’re mixing two different things here. My point about the African HG experiment was just to show you could prove a correlation between IQ and ability to adapt to the cold. Such an experiment would show cold selects for IQ in tropically adapted humans moving North, thus supporting or debunking this selection mechanism for racial IQ differences
Back to neanderthals, as well as Asian Erectus, they merely increased in brain size but their proportions clearly didn’t change nearly as much as the sapien lineage has despite having comparable capacities.
the sapien lineage in Africa benefitted from much bigger & more interconnected subpopulations. By contrast, the Neanderthals were few and far between so good genes and good ideas got lost before they had a chance to reach critical mass.
This clearly shows that cold environments simply went in a different direction altogether, along with trends seen in their body as well to adapt to their environment.
You can’t compare a huge population in Africa to a tiny population outside. Even Chris Stringer agrees that Africa was the cradle of modern humans because it had such a large population with many different subgroups that could exchanges genes and culture.
Sociality, as EQ appiles to mammals, can certainly explain it as neanderthal have been shown in the remain’s stratification to have weaker, more solitary lifestyles compared to humans and have different anatomy in regard to their language.
Advances in language require freak genetic mutations that only occur less than one in a million times. Neanderthals simply lacked the population size for such genetic progress, even if their environments selected for it more.
This also consistent with the study both Melo and I discussed with you showing Variability and resource alloocation being more pivotal in brain development than temperature differences, as well as further extending this the competition with additional studies. I have no idea why We are even retreading Lynn’s theory only to reassert these old points.
Colder climates have fewer resources which causes more competition so they’re not independent explanations. Also, there’s a big difference between minor temperature swings and surviving the Last Glacial Maximum which not even Neanderthals could survive. If the LGM was potent enough to help kill off an entire species, why wouldn’t it have been potent enough to kill off less intelligent members of our own species moving North?
But we aren’t measuring Neurons how are we? Going just by brain size and not controlling for other factors, what would we concluded by comparing neanderthals to modern humans or for that matter cromagnons to modern humans?
The main thing that makes a brain big is having lots of neurons and connections between them.
Neanderthals actually had slightly smaller brains than cromagnons who probably have smaller brains than people today. While it’s true brains shrunk post-agriculture, this was likely not a genetic change as 20th century nutrition may have recovered all the lost brain mass and more.
Asseler man, that oldest skeleton aligning with modern West Africans, was larger in cranial capcity in Modern Negroids yet would we assume it was smarter?
I doubt it had a larger cranial capacity than modern U.S. negroids who benefit from first world nutrition. Modern Africa might be like 19th century America when it comes to health and nutrition, still recovering from the stunting of agriculture. By contrast Asseler man was a strong healthy hunter gatherer living off a natural diet.
“Neanderthals may have added more muscle to stay warm, not to get strong, but the added muscle still made them stronger did it not?”
See my point on the implications similar brain size but dissimilar brain shape between Homo Sapiens and neanderthals and you would know how this doesn’t work.
My only point is that something that was selected for one reason can still serve an alternative function. Brain mass selected for warmth can still make us smarter, it doesn’t have to do only what it was selected for. Believing otherwise makes you an adaptionist.
Because it is a trend that is directly comparable and testable in biomechanic in modern and ancient comparison in specimens, while intelligence is far less understood in terms of biology to test.
We know that intelligence is largely caused by the number of cerebral neurons and connections between them which brain size is a good proxy for.
What’s also quite possible is the large room for causality left open in blogger based research (unreliable) with education (not IQ, even assuming it is an apt measure of intelligence) assuming that they relate to factors of ancestral climate.
Well we now have at least rudimentary genomic predictors of directly measured IQ and the predictions are only going to improve with time.
“No need, we already tracked the social record within mammals and it shown that the only trend in longitudunal EQ increases were among lineages that became more social, like primates and ceataceans, not just mammals in general.”
Should say *fossil record.
“And for those who colonized new niches. There’ve been at least a couple studies showing this.”
You do understand I was referring to the span of Placental mammals in the fossil record, correct? Any change within novel environment in EQ then would’ve likely been cyclic under those conditions unless your studies were tracking them to the same extant.
“You’re mixing two different things here. My point about the African HG experiment was just to show you could prove a correlation between IQ and ability to adapt to the cold. Such an experiment would show cold selects for IQ in tropically adapted humans moving North, thus supporting or debunking this selection mechanism for racial IQ differences”
I’m not mixing up anything, what I’m pointing out is that the experiment is unnecessary based on what’s observable in the fossil record to begin with.
A. Neanderthals should a weaker change in EQ development compared to Humans
B. If caused by genetic diversity, then African HG would hardly do us any better.
“the sapien lineage in Africa benefitted from much bigger & more interconnected subpopulations. By contrast, the Neanderthals were few and far between so good genes and good ideas got lost before they had a chance to reach critical mass.”
Yet they weren’t always like this. At some point they were at the same circumstance as cromagnon entering the cold in small populations, you are only giving details of the aftermath of adaptation.
It doesn’t tell us if small population size and density was the result of adpatation or of the conditions from when they arrived.
.”You can’t compare a huge population in Africa to a tiny population outside. Even Chris Stringer agrees that Africa was the cradle of modern humans because it had such a large population with many different subgroups that could exchanges genes and culture.”
Quote him, because at this point Stringer as of now is merely a commentator on other modern researchers findings as opposed to a current detailed theorist.
And as I’ve argued before, large population and genetic diversity doesn;t mean much without somesort of pressure. Population size itself is likely a pressure on language and competition which both are found to be important in our current anatomical development.
If neanderthal development was so impeded by genetic diversity, then it’s odd that it would be isolated toward the brain when they managed to develop a distinct set of proportions, brain size, and reduced prognathism yet didn’t select likewise for the neotonic developments seen in African lineages.
Do you see my point on winter specialization, which ties into the more credible factor of African climatic variation, being a relevant factir her compared to genetic diversity?
Neanderthals even developed there own toolkit, so that makes it even less likely that genetic diversity limited there development overwise it would be hard to consider why otherwise they adapted quite well overall to there novel environment.
What literature states that bodily variation is that more common and mental variation?
“Advances in language require freak genetic mutations that only occur less than one in a million times. Neanderthals simply lacked the population size for such genetic progress, even if their environments selected for it more.”
See my above point of how there population size post adaptation doesn;t tell us from when they were originaly available.
“Colder climates have fewer resources which causes more competition so they’re not independent explanations.”
Yet larger population would have more people to compete with, and our muscle activiation indicating such.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736035/
Development of our language also indicates interaction of higher degree than neadnerthals in regards to population density.
By comparison, the smaller population desnity and larger spaces in their skulls responsble for sensory abilities indiactes that lower resources in the cold resulted in adaptation for searhing gathering as opposed to competion.
“Also, there’s a big difference between minor temperature swings and surviving the Last Glacial Maximum which not even Neanderthals could survive. If the LGM was potent enough to help kill off an entire species, why wouldn’t it have been potent enough to kill off less intelligent members of our own species moving North?”
Neanderthals only died thousands of years after Cromagnon contact, little suggest it was inability to survive their environment was the cause beyond that one article.
Also, these “Small temperature swings” (not what climatic variation is in it’s entirety) involved changes in vegetation and water supply, vital resources to humans, which your previously frequently cited Potts and other tha I’ve cited showed to be tied to brain expansion in humans in both African and Eurasia.
“The main thing that makes a brain big is having lots of neurons and connections between them.”
Reread what I wrote and see my point that I will elaborate below.
“Neanderthals actually had slightly smaller brains than cromagnons who probably have smaller brains than people today. While it’s true brains shrunk post-agriculture, this was likely not a genetic change as 20th century nutrition may have recovered all the lost brain mass and more.”
Yet this is exactly my point on extrapolating neurons from brain size. given the factors that manipulate this, we can only go so far in using one as a proxy for the other.
Additionally, I’ve already explained how brain proportions are the larger reason of the mental differences between sapiens and neanderthals.
“I doubt it had a larger cranial capacity than modern U.S. negroids who benefit from first world nutrition. Modern Africa might be like 19th century America when it comes to health and nutrition, still recovering from the stunting of agriculture. By contrast Asseler man was a strong healthy hunter gatherer living off a natural diet.”
So are you starting to see my point on the difference between brain size versus direct neuron measuring?
Unless controlled for, making assumptions of brain growth based on even growth within a lineage cannot help us indicate neuron growth.
“My only point is that something that was selected for one reason can still serve an alternative function. Brain mass selected for warmth can still make us smarter, it doesn’t have to do only what it was selected for. Believing otherwise makes you an adaptionist.”
Yet RR and I have already explained how the use of brain size in these scenarios are not helpful, especially in regards to what we can observe in Neanderthal versus human behavior as well as the complexity of the pressures that lead to our physical and mental faculties and how they interact.
Neanderthal intelligence growing out of a spandrel effect of thermoregulation, if anything, weakens the case for CWT the implications of population size only for the direct development of human behavior anf physiology.
“We know that intelligence is largely caused by the number of cerebral neurons and connections between them which brain size is a good proxy for.”
You have yet to establish the conditions in which can indicate this in the context of hominid comparisons to distinguish between cases of genetic neuron growth and environmental conditions that you describe in Sapiens based comparisons. What we also know is the brain proportions are even more obviously and likely contributal to mental differences between hominids.
“Well we now have at least rudimentary genomic predictors of directly measured IQ and the predictions are only going to improve with time.”
That’s a bold assumption as every year we get some alleged inherited markers only to fade into obscurity in terms of their applications.
You do understand I was referring to the span of Placental mammals in the fossil record, correct?
And I wasn’t. Simply stating there have been studies showing that when animals colonize new niches, EQ goes up.
A. Neanderthals should a weaker change in EQ development compared to Humans
B. If caused by genetic diversity, then African HG would hardly do us any better.
HG in Africa were already about as smart as Neanderthals because of their huge population size, and they maintained bigger populations as they marched out of Africa.
Yet they weren’t always like this. At some point they were at the same circumstance as cromagnon entering the cold in small populations, you are only giving details of the aftermath of adaptation.
The homo population in Africa was always bigger than the homo population in Europe. Modern humans entered europe with much larger populations than proto-Neanderthals did
.”You can’t compare a huge population in Africa to a tiny population outside. Even Chris Stringer agrees that Africa was the cradle of modern humans because it had such a large population with many different subgroups that could exchanges genes and culture.”
Quote him, because at this point Stringer as of now is merely a commentator on other modern researchers findings as opposed to a current detailed theorist.
If that’s how you feel about him there’s no point in me quoting him
And as I’ve argued before, large population and genetic diversity doesn;t mean much without somesort of pressure. Population size itself is likely a pressure on language and competition which both are found to be important in our current anatomical development.
HG tribes are always going to war or within tribes there are always battles over food, women, and dominance. If genetic mutations for IQ or language allow one guy to invent projectile weapons while others are still using thrusting spears, he’ll rapidly weed less intelligent people out of the gene pool.
If neanderthal development was so impeded by genetic diversity, then it’s odd that it would be isolated toward the brain when they managed to develop a distinct set of proportions, brain size, and reduced prognathism yet didn’t select likewise for the neotonic developments seen in African lineages.
The shape of the face and head are much genetically simpler than cognitive ability so it’s not surprising they had enough mutations to produce these. But as commenter Swank noted, most genetic mutations affecting the brain lower intelligence, usually dramatically, so finding a genetic mutation that makes you smarter is so rare it takes a large population.
Do you see my point on winter specialization, which ties into the more credible factor of African climatic variation, being a relevant factir her compared to genetic diversity?
Yes but I think that homo eventually reached a point where they had mastered the climatic variation of Africa. There are only so many combination of wet & dry before it was no longer cognitively challenging, and humans needed a more extreme climate challenge like the Last Glacial Maximum to make the final leaps in cognition, because that was radically different from any environment their primate ancestors had endured in the previous 25 million years. Specialization eventually sets in, but not before the bottom half of the IQ distribution freezes to death, thus lifting the average IQs of the survivors.
Yet larger population would have more people to compete with, and our muscle activiation indicating such.
It’s the ratio of population size to number of resources that determines competition. If the number of resources suddenly shrink because you have ice sheets covering the landmass, there will be massive competition for what little food is left.
Development of our language also indicates interaction of higher degree than neadnerthals in regards to population density.
Population density != competition. Population density/food density = competition
By comparison, the smaller population desnity and larger spaces in their skulls responsble for sensory abilities indiactes that lower resources in the cold resulted in adaptation for searhing gathering as opposed to competion.
The fact that virtually every Neanderthal skeleton shows signs of violence indicates enormous competition, which may also help explain their huge muscles
Neanderthals only died thousands of years after Cromagnon contact, little suggest it was inability to survive their environment was the cause beyond that one article.
And this article I just found: an exceptionally cold and variable climate might have driven the disappearance of Ice Age animals upon which the Neanderthals relied for food.
Yet this is exactly my point on extrapolating neurons from brain size. given the factors that manipulate this, we can only go so far in using one as a proxy for the other.
Yes you can because the same factors that shrink and enlarge brains, also increase and decrease neuron count. Brain size is mostly a function of neurons, except in case where there are radically different neuron densities which there’s no evidence of between homo species let alone human races
Additionally, I’ve already explained how brain proportions are the larger reason of the mental differences between sapiens and neanderthals.
This is speculation, bordering on phrenology.
“My only point is that something that was selected for one reason can still serve an alternative function. Brain mass selected for warmth can still make us smarter, it doesn’t have to do only what it was selected for. Believing otherwise makes you an adaptionist.”
If your assertion is that intelligence is a byproduct of our brains growing for increased size which then lead to higher levels of” intelligence” (whatever that is) then you must show how that occurred, lest it be another just-so story. It seems it’s just-so stories everywhere.
How do you confirm that a hypothesized adaptation is not an exaptation/byproduct? How do you confirm that a hypothesized exaptation/byproduct is not an adaptation? If you had independent evidence thst the hypothesized adaptation is not a byproduct then CWT is not a just-so story. Good luck.
Are you not an adaptationist PP? If you’re not, then good. That’s what plagues EP. That everything is an adaptation. The kind is modular. Damn EP is garbage. Just like CWT.
If your assertion is that intelligence is a byproduct of our brains growing for increased size which then lead to higher levels of” intelligence” (whatever that is) then you must show how that occurred,
You already admitted it occurred. You wrote: This is because bigger heads retain more heat. So are you now denying the well documented correlation between cranial capacity and latitude or are you denying the completely obvious correlation between cranial capacity and neurons, or are you now discrediting the work of suzana herculano-houzel who argues neurons cause intelligence?
lest it be another just-so story. It seems it’s just-so stories everywhere.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail 🙂
How do you confirm that a hypothesized adaptation is not an exaptation/byproduct? How do you confirm that a hypothesized exaptation/byproduct is not an adaptation? If you had independent evidence thst the hypothesized adaptation is not a byproduct then CWT is not a just-so story. Good luck.
All CWT has to confirm is that cold winters selected for intelligence. Once we do that we can worry about whether it did so directly or indirectly, or BOTH.
Herculano-Houzel’s theory is for between-species. It’s fallacious for you to then take that comparison for within-species comparisons.
What’s the test to prove that the hypothesized adaptation isn’t a byproduct? Then if intelligence isn’t a byproduct then it wasn’t itself selected for, it was just along for the ride.
“All CWT has to confirm is that cold winters select for intelligence.”
It didn’t and doesn’t.
Whats your argument re CWT and intelligence?
Herculano-Houzel’s theory is for between-species. It’s fallacious for you to then take that comparison for within-species comparisons.
No it’s not, especially since people can’t even agree on the difference between a species and a race. Species used to be defined as reproductively isolated units but Neanderthal admixture has undermined that standard. What we have our different populations. Whether they are different races or different species is just a matter of the degree of genetic/phenotypic distance.
What’s the test to prove that the hypothesized adaptation isn’t a byproduct? Then if intelligence isn’t a byproduct then it wasn’t itself selected for, it was just along for the ride.
There’s no way to prove anything was selected for any reason without going in a time machine. How do we know light skin was selected for vitamin D and not for sexual selection? How do we know Arctic people are short and squat to stay warm and not because of genetic drift? Well because we know short squat objects stay warm and warmth is needed in the cold. By the same logic we know big brains produce technology and technology is needed in the cold. Yes there are anomalies that don’t fit cold winter theory but there are also anomalies that don’t fit Allen’s rule (short robust pacific islanders) or vitamin D theory (dark skinned low sunlight artic people). You’re simply holding CWT to a standard most evolutionary theories don’t get held to. if CWT is a just-so story, so is everything else.
It didn’t and doesn’t.
My point is not that CWT is confirmed, only that it’s no better or worse than most widely accepted evolutionary theories like Allen’s rule and vitamin D light skin theory. Indeed there’s a body of literature rejecting the vitamin D theory.
Whats your argument re CWT and intelligence?
I think high IQ was both directly needed to make clothes, fire, and hunting tools AND high IQ was also a spandrel of big heads generating heat
“And I wasn’t. Simply stating there have been studies showing that when animals colonize new niches, EQ goes up.”
And I added to my original comment that if this is so the case then within the context of a longer timeline this could be only temporary and wouldn’t lead to continuous increase.
A. Neanderthals should a weaker change in EQ development compared to Humans
B. If caused by genetic diversity, then African HG would hardly do us any better.
“HG in Africa were already about as smart as Neanderthals because of their huge population size, and they maintained bigger populations as they marched out of Africa.”
Now you are the person mixing things up. I’m not talking about Cromagnon ancestors, I’m talking about modern African HG.
Second, You’re going to elaboratre how the ancestors of Eurasians had a larger population size than the ancestors of neanderthal with evidence of somesort on these migrations.
If there was a difference, then that doesn;t even mean that population size a a simple factor influenceing diversity because, as I’ve said before, it also liekly influence competitiona dn language.
“The homo population in Africa was always bigger than the homo population in Europe. The ancestors of modern humans entered Africa with much larger populations than the ancestors of Neanderthals did entering Europe”
Again, do you have evidence for this? And I’m not talking about Europe vs Africa, I’m talking about one Eurasian migration to another.
And based on the adaptation that neanderthals did manage, it’s doubtful that geentic variation was so limited that they somehow couldn’t develop intelligence adaptations similar to our own.
”You can’t compare a huge population in Africa to a tiny population outside. Even Chris Stringer agrees that Africa was the cradle of modern humans because it had such a large population with many different subgroups that could exchanges genes and culture.”
Quote him, because at this point Stringer as of now is merely a commentator on other modern researchers findings as opposed to a current detailed theorist.
“If that’s how you feel about him there’s no point in me quoting him.”
I added his current status not because I find him uncredible, I did so because due to the lack of his own studies as of now I want to see detailed text from him that expands this explanation so I can compare it with what we know.
And as I’ve argued before, large population and genetic diversity doesn;t mean much without somesort of pressure. Population size itself is likely a pressure on language and competition which both are found to be important in our current anatomical development.
“HG tribes are always going to war or within tribes there are always battles over food, women, and dominance. If genetic mutations for IQ or language allow one guy to invent projectile weapons while others are still using thrusting spears, he’ll rapidly weed less intelligent people out of the gene pool.”
A. You provide a simplistic generalization of human competition that mainly is applied to OUR OWN LINE so that doesn’t help in the caee of neanderthals.
B. With that said, your example is still NOT independent of pressure, mate and food competiton, that are independent of population demographics. These thing would be more common among largeer and denser populations.
“The shape of the face and head are much genetically simpler than cognitive ability so it’s not surprising they had enough mutations to produce these. But as commenter Swank noted, most genetic mutations affecting the brain lower intelligence, usually dramatically, so finding a genetic mutation that makes you smarter is so rare it takes a large population.”
They the nonetheless increased in brain size “due to the cold” and the cold would be expected as well to to select againt the dumber.
Now think of these now basic forces shaping neanderthals in their intelligence, these effects by the cold you propose are obviously far more simpler than what population demographics do for language and competition.
Do you see my point on winter specialization, which ties into the more credible factor of African climatic variation, being a relevant factir her compared to genetic diversity?
“Yes but I think that homo eventually reached a point where they had mastered the climatic variation of Africa. There are only so many combination of wet & dry before it was no longer cognitively challenging, and humans needed a more extreme climate challenge like the Last Glacial Maximum to make the final leaps in cognition, because that was radically different from any environment their primate ancestors had endured in the previous 25 million years. Specialization eventually sets in, but not before the bottom half of the IQ distribution freezes to death, thus lifting the average IQs of the survivors.”
“Mastering climatic variation” assumes that that the shifts were always the same, and they were. The LGM had unique effect on a global scale in terms of climate, not in the same way, but influential nonetheless. Likewise we;ve already discussed the fluidity of “Behavioral modernism” since 300k.
Also, by the time humans outcompeted with neanderthals, the climate became warmer as well so they wouldn;t have specialized as neanderthal would. Competition with neanderthals could’ve been a factor (as weak as such a relationship seems now), but among themselves across Eurasia was a topic already discussed as well that while infleunced by climate would’ve been more of a product of the circumstance of finding new land itself.
You use the terms “final leaps” as if somehow future innovation of independent farming and what not influenced future development. Going fuerther on that, the evidence of independent farming between Europe, Asia, Papua New guinea, and West Africa (as JM* explained) suggest what ever changes in mental states that was experienced in Europe at the LGM would be minimal.
I also recall giveing you that study in regards to explaining the lack of clothing required for Australia (and africa as well by extension) and how that infleunces LSA Artifacts like paintings die to the nature of their surroundings.
Yet larger population would have more people to compete with, and our muscle activiation indicating such.
“It’s the ratio of population size to number of resources that determines competition. If the number of resources suddenly shrink because you have ice sheets covering the landmass, there will be massive competition for what little food is left.”
And you also have dryland formations in Africa that, since homo erectus, should signs of brain expansion in both African and Eurasian Erectus. (that being middle eastern Erectus).
“Population density != competition. Population density/food density = competition”
Both of which applied to sapiens due to climatic variability.
“The fact that virtually every Neanderthal skeleton shows signs of violence indicates enormous competition, which may also help explain their huge muscles”
Their muscles and body plan shows adaptation to the cold, direct evidence violence only comes from ONE skull from St. Césaire, not “every skeleton”.
Humans, again by population demographics, would have more opportunity to compete by these means.
Neanderthals only died thousands of years after Cromagnon contact, little suggest it was inability to survive their environment was the cause beyond that one article.
“And this article I just found: an exceptionally cold and variable climate might have driven the disappearance of Ice Age animals upon which the Neanderthals relied for food.”
Read on further and you will see doubt due to the lack of synchronization with the carbon dates and the climatic dates, promtping other hypothesises.
Yet this is exactly my point on extrapolating neurons from brain size. given the factors that manipulate this, we can only go so far in using one as a proxy for the other.
“Yes you can because the same factors that shrink and enlarge brains, also increase and decrease neuron count. Brain size is mostly a function of neurons, except in case where there are radically different neuron densities which there’s no evidence of between homo species let alone human races”
Yet if you paid attention that would lead you to kae the mistake that I’ve explained bfore of comparing Crogmagnons and neanderthals to use. How can you distinguish environmental chnages in brain size from genetic ones relevant to neurons?
By that logic, we would be dumber than cromagnon and neanderthal.
“This is speculation, bordering on phrenology.”
Phrenology deals with the OUTSIDE of the skull, not the INSIDE. Frontal lobe expansion down out line and the importance of a more globaular head isn’t a fantasy.
https://sites.jmu.edu/bio103shook/what-is-the-evolutionary-history-of-the-human-skull-timeline/
“without going into a time machine”
So you agree CWT is a just-so story (along with all of EP).
“dark skinned low sunlight artic people”
They have dark skin because the sun bounces off the ice, on top of consuming enough vitamin D from fish.
“You’re simply holding CWT to a standard most evolutionary theories don’t get held to. if CWT is a just-so story, so is everything else.”
A just-so story is a hypothesis that can’t be empirically verified. You agree that this hypothesis cannot be empirically verified therefore it’s a just-so story. If a hypothesis can be empirically verified then it’s not a just-so story.
“Indeed there’s a body of literature rejecting the vitamin D theory.”
Skin pigmentation differences come from differential exposure to UV radiation. I covered that here:
Either way, the ‘just-so story’ here (this one is not) is not relevant to the critique of CWT and EP as a whole. They’re just-so stories. If the hypothesis is wrong it doesn’t make it a just-so story.
“I think high IQ was both directly needed to make clothes, fire, and hunting tools AND high IQ was also a spandrel of big heads generating heat”
That’s not an argument, just a statement.
Rushton’s/Lynn’s/Kanazawa’s just-so stories have been rebutted here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence
If your assertion is that ‘high IQ’ was a byproduct of big heads generating heat, you need to independently verify said claim or it is a just-so story (and since you’ve already admitted that there is no way to test whether a hypothesized adaptation is a byproduct, then you admit there’s no way to test this and it is, therefore, an unverifiable hypothesis—a just-so story).
“dark skinned low sunlight artic people”
They have dark skin because the sun bounces off the ice, on top of consuming enough vitamin D from fish.
Skeptics would say that sounds like a very convenient just-so story. Vitamin D theory predicts the lower the sunlight, the whiter the skin. Eskimos don’t fit the pattern so they come up with a story for them and only them. That’s the very definition of ad hoc.
A just-so story is a hypothesis that can’t be empirically verified.
You agree that this hypothesis cannot be empirically verified therefore it’s a just-so story. If a hypothesis can be empirically verified then it’s not a just-so story.
Empirically verified is meaningless because no matter how much evidence one gives, skeptics will find an excuse for why it’s not good enough. The point is CWT can make predictions that can be tested and I’ve already listed at least two. CWT meets the standards of a testable scientific hypothesis.
“I think high IQ was both directly needed to make clothes, fire, and hunting tools AND high IQ was also a spandrel of big heads generating heat”
That’s not an argument, just a statement.
It wasn’t meant to be an argument. You asked my opinion.
Rushton’s/Lynn’s/Kanazawa’s just-so stories have been rebutted here:
Lynn is old, so a lot of his evidence is based on what was known in the 1950s. The state of knowledge has progressed since then, but the criticism you cite misses the point. It’s not that surviving in Africa wasn’t hard, it’s that primates have had 25 million years to adapt to warm climates. Adapting to new environments in short periods of time is where intelligence is most useful because biological evolution is too slow for you to fully adapt genetically, so you must adapt culturally.
If your assertion is that ‘high IQ’ was a byproduct of big heads generating heat, you need to independently verify said claim or it is a just-so story
I’m saying there are two ways CWT can explain higher IQ. To untangle or debunk them, we need to make predictions for experiments that can be done. Take a bunch of African hunter-gatherer volunteers. Put them in the Canadian wilderness in June. Then observe which ones can continue to find food and warmth as the weather gets colder and which ones need to be removed from the study because they’re freezing and starving. measure the crania and IQ of the participants on a test that has been validated ahead of time for bushmen through independent means (i.e. g loaded)
PREDICTIONS:
If cold selects directly for intelligence, adaptation should be positively correlated with IQ independently of head size, if not: Intelligence as cold adaptation theory falsified
If cold selects only indirectly for intelligence via head size, adaptation should be positively correlated with IQ but the correlation should become statistically insignificant or negative once head size is statistically controlled for, if not: Intelligence as cold spandrel theory falsified
“Skeptics would say that sounds like a very convenient just-so story. Vitamin D theory predicts the lower the sunlight, the whiter the skin. Eskimos don’t fit the pattern so they come up with a story for them and only them. That’s the very definition of ad hoc.”
It’s an actual explanation with justification behind it; unlike Lynn’s ‘population size ‘IQ” arguments.
“skeptics will find an excuse for why it’s not good enough”
If it is able to be empirically verified it no longer is a just-so story.
“The point is CWT can make predictions that can be tested and I’ve already listed at least two. CWT meets the standards of a testable scientific hypothesis.”
No it can’t. Just like your “predictions” below, you already know the outcome therefore they are not “predictions”.
“It wasn’t meant to be an argument. You asked my opinion.”
I asked for your argument.
“Lynn is old, so a lot of his evidence is based on what was known in the 1950s. The state of knowledge has progressed since then, but the criticism you cite misses the point. It’s not that surviving in Africa wasn’t hard, it’s that primates have had 25 million years to adapt to warm climates. Adapting to new environments in short periods of time is where intelligence is most useful because biological evolution is too slow for you to fully adapt genetically, so you must adapt culturally.”
Still just-so; that article rebuts all of the ‘new’ evidence from Rushton and Kanazawa, too.
“experiments that can be done”
“Take a bunch of African hunter-gatherer volunteers. Put them in the Canadian wilderness in June. Then observe which ones can continue to find food and warmth as the weather gets older and which ones need to be removed from the study because they’re freezing and starving. measure the crania and IQ of the participants on a test that has been validated ahead of time for bushmen through independent means (i.e. g loaded)”
This can’t “be done”.
“test that has been validated ahead of time”
lol
“PREDICTIONS”
Your “predictions” are things you already know the answer to and therefore are not “predictions”. CWT makes no “predictions”; CWT is ad hoc, it’s the definition of a just-so story.
“Skeptics would say that sounds like a very convenient just-so story. Vitamin D theory predicts the lower the sunlight, the whiter the skin. Eskimos don’t fit the pattern so they come up with a story for them and only them. That’s the very definition of ad hoc.”
It’s an actual explanation with justification behind it; unlike Lynn’s ‘population size ‘IQ” arguments.
At least Lynn’s population argument can explain not only why arctics score lower, but also why Native Americans score low and why Bushmen and Australoids score even lower than bantu, and it even explains why Neanderthals seemed less intelligent than modern humans. By contrast this ice bouncing sunlight theory explains arctic people and no one else. Completely ad hoc.
This can’t “be done”.
Yes it can, with sufficient funding and the approval of an ethic’s board
“test that has been validated ahead of time”
lol
lol is not an argument
Your “predictions” are things you already know the answer to and therefore are not “predictions”.
No experiment even remotely like this has ever been done, so how do we already know the answer, unless you’re admitting a priori that the link between IQ and surviving the cold is obvious, in which case you believe in CWT, but are in deep denial.
But actually to make the study better, a parallel experiment should be done on African HGs in their home environments, because one could argue intelligence is needed to adapt everywhere. Only if the correlation between adaptation and IQ were higher in Northern Canada than it was in Africa would CWT be validated, if not falsified.
CWT makes no “predictions”; CWT is ad hoc, it’s the definition of a just-so story.
CWT is the exact opposite of ad hoc. It explains a WORLDWIDE correlation between IQ and skin colour. It’s a general explanation, not a specific one custom made for a specific group.
“By contrast this ice bouncing sunlight theory explains arctic people and no one else. Completely ad hoc.”
Ad hoc explanations are justified if sufficiently argued.
“Yes it can, with sufficient funding and the approval of an ethic’s board”
Doubtful. How do you know you’d replicate the environments that said adaptation supposedly occurred in?
“lol is not an argument”
How would you create a valid test to mirror said supposed selection pressure(s) that supposedly led to the adaptation in question?
“unless you’re admitting a priori that the link between IQ and surviving the cold is obvious, in which case you believe in CWT, but are in deep denial.”
It is not “obvious”. As I said above (if this were “obvious”), it’s nonobvious explanations that matter.
‘CWT is the exact opposite of ad hoc. It explains a WORLDWIDE correlation between IQ and skin colour. It’s a general explanation, not a specific one custom made for a specific group.”
Sure it is ad hoc. It’s the definition of a just-so story—a hypothesis that cannot be empirically verified. You admitted earlier that there is no test to prove whether or not a hypothesized adaptation was a byproduct or not. Therefore this argument is useless because you have already conceded it.
“By contrast this ice bouncing sunlight theory explains arctic people and no one else. Completely ad hoc.”
Ad hoc explanations are justified if sufficiently argued.
Agreed, but it is ad hoc, and it’s more ad hoc than Lynn’s.
Doubtful. How do you know you’d replicate the environments that said adaptation supposedly occurred in?
You can never replicate the past perfectly, but if that’s the standard no evolutionary theory can be proven. When scientists prove evolution can occur in the lab by observing bacteria, creationists complain that they can’t perfectly replicate the past and still insist on denying evolution. No amount of proof is ever enough. But in science nothing is ever proven:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
How would you create a valid test to mirror said supposed selection pressure(s) that supposedly led to the adaptation in question?
I would simply put them in the isolated wilderness and see how long they could cope as the months got progressively colder. Would this 100% prove CWT? No. But in science theories are never proven, they’re only debunked. When multiple experiments designed to debunk them fail, they become accepted. I’ve described an experiment capable of falsifying the idea that cold selects for intelligence among hunter-gatherers. It doesn’t prove it happens in every case or that it happened at all, but it makes CWT falsifiable.
It’s no different from scientists trying to prove Neanderthal body build was an adaptation to the cold by comparing how quickly short stocky people freeze to how fast tall lean people freeze. This method is standard practice in paleoanthropology, and it’s the type of experiment you would cite on your blog as “proof” and you know it. You’re simply holding CWT to a higher standard than you hold other scientific theories. See the 18:09 mark of the below video:
Sure it is ad hoc. It’s the definition of a just-so story—a hypothesis that cannot be empirically verified.
I already explained why it’s the opposite of ad hoc. Ad hoc and verifiable are two different concepts, but not only is CWT not ad hoc, but it makes testable predictions. It’s falsifiable.
You admitted earlier that there is no test to prove whether or not a hypothesized adaptation was a byproduct or not.
Then I thought about a bit longer and realized that there is.
“and it’s more ad hoc than Lynn’s.”
How can something be “more ad hoc”?
The explanation is sufficient. Lynn’s explanation is not.
Evolutionary theories can be ‘proven’ by independent verification.
“But in science theories are never proven, they’re only debunked”
The PT article—along with numerous others—debunk CWT.
“It’s no different from scientists trying to prove Neanderthal body build was an adaptation to the cold by comparing how quickly short stocky people freeze to how fast tall lean people freeze. This method is standard practice in paleoanthropology, and it’s the type of experiment you would cite on your blog as “proof” and you know it. You’re simply holding CWT to a higher standard than you hold other scientific theories.”
The assumptions I make when it comes to body type are valid. There is good, well argued justification behind it. Not so for CWT.
“not only is CWT not ad hoc, but it makes testable predictions. It’s falsifiable.”
It’s not falsifiable because it’s a fantasy story about the past. By definition it’s a just-so story.
“Then I thought about a bit longer and realized that there is.”
What’s the test to prove that the hypothesized adaptation isn’t a byproduct?
I tend to agree with Pumpkin.
The bigger mistake is not the fine comb through the empirics. Just the general idea that a theory explains in ‘strong form’ always, symmetrically.
The general tendency is people in colder temperate climes evolve higher IQ.
But the environment cannot be inhospitable enough not to preclude agriculture and centralised states to give anabolic features to the process.
Coldness does not automatically confer IQ, but the environment would be more conducive to problem solving in the primary instance.
Its clear you need an agricultural state and more temperate climates in general.
That being said, the most high IQ race of man evolved in the Middle East.
Are Russians the highest IQ race of whites? My guess is that they must be among the highest despite having the same living standards as Malaysia.
* questioning their ideology.
#raindrop #droptop you guys need to comment on my post post.
This shit post stole my show. I’m never guest posting again.
people around telling me jj u look tense sure i’m tense
ok maybe its no big deal
im drunk so i isnt my normal functioning
Stop reminding us you’re drunk. No one is drunk this often.
you exhaust me. in ten years you’ll be phil. I aint totally wasted justmoderately turned up im supposed to bring my girl back home and its another story. im basically a chapron tonight.
I was beyond drunk, but I bought my friends sheetz and now I’m sobering up.
“It seems modern humans are the only species in the Homo genus that is adaptable enough to survive extreme cold climates.”
Actually, Ice age Europe was much colder than it is now.
You seemed to have disregarded the one study showing that neanderthals were better fed than inuits. The inuits in the study were from after the ice age, so neanderthals were better hunters even in worse conditions, not to mention after the Ice age cannibalism became more prevalent among homo sapiens, there is no reason they shouldn’t of been more fed if the were indeed more intelligent.
However this is slightly irrelevant. Both neanderthal and intuits are more than capable of surviving in the arctic, when competition is controlled for.
Actually, Ice age Europe was much colder than it is now.
But modern humans lived in colder regions than Neanderthals even during the ice age.
But as I said, it is irrelevant as my original point was the neanderthals and homo heidelbergensis are more than capable of surviving ice age eurasia, which I demonstrated.
But unlike several human races, they weren’t capable of surviving northern ice age Eurasia & thus i doubt bushmen could survive such cold either.
“they weren’t capable of surviving northern ice age Eurasia & thus i doubt bushmen could survive such cold either.”
Well you realize Homo sapiens was far more mobile than neanderthal right? Independent of intelligence, we had more efficient locomotion that was geared toward endurance running and persistence hunting. Not to mention the possibility that we mutated genes directly inducing wanderlust.
It’s also probable that neanderthals had less aggression than homo sapiens, so maybe it’s not that they were too stupid to spread out, it’s just that there was no real point, when they were already at the top predator in europe.
Homo sapien competition was simply too much for them, because when they would try to branch out into new territory we’d have already occupied it. Our superior intelligence would’ve made any plan of takeover, virtually suicide.
Hominins have been apex predators since homo ergaster, literally 2 million years we have been at the top of the food chain.
Also, another commenter pointed out that Neanderthal’s corrected brain size was not much bigger than homo erectus’.
You guys will get a small education in human movement science in my article. Melo you are correct. I’m actually writing my article for PP’s blog on this very subject.
I have a background in HMS and the like. I’m well-versed in this area.
Good old Ann raises 2 sophisticated points:
1. We collect data on Samoan battery usage but not immigrant crime.
2. Higher IQ people from places like the mid east and Russia do higher ability crime – credit card fraud, identity fraud, hacking.
Taking principle no.2 further, very superior people commit very superior crime.
1. Brainwashing and distortion of reality.
2. Causing the masses to engage in dysgenic and IQ lowering activity e.g. open borders.
3. Systematic parasitism on the financial system via as Jimmy might argue, fiat money (which I still haven’t resolved to my satisfaction conceptually) or indeed, government control and cronyism.
Ann should make the logical leap that the people that caused the russians to murder 60m of their own people are even more sophisticated than the credit card arraigners.
What ever happened to Mugabe ?
Last week i moderated several of his comments because he stole your gravitar and one because he referred to me as pee pee (so childish)
He only tried to post once in your guest blog but it was a vulgar childish off topic video so i moderated it
I’ll tolerate his nonsense sometimes, if he says something of value in the process, but his recent behavior has been pure trolling
Be real PP, you’ve been in your feelz lately. I don’t know what’s wrong with you but ypu come off as full-on neurotic. I’m sure Mugabe’s behavior is no big deal. It’s like my incarceration rate that has been off the chart these few last days like half my comments are in the dungeon, even the one where I’m pointing out that Neanderthals were unable too settle hot climates too.
See, I’m at the skate park and everybody likes the goats and All Night Longer. And they’re as brilliant as your readers, they’re all young people (7 to the 30s) from the richest suburb of the richest big city of the northwestern quarter of the country.
The scenes I observe here are a total confirmation of my post by the way. The only instance of nerdiness is me, filming the kids with a drone and yet, people are in awe with the footage so that’s actually very social.
Also, I expected you to respond to my post, you could at least defend your theory. And I hope you’re not censoring people who trash me, because it’s more than dubious that I had no more critics than two commenters whose identity is more than questionable. Also, if people praise me, I’d like too know it as well. I’m not the only one to wonder why my post is not creating more controversy and debate.
I’m not the only one to wonder why my post is not creating more controversy and debate.
You didn’t really say anything controversial by the standards of an HBD blog. It was a more politically correct version of what i had already written on this topic, so no one really got all that engaged
only “men” without a penis and balls write long articles on how to fool women into bed.
pathetic!
The thing is winter temperatures are mild in Europe. Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Turkmenistan are colder in winter than western Europe.
The civilizations shifted from Africa to western Europe; Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, France, Germany, England… Maybe smarter people followed that migration path, carrying the smart genes within themselves…
Just because we live in 2017, people look at the map, and say, look the colder climate countries are more modern and people are smarter. But if you time-traveled to 2000 years ago, you would look at the picture differently. You would not come up with a cold winters theory at those times. We forget the time factor making up these theories…
I have never heard of any inuit intellectual in my life. Heard of many Greek Philosophers…
There might not be many Inuit intellectuals, but i guarantee that the ancestors of the world’s greatest minds lived in much colder ice age climates on average than the ancestors of a random group of humans
Ancestors of greatest minds today(Jews), lived in deserts in Middle East…
If you looked at a list of the greatest inventions of all time, virtually none were made by Jews
That’s an interesting point you raise. I think JS made a similar point that Jews never make physical things.
Applied math ability like engineering, architecture/building and comp science is a precursor to being an inventor.
Many jews do well however in theoretical math like physics, finance or other areas of comp science.
I think I’ve related before how I find applied math quite difficult like Afro, because I would lean more verbal like many jews.
Because brain tissue is so metabololically expensive, jews only evolved the abilities they needed to survive. Since Gentiles had already created civilization, Jews only needed to evolve the abilities to succeed in civilization (verbal, math) but not the abilities needed to actually invent stuff and construct buildings which is why their spatial IQ is low
As long as they’re in civilizations they will look like geniuses, but if society crumbles, they may struggle to adapt
I do not know such a list. Could you please provide that?
What I know is that Jewish Mythology shaped whole European history for 2000 years by inventing Judaic religion which is the base for Christianity.
Why is a northern European today praying to a Middle Eastern god(instead of Thor), while using sophisticated language of Greeks and Latins? The most intellectual words are all Greek or Latin in English language. Why children in the churches in Sweden reenact Moses crossing the Egyptian desert, although its dark, wet and cold all the time in Stockholm?
Writing is invented somewhere in Syria today I guess… I guess it is all about which period the invention is made…
I do not know such a list. Could you please provide that?
Sounds like a good topic for me to blog about. Stay tuned
No.
The applied math brain is not something the builds civilisation initially, still less is socially savvy enough to defend it from invaders/barbarians. You can see the MENA basin where civilisation started has a heavy schiz tendency today, as before, with fairly lurid religions, conspiracy theories and barbaric tendencies.
The autist mind is ‘selected for’ by Master, not the environment.
If you beat a mans legs and arms and give him only his head and ears to grow, then they will grow. Similarly if Master imprisons or executes schiz criminals or socially intelligent conmen or usurpers as threats or problem people, only the rule abiding and logically rigid mind will grow, but with great complexity and errata in that domain of sudoku problem solving.
African men doing African behaviours pre 1960s, would be executed, not just imprisoned as today, because the justice system is prescribed to stop disorder, in turn their reproduction rates would fall making that community more autist.
Afro is right, the real problems in this world are other human beings. Not physical problems in many cases. This has been the case since time immemorial.
My theory also explains the relatively autistic East Asian mind under a very regulated and stable screening law and order regime.
However, the autist or at least, trusting and high affective empathy autist mind is needed to make civilisation stable, entrench and provide surplus. A civilisation cannot function of its own accord without a dictator or policeman on every corner, without autist peoples.
What makes civilisation viable is whether citizens stick to the rules when nobody is watching
As we know from Africa, Caribbean, Latin America, blacks are simply incapable of following rules even when they are being watched, or perhaps because they are being watched!! Hahaha.
I think you’re just bitter because all the nerds you picked on in high school are now richer than you are and have better looking wives.
that’s the winter T now fucktard.
NOT what it was.
not what it WAS.
get it?
A more interesting take going into the logic weeds a bit is whether category logic is an aspy or schiz thing. I recall Deal accused me of aspergers based on the fact I like to categorise people, or phenomena into a neat little constructs or taxonomies.
Strangely, while it is indeed a systemizing behaviour, my impression is that aspergers people do not like to categorise things outside of their obsession area. Rather they memorise or quantitatively analyse, rather than categorise.
Why?
I think the need to categorise has to be based on general knowledge or intuitive reasoning about why two things are the same or similar in relation to other things. Verbal intelligence tends to be present quite heavily with those of high general knowledge who do well in quizzes and the like about various topics outside of obsessive narrow technical areas.
I mean the very question of why two things are alike or not alike is the kind of ‘g’ they are trying to unearth with these ‘verbal’ questions. You could present two pictures and it would work similarly.
I admit though, I tend to categorise things a lot more than others. I do have some quirks.
For example on football manager I started editing the database of players to put all the players into the ‘right’ club or countries as a teenager.
I tend to get incredibly frustrated watching a rugby game and seeing the problem and none of the tv analysts seeing it or getting angry even at ‘how it should be’. I see many many problems in things.
The reason Facebook says I am (155) would be because of my general knowledge. Overall on the Wais 4, I am 132. But the test is based on statical sampling not direct accumulated measurement like facebook does. The ability to specialize limits the sampling process so this means that what people know is either from large or narrow exposed to different cultures. Sampling will not work if the sample is too small. That is why IQ tests only have so much accuracy and constructs of which they are based on (general intelligence) do not reflect total ability.
Statistics can tell you how categories form by a network of differences and similarities. In the areas where people follow the same categories they all share the same features. Do you read books? What kinds of movies do you watch? Who did you vote for? Which brand would you consider buying, A, B, or C? Specialization will preview your ability to produce and generate an amount of works that people can inspect for quality. Generalized people will try out many things but not commit to one art or craft. The sampling process will not be broad enough to know how generalized a person is unless the number of people involved is huge. It takes supercomputers to do this. Supercomputers that the deep state possess.
Philosopher thinks I have autism because he defines it as being selected for as a trait that is obsessive on one topic. But because his sampling is so low he does not know the amount of things that I know myself. Pumpkin says he is obsessed with intelligence, I am obsessed with A.I. – But we are not autistic. I had psychosis because of my emotional state. You don’t understand how stupid people are to realize what stupidity does to smart people. I was depressed that my life had no purpose and that no one cared about me. I was lonely because people around me were not like me. People let their emotions control them and they have poor theory of mind. People think I am stupid and don’t believe me about stuff. I can’t trust people because of how stupid and judgmental they are. I am a sensitive person so it hurts to be judged. There are so many things I don’t tell my therapist because of they way she will think of me. I can’t be open with people and that is why I had psychosis.
Philosopher said he helps out people like me and pumpkin in real life. What he knows is different from what other people know. His IQ is 140. He lives in Britan. British people act differently than Australians or Americans or South Africans. Pumpkin is in Toronto Canada. They act differently also. Philosophy acts like he is in a higher position than most people because of his level of intelligence and because of how British people of high class tend to have that attitude of properness to them. He said that autistic people have the look on their face of sincere stupidity like Issac Newton and Mark Zuckerberg. I don’t have that look on my face. I am not nieve. But I am not all there like philosopher said. Philosopher has that attitude that he is better than other people but in that way which he must be because of everyone else’s incompetence. INTJ’s need to feel competent.
I have had many mental breakdowns in the past. I had problems relating to people. I could not form a support structure. Everything collapsed. I don’t think it was my fault. People just are not that nice. Philosopher probably never had the experience of rejection I have had. His ability for categorization and his sense that he is good at it all comes from his Extraverted Thinking. Because I have had mental breaks downs I am more aware of my Introverted Feeling. I remember when I was like philosopher where I felt I needed to be competent. Because I could not I had so many sad times. Philosopher like so many INTJ’s are disconnected from Fi. Philosopher doesn’t even realize that most people he is thinking of when he thinks of Autists are actually ISTP’s (Engineers who wear raincoats indoors).
The narrowness of categorization he sees is ostensive to autism so why does he think I have it? He says that Asians are autistic because of the selection pressures of master. Master needs civilization to function, he needs citizens to follow the rules even when not looking. This means they must be nieve and unsuspecting and oblivious to thoughts other than what they are programmed to do. They need narrowness and specialization and obedience. The problem with that is that Philosopher being IQ 140 doesn’t see that because I am IQ 113 that I am just normally stupider than him. Many High IQ people see lower IQ people as autistic. The problem with high IQ people is that they don’t realize when someone has high theory of mind and still be of lower intelligence. That is what autism is supposed to be where narrowness leads to low theory of mind. Philosopher has improperly gauged my theory of mind. Philosophers ability to categories as he sees it is from his theory of mind not his intelligence because remember that high IQ autists lack theory of mind. (sincere stupidity)
Philosopher said that a sign to him of schizo tendencies is a fascination with conspiracy theories. I remember lots of shows about them in the 90’s about UFO’s and Bigfoot and loch ness monster. I saw an online movie call the aquarian conspiracy. It was a Christian video about the new age religion and the mark of the beast. Just because people are into conspiracies does not mean they are schizos. They could just be deluded. Does anyone really think that the reason Christians believe in conspiracies is because they are schizophrenics?
look at these videos:
Philosopher does not realize what it really takes for normal people (people with IQ’s 40 points bellows philosophers) to believe this kind of stuff. Non schizos and non autists alike.
Who cares what the philosopher thinks? Most of his autism theories are stolen from me anyway
And i doubt he has an IQ of 140. Possible his verbal IQ is that high but his performance IQ is probably lower
I estimate his overall IQ to be 125. High enough to be a comic genius but low enough to have a mentally retarded father
When 50% of your genes come from Forest Gump, that puts an upper limit on your intellect
Pumpkinperson, could you please estimate the IQ of regular posters on here?.
You have already given 125 for Philosopher, but what about the others?
Afrosapien, Gondwanaman, Jimmy and fat black lesbian blogger.
It would be great if you could give your reasons for it and give a V-P split.
and dont try to be nice .
They’re all grown men.
They can take it.
I think G-man, Afro, and Jimmy are probably all 125, but G-man and Afro probably have a large V > P split, while Jimmy probably has a large P > V split. Afro’s IQ might be inflated by his extremely privileged upbringing but some believe genes become more important as people age, so Afro was perhaps 140 at age seven when environment is huge, but may drop to 115 by age 40 as he begins to resemble his genetic relatives in the slums of Haiti.
Fat black lesbian blogger is hard to say: His GRE scores indicated an IQ of 163 but his childhood Wechsler scores might have been as “low” as 125 but that’s just a rough estimate based on the few vague details he provide. The Wechsler is a better test than the GRE, but the GRE was taken when he was an adult and IQ is more genetic. Let’s split the difference and say 145. His general knowledge, writing skills and comic talent are extremely impressive, but he can be incredibly irrational (accusing me and G-man of being the same person, just because misdreavus thought so) though part of this is just trolling, mental illness and contrarian personality.
Philibuster’s father is retarded, the guy has been fired 14 times, nothing he says here indicates an IQ that’s north of 100. Best guess of Phil’s IQ: somewhere around 90. But his intellectual mediocrity wouldn’t be such a problem if he didn’t suffer comorbid insanity.
By the way, what’s more interesting is the new animekitty. Very impressive, keep up, maybe you’ll become a brown boy someday.
Pumpkin,
would you comment on my scores?
Kitty there’s very little one can learn from ones wais profile without more information
I could do some armchair psychology but you’re very sensetive so I’d be afraid any analysis i give might be taken too seriously
“Performance IQ is a score derived from the administration of selected subtests from the Wechsler Intelligence Scales, designed to provide a measure of an individual’s overall visuospatial intellectual abilities. The Performance IQ is a measure of fluid reasoning, spatial processing, attentiveness to details, and visual-motor integration.”
My performance IQ is on point. I’m an excellent soccer player, tried every possible sport with my multisports club in high school, took part in many challenges, I climb trees and road signs like it’s in my nature. When I’m racing on highways, I can tell you that it requires a lot of visual and spatial ability, as well as motor control. And I’m not just into driving fast and committing road infractions a mile a minute, I also like to see what’s under the hood. My orientation skills and spatial memory are great, so is my overall dexterity. And the people in the slums of Haiti, solve more practical problems everyday than the guy doing silly statistics on his armchair or the ones who create IQ tests.
I reek of male hormones so they’re expressed in my brain too I think. And maybe I’d suck at silly puzzles on a paper shit but whenever your car gets capricious, I’m your man.
The skills you describe have very little to do with performance IQ. Mechanics and many athletes have below average performance IQ. Indeed blacks are the best athletes in the World, yet on IQ tests their lowest scores are in spatial tasks. And testosterone has a curvilinear relationship with spatial IQ, such that nerdy guys and Tomboys have higher spatial IQ than both hyper-feminine women and hyper-masculine men (which you’re not btw).
Whatever !
Animekitty, as a general rule of thumb, it’s not a good idea to worry too much about what other people say, especially on the Internet. Often people say mean things, or inaccurate things, without putting too much thought into it. And wasting your energy on those people will do you no good.
There’s only 4 people who’s opinions I really care about, and they’re all in my immediate family. Everything everyone else says is just entertainment to me.
Performance IQ at work:
I can do most of what’s in the video. I have my fails of course, but I master things more easily than most people.
Damn I’m hooked on that stuff:
Low performance IQ.
When I showed my scores to my doctor, he said that the score I had that were low had to do with attention problem. He prescribed me strattera which is an ADD medication but my insurance would not pay for it. If I do have ADD then I now realize why I have had so many problems where my mind blanks out. I thought is was autism but it’s not. My mind just stops and I get stressed by it. I take medications for anxiety.
Darwin Awards haha !!
Sprinting aint for idiots:
Pumpkin,
I would trust you more than I do philosopher and really my doctors have not helped me out that much. They don’t tell me anything and I because of it I get the feeling they don’t think of me as being objective enough to understand. I am only sensitive when people don’t understand me which is the problem. And when I say that I mean that I only say what I feel comfortable saying because a two-way conversation sometimes comes to a point where the other person to me seems as if they would think little of me. I know that you only have so much information about me. But the fact is that as long as someone is being truthful rather than judgmental I can tell the difference between uncertainty and plain assumptions from bias. Most people can’t separate a persons true beliefs from their assumptions. They think that what others say as an assumption or fact is an agreement with the moral nature of it. If you said something I disagree with I would not assume it was because you are a bad person. If you asked me questions I would be honest with them to level of my sensitivity. I do take things into consideration but for it to mean anything I must judge the degree of accuracy any statement has to make sure I am not just believing anything I hear. I test things out and seek references. But everything I do hear I keep in mind because I care about contextual accuracy and multivariant logic. There is no reason for me unquestionably believe everything you say. But I do tend to find what you say useful for improving my thinking process. There are multiple ways to view data that do not necessarily lead to negative conclusion. you are worried I may form a negative conclusion about myself if you say anything. But really I find that you are like a friend to me. I remember how Marsha said reading you blog helped her out more than any of her psychologists did. Your blog really is a place people can feel comfortable expressing themselves. I say things here I can’t say anywhere else.
Animekittu maybe you should spend less time on this blog. PP cant help you, no one can but yourself. There’s a lot of losers and wanna be Alphas on here, I mean, look at Afro, constantly posturing about his sexuality and his skills, and everyone knows a real alpha doesn’t post dozens of comments on an Internet blog in a single day.
Go out and enjoy life, appreciate the beauty around you and don’t worry about people. A lot of them suck anyhow.
And speaking of which, I should cut back on my own blog commenting. But it is a nice distraction from work.
What the hell’s wrong with you GondwanaMan ? I spend my time how I like, means nothing about how I carry myself in life. Can you elaborate on what pass times alpha males are supposed to have or not to have ?
That’s rhetorical, please don’t bother answering, it’s gonna be embarassing.
Afro G-man’s a rare black national merit finalist.
Show some respect please.
Ok, now that you guys probably calmed down, a more expansive response might be worth my time.
I guess many people on here got me wrong: I am not a thug nor some sort of megalomaniac tyran. I’m like a big brother to my girlfriend and my friends. I see them all like hyperactive hobbits I need to care for, and they look up to me. It’s just that, I’m that big calm dude (Latin nonchalance), who’s never worried, always confident and seldom fails.
Of course I sometimes go like “bring it on!” and highkey “don’t fuck with me” when the situation requires it. But few people would dare to get me in those moods. I got the physique for it.
Speaking of hypersexuality, GondwanaMan has been more crude than me on most threads, we know a lot of the celebs he’d go balls deep in. Well, that’s fine nothing shocking. But when I’m flabbergasted because pacas doesn’t know how to make a woman pregnant, it’s not because I’m obsessed with sex, it’s because I older than 12.
I talked about my sex life without thinking you guys would find it exceptional. Like I’m an attractive guy, model, frat boy, party animal… I can tell with 99% accuracy if a girl wants me and I’m fortunate to be attracted to the type of girls who are also attracted to me. That’s great. So when you brought up the topic, I thought I might have something to say, but you mistook it for bragging.
Damn, if I wanted to fit in the comments section, I’d try to come off as a nerdy bookworm. It’s just not who I am and I can’t fake it. So I’m myself and if it bothers you, just do not read my comments. And my presence here is nothing abnormal, it keeps my English level at a reasonable level in addition to exposing me to some personality types that I had never encountered.
Afro nobody looks at you and says “what a good looking guy”
They say “he’s exotic looking with a nice smile, maybe he can model since people are more tolerant today”
Source ?
And I guess all these girls have visited my bed for the sole sake of tolerance. That’s why GondwaMan gets as much sex as me.
smfh.
Afro, you’re in France. It’s impossible not to get laid there.
Source ?
Anyway, I’ve been with more US chicks than gman.
Spring break, baby…
Because you’re a SLUT and a model (the EQUIVALENT OF A PROSTITUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
ROFL !
You’re embarrassing.
Btw, are you already over Mar$ha ?
125 ? hahaha
PP is in passive aggressive mode after my cult comment.
I’m sorry PP but a cult is a cult. I don’t do political correctness.
but if you’re serious then you are completely off your rocker.
Does this look like a 125 IQ
1. Berkeley grad
I got accepted to Duke, U of Chicago, Caltech, Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell but i chose to go to Berkeley because its just a 26 minute drive away from my home town of Danville .
It was one of the best decisions i have ever made.
2. Computer Science degree with ” highest distinction” which is the equivalent of summa cum laude (Berkeley doesn’t use latin honors)
to get ” highest distinction ” you need a 3.9 GPA
I got a 4.0 GPA in a sea of ching chongs which is one of the reasons that i have always laughed at the HBD cult and their claims of sino-superioroity.
A committed white man will always dominate the yellow men.
3. a perfect 800 on the math part of the SAT and a perfect 800 on the Math SAT subject tests.
I didn’t even study for the SAT and yet i got a 700 on the verbal.
If i did what the ching chongs, dot heads and yids do then i would have gotten a 1600.
I took the SAT cold and got the score i needed so i didn’t bother taking it again.
4. I had a salary of $120,432 by the time i was 25.
How many 25 year olds do you know making $120k ? I don’t know what percentile that is but it must be crazy.
I make even more now that i am older.
5. I work for a tier 1 investment bank and prior to that i worked for BP and Citadel.
The hardest job you can get in this world is at a tier 1 investment bank. Anyone who knows anything will tell you that.
The whole process took around 5 weeks and i had to pass custom made aptitude tests.
getting into a T1 IB is harder than getting into Harvard.
6. I have a reaction time average of 164 milliseconds on human benchmark (i’ll show a screenshot if you want)
7. I was in the gifted program in both middle school and high school .
The cutoff was 98th percentile and i went to a very white high school.
They didn’t give us the results because they feared ” hierarchy”
8. I was a national merit finalist from CA which has the joint second highest PSAT cutoff for semi-finalist.
.
Being a finalist put me in the top 1% of high school students .
I got a 235/240.
PP has this theory that if you are a ” racist ” then you must be mentally challenged, because in his world those who accept demographic suicide are genetically fitter.
What you don’t get is that 99% of the greatest minds in history were what you would call racist.
I have never called for genocide like Darwin or Galton.
if you combine all of my details then i would say that my IQ is way up there.
And you’re crazy if you think Phil has a 125 IQ.
Phil is a little too trusting but he is way up there. I would say that phil on supplements would be in the 99th percentile.
you’re not a very good judge of ability,
that makes me think that all of your estimates on this site are way off.
If i was fooled by HBD then you would think that i have a higher IQ.
only clowns fall for HBD
The fact that i haven’t fallen for the crypto-Jew HBD fairy tales about large butts and small breasts is an indicator of high intelligence.
And lets not forget that IQ was created by a jew called Stern to convince Whites that jews are the master race.
the same can be said of nobel prizes as nobel is a famous jewish surname.
ask yourself this : If IQ and nobel prizes didnt exist would anyone think jews were the master race?
you and i both know the answer.
Total joke. The real comic genius is and always will be pumpkin, who posted his theory of injun-sasquatch descent and how women love men who do suduku.
To be put myself and Jimmy in the same category of a man who is obsessed with frozen pizza and another who posts ho-ho rubbish most of the time is bizarre.
The other possibility is that Pumpkin is dyslexic and can’t read and has to have his pet parrot, Tooky, read this blog comments to him while he rocks back and forth on his blow up pokemon chair rubbing the hair on his barbie doll painted black to resemble Oprah.
What the hell did gman get a merit in?
Hotdog tasting?
This is ridiculous. The anger of pumpkin these last few weeks is very apparent.
Watch – this too will be moderated.
What did he say that was so horrible? Lol…
Jimmy (and some other commenters) need to understand that intelligence & achievement are 2 different things even if they are correlated. I remember a commenter of him (Jimmy) saying something like “Italians are the smartest because of Roman Empire & Italian Renaissance”. And not surprisingly, he is now saying this is impossible his IQ is not above 125 because of his academic & professional achievements.
He likes to call “HBD-cultists” everyone who agree (at some level) with Rushton’s r-K theory, but how should we call people who can’t differentiate pure intelligence from achievement ?
a comment* of him
I never said anything about Italians being the smartest because of the renaissance and the Roman empire.
I said that greatness is judged by real world achievements not little pieces of jew paper called IQ tests.
“Jimmy (and some other commenters) need to understand that intelligence & achievement are 2 different things ”
of course you would say that as you are a crypto-jew who cant except the fact that jews have no history and no pedigree.
Jewish achievement is non-existence to those of us who are not part of the HBD cult .
the city of Florence alone is greater than all Jews, so how can jews be greater than Europeans ?!
No IQ tests and no Jewish Nobel prize and no one would even think of putting jews and achievement in the same sentence.
As for IQ , PP knows my IQ is higher than 125. Any sane person knows that.
if high achievers have mediocre IQs then IQ is meaningless. The legitimacy of IQ tests is dependent upon people like me having high IQs.
Raw Intelligence = non-verbal ability so when pp says that i have a P>V profile he is admitting that my IQ is much higher than 125.
PP is very angry these days for whatever reason.
Just look at the disgraceful way he spoke about the right honorable Phil’s mother.
I didn’t expect that from PP as phil has been nothing but a gentlemen.
I think we all need to chip in and raise the funds to get PP a Natasha.
“if high achievers have mediocre IQs then IQ is meaningless. The legitimacy of IQ tests is dependent upon people like me having high IQs.”
So true.
There’s only two ways one can be an anti-semite: Either you’re very tribalistic, or you think Jews are more or less involved in conspiracy. The two tend to come together but not always.
If your partake in the latter mentality, they have successfully infiltrated and “controlled” western/white civlization, which within its essence is a noteworthy achievement reflecting their high IQ. Disregarding that, jews are still successful within their own domains, at least (dis)proportionately.
“my IQ is higher than 125. Any sane person knows that.”
Well, Assuming pumpkin’s data is correct, the correlations for income, SAT scores, and math are .45, 0.5, and .63 respectively.
You were in the 98th percentile of income at the age of 25
Using the percentiles you gave me for your math, full sat, income, gifted program, and the national merit finalist thing it gave me 137,125,116,118,130 which averaged out exactly to 125.
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/06/02/iq-vs-math-talent-vs-math-performance/
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the higher end of the IQ spectrum among computer science majors is around the 120’s
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
” If your partake in the latter mentality, they have successfully infiltrated and “controlled” western/white civlization, which within its essence is a noteworthy achievement reflecting their high IQ. ”
That would be true if they could achieve the same in non-liberal countries.
China will never tolerate any jewish power in china , neither will Russia and even the subdued Japan wont.
The only countries that jews are capable of having any influence on are the ones that LET THEM .
wow what a great achievement.
infiltrating liberal societies is like taking candy from a baby.
” Using the percentiles you gave me for your math, full sat, income, gifted program, and the national merit finalist thing it gave me 137,125,116,118,130 which averaged out exactly to 125. ”
This is getting embarrassing now.
There is only one way to settle this
put your money where your mouth is
i will book a supervised MENSA test and i’ll register under any name you give me and then when i get the result i will post it on here.
If my IQ is higher than 125 then you and pp pony up $10,000 each.
“That would be true if they could achieve the same in non-liberal countries.”
But that liberalism, is a direct result form jews, also america has been getting more conservative in the past decades, the current presidency is proof enough, trump is still controlled by jews. Conservatism is irrelevant, America was one of the best places to be for a jew after WW2
“The only countries that jews are capable of having any influence on are the ones that LET THEM .”
They wold not intentionally allow them. Hints why it’s a conspiracy.
“There is only one way to settle this”
Or you could just check the math yourself, seeing as how you got a perfect score on the math SAT.
Truth be told I was being generous, but what should you expect, the correlation between between income, Education, and IQ is not perfect. So those achievements are not reflective of you actual potential.
“If my IQ is higher than 125 then you and pp pony up $10,000 each.”
If you want to take an IQ test and post the results all power to you, but you shouldn’t feel the need to prove your worth to complete strangers. Do you realize how intelligent an IQ of 125 actually is?
as i thought 🙂
What did you think?
Just take the wais 4
I think Jimmys IQ is closer to 135 than 125. But nothing you said indicates any higher than that.
Yeah 135 sounds like a better guess. Average IQ at Berkeley is 120 but add 10 points for majoring in comp sci & doing well.
Then add another 5 points for the huge brain size
I said that greatness is judged by real world achievements not little pieces of jew paper called IQ tests.
You are talking about greatness (which is very hard to define objectively), I’m talking about intelligence, and IQ tests are actually the best known way to mesure it.
of course you would say that as you are a crypto-jew who cant except the fact that jews have no history and no pedigree.
How this is an evidence of Jews being dumber than Whites ? Why can’t you grasp that intelligence (i.e IQ) is not the only factor needed to achieved great things ?
As for IQ , PP knows my IQ is higher than 125. Any sane person knows that.
You are constantly (subtly) insulting anyone who (or may) disagree with you, that’s a sign of a paranoid personality & relatively high social intelligence, not so much of high general intelligence.
Except his impressive (supposedly) academic & professional background, why should we believe Jimmy’s IQ is so high ? May be I missed something
Plus he contradicts himself saying IQ tests are meaningless, and then that his IQ must be high because of his achievements.
Puppers will say: “I am not a man. I am a human being”.
And the Philosopher asks: “When does a human being become a man”?
And Puppers will say: “A man is a human being who chooses to be a man in his heart”.
And Philosopher will say: “It is in fact the man who must choose to become a human being”.
And Puppers will moderate this as well.
pill is right.
the story that jews excel at parasitism but also at science in general is a lie, a YUGE lie.
in general jewish science is also parasitic…though many jews have done very useful science. jonas salk was a jew and jews helped alexander fleming a lot.
in my fields of study, chemistry and mathematics, jews are conspicuously over-represented in theoretical chemistry and pure mathematics respectively.
gentile europeans and ne asians dominate organic, inorganic, analytical, and even the experimental half of physical chemistry. chemistry is the least jewish/most goyish of the nobel sciences. non-nobel physical sciences, like geology or atmospheric/oceanic science, may be even more goysih. idk.
jews excel at theory, and they excel at selling. so when the the theory is wrong or when the theory has no practical application jewish theorists still get top billing as scientists.
to bend over backwards to the jews…this may all be a result of their VIQ vs PIQ split rather than vice. high VIQ is a good thing in itself, but combined with a mediocre PIQ in a population with millions it’s bad. it leads to parasitism.
it’s interesting and telling how cockring doesn’t get that…
even if the higher ashkenazi IQ were real…it was selected for in a population of jews which were a tiny minority in a larger population. in other words, what was selected for was NOT intelligence per se, but the “intelligence” of a tiny minority. cockring is hoist by his own petard, hymie is right. so far as there was any selection for jewish IQ, this is a side effect of the selection for jewish parasitism.
Who is Steve Roves???
Jews are so stuck in your craw! You wake up and go to sleep thinking about them! You’re almost as bad as philosopher!
Remember, Jew average spatial is 99, which is low relative to their own verbal, but not to gentle spatial!!
Actually jewish spatial IQ is 93
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/26/excellent-data-on-jewish-iq-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/
The most racist people I’ve ever encountered were East indians, followed by mexicans, then southern redneck whites. Jews were always the most loving towards me, out of any group of people.
I even prefer Jews to my own people, just to be honest.
When I was a black man, jews made me a non executive director of the board. But when I transitioned back to the Philosopher I was demoted to temp window cleaner.
You not a nigger, faggot.
Pumpkin, can you moderate Gondwana man’s comment please? I find that language extremely offensive and triggering.
coca-ine
cafe-ine
hero-ine
try harder to be black, and you might be white.
How about codeine? Ever tried that?
Codeine (purp) is lit.
she don’t lie. she don’t lie. she don’t lie.
I’m already subscribed to oshay.
two additional documentaries peepee should see. they’re available for free on the interwebs, but not on youtube..
Unraveled (2011)
The Genius and the Boys
the unraveled guy is a jew scammer. the genius is a gentile nobel laureate. the jew is sympathetic. the gentile is evil. the movie about the gentile has a huge point that its makers were surely unaware of. namely, that academics are selected for social and moral stupidity.
“steve roves” is chinese for “steve (hsu) loves (jewish cock).”
l —> r.
Hahahaha
The last 10 minutes of the Genius documentary are fairly shocking. Up until then I had been thinking about him like a Michael Jackson type figure. Very gifted man in some respects.
the creepiest thing was that the four other academics were so naive and a-moral. they refused to condemn what he’d done, let alone condemn gajdusek himself. there was a british academic (who wasn’t in the movie) who defended what gajdusek had done. he was fired, thank God. this british academic identified himself as a flushtonian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Brand#Paedophilia
Yes, it was ridiculous, but you get the same hero worship halo effect with athletes, entertainers or certain politicians. For example, people ‘forget’ Nelson Mandela was an avowed communist and engaged in terrorist activities or MLK, a make pretend deeply religious leader held numerous orgies privately and was a plagiarist charlatan.
Essentially any black public figure that has become famous in the last 50 years is a fraud. Cosby, Woods, Pryor, Washington, OJ, Michael Jackson etc have graveyards in their closets.
This might be an artifact of Jewish studio heads, producers and media trying desperately to overturn biology that is apparent in Haiti, the Congo and Kingston.
But people in the black community need those heroes, because they do advance black interests.
Just like our medicine researcher advanced science.
In some ways, I think it might be a good thing people focus on people’s positives rather than negatives in terms of role models. I think an optimistic, somewhat naive view of the world is important for personal success.
The old refrain the founding father were slavers, and all that.
Denzel Washington is legit. Not only is he one of the greatest actors of our generation but he has no skeletons in his closet.
Denzel is the same fucking guy in every movie.
I have never seen a movie where Denzel didn’t play himself. That’s no acting.
He also has an open marriage. I’ve read quite a few stories about Denzel. My impression is that he’s an emotionally unstable man with very thin skin.
Quite succesful with the ladies though so I wonder where it comes from? – Eva Mendes and Julia Roberts have slept with him from what I can make out.
All magic negroes are negro. They are not magical. They are their biology. Biology doesn’t change. Perceptions of biology change.
Tide goes in. Tide goes out. This mudshark wave will end soon.
“Denzel is the same fucking guy in every movie.”
No he’s not you ever seen pelham 123?
Blacks are great actors. Jews are crappy actors.
Steve Sailer is on fire this past fortnight. Very wry commentary and headlines. I think Steve has been aware for some time of my own views on what the ‘Deep State’ actually is. He hints at it. But he can’t say it. Like Tucker can’t. Like Trump can’t.
But we all know. The high IQ, low empathy people.
PP, could you reference some paper(s) wich would be a sort of “HBD for dummies” where genotype k, r, RR etc. would be explained with a clear theory presentation ?
Bruno, that’s a great idea! I’ll do a post explaining basic HBD concepts for people who haven’t been following the field that closely.
Brilliant! Although Jayman has done something like this already.
I always assume Reagan was another neocon puppet, can someone clear up the Reagan legacy?
Was he a patriot or Marshall Petain?
Reagan was a real patriot…NOT!
This is the best treatment I’ve seen of him.
My assessment – although I would admit Reagan is the president I arguably know least about of all in the past 60 years – is that he was a true believer. Like Obama, like JFK, like Teddy Roosevelt, but not as intellectually gifted as any of those and so prone to naive and childish ideas.
His positive impact was the social revolution he brought – he reduced crime by cracking down on blacks, made culture more wholesome and family friendly again and was an excellent spokesman and role model for the ‘real america’ that we all love. I think emotionally he was exactly what was needed.
HIs negative impact was that, like Trump, the cost was a massive transfer of wealth to a small plutocracy and he empowered the Deep State, of whom his vice president, Bush the Elder, was a key figure, like Prescott Bush, the so called ‘Senator from Langely’. The economic rot started with him.
A fascinating story though. He seemed like a good guy. He was nowhere near a sociopath like Clinton or Cheney or plutocratic gorgon like either of the Bushes. Nice little anecdote that he could never bring himself to fire anyone and so his wife had to do it.
Reagan was a traitor .
what is with this searching for heroes?
If it wasn’t for Reagan’s treasonous amnesty then California might still be white today.
Yes, the amnesty was foolish. Eishenhower expelled illegals.
Reagan’s worst work was in the economy though. To this day liber-retardationists will keep carping on about how lowering cap gains increased tax revenues….
i have been trying to post all day and nothing shows up.
Must be a technical problem
I haven’t moderated you at all lately
i have posted the same thing like 7 times now.
are there any words that get posts censored?
usually when you moderate posts i get to see posts but at the bottom it says ” moderation ” or something like that.
this time i can even see my post.
check if there are filter words .
I’ll check the spam folder. I think people in Europe are having problems posting.
* i cant even see my post.
It got marked as spam for some reason but it’s posted now
PP
” What do you think an ethnic group is? A breeding population.”
breeding population = people/animals who breed with each other. For example, Quakers were a breeding population.
Mutations are carried by breeding populations .
The fact that some people in an ethnic group are susceptible to certain diseases and others in the same ethnic group aren’t is proof that humans bred tribally not ethnically.
If that wasn’t the case then every German would be susceptible to cystic fibrosis which they aren’t.
If , for the sake of argument,i accepted your excuse for eskimos then what is your excuse for Tajiks ?
There are 16-20 million Tajiks who are native to an area that is colder than Northern Europe and yet Lynn says that their IQ is 87.
What about Turkmenistan? there are ~9 million 87 IQ Turkmen who are native to a place that’s even colder than Tajikistan and is much colder than all of N. Europe.
what about Uzbeks? there are 30 million uzbeks who are native to a climate colder than N. Europe and yet Lynny boy says that they have an IQ of 87.
When a theory has that many holes a normal person would reject it but when you are part of a cult its hard to accept reality.
the first step in breaking out of a cult is to know that you’re not alone pp.
You have a family that cares about you.
you’re not alone.
” People from different social classes interbreed all the time…… ”
how many Astors married trailer park trash ?
Its never happened in my family.
Everyone in my family married people from upper middle class families.
people are attracted to those who are similar to them. thats just the way it is.
That’s the case even when the people come from different countries. For example, the woman i’m currently with went to Carl-Zeiss-Gymnasium.
” …especially in prehistoric times when cavemen would just grab a random woman and rape her ”
We know for a fact that men have lower testosterone levels today than they had 20 years ago so you can just imagine how masculine cavemen were.
There is no way in hell that a caveman would accept his daughter being raped without a fight to the death with the one who did it.
If the Taliban would hunt down such people than you can just imagine how rare rapes were in cavemen times.
“So Jimmy since you don’t believe in HBD, I assume that means you think blacks are genetically just as smart as whites? ”
i think the gap is mostly due to nutritional deficiencies with a few points due to motivation.
motivation :
This study shows that Incentives increased IQ scores by 0.96 SD among those with below average IQs but only 0.26 SD among those with above average IQs
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7716.abstract
if 84% of blacks and 50% of whites have bellow average IQ then its a net gain of 4 points for blacks which brings the black mean to 89.
And that study didn’t even count race. if they did the figure might be even bigger as blacks have absolutely no reason to care.
blacks come from a dead end community so why should they give a damn about the result of an IQ test or any other test ?
nutritional deficiencies:
This study showed that correcting vitamin and mineral deficiencies increased the IQ of students by a minimum of 6 points with an average of 11 points and a maximum of 21 points.
Click to access 1991-schoenthaler.pdf
The main author of that paper , Eysenck, is a hardcore IQ fundamentalist and yet in this paper he wrote
“It seems possible that the large racial differences in I.Q. so often observed(Eysenck, 1984) could be eliminated in large measure, or even completely,by such dietary aid ”
Click to access introSuppsraiseIQEysenck91.pdf
If the main author of the study believed that supplementation could eliminate the racial IQ gap then its safe to assume that blacks got a net gain of 10 points.
if we add that to the motivation gain then it gives us a black mean IQ of 99.
I have never apposed the black presence in white countries because of IQ . I am not an IQ nationalist.
I appose all non-whites living in white countries because it leads to balkanization and thats just not in our interests.
If a multiethnic country like Czechoslovakia didn’t work then how then hell will a multiracial country work ?
Blacks also have personality traits that make them incompatible with civilization.
i believe those personality traits are genetic but they can be trained to suppress those urges in the same way that a lion can be tamed.
The only way to save the western world is to deport all non-whites starting with the chosen people.
* they have colder winters
“When a theory has that many holes a normal person would reject it but when you are part of a cult its hard to accept reality.”
LMAO
“Blacks also have personality traits that make them incompatible with civilization.”
Well don’t you think that those negative personality traits are a direct result of less intelligence?
Well don’t you think that those negative personality traits are a direct result of less intelligence?
the personality traits that im talking about are like their refusal to work together and just the general ” muh dick” culture.
contrary to what many on here claim, blacks dont have much loyalty to each other.
if the blacks worked together they would have never been colonized by the Europeans.
you cant build a civilization if you refuse to work together.
All of these traits can be fixed though.
a great example is blacks in the military or Farakhan’s group.
There are many low IQ places in the world which i have been on vacation and they are very livable places.
I have been on vacation in Barbados which is completely black and that was a very livable place.
I’ve been to the Seychelles too and that was very livable
I’ve also visited the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and they are amazing places to live.
Last year i tried to apply to be transferred to the Dubai division of my company but i missed the deadline.
I would do everything i could to live in that ” Low IQ ” place.
Low intelligence, low civic duty, and low trust/empathy are correlated, but not the same thing. Blacks generally have all 3. Add in sexual selection for “swag”, obsession with finery and jewelry, a pelvis-rocking, BALLS DEEP walking stance, and a penchant for dancing, and you get black culture in a nutshell.
As Mugabe has pointed out, the 3 Bs are some of the few good black places to live. Barbados, Bahamas, and Bermuda. Although a friend I know who visited the Bahamas said Customer service was terrible.
I disagree with Jimmy here.
Its obvious the black IQ is genetic.
The evidence is the variation of environments blacks live in – Carribbean (as independent nations), Latin America, Europe and of course North America and Africa.
Its obvious there is a trade off between testosterone and IQ. This has been empircally observed by others, not just Rushton.
Rushton’s ‘cult’ is a not a pro jew conspiracy. Quite the opposite. Although the early researchers correctly see evidence of high innate jewish IQ. This is best proven by the dirt poor Eastern European and russian immigrants to america who were very socially mobile as a result of Nixon’s open borders to communist jew refugees bill.
But then they made a value judgement that high IQ should mean supremacy. That’s a massive extrpolation. Its also logically incorrect. Because east asians have higher composite IQs as well than whites.
Most of these researchers are not aware that high IQ can be used to do evil things as well – brainwashing, fraud, manipulation, hypnosis, sedition, bribery, blackmail etc.
What makes the West powerful as I keep saying to JS, is not IQ. Its empathy. Without empathy you need dictatorships, bureacracy and tons of rules which stifles darwinian change and new ideas.
Christianity is adopted by whites even though it originated in the Mid East because its essentially an excuse to be nice.
Being nice is what cause economic growth. Not problem solving per se. I don’t think Murray or Lynn get that. And being nice and ‘playing fair’ is genetic. That’s why whites love socialism the most.
I think Rushton has expounded on this. But Jayman has written failry incisive pieces on this topic in relation to NGOs per capita and personal donations vs GDP/pc.
To my knowledge the only person that has argued being nice matters more than IQ is me.
A derivative of my argument is testosterone levels which are inverse somewhat to niceness maybe.
Niceness is no crime. But it gets taken advantage of by certain high IQ, low empathy races. No prizes for guessing who I’m referring to.
Being a great conman is grounds for supremacy according to some early HBD types. The reason they had to say it is obviously the field is politically inflammatory and Murray under no circumstances can be seen to advocate white supremacy. [last sentence redacted by PP, march 13, 2017]
Philosopher i had to redact your unbelievably inappropriate final sentence. Please don’t invoke that kind of imagery again.
I meant to put the comment here.
This was a really good argument. Another factor is breastfeeding. Breastfeeding has a causal factor on IQ:
Breastfeeding is related to improved performance in intelligence tests. A positive effect of breastfeeding on cognition was also observed in a randomised trial. This suggests that the association is causal.
Click to access 10.1111%40apa.13139.pdf
Who breastfeeds the least? Black women:
African American women have the lowest rates of breastfeeding initiation, as well as continuation at 6 months and 12 months, compared with all other racial/ethnic groups in the United States. No racial/ethnic group is currently meeting the Healthy People 2020 objectives for continued breastfeeding at 6 months (61%) and 12 months (34%) and exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months (46%) and 6 months (26%).
Mothers with lower rates of breastfeeding tend to be young, low-income, African American, unmarried, less educated, participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), overweight or obese before pregnancy, and more likely to report their pregnancy was unintended.4–7 These final two points are important to highlight because African American and Hispanic women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese and the largest number of unintended pregnancies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410446/
I’ve shown in the past that lower SES populations are food insecure and have higher rates of diabesity, which implies being nutrient deficient as well due to eating high amounts of processed foods. Combined with low amounts of activity/exercise, you have a nice array of things that could explain low cognition. Hmmm….
There’s an environmental argument, PP.
(For those less inclined, I do not have an opinion on what is written above, only providing the data for discussion and further consideration. Though, I can see a combination of nutrition/motivation/early childhood nutrition (i.e., breastfeeding) largely/fully explaining the B-W gap, that’d be interesting to look in to.)
europe is warmer than korea, japan, beijing in some places even though it’s at a higher latitude for two reasons.
1. it’s surrounded by water, which has a high specific heat and a high latent heat.
2. the gulf stream carries warm air and water from the caribbean to europe. so their are midget palm trees on the west coast of ireland.
during the last glacial maximum half of europe was covered in ice. none of ne asia was covered in ice. but the gulf stream was still working according to this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140916084821.htm. if ne asia was colder the difference was far smaller than it now, where western europe has a maritime climate and ne asia has a continental climate.
plus, why did people live in such an inhospitable place? the answer is that it was hospitable in some way, namely, big game was abundant and easily hunted.
and the most accomplished ne asians live in temperate or tropical climates. japan, s korea, hong kong, singapore. s chinese are physically distinguishable from manchurians. they’re smaller and darker. bergmann’s rule. n europeans are the world’s most robust people with the exception of the tropical polynesians. but they’re taller than the polynesians and have larger heads. physically n europeans are cold adapted more than ne asians. why not mentally too?
The specific heat capacity, or the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of a specific substance in a specific form one degree Celsius, for water is 4.187 kJ/kgK, for ice 2.108 kJ/kgK, and for water vapor (steam) 1.996 kJ/kgK.
peepee must be deprogrammed from the flushton cult.
mongols and plains indians are also fairly robust.
the polynesians are the exception to bergmann’s rule.
but it’s still 100% clear that n europeans have been selected by cold winters more than ne asians.
two other points of deprogramming:
1. the japanese do not have especially large heads.
2. the population distribution of ne asia today may be unlike it was. this is important. if the people lived on the coast their winters wouldn’t have been nearly as cold as if they lived in the interior. population density map of china:
mean january temperature:
tokyo 41.4 F
hong kong 61.3
oslo 24.3
moscow 20.3
it depends on where people actually lived.
ulaanbaatar -6.9 F
athens 50.5 F
the polynesians are the exception to bergmann’s rule.
They sure are.
When Bergmann’s rule has anomalies, it’s just the exception that proves the rule.
When Rushton’s rule has anomalies, it’s proof the rule is pseudoscience.
Sad.
All great civilizations started in warmer climes. The so-called Nordic master race were barbarians while the Romans and Greeks were cultured. Not a coincidence.
rushton’s rule has nothing but anomalies.
bergmann’s rule has ONE.
No bergmann’s rule has more anomalies.
East Asian Americans are smaller than white Americans who are smaller than black americans despite the fact that Northeast Asians had the coldest ice age environment and blacks had the warmest.
It’s backwards when it comes to three major races
” East Asian Americans are smaller than white Americans who are smaller than black americans ”
Whites are slightly taller than blacks in the US and whites are taller than blacks everywhere else.
page 15
Click to access nhsr010.pdf
Whites are the tallest race on the planet.
I guess that’s another HBD fairy tail out the window.
I know white americans are slightly taller but black americans are more robust. Most of the top U.S. body builders are black and the average U.S. black weighs more
* fairy tale
blacks are top bodybuilders because they are shorter.
Shorter people with muscle look more extreme than taller people.
the average height of Mr Olympia winners is 5’7 .
http://www.bulimia.com/examine/evolution-of-mr-olympia/
Whites are also stronger.
They’re only half an inch shorter. Too small a difference to explain away anything.
” They’re only half an inch shorter. Too small a difference to explain away anything ”
are you talking about the black-White height gap?
American blacks are not representative of blacks as they were selected for physical traits and yet whites are still taller.
Whites are taller than non-selected Africans in Europe.
if you’re talking about Mr Olympia then i never said anything about differences. between winners.
blacks win things because big muscle looks more freakish on smaller guys.
Many european blacks were born in Africa where nutrition is worse
Every African player in the French soccer squad was born in France. Virtually all Black French nationals under 30 were born in France. I was born in Haiti, yet I’m much taller than both the black and white average in France (if we remove sahelians who are tall by nature).
“Many european blacks were born in Africa where nutrition is worse ”
but the second and third generations were not stunted.
Whites are the tallest race on the planet FACT
Its something that no expert denies.
but the second and third generations were not stunted.
Second generation can still be a bit stunted & you have no data on the heights of blacks who have lived in Europe for generations
Some good points here.
I think Diamond’s theory is much better. It coincides with Pumpski’s cold climate theory in a way.
Basically you need agriculture to produce surplus. Roving bandits come to get the surplus and establish a state to regulate and manage it. In a state autist tendencies can be promoted in reproduction with monogamous pairing.
Diamond doesn’t say the bit about bandits and so on. That’s me.
But he’s right that certain geographic factors like temperate climate, livestock animal proeponderence and lack of killer diseases will help. And these are found in temperate climates, rather than ‘cold’ per se.
I agree with Jimmy that there is enough countries in cold places that haven’t evolved abilities. I don’t know the geography of Tajikistan and so on, but I imagine its mountaneous and desertified in large parts and lacks fertile valleys like the Nile once was for the Eygptians.
National Geograpahic magazine is not coincedenetally a very anthropological publication as well as physical geography publication now that I think about it.
And they would still dominate a Bodybuilding show.
Jimmy, one more point. Blacks are also shorter due to nutrient deficiencies. PP assumes that nutrition is the same within countries, not the same but “good enough” to not be deficient in nutrients. That’s wrong. Missing out on those nutrients during childhood stunts growth.
A few of the vitamins and minerals that black Americans are deficient in just so happen to be correlated with height. Hmm… I’m going to write an article on that later this week.
PP, it’s not so simple to say “same country, same average nutrition”, because even as I’ve shown, lower SES populations are more likely to be food insecure which means they’re vitamin and mineral insecure.
And Phil Heath, the best Bodybuilder in the world right now, it 5 foot 9. His rival Kai Greene is 5 foot 8. Jay Cutler is 5 foot 10. Bodybuilding is a sport for men around average height in the US. But yea, if blacks weren’t so nutrient deficient they’d be taller. PP needs to get a clue on nutrition.
If nutrition matters so much within countries than that means blacks must be genetically taller than white americans, further making my points
It really does matter so much. I’ll write about height and nutrients tonight. It’s meaningful in regards to the IQ debate as well as height and way more factors. Diet isn’t always a safe bet in the first world. There are hundreds of papers in the literature that attest to this.
PP why do you talk as of nutrition is uniform within countries? Do you know which nutrients affect height? Do you know that you can have a calorically balanced diet and still be nutrient deficient?
“But yea, if blacks weren’t so nutrient deficient they’d be taller. ”
blacks are nutritionally deficient but not enough to cause stunted growth.
I had blood work done on my vitamin, mineral etc levels in 2014 and i found out that i was deficient in nearly everything, with the worst deficiencies being in folate, b12 , Iodine , zinc and vitamin D.
After getting those results i changed my diet and started taking supplements and my reaction time on human benchmark went from 356 ms to 164 ms.
So my brain processing speed more than doubled after i corrected my nutritional deficiencies.
I was living with those insanely dangerous deficiencies and yet i’m 6’1
prior to 2014 i was eating everything i used to eat as a kid like mac and cheese, pasta, applie pie, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches etc .
I had a standard american diet and yet i grew to be 6’1 which is taller than my dad at 6’0 .
You need third world nightmare nutrition to stunt your growth,
Whites are genetically the tallest race.
HBD is wrong again.
I don’t disagree with your contention. However it’s northern Europeans you’re talking about, southern Europeans are slightly shorter.
It’s not so much how nutrient deficient you are (though it obviously matters) but which vitamins and minerals you’re lacking in.
Your deficiencies were what the average person is deficient in.
I’ve been reading about nootropics for a while now. It’s pretty cool.
“After getting those results i changed my diet and started taking supplements and my reaction time on human benchmark went from 356 ms to 164 ms.”
That’s solid. The b vitamin deficiencies effect brain health.
Furthermore, while vitamin D deficiency is a factor in height its not the only one. I’m going to write my article on race, height and nutrients deficiencies tonight.
There’s a lot more to hbd than iq differences pp. Somatype differences between blacks and whites are much more interesting. I’m going to write in depth on that soon.
” After getting those results i changed my diet and started taking supplements ”
Jimmy, could you please tell me what your new diet and supplement regime consists of ?
” Jimmy, could you please tell me what your new diet and supplement regime consists of ? ”
I get 100% of my vitamins, minerals and fatty acids from my breakfast which is :
1. Smoked N. Atlantic Mackerel 200g = ~ 3.8 g of DHA
2. 5 Poached eggs = ~ 600mg of Choline
3. 1 kg of Spinach (steamed) = vast majority of minerals and vitamins
4. grated mature cheddar cheese 100g = Calcium and great fat.
5. Smoothie that’s made up of :
– Barbados cherries 100g = ~ 1,7g of Vitamin C
– Amla 100g = lots of anti-disease stuff
– Blueberries 100g = anti-oxidants
– Raspberries 100g = great for sleep later on.
That meal alone covers 100% of my nutritional needs .
As an insurance policy i take the following supps
1. a B-complex every day at 100 x RDA for all b-vitamins except folate which is at 1 x RDA.
2. Vitamin D3 50,000 IU once per week
3. Zinc gluconate 50mg per day
4. Iodine from kelp 200mcg per day
5. a multivitamin& mineral at no more than RDA levels
I also eat a lot of garlic, green onions and i mostly cook in organic coconut oil and i drink a lot of tea without milk.
tea is amazing .
My daily eating is mostly meat/fish, greens , berries and nuts .
I wouldn’t advice doing what i do unless you have some disposable income as my food bills can be a bit expensive as i only eat organic, grass fed etc .
In USD i spend ~ $1,000 a month just on me.
I don’t count calories everyday but once in a while i count them and its usually around 3,000 calories a day.
And i’m a slim but toned guy. Google image Ryan Reynolds.
look at the slimmer pics and that’s me 100%
i get regular blood work done and the results are great.
When i first changed my eating habits i was scared about the cholesterol i was getting from the eggs but my blood work showed that my cholesterol levels actually went down !
Never trust the establishment doctors.
The alternative nutritionists are always right.
I hope RR doesn’t join the dark side.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085512
and peepee missed that polynesians are short on average. so they are not really a counterexample to bergmann’s rule.
the tutsi and wodaabe are very tall, but they are also very slight. an icelander could snap them in two over his head.
bergmann’s rule is big and tall.
it has no real anomalies at all.
the only way that a single IQ test could better than a battery of IQ tests is if the battery was homogeneous, made up of subtests from a subset of all possible tests. but this is going to be the case with any battery with as few as a dozen subtests or whatever the wechsler has.
and one criterion for excluding a subtest is that it has no correlation with the other subtests. even though the single best battery would be made up exclusively of such tests.
VIQ is also a far far better measure of innate intelligence, because, contrary to the old theory, VIQ is far more heritable than PIQ, at least in gentiles.
the beijing study doesn’t accept wechsler scores or scores from any “official IQ test”.
the psychologists advising it must not know what they’re doing right peepee?
The SAT just measures verbal & math IQ, and is very sensetive to schooling.
The wechsler measures verbal, spatial, math, social, memory & processing ability.
It’s simply a more global measure of cognition & less culturally biased to boot.
In theory the Wechsler should be better.
social, memory & processing ability
how doesn’t reading comprehension measure social and memory and processing ability?
it does!
there is no reading comp part of the wechler’s VIQ, but it’s half the verbal section of the SAT, GRE, LSAT, etc. verbal sections.
What i mean is if you included both the wechsler and the SAT in a huge battery of tests & factor analyzed them, various wechsler subtests would load on 1)verbal, 2)spatial, 3)working memory 4)math 5)processing ability 6)fluid abstraction
The SAT subtests would load on 1)verbal 2)math and 3)working memory (reading comp)
Maybe more but i doubt it
You’re a good example of why the wechsler is needed. Your IQ is 163 on college admission type tests, yet you’re not someone who is capable of solving the great problems of the world & you have a lot of nutty opinions
Only the wechsler is nuanced enough to show your weaknesses & preventing you from scoring absurdly high
whites selected for cold. chinks not so much.
i recall a chink-ess responding to, “what can chinks do to be as attractive as white guys?”
she responded, “grow.”
another reason the polynesians aren’t an anomaly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_gigantism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism
this isn’t for any islands. great britain and ireland are islands. so are sumatra and java. etc.
it’s for small islands with small populations.
according to sailor black american men average about a half inch shorter than white american men. and white women are taller than black women too. so if one excluded the italians and white latinos the difference would be even greater. or compare norwegians in minnesota with blacks. bergmann’s rule stands.
Island gigantism is one aspect of the more general “island rule”, which posits that when mainland animals colonize islands, small species tend to evolve larger bodies, and large species tend to evolve smaller bodies.
more deprogramming for peepee.
hesse’s rule states that animals adapted to cold will have larger hearts in relation to their body size.
so who has larger hearts in realtion to their body size? east asians or whites?
answer: whites.
QED
stop lying. flushtonism is worse than scientology.
http://www.imaging.onlinejacc.org/content/8/6/656.full-text.pdf
even corrected for reliability VIQ subtests are more heritable.
You know better than anyone that heritability can be a misleading statistic because of the indirect effect of genes
And in the Minnesota twin study (the gold standard because it used twins raised apart) performance IQ was more heritable
And verbal is more sensetive to schooling and adoption
what is “hb vocab”? is this article a joke i didn’t get? the author is a real dutch person apparently.
And verbal is more sensetive [sic] to schooling and adoption [sc. “.”]
except it is NOT. you just made that up.
It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.
it’s time for psychology professors to kill themselves.
what is “hb vocab”? is this article a joke i didn’t get? the author is a real dutch person apparently.
It refers to the famous Harrison Bergeron Vocabulary list. How do you not know that? There’s even a song about it: Learning my wordin’ with Harrison Bergeron.
except it is NOT. you just made that up.
Evidence that verbal IQ is more sensitive to adoption and family environment:
The verbal IQs of the Wechsler are more highly correlated than the performance IQs with socio-economic status (0.21 and 0.08 respectively in the calculation of Jensen& Reynolds, 1982). Similarly in Dumaret’s (1985) adoption study in France in which lower class infants were adopted by professional families and compared with their half siblings who remained with their biological mothers, the adopted siblings at the age of approx. 9-10 yr showed a 20 IQ point superiority in the verbal scale of the WISC but only an 8 IQ point superiority on the performance scale. The most straightforward interpretation of these results is that the better cognitive stimulation provided by higher SES parents acts more strongly on the verbal abilities. This is further supported by the results of Burks (1928) and Starr and Weinberg (1976) that the adopting parent-adopted child correlation for vocabulary is higher than for other abilities.
Evidence that verbal IQ is more sensitive to schooling comes from excellent research in the 1920s showing that canal boat children who lived a nomadic existence where they were virtually deprived of schooling, showed massive declines in IQ as they got older. Because IQ tests are normed for age, and because these kids were kept out of school they fell further and further behind their chronological age-mates on the type of knowledge that IQ tests measure. Young canal boat kids would have an IQ around 90, but older canal boat kids would have an IQ of 60. However in a footnote on page 1001 of this document, Arthur Jensen writes:
When the canal boat children were tested on nonverbal performance tests, there was much less decline in scores and the average IQ of the children was 82, which is a typical value for unskilled workers, as the canal boat people were. Fewer than 1 in 10 obtained performance IQs below 70, and in fact there was a slight positive correlation between performance IQ and age
The most straightforward interpretation of these results is that the better cognitive stimulation provided by higher SES parents acts more strongly on the verbal abilities. This is further supported by the results of Burks (1928) and Starr and Weinberg (1976) that the adopting parent-adopted child correlation for vocabulary is higher than for other abilities.
not straightforward or supported. what was the correlation in VIQ between adopted and adopters? very small i expect. that it was greater is expected, because VIQ is more reliable. when adjusted for reliability what was the difference? was it the difference between 0.20 and 0.15? or was it the difference between 0.90 and 0.15?
you have to keep in mind peepee:
i believe that “the real heritability” of IQ is positive, but it’s more like .5, not .9 or whatever jensen claimed in his senile dementia.
just as VIQ is an achievement test so is PIQ.
if you’re into (non-verbal) puzzles and games vs into reading difficult stuff.
iirc i scored highest on mazes in my age 9 wisc. far from a surprise.
1. i had books of mazes at home.
2. at age 8 one of my hobbies was drawing mazes. along with the jap in my class.
i recall one of the supposedly smart kids in my class was horrible at chess, and he couldn’t do mazes. he was in my mathcounts class and one day we were given mazes. he just couldn’t do them. really weird. he got an msc in me from ucb.
someone who claims to travel the world giving puzzles to people was likely obsessed at an early age.
not straightforward or supported. what was the correlation in VIQ between adopted and adopters? very small i expect. that it was greater is expected, because VIQ is more reliable.
Possibly, but I doubt it because the quote cited another study where upper class adoption raises verbal IQ by 20 points but performance IQ by only 8 points. That’s much too big a gap to be explained by measurement error because the reliability coefficients of verbal and performance IQ are 0.94 and 0.91 respectively at age 9.5 (at least on the WISC-R, but I don’t know if it’s the same on the French version of the WISC, presumably used in the study).
i believe that “the real heritability” of IQ is positive, but it’s more like .5, not .9 or whatever jensen claimed in his senile dementia.
Within the United States IQ heritability is almost certainly closer to Jensen’s claimed 0.8, than your 0.5. Now as you’ve explained, some of that might be caused by reaction norms, but perhaps not as much as you think. If the 0.7 correlation between IQ and chronometrics is any indication, IQ is a physiologically based thing.
if you’re into (non-verbal) puzzles and games vs into reading difficult stuff.
I doubt it’s the same thing. When you read you encounter the exact same words and facts you are asked to define or recall on a verbal IQ test. When you play puzzles or games, you acquire general strategies, but I doubt these transfer to novel non-verbal tasks. People who have played chess every day for 20 years are not going to be much better than average at checkers, I don’t think. They’re not even going to be much good at chess if you alter the format.
I was told of a case where ten chess grandmasters were asked to place a bunch of queens on a 5X5 chess board (instead of the usual 8X8) so all the queens were safe, and 90% failed it despite being extremely proficient at standard chess. If decades of playing a game doesn’t improve your performance on an altered form of that game, then it seems unlikely that it would improve your performance at a non-verbal test you’ve never even seen before. And that’s why performance IQ might be only half as sensitive to adoption as verbal IQ, although it could be that being raised in an upper-class home hurts performance IQ (less focus on trades and manual skills) but I doubt it because rick kids have access to more toys.
iirc i scored highest on mazes in my age 9 wisc. far from a surprise.
That was probably your highest performance score, but I got the impression vocab was your highest score period. Nonetheless I agree that some performance subtests are poor for the reasons you describe, but the best performance tests (i.e. making designs) are stuff virtually no kid has practiced before (unless they were previously given the WISC).
someone who claims to travel the world giving puzzles to people was likely obsessed at an early age.
My interest in performance IQ tasks only started AFTER I took the WISC-R and because of it. I was blown away that they had tasks that seemed to measure intelligence almost independently of prior knowledge.
But you seem to be implying that virtually everything on an IQ test is just acquired knowledge or skill. It’s almost as if you’re saying there is no intelligence, just expertise.
Aaaaargghhhh.
The gay guy is still here. He was supposed to ship out today. Fuck it. Fuckitititititi. This guy is the most annoying colleague I have ever had.
His gay paedoface is obnoxious.
Trump, Flynn, Bannon, Conway, Spicer…all celtic descent.
That’s the warrior side.
If we left this up to the jerkoff nice guy germanics we’d be doing bakha bazi boy dancing and welcoming fugee rapists into our houses.
“That’s a highly condensed overview of how abstract and linguistic concepts arise in the embodied body-brain. Obviously there aren’t separable ‘planes’ or ‘maps’ to be seen inside the skull. Distinctions are not so clear-cut, and they are all represented functionally, in the way electrical and chemical activity gets shunted around, not (or not much) in terms of structural architecture. But the sketch will give us something on which to hang the ensuing discussions of how embodied abstract cognition can be possible. The body is not only intelligent in its own right; it makes possible psychology abilities to which the term “intelligence” is more usually applied.
Btw, no hard feelings Afro, I’m just yanking you chain (an American expression I think)
*your
“In addition, peoples in cold northern environments make more complex tools, involving the assembly of components, such as hafting a sharp piece of stone or bone onto the end of a spear and fixing a stone axe head onto a timber shaft.”
Virtually all tropical/hot zone peoples do this as well—in addition to making bows/atlatls /other projectiles—(and have since arround the early history of homo sapiens in Africa, along with bone points). (hafted thrusting spears with stone go back to heidelbergensis)
The overall tendency mentioned could exist, but the reality seems at least somewhat more complicated.
Complex tools (and knowledge/practices) are often used in many cultures native to hot climates—some of which are arid or semi-arid like savannas, which can be quite harsh in various ways (e.g. by the Pygmies and Bushman—who store water in ostrich eggs shells throughout the desert—for instance, or other Africans) like—for instance—(other than the bows/projectiles), various complex traps (many of these are used in the wet tropics also e.g. Congo region), hunting/fishing nets, and the use of poisons in hunting (sometimes on their projectile points)
(the same would apply to some tropical/desert/savannah groups of Amerindians, Asians and Oceanians):
Torrence study used the respective numbers of tools types as evidence. I suppose that could be part of the “complexity differential” claimed. I’ll have to track down the original source to look into it.
Edit:
“Lynn mentions the Torrence study using the respective numbers of tool types as….”
Jimmy,omg I’m like from Danville too! what part did you grow up in? what high school did you go? and like,how old are you? i’m MV class of 98!
Here is a challenge to the CWT that you might appreciate:
Genetic fitness decreased as humans expanded out of Africa.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4743776/
Click to access 1306.1652.pdf
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2017/04/26/out-of-africa-bottleneck-is-what-really-matters-for-mutations/
So the default assumption is that intelligence-related variants followed the same trend as the rest of the genomes, and that non-Africans have accumulated more intelligence-depressing variants.
CWT is dead, and RR’s future sexual selection just-so story is aborted.
Ooops, sorry RR, I didn’t see your earlier comments were from 2017. I admit I was surprised by the tone of your comments, I thought the old RR was back lol.
Good link too.
Click to access 1306.1652.pdf
That’s ironic. Cochran argued tropical people have lower intelligence for the exact same reason you argue whites have lower intelligence:
I wasn’t convinced by his argument so I’m not convinced by yours, but I’m not a genetics expert so I could be wrong
But unless you believe IQ has hit a selection limit, it seems unlikely much IQ variance is explained by genetic load
So you don’t understand what genetic fitness means?
I understand you’re saying whites have more mutations & you think more mutations cause stupidity, which is generally true, but only one of many factors.
More deleterious mutations. The mutations that potentially decrease IQ are by definition deleterious, since non-Africans have more deleterious variants as whole, why would this not impact intelligence-related genes?
Most mutations are deleterious, or at least not good, and they would lower intelligence but unless you know the size of the racial mutation gap and the effect size of mutation load on intelligence, you can’t assume it’s significant. Mutation load has skyrocketed in the last few centuries thanks to the decrease in infant mortality, but there’s little evidence we’re getting dumber aside from perhaps slowing reaction time
After excluding participants diagnosed with a psychiatric or neurodevelopmental disorder, we observed
an average of 7.72 and 0.30 rare PTVs per individual, across all genes and in PI genes respectively
(Figure 1a); one or more ultra-rare PI-PTV was observed in 11% of the individuals. The number and
frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by
recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations 8
. The ratio of
deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with
negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective
population size 9
. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to
synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by
negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For
example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to
non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks 10,11.
We tested the association between a burden of PI-PTVs and the 13 traits and 10 disease diagnoses
(Figure 2) by performing study and ethnicity-specific linear or logistic regression analysis adjusting for
potential confounders such as overall mutation rate (Supplementary Table 5). The results of these
separate analyses were then meta-analyzed (Supplementary Notes). We used an experiment-wise pvalue
threshold of 2×10-3 to account for multiple testing (0.05/23 traits tested). Among the quantitative
traits, we found that carriers of at least one rare PI-PTV tended to be shorter (-0.2 cm, p=3×10-4), have
fewer years of education (-2.2 months, p=4×10-4) and be younger (-3.7 months, p=2×10-7).
Click to access 148247.full.pdf
There is mounting evidence that human populations that expanded out of Africa carry an
excess of rare deleterious mutations [e.g., 26,27,28,29]. We ask here if this pattern might result from
an expansion load as predicted by our model. To address this question, we first analyzed thautosomal exomic diversity in 17 Africans and in 25 non-Africans sequenced at high coverage (>50X,
[30], see Material and Methods for details). In agreement with a previous analysis of a smaller
representation of functional human diversity [27], we find that the proportion of deleterious mutations
is significantly higher in non-Africans (Table 1). This excess is particularly strong when focusing on
private derived alleles, which are likely to have arisen recently. More than 27% of private alleles in nonAfrican
populations are predicted to have deleterious effects, as compared to only 21% in Africans (p <
0.001, based on a permutation test). These results are in agreement with our model, which suggests
that many of the deleterious mutations in Europeans arose during the range expansions out-of-Africa.
An alternative explanation for the observed pattern would be an excess of rare genetic variants,
caused by a recent explosive human population growth [31,32,33]. However, the observed excess of
deleterious mutations observed in large samples was mainly due to very rare or even private
deleterious mutations, whereas we find that the excess of deleterious mutations in non-Africans is not
restricted to rare variants (Table 1). We therefore suggest that (some of) these deleterious mutations
may be the signature of expansion load outside Africa.
Click to access 1306.1652.pdf
Differences in mutation load can be canceled out by environmental factors, so you can’t infer a genotype from a phenotype without controlling for moderating environmental variables.
Differences in mutation load can be canceled out by environmental factors, so you can’t infer a genotype from a phenotype without controlling for moderating environmental variables.
I agree but since such studies have not been done afaik, we don’t know the independent effect of mutation load on intelligence. If it’s small then the racial mutation load gap implies nothing, unless that gap is HUGE.
The study I posted above says 21% of the mutations carried by Africans are deleterious vs 27% of those carried by Europeans. That’s a third more. That can be very significant on the scale of the whole genome, even if each individual allele is modestly harmful. Now I’m not competent to do the math, but the other study finds deleterious alleles to be correlated with less educational achievement, so that’s evidence that genetic load can impact something that gives an edge in education.
The data is lacking and more data will come out in the future, but that’s already much better substantiated than your theories.
The study I posted above says 21% of the mutations carried by Africans are deleterious vs 27% of those carried by Europeans. That’s a third more. That can be very significant on the scale of the whole genome, even if each individual allele is modestly harmful. Now I’m not competent to do the math, but the other study finds deleterious alleles to be correlated with less educational achievement, so that’s evidence that genetic load can impact something that gives an edge in education.
But doesn’t the study you cite specifically claim Protein Truncating Variants in PTV intolerant genes were the ones that lowered education? The racial differences specifically for these variants seem much less favourable to blacks than the picture you paint, and the effect on education is very small.
But doesn’t the study you cite specifically claim Protein Truncating Variants in PTV intolerant genes were the ones that lowered education?
This is the category that they studied, they don’t say this the only type of deleterious mutation that lowers education.
The racial differences specifically for these variants seem much less favourable to blacks than the picture you paint
The study says otherwise, it describes a gradient of increasing incidence correlated with distance from Africa, and an even worse effect in populations like Finns and Ashekenazi Jews who experienced a recent genetic bottleneck.
and the effect on education is very small.
There is no genetic variant that has a large effect on education, so that’s what has to be expected.
Again, I don’t know how to calculate the effect size of these variants and the consequence on race differences. But there are a couple of things to keep in mind.
-84% of the genome is expressed in the brain. So it would be miraculous that the deleterious mutations were clustered on the 16% of genes that aren’t expressed in the brain, and that the alleles expressed in the brain would be beneficial to Europeans.
-It’s perfectly in line with the evolutionary theory that migrations and bottlenecks decrease genetic fitness by reinforcing genetic drift at the expense of natural selection, especially for mutations of modest effect.
-Your theory relies on the the assumption that beneficial alleles would appear and increase in frequency, to an extent that you can’t even quantify. But here is the thing: beneficial mutations are extremely rare, mutations are usually deleterious and natural selection works to preserve the ancestral genotype unless a given allele is extremely beneficial in an environment. But no single intelligence-related mutation has these properties.
-The only model that would work for the theory that Europeans would have evolved more “genetic intelligence” despite a decrease in overall fitness would be a model of sexual selection operating consistently during tens of thousands of years.
This is the category that they studied, they don’t say this the only type of deleterious mutation that lowers education.
But they studied this category for a reason. It’s the most likely to be pathogenic. If one of the most extreme types produces trivial effects on education, maybe the other types produce no detectable effect.
The study says otherwise, it describes a gradient of increasing incidence correlated with distance from Africa, and an even worse effect in populations like Finns and Ashekenazi Jews who experienced a recent genetic bottleneck.
But one of your quotes also says: one or more ultra-rare PI-PTV was observed in 11% of the individuals. The number and frequency of rare variants differs across populations, reflecting the degree of selection compounded by recent demography, including bottlenecks, split times, and migration between populations
So if it was 11% for everyone, have you looked at the percentages for blacks and whites respectively? Remember it’s the ultra-rare PI-PTV that have the greatest effect on education.
But they studied this category for a reason. It’s the most likely to be pathogenic. If one of the most extreme types produces trivial effects on education, maybe the other types produce no detectable effect.
These variants are likely to be the most pathogenic, and their effect is indeed larger than that of common variants detected in GWAS, which you are the first to argue matter in spite of their tiny effects.
And common deterious variants of smaller effect have a higher frequency out of Africa too.
Human genomes carry hundreds of mutations that are predicted to be deleterious in some environments, potentially affecting the health or fitness of an individual. We characterize the distribution of deleterious mutations among diverse human populations, modeled under different selection coefficients and dominance parameters. Using a new dataset of diverse human genomes from seven different populations, we use spatially explicit simulations to reveal that classes of deleterious alleles have very different patterns across populations, reflecting the interaction between genetic drift and purifying selection. We show that there is a strong signal of purifying selection at conserved genomic positions within African populations, but most predicted deleterious mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the expansion out of Africa.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440
So it’s not only rare variants of larger effect that can be a source of racial differences but common variants of smaller effect too.
But what you are arguing is that the trend is reversed when it comes to intelligence genes. I think there is no reason to think so.
So if it was 11% for everyone, have you looked at the percentages for blacks and whites respectively? Remember it’s the ultra-rare PI-PTV that have the greatest effect on education.
They don’t provide percentages, the figures just show that Africans have lower deleterious to neutral variant ratios, as a result of purifying selection.
Again, even if this specific type of alleles is rare enough in both populations to not have much of an impact as a whole, it’s only one category of mutations, and other more common deleterious mutations have the same pattern of increased frequency out of Africa.
They don’t provide percentages, the figures just show that Africans have lower deleterious to neutral variant ratios, as a result of purifying selection.
Have you looked at figure 1A? Left half of bottom right quadrant:
Click to access 148247.full.pdf
Yes.
The odds ratios and correlations are population -specific, they are calculated after adjusting for deleterious to neutral ratio in a given population. And it is this ratio (figure B) that reflects a population’s genetic load.
Figure 1A (specifically the left half of the bottom right quadrant) gives the average number of variants per individual for ultra-rare PTV-PI. These are the variants that have been verified to hurt education. Only 11% of all people in their sample have them, but notice that Africans have 14%. It’s true that Africans have a lower ratio of these bad mutations compared to their neutral counterparts, but it doesn’t change the fact that 14% of their population has this genetic problem.
Nah, you got it wrong, these aren’t percentages, it’s the average number of variants per people in a population. The deleterious to neutral ratio is what matters because neutral variants compensate or silence deleterious variants.
Nah, you got it wrong, these aren’t percentages, it’s the average number of variants per people in a population.
If 11% percent of the population have 1 variant, that works out to the average number of variants per individual being 0.11, because 11 people having one, divided by 100 people = 0.11. Why do you think all the populations cluster around 0.11. Because they already told us 11% of the total sample had at least one ultra-rare PI-PTV
Yes, but that’s not what matters for the ethnic-specific expression of the deleterious alleles, it’s the ratio that does.
Within each ethnic group, what matters is simply having the rare or ultra-rare PI-PTV variant. If you have the rare one your education is decreased by about 0.04 SD and if you have the ultra-rare one it’s reduced by 0.07 SD. See figure 2a:
Click to access 148247.full.pdf
And the ultra-rare one is more common in Africans than non-Africans. The article doesn’t seem to say anything about the ratio of PI-PVT to neutrals affecting education.
They explicitly state:
We tested the association between a burden of PI-PTVs and the 13 traits and 10 disease diagnoses
(Figure 2) by performing study and ethnicity-specific linear or logistic regression analysis adjusting for
potential confounders such as overall mutation rate (Supplementary Table 5).
Of course Africans always have more mutations of any kind since we have more genetic diversity overall. So they control for total mutation rate and judge a population’s burden of deleterious alleles by the ratio of deleterious to neutral variants.
That’s why they state:
The ratio of
deleterious to neutral alleles per individual increases as humans migrated out of Africa, consistent with
negative selection against deleterious variants and serial founder effects that reduce the effective
population size 9
. Conditional on a variant being ultra-rare, we observe a higher ratio of PTV to
synonymous variants (Figure 1b); recently arisen ultra-rare variants have had less time to be purged by
negative selection, which is further magnified in populations that have undergone a recent bottleneck. For
example, we observed a higher ratio among Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish populations as compared to
non-Finnish Europeans, reflecting the more recent population-specific bottlenecks
We tested the association between a burden of PI-PTVs and the 13 traits and 10 disease diagnoses
(Figure 2) by performing study and ethnicity-specific linear or logistic regression analysis adjusting for
potential confounders such as overall mutation rate (Supplementary Table 5).
All they’re doing is controlling for other variables so they can be somewhat sure the PI-PTV correlation with education is causal. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s more common in Africans than non-Africans.
Of course Africans always have more mutations of any kind since we have more genetic diversity overall. So they control for total mutation rate and judge a population’s burden of deleterious alleles by the ratio of deleterious to neutral variants.
But neutral variants are by definition neutral. They don’t negate negative variants afaik. It’s like saying, I have more debt than you, but that’s okay because I also have more worthless junk than you too. Does that make sense?
Worthless junk doesn’t cancel out debt. Assets cancel out debt. Similarly, neutral variants don’t cancel out negative variants. Positive variants cancel out negative variants.
All they’re doing is controlling for other variables so they can be somewhat sure the PI-PTV correlation with education is causal. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s more common in Africans than non-Africans.
No, firstly education isn’t the only trait they study, it’s just one of the 23 traits. Secondly, they control for total mutation count because it modifies the expression of each individual deleterious alleles.
But neutral variants are by definition neutral. They don’t negate negative variants afaik. It’s like saying, I have more debt than you, but that’s okay because I also have more worthless junk than you too. Does that make sense?
Worthless junk doesn’t cancel out debt. Assets cancel out debt. Similarly, neutral variants don’t cancel out negative variants. Positive variants cancel out negative variants.
Awww, no.
Definition of a synonymous mutation.
“A synonymous mutation is a change in the DNA sequence that codes for amino acids in a protein sequence, but does not change the encoded amino acid. Due to the redundancy of the genetic code (multiple codons code for the same amino acid), these changes usually occur in the third position of a codon. For example, GGT, GGA, GGC, and GGG all code for glycine. Any change in the third position of the codon (e.g. A->G), will result in the same amino acid being incorporated in the protein sequence at that position.”
A neutral mutation isn’t a “junk” or silent mutation. It’s a variant that negates the effects of the protein truncating one and allows the DNA sequence to function normally. Which is why they control for total mutation rate instead of just considering the absolute count of PTV.
No, firstly education isn’t the only trait they study, it’s just one of the 23 traits.
They want to infer causation for all traits so they control for as many confounds as they can to get the independent effect of the variants on the traits
A neutral mutation isn’t a “junk” or silent mutation. It’s a variant that negates the effects of the protein truncating one and allows the DNA sequence to function normally. Which is why they control for total mutation rate instead of just considering the absolute count of PTV.
But you seem to be using neutral and synonymous interchangeably. If synonymous mutations allows bad DNA to function properly, then it provides an advantage and is non-neutral by definition.
Synonymous changes may not be neutral because certain codons are translated more efficiently (faster and/or more accurately) than others. For example, when a handful of synonymous changes in the fruit fly alcohol dehydrogenase gene were introduced, changing several codons to sub-optimal synonyms, production of the encoded enzyme was reduced[6] and the adult flies showed lower ethanol tolerance.[7] Many organisms, from bacteria through animals, display biased use of certain synonymous codons. Such codon usage bias may arise for different reasons, some selective, and some neutral. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae synonymous codon usage has been shown to influence mRNA folding stability, with mRNA encoding different protein secondary structure preferring different codons.[8]Another reason why synonymous changes are not always neutral is the fact that exon sequences close to exon-intron borders function as RNA splicing signals. When the splicing signal is destroyed by a synonymous mutation, the exon does not appear in the final protein. This results in a truncated protein. One study found that about a quarter of synonymous variations affecting exon 12 of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene result in that exon being skipped
But good point about the need to control for synonymous mutations
Your theory relies on the the assumption that beneficial alleles would appear and increase in frequency, to an extent that you can’t even quantify. But here is the thing: beneficial mutations are extremely rare, mutations are usually deleterious and natural selection works to preserve the ancestral genotype unless a given allele is extremely beneficial in an environment.
Beneficial mutations are rare but they’ve had millions of years to accumulate. So all that’s required is for them to be positively selected in the Out of Africa group, not necessarily for new ones to appear. Only Cochran’s Ashkenazi theory relies on new beneficial mutations appearing rapidly (and super rapidly at that)
Beneficial mutations are rare but they’ve had millions of years to accumulate. So all that’s required is for them to be positively selected in the Out of Africa group, not necessarily for new ones to appear.
It doesn’t add up. Firstly, the Homo Sapiens isn’t nearly as old and the different populations have been separated for 50,000 years at most.
Your theory is that non-Africans would have had a higher frequency of beneficial alleles that appeared in Africa and were further selected out of Africa. But it’s no the case, the migration increased the frequency of deleterious mutations out Africa, not just new (de novo) ones, all types of deleterious mutations.
Only Cochran’s Ashkenazi theory relies on new beneficial mutations appearing rapidly (and super rapidly at that)
But cockring is retarded, the Ashkenazi diseases aren’t caused by new alleles, they are caused by alleles that occur in all populations but have an increased frequency because of inbreeding. That’s called inbreeding depression which he mistakes for natural selection caused by heterozygote advantage.
Your theory is that non-Africans would have had a higher frequency of beneficial alleles that appeared in Africa and were further selected out of Africa. But it’s no the case, the migration increased the frequency of deleterious mutations out Africa, not just new (de novo) ones, all types of deleterious mutations.
Almost any time a new population appears it’s going to have greater genetic load compared to its parent population. Modern humans probably had more genetic load compared to Homo heidelbergensis because the former were more inbred. The question is whether the depressing effects of inbreeding negate the enhancing effects of cladogenesis. I don’t think they do, otherwise evolution would constantly stagnate.
Speciation doesn’t occur through mutation but through more profound genetic reorganization, involving the structure of the chromosomes, not some basic allele A vs allele C.
Also, there is no relevant between-species comparison of genetic load. It only compares the incidence of fitness-reducing variants of different organisms with the same genomes.
The question is whether the depressing effects of inbreeding negate the enhancing effects of cladogenesis.
The differences between humans don’t qualify as cladogenesis, they are simply the consequences of bottlenecks and local adaptation.
I don’t think they do, otherwise evolution would constantly stagnate.
False. First, cladogenesis doesn’t imply inbreeding. A new population isn’t inbred if it still receives gene flow from the ancestral population, all while keeping on furthering its speciation.
Speciation doesn’t occur through mutation but through more profound genetic reorganization, involving the structure of the chromosomes, not some basic allele A vs allele C.
Citation needed
Also, there is no relevant between-species comparison of genetic load. It only compares the incidence of fitness-reducing variants of different organisms with the same genomes.
“same genomes” is relative. Same compared to who?
The differences between humans don’t qualify as cladogenesis,
Why not?
False. First, cladogenesis doesn’t imply inbreeding. A new population isn’t inbred if it still receives gene flow from the ancestral population, all while keeping on furthering its speciation.
You’re the one who was arguing that non-Africans have genetic load because they went through bottlenecks.
Citation needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Genetics
“same genomes” is relative. Same compared to who?
You don’t get the differences between
1- Organisms that have different genes
2- Organisms that have different versions of the same genes.
For instance, modern humans could be more inbred than say Australopithecus but still be vastly more intelligent due to genes that Australopithecus didn’t have at all.
Why not?
My bad, I mistook cladogenesis for speciation. So yes, there is cladogenesis within humans, but there is no inherent benefit to cladogenesis. Quite the opposite actually, since in the case of non-Africans, cladogenesis led to inbreeding depression.
You’re the one who was arguing that non-Africans have genetic load because they went through bottlenecks.
Yes, and that’s not just something I argue, that’s a fact.
You were saying that there would be no evolution if new lineages were always crippled by inbreeding. But that’s false. Speciation doesn’t mean there is a bottleneck and the new species is more inbred than its ancestor. A species can still differentiate while still receiving gene flow from its source population.
1- Organisms that have different genes
2- Organisms that have different versions of the same genes.
Just because two people share the same genes doesn’t mean they share the “same genome”:
According to this source:
A genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.
Also, you’re wrong about there being no relevant between species comparison of genetic load:
The authors calculate that the genetic load would radically reduce Neanderthal fitness as compared to modern humans, which could help explain why they were rapidly displaced as modern humans moved in.
Just because two people share the same genes doesn’t mean they share the “same genome”:
Of course they do. You and I share the same genome, me and my children will share the same genome, the human genome, regardless of the alleles we possess, they’re all alleles of the same genes.
Also, you’re wrong about there being no relevant between species comparison of genetic load:
Yes I’m wrong. Though you were also wrong saying that we were likely more inbred than other hominids and that it would mean we were evolving backwards. Which is not the case as new genes code for new functions in a new species independently of its genetic load. But two individuals of the same species having different degrees of genetic load have different expression of these functions.
Of course they do. You and I share the same genome, me and my children will share the same genome, the human genome, regardless of the alleles we possess, they’re all alleles of the same genes.
No we don’t all have the same genome, if we did research like the 1000 Genome project would be pretty redundant. Genome means the total DNA sequence needed to build an organism, not the genes only. And all humans don’t even have the same genes. There are genes unique to the Y chromosome that women don’t have. But all races have the same genes, I agree.
Yes I’m wrong. Though you were also wrong saying that we were likely more inbred than other hominids and that it would mean we were evolving backwards. Which is not the case as new genes code for new functions in a new species independently of its genetic load. But two individuals of the same species having different degrees of genetic load have different expression of these functions.
I said that if genetic load mattered as much as you think, evolution couldn’t “progress” because daughter populations tend to have more genetic load than parent populations. But you’re arguing things work differently between species than within species. So I’ll make a within species analogy: Domesticated dogs have far more genetic load than wolves, but that didn’t stop them from evolving far more social intelligence. So why couldn’t non-Africans evolve more general intelligence in spite of higher genetic load?
No we don’t all have the same genome, if we did research like the 1000 Genome project would be pretty redundant. Genome means the total DNA sequence needed to build an organism, not the genes only. And all humans don’t even have the same genes. There are genes unique to the Y chromosome that women don’t have. But all races have the same genes, I agree.
None of this prevents researchers from referring to “the human genome” as opposed to the neanderthal genome or the chimpanzee genome.
. So I’ll make a within species analogy: Domesticated dogs have far more genetic load than wolves, but that didn’t stop them from evolving far more social intelligence. So why couldn’t non-Africans evolve more general intelligence in spite of higher genetic load?
Domesticated dogs certainly don’t have more social intelligence than wolves. Feral dogs don’t have the social organization of wolves, they sustain themselves by scavenging human waste whereas wolves are organized hunters. If human disappeared, dogs would disappear with them or get selected for wolf-like traits.
As for human races, they’ve never been subjected to the artificial selection that led to the differentiation of dogs from wolves. There would not have been a selective pressure strong enough to reverse the consequences of genetic drift.
None of this prevents researchers from referring to “the human genome” as opposed to the neanderthal genome or the chimpanzee genome.
They also say “human body”. Doesn’t mean we all have the same body.
Domesticated dogs certainly don’t have more social intelligence than wolves. Feral dogs don’t have the social organization of wolves, they sustain themselves by scavenging human waste whereas wolves are organized hunters. If human disappeared, dogs would disappear with them or get selected for wolf-like traits.
I’m not arguing that dogs are superior to wolves or even as intelligent overall, but they are much smarter in certain ways. This proves that a cognitive phenotype can quickly become much higher in the high genetic load subgroups of a species:
Dogs are more skillful than great apes at a number of tasks in which they must read human communicative signals indicating the location of hidden food. In this study, we found that wolves who were raised by humans do not show these same skills, whereas domestic dog puppies only a few weeks old, even those that have had little human contact, do show these skills. These findings suggest that during the process of domestication, dogs have been selected for a set of social-cognitive abilities that enable them to communicate with humans in unique ways.
As for human races, they’ve never been subjected to the artificial selection that led to the differentiation of dogs from wolves. There would not have been a selective pressure strong enough to reverse the consequences of genetic drift.
Humans went from being tropical hunter-gatherers for millions of years to some groups colonizing the world, conquering the ice age, making the Neolithic transition and building vast civilizations with complex social hierarchies and written languages. That’s a huge amount of new selection pressures in a short burst of time. Indeed some scientists claim the speed of evolution has increased a hundred-fold in just the last 5000 years, though the older generation of scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Klein argued there’s been no significant change in the last 40,000 years.
And as a mater of fact, you refer very often to new alleles, especially when you’re trying to explain why polar people are not the smartest, you always say their population was too small for new alleles to appear and get selected.
afro calls racist but he’s an afro-racist searching for ways to prove white people are dumber than blacks lmao
Nope, I’m simply reporting a fact of genetic research and thinking about possible implications.
It was fun to read. We should just admit, that there is B/W IQ gap. We also should admit, that W will survive in B living conditions, while B will not. Theres no another explanation needed as some of you were just defending something what is total bullshit.
The northern cold regions that the map shows Neanderthals not living in were all covered in ice. Nothing can survive there. It was similar to the interior of Greenland now, where even Inuits do not live. So the Neaderthals actually WERE living in the coldest regions. That’s the explanation to this question. Surprised you didn’t know this…
The point is the coldest regions Neanderthals lived were not as cold as the coldest regions our species survived.
Pingback: How Things Change: Perspectives on Intelligence in Antiquity « NotPoliticallyCorrect