As most of you know, Richard Lynn pushed the theory that the further North modern humans migrated during the ice age, the more IQ they needed to survive the cold winters, and so Northern populations evolved to be especially smart. However lately people have been telling me that Northern populations have higher IQs, not because they’re genetically smarter, but because cold climates have less infectious disease which damage the brain during childhood.
Because this is a plausible alternative theory, I decided to check it out.
It turns out these people are citing a 2010 paper called Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability by
The authors concluded that when all other variables are held constant “infectious disease is the best predictor of intelligence by a large margin. The effects of years of education are not significant, while temperature and evolutionary novelty seem to have distinct predictive power beyond infectious disease.”
So while IQ differences between countries are related much more to a country’s health than to its genes, the genetic legacy of the ice age still has some predictive power. Contrary to what many are saying, this study does not debunk Lynn’s cold winter theory, it merely states that Worldwide, one’s biological environment has much more effect on IQ than one’s DNA.
Of course Lynn already knew environment mattered greatly when discussing international IQ differences, which is why he stated that only half of the IQ deficit of Third World countries is genetic, though perhaps it’s less than half.
The study may have found even stronger support for Lynn’s cold winter theory if instead of using winter temperature as the measure of ancestral climate, they used skin color. A
Pumpkin Person 
Helen Keller, when she was 4 years old, had a fever and became blind and deaf. Sickness and disease do affect children at young ages. Over time it can add up. Constant infections in childhood is a really bad thing for IQ.
————————————————
I talked to my psychiatrist yesterday and I asked him if I have a learning disability. He said I have a nonverbal learning disability. It can be confused with Aspergers and I was really upset people think I have Aspergers. I need to have a neurological evaluation to find out the details.
What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder? | Child Psychology
You 1000% have aspergers. I just don’t understand why you are so upset about it. Many people have it and don’t have the same reaction as you.
I am comfortable telling very close friends I have paranoid type. The worst thing anyone has ever said was never to raise certain issues ever again in their company hahaha.
If he doesnt like people thinking he has apsergers, why is it so hard for you to understand that? Just because a lot of people have it, doesnt mean he shouldnt dislike people thinking that about him. I had aspergers too and i didnt/dont mind telling people that, but it doesnt mean other people should be like me. That said he actually doesnt have that, he has nvld as he said above. So it could be even more upsetting for him if people wrongly think he has aspergers.
NVLD sounds a lot like what Bruno has, which is verbal IQ aspergers.
Its the same personality. The same mannerisms. The same physiognomy.
But its true, there are aspies that are great at learning languages and reading and that, rather than math.
I have no problems communicating nor problems socializing with other people. That are the main deficits of Aspergers. They simply do not understand people. Cognitive empathy is low. Rember philosopher that once I mentioned A.I. models you [redacted by pp, oct 3, 2017]. It is something you would think of since you know Autists need to create rules around how to interact with people because that is their weakness. So it is completely ridiculous to me that people would think I would follow the same behavior. I do not make a list of rules for how I interact with people. I am on average spontaneous in what I say or do as anyone else.
You keep making a parody of autistic traits every time I mention it. You don’t flap your arms either. That doesn’t mean you aren’t on the spectrum in a fairly obvious way.
Philo, I have a master degree in math and graduated from an engeneering school before reading law. I worked for EY two years in IT before changing career. I didnt like it but did very well (became manager after 18 months instead of 48/60 thanks to Renault carmaker who wanted me to head their data/EDI project in mainframe IBM/As/400 and Unix platforms. True I’ve forgotten everything 🙂
You said you are schizo too isn’t?? There are atypical aspergers or mixed types too.
Aspiea tend to have enhanced math skills what you are talking Pil??
My skin is very pale. Is this the reason for my supreme genius?
I knew it, melanin is poisonous.
Few HBD’rs believe the relationship is that casual, including PP. He’s just using it to be an indicator of climate selection.
See my comment below, it explains that it is also influenced and has a casual relationship on infections.
The genes that spread in a population for an average IQ would only be correlated with skin color because the population is isolated and thus within the population, the skin color is a constant and not a causal relation to IQ genes. Eats Asians have Epicanthic folds, this is not the cause of their IQ being 105. What happens is that Epicanthic folds only exist within that population, it is a constant among East Asians and not causative of their IQ being 105 on average.
If my IQ was 140, this would have no relation to skin color and very much a result of a combination of genes.
What does the Illuminati have to do with cats? How did you think of your name?
I am a cat and a secret member of the Illuminati. I have esoteric knowledge of many things. For instance, the cat is the combination of the lion and the snake. We have aware and perceptive eyes. The Illuminati is not one group or organization. We look internally for the light within.
I am a cat with an internal light. The slits in my eyes can see the brightness of the soul in yours.
Intelligence and akin color has been co selected. I doubt it was causal. We we have black albinos with different personality than blacks but I’m skeptical about it, I think blacks with albino recessive genes tend to be psychologically different + the condition change personality or some of its aspects.
I mean black albino families may have different psychological shared traits or more frequency.
Supremecist
“So while IQ differences between countries are related much more to a country’s health than to its genes, the genetic legacy of the ice age still has some predictive power. Contrary to what many are saying, this study does not debunk Lynn’s cold winter theory, it merely states that Worldwide, one’s biological environment has much more effect on IQ than one’s DNA.”
Actually it does, as Lynn’s theory was made to explain modern correlations with latitude and he decided that it was rooted in Stone age differences in selection, rather it can be more accurately attributed to parasites and disease.
Of course Lynn already knew environment mattered greatly when discussing international IQ differences, which is why he stated that only half of the IQ deficit of Third World countries is genetic, though perhaps it’s less than half.
“The study may have found even stronger support for Lynn’s cold winter theory if instead of using winter temperature as the measure of ancestral climate, they used skin color. Average skin darkness correlates -0.92( Templer & Arikawa (2006) ) with national IQ, which trumps virtually all other correlations with national IQ, even parasite load. Of course I’m well aware that Lynn’s IQ data has been severely criticized for inaccuracies and bias, but so far it’s the only worldwide database of directly measured IQ I know of.”
Wow, you do know they discussed Skin color as well, right?
“Mackintosh (2001) presented comprehensive evidence that skin darkness and the associated cellular components (e.g. melanocytes) have an important role in defending against infectious disease. Moreover, Manning et al. (2003) found that, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of HIV infection were negatively associated with skin darkness. Manning et al. (2003) attributed this relationship in part to lower infection rates of other parasites, especially bacteria and fungi, that lead to tissue damage in the genital tract and hence increased opportunity for contracting HIV. Templer & Arikawa (2006) concluded that, despite the strong negative correlation between skin colour and average national IQ, there must be an unknown mediating factor accounting for both because there is no obvious reason for skin darkness to reduce IQ. Given the previous research linking skin colour to infectious disease (Mackintosh 2001; Manning et al. 2003), the unknown factor linking skin colour and IQ may be infectious disease.”
It’s likely stronger than disease presence itself, despite it being explained as the casual factor, as it may reflect the influence of disease on a population due to its selective influence.
“It’s likely stronger than disease presence itself, despite it being explained as the casual factor, as it may reflect the influence of disease on a population due to its selective influence.”
A better way of saying this is that that disease factor they used was disease presence, not the actual rate of infections themselves and their effect on the population.
Skin darkness being -.92 and having evidence of casual roles in aiding infection resistance could likely be a reflection of the latter.
Phil, your analysis is always very thorough and rational and I never have any error to point out, but I feel you delve too deeply into the details without first looking at the big picture.
Please answer why you feel disease/climate has more of an influence on human evolution than human selection/breeding/unconscious eugenics?
Actually I think it is just better than Cold winters theory. The greatest pressure I feel is group selection based on competition, more or less what other hinted at which makes sense.
Humans are Social animals, plain and simple.
Agree.
The cold winter theory is not great. This infectious disease theory is better but not great either.
The best predictor of high IQ is purposeful selection by other humans e.g. chinese people, jews.
In Vietnam there is malaria, bad nutrition, poverty, bad sanitation and warm weather….but the people have a 105 average IQ.
Vietnam is 94.
Plus based on these multiple maps, Malaria is less of an issue than it is in Africa.
http://www.gbchealth.org/system/images/category_34/367/malariafree_original.jpg?1336080444
Same goes for sanitation.
Nutrition
And development, which could effect additional unconsidered factors.
With that said, selection by group likely did play a role.
I completely agree. I feel people such as Pumpkin and Phil look too deeply into the details and begin to miss the bigger picture.
Intelligence in the age of civilization is entirely selected for by other humans, the environment has some influence, but this influence is so slow it’s inconsequential when compared to the speed at which human influence affects evolution.
The Chinese did not appear from nowhere. No doubt they emerged from red mongoloids and subsequently drove the reds into the Americas. The environment did not make Chinese people. People did. Humans naturally diverge into two separate classes. The tall, clever and good looking, and the short, stupid and ugly. Each breeds exclusively with the other.
Evolution has always worked like this. Evolution works through splits.
Sometimes the splits survive. Bushmen.
Sometimes the splits are replaced. Neanderthals.
You can see this in effect in ancient societies such as Indians or Berbers. There are very small minority groups within these low-IQ civilizations that have very high IQs. The same effect is with Middle Easterners, who produced the Jews.
The Slavs and Celts are older than their higher-IQ counterparts, the Germanics. The splits are everywhere and they are obvious.
I completely agree. I feel people such as Pumpkin and Phil look too deeply into the details and begin to miss the bigger picture.
Intelligence in the age of civilization is entirely selected for by other humans, the environment has some influence, but this influence is so slow it’s inconsequential when compared to the speed at which human influence affects evolution.
Actually I’m the most big picture. Virtually all other racial differences are climate related so if races differ in IQ, that’s climate related too.
I understand humans are social animals but that’s true of all races so it tells us nothing about racial differences. Maybe races that had civilization faced more IQ selection but that begs the question, why did they have civilization in the first place?
Civilization has only been around about 3000 years but blacks & whites endured different climates for 60,000 years which makes it a more plausible theory, though the two theories are not mutually exclusive
“Actually I’m the most big picture. Virtually all other racial differences are climate related so if races differ in IQ, that’s climate related too.”
See my and melo’s previous comments of how it is more complicated than just simply direct climate relation in the case of humans and primates in general.
“I understand humans are social animals but that’s true of all races so it tells us nothing about racial differences.”
So social animals are a monolith? Groups of chimpanzees on the same damn continent act different from one another.
What is starkly obvious is that humans different by culture, that influences trends in behavior, and what likely as well is that this lead to courses in selection.
“Maybe races that had civilization faced more IQ selection but that begs the question, why did they have civilization in the first place?”
Resources/ population density, social competition with others, expanding old traditions into new ones (say wood carving skills applied into pottery due to cultivation harvesting spawning from gathering) based on needs.
It begs the question of, if Cold selection and environments is the main drive towards civilization, then why did Americans in the North, as I outlined, compared to Natives in the Southern regions, create less civilization and at a later date despite living in a temperate environment that’s was hardly has unforgiving as
“Civilization has only been around about 3000 years but blacks & whites endured different climates for 60,000 years which makes it a more plausible theory, though the two theories are not mutually exclusive.
The environment influencing selection on humans is a given, but that’s more straightforward regarding physiology. Behavior, with its selection pressure being culture, is often much more complex to reconstruct and to attribute a “main factor” to.
Factors of human interactions, so far, in how groups branch off from each other or compete in context of old/new land as of now with the numerous experiments and case studies on primate behavior and biology is the more obvious direction.
I’ll put it in another way, which factor would be more important if we compared the rates of technological change inbetween the stone age and civilization emerging versus Civilization emerging and the current era?
Fenoopy is correct. For example, the neanthethals were wiped out by early hominids, not snowstorms.
In my opinion, civilisation determines the type of IQ and the height of IQ. Once Master can put into effect law and order, currency and rules on marriage and warrior service, these will select IQ much more than figuring out how to grow crops or insulate your hut.
In my opinion it is obvious the asians are more autistic because Master wanted servants who were stupid at reading people and manipulating people but excellent at carrying out his orders and not deviating from instructions.
Likewise jews developed an extreme merchant brain because of their unique role in the West, ban from the professions and unis, and forced cousin marriage and anti-miscgenation laws.
There is 0% percent influence from the environment on humans beyond a certain point.
Fenoopy is correct. For example, the neanthethals were wiped out by early hominids, not snowstorms.
They were wiped out by both. Snow storms meant there were not enough resources to support two species, so one of them went extinct.
[redacted by pp, oct 4, 2017] People sexually reproduce with other people pumpkin. You have to explain why they sexually reproduce with some people and not others. Just because you build a hut doesn’t make you sexually attractive.
Being a brutal cruel asshole towards other humans makes you sexuallly attractive pumpkin. Because it means you will take resources from people.
People sexually reproduce with other people pumpkin. You have to explain why they sexually reproduce with some people and not others.
Because smart people were alive to reproduce with; dumb people froze to death. Duh!
Higher intelligence indeed is a product of civilization likely. We are talking about avg intelligence / (psycho)-cognitive skills.
“I understand humans are social animals but that’s true of all races so it tells us nothing about racial differences.”
Splits are what tell us about racial differences. IQ will always increase because it’s positively selected for in every single scenario. Inferior races have less evolutionary splits. That’s true of every species on planet Earth. More splits directly correlates with complexity. That’s the truth of it.
Indians are in general, stupid, but split-ethnicities like the Brahmins are very clever.
Splits are what tell us about racial differences. IQ will always increase because it’s positively selected for in every single scenario. Inferior races have less evolutionary splits. That’s true of every species on planet Earth. More splits directly correlates with complexity. That’s the truth of it.
Yes I know that Fenoopy. I’m the father of that theory:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/29/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/
But why do splits correlate with evolutionary progress? Because populations typically split when they enter novel environment which stimulates evolutionary growth (i.e. modern humans leaving Africa and migrating into ice age Eurasia)
I agree that a novel environment in a way helps to stimulate a split. However, I think the influence this has on the speed at which a population will split is minor when compared to the speed at which human influence will cause splits. The split will happen regardless. I think the influence the environment has on this speed (in human populations) is very low and borderline negligible, becoming even more so as time goes on.
I especially think disease has nothing to do with things and that places high in disease are simply places most suitable for life, in other words the location of origin of humanity and the races living there often have very low splits.
“There is 0% percent influence from the environment on humans beyond a certain point.”
Pretty much this.
In r scenarios MOST people reproduce quick as possible and no have ”efficient” ‘qualitative’ filttering while in PRE-K scenarios selective pressure/’qualitative’ filttering is high, so will not be most individuals who will pass their genes beyond.
Genetic diversity is higher in Africa than in other places.
R- reproductive strategy is not just ”little care” and have kids earlier but also MOST [men] people having kids earlier. And people like to forget that humans are not originally adapted to cold climate so the chance to die in colder climates is higher than in hot climates.
Africa has been most densely populated continent [human density] since big part of human history. whatever
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201710/your-neanderthal-quotient-and-your-personality
“They were wiped out by both. Snow storms meant there were not enough resources to support two species, so one of them went extinct.”
I think the best and brightest of the Neanderthals simply bred with the invaders. Proof is in the DNA of Nordics today. The losers simply didn’t have kids. Losers don’t have kids, they rarely die due to the environment. Social animals tend to take care of their own, especially tribal groups. Not having kids is the equivalent of biological extinction of your genetic line.
Neanderthals are just one example of a population being completely replaced/absorbed.
Bushmen were simply pushed into shit-hole desert like areas that nobody wants to live in so they have no competition.
Bantu still kill and eat Bushmen today. They hunt and eat Pygmies and Bushmen as if they were some form of lower primate.
Modern day proof of human selection pressures.
“Ugandan backed rebel groups were accused by the UN of enslaving Mbutis to prospect for minerals and forage for forest food, with those returning empty handed being killed and eaten.”
East Orientals and Jews are the smartest races on average and both originate from temperate areas, but here we go again with the Nord-centrist cold climate argument. Soon they’ll hold hands with the Afro-centrists and claim Egypt was white.
Northeast Asians evolved in the coldest region. Cold selected for IQ because it was evolutionarily novel.
Jews were selected by markets which were even more novel.
Novelty selects for IQ because intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt.
If you don’t like cold winter theory then don’t believe in HBD. Believing in HBD without believing in the primary cause of racial differences is like a libertarian who doesn’t believe in free marketers or creationist who doesn’t believe in God or an evolutionist who denies natural selection.
It takes incredible stupidity to embrace HBD while denying cold winter theory
It takes incredible stupidity to embrace HBD while denying cold winter theory
From Fenoopy I would say incredible dishonesty. But may be he is dumb enough to believe his own lies.
Japanese and Chinese come from the cold? I think not. Red Mongoloids maybe, but they are stupid.
I believe the age of environmental selection for humans becomes insignificant once humans meet the 65 IQ mark (Bantu).
Nordics are equal in intelligence to Siberians, their ancestors, who are Mongoloids. Some Nordics (Slavs, Celts) have less intelligence.
Nordics didn’t develop from Berbers, the oldest Caucasian race on the planet, that’s for sure.
Cold winters are absolutely not the primary cause of racial differences. Social selection is. Social selection made Jews. Social selection made every other modern race of man.
Environmental selection ended in the Neanderthal age. Bantu developed from Bushmen without a cold winter. They kill and eat them today.
At most, cold winters are the cause of a Bushmen/Neanderthal split. Past this point, human intellect has developed too far.
Aboriginals did not even know sex lead to pregnancy when they were discovered.
Once the link is known, it’s over. Humans are selected for by humans.
Yes, East Asians evolved in the cold:
As you can see, there’s a strong correlation between climate and racial IQ. It’s not the only factor, but it’s probably the single biggest one.
I think coldness selects for spatial intelligence like truthteller says. But once you have civilisation, the main thing that effects who reproduces with who is how well you serve Master and the system.
Think about your own parents for F*** sake. Was your mother attracted to your dad because he ‘survived’ the cold?! This hasn’t changed since at least the advances of basic home building and livestock farming.
“If you don’t like cold winter theory then don’t believe in HBD. Believing in HBD without believing in the primary cause of racial differences is like a libertarian who doesn’t believe in free marketers or creationist who doesn’t believe in God or an evolutionist who denies natural selection.”
You must be joking. HBD is a nonspecific label that refers to the recognition of human genetic diversity and population/racial differences, it’s not a specific scientific theory like Evolution with the mechanism of natural selection.
“Cold Winters” in of itself is a Hypothesis, not even a theory in the same sense as evolution in terms of validation.
Nor is it a political ideology by definition, and at least not a uniformed one in practice, that is tied to specific models congruent with its beliefs beyond biology in general.
One can simply swap it for another that would lead to racial differences (social competition and climatic variation) and account for modern correlations and would still fit under HBD’s requirements.
“It takes incredible stupidity to embrace HBD while denying cold winter theory.”
No, it takes incredible stubbornness to use your very arguments to defend cold winters.
Also, some actual professional analysis of “splits” and “progression” in brain size.
Click to access 10.1007%40bf02192869.pdf
Click to access 10.1017%40s0140525x00078250.pdf
They don’t talk about splits. I’m the first to correlate #of splits with IQ/brain size/progress as far as I know, though Rushton mentioned splitting off dates (a similar concept)
Aboriginals also have that sexual dimorphism in spatial skills*
To PP, the links discuss phylogeny, taxonomy, progress, and brain size and the fallacies that comes with it. It basically applies to what you phrase as “splits” and no, you are not the first to do so by a long shot.
Perhaps the first using your method, but that more of a testament of how crude it was compared to the literature that Deacon criticizes.
To PP, the links discuss phylogeny, taxonomy, progress, and brain size and the fallacies that comes with it. It basically applies to what you phrase as “splits” and no, you are not the first to do so by a long shot.
I’m not the first by a long shot to argue for long-term evolutionary trend towards increased brain size/encephalization but I am the first (as far as I know) to suggest it correlates with number of splits a taxa is descended from:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/29/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/
Perhaps the first using your method, but that more of a testament of how crude it was compared to the literature that Deacon criticizes.
It’s crude to you because you perhaps don’t understand the logic. For any scientific theory you can find people like Deacon offering aggressive criticism. I’m sure there are long boring papers where people criticise the theory of evolution. So, who care, right?
“I’m not the first by a long shot to argue for long-term evolutionary trend towards increased brain size/encephalization but I am the first (as far as I know) to suggest it correlates with number of splits a taxa is descended from:”
Again, concepts like “recentness” and it’s implications complexity are going to includes splits as a given when dealing with progress.
“It’s crude to you because you perhaps don’t understand the logic.”
The only reason that thread ended with you having the last word because
A. You own the blog
B. With that power, you ended the conversation on your terms when I was criticizing you math.
Also, it crude to me because you, as a nonspecialist, simplifying intelligence from an anthrocentric nature and making correlation rather then construct correlation using questionable samples is going to be cruder and less convincing than what a scientist can perform or argue.
“For any scientific theory you can find people like Deacon offering aggressive criticism. I’m sure there are long boring papers where people criticise the theory of evolution. So, who care, right?”
Wow…this is a perfect example of what I meant by “crude”. Criticism isn’t repelled by whether it’s “boring” or whether how simple or “interesting” a theory is. It’s based on which of the two pieces of literature survives scrutiny.
Despite the criticism, Evolution through multiple levels of of modern science, prevails.
“Progression” and the role of complexity IN evolution is a different matter, currently leaning among most professionals towards being dependent of variables of drift and selection, in the end being essentially a cycle.
“The book stated that the evidence suggests agriculture was only independently invented five time, but that it’s possible it was independently invented several more times. In other words, there are only five confirmed cases of independent agriculture, and the rest are speculation, at least as of 2004.”
And I showed you how it increased then to 11 cases.
.
“And Michael Hart argued independent agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa was very unlikely.”
And we told you how he didn;t specialized in any relevant field to make his judgement hold any weight compared to others.
Again, concepts like “recentness” and it’s implications complexity are going to includes splits as a given when dealing with progress.
They’re going to be correlated with splits, because they both reflect the idea of evolutionary progress, but they’re two different ways of measuring it.
The only reason that thread ended with you having the last word because
A. You own the blog
B. With that power, you ended the conversation on your terms when I was criticizing you math.
I responded to your math criticism but I’m not going to keep arguing the same points over and over again so I ended the discussion and warned you ahead of time that I was doing so. Yes I gave myself the last word, but there have been plenty of times I’ve let you have the last word.
Also, it crude to me because you, as a nonspecialist, simplifying intelligence from an anthrocentric nature and making correlation rather then construct correlation using questionable samples is going to be cruder and less convincing than what a scientist can perform or argue.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot of scientists would agree that I found a meaningful pattern.
Wow…this is a perfect example of what I meant by “crude”. Criticism isn’t repelled by whether it’s “boring” or whether how simple or “interesting” a theory is. It’s based on which of the two pieces of literature survives scrutiny.
No one bothered to scrutinize Deacon’s paper afaik, so you don’t know it would have survived scrutiny.
“Progression” and the role of complexity IN evolution is a different matter, currently leaning among most professionals towards being dependent of variables of drift and selection, in the end being essentially a cycle.
It depends how you define progress, or if you use a less value loaded term like “long-term trends” scientists would be more receptive.
And I showed you how it increased then to 11 cases.
Given the amount of debate in the field, it would be wise to use a more conservative number.
.
And we told you how he didn;t specialized in any relevant field to make his judgement hold any weight compared to others.
He’s hyper-educated in many fields and is a professional world historian.
“They’re going to be correlated with splits, because they both reflect the idea of evolutionary progress, but they’re two different ways of measuring it.”
Barely to the point that the fallacies demonstrated in the links wouldn’t apply to your own analysis.
“I responded to your math criticism but I’m not going to keep arguing the same points over and over again so I ended the discussion and warned you ahead of time that I was doing so.”
You were arguing that your sampling error would somehow verify the correlation as it would’ve been stronger otherwise referring to a specific principle, but that principle was for specific cases in test measurements, not correlations in general.
All you did was repeat the principle, you barely applied it to the specific situation which, surprise, actual scientists have to do.
“Yes I gave myself the last word, but there have been plenty of times I’ve let you have the last word.”
That wasn’t the point, the point was that for that very conversation “logic” wasn’t wjat ended it.
“You’re entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot of scientists would agree that I found a meaningful pattern.”
That means little when you discuss more with commenters than you do actual scientists.
Wow…this is a perfect example of what I meant by “crude”. Criticism isn’t repelled by whether it’s “boring” or whether how simple or “interesting” a theory is. It’s based on which of the two pieces of literature survives scrutiny.
“No one bothered to scrutinize Deacon’s paper afaik, so you don’t know it would have survived scrutiny.”
Deacon’s paper was criticism towards a study in and of itself, often thst would imply that it was right unless you can actually take the time, analyze the arguments and refute them based on professional evidences/findings.
“Progression” and the role of complexity IN evolution is a different matter, currently leaning among most professionals towards being dependent of variables of drift and selection, in the end being essentially a cycle.
“It depends how you define progress, or if you use a less value loaded term like “long-term trends” scientists would be more receptive.”
That reason being that “progress” isn’t the point of evolution, complexity however changing through time and or accumulating is. RR discussed this before.
“Given the amount of debate in the field, it would be wise to use a more conservative number.”
What debate are you actually aware of to justify that as of now the findings are AT LEAST 11 based on my link, not “potentially” eleven?
.
“He’s hyper-educated in many fields and is a professional world historian.”
“hyper-educated”, better back that up with a bio piece. And no, he was only a professional in Astrophysics, not an actual historian.
Barely to the point that the fallacies demonstrated in the links wouldn’t apply to your own analysis.
Nothing fallacious about a correlation between number of splits and brain size/encephalization.
You were arguing that your sampling error would somehow verify the correlation as it would’ve been stronger otherwise referring to a specific principle, but that principle was for specific cases in test measurements, not correlations in general.
You don’t get it. Even statistically insignificant correlations become significant when you get them FIVE TIMES IN A ROW. If you want to believe it was all a coincidence, then fine.
That reason being that “progress” isn’t the point of evolution, complexity however changing through time and or accumulating is. RR discussed this before.
Complexity vs progress is a whole separate debate that I don’t have time to get into now, but either way, brain size and encephalization appear to be robustly correlated with number of ancestral splits, at least according to my preliminary analysis.
.
“hyper-educated”, better back that up with a bio piece. And no, he was only a professional in Astrophysics, not an actual historian.
BA in math from Cornell
M.S. in physics
M.S. in computer science
PhD in astronomy from PRINCETON
Law degree
Author of wildly popular critically acclaimed book on World History
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
See figure 15 BTW on how splits actually function in outlining specific phylogenic histories.
“When viewing unbalanced trees such as those presented as Figs. 10a, 11a, 13, and 14a, there is a tendency among many people to misinterpret the long branch leading to the lone outgroup taxon in two ways. First, it is sometimes assumed that this species, although actually a contemporary of all others on the tree, is ancestral to the other lineages or at least is more similar to the root ancestor than any of the other species included in the tree (Crisp and Cook 2005). Second, this long branch is often taken to imply that no further branching has occurred along this lineage.
Figure 15 exposes the fallacy of both interpretations. In this case, humans are accurately included as the outgroup—the so-called basal lineage—to the echinoderms. It should go without saying that the branch leading from the common ancestor of echinoderms and vertebrates to modern mammals such as humans has not been devoid of additional divergence. In actuality, there have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of branching events along that lineage. The corollary of this observation, that humans do not resemble the ancestral echinoderm, should be even more obvious. Nonetheless, equally false interpretations of “basal” lineages are not uncommon, even in the scientific literature (Crisp and Cook 2005).”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
When viewing unbalanced trees such as those presented as Figs. 10a, 11a, 13, and 14a, there is a tendency among many people to misinterpret the long branch leading to the lone outgroup taxon in two ways.
I agree 100% when it comes to unbalanced trees; however it’s generally NOT a misinterpretation when it comes to BALANCED trees.
Nothing fallacious about a correlation between number of splits and brain size/encephalization.”
See Deacon.
“You don’t get it. Even statistically insignificant correlations become significant when you get them FIVE TIMES IN A ROW. If you want to believe it was all a coincidence, then fine.”
I don’t think it was a coincidence, I considered it a result of the poor sampling method and assumptions on iq proxies.
“Complexity vs progress is a whole separate debate that I don’t have time to get into now, but either way, brain size and encephalization appear to be robustly correlated with number of ancestral splits, at least according to my preliminary analysis.”
An unofficial and inherently flawed analysis,
“BA in math from Cornell
M.S. in physics
M.S. in computer science
PhD in astronomy from PRINCETON
Law degree
Author of wildly popular critically acclaimed book on World History”
Notice how none of his actual educated backgrounds and history, so again his judgment as an authority is limited and both I and jm8 said before.
See Deacon.
That’s not a rebuttal.
I don’t think it was a coincidence, I considered it a result of the poor sampling method and assumptions on iq proxies.
My sampling method was reasonable. I just looked for trees and multiple levels of taxonomic specificity, from extremely broad (kingdoms of life like plants and animals) to very specific (races of a single species). I found a robust link between number of splits and brain size/encephalization, regardless of whether you consider it a valid proxy for IQ.
To PP,
“I agree 100% when it comes to balanced trees; however it’s generally NOT a misinterpretation when it comes to BALANCED trees.”
I think you mistyped that, but i see your point. Problem, however, most of your used phylogenies were unbalanced.
Now for some examples, see here for general lifeforms known.
And humans specifically.
http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/5/891
I think you mistyped that, but i see your point. Problem, however, most of your used phylogenies were unbalanced.
Based on the definition you provided, but not based on any meaningful definition. To me, an unbalanced tree is one where different branches lead to different levels of taxonomic specificity. For example if you had a tree where Neanderthals diverged after the first split, Negroids diverged after the second split, and Caucasoids and Mongoloids diverged after the third split. Such a tree, while technically accurate, would be misleading, because by lumping all Neanderthals into a single branch, yet dividing modern humans into different races, you obscure all the racial branching Neanderthals did. Such a tree would be unbalanced because it’s comparing species level taxa to sub-species level taxa and thus could not be used to infer Neanderthals were less evolved. Instead a tree where Neanderthals are compared exclusively to other species in the homo genus would be required.
“Based on the definition you provided, but not based on any meaningful definition. To me, an unbalanced tree is one where different branches lead to different levels of taxonomic specificity.”
So I’m the one with the meangingless definition despite using actual references for “balanced”, yet you are going by your own opinion to determine it.
“For example if you had a tree where Neanderthals diverged after the first split, Negroids diverged after the second split, and Caucasoids and Mongoloids diverged after the third split. Such a tree, while technically accurate, would be misleading, because by lumping all Neanderthals into a single branch, yet dividing modern humans into different races, you obscure all the racial branching Neanderthals did. Such a tree would be unbalanced because it’s comparing species level taxa to sub-species level taxa and thus could not be used to infer Neanderthals were less evolved. Instead a tree where Neanderthals are compared exclusively to other species in the homo genus would be required.”
That’s basically what my references explains on balanced versus unbalanced, the problem is what did your article portray in comparing taxa compared to my examples?
So I’m the one with the meangingless definition despite using actual references
Correct
That’s basically what my references explains on balanced versus unbalanced, the problem is what did your article portray in comparing taxa compared to my examples?
My article made every effort to compare taxa of equal taxonomic specificity:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/29/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/
“Correct.”
And yet again scientific logic in regards to sources is beyond you.
My article made every effort to compare taxa of equal taxonomic specificity:
You didn’t even account for the very example with humans and neanderthals you gave.
The each of your graphs, (Kingdoms, Animal classes/Phlya, Apes, Homo, and modern races) in specificness, are closer to my example of an unbalanced graph and pales in comparison of my two.
Essentially none accounts for the very example of “balanced” that you provided.
And yet again scientific logic in regards to sources is beyond you.
You have yet to present ANY scientific logic, and my argument about taxonomic specificity is clearly beyond you.
“You have yet to present ANY scientific logic,”
I gave a guide of balanced versus unbalanced trees, compared it to your own, and provided more specific trees to compare. You gave a sourceless, though accurate, summary on tree balanced yet you failed to have applied it to your article when you used trees as I pointed out.
“and my argument about taxonomic specificity is clearly beyond you.”
See above of why that’s clearly not the case.
I gave a guide of balanced versus unbalanced trees, compared it to your own, and provided more specific trees to compare. You gave a sourceless, though accurate, summary on tree balanced yet you failed to have applied it to your article when you used trees as I pointed out.
My article generally compared taxa of equivalent taxonomical specificity. For example in my first tree I compared the plant kingdom with the animal kingdom with the fungi kingdom. All the branches lead to kingdoms within the Eukaryota domain, so all three comparisons were made among the highest taxonomical rank (kingdom) within a given taxa (eukaryote domain).
In my last tree I compared only races within the human species so once again, all were at the highest taxonomical rank (race) within a given taxa (modern human species); of course you could argue that some of the races could have been lumped together to form macro-races, but there’s no agreed upon number of races or macro-races so the classification was arbitrarily decided by Cavalli-Sforza
In my second last tree I compared four species within the genus homo, so once again, the highest taxonomical rank (species) within a given taxa (homo). Apples to apples comparison.
Was every tree perfect? No, but most were pretty close, and keep in mind that any flawed trees would have the effect of REDUCING the correlation between brain size/encephalization and branching, because random error is a source of statistical noise which obscures any underlying relationship. So the fact that I repeatedly found such robust correlation in spite of alleged problems with my trees, makes my conclusions stronger, not weaker.
I’m right and all the skeptics you cite are wrong.
Get over it!
“My article generally compared taxa of equivalent taxonomical specificity. For example in my first tree I compared the plant kingdom with the animal kingdom with the fungi kingdom. All the branches lead to kingdoms within the Eukaryota domain, so all three comparisons were made among the highest taxonomical rank (species) within a given taxa (eukaryote domain).”
See this more recent analysis of the Domain’s Kindgoms.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236183884_The_new_micro-kingdoms_of_eukaryotes
Plants and other similar organism have more splits than animals.
Second if I were to refer to the diagram example of humans and echinoderms it represents there relative relation to each other yet not necessarily the level of change within themselves based on the samples of organisms to represent within each branch.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x#Fig15
“In my last tree I compared only races within the human species so once again, all were at the highest taxonomical rank (race) within a given taxa (modern human species);”
See my statement above.
“of course you could argue that some of the races could have been lumped together to form macro-races, but there’s no agreed upon number of races or macro-races so the classification was arbitrarily decided by Cavalli-Sforza.”
That and the understanding of change is limited to them is limited, adding to the arbitrarity of the classifications within them to assume that they are this “equal” taxon.
“In my second last tree I compared four species within the genus homo, so once again, the highest taxonomical rank (species) within a given taxa (homo). Apples to apples comparison.”
Valid, mainly because this was an actual point where EQ standards could be properly gauged within a taxa, within Deacon’s points.
“Was every tree perfect? No, but most were pretty close,”
At only one taxa.
“and keep in mind that any flawed trees would have the effect of REDUCING the correlation between brain size/encephalization and branching, because random error is a source of statistical noise which obscures any underlying relationship. So the fact that I repeatedly found such robust correlation in spite of alleged problems with my trees, makes my conclusions stronger, not weaker.”
You confuse “Error” in practical use with “error” in statistics, which is an actual value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_for_attenuation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
So no, this doesn’t verify your correlations at all.
“I’m right and all the skeptics you cite are wrong.
Get over it!”
No because so far you were only accurate in measuring regarding Homo species, you failed to account to more recent analysis of phylogenies (specifically micro-kingdoms) and now your own math fails you as you confuse the use of “error”. You have yet to disprove “skeptics”, who btw is an actual Neuroanthrolopogist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_Deacon
Plants and other similar organism have more splits than animals.
It’s not how many splits they have that I’ve been measuring, it’s how many splits occur on the tree before they branch off. Here’s a source from 2017:
Eukaryotes represent a domain of life, but within this domain there are multiple kingdoms. The most common classification creates four kingdoms in this domain: Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia.
And here’s yet another tree showing animals are tied with fungi as being the kingdom descended from the most splits:
Second if I were to refer to the diagram example of humans and echinoderms it represents there relative relation to each other yet not necessarily the level of change within themselves based on the samples of organisms to represent within each branch.
My system only works when comparing apples to apples (i.e. taxa of the highest rank within a given taxa, as I already explained)
Valid, mainly because this was an actual point where EQ standards could be properly gauged within a taxa, within Deacon’s points.
I used absolute brain size not encephalization for that tree, and encephalization is merely the ratio of one’s brain size to the average brain size for a mammal one’s size. The brain-body relationship of all mammals in general is the reference curve; there might be more specific reference curves for more specific taxa, but that doesn’t invalidate EQ as a trans-taxa metric.
You confuse “Error” in practical use with “error” in statistics, which is an actual value.
No what you’re trying to say is that I confuse random error with systematic error, but you haven’t shown the errors on trees are systematic errors, let alone ones that behoove my theory.
Sadly, that’s going to have be your last comment here. I respect your knowledge of the field, but you often lack clarity and you have more excuses than a pregnant nun.
The main thing that makes an aspie an aspie is social naivete and social impairment in my opinion. Not high math scores or repetitive behaviour. There are many autistics that have low IQs. In fact the extreme of autism is autist retardation.
MJ is one of my favourite examples for all my ideas and theories:
1. His musical intelligence is related to his good looks.
2. He is crazy (schizotypal), without being clinically crazy (although this is debatable) and this helps him in the arts.
3. His being on the spectrum, the other way is related to him being black.
4. Even though he is a very weird person, he has good social skills enough to make friends with several famous people.
5. Drug use correlates heavily with schizophrenia
6. Magic Negro
7. Schizophrenia relates to extreme masculinity and femininity in people, and autism is the extreme lack of masculinity or femininity in people.
8. Looks reflect the person inside.
I think Michael Jackson to me could be the equivalent of Oprah to Pumpkin. My other favourite example is Mel Gibson.
or,you could simplify it by saying that Michael Jackson was a typical Virgo. which he like toatally was.
good looks? really? he is like 30-45th percentile for black men.
Hahaha I love Mel.
Yeah, he’s a smart guy.
Notice how he precedes his opinion by telling another persons very extreme opinion and then says his lesser but still extreme opinion. But it looks better.
Social intelligence.
Its completely different to analytical intelligence, which he also displays here.
This is why he was talking about the jew question 15 years before the alt right.
“This is why he was talking about the jew question 15 years before the alt right.”
No. He talks about Jews because his bosses in Hollywood are Jews and he has direct exposure.
We here only began to question Jews after direct exposure to insanity/subversion in the form of leftism.
Without being subjected to this, we’d never ask the questions necessary to come to the conclusion that Jews run the world and we’d be as ignorant as any other smart but politically stupid university professor.
This was also in an age before the internet, an age where only a man like Mel in a position such as his in Hollywood would have the exposure necessary to pose the question.
I think Mel gets its from his dad. I’ve read Mel’s dad hates jews for many of the things they were doing in the 60s contra Christianity. I’m given to understand Mel idolises his dad and is fanatic about his faith.
That’s probably the most likely explanation and direct influence then.
But humans in inter tropical places don’t evolved to combat this diseases or those who are healthier weren’t over selected?? So this diseases must affect most populations if their average IQ is lower 😉
See my comment regarding that, plus some disease can select only so far. For instance, dark skin was found in the study to help resistance against parasital infections that would, in turn, affect contract HIV, yet resistance obviously went so far in their evolution.
I think it’s not necessarily a question of the levels of disease load in the environment because seems perfectly possible to select for higher intelligence in that places. It’s a matter that higher intelligence simply wasn’t selected in this places because selects for short term thinking to short life expectancy.
“I think it’s not necessarily a question of the levels of disease load in the environment because seems perfectly possible to select for higher intelligence in that places.”
What population proves that, SE Asia? They’re mixed with people from areas that weren’t is such areas that also bring traditions.
“It’s a matter that higher intelligence simply wasn’t selected in this places because selects for short term thinking to short life expectancy.”
Then you need to explain why you have such areas, as you said, that do have high intellect.
Plus I think you are confused, Disease, undeniably, suppress IQ and cognitive functions. While differences in cognitive styles are likely, we can’t discount the various other consequences that occur in these regions to exclusively selection when you have these obvious confounds.
As for Australians, see here.
http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/prevalence-of-parasite-in-indigenous-populations-unknown/8875670
Even this hypothesis of disease load sound logical it was already proved?? Because by now it’s very conjectural, I mean, the causation of parasitic load and lower IQ. How explain aboriginals who has lived in desert = lower parasitic load (or not)??
”What population proves that, SE Asia? They’re mixed with people from areas that weren’t is such areas that also bring traditions.”
I don’t understand this comment, how it refute my first comment*
”Then you need to explain why you have such areas, as you said, that do have high intellect.”
I don’t understand. I wanted to say: don’t select for
higher frequency [% of people with higher intellectual traits, psychologically and cognitively]
and
higher expression [ all this higher intellectual traits, for example, curiosity and attention to details + highly developed. imagination = higher imagination. attention to details = pretty good attention to details, etc].
”Plus I think you are confused, Disease, undeniably, suppress IQ and cognitive functions.”
I don’t deny it’s sound logical, but we are talking about a type of ”evolved parasitism among humans” that intentionally reduce intelligence.
IQ is mostly cultural but not in the way we tend to think.
For example, vocabulary.
Subsaharian african tribes, what i know, no have developed vocabulary.
Gene-culture-co-evolution mean
we have a culture and we have a people.
People must be capable to sustain/cognitively and feel/psychologically this culture.
When people is not capable to follow their own culture, this relation implode.
So we have this constant feedback between people capabilities and their culture.
If africans no have developed more complex cultures OR this complex cultures wasn’t fully transplanted to their people, no had time enough, so we will not have this feedbacks.
Most of human intelligence evolution was via ”systemizing” or mechanicistic/materialistic ways.
It’s well observed via
higher verbal skills [oral and writing]
higher mathematical skills
and higher spatial skills
Subsaharians are by far the least ”systemizing-like people” .
Yes we are talking about autism and schizophrenia spectrum.
People who like sciences, engineering, mathematics/ INDIRECT and people who tend to like more about social/DIRECT surviving issues.
Writing systems tend to be a good indicator of the level of civilization or complex social system. It’s talk more about elite cognitive levels than about people’s but selective pressures in complex societies inevitably push for higher intelligence specially when society move forward.
”While differences in cognitive styles are likely, we can’t discount the various other consequences that occur in these regions to exclusively selection when you have these obvious confounds.”
I’m saying or arguing that higher intelligence was not fully selected among subsaharian africans just because the environment where they are don’t push for that, and that humans invent tools to defend against novel or known dangers as well to maximize its efficience to deal with daily life tasks.
it’s explain why most people are barely good on emotional/psychological issues while humanity has been capable to build magnificent things.
You’re talking about aboriginals who live in NORTHERN Australia and not in deserts as i asked.
About SE asia: even if this true, it’s doesn’t prove that it’s not possible select for what we are habituated to understand as ”higher intelligence”.
It’s a macro-”coincidence” but
we have mayans, astecs and incas as possible exception to this rule, specially mayans who lived in tropical places, aka south of Mexico and Guatemala.
”But health professionals warn there’s no way of knowing how many Australians are infected because there’s not enough screening being done.
Strongyloides stercoralis lives in the gastrointestinal system and, if untreated, can be fatal.”
I think they are talking about recent infection and not necessarily a co-evolved parasitism.
In the end, it’s interesting
https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2017/09/18/study-reports-that-infection-by-parasite-could-be-linked-to-development-of-alzheimers/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/why-does-a-gene-that-increases-alzheimers-risk-still-exist/512396/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/17/tsimane-of-the-bolivian-amazon-have-worlds-healthiest-hearts-says-study
And remember, what humans do when they fix in one environment*
They clean the environment they will live: other signal of complex society.
“I don’t understand this comment, how it refute my first comment*”
The point was that you mentioned it was possible for IQ to be selected for in these tropical areas, SE Asia being a common reference when people make this point to discount the disease.
The problem is based on population history, not just environment similarities, they are different.
“I don’t understand. I wanted to say: don’t select for
higher frequency [% of people with higher intellectual traits, psychologically and cognitively]
and
higher expression [ all this higher intellectual traits, for example, curiosity and attention to details + highly developed. imagination = higher imagination. attention to details = pretty good attention to details, etc].”
You phrased it as different traits being selected for, with climate being the factor. But if higher intellect in these places did occur, then another factor hasn’t been considered as to why the selection was different between two populations in the sane environments.
“I don’t deny it’s sound logical, but we are talking about a type of ”evolved parasitism among humans” that intentionally reduce intelligence.”
“evolved parasitism”, can you elaborate?
“IQ is mostly cultural but not in the way we tend to think.
For example, vocabulary.
Subsaharian african tribes, what i know, no have developed vocabulary.
Gene-culture-co-evolution mean
we have a culture and we have a people.
People must be capable to sustain/cognitively and feel/psychologically this culture.
When people is not capable to follow their own culture, this relation implode.
So we have this constant feedback between people capabilities and their culture.
If africans no have developed more complex cultures OR this complex cultures wasn’t fully transplanted to their people, no had time enough, so we will not have this feedbacks.”
The model is interesting, but the application to sub saharans as a group is rather simplistic, I refer to Jm8’s contributions.
“Most of human intelligence evolution was via ”systemizing” or mechanicistic/materialistic ways.
It’s well observed via
higher verbal skills [oral and writing]
higher mathematical skills
and higher spatial skills
Subsaharians are by far the least ”systemizing-like people”.
Relatively, I can buy this.
“Yes we are talking about autism and schizophrenia spectrum.
People who like sciences, engineering, mathematics/ INDIRECT and people who tend to like more about social/DIRECT surviving issues.
Writing systems tend to be a good indicator of the level of civilization or complex social system. It’s talk more about elite cognitive levels than about people’s but selective pressures in complex societies inevitably push for higher intelligence specially when society move forward.”
Pesonally, treating two disabilities that are distinguished from normal variation and treating them as pole ends, to me it would better if we have actual data on more “whole population” reliant traits like collectivism, breeding styles, etc.
Aside from that, the rest of the frame work is reasonable enough.
“I’m saying or arguing that higher intelligence was not fully selected among subsaharian africans just because the environment where they are don’t push for that, and that humans invent tools to defend against novel or known dangers as well to maximize its efficience to deal with daily life tasks.
it’s explain why most people are barely good on emotional/psychological issues while humanity has been capable to build magnificent things.”
The problem however assumes staticness in Sub saharan lifestyles, or at the very least patterns in between them.
My argument is that, this would be better explored, have changes such transition from hunting, gathering, agriculture, etc, have been considered since they too influence selection.
“You’re talking about aboriginals who live in NORTHERN Australia and not in deserts as i asked.”
The “Northern Territory” is a specific segment that covers a chunk of the desert areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory
Plus even more developed communities of Australians with native are likely where tests are administered.
“About SE asia: even if this true, it’s doesn’t prove that it’s not possible select for what we are habituated to understand as ”higher intelligence”.
It’s a macro-”coincidence” but
we have mayans, astecs and incas as possible exception to this rule, specially mayans who lived in tropical places, aka south of Mexico and Guatemala.”
Population density likely explains it, as further north Native Americans were less developed due to it.
I agree that many things have happened in African continent and we have very little knowledge about this, I mean this historical changes. We know by now that English people were quite violent during middle ages and after that because some important trends they became quite pacific at least among each other and despising indirect violence as laws that oppress reasonably same individual rights.
“And remember, what humans do when they fix in one environment*
They clean the environment they will live other signal of complex society.”
True, that’s a result but I’m more focused on causes. Native Americans in general entered the swampland very recently and with past differences in social interaction and uses compared to sub Saharans who had to change and develop within there own.
Regarding the Bolivian natives, that’s mainly the result of there nutrition and exercise, not really sanitation. Otherwise, that would imply that Americans live in less sanitized areas comparing heart health.
In that respect, the same was observed in Africa.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/2/353.full
“Thus, with limited exceptions, the nutritional pattern of the diet of rural Africans could still serve as a model for possible implementation in Western populations. In support of the uncommonness of deaths from degenerative diseases, in South Africa, as recently as 1970, of Africans who reached the age of 50 y, even more reached an age ≥70 y than was the case with the white population (7). Elderly Africans died almost entirely from infections. Two features insufficiently stressed were their very high levels of everyday physical activity and low levels of smoking, especially among women.”
On the last note on infections, the same applies to the Tsimane.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537506/
Yes but they has been exposed to all sorts of pathogenic interactions and this don’t prevent them to build big civilizations in the middle of tropical places. Indeed Indian natives are major exception even we also have Indian and Chinese civilization, the first was built in subtropical and tropical places and the second in mostly subtropical places. My main theory is that tropical diseases alone is not satisfactorily enough to keep intertropical human groups less materialistically and abstractly intelligent even it’s may be one of the factors that make it more difficult but not impossible. Indeed if smarter people tend to be healthier it’s perfectly possible they continue to be smarter I mean their kids and grandkids and grand grand kids. And we still have a interesting exams of that Bolivian tribe I linked.
My other main argument is that “IQ 100” as avg psycho cognitive optimal (or above) is evidently not fixed throughout human evolutionary history in the way pre historical humans had comparative lower modern IQ but they were fully capable to think and to interact socially, they weren’t intellectually challenged because they likely scored lower in modern IQ tests and specially to their environment/culture and I thought if something identical cannot be happening among some groups as sub-Saharan Africans if the idea they cannot score that low in IQ is not true.
We know early humans as well any other living beings were strongly shaped by their environments, in the early of human enhanced self awareness. So it’s perfectly possible to think if climate as well other geographical factors has impacted and shaped humans. All environments has been challenged for early humans but some environments may has been even more complicated to live. Seems reasonable to think that when humans were migrating more and more to north the major task they must do to survive was provide food and security before the winter. Tempered climate seems perfect as the place where abstract or long term thinking was more necessary. Indeed maybe we can see in many non human species who are adapted to tempered climates the same provisional thinking style. At the same time human life in tropical places seems has selected for shirt and faster thinker. Sapiens seems that types who with already enhanced tropical mindset, was exploring new lands and increasing their cultural/cognitive skills.
“Yes but they has been exposed to all sorts of pathogenic interactions and this don’t prevent them to build big civilizations in the middle of tropical places. Indeed Indian natives are major exception even we also have Indian and Chinese civilization, the first was built in subtropical and tropical places and the second in mostly subtropical places.”
And I explained this by differences in population density.
“My main theory is that tropical diseases alone is not satisfactorily enough to keep intertropical human groups less materialistically and abstractly intelligent even it’s may be one of the factors that make it more difficult but not impossible.”
Okay, I can believe that.
“Indeed if smarter people tend to be healthier it’s perfectly possible they continue to be smarter I mean their kids and grandkids and grand grand kids. And we still have a interesting exams of that Bolivian tribe I linked.”
So did I, what they show is merely the effect of evolutionary mis match with compared to Americans, as well as infections. This was observed in Africa as well prior to higher industrialization.
“My other main argument is that “IQ 100” as avg psycho cognitive optimal (or above) is evidently not fixed throughout human evolutionary history in the way pre historical humans had comparative lower modern IQ but they were fully capable to think and to interact socially, they weren’t intellectually challenged because they likely scored lower in modern IQ tests and specially to their environment/culture and I thought if something identical cannot be happening among some groups as sub-Saharan Africans if the idea they cannot score that low in IQ is not true.”
Can you rephrase that last part? I think I know where you are going but it didn;t translate well.
“We know early humans as well any other living beings were strongly shaped by their environments, in the early of human enhanced self awareness. So it’s perfectly possible to think if climate as well other geographical factors has impacted and shaped humans.”
Alright.
“All environments has been challenged for early humans but some environments may has been even more complicated to live. Seems reasonable to think that when humans were migrating more and more to north the major task they must do to survive was provide food and security before the winter. Tempered climate seems perfect as the place where abstract or long term thinking was more necessary. Indeed maybe we can see in many non human species who are adapted to tempered climates the same provisional thinking style. At the same time human life in tropical places seems has selected for shirt and faster thinker. Sapiens seems that types who with already enhanced tropical mindset, was exploring new lands and increasing their cultural/cognitive skills.”
Except Modern East and West Africa are different from each other, and that likely holds for the past in terms of distinction.
Basically what I’m saying is that Ancient East Africa wasn’t tropical, it was likely arid grassland.
Only demographic density don’t explain this. Higher demographic density is not a cause of higher intelligence, it’s a effect because it’s mean that society is capable to sustain many people.
Ultra ethnocentric Africans and also those who are reasonable as you + white liberals (many them who are pathological liars) believe that avg IQ ~70 is impossible namely for sub-Sahararians because they believe that “70 IQ” is always related with mental deficiency in all human populations. So they has used this factor: Disease load, excessively not just to point out that asubsaharians on avg do not score ~70 but also that with hygienic interventions the next generations will score higher in IQ tests and some of them still argue that the scores will increase even +30 points. They also believe ONLY or fundamentally disease load may explain everything, it’s their explain-everything-theory. I no have objections against this type of theories or hypothesis if they are right?? Even we have also other super environmentalist theory: Lead poisoning, to explain why blacks tend to be more violent or why there are more violent individuals within black populations if compared with other macro races.
”Except Modern East and West Africa are different from each other, and that likely holds for the past in terms of distinction.
Basically what I’m saying is that Ancient East Africa wasn’t tropical, it was likely arid grassland.”
Ok, tropical or non-tropical, the best term is intertropical because it’s encompass all climates which are found in intertropical regions.
History
People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[38] since the end of the last glacial period. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles[39] survive, with half found in the Tassili n’Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow. It was long believed that the region had been this way since about 1600 BCE, after shifts in the Earth’s axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which led to the abrupt desertification of North Africa about 5,400 years ago.[40] However, this theory has recently been called into dispute, when samples taken from several 7 million year old sand deposits led scientists to reconsider the timeline for desertification.[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
Yes but most subsaharian africans has lived in western africa isn’t*
“Only demographic density don’t explain this. Higher demographic density is not a cause of higher intelligence, it’s a effect because it’s mean that society is capable to sustain many people.”
I’m not saying higher intelligence comes from density, I mean civilization comes from it or both are symptoms of agricultural lifestyle. I commented this to Fenoopy in another thread.
“Ultra ethnocentric Africans and also those who are reasonable as you + white liberals (many them who are pathological liars) believe that avg IQ ~70 is impossible namely for sub-Sahararians because they believe that “70 IQ” is always related with mental deficiency in all human populations. So they has used this factor: Disease load, excessively not just to point out that asubsaharians on avg do not score ~70 but also that with hygienic interventions the next generations will score higher in IQ tests and some of them still argue that the scores will increase even +30 points. They also believe ONLY or fundamentally disease load may explain everything, it’s their explain-everything-theory. I no have objections against this type of theories or hypothesis if they are right?? Even we have also other super environmentalist theory: Lead poisoning, to explain why blacks tend to be more violent or why there are more violent individuals within black populations if compared with other macro races.”
I’m not opposed to differences in social engineering causing differences, sorry if that came off wrong.
My Issue is the major causes of IQ (not cognitive differences in general) being caused by cold winters as simple as it is. In it’s place, I attribute Climatic variation, Social competition, and disease.
The First two are in my opinion the biggest.
“Yes but most subsaharian africans has lived in western africa isn’t*”
Can you rephrase this? I guess you are trying to say most sub saharans didn’t live in the intertropics, though it’s likely that they spent more time there than in the Forests given how the oldest skeleton of modern West Africans have been found in Mali as well as most of west Africa Being mainly Savannah.
Based on genetic studies, Modern West African Farmers likely originated from grasslands and only moved into the forests during the Mid-to late Holocene.
I think we are just trying to find the first moment[s] and why humans increased their intelligence at modern levels.
First known civilizations appeared in Middle Eastern and Indian subcontinent. Looking for all the patterns of pre-columbian civilizations [religion, social organization, writing system, wars strategy] seems a BIG trans-common-evolution among human groups, from hunter gatherers to agriculture/sedentarization transition, if this civilizations appeared completely isolated from Eurasia and Africa but have very basal similar patterns of organization.
I don’t believe that cold climate necessarily FORGE or CREATE certain types of behaviors like ”abstract thinking” AND even ”long term thinking”, but that this climates increased the proportion of people with this psychological features as well its expression/intensity and quality.
So what is a EXISTENT minority among subsaharian africans or among, whatever, north africans [MENA in general] was over-selected [maybe combined with local human variants] among east asians and northern europeans. Just like for example some trends for introversion, in my view, a important behavioral type to sustain civilizations. Everybody knows east asians are the most introvert-leaning among macro-human races.
To Phil and SantoCulto
“Basically what I’m saying is that Ancient East Africa wasn’t tropical, it was likely arid grassland.’
Much of ss West Africa is semi-arid grassland too (and dry season forest/aka woodland savannah and some sahel), much (though not all) of the more humid jungles being based more around Central Africa (which can vary also).
But of course Homo sapiens likely originally evolved in a range of savannah and semi-desert sahel regions (mostly in East Africa).
”Can you rephrase this? I guess you are trying to say most sub saharans didn’t live in the intertropics, though it’s likely that they spent more time there than in the Forests given how the oldest skeleton of modern West Africans have been found in Mali as well as most of west Africa Being mainly Savannah.”
No i never said this.
”Based on genetic studies, Modern West African Farmers likely originated from grasslands and only moved into the forests during the Mid-to late Holocene.”
Interesting, well, where they/any population stayed most part of time tend to matter more than where they appeared in the first time.
The lack of resources of the semi-desertic environments of North Africa & the Middle East is what make these people particularly deceitful, cunning, spiteful and inclined to cheating, lie and thievery.
Of course this extends to Sicilians, Albanians, Armenians, Greeks and to every people close to this part of the world.
So I don’t think that what PP call “Dark Caucasoids” are simply something inbetween Blacks & Whites (though they are on some points), but rather a specific kind of people adapted to a specific environment.
It’s also interesting these people have a prominent hooked noses. They also tends to be very hairy. These probably are adaptations to desertic environment were dust could infiltrate in nostrils and eyes and provoke deadly infections.
That’s why they evolved prominent hooked noses with lot of nasal hair, and long eyelashes. Their important hairiness is a side effect of these local adaptations.
“The lack of resources of the semi-desertic environments of North Africa & the Middle East is what make these people particularly deceitful, cunning, spiteful and inclined to cheating, lie and thievery.”
The North African Mediterranean coastline is one of the most temperate and abundantly fertile places on planet Earth. Food, figs, grapes, dates etc quite literally grows on trees.
The Fertile Crescent where Israel is now located is also one of the most abundant and fertile places on planet Earth.
Europe is fertile, but it is also very cold. The Mediterranean is fertile but temperate, with no extreme temperatures.
Weren’t you also the one that said lack of resources in cold environments lead to the high IQ and moral behavior of Nordics?
Your theory is nonsense.
I think merchants are cultural products of civilization or complex societies so I think Jews and some middle easterners and southern Europeans evolved to be socially clever including sociopathic features or vices of civilization.
“is what make these people particularly deceitful, cunning, spiteful and inclined to cheating, lie and thievery.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not politically correct by any means – but really?
Very good. This makes sense. I’ve said for some time that people in that part of the world are noticeably more psychopathic. But pumpkin had an interesting suggestion that these people also had law and order and civilised states to weed out the worst criminals unlike say, blacks or jews.
If I had to rate the most ‘clannish’ MENA peoples it would have to be jews, pakistanis, berbers, and the gulf. The iraqis, persians, lebanese and jordanians seem more amiable based on my experience in london.
I think this also explains why islam must be so harsh to both believers and their suggested treatment for non-believers – to regulate really wild behaviours.
Finally I notice arab and black women are a lot more R selected than say, east asians who I never have luck with.
Philosopher, I can’t understand why you consider other races of mankind to be ‘noticeably more psychopathic’ but ignore the plethora of psychopathic behaviors of white society before its ‘pacification’ in the last 300 years by Jews. Even now, I can hardly call white civilizations ‘pacified’.
You dropped 30,000 bombs on Libya in 2016 alone, killed the president, then stole its gold reserves.
In the name of ‘justice and morality’. America spreading freedom everywhere!
Germanic people are like women. Their words say one thing, but their actions another.
but ignore the plethora of psychopathic behaviors of white society before its ‘pacification’
What a stupid and naive argument.
You can do that for every society everywhere in the world. Humans always killed each other and will continue to do so.
You sometimes give me the impression I’m debating with a woman.
Yes, (((germanic people))).
Does these guys look germanic to you ?
Sarkozy, le Batman with that ears.
Its obvious that was what the jews wanted though. Not whites. Most whites dont know anything about Libya.
The first guy pass easily as ”generic” mediterranean, spaniard for example. But sakozy… Indeed, ashkenazim DON’T look WESTERN european mediterranean because their strong armenid component. WESTERN european mediterraneans tend to be more gracilized than robust, in my poor knowledge.
Cold winter theory at least explain differences in visual/spatial intelligence among races. Which is also strongly linked with brain size.
Among races there is probably a perfect correlation between exposure to glaciation/latitude, brain size and spatial IQ.
Northern races like Europeans & East Asians create technology. These are races of engineers not merchants like Jews and people from the Middle East.
Yes!
I’ve said jews are the perfect merchant minds. Its not that jews can’t do math, its that they apply it to abstract problems a lot more than concrete mechanical things.
Whites and asians are the only peoples that develop object fetishes.
Not just merchant-‘ness’? but they excelled in almost every academic discipline. Something which other ethnicities havent or i think cannot.
Even this hypothesis of disease load sound logical it was already proved?? Because by now it’s very conjectural, I mean, the causation of parasitic load and lower IQ. How explain aboriginals who has lived in desert = lower parasitic load (or not)??
So this is the ‘evil’ KKKs David Duke talking about HBD as applied to athleticism, physiology, IQ and personality.
If you listen to David Duke, he has the same manner as a university professor.
He’s right about everything. I agree completely about how the world should be. Real diversity would mean leaving people alone. Not forced miscgenation and mass movements to white nations.
^^ Real diversity/HBD
I read that the highest IQ indian in america were black dravidian from upper classes in south east india before white brahman from the borth ? But there were no data. Anyone knows about very intelligent dark skin people (in India) ?
Read also that blacks in the UK had an 95 average IQ wich is above ww average. Maybe selective migration causes most differences in IQ ( as we see with Indian who arr 85 in south africa, 95 in the UK and 107/112 in the USA). Do most haplotypes subclades form by migration or after migration ? USA didnt make Indian bright I suppose. It just attracted bright indian. In the future, someone could say free-market and second amendment made Indian bright .
>”I read that the highest IQ indian in america were black dravidian from upper classes in south east india ”<
Your are kidding! I am a 'black dravidian' 🙂 myself from upper class in south-east india (i am not kidding). Where did you get that info? I am curious. But my tested IQ at my peak was only 108 (and has gone down now due to excessive smoking). Hardly 'highest IQ indian in america' level. So i am curious.
But I think those people who scored that level were more of an exception rather than the rule. Outliers in the group.
The oldest Caucasian groups on planet Earth are Orkney Islanders and Berbers.
Orkney Islanders are genetically linked to Siberians and when you look at them it becomes very clear that Nordics originated from red Mongoloids.
The oldest Berbers are the Mozabites and the newest are the Grande Kabyle (Iqvaliyen).
Grande Kabyle look almost identical to Chechens, the people of the Caucus mountains. The people of Grande Kabyle also live on the highest mountain peaks.
Startlingly similar, actually.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fa0098f52-898a-11e6-aa51-f33df6df2868.jpg?crop=3500%2C2333%2C-0%2C-0
Before you complain that I speak a lot about Berbers and Kabyle in specific, of course I do, in the same way so many of you speak so often about Nordics. I’m curious about my genetics and their origin and that’s the main cause of my interest in races, genetics and evolution. The same goes for many of us here.
Kabyles are pretty tribal and violent. May be it has something to do with living on mountains.
Chechens also lives in the mountains.
But nobody really fears Kabyles, they even get mocked by the other North Africans as pork eaters and bad muslims.
Chechens on the other hand are feared by both Blacks & North Africans. And they often judge these latter as bad muslims.
That’s basically the opposite of Kabyles on this point.
Or Kabyles are a really soft version of Chechens.
Before you complain that I speak a lot about Berbers and Kabyle in specific, of course I do, in the same way so many of you speak so often about Nordics.
Assuming intentions where they aren’t. Typical schizo behavior. Typical of North Africans.
“For the seventh consecutive time, Tizi-Ouzou ranked first among the wilayas in the national ranking according to the results of the 2015 baccalaureat. The success rate was 65.75%, according to the first results announced by the ministry of National Education. The capital of Kabylia thus far exceeds the national rate, which is only 51.36%.”
Translated from French. Kabyle are leagues ahead of other Berbers in intelligence.
They are also hardcore agriculturalists, not nomads like nearly all other Berbers. No doubt agriculture leads to higher intelligence as well as requires it. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.