Agriculture was the ultimate test of prehistoric intelligence, because for the first time humans were able to purposefully manipulate the biology of plants and animals to their advantage. Or at least to their perceived advantage (in reality agriculture caused a lot of disease and malnutrition).
What makes agriculture so fascinating is that it’s perhaps the most basic act of intelligence that Neanderthals and early modern humans never accomplished, and thus knowing the IQ required to invent agriculture puts a ceiling on not only Neanderthal IQ, but the IQ of our own species until recently.
On page 31 of The 10,000 Year Explosion, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending write:
The Eemian lasted from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. So for 15,000 long years, nobody was smart enough to invent agriculture even though the climate was right. And yet agriculture was independently invented over and over again in just the last 12,000 years. This strongly suggests that humans today are genetically smarter than we were in the Middle Paleolithic. The question is, did we evolve the intelligence to invent agriculture before or after we left Africa? Perhaps we evolved it while still in Africa, and that’s what allowed us to leave Africa in the first place.
However on page 232 of Race, Evolution & Behavior (Third Edition), J. Philippe Rushton writes:
R. Lynn (1991a) suggested that although warm interglacial interludes had occurred previously, the transition to agricultural societies wasn’t possible until people became sufficiently intelligent to take advantage of the wild grasses. According to Lynn, it was only after people had been through the last Wurm glaciation that they were cognitively able to do so. Lynn’s view provides an explanation for why the advances were never made by Negroids or those southeast Asian populations that escaped the rigors of the last glaciation.
If agriculture was only invented by those who had survived the rigors of the last ice age, and only after they had done so, this is strong evidence that cold winters are what selected for humanity’s high intelligence.
However this theory faced a major road block in 2003, when Tim Denham, an archaeologist at Flinders University in Adelaide, reported evidence that Papua New Guineans (who judging from their Negroid appearance, escaped the rigors of the last ice age) were practicing agriculture as early as 10,000 years ago, which predates any known southeast Asian contact.
However by 2004, a book called The Next World War: Tribes, Cities, Nations and Ecological Decline, published by the prestigious University of Toronto press, excluded Papua New Guinea from the agriculture pioneer club. On page 50 author Roy M. Woodbridge writes:
If the above paragraph is true, it’s very good news for Rushton’s Mongoloid > Caucasoid > Negroid evolutionary hierarchy, because of the five independent inventions of agriculture, an astonishing 80% were by Mongoloids, 20% were by Caucasoids, and 0% by Negroids, though ironically, it was the relatively low IQ Native American Mongoloids who dominate the list.
However in the next paragraph, Woodridge acknowledges the possibility that other groups may have also independently made the Neolithic transition but the evidence is less certain:
One reason to doubt that Africa’s Neolithic transition was independent is that it didn’t occur until 5000 BC. What took so long? The reason it took so long outside of Africa was that non-African modern humans didn’t have an interglacial period until the Holocene but would the ice age have equally delayed agriculture in Africa? While tropical soils didn’t freeze, the ice age may have caused a lot of droughts in Africa.
So could Africans have independently invented agriculture once the ice age ended? Lawyer, computer scientist, Princeton astrophysicist and best-selling historian Dr. Michael Hart writes on page 141 of his book Understanding Human History:
In neither Europe nor India was agriculture developed independently. It has been suggested that it was invented independently in tropical West Africa and/or the Sudan but the chronology makes this highly unlikely. We know that agriculture was being widely practiced in the Fertile Crescent by 9 kya, but it was not practiced in tropical West Africa until 5 kya. In the intervening millennia, it had spread to Egypt (about 8 kya) and to Ethiopia, and from there across the Sudan, reaching the Western Sudan about 7 kya.
Pumpkin Person 
Why do you assume any innovation must coincide with a relatively equal increase in intelligence? Brain size is the only neurological proxy we can infer from the fossil record and it only correlates with technology in step changes, meaning most innovation was due to cultural accumulation. During most of our evolution, brain size was increasing with little to no technological change.
Secondly, the fact that Europeans never idepenstly created agriculture (unless you count gobekli tape or something) implies that agriculture doesn’t take that much intelligence, it allowed stationary communities to become more advantageous and catalyzed population booms.
Why do you assume any innovation must coincide with a relatively equal increase in intelligence?
Agriculture isn’t just any innovation. It was the solution to all of our problems looking us right in the face if only we has the imagination to see it (or at least appeared to be before the disease & malnutrition)
And the fact that it occurred at least five times independently in just the last 12 thousand years yet never once in the previous 6 million years nor in any other species, suggests it’s something that is both inevitable with a modern human mind and impossible with a subhuman mind
We developed theory of mind, imagination and forethought far before agriculture, I’m not saying extremely early homo could have invented agriculture It’s just obvious that the ability was there long before it actually happened.
The importance of agriculture has little to do with its mental implications. Second you should address my first point, why doesn’t agriculture coincide with any further encephalization, technically the domestication of the dog is probably the first incidence of genetic engineering, like agriculture. In fact, brain size shrunk after avriculture.
The people who invented agriculture during the Holocene likely had bigger brains than the people who failed to invent it during the Eemian, if for no other reason than the fact that brain size increased as we migrated out of Africa
And there may have been other changes in the brain since the Eemian, besides just size
Ironicay the malnutrition and disease of agriculture then shrunk the brain
melo,
I think a lot of factors needed to come together for agriculture to be developed. For eg: The ‘idea’ that seeds can be planted to grow crops, knowledge of atleast basic weather patterns, ‘availability’ of suitable ‘strains’ of crops in that area that could be grown and knowledge about them, also a ‘critical mass’ of people staying in the same place day and night to ensure wild animals dont come into the planted areas and eat the planted crops, and the economic incentive for those people to say in that place (i mean at the expense of hunting and gathering ) , also knowledge of atleast the basic idea of irrigation and a market to sell your crops if you produce excess and buy meat or other kinds of food which the plant growers would not have been able to do as they did not hunt all that while.(Or maybe they planted and harvested during the non-hunting season). Hey this could also be one of the explanations if agriculture allegedly was not invented in africa and other places or not as soon as in other places. Maybe hunter gatherers in those places didnt have a ‘non-hunting’ season at that time. So they may not have had the incentive to stay in one place and look after the crops at the expense of a lost meal that could instead have been acquired if they had gone hunting or gathering.
PP,
I think the presence of big river valleys could also have played a role in the development of agriculture as an economically sustainable practice for the growers in a given society in addition to the points i mentioned above. There should be enough people in a given tribe/society to buy ones harvest in order for the growers to know that there will be a market for their crops and big river valleys could have supported bigger populations and more pop means more number of potential customers which means a lesser risk of not having anybody to buy ones produce.
During the eemian stage (i also agree with your point that people during the eemian had smaller and/or lesser developed brains) but i also wonder if river valleys as big enough and in suitable climatic zones as during the holocene existed during the eemian?
and suitable plants that can give regular harvest for multiple years/enough population to ensure somebody buys or exchanges what one will grow for what the grower would have wanted.)
”And the fact that it occurred at least five times independently in just the last 12 thousand years yet never once in the previous 6 million years nor in any other species”
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150105-animals-that-grow-their-own-food
”Ironicay the malnutrition and disease of agriculture then shrunk the brain”
Some evidence*
Agriculture is basically artificial re-plantation.
I mean, some evidence that ”malnutrition and disease of agriculture” was really responsible for brain shrunking.
Pumkin, and what do you think was the average IQ necessary to invent agriculture in 12K BC ? and then to invention civilization in 3.5 K BC ? Perhaps one should factor in the hypothesis of IQ going up and down. Galton said black people were 20 IQ points (2 grades) below english white (we know that’s accurate). But that greek cities free citizn in 5 BC were 20 IQ points above them (we know it’s not imaginable, because in prosperous cities like Shangai or Singapour, average IQ is above 110, and greek were much more elistis). So there must have been places where peope were gathered in a more intelligent society. The day a google-like-firm would form a gated community where people inter-breed and live separetely, they would outsmart spartan and athenian people.
Probably 0-10 points lower than the lowest IQ race whose ancestors independently independently invented it, because inventing it likely triggered more brain evolution
Of course it likely took more IQ in harsh climates as michael hart argues
Bad batch is a horror movie you would like also relavent to the topic
“One reason to doubt that Africa’s Neolithic transition was independent is that it didn’t occur until 5000 BC. What took so long?”
It also did not occur in in the Americas until later either (in many cases later than Africa and Papua New Guinea), where it was completely independent (as we know it was in the Americas). There may be other possible environmental that can impede full cultivation/farming. It is likely that some native crops in Africa (possibly elsewhere) were intensively tended and cultivated before more intensive farming and selective breeding would make their morphology more identifiable as domestic.
There is no evidence of imported plants and animals in that period in the zones of African agriculture and no real evidence of evidence of outside influence in the area of farming in that period (except Ethiopia, where it might be the case that it was influenced by the Mid-Eastern tradition).There are no crop transitions and no evidence that wheat or other Eurasian crops were eve grown in West Africa until much later, after the local crops had been cultivated for a long time.Though it starts later (as far as we know) , farming in the West Africa (both sahel/savannah and forest), begins with intensive gathering and “managing” (of sedentary/semi-sedentary former or more advanced hunter gatherers) and the planting of (not yet so selectively bred change its morphology) “morphologically wild” plants and then progresses to full cultivation in the archaeological record (according to the usual process of domestication).
The tradition West African forest agriculture may go back a bit further and be at least as old as that of the sahel/savannah—and some archaeologists and ethnolinguists suspect it does One problem is that (unlike the West African savannah cops that are based on indigenous grains) it is based on tubers (the African yam/dioscurea aleata) and the oil palm), which does not leave seeds to be preserved archaeologically. Even the Pygmies continue to practice a primitive form of “para-cultivation” of yams (which Phil mentioned in an earlier thread), which may preserve a very early phase of plant management that occurs in the evolution of cultivation (which in their case did not evolve to a very intensive stage or to farming, as it did in some other parts of Africa)
Click to access 10_DOUNIAS.PDF
The cultivation of the Pacific yam in Papua new Guinea and the Banana in Papua similarly begins with photo-cultivation (intensive “exploiting”/proto-cultivation by settled communities of former or more advanced hunter gatherers; including—there as also alluded above—things like weeding and managing growth and preserving the stock to avoid overexploitation) and evolves to farming
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0623_030623_kukagriculture.html
Generally Australia Aborigines were hunter gatherers and did not practice farming/animal husbandry (though some practiced early forms of “paracultivation”, encouraging certain useful plants to grow and culling others by the selectively burning of types of land, sometimes loosely termed “firestick farming”. But interestingly, one tribe or group, the Gunditjmara, apparently built eel traps and enclosures made of stone in a group of lakes where they cultivated eels (and lived in permanent villages—at least for part of the year)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/03/13/806276.htm
Also, Michael Hart is not a historian (nor and archaeologist, or in any relevant field).
(As for best-selling, I wouldn’t know, but I have some doubts—though popularity and sales of course would not be relevant to his credibility)
On Papua:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0623_030623_kukagriculture.html
“Prior to this discovery, many scientists regarded Papua New Guineans as passive recipients of domesticated plants and animals from Southeast Asia. But the dates for the rise of agriculture documented by Denham and colleagues predate the earliest known Southeast Asian influence by about 3,000 years.”
“The team also dated features consistent with the planting, digging, and tethering of plants and localized drainage systems to 10,000 years ago. Mounds constructed to plant water-intolerant plants such as bananas, sugarcane, and yams are dated to about 6,500 years ago.”
There is evidence that taro/Asian yams and bananas later spread to South East Asia from Papua (rice of course came to South East Asia from China).
Jm8, that link describes the Tim Denham discovery in 2003 which I mentioned in the article, but by 2004, a major academic press released a book excluding Papua from the agriculture pioneer club.
No, you cited a book that actually considers it a possibility while providing an alternate hypothesis because, at the time, it was a new find. And in regards to his hypothesis, Jm8 shown that to be unlikely.
He didn’t express direct doubt.
No, you cited a book that actually considers it a possibility
The book stated that the evidence suggests agriculture was only independently invented five times, 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 in regards to his hypothesis, Jm8 shown that to be unlikely.
And Michael Hart argued independent agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa was very unlikely.
“Jm8, that link describes the Tim Denham discovery in 2003 which I mentioned in the article, but by 2004, a major academic press released a book excluding Papua from the agriculture pioneer club.”
They do so speculatively (claiming that it could—or might not have—been influenced from outside). But the evidence does not seem to support an external origin of farming in Papua—which is not currently in evidence (influence from the mongoloid peoples of South East Asia, as far as we know occurred quite a bit after the beginning of full Papuan farming ca. 6,500 bc. Papuan farming appears to have evolved from earlier proto-cultivation or possibly early cultivation which starts around 10 ka bc, as mentioned in the excerpt I quoted, as mentioned. Later more sources (some cited in the article Phil linked) also cite Papua as an early zone of plant domestication
https://books.google.com/books?id=etQsieKuRH8C&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=6N2YCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=domestication+in+papua&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE1L6ChdrWAhUMOiYKHV30BJIQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=domestication%20in%20papua&f=false
You could be right about Papuan New Guineans. Even Michael Hart credits them with independent agriculture while claiming Africans lacked the IQ to do the same. Hart agrees with phil78 that Papuans are not Negroid.
“Later more recent sources…also cite Papua as an early zone of plant domestication”
Genetic evidence suggests agriculture was brought to Africa from the middle east:
Their population expanded into East Africa, bringing crops and animals with them. East Africans retain ancestry from the first farmers of the southern Levant — in Somalia, a third of people’s DNA comes from there.
Michael Hart wrote a very respected book about world history called The 100
It (your source) refers to East Africa (not surprising given the areas proximity to the Near East and the often significant Near Eastern admixture many groups there), namely the horn and nearby areas where farming, was based at least in part, on that of the Middle East and combined Middle Eastern originating cops with (sometimes) a few local secondary local ones domesticated later. The West Africa tradition is distinct and entirely involved indigenous crops—it is a separate tradition—(and West Africans lack the Eurasian admixture found in East Africans from the African horn and nearby).
The West Africa tradition is distinct and entirely involved indigenous crops—it is a separate tradition—(and West Africans lack the Eurasian admixture found in East Africans from the African horn and nearby).
But the chronology is evidence that knowledge of agriculture spread from East Africa to West Africa, even if the specific crops did not.
That was east Africa, we know this based on neolithic DNA in Horners. The Article said nothing about expanding into West Africa.
Writing a book doesn’t tell anything on how extensive his research or his certification to make his claims credible.
“You could be right about Papuan New Guineans. Even Michael Hart credits them with independent agriculture while claiming Africans lacked the IQ to do the same. Hart agrees with phil78 that Papuans are not Negroid.”
Then that would imply it wasn’t the ice age itself.
“But the chronology is evidence that knowledge of agriculture spread from East Africa to West Africa, even if the specific crops did not.”
Not when the traditions were different and show evidence of continuity. with another archaeological culture.
“But the chronology is evidence that knowledge of agriculture spread from East Africa to West Africa, even if the specific crops did not.”
It is not particularly strong or compelling evidence.
That theory is not really in evidence/supported and certainly not generally held by researchers—and the evidence of cultural contact in the archaeology that would suggest such a cultural exchange/influence is not apparent. Chronology alone is not particularly evidence for this, as mentioned, agriculture appears later in the Americas than in Eurasia (esp. in some areas) as well. There is evidence that agriculture appears in the West African forest zone at about the same time: a region further the south of many of the domestication centers in the Western sahel/Western savannah hand even less accessible from East Africa. Also crops do not seem to spread from east to West as, but from a few points in west Africa. Pearl millet is first grown in the Niger valley in Mali (domestication often occur along river valleys and waterways) and the nearby areas of S.E. Mauritania, which then had rivers and small lakes. before it was gathered and managed intensively around the western sahel. Rice appears in Mali and Senegal. In addition, he regions in between tended to be dominated by nomads (the Sahara and Central Africa).
If the knowledge spread from there it would still be expected that zones would exist where the “inspiring crops” (and archaeological traditions associated with them) so to speak, and those of west Africa coexisted, chronologically intermediate. Farming in W. Africa also (as mentioned) appears in the archaeological record gradually among groups of more advanced and semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers exploiting their local plants, gradually progressing to farming and greater sedentization. Even if farming had arrived indirectly (the idea of farming adapted to new crops from E. Africa for instance) the idea would have arrived more suddenly and agricultural societies would not be expected to appear so incrementally (in the way they do and have where farming was/is developed independently). What would be expected would be (along lines of) the arrival of an already agricultural group (at some point), followed by the transition from the crops of that group to local ones an the spread of that system regionally (which is not how agriculture appears to form in the West Africa zones I mentioned). Some crops Crops from East Africa (and ultimately Asia/the Middle East, and the Americas much later) eventually arrived in W. Africa (where they were integrated into the local farming systems), but they were not likely the initial catalyst for farming there.
An analogy (or a partial one) might be drawn with the Papuan situation. As mentioned, Papuan agriculture formed separately (there being no evidence of the necessary contact or influence for E. Asia) during that period but not too far from near the East Asian center of farming (and photo-cultivation appears early but evolves into full agriculture/horticulture a bit later than that of China. Geographic barriers can impede the spread of a farming package even to a relatively close geographic region. A tribes in even in parts of Papua never became agricultural, but retained an intensive hunter-gatherer economy based on the sago palm—Papua is full of mountain ranges that divide it internally and can often isolate regions from each other—(the Negrito tribes living in places between Papua and S.E. Asia and China remained hunter gatherers until the Southern mongoloids arrived (if the E. Asians had brought farming to Papua, the ancestors of the Negritos would have received it before the Papuans).
“You could be right about Papuan New Guineans. Even Michael Hart credits them with independent agriculture while claiming Africans lacked the IQ to do the same.”
It seems unlikely that Papuans would have the ability and Africans would lack it (this would not make sense). Generally SS Africans (many groups of them/those of several regions) have been (often quite a lot) more advanced historically in cultural and civilizational developments (states developed in SS Africa and metallurgy, substantial architecture and towns, large scale trade, one of several global independent inventions of pottery etc—some of which I have cited in earlier threads; while Papua never really formed states though it sometimes formed smaller chiefdoms) And Papua remained in the neolithic (farming stone age) until Europeans arrived—though parts of Papua also had some good tribal art (usually wood carving) and some of its peoples (mostly around the coast and islands) were decent navigators—their ancestors had sailed to Papua after all (though not seemingly quite as good as the Polynesians and Micronesians).
Chronology alone is not particularly evidence for this, as mentioned, agriculture appears later in the Americas than in Eurasia (esp. in some areas) as well.
It’s not merely the fact that it arrived in West Africa late that implies diffusion, but the pattern of locations it appeared in before showing up in West Africa:
Fertile Crescent by 9 kya
Egypt by 8 kya
Sudan by 7 kya
tropical West Africa by 5 kya
This pattern suggests knowledge of agriculture was slowly migrating Southwest, starting in the Middle East and reaching West Africa 4000 years later. Even liberal hero and anti-HBD icon Jared Diamond did not believe agriculture was indigenous to Africa. As recently as 2004 independent African agriculture was considered a fringe view as I documented in the article.
“Sudan by 7 kya”
The neolithic in Sudan (at least that involving mid-eastern crops) starts around 6,000 bc with the early farming cultures of north and Central Sudan, like El Kadada, Kadero, and Ash Shaheinab. Before the cultures are mesolithic (pottery starts there much earlier though, in contrast to the near east where it comes after farming).
Sudan is not really especially on the way to west Africa. Its just south of Egypt, still squarely in the east of the continent. The West African centers of farming seem to begin toward the west of West Africa (around Mali, Senegal), not particularly toward the east (the peoples of the neolithic central Sahel to the east at that time tended to be fishing and/or—somewhat later—pastoralism based nomads)
Even liberal hero and anti-HBD icon Jared Diamond did not believe agriculture was indigenous to Africa.”
I think he did believe it was. He mentions that several crops were domesticated there. And I don’t believe he mentions an origin or inspiration in the Middle East in his book Guns Germs and Steel (anyway he is not an Africa expert and gets a few things wrong, like including West Africa in the Bantu expansion, when West Africans belong to other non-Bantu more basal branches of the Niger-Congo language family that Bantu branched from later on near Central Africa. Also his knowledge of west Africa after is somewhat vague.
As recently as 2004 independent African agriculture was considered a fringe view as I documented in the article.”
I don’t believe so (nor is that stated). These was some disagreement over the issue earlier than that, and the evidence had been considered ambiguous until around the time you cite (perhaps a bit earlier). But It hadn’t been fringe for a long time (scholars of the earlier period (influenced by the hyperdiffusionist scholarship of the 19th and earlier 20th century) had tended to assume that everything came from Messapotamia, even developments in East Asia now known to be indigenous.
As I said:
“If the knowledge spread from there it would still likely be expected that zones would exist where the “inspiring crops” (and archaeological traditions associated with them) so to speak, and those of west Africa coexisted, chronologically and geographically intermediate—which is not so far what is seen. Farming in W. Africa also (as mentioned) appears in the archaeological record gradually among groups of more advanced and semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers exploiting their local plants, gradually progressing to farming and greater sedentization.
Even if farming had arrived indirectly (the idea of farming adapted to new crops from E. Africa for instance) the idea (and sedentary farming lifestyles) would have arrived/appeared more suddenly in the archaeological record of the area and agricultural societies would not be expected to evolve so incrementally (in the way they do and have where farming was/is developed independently).
What would be expected would be (along lines of) the arrival of an already agricultural group (at some point), followed by the transition from the crops of that group to local ones an the spread of that system regionally (which is not how agriculture appears to form in the West Africa zones I mentioned).” Crops from various areas ended up in West Africa where they were integrated into the local farming systems, but it does not seem likely that they were the initial catalyst for farming in the region.
.
I don’t believe so (nor is that stated). These was some disagreement over the issue earlier than that, and the evidence had been considered ambiguous until around the time you cite (perhaps a bit earlier). But It hadn’t been fringe for a long time
The quote by Roy M. Woodbridge I cite in the article implies that of 2004, only five regions of the World were thought to have independently invented agriculture and Africa was not one of them.
This 2003 New York Times article confirms Woodbridge’s claim. By the early 2000s, the scientific consensus was that only five regions had invented agriculture (with Papua New Guinea being perhaps added as a sixth region at the time of the article):
The first farmers raised barley and wheat in the Middle East more than 10,000 years ago. Sometime later, Chinese began cultivating rice, Mexicans corn and beans and South Americans potatoes. Indians in what is now the eastern United States grew crops of sunflower seeds.
In all five regions, scholars concluded years ago, agriculture developed independently of outside influences and then spread, changing forever the way people lived.
You are going to need to provide a citation for that belief from Diamond, as his book says otherwise.
http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/show/transcript1.html
From what I’ve read from this review in 2003 he suggests more investigation, which Jm8 shows that it is likely the case. Diamond also showed enthusiasm towards it being probable.
“Did agriculture really arise independently
in Ethiopia, the Sahel, tropical West Africa,
South India, and Amazonia? We need a more
balanced record of the earliest crops and livestock,
their wild relatives, and their dates and
places of domestication, so that regions poorly
known in this respect can take their place alongside
the better understood Fertile Crescent”
Click to access Diamond%20et%20al%202003.pdf
Second…you are again relying solely on chronology rather than the actual investigative archaeology of it being based on earlier forms of proto-cultivation.
“As recently as 2004 independent African agriculture was considered a fringe view as I documented in the article.”
A fringe view that is no longer, which had an alternative hypothesis that doesn’t cut it under investigation.
From 2014.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035915/
“In addition, archaeological research has many gaps on the chronology and regional sequences of domestication of plants and animals, and the contexts of agricultural origins. Recent research has shown that increased sampling and methodological developments have made it possible to clearly document cereal domestication [e.g., rice (82)], push back the earliest evidence for both the domestication of maize in southern Mexico (83) and the arrival of crops in northern Peru (36), and to recognize the likely independent processes of agricultural origins and domestication in New Guinea (45), parts of India (84), and Africa (85). These research successes within the past decade imply that more new information on more species from more regions and earlier periods can be expected and should be actively sought.”
The research on Africa is from 2013/
You are going to need to provide a citation for that belief from Diamond
My source is here:
About 10 thousand years ago according to Diamond, agriculture originated independently in five areas of the world: the Near East (or the Fertile Crescent), China, Mesoamerica, the Andes, and the eastern United States. While there are several other areas that are candidates for this distinction, in these five areas the evidence for independent development is overwhelming
So there were only five regions where independent agriculture was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Africa there was reasonable doubt and probably still is, unless some major discoveries have occurred in the last 13 years.
(continued:)
Also, I might quote it as RR explained (he might have put certain things better that I—and is in keeping with some of my points)
”
The first plants were domesticated in West Africa around 5000BCE, these crops (sorghum, African rice, pearl millet, yam, fonio) are direct descendants of their local wild ancestors and were not grown in the Middle East and North Africa”
…populations do not transition from hunting and gathering to farming just from being exposed to agricultural populations, foreign crops are instead adopted by sedentary horticulturalist populations that have already domesticated non-grain plants. For this reason, the most common mode of diffusion of farming is not contact with another population but migration of the farmers themselves, which is why agriculture did not reach the southern half of Africa until the farming Bantu populations of West African origin gradually settled the region.”
This is generally true, the spread of farming is associated with the transfer of peoples and crops (at least one and usually both). And such can be seen in the early histories of the Americas, Europe (where virtually all of the continent has significant neolithic Near Eastern) farmer ancestry and Asia (where waves of peoples—including predating the migrations of later wave of proto-Sinitic speakers—ultimately descended from the early neolithic farmers of Southern China spread all over South East Asia from the neolithic on, and whose crops, like Asian rice and Asian millet, spread to the north and south and in the case of rice into parts of India.
Also, I might quote it as RR explained (he might have put certain things better that I—and is in keeping with some of my points)
”
The first plants were domesticated in West Africa around 5000BCE, these crops (sorghum, African rice, pearl millet, yam, fonio) are direct descendants of their local wild ancestors and were not grown in the Middle East and North Africa”
It was Afro who wrote that, not RR, and his source was Wikipedia which said:
The first instances of domestication of plants for agricultural purposes in Africa occurred in the Sahel region circa 5000 BCE, when sorghum and African Rice (Oryza glaberrima) began to be cultivated.
The Sahel borders both the Horn of Africa and North Africa so agriculture in the Sahel 7 kya is consistent with diffusion from Caucasoid sources, given that agriculture had already reached Egypt by 8 kya and was rapidly spreading to Ethiopia.
“, Europe (where virtually all of the continent has significant neolithic Near Eastern farmer ancestry)…”
“So there were only five regions where independent agriculture was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Africa there was reasonable doubt and probably still is, unless some major discoveries have occurred in the last 13 years.”
The problem here is that you are still focusing on the nature of the discovery when it was young, not following when it developed despite the sources of following analyses since then. You mention that as a condition, yet you ignore it when either linked or explained in our comments.
“The Sahel borders both the Horn of Africa and North Africa so agriculture in the Sahel 7 kya is consistent with diffusion from Caucasoid sources, given that agriculture had already reached Egypt by 8 kya and was rapidly spreading to Ethiopia.”
Again, see my links and Jm8’s explanation which you barely covered.
“It was Afro who wrote that, not RR”,
my mistake
“The Sahel borders both the Horn of Africa and North Africa so agriculture in the Sahel 7 kya is consistent with diffusion from Caucasoid sources, given that agriculture had already reached Egypt by 8 kya and was rapidly spreading to Ethiopia.”
The locations, Senegal and Mali (the Western sahel and savannah), do not border the horn of Africa (which is in East Africa: Ethiopia,Somalia, etc). They are in the west, as I mentioned. The peoples of the Maghreb (western north Africa) were not agricultural at the time—and caucasoids had not reached that far south, not is there evidence of diffusion (as I explained).
The locations, Senegal and Mali (the Western sahel and savannah), do not border the horn of Africa (which is in East Africa: Ethiopia,Somalia, etc).
But the Ethiopian highlands border the Sudan region which includes southern Mali and borders Senegal. Hart argues agriculture spread from Ethiopia across the Sudan, reaching the Western Sudan 7kya
They are in the west, as I mentioned. The peoples of the Maghreb (western north Africa) were not agricultural at the time—and caucasoids had not reached that far south
But Caucasoid-black hybrids were already practicing agriculture in Ethiopia and their knowledge was spreading West across the Sudan region.
“Most of the peoples of the Maghreb (western north Africa) were not agricultural at the time, especially those nearer to the south”—and those that were became so no earlier than the Sahel.”
“But the Ethiopian highlands border the Sudan region which includes southern Mali and borders Senegal. Hart argues agriculture spread from Ethiopia across the Sudan, reaching the Western Sudan 7kya”
The Ethiopian highlands are nowhere near Southern Mali (which is in the general area that is refereed to as the “Western Sudan/ or Western sahel savanah, not the same or even overlapping (or related) with the country now known as Sudan—there is more than one region that has histiorically been given a name with “Sudan” in it, (the Arabs had a habit of referring to regions inhabited by blacks as “Sudan”—meaning roughly “land of blacks”.)
“But Caucasoid-black hybrids were already practicing agriculture in Ethiopia and their knowledge was spreading West across the Sudan region.”
As mentioned, Ethiopia is not in any sense on the way to the Mali/Senegal region—esp the S.West and South/Central Mali region), far from it, but in fact it is even further east than Egypt/Sudan(the country). (and the other center of domestication was in the Western forest region, likely around South Nigeria) And the aforementioned “spread” to that region s not well supported, as I have explained.
map of Africa:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/af.htm
Jm8 I’m quite aware of the distance between Ethiopia and Mali, but over thousands of years Hart argues there was still plenty of time for agriculture spread from Egypt to Ethiopia to the Eastern Sudan to the Western Sudan to tropical West Africa.
“Jm8 I’m quite aware of the distance between Ethiopia and Mali”
It didn’t seem that way when you said:
“But the Ethiopian highlands border the Sudan region which includes southern Mali and borders Senegal. ”
and
“The Sahel borders both the Horn of Africa”
And you argued that diffusion from Ethiopia was more likely because of the supposed proximity of Ethiopia to the Western sahel/savannah (a proximity that does not exist).
Ethiopia is not on the way to W. Africa from Egypt/North Sudan, it is southeast of Egypt/Sudan; even further.
South and central Mali and Senegal are even more remote from Ethiopia than
“tropical west Africa”/the forest region (south Nigeria where the forrest crops were likely domesticated) are. There is not evidence of agriculture spreading in west to either of those regions—as I have explained (and, as it happens, Central Africa, between Ethiopia and South Nigeria/North Cameroon was largely full of nomadic Pygmies—and possibly some pastoralists in parts of the S. Sudan, though they may have arrived later—, not farmers, and remained so until later.)
It didn’t seem that way when you said:
“But the Ethiopian highlands border the Sudan region which includes southern Mali and borders Senegal. ”
It didn’t seem that way to you because it doesn’t seem you know the difference between Sudan the country and Sudan the region, because if you did, you would agree with Wikipedia that:
The Sudan region extends in some 5,000 km in a band several hundred kilometers wide across Africa. It stretches from the border of Senegal, through southern Mali (formerly known as French Sudan when it was a French colony), Burkina Faso, southern Niger, northern Nigeria, northern Ghana, southern Chad, the western Darfur region of present-day Sudan, and South Sudan.To the north of the region lies the Sahel, a more arid Acacia savanna region that in turn borders the Sahara Desert further north, and to the east the Ethiopian Highlands (called al-Ḥabašah in Arabic).
and
“The Sahel borders both the Horn of Africa”
It does:
And you argued that diffusion from Ethiopia was more likely because of the supposed proximity of Ethiopia to the Western sahel/savannah (a proximity that does not exist).
I recall arguing for its proximity to the sahel, not the Western sahel.
Ethiopia is not on the way to W. Africa from Egypt/North Sudan, it is southeast of Egypt/Sudan; even further.
Yes I realize that, Jm8, but rereading Hart’s quote that I included in the article, he’s apparently arguing that agriculture spread southeast from Egypt to Ethiopia and then spread West.
“The Sahel borders both the Horn of Africa”
It does:
In the sense of the broad sahel, including the entire belt West to east, that is true. In the sense of the region of West Africa where farming started, it is not (which would seem more relevant and is what we were then discussing).
“It didn’t seem that way to you because it doesn’t seem you know the difference between Sudan the country and Sudan the region, because if you did, you would agree with Wikipedia that:”
I do know the difference. It borders the broad East to west belt that is sometimes inclusively called “the Sudan”. But the fact that it borders the eastern end of that region is much less relevant, considering that the centers of West African agriculture and crops were in the west (a region that does not remotely border the horn.). Thus stating that the horn borders the “sahel”, (without specifying) when the part of the Sahel assumed (or being discussed) is the west is somewhat misleading.
”(in reality agriculture caused a lot of disease and malnutrition).”
I think it was caused during the period of transition/adaptation to the agriculture.
Where to begin?
One, your shoehorned use of negroid for the people of PNG after rather than using obvious archaeology and genetic of PNG native divergence from eurasians of higher latitude, trying desperately to cling to one of the most unscientific tenants of Rushton and your own misrepresentation of Jensen’s analysis of genetics.
Second, your handwaving of PNG and African independent agriculture. First, you use two sources that aren’t even up to date, as 11 centers of origin are considered in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#Origins
As for Jm8, he already supplied more than enough information on agriculture in Africa.
Third, and most importantly, your quote mining of The 10,000 Year Explosion. They didn;t argue that the cold caused later innovation of humans, they argued specifically to neanderthal introgression, that they specifically contributed to them a “wider array of strategies” to survive in Europe.
Click to access the-10000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf
The genetic evidence they use for this, however, were from variants that were dated to coincide with entry into Europe but not proven to be of neanderthal origins and could’ve simply been a variant in humans selected during that time out of social competition, which is shown to be the largest overall driver of human evolution as both Melo and I pointed out.
It is even doubtful to assume a neanderthal source when previous neanderthal attributed cultures, as Jm8 pointed out, are now given to Sapiens, as well as them likely having weaker language than Sapiens on a comparative basis.
The book is just, however, in believing that they contributed genetically to Eurasians as aspects of there immune system support that.
One, your shoehorned use of negroid for the people of PNG after rather than using obvious archaeology and genetic of PNG native divergence from eurasians of higher latitude, trying desperately to cling to one of the most unscientific tenants of Rushton and your own misrepresentation of Jensen’s analysis of genetics.
I said they looked negroid. Whether they are negroid was an issue I avoided because it’s off-topic. And I’m pretty sure it’s you who misunderstood Jensen.
Second, your handwaving of PNG and African independent agriculture. First, you use two sources that aren’t even up to date, as 11 centers of origin are considered in history.
I acknowledged that Africa and PNG may have created agriculture, but also acknowledged there is skepticism. It seems strange that only five areas were considered agriculture pioneers in 2004 and now we’re supposedly at 11.
Third, and most importantly, your quote mining of The 10,000 Year Explosion. They didn;t argue that the cold caused later innovation of humans,
I never implied they did. I cited them only to claim that people weren’t genetically smart enough to invent agriculture during the Eemian, and yet during the Holocene, some (or all) races were smart enough to do so. My question was when and why in those intervening 100,000 years did this genetic change occur?
“I said they looked negroid. Whether they are negroid was an issue I avoided because it’s off-topic.”
Your further application of Rushton’s “Three Race Model” was my point, along that using negroid as a description in of itself to fortify it is obvious enough.
“And I’m pretty sure it’s you who misunderstood Jensen.”
Lets see, he established 3 things.
1. Relations were based on un selected DNA
2. Differences between them weren’t fully captured though, as in that selected DNA’s role in phenotype and function were undermined. This, by itself, says nothing about how they should be classified.
3. using variation that reflected selected DNa, the fell into the same pattern with each other.
Let me know if you have any FULL quote that argues that he agrees with you along with your quote.
“I acknowledged that Africa and PNG may have created agriculture, but also acknowledged there is skepticism. It seems strange that only five areas were considered agriculture pioneers in 2004 and now we’re supposedly at 11.”
That was over a decade ago, of course, that could’ve changed, There’s nothing “weird” about it, especially when the research was likely already in the making to verify the sites.
BTW, using a source of 2004 commenting on a 2003 wouldn’t imply there “is” skepticism, but there WAS skepticism. That doesn’t compete with later verification.
“I never implied they did. I cited them only to claim that people weren’t genetically smart enough to invent agriculture during the Eemian, and yet during the Holocene, some (or all) races were smart enough to do so. My question was when and why in those intervening 100,000 years did this genetic change occur?”
Had you read the rest of my comment, you would know that Cold winters isn’t the exclusive contributor.
Cavalli-Sforza used neutral DNA to make his trees because his goal was to determine which humans last shared a common ancestor, and unrelated people (i.e. Africans and Australoids) can falsely appear to be related, when in reality they just shared similar environments, not recent ancestry. Thus by excluding selected DNA and focusing only on neutral DNA, any genetic similarity reflects shared ancestry and not merely shared selection.
However Jensen noted that that a lot of the variance in Cavalli-Sforza’s data was related to climate, which suggests that some of the neutral DNA was not neutral after all.
Comma error
“That was over a decade ago, of course that could’ve changed. There’s nothing “weird” about it, especially when the research was likely already in the making to verify the sites.”
“Cavalli-Sforza used neutral DNA to make his trees because his goal was to determine which humans last shared a common ancestor, and unrelated people (i.e. Africans and Australoids) can falsely appear to be related, when in reality they just shared similar environments, not recent ancestry. Thus by excluding selected DNA and focusing only on neutral DNA, any genetic similarity reflects shared ancestry and not merely shared selection.”
That’s basically one of the points I made.
“However Jensen noted that that a lot of the variance in Cavalli-Sforza’s data was related to climate, which suggests that some of the neutral DNA was not neutral after all.”
He found one variation level to be related to latitude, then found a variation level of higher importance to more selected DNA within the unselected variation, resulting in the same pattern.
Again, disproving nothing I’ve already said.
He found one variation level to be related to latitude, then found a variation level of higher importance to more selected DNA within the unselected variation, resulting in the same pattern.
You sound confused. What Jensen found was that using Principal Component analysis, there were two major sources of variances in the genetic data: geographic distance from sub-Saharan Africa and climate (as you imply). The climate correlation caused Jensen to suspect that not all of the genes were selectively neutral.
Again, disproving nothing I’ve already said.
But you’ve repeatedly accused me of misinterpreting Jensen’s selected vs neutral DNA comments. I have no idea what you think I’m misinterpreting and what the relevance is, because so far, the only misinterpretations I see are yours.
“You sound confused. What Jensen found was that using Principal Component analysis, there were two major sources of variances in the genetic data: geographic distance from sub-Saharan Africa and climate (as you imply). The climate correlation caused Jensen to suspect that not all of the genes were selectively neutral.”
That’s just what I’ve said, that excludes however his analysis of isolating the non-neutral genes in which he found the same basic pattern that would be found in non-selected DNA which I included.
This is why I asked for a FULL QUOTE from him and not just your summary alone as a guide to see which one is correct.
“But you’ve repeatedly accused me of misinterpreting Jensen’s selected vs neutral DNA comments. I have no idea what you think I’m misinterpreting and what the relevance is, because so far, the only misinterpretations I see are yours.”
1. You pointed out no mispresentations of mine by Jensen, all you did was give a summary (a weak one at that) of his findings with selected and non selected DNA.
2. The misrepresentation, which out to be obvious as it was your intial crutch on validating Rushton’s use of negroid in a three race model, was using Jensen’s use of the term “selected dna” to include Andaman Islanders as Australoids as Negroids when he never used the concept on a taxonomical level.
That’s just what I’ve said, that excludes however his analysis of isolating the non-neutral genes in which he found the same basic pattern that would be found in non-selected DNA which I included.
He did NOT find the same pattern. He found TWO DIFFERENT sources of variance. One (the horizontal axis) that clustered the populations based on geographic distance from Africa, and the other (vertical axis) which clustered them based on climate. The latter variable Jensen suspected was non-neutral, since climate’s an obvious selection pressure:
This is why I asked for a FULL QUOTE from him and not just your summary alone as a guide to see which one is correct.
I don’t have time to type out the full quote but his book is online (see page 431 (book page number, not pdf page number):
Click to access The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
2. The misrepresentation, which out to be obvious as it was your intial crutch on validating Rushton’s use of negroid in a three race model, was using Jensen’s use of the term “selected dna” to include Andaman Islanders as Australoids as Negroids when he never used the concept on a taxonomical level.
Rushton largely ignored Andaman islanders and Australoids because of their uncertain racial status. Jensen did use the term Negroid (again see page 431) but he excluded Australoids from the Negroid group, since he was going by Cavali-Sforza’s PC analysis which primarily reflected neurtral DNA (though Jensen suspects the vertical dimension was non-neutral) which is why Negroid and dark skinned southeast Asian aboriginals are both in bottom quandrants:
“I can read it from my physical book and had no time to scroll through hundreds of pdf pages”
You wouldn’t need to with your book as a guide. I don’t even own the book in a physical copy and I managed it.
“Rushton felt australoids were either a subrace of one of the three races or that they were a separate race all together. He felt the same way about Amerindians.”
And scientifically speaking, the answer is that they were their own race.
“I never claimed Jensen used selected DNA to do racial taxonomy. I merely cited Jensen to explain to you the difference between neutral and non-neutral DNA.”
I’m quite familiar with the difference.
“Jensen probably viewed races as monophyletic categories and thus probably preferred taxonomy be based on neutral DNA, but he noted that Cavalli-Sforza’s data may not have been 100% neutral. It’s me (not Jensen) who suggested using paraphyletic groupings to define some races because these better fit the observed phenotypes.”
Yet in your original post on “selected DNA” and negroids you soley used a quote from Jensen on the matter as support, and from that point on you used assumptions and outdated taxonomy techniques to justify the classification to conform to the 3 race theory based on phenotypes.
Nowadays in taxonomy, due to cases of convergent evolution being found to explain similar traits and advances in genomics, molecular DNA is more reliable than phenotypes and the phenomenon that you describe in phenotype and DNA relation has to be observed in genomics.
“He did NOT find the same pattern. He found TWO DIFFERENT sources of variance. One (the horizontal axis) that clustered the populations based on geographic distance from Africa, and the other (vertical axis) which clustered them based on climate. The latter variable Jensen suspected was non-neutral, since climate’s an obvious selection pressure:”
From the g Factor, see that last two sentences-
They form quite widely separated
clusters of the various populations that resemble the “ classic” major racial
groups— Caucasians in the upper right, Negroids in the lower right, Northeast
Asians in the upper left, and Southeast Asians (including South Chinese) and
Pacific Islanders in the lower left. The first component (which accounts for 27 percent of the total genetic variation) corresponds roughly to the geographic
migration distances (or therefore time since divergence) from sub-Saharan Africa,
reflecting to some extent the differences in allele frequencies that are due
to genetic drift. The second component (which accounts for 16 percent of the
variation) appears to separate the groups climatically, as the groups’ positions
on PC2 are quite highly correlated with the degrees latitude of their geographic
locations. This suggests that not all of the genes used to determine genetic
distances are entirely neutral, but at least some of them differ in allele frequencies
to some extent because of natural selection for different climatic conditions.
8I have tried other objective methods of clustering on the same data (varimax
rotation of the principal components, common factor analysis, and hierarchical
cluster analysis). All of these types of analysis yield essentially the same picture
and identify the same major racial groupings.8
“I don’t have time to type out the full quote but his book is online (see page 431 (book page number, not pdf page number):”
You can’t copy and paste from the link?
Click to access The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
“Rushton largely ignored Andaman islanders and Australoids because of their uncertain racial status.”
No, he addressed them multiple times, linking them with Africans by correlation. Regarding taxonomy, he held “australoid” as a geographically different population from Africans but only distinguishes it from negroids once when he mentions scientists proposing new categories along with “Amerindian”, implying they were a subrace to Negroids under his three race model as Native Americans were to Mongoloids.
Click to access jp-rushton-race-evolution-behavior-unabridged-1997-edition.pdf
“Jensen did use the term Negroid (again see page 431) but he excluded Australoids from the Negroid group, since he was going by Cavali-Sforza’s PC analysis which primarily reflected neurtral DNA (though Jensen suspects the vertical dimension was non-neutral) which is why Negroid and dark skinned southeast Asian aboriginals are both in bottom quandrants:”
Jensen using the word negroid, specific distinguishing thetm from SE asians, doesn’t support the notion that Jensens uses selected DNA as a taxonomic feature. If anything that supports my point in which he wouldn’t use that one pattern to distort the role of greater taxonomy.
And Based on Skin Color and and Quadrant position, takining the plot seriously aborginals and PNG populations are the furtherest related to Africans of the SE asians inj the sample.
You can’t copy and paste from the link?
I can read it from my physical book and had no time to scroll through hundreds of pdf pages
No, he addressed them multiple times, linking them with Africans by correlation. Regarding taxonomy, he held “australoid” as a geographically different population from Africans but only distinguishes it from negroids once when he mentions scientists proposing new categories along with “Amerindian”, implying they were a subrace to Negroids under his three race model as Native Americans were to Mongoloids.
Rushton felt australoids were either a subrace of one of the three races or that they were a separate race all together. He felt the same way about Amerindians.
Jensen using the word negroid, specific distinguishing thetm from SE asians, doesn’t support the notion that Jensens uses selected DNA as a taxonomic feature.
I never claimed Jensen used selected DNA to do racial taxonomy. I merely cited Jensen to explain to you the difference between neutral and non-neutral DNA. Jensen probably viewed races as monophyletic categories and thus probably preferred taxonomy be based on neutral DNA, but he noted that Cavalli-Sforza’s data may not have been 100% neutral. It’s me (not Jensen) who suggested using paraphyletic groupings to define some races because these better fit the observed phenotypes.
presumably around 66, since aboriginals and bushmen are incredibly old but have yet to understand that sex leads to pregnancy, let alone that seeds lead to plants
PP,
not related to agriculture….. i am asking it just out of curiosity…. are your upper front teeth (i mean incisors) longer than your other upper teeth?
🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
According to this in 1922 all of the most intelligent blacks in the country were wiped out in a blaze of racist hellfire. Pumpkin what do you say about this?
That’s horrible
lol
So sad! Don’t laugh, this has been a tragic week!!!!!!!
Why in south Africa mixed race people score higher in IQ tests and other aptitudes tests than pure breed blacks??
oi mugabe
how do you reconcile hegel and heidegger: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/32/68252/hegel-versus-heidegger/
Pumpkin what is the IQ mankind needs to develop in order to produce and star in a mass synidicated TV talkshow?
IQ tests scores has been politicized, racialized, dramatized…
If cold temperatures lead to smarts, why are Germanics smarter than Slavs and Celts? Why are Japanese smarter than Arctics and Siberians?
Because cold is not the only factor.
AHA!!!!!!
SO FINALLY.
It all comes crumbling down for pumpkin. This facade of orderliness cold rationality is now buckling under the seams from all that explosuve guilt pumpkin has been nursing about his LIES about the weather. When will it all end pumpkin? Im prepared to forgive you. Only if you can forgive yourself.
After researching Richard Lynn’s methodology I’ve come to completely disbelieve in the credibility of his national IQ rankings.
Another thing that influences this is the comments Jm8 wrote regarding Africans and their intelligence.
While I originally saw all humans as more or less equal in IQ on average, my opinion was changed temporarily, but now I once again see all humans (on average, not on an individual basis) as being relatively equal, influenced only by factors such as height and nutrition.
The best use of IQ tests it seems, is to extract the money of idiots who pay to join high IQ societies.
You cant seriously believe that.
No, I was trolling. Richard Lynn’s IQ rankings are a fraud, however. Africans are smarter than he gave him credit for and Jm8 proved that. I have also read several criticisms of his methods. For example, he used malaria victims in his samples.
In my opinion Lynn’s numbers are very accurate in terms of how African school kids actually score on IQ tests, however because of extreme poverty, illiterate parents and diseases like malaria, IQ tests underestimate the phenotypic intelligence of African kids, let alone the genotypic intelligence.
What do you think about multirregional theory PP*
Don’t make sense one of the most ”primitive” human groups as abos be the most geographically distant. How they were capable to migrate to big and so distant continent as Australia**
Maybe their elites were wipe out of existence and or they suffered a long process of regressive evolution.
https://sciencing.com/distribution-fossils-plate-tectonics-theory-21505.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/research-shows-ancient-indian-migration-to-australia/4466382
I don’t believe in multiregionalism. Australoids migrated far but they took the southern route through India & thus never had to face the ice age which i think is partly what selected for more advanced traits
How you explain that very ”primitive” people be capable to this odyssey*
Both theories*
Multiregionalism and out of africa*
>’How they were capable to migrate to big and so distant continent as Australia** <''
Because of the presence of sundaland at that time which acted as a land bridge to australia.
I’m talking about how they were capable to move from so distant place aa Africa and why, how survive strategies they used because they look hopelessly incapable to explore many different environments.
They did it over a span of tens of thousands of years. Fire and stone and bone tools must have helped them in surviving. Not only that….they could have evolved higher visual memory as they kept migrating. I remember somebody here say they have it high. And usually hunter gather communities also know some kind of techniques which also help in surviving. For eg: Some communities store water in ostrich eggs, and bury them during times of abundance and dig them up during shortage. Also the environments through which they passed and settled ….were more or less the same…. except probably southern australia.
”how survive strategies they used because they look hopelessly incapable to explore many different environments.”
If you meant how did they develop those survival strategies?, they had time on their side. They developed these over a span of tens of thousands of years. Also they must have mostly stuck areas to areas that were abundant in food and other resources. As they were migratory some of them simply moved from one area to another abundant area if the area would become no longer sufficient to feed all of them.
Aboriginals seems to be only one known human groups with very lower avg IQ who live in other continent than Africa. I know they were migrating for thousands of years but they seems like san people or pygmies, I mean, not capable enough to explore new lands.
Aboriginals seems to be only one known human groups with very lower avg IQ who live in other continent than Africa
Historically they were considered part of the Negroid race even though they made it out of Africa. Most scientist now reject that theory because they’ve been genetically isolated from Negroids for 60,000 years, but i see no strong evidence either way
Homo erectus explored new lands which means all modern humans are capable of doing so, even San and pygmies. Only extremely cold climates are beyond the IQ of erectus and some modern human groups
Yes you guys are right I just find weird human migrations, bear in mind that we are talking a time that “planet Earth” was extremely mysterious and dangerous for humans. They had absolutely nothing beyond their local geographical knowledge. The reasons to abandon a to explore new ones must be significant.
Santo,
They fact that they migrated is evidence too that they are capable of migrating.
Yes but I want to know if the modern aboriginals are the same than older ones.
Santo,
I read a study a few years back that 4000 years ago or something…. some more people from india migrated to australia too. But they were a relatively small group as compared to the number of people who were already there. So most the aboriginals there are the same as the people who went there tens of thousands of years ago. Also it really wouldnt have been difficult to survive the wild or exploring and migrating to far off continents, as people at that time were doing it for a living. As they were born and brought up in hunter gatherer societies and quite of them later in migratory societies. They had also had clothing, stuck to the coast most of the time, knew fishing and hunting even before they left to settle in those areas, also fire, and stone and bone tools and weapons like i said before.
They must have fully been ready to do all that.
Yes I know it’s not so difficult to follow river path or coastal areas but based on British’ stories about them they seems pretty primitive or were.
If Homo erectus were able to travel great distances from ancestral Africa, even the most primitive modern humans can do the same.
Tick tock tick tock
All of pumpkins lifes work is starting to fall apart. I can almost hear the long slow gulping from him as he reads readers pick apart his cold weather theory limb from limb.
Wheb will all the guilt end pumpkin?
Most of the questions about cold winters have already been answered in various articles and via comments by PP. I think the idea is credible.
Pumpkin should read Lions excellent repost of a comment on his thread by a very smart math major about how the alt right is as bad as feminists with their RACISM and LIES about racial differences. Check it out: http://www.ihatenazis.com/comment21434
Pp,
do you think you’re capable to estimate IQ [”intelligence”/cognition] avg of american jews via income*
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
if the income and avg-social class IQ correlation is pretty high.
You could try, but Jews have higher incomes than expected from their IQs.
The average IQ of populations appears to be endogenous, related to the diverse stages of nations’ modernization, rather than being an exogenous cause of economic development.
Study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535713000991
On average, a person preoccupied with money problems exhibited a drop in cognitive function similar to a 13-point dip in IQ, or the loss of an entire night’s sleep. But when their concerns were benign, low-income individuals performed competently, at a similar level to people who were well off, said corresponding author Jiaying Zhao, who conducted the study as a doctoral student in the lab of co-author Eldar Shafir, Princeton’s William Stewart Tod Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs.
Algeria GDP per capita: 3,843.75 USD – Average IQ 83
Ireland GDP per capita: 61,606.48 USD – Average IQ 93
Given Ireland is 16x more wealthy than Algeria, I think Algerians have room to significantly improve their IQ.
“In the Netherlands an unaltered version of the SPM [Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices] was administered to male military draftees from 1952 to 1982. The 1982 cohort scored approximately 20 IQ points higher than the 1952 cohort.”
Lynn estimates that roughly half the low IQs of people in developing countries is genetic and half is environmental. So if black Africans are scoring 33 points below 100 (IQ 67) in their home countries, they would score about 17 points below 100 if born in the developed World (IQ 83). If Algerians are scoring 17 points below 100 (IQ 83) in their home countries, they would score around 9 points 100 if born in the developed World (IQ 91).
Pumpkin; an adopted black child scores 95 IQ in the study. Are you suggesting blacks are smarter than Berbers (IQ 91)?
Irish in Ireland score 93. Irish in America score 106. It’s cultural.
Perhaps the strongest evidence supporting this cultural rather than genetic hypothesis comes from the northwestern corner of Europe, namely Celtic Ireland. When the early waves of Catholic Irish immigrants reached America near the middle of the 19th century, they were widely seen as particularly ignorant and uncouth and aroused much hostility from commentators of the era, some of whom suggested that they might be innately deficient in both character and intelligence. But they advanced economically at a reasonable pace, and within less than a century had become wealthier and better educated than the average white American, including those of “old stock” ancestry. The evidence today is that the tested IQ of the typical Irish-American—to the extent it can be distinguished—is somewhat above the national white American average of around 100 and also above that of most German-Americans, who arrived around the same time.
Meanwhile, Ireland itself remained largely rural and economically backward and during the 1970s and 1980s still possessed a real per capita GDP less than half that of the United States. Perhaps we should not be too surprised to discover that Lynn and Vanhanen list the Irish IQ at just 93 based on two samples taken during the 1970s, a figure far below that of their Irish-American cousins.
Even this rather low Irish IQ figure is quite misleading, since it was derived by averaging two separately reported Irish samples. The earlier of these, taken in 1972, involved nearly 3,500 Irish schoolchildren and is one of the largest European samples found anywhere in Lynn/Vanhanen, while the other, taken in 1979, involved just 75 Irish adults and is one of the smallest. The mean IQ of the large group was 87, while that of the tiny group was 98, and the Lynn/Vanhanen figure was obtained by combining these results through straight, unweighted averaging, which seems a doubtful approach. Indeed, a sample of 75 adults is so small it perhaps should simply be excluded on statistical grounds, given the high likelihood that it was drawn from a single location and is therefore unrepresentative of its nation as a whole.
So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87, the lowest figure anywhere in Europe and a full standard deviation below than that of Irish-Americans, a value which would seem to place a substantial fraction of Ireland’s population on the edge of clinical mental retardation.
Lynn seems to have accepted this conclusion.
Consider, for example, the results from Germany obtained prior to its 1991 reunification. Lynn and Vanhanen present four separate IQ studies from the former West Germany, all quite sizable, which indicate mean IQs in the range 99–107, with the oldest 1970 sample providing the low end of that range. Meanwhile, a 1967 sample of East German children produced a score of just 90, while two later East German studies in 1978 and 1984 came in at 97–99, much closer to the West German numbers.
These results seem anomalous from the perspective of strong genetic determinism for IQ. To a very good approximation, East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable, while the recorded rise in East German scores of 7–9 points in just half a generation seems even more difficult to explain.
The dreary communist regime of East Germany was certainly far poorer than its western counterpart and its population may indeed have been “culturally deprived” in some sense, but East Germans hardly suffered from severe dietary deficiencies during the 1960s or late 1950s when the group of especially low-scoring children were born and raised. The huge apparent testing gap between the wealthy West and the dingy East raises serious questions about the strict genetic interpretation favored by Lynn and Vanhanen.
No Fenoopy, black kids adopted into white upper middle class homes scored 91 at age 7 and 84 by age 17:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/25/adoption-genetics-iq/
I just read the study myself, it turns out black people are genuinely mentally retarded if the findings are true, but I have faith.
“East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable”
Regardless, explain this.
IQ tests for kids seems easier than IQ test for adults, i mean, even for kids. It’s like mathematics in school. In elementary and primary school most kids like mathematics, they tend to find easier and practical to do math calculations than write stories. If mathematical intelligence is analysed in the first years of school i wonder if most kids will be good. But when the levels of difficulty increase most kids, at least in brazilian schools, start to dislike mathematics and have difficulty.
Mongolia GDP per capita: 3,686.45 USD – Average IQ 101
Qatar GDP per capita: 59,330.86 USD – Average IQ 78
Given Qatar is 16x more wealthy than Mongolia, I think Mongolians have room to significantly improve their IQ.
North Korea GDP per capita: 583.00 USD – Average IQ 106
UAE GDP per capita: 37,622.21 USD – Average IQ 84
Given UAE is 65x more wealthy than North Korea, I think North Koreans have room to significantly improve their IQ. (!!!)
“So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87, the lowest figure anywhere in Europe and a full standard deviation below than that of Irish-Americans, a value which would seem to place a substantial fraction of Ireland’s population on the edge of clinical mental retardation.”
Irish-Americans are a standard deviation smarter than Irish at home. We can only compare Caucasians here, not Asians.
I am convinced that Caucasians are relatively equal in genetic potential for intelligence, given for factors that modify IQ such as height.
I already commented long time ago, how agricultural turns people into autistics and lower their empathy levels, with more beta behaviors and lower testosterone . East Asians are the forefront of farming.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324
Mongolians average IQ (101) is strong evidence for cold winter theory.
Maybe but we need another prove that this people is the same than thousand years ago.
Mongolians also have bigger brains than other East Asians.
They also might have higher spatial IQ.
Quote :
According to a study by Richard Lynn, ethnic Mongol children in northern China had 5 points higher visiospatial IQ, but 10 points lower verbal IQ than the Han Chinese children. This makes Mongols possibly the most “visiospatial intelligence” oriented race. East Asians are already known for having the highest visiospatial scores, but Mongols seem to take that further.
In defense of the Mongolian verbal IQ score, ethnic Mongol children in China must learn 2 languages at once. This makes them have less expertise in one particular language, which could result in lower scores in the verbal sections of the test.
Other quote about Arctic people very high spatial IQ :
Lynn’s hypothesis would seem to predict that they would have the highest intelligence and the largest brain size of any race. Lynn’s review found that on average they did have larger brains than any other race. However, the median IQ of Arctic peoples according to Lynn’s data is 91. This is within the normal range but clearly not ‘superior’. The Inuit have an unusually strong visual memory ability that is not measured in standard intelligence tests. This was shown by Kleinfeld (1971) in a study of the visual memory of 125 Inuit village children in Alaska aged 9–16 compared with 501 white children in Anchorage and Fairbanks, the two principal towns in Alaska. The test consisted of the presentation of drawings for a brief period of time, after which the children were given the task of drawing them from memory. The Inuit children obtained a mean IQ of 106 in relation to a white mean of 100. Kleinfeld (p. 133) observes that this test result is consistent with the observations of travelers who have accompanied Inuit on long hunting expeditions. She writes that “Caucasians who have traveled with Inuit frequently remark on their extraordinary ability to travel through what seems to be a featureless terrain by closely observing the smallest land-marks and memorizing their spatial locations.”
Aside from my previous comment on brain size being closer to verbal than spatial IQ, pastoralism, either by culture itself or selection, influence spatial intelligence.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EEiLBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=pastoralism+and+spatial+IQ&source=bl&ots=E3jB6_cwDd&sig=cSf8W4IrNJom0nok1MdDPKylyKk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP1Z-Hn-TWAhUK4iYKHSDyDZIQ6AEISDAE#v=onepage&q=pastoralism%20and%20spatial%20IQ&f=false
Mongolians and Inuit are more mobile than other surrounding populations.
Second, Visual Memory is different from visio-spatial. That same trait Lynn found to be high in Australians as well, which was hypothesized be due to both inuit and Australian landscapes lacking distinguishable traits.
The hypothesis that Mongolian children score comparably Lower on verbal because they need to learn two language seems flawed. And more than one language advantage neo Marxists love to talk??
Exactly. In African Americans, who have higher verbal than Spatial, their ancestors often were neighbors of different languages and would often learn it.
So that hypothesis doesn’t seem to make logical sense on the surface unless they sacrifice knowledge each language speak them in a “broken” manner.
That’s not the interesting part, simply a personal opinion from the author of the quote.
So why Mongolians are mot great architects or engineers???
Spatial IQ seems to correlate almost perfectly with latitude/exposure to cold environment.
And about American ancient natives from north, central and south America??
Pumpkin, is there any information about native american and IQ ? because I found that this tribe, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community , succeeded in being the richest tribe in the USA. They earn 1M dollar per person (460 persons) and they started from scratch in 1969. It looks like they come from Indian who sided with US government during the Dakota war, friendly indians, but were still being poor during one century. They pay for all public services and spare loads of money while having extreme revenu. Only 5 of those indians work, so they have a voluntarily 99.2% unemployment rate. Average native american household revenu is 39K (60K for white and 36K for black). Other sioux are at 29K . So this tribe is really different from Sioux. On average, you see that the friendly tribes, who collaborated with USA are doing better that fierce tribes (the fiercest having been exterminated like Comanche excepted Apache) :
Chickasaw : $49,663[9]
Choctaw : $47,783[9]
Alaska Natives : $47,401[9]
Creek : $41,897[9]
Iroquois : $40,471[9]
Cherokee : $37,730[9]
Blackfeet : $37,033[9]
Chippewa : $34,463[9]
Lumbee : $33,863[9]
Navajo : $31,057[9]
Sioux : $29,079[9]
Apache : $28,745[9]
Native Americans score only slightly higher than African Americans, but this could be because:
1) Native Americans have much less white admixture than African Americans do
2) Native Americans live in much worse environments
My own view is that Native Americans have genetic IQs that are higher than Blacks’, but not as high as Whites’.
Must be similar to other amerindians like aztec descendants, maybe lower. If you use the guys architectural grandness IQ test, native americans have nothing.
I think australasians are the most genetically distant because more distant the group are from the original or basal populations more selective pressures, not necessarily in qualitative ways, they suffered, starting from the conclusive statement that out of africa theory is mostly or totally correct, i mean, all human groups: neanderthals and denisovans, came from basal humans who lived in african continent and not that they are totally local human variants.
One theory to explain why aboriginals look so hopelessly incapable and still the most distant groups would be that their original elites disappeared and they entered a long period of dysgenic effects.
”We”/me also don’t know if adaptation to different pathogens in different continents may have contributed to this genetic distance.
Aha!
Proof that the whites are inferior to jews! Bow to the star of david!! AHAHAHAHAHA
Source*
very interesting this patterns.
Pumpkin as a person of colour, I feel there is not enough diversity in space. Please support my campaign to go to space camp.
Pumpkin please explain the IQ gap between horses and zebras. Why are zebras testing lower than horses. is it because they’re african?
you’re hilarious sometimes Philospher. I think i m a good public for repetition humour.
The next time I go to Algeria, I will pay 5 people a day to take Ravens in a controlled environment and film each test in order to figure out once and for all if Lynn’s results are real. I will do testing first in Algiers, then in Kabylia from a sample of 100 people each.
I will measure 37 people with degrees, 63 without, choosing at random.
I don’t really care about legitimacy, I just want to find out for myself.
In my anecdotal experience all my family and extended family have IQ’s at the very least above 126 and all hold degrees.
When I go to France I will also test the IQ’s of French-Algerians in a similar manner.
WOW
Can I pay you to get on the phone with me to pick your brain?
Final veredict: SAME RACE THAN AFRICANS
Scientifically proved, 😉 (*-*)
“Not much is known about the intelligence of North Africans. In a compilation of the intelligence of the populations of 113 nations, Lynn & Vanhanen (2002, 2006) were only able to give an IQ for Egypt (81) among the North African nations. They assigned in addition an IQ of 85 to Morocco, but this was based on immigrants in the Netherlands who are not necessarily representative of the population. ”
Richard Lynn measured the IQ’s of Moroccan chavs in the Netherlands and attributed the same IQ (83) to Morocco and Algeria.
If I were to conduct a study on English chavs here in London, I too would come to the conclusion that Englishmen are mentally deficient.
It’s still doesn’t mean his deductions was wrong. It’s a lateral argument.
Lynn deduct average IQ of maghrebians analyzing a non representative group. So he was/is wrong.
Not necessarily.
Maybe some professions reflect more representativeness for certain group than for other if professions reflect social class which reflects avg IQ by social stratification.
I understand the point you’re making, but chavs don’t represent maghrebians. We have a word for the kind of young people that immigrate to the Netherlands/Europe for welfare, which translates to something like ‘useless assholes’. The English word is ‘chav’. An accurate study is necessary and Richard Lynn’s is not sufficient.
Especially given the Egyptian IQs are derived from a study on Egyptian university students.
“Results are reported for intelligence assessed with the Standard Progressive Matrices of a sample of students at Ain-Shams University in Cairo ( N = 2147). The sample obtained a British IQ of 81. Men students obtained a higher average IQ than women students 0.87 IQ points. Science students obtained a higher mean score than arts students by 11.5 IQ points. Men students had greater variability than the women students.”
Comparing the IQs of Moroccan immigrants/chavs (85) to Egyptian university students (81). Richard Lynn’s worldly rankings are inaccurate comparisons of entirely different groups from each country. Guesswork at best, which is understandable, given the scale.
I can tell you this much, I don’t have a genetic IQ of 83. I’d be a standard deviation away from clinically mentally retarded.
There is no difference between me, my family, my people, and the rest of the Caucasian race in genetic potential for intelligence. The 17 IQ difference between west and east Germans is proof of that, two genetically identical groups with radically different IQs. Culture and education is the deciding factor, along with other heritable traits such as height.
It’s not what you call “chavs” who participate in these IQ studies. Why are you so contemptuous ?
Its simply first world North Africans who scored 85. North Africans in their natural environment score 81.
You should be glad Lynn used first world North Africans who didn’t suffer any kind of malnutrition in his study.
No.
Well I also find avg IQ for university students around 80 pretty low if it’s expected they will score higher than avg. Your individual IQ genotypical potential/whatever maybe is in the similar levels than Europeans but we are talking about general or national avg, not about Maghrebian people as you but your local avg Joey. I find exploit European welfare quite clever but also indecent.
There is absolutely no evidences of North Africans being as smart as Whites. The only data we have show them to be somewhere inbetween Negroids and Europeans.
And no, “chavs” don’t participate in IQ studies. It’s generally people with some education. Please explain how a “chav” would have the information of an IQ study going on, and then bother taking the test.
They barely even know what an IQ test is, and hate “wasting” their time in anything related to school.
Very well, Truthteller. I will just have to accept I was born with a sub-human IQ. Your evidence is compelling.
”I will just have to accept I was born with a sub-human IQ”
Jeezis
the way you talk about this seems a good evidence…
He’s being sarcastic Santo.
So he’s being always sarcastic here…
Actually I’m just stating facts.
80-85 IQ is not subhuman IQ (it’s close de the world average, are you implying Humans have a subhuman average IQ?)
Not all North Africans have that IQ, some are higher, some are lower. you know, it’s an average (do you jknow what an average is?)
Of course you perfectly know that, and you are childishly being sarcastic because you don’t have any argument.
I’m implying, as I’ve said countless times, that Caucasians of all types have equal potential for intelligence. Be they Arab, Berber, Iranian, Slavic or Nordic.
I’ve provided plenty of evidence for my viewpoint.
Especially interesting is the difference in IQ between east and west Germans at 17 points.
This would put east Germans at a similar IQ to the Caucasians in developing countries, despite being genetically identical.
In my opinion, the only aspects that matter are physiological ones, such as height or cranial capacity.
”I’m implying, as I’ve said countless times, that Caucasians of all types have equal potential for intelligence. Be they Arab, Berber, Iranian, Slavic or Nordic.”
Based on what**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers
”I’ve provided plenty of evidence for my viewpoint.”
Where they are*
”Especially interesting is the difference in IQ between east and west Germans at 17 points.
This would put east Germans at a similar IQ to the Caucasians in developing countries, despite being genetically identical.”
They are not genetically identical, even northern germans are not exactly the same genetic-thing than southern germans/bavarians. Indeed we or at least me, still don’t know exactly if this differences were caused by many migration issues since the end of second war/mega-bullshit world or if they always were like that.
”In my opinion, the only aspects that matter are physiological ones, such as height or cranial capacity.”
é.
Nordics have bigger craniums than Arabs.
From both data and real life experience it’s pretty obvious Arabs are dumber than Europeans.
Morrocans score 85 in the first world. Just like US Blacks. Both groups are poor, ok. But would you say US Blacks have the potential to be as smart as Whites ? I don’t think so.
You simply don’t like the idea that your people could be, in average, intellectually inferior to Europeans.
Qataris score 78 despite all their wealth while the poorer Eastern Europeans score close to 100. And the even poorest Mongolians score 101.
The idea of Arabs being as smart as Whites is crazy.
Avg IQ of Maghreb countries is in the same level to Brazil and other latin murrican countries.
I’m wondering if everything that the brain can do is good for the intelligence. Or if the maxium of intelligence would be maximizing each of the function that the brain can do among the most able person for this function. It sounds logic – and sometimes Pumpkin develops that kind of perception of intelligence – but I’m not sure it’s true, because many function are archaic tools of the past.
For example, now, I remember Langan said he rarely remember his day to day activities and think people who can (I imagine hypermnesic people) are “like garbage collectors who can’t think deeply”.
It is interesting for me because now I know I have SDAM, I’ve noticed I can’t even remember what I’ve eaten during the day or even where I’ve been doing except if I have verbalized it. So I guess it’s the opposite of garbabe-collector. I collect absolutely nothing in an unconscious manner. All is erased except if I’ve thought effectively about it. Maybe it’s not an handicap even if it’s really bizarre.
I’m wondering if everything that the brain can do is good for the intelligence. Or if the maxium of intelligence would be maximizing each of the function that the brain can do among the most able person for this function. It sounds logic – and sometimes Pumpkin develops that kind of perception of intelligence – but I’m not sure it’s true, because many function are archaic tools of the past.
It really depends how you define intelligence. One definition is intelligence is the cognitive ability to problem solve, and the only way to measure that is to present someone with as many diverse problems to solve as possible and aggregate their performance on them all. This is pretty much what the best IQ tests (Wechsler) do.
Actually, there are some probable examples of that :
– Synesthesia:
Very few people have synesthesia. This is a wonderful ability but with very few practical interest neither for socializing nor problem solving. A criteria that it could have been prevalent, then an archaic trait, is this one : many people, when taking drugs, have experience of synestesia. So the capacity must be somewhere in our brain. It’s just that it has been blocked. Some people with aphantasia like me say they can see images while taking drugs.
– Vivid (hyperrealistic) mental imagery :
people on drugs can also have hyper-realistic images and sensations. Aphantasia people when they dream, wich is rare, have also exactly the same hyper-realistic images. Maybe having such interesting and vivid recollections wasn’t good for the survival (you’ll get stuck into your inner life).
– Extreme ability in episodic memory :
Hypermnesia is also quite rare. It’s not associated with high IQ but with an obsessive training of remembering thing past. Maybe it’s not good for evolution to have too much of an episodic memory but interesting enough for keeping the function. Peope’s identity is much weaker when you don’t recall memories.
– Schyzophrenic mind and having multi personalities :
Schyzophrenic people hear many voices and experience like a theater of characters in their head. Some can also split litteraly their personality. Socially, it could have been bad to deal with people who are different characters at the same times. Don’t mean that’s bad in itself.
It’s sinastesia a ability??
Pumpkin, I was thinking both about this definition and your other one, the capacity to adapt to life environment. If you could give people problem solving tasks 16 hours a day, every day during one year, then many people who would do very good during a 8 hours tests, would fall because the task would be incompatible with their other need. This part is what your real life and IQ correlation takes into account, even if it is growth because so many factor count, and tests don’t.
I was thinking about that because my constant thinking about many field can be partially attributed to my SDAM. As I don’t collect nor recollect memories, it frees the logical mind for everything else. So in a test where the task would entail mental imagery or recollection, I would fail. But for everything else, it’s a huge advantage. Maybe in prehistoric time, people with my condition SDAM/Aphantasia would have created a new race, because they would have been able to kill much more animals and ennemies and build cities 🙂 Maybe there is some wonderful cognitive function – like mental imagery or episodic memory – that have been lost down the road. Sure the Neanderthal had some capacities we don’t.
I was thinking about that because my constant thinking about many field can be partially attributed to my SDAM. As I don’t collect nor recollect memories, it frees the logical mind for everything else. So in a test where the task would entail mental imagery or recollection, I would fail. But for everything else, it’s a huge advantage.
So then what’s the problem? You fail the one subtest requiring visual imagery but ace all the others, and end up with a high overall score. The test then correctly reflects your cognitive adaptability!