In honor of Halloweek, I thought I’d share a terrifying little tidbit I learned from a great lecture by professor Henry Gilbert. At the 1 hr 14 min mark in the below video he mentions a theory that the really thick crania observed in Homo Erectus may have been an adaptation to the fact that they were bashing each other’s heads in. This is wildly speculative but this might also help explain extreme selection for brain size we see in Erectus, since 1) winning fights requires brain functions like intelligence and physical coordination, 2) head butting people requires a large cranium, 3) some research claims big brains can absorb more insults though this is disputed, and 4) selection for brain size was paralleled by selection for height, which is also useful in combat, especially head butting.
Another point Gilbert makes is that the huge brow ridges of Homo Erectus might be explained by their robust cranium combined with small frontal lobes (compared to modern humans).
In my last article I discussed the opening scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which really emphasized Raymond Dart’s killer ape theory that was popular in the 1960s but has since fallen out of favour, which is a bit surprising given the facts that 1) violence is an obvious selection pressure for intelligence 2) humans are incredibly violent creatures and so are our ape relatives the chimpanzees, and 3) genetic evidence confirms that anatomically modern humans rapidly replaced all other “human” species with only minimal admixture. On the other hand, there isn’t much evidence the replacement was violent, other than a controversial claim that we ate Neanderthals and the fact that caves occupied by Neanderthals were often taken over by modern humans quite rapidly.
One problem with the killer ape theory is that a recent paper claimed that contrary to Gilbert, cranial thickness was not exceptionally extreme in Erectus.
“3) some research claims big brains can absorb more insults though this is disputed”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why are you laughing?
it’s just amusing. big brains absorbing insults as if they do mental damage like stones do physical damage
You’re thinking of “insult” as defined as a disrespectful comment. I’m using the biological definition of “insult” which means an event that damages your tissue or organs.
Thicker brains not bigger brains.
But they are correlated.
Caveman Europ, Ice age.
i see. that was funny. probably rock throwing though, not headbutting
Body/muscle strength to survive predators and competition in modern humans were selected against intelligence since intelligence made those traits uneasily. If your group worked together intelligently you did not need strong muscles or strong bones. You outwit the competition and the leaders are chosen as the smartest hunters. Human features could emerge if smarter apes to look more human and have more offspring. A smarter head is better than a strong head. When you are smarter your environment is safer meaning raising kids is more K selected. Kids that get treated better by smarter parents in prehuman Africa survive and pass on intelligence and human traits.
So your hypothesis is diametrically opposed to this.
yes
smart heads do not need hardness.
Smart heads keep the head safe thus no need for hardness.
My hypo-thesis is that laziness and fear made humans invent tools to do things without huge direct risk. A way to reach the same end but in safer way = early human practical creativity.
yes humans are violent, but headbutting? no, probably projectile throwing. stones, spears, etc. get hit in the head, die. still doubt it would influence skull evolution
humans have absolutely outstanding aim.
This coincides with the social competition hypothesis
I 100% agree violence did influence the way the skull evolved. I have said it as a kind of joke, but in barbarian and primitive socieites e.g Africa , you literally will get your head bashed in by a jealous rival, tribal assault, larger ‘bullies’, or general warfare/hunting reasons.
I also would suggest the mind evolves to violence, by developing paranoid type schiz tendencies.
I also would suggest the mind evolves to violence, by developing paranoid type schiz tendencies.
Right, because if a rock hits you on the head, it’s better to assume someone through it at you then to assume it fell on you naturally, because being wrong about the latter can cost you your life. I think theism is a relic of this kind of ancient paranoid thinking, because it’s safer to assume everything happened for some intentional reason, causing folks to anthropomorphize all natural events.
I dont know where you get this idea that all people who believe in a god believe in a ‘anthropomorphic’ god. I dont. I believe in a god that doesnt have a known form. There is a driving force behind every thing in the universe/multiverse. That force i call god. Everything may seem random but it isnt. Laws exist in nature. If it was random no natural laws would have existed.
I don’t mean physically anthropomorphic, but if you believe something intentionally created the universe, then you’re anthropomorphising.
that god is called nature, not god
Fenoopy,
How do you know when i am thinking god i am thinking nature.
I mean what makes you think when i am thinking god i am thinking nature? Damn my british english.
Paranoia is a excessive state of defensiveness. Defensiveness is the pre state that precede violent approach.
Well here’s something controversial. Its hard for me to put this into words. If you ever notice a lot of rac-ist people use very common language to describe young blacks. The talk about them using words like ‘ a pack of’, ‘feral’, ‘wild’, ‘savage’….it brings to mind a collective pack mind.
On the other hand, I’ve seen HBDers and even normies use ‘hive’, ‘robotic’ and ‘ant’ to describe east asians in particular.
One thing I would suggest is that evolution involves group level strategies and in my opinion, people of various races evolve to associate with their tribesmen in particular ways.
For example, the well know affinity for jews to favour their own in all endeavours and fields, even if there are more qualified gentiles, brings to me a cult like phenomenon.
If I’m right, the chances of an average black from say, Canada, joining a gang is much higher than an East Asian growing up in Canada in the same building. Even if there are no other blacks around and he is raised by an asian mother.
This ties in to how humans evolve in violent environments. Joining a gang is very rational actually for most people in a ghetto. But the difference is that blacks don’t autistically do it after a cost benefit exercise, they instinctively ‘feel’ like they want to join a gang. This is what I’m trying to say here.
But the difference is that blacks don’t autistically do it after a cost benefit exercise, they instinctively ‘feel’ like they want to join a gang.
But that is a cost-benefit analysis: Joining gang feels good (benefit), and I’m no afraid (no cost), thus benefits (+2) – costs (0) = positive number; ergo join gang. Obviously the thought process isn’t that formal, but in an intuitive way, perceived benefits outweigh perceived costs.
You sound like ab academic economist bending words to fit a one true narrative of what is rational.
So autistically seems better and legitimately rational than “feel”.
Yes, maybe i’ve used the wrong term. Its seems theres a very fine line between deism and pantheism. In my mind, I don’t think ‘God’ has a personality or ‘desires’ or even has ‘reason’. I think there is a reason why it wishes to evolve. I think it bestows meaning to the things it creates to allow them to do with it as they wish.
I think It has a kind of ‘eugenic instinct’ for why there should be something rather than nothing….it basks in the glow of its creations in the same way flowers bask in the sun.
I think it can conceive of good and evil however. In the sense that good things are pro life and ‘evil’ things to it are ‘anti life’…or a corruption of life, and expression.
You can rejoinder at this point: are viruses really ‘evil’? – they kill the host and itself. So that is not what would be hypothetically desired by a Creator. And you can then split down two roads here to answer back: 1. Viruses improve life, but removing the weak. or, 2. The way other oraganisms react to viruses shows that It does not like them.
Maybe you can create the pantheist version of ‘The Devil’ at this point. You can say there is a ‘null force’ in the universe that wants to bring back the Void and so organisms like parasites and certain middle eastern peoples are kind of its ‘manifestations’.
I think the key to it has always been aesthetics. If you believe we are manifestations of God, they way we react to certain creatures, organisms or events in our perceptions, limited as they may be, is a kind of inference on how the original substance ‘sees’ these things.
At the end of the day as further foundation for this Manichean narrative, you have to question the existence of time because if there was no null force, this would surely all be a fait accompli, and there is no need for entropy, given that you would inevitably reach nirvana with no null force restrictions, almost instantly.
there is no good and evil. middle eastern people most certainly aren’t evil, also.
childish thought process.
you need to properly read spinoza’s work to understand the pantheistic god/nature.
there isn’t good or evil, just entropy and negative-entropy. they work as a cycle. negative-entropy to a maximum point, then bang, entropy and it all starts again. forever.
that said i still think we’re in a video game
Because there are avg it’s doesn’t mean no have good or evil dude.
It’s exactly otherwise fenucktard. Childish thought for humans is to deny that there are polarity in their actions.
Moral awareness and self awareness is the same thing.
no you retard, you and your moral religion is utter stupidity. moral awareness? the jew master has really beat it into you. morals have no place in the real world and neither are they objective. good and evil doesn’t exist objectively too, you moron. good and bad does, because this is a system of reward/punishment present in the brain. go back to church
also i can barely understand what you’re saying i can’t tell if it’s because you’re dyslexic or because you’re foreign and can’t speak english
Fenucktard is extremely stupid. The prize of the dumbest here is yours. It’s called philosophy your little brain is incapable to understand, the same level of feral beasts. And I will not waste my time trying to explain deep but also basic philosophical things, COMPLETELY RETARD, expected from the “Menas”.
All lies isn’t?? Supposedly my three short comments you’re incapable to understand.
Mo doubt
Amoral people don’t understand morality as well psychopath don’t understand guilty.
Because the reality right now is that shit it’s doesn’t mean morality specially objective morality is useless totally otherwise.
Because most people are dumb as you it’s doesn’t mean intelligence is incorrect.
I’m offending you. It’s supposedly “Evil”??? Why you become offended??
look santo, maybe there’s some merit in whatever you’re trying to get across, but i can’t understand a word you’re saying
it’s like when you’re angry the dyslexia goes into overdrive
maybe get pumpkin or someone who does to translate
>”the jew master has really beat it into you.<''
And this coming from a person with part jewish ancestry if i remember correctly. Talk like that will only increase anti-semitism. Zip it.
It’s not dyslexia you cretin…
maybe another DISHONEST EXCUSE from you…
c’mmon man
three SHORT comments and you supposedly can’t understand nothing i said/wrote*
give me a break.
The fact one has the capability to label something with the emotional timbre of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would seem to me be enough evidence that It too, sees things this way. This is a kind of variation on Aquinas argument actually. Notice the way what constitues good and evil behaviour is remarkably consistent across human beings and I propose, even lesser organism…and probably alien lifeforms.
no it isn’t.
good and bad are. good = reward
bad = punishment
we are rewarded for actions that secure our continued existence, as being rewarded for the opposite means we simply don’t exist.
therefore, all beings that exist, will think in a way that ensures their continued existence, for not to do so means they do not exist
Youre talking about it in a utility way. I mean a general aesthetic way of what is beauty and the beast.
the reason the consistency will always be the same, even with alien life-forms, is due to the rule of existence
i don’t know what you mean by aesthetic. what we like subjectively? don’t know
Yes, Im just like you Fenoopy. I don’t ‘consider’ what I’m saying in a kind of lego block way either. Everything flows like a river. and if the water is getting sloppy or flows into the wrong places I will ‘feel’ something is not logical or ‘wrong’. I can sit in front of someone and not prepare any notes and talk about most random topics for 15 minutes.
Same with essays. I never plan short stories, history essays, why I deserve the job blurbs or things. I don;t think you can write good music like that.
ya, also think like that, am definitely not a lego-blocker
i need very little evidence to ‘know’ certain axioms with 100% certainty too, unlike lego-block thinkers
Right. Ive been saying for months you do not need 60 controlled studies to say certain things about something. In my opinion, many ‘academic’ findings are fraudulent or junk science.
Good post. You can look at comparative anatomy and see that erectus yarn a human like shoulder and so could club and throw rocks. I’ve written at length that erectus was the first to have our modern body plans.
TBI is another pressure for brain size (do you have that reference on hand that you showed me back in the spring on TBI being a cause for brain growth 3mya? I lost it). Of course you all know that I back Skoyles’ hypothesis on expertise and IQ. Even if the expertise thing is false, it leaves the idea open that most of our brain mass post-erectus is redundant.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/28/microcephaly-and-normal-iq/
So how well equipped was Homo erectus? To throw some figures at you (calculations shown in the notes), easily well enough. Of Nariokotome boy’s 673 cc of cortex, 164 cc would have been prefrontal cortex, roughly the same as half-brained people. Nariokotome boy did not need the mental competence required by cotemporary hunter-gatherers. … Compared to that of our distant ancestors, Upper Paleolithic technology is high tech. And the organizational skills used in hunts greatly improved 400,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago. These skills, in terms of our species, are recent, occurring by some estimates in less than the last 1 percent of our 2.5 million year existence as people. Before then, hunting skills would have required less brain power, as they were less mentally demanding. If you do not make detailed forward plans, then you do not need as much mental planning abilities as those who do. This suggests that the brains of Homo erectus did not arise for reasons of survival. For what they did, they could have gotten away with much smaller, Daniel Lyon-sized brains.
Most brain size increase post-erectus is redundant in terms of IQ.
Good post.
Thanks
TBI is another pressure for brain size (do you have that reference on hand that you showed me back in the spring on TBI being a cause for brain growth 3mya? I lost it).
I don’t recall the name of that specific reference, but here’s a reference that makes the same point. Also, on the bottom page of this book, they also talk about fossil evidence for traumatic brain injury and head injury in Neanderthals.
Of course you all know that I back Skoyles’ hypothesis on expertise and IQ.
I respect his argument that brain size must relate to parts of intelligence not measured by IQ tests, however I think IQ tests do an excellent job measuring the parts of intelligence related to expertise. For example, the Wechsler subtests that relate most to acquired knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, general knowledge) have among the highest loadings on the g factor. So clearly high IQ is closely linked to the brain capacity to become an expert, however expertise is not merely a cognitive variable. It also requires you to be interested, even obsessed, with a topic for years, and have the opportunity to learn about it.
Skoyles argument might have been better if he picked social IQ or executive function instead of expertise, as these are parts of intelligence perhaps not well measured by most IQ tests
So how well equipped was Homo erectus? To throw some figures at you (calculations shown in the notes), easily well enough. Of Nariokotome boy’s 673 cc of cortex, 164 cc would have been prefrontal cortex, roughly the same as half-brained people. Nariokotome boy did not need the mental competence required by cotemporary hunter-gatherers. … Compared to that of our distant ancestors, Upper Paleolithic technology is high tech. And the organizational skills used in hunts greatly improved 400,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago. These skills, in terms of our species, are recent, occurring by some estimates in less than the last 1 percent of our 2.5 million year existence as people. Before then, hunting skills would have required less brain power, as they were less mentally demanding. If you do not make detailed forward plans, then you do not need as much mental planning abilities as those who do. This suggests that the brains of Homo erectus did not arise for reasons of survival. For what they did, they could have gotten away with much smaller, Daniel Lyon-sized brains.
I thought you and Skoyles believed brain size did evolve for survival, since expertise was needed to survive.
“I don’t recall the name of that specific reference, but here’s a reference that makes the same point. Also, on the bottom page of this book, they also talk about fossil evidence for traumatic brain injury and head injury in Neanderthals.”
The paper was strictly on TBI over our evolutionary history, and I believe cited erectus and Australopithecus as the ones who engaged in those activities. I’ll find it later. I cited it somewhere on my blog.
“For example, the Wechsler subtests that relate most to acquired knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, general knowledge) have among the highest loadings on the g factor.”
I understand the arg, it is good. Got a source? See table 3 of this paper:
Click to access science_education.pdf
(Though I am aware there are other versions of the WISC and I know you know more than me here so I’ll wait for your cite.)
That what you’re talking about?
Have you seen my critiques on g and physiology on my blog?
However, Skoyles talks about expertise related to our survival in an evolutionary context. I don’t think IQ tests would test for, say, survivability but am open to data/args on the matter.
“So clearly high IQ is closely linked to the brain capacity to become an expert, however expertise is not merely a cognitive variable. It also requires you to be interested, even obsessed, with a topic for years, and have the opportunity to learn about it.”
I disagree. But I’ll get into that later.
Expertise, as said by Skoyles (pg. 2 of his paper): “The capacity for expertise correlates absolutely with brain size: to have more capacity for expertise, a brain must be bigger. The capacity reflects the number of “information chunks” that can be created and processed, which may in turn be related to the number of the cortical columns (Jerison 1991).
(ii) Expertise plays a critical role in the survival of simple hunter-gatherers (Lee 1979); early humans would have been under evolutionary pressure to increase their capacity for expertise. Hence, empirical data could be brought to bear on whether it was expertise capacity (rather than IQ) that selected for increased brain size.”
And on obession, I agree there. Read this paper by Skoyles (which is a response to a critique of his expertise/brain size argument):
His criticism is that long term motivations are needed for the acquisition of expertise. Prudkov has identified a weakness in the present literature in the subfield that studies expertise: what is the nature and origin of the motivation — perfectionism — that leads people to engage in the prolonged practice needed to become experts? I show that this motivation is peculiar, species-specific and appears to be central to human evolution. However, it complements rather than replaces (as suggested by Prudkov) the role of expertise in the evolutionary near doubling of human brain size.
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.054
So think of this, not of terms of the modern day, but 2 mya when we were just evolving our modern body plans.
“Skoyles argument might have been better if he picked social IQ or executive function instead of expertise, as these are parts of intelligence perhaps not well measured by most IQ tests”
Eh. Google says executive functuion is ‘a set of mental skills to help you get things done’, which would coincide with Skoyles’ perfectionism argument.
On executive functioning, that’s the role of the PFC. The PFC is also the most plastic part of the brain iirc (will get reference later).Re social IQ: I believe that’d tie into expertise, since you’d need others to show you how to become experts (read the part on Bushmen and tracking).
“I thought you and Skoyles believed brain size did evolve for survival, since expertise was needed to survive.”
That quote was talking about how ‘well-equipped’ erectus would have been today. And since, for instance, Nariokotome boy’s estimated cc is between 8 and 900 cc, this implies that, looking at cases of people like Daniel Lyon (624 grams).
Nariokotome boy would have had a larger brain than, say, Daniel Lyon at adulthood. Skoyles and Sagan state that this implies (they also cite like 8 studies in regards to this quote: “And the organizational skills used in hunts greatly improved 400,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago.”) that erectus, like Nariokotome boy, could have survived just fine with a Daniel Lyon-sized brain, and not needed a brain as large as he did.
One last quote from the book:
Kanzi seems to do remarkably well with a chimp-sized brain. And while we tend to link retardation with small brains, we have seen that people can live completely normal lives while missing pieces of their brains. Brain size may enhance intelligence, but it seems we can get away without 3 pounders. Kanzi shows there is much potential in even 13 oz.
So Skoyles and Sagan do concede that brain size ‘may’ enhance intelligence, but state we can get away without ‘3 pounders’. I don’t discredit brain size, it’s clear we need it (for some reason, jury is out for what), but they make great arguments that we can get by with erectus brains.
In regards to Kanzi: They (researchers) were trying to teach Kanzi’s adopted mother signing and then how to take words they hear and hit buttons on a computer. Without even being specifically told the instructions, Kanzi picked it up. Pretty incredible.
One last thing PP.
Care to do something on Koko the gorilla’s IQ? Here is some data:
From September 1972, when we administered the Cattell Infant
Intelligence Scale, through May 1977, when I administered form B of
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, she has scored consistently in
the 70 to 90 range on different IQ scales. These scores reflect her
mental age divided by her chronological age, the result of which is
then multiplied by 100. Such scores in human infants would suggest
the subject is slow, but not mentally retarded. In Koko’s case, it is
specious to compare her IQ directly with that of a human infant. For
one thing, the two mature differently. Many of the early tests require
mostly motor responses. Gorillas develop locomotor facilities earlier
than human infants do, but of course, do not develop bipedal walking
skills or fine motor control as quickly or as well as we do. Moreover,
as suggested earlier, there is not an exact match between the level of
maturity of a three-and-one-half-year-old gorilla and a three-and-one-half-year-old
human infant. Therefore, since chronological age is the
divisor in the equation that is used to compute IQ, the IQ obtained is
not very useful for comparative purposes.
pg 99: http://www.koko.org/sites/default/files/root/pdfs/teok_book.pdf
If you could write something up about this so I can cite it when morons say ‘Koko is smarter than Africans’, it’d be greatly appreciated.
Well even assuming the age is an accurate proxy for comparison, koko’s IQ would still be lower than Africans.
More specifically if the IQ gap first appears at age 3 and koko was 3, then it is a possibility that koko is more intelligent than black toddlers,(black children scored a mean of 79 on the Peabody test) but thats not surprising because pigs and dogs are even suggested to be more intelligent than very young children. Lolo is not more intelligent than an adult african.
https://humanvarieties.org/2013/05/26/the-onset-and-development-of-b-w-ability-differences-early-infancy-to-age-3-part-1/
Koko*
I understand the arg, it is good. Got a source? See table 3 of this paper:
Table 3 has g loadings in specific education groups, but table 5 of the same paper has g loadings for Spain’s general population and you’ll note that both the Information and Vocab subtests have high g loadings (0.7+), though interestingly, some of the other subtests that are considered poor measures of g in the U.S. do quite well in Spain. Meanwhile in the U.S. standardization of the WISC-R in the early 70s, both Vocab and Information have g loadings of roughly 0.7 in both whites and blacks, and Vocab is the most g loaded for both groups with Information not far behind (see table 3). In the U.S. WAIS-IV standardization they don’t rank quite as high but still have g loadings of 0.65 for Information and 0.72 for Vocab. In the U.S. WAIS-III and WISC-III both Vocab and Information have incredibly high g loadings (roughly 0.78 to 0.83).
On page 6 of A Quest of Intelligence by Daniel Seligman, he writes “Both Vocabulary and Information correlate about 0.8 with overall IQ–a figure higher than those for any other subtests”. Of course overall IQ is not identical with g and the subtest structure of the Wechsler scales has changed a lot since Seligman wrote that, but in most large nationally representative U.S. samples, these subtests are strong predictors of both g and especially full-scale Wechsler IQ.
Have you seen my critiques on g and physiology on my blog?
I have but I found them unconvincing because:
1) Jensen showed high g loadings for composite measures of reaction time, choice reaction time, and reaction time variability, so unless his claims have been discredited, you should mention them.
2) just because reaction time can be improved doesn’t mean it’s not physiologically linked to g. How much can it be improved? Muscles can be improved, yet they’re physiological. Although I’m not necessarily arguing g or IQ is as malleable as muscles because it may instead be a very rigid trait like height. That’s actually something I’m very interested in understanding.
3) Just because physiologists tend not to rank traits in the same way IQ is ranked, doesn’t mean physiological traits can’t be ranked. Strong muscles are generally considered better than weak muscles for example.
But I don’t want to get dragged into an off-topic discussion about chronometrics and physiology, so if you wish to discuss that topic further, please write a guest article and I’ll respond there.
However, Skoyles talks about expertise related to our survival in an evolutionary context. I don’t think IQ tests would test for, say, survivability but am open to data/args on the matter.
Well if high IQ people are experts at today’s culture (which is what Information and Vocab test) then why wouldn’t they have been experts at prehistoric culture?
Expertise, as said by Skoyles (pg. 2 of his paper): “The capacity for expertise correlates absolutely with brain size: to have more capacity for expertise, a brain must be bigger. The capacity reflects the number of “information chunks” that can be created and processed, which may in turn be related to the number of the cortical columns (Jerison 1991).
But how do you measure the capacity for expertise? People are experts in different areas depending on their life experience. Who has more expertise? A math professor, a chess master or a personal trainer? Each could be experts in their own field but could be ignorant outside of it. So one way to measure the brain’s capacity for expertise is with general knowledge items like Wechsler’s Information subtest. By sampling knowledge of everything from science to geography to politics to pop-culture, individual specialization cancels out, and you get a sense of the brain’s raw biological ability to absorb and retrieve information. And this ability seems strongly linked to g.
Expertise plays a critical role in the survival of simple hunter-gatherers (Lee 1979); early humans would have been under evolutionary pressure to increase their capacity for expertise. Hence, empirical data could be brought to bear on whether it was expertise capacity (rather than IQ) that selected for increased brain size.
He could be right that expertise capacity was the form of intelligence most selected for, but given that expertise capacity is directly measured by IQ tests, the argument’s a bit redundant. Kind of like saying, it’s not basketball ability the NBA selects for, but rather the ability to get the ball through the hoop.
His criticism is that long term motivations are needed for the acquisition of expertise. Prudkov has identified a weakness in the present literature in the subfield that studies expertise: what is the nature and origin of the motivation — perfectionism — that leads people to engage in the prolonged practice needed to become experts? I show that this motivation is peculiar, species-specific and appears to be central to human evolution. However, it complements rather than replaces (as suggested by Prudkov) the role of expertise in the evolutionary near doubling of human brain size.
Well I feel the same way about his theory. Since expertise capacity is a part of IQ, it complements rather than replaces the supposed role of IQ in the near tripling (not doubling) of human brain size. And it’s plausible that personality variables like perfectionism (that helped us direct our IQs towards becoming experts at say, making stone tools or taming fire or knowing which berries were poison) were also selected.
Eh. Google says executive functuion is ‘a set of mental skills to help you get things done’, which would coincide with Skoyles’ perfectionism argument.
Not really. A lot of autistics are experts yet quite impaired in executive functioning.
Re social IQ: I believe that’d tie into expertise, since you’d need others to show you how to become experts (read the part on Bushmen and tracking).
But you also need it when you’re not an expert, and must charm one into hunting your dinner for you or making your fire.
Nariokotome boy would have had a larger brain than, say, Daniel Lyon at adulthood. Skoyles and Sagan state that this implies (they also cite like 8 studies in regards to this quote: “And the organizational skills used in hunts greatly improved 400,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago.”) that erectus, like Nariokotome boy, could have survived just fine with a Daniel Lyon-sized brain, and not needed a brain as large as he did.
It’s hard to say because although Acheulean tools seem simple, creating them for the first time, in a culture where you have so little previous knowledge and understanding to build on, may have required more creativity than we think. The Erectus who first did that may have been a genius relative to his species and greatly increased the fitness of his tribe (who shared copies of his big brained genes). One would need to do an experiment where a bunch of people with an erectus brain size distribution played some early stone age survivor game, and then we could see whether IQ or expertise capacity was a better independent predictor of performance.
So Skoyles and Sagan do concede that brain size ‘may’ enhance intelligence, but state we can get away without ‘3 pounders’. I don’t discredit brain size, it’s clear we need it (for some reason, jury is out for what), but they make great arguments that we can get by with erectus brains.
Most people with erectus sized brains can’t get by. But I see your point: If brain size was only needed to enhance IQ, and is otherwise a liability, why wouldn’t evolution have just selected high IQ microcephalics since they clearly exist. It’s a very good question and one may need to propose other explanations for big brains (we agree on brain injury), but it also assumes evolution is perfectly efficient. There are some cases where the need for a certain trait is so urgent, that evolution doesn’t select the perfect solution. To quote Greg Cochran “When you’re in a hurry and have strong selection, you have a lot of genes with bad side effects,”…Metabolically expensive physically burdensome brains might just be a bad side effect of the urgent need for IQ.
Care to do something on Koko the gorilla’s IQ? Here is some data:
Fascinating! I was planning on writing more about chimp IQ, so I could definitely include gorillas in the same article. Thanks for the idea and data.
Pumpkin you should read my rebuttal to RR on his post about the supposedly non-physiological nature of g. I’d like to know your opinion, plus I’m still waiting for RR to address my concerns.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/#comment-4674
MeLo, I mostly agree with you, except for this part:
Finally we know that the brain is a whole integrated system. The g factor on IQ tests is not fully reflective of the physiological aspect of g, IQ tests correlate well with eachother but they all test more or less the same thing, the body is controlled by your brain yet IQ tests do not measure Athletic ability, or musical, or even personality. All of which are mediated by the brain. All else equal an individual with more of the aforementioned traits will be more intelligent, in all categories not just on IQ tests.
Are you saying everything that’s controlled by the brain is part of intelligence? Seems like an overly broad definition.
Well I define intelligence as the mental potential to adapt. Intelligence must be rooted in the brain. For example ants navigate through complex sensory systems instead of a mental map (self awareness) that gives them clues about their environment. In fact ant colonies tend to mimic less efficient versions of human brains. The human brain uses both. Where you use reservoir computing to generate scenarios on how to accomplish a task and then make an atempt using visuomotor and other sensory functions to guide you. According to my definition and this concept intelligence would be measured by neural complexity not necessarily function.
“Ants use a variety of cues to navigate, such as sun position, polarized light patterns, visual panoramas, gradient of odors, wind direction, slope, ground texture, step-counting … and more. Indeed, the list of cues ants can utilise for navigation is probably greater than for humans. These results demonstrate that the navigational intelligence of ants is not in an ability to build a unified representation of the world,”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/
“What about distributed intelligence, i.e. individual insects form ‘super neurons’ and self organize into some kind of mobile brain? In a way, insects already do that. Ants lay pheromone trails and exchange all kinds of chemical and tactile signals that makes the colony behave in much more intelligent ways than the individual ant. This information processing is much slower and more fragile than the one of a human brain, however. If we imagine that an individual ant contributes as much processing power as a cortical column in a human brain, then the number of ants in the largest super-colonies would indeed be comparable to the number of columns in the brain. But unlike the columns in the brain, the ants do not stay in place, but are bustling about an area of several square kilometers, have short lifetime, and erratic ways of connecting. If a signal had to propagate through the hive mind, it would not take milliseconds, but hours. A hive-mind built exclusively from immobile queen insects would face many of the difficulties of a ‘mainframe ant’, with the added problem of building reasonably fast interconnects between the individuals.”
https://www.quora.com/Can-insects-reach-human-intelligence-through-evolution
“This kind of undirected behavior is not unique to ants, Gordon said. How do birds flying in a flock know when to make a collective right turn? All anchovies and other schooling fish seem to turn in unison, yet no one fish is the leader. A colony is analogous to a brain where there are lots of neurons, each of which can only do something very simple, but together the whole brain can think. None of the neurons can think ant, but the brain can think ant, though nothing in the brain told that neuron to think ant.”
https://news.stanford.edu/pr/93/931115Arc3062.html
What these walls of texts mean is that most social systems in the animal kingdom function in a similar way that the human brain does, this means that self awareness or meta cognition is so beneficial species will emulate it, this also perfectly coincides with the social brain theory. The anatomy of our brain reflects it’s function of information sharing because that is what selected for it.
Also wrong comment lol. My bad.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/#comment-4862
Well I define intelligence as the mental potential to adapt.
I also define intelligence as an ability to adapt, except I prefer the term “cognitive” to “mental” because I’ve learned folks often include non-intellectual traits like “extraversion”, “neuroticism” etc, in the latter. While having a good temperament is certainly adaptive, I see intelligence as a mental adaptive system within a mental adaptive system, within broader systems. That is, we evolved emotions that motivate us to pursue genetically adaptive goals (survival & self replication), but we also evolved a cognitive system that adapts our behavior to meet said goals and I define only the latter as intelligence. So intelligent people are extremely adaptable at advancing their goals, but they can still be genetically maladaptive if their emotions are.
In fact ant colonies tend to mimic less efficient versions of human brains.
Totally. Ants get together to form a sub-human brain, and then humans get together to form a super-human brain. I know the idea of evolutionary progress is understandably very controversial, but you can see how it does kind of resemble a progression and how brain like phenomenon “seem” almost an inevitable result of long-term complex evolution, taking many forms.
Also wrong comment lol. My bad
Ok, I see which comment you’ve meant. Very impressive summary of cutting edge research! You should turn that into a guest article. At the same time, a lot of new findings sound exciting at the time but then they don’t replicate in larger and more diverse samples, or they realize the correlations are much smaller than originally thought, especially when confounding variables are controlled, though research today is pretty sophisticated and you and your sources have likely considered all that.
Koko’ cognitive ability was analyzed via its non-verbal language. It’s just like compare a proficiency of some random English individual in Lithuanian with a Lithuanian individual. Koko’ human cognitive ability no doubt is considerably lower than almost minimally healthier SSA.
You have to adjust for the fact Koko only ate deep fried chicken in his childhood and his mother was addicted to crack. You just can’t compare Koko to black children in my opinion.
LOL
Intelligence is rational ability/capacity to spot patterns/manipulate abstract concepts/symbols according to rules.
“though interestingly, some of the other subtests that are considered poor measures of g in the U.S. do quite well in Spain.”
Why do you think this is? Different environment/schooling environment? Something else?
When Skoyles says that IQ tests do not measure capacity for expertise, he’s citing specific instances in which individuals show that high IQs are not needed for the development of their specific expertise (in regards to musical ability, chess performance, handicapping). So it’s not so much that certain IQ subtests have high ‘g’ loadings (whatever that is), but that overall performance on IQ tests correlates poorly—if at all—with scores on IQ tests.
(Interestingly, Jared Taylor wrote a review of Richard Haier’s book on neuroscience and intelligence and wrote: ““Normal people can have extraordinary abilities. Prof. Haier writes about a non-savant who used memory techniques to memorize 67,890 digits of π! He also notes that chess grandmasters have an average IQ of 100; they seem to have a highly specialized ability that is different from normal intelligence. Prof. Haier asks whether we will eventually understand the brain well enough to endow anyone with special abilities of that kind.”https://www.amren.com/features/2017/10/breakthroughs-in-intelligence-race-and-iq/ here are my thoughts if you’re interested: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/28/my-response-to-jared-taylors-article-breakthroughs-in-intelligence/ )
“But I don’t want to get dragged into an off-topic discussion about chronometrics and physiology, so if you wish to discuss that topic further, please write a guest article and I’ll respond there.”
No problem. I’ve been working on something for a few weeks. It’s going to be on IQ, physiology, ‘g’, and individual differences in physiology and how individual differences in physiology prove that if ‘g’ were physiological that it wouldn’t mimic any known physiological process. It’ll probably be read before Christmas.
“Well if high IQ people are experts at today’s culture (which is what Information and Vocab test) then why wouldn’t they have been experts at prehistoric culture?”
Surviving in the modern world due to ‘intelligence’ is different than actually surviving with your life literally on the line.
“But how do you measure the capacity for expertise? People are experts in different areas depending on their life experience. Who has more expertise? A math professor, a chess master or a personal trainer? Each could be experts in their own field but could be ignorant outside of it. So one way to measure the brain’s capacity for expertise is with general knowledge items like Wechsler’s Information subtest.”
First let’s define ‘expert’. I’d define ‘expert’ as someone who has particular skill in a particular domain for an extended amount of time (though I’m sure others can argue for different definitions, but I think what I proposed is a simple start). Fernand Gobet defines expertise as ““somebody who obtains results that are vastly superior to those obtained by the majority of the population.” I like the definition, thoughts?
Are you aware of any sample questions from the Weschler Information subtest? I’m not familiar and would like to get a feel for the type of questions asked on the test.
If you’re using your examples of math professor, chess master and personal trainer, what type of ‘individual specialization’ would there be, other than for certain parts of the maths section?
“By sampling knowledge of everything from science to geography to politics to pop-culture, individual specialization cancels out, and you get a sense of the brain’s raw biological ability to absorb and retrieve information. And this ability seems strongly linked to g.”
I don’t agree because we are talking about two different things. (You talking about high correlations with g for certain subtests and me talking about no to small correlation with expertise and certain domains.)
“Kind of like saying, it’s not basketball ability the NBA selects for, but rather the ability to get the ball through the hoop.”
Not really. You’re confusing Skoyles’ argument.
“Well I feel the same way about his theory. Since expertise capacity is a part of IQ, it complements rather than replaces the supposed role of IQ in the near tripling (not doubling) of human brain size.”
Disagreed. But good argumentation against my assertions.
Look at when our brains really began ‘increasing’. That’s around the time that erectus mastered fire (around 1.5 mya, other increases could also be put to mashing food which could be looked at as predigestion of our food before we ate it, along with endurance running, recall back to my article Man the Athlete where I showed that there are high correlations with certain anthropometric variables and brain size along with hormones that influence brain size), and so, as argued, if the capacity for IQs in our range could have been had with brains that were much much smaller, then there must have been another reason for brains increasing (something we’ve agreed in is ancient TBI, and something that Melo and I agree on is sociality/family I believe, chime in if I am in error Melo), but I argue that if we could have gotten by with, say, 600 cc brains and have the same capacity for IQ (as I have extensively documented, and there is much more data out there), then it must have increased for another, non-IQ reason (whatever it may be).
“And it’s plausible that personality variables like perfectionism (that helped us direct our IQs towards becoming experts at say, making stone tools or taming fire or knowing which berries were poison) were also selected.”
Correct. Specialized motivations did evolved in our species in order to faciliate motivations that hominids needed to maintain and sustain the deliberate practice needed to become experts which, over time, would have lead to selection for larger brains since larger brains have in them more cortical columns which then can hold more information in them (Skoyles also refers to ‘informational chunks’ in his 1999 article, referring to a 70s article from Gobet and Simon).
“Not really. A lot of autistics are experts yet quite impaired in executive functioning.”
Well one of the main parts of executive functioning is our large PFC. People with part of their PFC taken out still have normal IQs (references provided later), yet they do not remember too far into the future if I recall correctly. Further, Skoyles and Sagan put forth an equation in their book where they say that the ape mind + symbols + neuroplasticity = the human mind. They argue that neural plasticity is one reason why we have an expanded PFC.
It’s also important to note that Skoyles also argues that
Skoyles also wrote in a 2014 article: “Bigger brains may be smarter brains but they might be even smarter if their connections got to be better refined in brain development.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/12/02/human-children-stay-small-long/#.WgDjU2hSxPY
Skpoyles also says that SPEND is why humans are so smart (Synapse Prolonged Expensive Neural Development):
The lack of such a slow growth period in Neanderthals—and so lack of a proper period of small body size childhood—strongly suggests that SPEND—Synapse Prolonged Expensive Neurodevelopment—is unique to modern humans.
http://www.human-existence.com/prolonged-expensive-neurodevelopment.html
His paper on it is here:
Click to access 288108.pdf
Highly interesting paper, tons to chew on (and over 100 pgs).
“One would need to do an experiment where a bunch of people with an erectus brain size distribution played some early stone age survivor game, and then we could see whether IQ or expertise capacity was a better independent predictor of performance.”
Good thought. Though erectus brain, with normal IQ. Skoyles’ argument in his paper on tracking ability and bushmen is good though.
“Metabolically expensive physically burdensome brains might just be a bad side effect of the urgent need for IQ.”
Maybe (see Skoyles’ paper above), (quote from Skoyles’ website): “These including possibly genetically determined increased adult synapse numbers in the prefrontal cortices (but not visual ones), enhanced developmental heterogeneity in synaptic neurodevelopmental timing across the cortical mantle (see section 6); changed axons connections, cerebello-cerebral reorganization, late developing neuron types, late developing dendritic arbor re-sculpturing, altered dendritic arbor geometry and the presence of novel internal stimulation as a result of language (appendix 3).
But all of these can be done without an increase in brain size.
The point is, the metabolic expensiveness and physically burdensome brains can be sidestepped if the brain does not grow too large for the birth canal (I wonder if delivering microcephalic babies is easier?).
“Fascinating! I was planning on writing more about chimp IQ, so I could definitely include gorillas in the same article. Thanks for the idea and data.”
I look forward to the post.
Melo,
“Pumpkin you should read my rebuttal to RR on his post about the supposedly non-physiological nature of g. I’d like to know your opinion, plus I’m still waiting for RR to address my concerns.”
Slowly doing research and writing on it. Probably will be out next month. (school, work, trying to get new job, etc.)
Why do you think this is? Different environment/schooling environment? Something else?
It’s possible certain cognitive tasks that we practice a lot in North America are novel and unfamiliar in Spain, increasing their g loading.
(Interestingly, Jared Taylor wrote a review of Richard Haier’s book on neuroscience and intelligence and wrote: ““Normal people can have extraordinary abilities. Prof. Haier writes about a non-savant who used memory techniques to memorize 67,890 digits of π! He also notes that chess grandmasters have an average IQ of 100; they seem to have a highly specialized ability that is different from normal intelligence.
I find it hard to believe that chess grandmasters average “only” 100. Kasparov and Fischer both scored extremely high and the IQ-chess correlation is 0.35. It’s possible the correlation would be even higher if IQ tests better measured expertise capacity but it’s also possible that non-cognitive variables (like practice and study) are more important to becoming a chess expert than expertise capacity. Imagine two identical twins: One studies chess 8 hours a day for 20 years and the other spends all that time partying and playing sports. Both have the same brain size to store information, but the difference in chess rating would be over 1000 points.
No problem. I’ve been working on something for a few weeks. It’s going to be on IQ, physiology, ‘g’, and individual differences in physiology and how individual differences in physiology prove that if ‘g’ were physiological that it wouldn’t mimic any known physiological process. It’ll probably be read before Christmas.
Cool!
First let’s define ‘expert’. I’d define ‘expert’ as someone who has particular skill in a particular domain for an extended amount of time (though I’m sure others can argue for different definitions, but I think what I proposed is a simple start). Fernand Gobet defines expertise as ““somebody who obtains results that are vastly superior to those obtained by the majority of the population.” I like the definition, thoughts?
I think we all know an expert when we see one, so the more important concept to define is “expertise capacity”, not expertise, because it’s the former that’s linked to the physical brain and which Skoyles claims was selected for. As far as I can tell, expertise capacity is just the ability to learn about any topic and remember what you learn long-term. It’s hard to imagine this ability being ignored by a test like the Wechsler.
Are you aware of any sample questions from the Weschler Information subtest? I’m not familiar and would like to get a feel for the type of questions asked on the test.
They’re just general knowledge questions such as (made-up examples):
1. What country are we in?
2. What does UFC stand for?
3. Who was the first black president of the United States?
4. What actor played Tony Soprano?
5. How old do scientists think the Earth is?
6. Who wrote The Love of a Good Woman?
So the test seems to roughly measure a general capacity to absorb information from your environment and store and retrieve it in long-term memory. This ability should track closely with whatever Skoyles means by expertise capacity. Of course having expertise capacity doesn’t mean you’ll become an expert (you also need to invest the time), but it’s the capacity that we’re interested in.
I don’t agree because we are talking about two different things. (You talking about high correlations with g for certain subtests and me talking about no to small correlation with expertise and certain domains.)
Just because IQ tests weakly predict real world expertise doesn’t prove there’s some mysterious cognitive ability related to brain size that IQ tests are missing. That’s just a hypothesis but it needs to be tested. The way to test it is to measure the brain size of real life experts and see if they are larger than a control-group of non-experts with similar IQs, demographics and psychological traits. If so it would suggest Skoyles is right, but until he puts his ideas to the test, he’ll have trouble convincing a lot of people.
but I argue that if we could have gotten by with, say, 600 cc brains and have the same capacity for IQ (as I have extensively documented, and there is much more data out there), then it must have increased for another, non-IQ reason (whatever it may be).
But isn’t that like saying since it’s possible to be good at basketball without being tall (as “Muggsy” Bogues proved), the NBA must be tall for some non-basketball related reason?
An alternative explanation for why the NBA doesn’t select slam dunking midgets and why evolution didn’t select normal IQ microcephalics is that they’re relatively rare, and since a lot of what gets selected is just luck, and luck favours large numbers, the more common solution wins out, even if the rare solution is better.
Why were Ashkenazi Jews selected for tay sachs when it’s possible to have a high IQ without it? Why do humans have tailbones when we no longer have tails? Why do men have nipples when they don’t breast feed? Evolution is simply not efficient enough to only select exactly what is needed.
Good thought. Though erectus brain, with normal IQ.
The fact that people today with erectus sized brains have low IQs on average (some are high), suggests erectus probably had low IQ on average too. So to simulate what their evolution might have been like, it would be interesting to watch a representative sample of microcephalics compete in a stone age survivor game. If the winners have bigger brains then their IQs would predict, then it would support skoyles because it would suggest there was something else about their big brains (not IQ) that was helping them win.
Pumpkin
“we evolved emotions that motivate us to pursue genetically adaptive goals (survival & self replication), but we also evolved a cognitive system that adapts our behavior to meet said goals and I define only the latter as intelligence. ”
Which emotions? Are extroversion, neuroticism and motivation on the same spectrum as anger and lust? Even assuming that this system is unified it would be arbitrary to isolate one part of the brain and say “this is where intelligence stops”
“Extraversion covaried with volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region involved in processing reward information. Neuroticism covaried with volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative affect. Agreeableness covaried with volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals. Conscientiousness covaried with volume in lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049165/
“I know the idea of evolutionary progress is understandably very controversial, but you can see how it does kind of resemble a progression and how brain like phenomenon “seem” almost an inevitable result of long-term complex evolution, taking many forms.”
Indeed, and from what I have been reading on ants it seems their reliance on navigational abilities over self awareness implies that they simply cannot produce enough brain power to sustain an extremely adaptive trait like Hypothetical reasoning. Size is literally the most important thing.
RR
“Surviving in the modern world due to ‘intelligence’ is different than actually surviving with your life literally on the line.”
How?
“Slowly doing research and writing on it. Probably will be out next month. (school, work, trying to get new job, etc.)”
Sounds good.
Which emotions? Are extroversion, neuroticism and motivation on the same spectrum as anger and lust?
I think anger and lust just evolved to motivate us to use our intelligence to solve the problem of enhancing our genetic fitness. We are angry when someone insults our race, beats up our children or steals our mate, because all of those attacks threaten the reproduction of ourselves or our group and then we use our intelligence to figure out how to neutralize the threat. We feel lust because it motivates us to use our intelligence to figure out how to find and keep a mate which allows us to reproduce. All pain (mental or physical), however trivial, are just problems for our brain’s problem solving computer (intelligence) to solve.
Even assuming that this system is unified it would be arbitrary to isolate one part of the brain and say “this is where intelligence stops”
Well in everyday language we exclude emotions from our definition of intelligence. For example if someone is suffering from depression, we call them mentally ill, not stupid, so an impaired brain need not imply an impaired intellect.
But if you want a non-arbitrary way of deciding, psychologists use factor analysis to determine that scores on personality tests form a different cluster from scores on cognitive tests, even though there’s still some correlation between cognition and personality.
“I think anger and lust just evolved to motivate us to use our intelligence to solve the problem of enhancing our genetic fitness. ”
An emotionless species with high problem solving ability, would not be cognitively adaptive.
An emotionless species with high problem solving ability, would not be cognitively adaptive.
Because it would have nothing to adapt to, but not because it lacked the cognitive ability to adapt. Intelligence is just the brain’s problem solving computer, but if you have no emotions, you have no problems to solve in the first place, because a problem by definition is something that’s causing you pain or discomfort, and those are feelings.
Once you have feelings, your intelligence can compute the best way to advance your goals, however if the feelings themselves are maladaptive, then almost no amount of intelligence will make you successful or genetically adaptive because the goals themselves will be mutually exclusive (i.e. I want to lose weight without dieting or exercising) or genetically unfit (suicide, sex without children).
This is why some super high IQ people appear to be maladaptive even though intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt: they are indeed cognitively adapting to their goals (emotions) in the most efficient way possible, but the goals themselves after maladaptive, either by the standard of society, or Darwin.
Emotion evolved to judge our atitudes as well, other atitudes/behavior as well our pattern recognition. Emotion can be described as a anticipative reaction, instead we feel directly pain or pleasure, for example, we also can simulate the sensation before to interact directly. Emotion and cognition are usually strongly interlinked. We recognize patterns and give a personally aesthetical//moral value to them.
Emotions are also the manifestation of our instincts and in the end they tend to have direct impact in our choices. Some people here are ”chronically neurotic” and in misguided ways resulting in this show off reasoning abilities…
One of the fundamental role of philosophy is try to surpass this instintictive barriers specially when science was allied with the powerful human structures and to serve them instead firstly serves itself and secondly all deservable people.
“Once you have feelings, your intelligence can compute the best way to advance your goals, however if the feelings themselves are maladaptive, then almost no amount of intelligence will make you successful or genetically adaptive because the goals themselves will be mutually exclusive”
What I’m saying is that there is not a real distinction. People who can’t feel emotion have been shown to literally lack the ability to make decisions.
“The lower levels in the neural edifice of reason are the same ones that regulate the processing of emotions and feelings, along with the body functions necessary for an organism’s survival. In turn, these lower levels maintain direct and mutual relationships with virtually every bodily organ, thus placing the body directly within the chain of operations that generate the highest reaches of reasoning, decision making, and, by extension, social behavior and creativity. Emotion, feeling and biological regulation all play a role in human reason.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis
http://www.edbatista.com/2011/07/antonio-damasio-on-emotion-and-reason.html
What I’m saying is that there is not a real distinction. People who can’t feel emotion have been shown to literally lack the ability to make decisions.
That’s cause all decisions are about maximizing pleasure & minimizing pain. If you can’t feel either, nothing you do matters so you have no motivation to decide. Deciding is not to your advantage (and thus not intelligent) because you get no reward
It’s like saying a calculator can’t add if no one presses its buttons.
In both cases, the problem solving computer (intelligence) doesn’t act unless there’s a problem to solve, but the lack of a problem (emotional pain, numbers to be added) does not mean the problem solving system is impaired, it’s merely not being used.
These functions derive from the same area you dipshit, namely the prefrontal cortex.
Synaptic plasticity determines how you react to stimuli and the emotions are a part of it. You won’t develop the ability to solve problems if you don’t have any, one is literally physically impossible without the other.
No you’re still not grasping the concept. People who have already developed the ability to solve problems will lose all incentive to do so when the emotional part of their brain is damaged.
“People who have already developed the ability to solve problems”
“who have already developed”
“already”
No it’s you who hasn’t grasped the concept yet! You cannot develop those abilities without emotion in the first place, trauma victims who experience such side effects cannot function because they’re missing a vital part of their body, like missing an arm.
You cannot develop those abilities without emotion in the first place,
So by that logic vision and hearing are part of intelligence since we can’t develop intelligence without exposure to sensory input.
While it’s likely true that at least in early childhood you have to use your intelligence in order for it to develop normally, and that requires the motivation to problem solve, if you later lose your motivation, you wont lose your problem solving skills (at least not for a long time).
By your logic emotions are part of physical strength too since without the motive to lift weights, we’d never build muscle mass.
An ability does not include all that’s required to develop it.
Melo is right. If you’re missing part of your PFC then, for instance, longterm memory is hampered. That could affect problem-solving ability. (Cites later.)
That’s because your PFC controls more than just emotions; it in no way proves MeLo’s claim that emotions are part of intelligence.
“So by that logic vision and hearing are part of intelligence since we can’t develop intelligence without exposure to sensory input.”
Exactly! How could you possibly imagine a chair if you’ve never even seen one or heard anyone utter the word. Try to imagine “nothing” it’s impossible.
“if you later lose your motivation, you wont lose your problem solving skills (at least not for a long time).”
That’s only because the brain usually has had years to make sensory connections into memories. A blind man can imagine what his wife looked like 20 years ago before he lost his vision and he could even imagine what she would look like presently by reconstructing a rough image based on memories of previous elderly women he met in his life but if you locked a newborn baby that was blind, deaf and could not feel any sensation of touch into a closet all while giving the proper prenatal and postnatal nutrition would it develop any ability to solve a problem? No.
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/cognitive_development_and_sensory_play
“By your logic emotions are part of physical strength too since without the motive to lift weights, we’d never build muscle mass.”
Well yeah but more specifically muscle is a part of intelligence in fact cells in the spinal region and other extremities have the ability to perform action potentials just like neurons in the brain, in fact motor control is vital for tool making and is a part of the nervous system. The cerebellum is mostly responsible for these functions. So like just the amygdala(emotion)is a part of the brain so is the cerebellum(motor control), and they both control localized aspects of intelligence. The presence of both working memory and emotion in the PFC implies that these functions create a feedbackloop off eachother, even though the brain has modular functions it is still integrated and all parts of the brain have crossover effects in function.
This is why scientists or anyone has passion, because emotion is what loosely determines how ingrained a memory is.
Exactly! How could you possibly imagine a chair if you’ve never even seen one or heard anyone utter the word. Try to imagine “nothing” it’s impossible.
Most people define intelligence as how well you can use the sensory input you have, not by how much you take in.
That’s only because the brain usually has had years to make sensory connections into memories. A blind man can imagine what his wife looked like 20 years ago before he lost his vision and he could even imagine what she would look like presently by reconstructing a rough image based on memories of previous elderly women he met in his life but if you locked a newborn baby that was blind, deaf and could not feel any sensation of touch into a closet all while giving the proper prenatal and postnatal nutrition would it develop any ability to solve a problem? No.
Perhaps not, but just because intelligence depends on sensory abilities to develop, doesn’t mean sensory abilities are part of intelligence. A person’s height depends on hormones growing up, but that doesn’t mean hormones are part of your height. They’re a separate phenotype that helps cause height during a critical period of development.
Well yeah but more specifically muscle is a part of intelligence in fact cells in the spinal region and other extremities have the ability to perform action potentials just like neurons in the brain, in fact motor control is vital for tool making and is a part of the nervous system. The cerebellum is mostly responsible for these functions. So like just the amygdala(emotion)is a part of the brain so is the cerebellum(motor control), and they both control localized aspects of intelligence. The presence of both working memory and emotion in the PFC implies that these functions create a feedbackloop off eachother, even though the brain has modular functions it is still integrated and all parts of the brain have crossover effects in function.
Everything in the body is interconnected so where we draw the line between cognitive and emotional, and between mental and physical, is somewhat arbitrary: there’s always going to be a zone of ambiguity. You’re simply defining intelligence and cognition differently from me, most psychologists, most scientists, and most humans, but how we define things is a function of our goals, and your goal is to equate intelligence with the behavior of ant colonies, etc, and so you prefer to define it as ALL the functions of the nervous system.
This is why scientists or anyone has passion, because emotion is what loosely determines how ingrained a memory is.
Yes but most people would simply say that being passionate can compensate for a lack of intelligence, not passion is part of intelligence, but definitions are somewhat arbitrary.
“Most people define intelligence as how well you can use the sensory input you have, not by how much you take in.”
You can’t use it if you don’t have it to begin with.
“A person’s height depends on hormones growing up, but that doesn’t mean hormones are part of your height. They’re a separate phenotype that helps cause height during a critical period of development.”
I get that but height is the amount of distance in a space that a body takes up, a hormone is a hormone. Sensory input-output is apart of the same physiological process: synaptic plasticity. Storage is achieved through latent potentation while novel problem solving is a result of short term, or increased plasticity.
“Everything in the body is interconnected so where we draw the line between cognitive and emotional, and between mental and physical, is somewhat arbitrary”
That’s why I don’t think a line should be drawn. Our minds and bodies are all the same and function sychronously they can’t exist without the other it is stupid to dichtomize because it holds back our understanding.
“Yes but most people would simply say that being passionate can compensate for a lack of intelligence, not passion is part of intelligence”
And most people would be wrong. Passion is your emotional motivation, I’m passionate about Anthropology, which is why I know a lot about it.
“Most people define intelligence as how well you can use the sensory input you have, not by how much you take in.”
You can’t use it if you don’t have it to begin with.
That seems too literal; like calling someone who has no books to read illiterate, even if he’d read one just fine if you gave one to him.
I get that but height is the amount of distance in a space that a body takes up, a hormone is a hormone. Sensory input-output is apart of the same physiological process: synaptic plasticity.
But they’re different parts of the same physiological process.
That’s why I don’t think a line should be drawn. Our minds and bodies are all the same and function sychronously they can’t exist without the other it is stupid to dichtomize because it holds back our understanding.
But lumping everything together can also impede learning. By treating cognitive, emotional, sensory and motor functions as all one unitary ability, you make it harder to understand the sub-systems within the nervous system and how they interact. When we need a single umbrella to cover all of them we can simply say “nervous system” so our ability to think about them collectively is not prevented. Perhaps your point is that at the physiological level these systems are hard to distinguish, but that’s largely because psychology is a science in its infancy and the human brain is the most complex known object in the universe.
And most people would be wrong. Passion is your emotional motivation, I’m passionate about Anthropology, which is why I know a lot about it.
But why not just say:
cognition + intellectual passion = scholarly knowledge
Cognition could be measured by an IQ test and interest could be measured by a personality test. By lumping them together, you get a less nuanced understanding of why some students excel and others fail.
No I’m calling someone with no sensory experience, illiterate, because they would be.
I get that its important to categorize things to helps us understand it better. Reductionism is an important part of the scientific method, however when we categorize things like the cerebellum or the cerebral cortex is because there is an actual separation in the system between these two parts. The only thing separating emotion and intelligence is the words we use to define them. They both reside in the PFC and they cannot function without the other. The PFC isn’t even a separate system itself, the cerebral cortex is one giant organ.
The only thing separating emotion and intelligence is the words we use to define them.
But we use different words to define them because we experience them differently. We sense that the part of the mind that thinks, knows, understands & remembers is different from the part of the mind that feels, wants, & desires.
And the tests we use to measure them are different, and this is not an arbitrary distinction because personality tests will form a distinct cluster from cognitive tests when factor analyzed (a wholly objective statistical procedure).
There’s also a very important conceptual distinction: Cognitive tests have right or wrong answers & a clear standard of proficiency: solving a puzzle in 2 minutes is better than solving it in 3 minutes. Remembering 5 objects is better than remembering 2.
But is preferring comedies better than preferring action movies? Is liking sunsets better than liking sunrises? No. These are just individual preferences.
They both reside in the PFC and they cannot function without the other.
They don’t reside exclusively in the PFC & even if they did, so what?
How hard you punch & how far you reach both reside in your arms & hands but that doesn’t mean we can’t distinguish them.
Morphology != function
”Cognition could be measured by an IQ test and interest could be measured by a personality test. By lumping them together, you get a less nuanced understanding of why some students excel and others fail.”
Otherwise buddy!1
PP,
i mean he want to say that cognition is considerably connected and influenced by emotions and not that they are the same thing. Yes, we can see them as different categories in abstract perspective, but in real-world perspective, one interact all the time with the other. Indeed, even in the case of schizophrenia, this is a emotional disorder, because schizophrenics [and relatives] have hyper-activation of default network [metacognition]. All mental disorders, which on avg tend to reduce general cognitive skills are emotional-based disorders too.
Again, all the time we use our emotions to judge patterns. It’s explain why many intelligent people often fall in love with sophisticated magical thinking, because they judged [in always emotional ways] wrong. Indeed, all the time we judge via emotion.
I may agree that we can have someone who
like, for example, mathematics
but no have skills enough to master it [seems a common profile]
and we can have someone who
dislike mathematics
but have good and even very good potential.
But in both cases what we have is a wrong self-judgment [emotional ones] and not the absence of emotion involvement.
“We sense that the part of the mind that thinks, knows, understands & remembers is different from the part of the mind that feels, wants, & desires.”
No, because the former is based on the latter and vice versa.
“personality tests will form a distinct cluster from cognitive tests ”
Because most cognitive tests are in a neutral setting, where rules are already defined, the only emotion that matters in that aspect would be motivation.
“Cognitive tests have right or wrong answers & a clear standard of proficiency: solving a puzzle in 2 minutes is better than solving it in 3 minutes. Remembering 5 objects is better than remembering 2.”
Being able to regulate emotions with problem solving is better than not being able to. An emotion is apart of the experience.
“But is preferring comedies better than preferring action movies?”
No, but do you know any other animal that can understand jokes? Besides great apes….
“Morphology != function”
But they have the same morphology and function.
“We sense that the part of the mind that thinks, knows, understands & remembers is different from the part of the mind that feels, wants, & desires.”
No, because the former is based on the latter and vice versa.
Just because two constructs form a bidirectional feedback loop doesn’t mean they should be reduced to one concept.
“personality tests will form a distinct cluster from cognitive tests ”
Because most cognitive tests are in a neutral setting, where rules are already defined, the only emotion that matters in that aspect would be motivation.
But that’s precisely the point. IQ tests (like any good scientific instrument) isolate the variable of interest (cognition) from confounding variables (emotions) and they do this by clearly defining what the goal is. By contrast, in real life, individual differences in incentive structure (emotions) define what are goals are, and an intelligent person can falsely seem stupid because he doesn’t have the emotional need for the kind of success society values. In such cases, it’s useful to have an IQ score to say “no his problem is not stupidity, because the cognitive part of his brain has been objectively proven to be high functioning, so let’s look for what else might be wrong”
Being able to regulate emotions with problem solving is better than not being able to.
What is better depends on what you want, and what you want depends on the very emotions you’re trying to regulate.
No, but do you know any other animal that can understand jokes? Besides great apes….
As I agreed, emotions and cognition are a feedback loop, so our cognition allows us to feel certain complex emotions (humour) and then those emotions order our cognition to satisfy them.
But they have the same morphology and function.
But they don’t have the same function. The function of cognition is to figure out how to reach whatever goal you have, while the function of emotion is to have goals that enhance genetic fitness.
PP are you aware that David Weschler acknowledged the role of personality factors like competitiveness or compliance in performance on his tests?
Yes i am aware of that. He called them non-intellective factors & viewed them as parts of intelligence (I view them as sources of measurement error)
I recieved your article btw, and will publish on Saturday.
PP,
“But they don’t have the same function. The function of cognition is to figure out how to reach whatever goal you have, while the function of emotion is to have goals that enhance genetic fitness.”
Couldn’t you say the same things for both variables? Like intelligence is to reach goals that enhance genetic fitness while emotion is to figure out how to reach whatever goal you have in a rational way?
Couldn’t you say the same things for both variables? Like intelligence is to reach goals that enhance genetic fitness while emotion is to figure out how to reach whatever goal you have in a rational way?
I think it’s useful to distinguish between the mind’s ability to problem solve & the problems that we actually solve.
On an IQ test the problems are chosen for us, so they mostly measure the former, not the latter, but in real life, the problems you solve are whatever’s bothering you & that’s dictated by emotions.
“Just because two constructs form a bidirectional feedback loop doesn’t mean they should be reduced to one concept.”
I think so, like the nurture/nature debate.
“IQ tests (like any good scientific instrument) isolate the variable of interest (cognition) from confounding variables (emotions)”
But they obviously don’t seeing as how motivation has a big impact on test outcome. Even when Isolating factors, Incentive is still a concern.
“The function of cognition is to figure out how to reach whatever goal you have, while the function of emotion is to have goals that enhance genetic fitness.”
Please stop obfuscating the problem at hand, these definitions are clearly wrong if you actually understand how the systems work in the brain. Intelligence is working memory. Memories are more likely to stick if it comes with some kind of emotional experience, like curiosity, fear, pain etc. this means that you cant effectively learn without emotion because it is apart of the sensory data your brain collects and reconstructs to solve a problem. You just keep repeating yourself, I mean it makes sense and a few months ago i would of agreed with you but I actually have empirical data and up to date information backing my case.
Just because two constructs form a bidirectional feedback loop doesn’t mean they should be reduced to one concept.”
I think so, like the nurture/nature debate.
And yet scientists crudely distinguish between nature and nurture all the time. See the entire field of heritability.
“IQ tests (like any good scientific instrument) isolate the variable of interest (cognition) from confounding variables (emotions)”
But they obviously don’t seeing as how motivation has a big impact on test outcome. Even when Isolating factors, Incentive is still a concern.
That’s because psychology is not even close to an exact science, but they can distinguish cognitive and personality factors well enough that they form different clusters when factor analyzed.
Intelligence is working memory.
Individual difference in human intelligence are correlated with working memory, but saying intelligence = working memory seems like a huge exaggeration
Memories are more likely to stick if it comes with some kind of emotional experience, like curiosity, fear, pain etc. this means that you cant effectively learn without emotion because it is apart of the sensory data your brain collects and reconstructs to solve a problem.
As I already stated, the fact the one system requires another system to develop properly doesn’t prove they’re the same thing, unless you want to argue that the digestive system is part of the nervous system since food is required to fully grow a brain.
I mean it makes sense and a few months ago i would of agreed with you but I actually have empirical data and up to date information backing my case.
Up to date information? People have known since time immemorial that we learn better if we care about what we’re learning, and you’re free of course to interpret that to mean emotions are part of cognition, but that’s just a semantic preference on your part, not a scientific argument.
“And yet scientists crudely distinguish between nature and nurture all the time. See the entire field of heritability.”
Your point? They still understand that any change in frequency of the genome is only possible through environmental stimuli. Heritability is a measure of Plasticity(more specifically proportion of variance) not how much genetics has to do with heredity or not. All physical traits are 100% genetic.
“That’s because psychology is not even close to an exact science”
And biologically, emotion and intelligence are apart of synaptic plasticity.
“Individual difference in human intelligence are correlated with working memory, ”
Working memory has the highest correlation to g, because working memory is general intelligence. They’re not separate concepts. All knowledge stems from memory, through synaptic plasticity.
“unless you want to argue that the digestive system is part of the nervous system since food is required to fully grow a brain.”
LOL. It is literally our second brain. RR can back me up on this as well.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-feelings-the-second-brain-in-our-gastrointestinal-systems-excerpt/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896593/
“but that’s just a semantic preference on your part, not a scientific argument.”
It’s absolutely scientific, if you would like to not remain ignorant I suggest you just do a quick google search of “synaptic plasticity” or just look up a beginner video on youtube.
Your point? They still understand that any change in frequency of the genome is only possible through environmental stimuli. Heritability is a measure of Plasticity(more specifically proportion of variance) not how much genetics has to do with heredity or not. All physical traits are 100% genetic.
My point is that interdependence doesn’t prevent scientists from distinguishing concepts.
And biologically, emotion and intelligence are apart of synaptic plasticity.
So?
Working memory has the highest correlation to g,
WRONG! On the Wechsler scales the working memory index is not even g loaded enough to form part of the general ability index. See pages 5 and 6.
because working memory is general intelligence. They’re not separate concepts.
High correlation != conceptually identical. And g != intelligence. Chimps can run circles around many humans at some kinds of working memory:
LOL. It is literally our second brain. RR can back me up on this as well.
Yes, everything is interdependent; we’ve already established that.
if you would like to not remain ignorant I suggest you just do a quick google search
And if you’d like to not remain ignorant, I suggest you stop relying on google.
“So?
So they’re the same thing.
“WRONG!”
….Uh, no It’s correct.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.9632&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Click to access 2005-ackerman.pdf
Click to access working%20memory%20is%20almost%20perfectly%20predicted%20by%20g.pdf
” In three studies, we assessed crystallised intelligence (Gc), spatial ability (Gv), fluid intelligence (Gf), and psychometric speed (Gs) using various tests from the psychometric literature. Moreover, we assessed WM and processing speed (PS). WM tasks involve storage requirements, plus concurrent processing. PS tasks measure the speed by which the participants take a quick decision about the identity of some stimuli; 594 participants were tested. Confirmatory factor analyses yielded consistently high estimates of the loading of g over WM (.96 on average). WM is the latent factor best predicted by g. It is proposed that this is so because the later has much in common with the main characteristic of the former.’
“On the Wechsler scales the working memory index is not even g loaded ”
The Wechsler is probably a garbage test then.
” And g != intelligence.”
g does equal intelligence, specialization does not conflict with the underlying integration that is obviously present if you’d at least take a minute to observe brain anatomy.
” Chimps can run circles around many humans at some kinds of working memory:”
First of all the chimps in that study were trained, the human subjects were not. Secondly, the chimps see these numbers as unique objects and not numbers. Try mixing in random shapes, and the outcome will be the same.
Short term memory is not the same thing as working memory, Chimps might actually be more creative than us if they have higher short term memory because it implies higher plasticity, and I’ve seen new studies indicating they can innovate on the spot more frequently than humans, though im skeptical.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170928094204.htm
“I suggest you stop relying on google.”
So you walk to the library to learn information when you literally have millions upon millions of scientific studies at tip of your fingers?
….Uh, no It’s correct.
Uh, no it’s wrong. Most of your sources contradict you. The first one saying: A review of the recent research reveals that WMC and g are indeed highly related, but not identical. The second one says The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 86 samples that relate WM to intelligence. The average correlation between true-score estimates of WM and g is substantially less than unity. Only the third source supports you.
The Wechsler is probably a garbage test then.
Why? Because it debunks your claim?
g does equal intelligence, specialization does not conflict with the underlying integration that is obviously present if you’d at least take a minute to observe brain anatomy.
That’s not even the point. g is not equal to intelligence because it equals whatever is causing individual differences in intelligence in a given population at a given time and that changes as a function of the population you’re testing. What tests are most g loaded in Spain are different from what tests are most g loaded in the U.S. What’s g loaded in a group of autistic kids is different from what’s g loaded in a group of neurotypical kids which is different from what’s g loaded in a group of fetal alcohol syndrome kids.
First of all the chimps in that study were trained, the human subjects were not.
No, that’s NOT the main reason: Even with six months of training, three students failed to catch up to the three young chimps, Matsuzawa said in an e-mail.
Secondly, the chimps see these numbers as unique objects and not numbers.
That makes it even more impressive. The numbers are meaningless to them, and still they beat humans!
Short term memory is not the same thing as working memory,
Who said it was?
Chimps might actually be more creative than us if they have higher short term memory because it implies higher plasticity,
You’re obsessed with this plasticity concept
though im skeptical.
Thank you
So you walk to the library to learn information when you literally have millions upon millions of scientific studies at tip of your fingers?
I use google, but I separate wheat from chaff
“Working memory has the highest correlation to g,”
What is working memory? The APA task force says its ill-defined. Won’t touch the g part. Wait for that.
“Most of your sources contradict you.”
No, you said working memory and g were not highly correlated, I provided sources indicating the opposite. The Authors may not think Working memory is g but that’s only over conceptional differences.
“Why?”
Because, if a test isn’t testing working memory then it isn’t testing intelligence
“g is not equal to intelligence because it equals whatever is causing individual differences in intelligence in a given population at a given time ”
I’m talking about g as in general intelligence and the physiological and biological mechanisms that drive it. You’re talking about the g factor, which is a statistical entity.
“No, that’s NOT the main reason”
The chimps were trained 8 to 12 months for hours a day. If you read the actual study you can see in Figure 2(second link). that Adult Humans outperformed Ai the first female chimp tested, but both showed a pattern of decline. Ayumu, Ai’s son didn’t show a drop in performance and surpassed both groups, interestingly both human and chimp children are better at short term memory tasks than their adult counterparts, this is because of higher levels of plasticity when you are younger. Higher levels of plasticty allows quicker learning through neural wiring. Ayumu is an exception of the norm or he is a younger specimen, Human children would probably outperform young chimps on the test.
Even then, Chimps are more visual than humans and the resolution of data has less to do with intelligence than the amount of data you can actually process. All specimens only recited 5 digits at once, Most humans can recite 7. In fact, this study doesn’t show Chimps have better memory it just shows they have faster neural responses to stimuli.
https://www.nature.com/articles/47405
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(07)02088-X
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19618485
“That makes it even more impressive. ”
No. the Human visual system would learn to ignore extrasensory data that it became used to.
“You’re obsessed with this plasticity concept”
Even more so now that I’ve been researching so much into Neuroscience! Plasticity is intelligence!!
No, you said working memory and g were not highly correlated, I provided sources indicating the opposite.
No, you said “Working memory has the highest correlation to g” and I said “WRONG!”. While I don’t deny working memory is highly correlated with g (at least in biologically normal recent U.S. human populations), other cognitive abilities like “verbal comprehension” show even higher g loadings.
The Authors may not think Working memory is g but that’s only over conceptional differences.
It’s also over statistical differences. In a meta-analysis you cited, the typical g loading of Working Memory was pretty mediocre, though that’s probably because meta-analyses try to include all studies, including even very bad ones.
I’m talking about g as in general intelligence and the physiological and biological mechanisms that drive it. You’re talking about the g factor, which is a statistical entity.
g is simply whatever causes all cognitive tests to inter-correlate in a given population at a given time. Jensen amassed a ton of evidence that physiological and biological mechanisms drive it (though Gould argued it was driven by cultural factors), however those mechanisms could in theory differ from population to population and from species to species.
Also, it’s contradictory of you to believe in g while denying the distinction between cognition and emotion, because g in the first principal component of cognitive tests and would virtually vanish if you included measures of emotion.
The chimps were trained 8 to 12 months for hours a day.
A human had 6 months of practice which was likely well beyond the point of diminishing returns for such a simple task. Also keep in mind that chimps probably needed more training time simply to understand the task (by contrast the humans had known about numerical ordering for decades).
If you read the actual study you can see in Figure 2(second link). that Adult Humans outperformed Ai the first female chimp tested, but both showed a pattern of decline. Ayumu, Ai’s son didn’t show a drop in performance and surpassed both groups, interestingly both human and chimp children are better at short term memory tasks than their adult counterparts, this is because of higher levels of plasticity when you are younger.
Well this contradicts your claim that neuroplasticity is intelligence since kids perform worse than adults on IQ tests; though there are different types of neuroplasticity (short-term chemical and long-term structural).
Btw computers have stratospheric working memories? Are they smarter than humans? In the age of A.I., why limit your conception of intelligence to biological minds?
Even then, Chimps are more visual than humans and the resolution of data has less to do with intelligence than the amount of data you can actually process. All specimens only recited 5 digits at once, Most humans can recite 7. In fact, this study doesn’t show Chimps have better memory it just shows they have faster neural responses to stimuli.
Isn’t part of having a good memory being able to absorb information after only brief exposure? Almost anyone could remember a sequence of numbers if they got to look at it all day.
No. the Human visual system would learn to ignore extrasensory data that it became used to.
Most Westerners would have a far harder time doing that test if it used the Chinese numbering system
Even more so now that I’ve been researching so much into Neuroscience! Plasticity is intelligence!!
That’s a fascinating assertion but in order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. What study would be needed to debunk your claim if it’s false?
“While I don’t deny working memory is highly correlated with g (at least in biologically normal recent U.S. human populations), other cognitive abilities like “verbal comprehension” show even higher g loadings.”
It is the highest biological correlate, Verbal comprehension only has high g loadings because all the tests are written, you can’t take an IQ test if you’re illiterate.
“g is simply whatever causes all cognitive tests to inter-correlate in a given population at a given time.”
No. That’s what I mean, you’re thinking of g as a correlation while im thinking of g as deriving from an actual physiological process. Like If I have evidence that g is a physiological construct then it doesn’t matter what an IQ test says or whether there is a high correlation or not, because biology trumps psychometrics.
Im not as extreme as RR to say that IQ tests are useless, but they obviously are not perfect.
“Jensen amassed a ton of evidence that physiological and biological mechanisms drive it”
Examples?
“Also, it’s contradictory of you to believe in g while denying the distinction between cognition and emotion, because g in the first principal component of cognitive tests and would virtually vanish if you included measures of emotion.”
Emotions are higher order instincts, they are as progressive as intelligence and evolved with it, both are entangled physiological systems. If you are emotionless, then you’re stupid, comparable to chimps. Chimps actually have less mental bias, because they have more instincts than actual emotions.
“Well this contradicts your claim that neuroplasticity is intelligence since kids perform worse than adults on IQ test”
No. The most neotenous race is also the most intelligent. They’re more intelligent because they retain this plasticity as they age more than other groups, plus IQ tests crystallized knowledge as well..
“Btw computers have stratospheric working memories? Are they smarter than humans?”
No it’s a trade off, our brain is wired for a “winner takes all” scenario between neurons, if there is no competition and the brain is completely modular then this means it becomes predictable and loses it’s ability to to be variable in novel situations.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30928-9
http://theconversation.com/our-slow-uncertain-brains-are-still-better-than-computers-heres-why-67288
“In the age of A.I., why limit your conception of intelligence to biological minds?”
I’m not saying intelligence is only restricted to biological organisms, but so far evolution has produced better “computers” than any Scientist ever has. Even then, the brain is not a computer, it’s an organ, with inconsistencies, asymmetry, and short cuts to make it efficient.
“Isn’t part of having a good memory being able to absorb information after only brief exposure?”
Yes and no. Processing speed is a part of intelligence, and surely it’s more adaptive but it’s influenced by a multitude of factors where synaptic plasticity is only one of these factors. Chimps probably have higher instances of long term potentation within neurons, meaning even though a memory of a particular stimuli will become ingrained quicker this means the Plasticity is lowered. Essentially humans are more malleable and able to learn better.
“Almost anyone could remember a sequence of numbers if they got to look at it all day.”
That’s my point. This study didn’t test capacity or power, only speed.
“The shortest duration, 210 milliseconds, is close to the frequency of occurrence of human saccadic eye movement. This means that this condition does not leave subjects enough time to explore the screen by eye movement. ”
Chimps have better reaction times than humans, so if the lowest duration measured was right around the human threshold, then this study was favoring chimps to begin with.
“What study would be needed to debunk your claim if it’s false?”
It’s more of a assertion of definition not really me explaining a phenomena. You’d have to show that plasticity isn’t the agent of learning(which it is).
It is the highest biological correlate, Verbal comprehension only has high g loadings because all the tests are written, you can’t take an IQ test if you’re illiterate.
It might be the highest single biological correlate (depending how you define single and biological). Btw some illiterates scores quite well on the Wechsler verbal comprehension subtests because they’re given orally.
No. That’s what I mean, you’re thinking of g as a correlation while im thinking of g as deriving from an actual physiological process. Like If I have evidence that g is a physiological construct then it doesn’t matter what an IQ test says or whether there is a high correlation or not, because biology trumps psychometrics.
But how do you know the biology you’re thinking of is causing intelligence unless it predicts psychometric performance? We can’t yet look inside a person’s brain tissue and see their brilliant thoughts, we can only infer them from observing their behavior, preferably in the relatively controlled environment of a testing room.
Examples?
Brain size, neural adaptability, chronometrics. Of course these are all just correlations as RR would say, but you have to start somewhere.
Emotions are higher order instincts, they are as progressive as intelligence and evolved with it,
I agree they’re progressive and evolved with intelligence.
If you are emotionless, then you’re stupid, comparable to chimps.
If you’re emotionless from birth you might be stupid because you never had the motivation to stimulate your brain during critical periods, but if you’re emotionless from birth, you’d probably also lack height and muscle tone because you’d lack the motivation to eat and move, but it’s absurd to argue emotions are part of height and muscle tone.
The way we know that emotions are not part of intelligence (or height and muscles) is that if we could remove them from someone who has already developed mentally and physically, they would not get immediately dumber, shorter, or less muscular. But if we removed their spatial ability, they would get dumber, just like if we removed their legs and triceps, they’d get shorter and less muscular respectively. So in order for X to be part of Y, removing X from fully-developed Y must reduce Y.
No. The most neotenous race is also the most intelligent. They’re more intelligent because they retain this plasticity as they age more than other groups, plus IQ tests crystallized knowledge as well..
Interesting point but I don’t think you’ve developed this idea enough yet. We evolved to be more intelligent by retaining a child’s brain into adulthood? This implies kids are actually smarter than adults, but adults just seem smarter because of more life experience (measured by crystallized knowledge). Perhaps kids have more long-term plasticity (learning a language) while adults have more short-term plasticity (learning how to solve novel problems on IQ tests)
Chimps have better reaction times than humans, so if the lowest duration measured was right around the human threshold, then this study was favoring chimps to begin with.
Are you sure? I read chimps have slower reaction times but I need to find the source.
“Jensen amassed a ton of evidence that physiological and biological mechanisms drive it”
He only amassed correlations he didn’t prove causation.
Melo and PP, here’s a quote from Ken Richardson’s book on emotions and cognition that is apt here in this conversation (emphasis mine):
Moreover, when the participant is confined in the cylinder, it is difficult to present him or her with realistic cognitive tasks and evoke meaningful responses. For example, speech, which involves muscle movements, distorts readings. In other words, fMRIs can be white accurate as indices of categorical disease or trauma states. But they need to be applied more carefully for describing normal variation.
As a consequence, it is quite likely that was are read as cognitive differences are actually affective/emotional in origin. As Hadas Okon-Singer and colleagues warned in a review, the distinction between the emotional and the cognitive brain is fuzzy and context dependent. There is compelling evidence that brain regions commonly associated with cognition, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, also play a central role in emotion. Furthermore, they go on—and as I have mentioned above—“putatively emotional and cognitive regions influence one another via a complex web of connections in ways that jointly contribute to adaptive and maladaptive behavior. This work demonstrates that emotion and cognition are deeply interwoven in the fabric of the brain.”
“putatively emotional and cognitive regions influence one another via a complex web of connections in ways that jointly contribute to adaptive and maladaptive behavior. This work demonstrates that emotion and cognition are deeply interwoven in the fabric of the brain.”
Well, as I’ve repeated ad nauseam, I view intelligence as the brain process that solves problems and emotions as the brain process that creates the problems to be solved; thus I’d expect them to be deeply interwoven in the fabric of the brain.
“But how do you know the biology you’re thinking of is causing intelligence unless it predicts psychometric performance?”
Because we should not limit our definition of intelligence to what a test of specific abilities dictates, i think that anthrocentric. Most animals can’t talk how would you give them an IQ test? That means all animals have a Verbal IQ of zero.
“Of course these are all just correlations as RR would say, but you have to start somewhere.”
Indeed, the cool thing about synaptic plasticity is that it isn’t a correlation it explains learning all the way down to the chemical reactions that catalyze it.
“but it’s absurd to argue emotions are part of height and muscle tone.”
But they kind of are though, imagine again a child just sitting when a spider crawls up their hand, normally the child will jerk away through fear and that response is forever ingrained in the brain and will be brought forth every time the same situation occurs. without that emotional response your neurons don’t make strong connections thus you don’t learn anything, mental or physically.
“But if we removed their spatial ability, they would get dumber, just like if we removed their legs and triceps, they’d get shorter and less muscular respectively. ”
Not necessarily, as RR and I have pointed out the brain can repair itself and wire new connections. If you damaged a part of your brain that affects spatial ability you would just redevelop it in a different part of the brain. But that’s just the brain specifically and emotions come from the brain specifically, you can remove emotions, sometimes they come back, sometimes not…….
“Interesting point but I don’t think you’ve developed this idea enough yet.”
No but it’s coming along.
“We evolved to be more intelligent by retaining a child’s brain into adulthood? This implies kids are actually smarter than adults, but adults just seem smarter because of more life experience (measured by crystallized knowledge). ”
That’s exactly what’s going on 🙂
“Perhaps kids have more long-term plasticity (learning a language) while adults have more short-term plasticity (learning how to solve novel problems on IQ tests)””
It’s actually the opposite. Neurons form patterns of connections(think an MRI image) whenever you think or act. The more you perform an act the more these connections get stronger and the quicker they activate. this is what Crystallized intelligence is. Neurons with more plasticity(ability to switch connections and to make them stronger or weaker) are able to rewire neural patterns(or oscillations) depending on the situation, this is what creates novelty or creativity, the ability problem solve. As you know, younger organisms are better able to physically and mentally mold to an environment than their older counterparts, and the biggest change between chimps and humans is the delayed development which is responsible for this plasticity. Children are more creative than Adults, not in the sense that a child has a better chance of creating the next “theory of everything” but in the sense that they are more imaginative(which is the recreation of oscillations without movement) and can switch gears much quicker than adults.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/humans-can-outlearn-chimps-thanks-more-flexible-brain-genetics
Whoever first made the dichotomy of Fluid and crystallized reasoning, was a genius. The plasticity is the potential the connections are simply the results of said potential
“Are you sure? I read chimps have slower reaction times but I need to find the source.”
I did have a study, but I cant find it either, I looked it up real quick on google and I keep seeing studies saying that we have the same reaction times.
some psycho(logist) suggested the human brain is like the peacock’s tail. his argument was it a lot bigger than it needed to be.
it’s also very expensive. the human brain is hot compared to other mammal’s brains. not just big.
It is well established that the brain uses more energy than any other human organ, accounting for up to 20 percent of the body’s total haul.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-the-brain-need-s/
the theory is that large brains were selected for in men, because larger brained men were better at tricking women into having sex with them with their jive talk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/evolution/10604747/Human-brain-like-a-peacocks-tail-during-courtship.html
A mystery of our evolution is why our brains continued to grow despite the fact that our early ancestors functioned perfectly well with half as much between their ears…
of course i’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation for sexual selection.
A mystery of our evolution is why our brains continued to grow despite the fact that our early ancestors functioned perfectly well with half as much between their ears…
As melo often points out, adaptations are competitive not absolute. A small brain might function perfectly in isolation, but if a bigger brained person can exploit the environment even more efficiently, before long they’ll replace you.
The book you’re talking about is The Mating Mind by evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller. I can’t comment since I’ve not read the book (it’s in my huge backlog though) but Skoyles and Sagan (2002: 321, footnote 13) write:
Our view differs from Miller’s in that we view such selection as happening prior to to the formation of parental bonds rather than prior to promiscuous matings
I can comment more on the book after I read it.
And I know about the huge metabolic costs of our brains which is why I argue that we could have gotten by with way smaller brains. Herculano-Houzel estimates that erectus had about 63 million neurons. It seems as if that’s ‘good enough’ to get by in life.
Melo, re adaptations and competition, do you take to Dawkins’ arms race hypothesis?
nah
“adaptations are competitive not absolute. A small brain might function perfectly in isolation, but if a bigger brained person can exploit the environment even more efficiently, before long they’ll replace you.”
yes, for sure
“the theory is that large brains were selected for in men, because larger brained men were better at tricking women into having sex with them with their jive talk.”
retarded. men didn’t trick women, they owned them like property for all of history.
big brains are just superior in every single way. if you’re a bushman and life is good and there’s no reason for a bigger brain, a bantu will be born one day and then you’ll sure wish you had a brain as big as a bantu.
big brains are just superior in every single way.
Big brains are cognitively superior but physically inferior because they’re metabolically expensive, make it hard to give birth thus requiring a bigger pelvis which impairs running speed (though RR would know more about that), strain the musculo-skeletal system, make our heads an easy target for an enemy’s club or missile (as Jensen noted), etc. But bigger brains are so mentally superior that it makes up for these liabilities.
if you’re a bushman and life is good and there’s no reason for a bigger brain, a bantu will be born one day and then you’ll sure wish you had a brain as big as a bantu.
The brain size gap between Bushmen and Bantu is trivial if you go by the only massive database that compared all the races using presumably the same standards (different methods give wildly different results) :
The real advantage Bantu had is agriculture and bigger bodies.
why do bantu have higher iq than bushmen?
It could just be cultural but even if it’s biological, there’s a lot more to brain functioning than raw size.
ya, i meant big brain in the abstract sense (higher iq)
bigger brains mean almost nothing across species (human vs elephant)
but have some effect (i believe) among humans. bigger heads (usually?) means a more intelligent human to my knowledge, which is why i believe taller humans are often smarter
Between species, especially very different species, the encephalization quotient is used, though as RR noted, Suzana Herculano-Houzel thinks the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex is a more direct measure of between-species intelligence.
I doubt taller people are smarter primarily because their brains are bigger given that IQ is only moderately correlated with brain size, which is only weakly correlated with height. Jensen thought it was because both height and occupational status (a proxy for IQ) are socially desired traits so people with an above average amount of both tend to mate, causing a genetic link between both traits. It’s also been suggested that both low IQ and low height are signs of high mutation load. Some even suggest the correlation is related to nutrition.
nobody talks much about arctics. i wonder where all that extra brain matter is being used – if not to boost iq.
maybe memory/navigation
maybe arctics, like east asians, are genius for their height, but are much shorter than the tall races in the world, so in reality have smaller heads when not controlled for height
PP,
“Big brains are cognitively superior but physically inferior because they’re metabolically expensive, make it hard to give birth thus requiring a bigger pelvis which impairs running speed”
This is pretty much the gist of things. An example I used was Neanderthals vs. Homo sapiens. When Homo sapiens first trekked into Europe, they still had the slim, narrow bodies that were conducive to life in Africa. Neanderthals, on the other hand, had wider pelves, which, among other things (like climate) are due to a larger brain. Now I don’t have data and this is just an assumption (maybe Melo can chime in here), but I believe that our morphology/musculoskeletal system also played a part in the Neanderthal demise.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/
So thinking about this, wider pelves impede running ability and since we are the running ape, having a wider pelvis will impede our ability to run. You only need to look at Marathoners and how they have long limbs, narrow pelves and low body fat and see how wide pelves impede our running capabilities.
(Reminder that another Kentan won the NYC marathon. Weird…)
“The real advantage Bantu had is agriculture and bigger bodies.”
Are you aware of any data that controls for body size and shows racial brain size differences? Because brain and body size do track (as I’m sure you know).
“Jensen thought it was because both height and occupational status (a proxy for IQ)”
What do you think about this critique of the IQ/job performance correlation? It seems to not exist/lower than is asserted:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
Fenoopy,
“nobody talks much about arctics. i wonder where all that extra brain matter is being used – if not to boost iq.”
I argue it was for expertise to build more and complex tools:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/
Yes, modern humans are an African primate so were well-adapted to running in open fields, but Neanderthals with their short muscular legs and wide pelvis were biomechanically very inefficient. They were built for power not speed, and when the forests died off and the European landscape became vast open fields, modern humans had a huge competitive advantage, especially since Neanderthal muscle mass required far more calories.
We think of modern humans vs Neanderthals as a case of brains vs athleticism, but it may have been a case of running athletes (modern humans) vs power athletes (Neanderthals)
kenyans win NYC games, algerians come 1st in africa games
blacks are slower than north africans
im also the no1 fastest in my college with the best endurance. some ethiopian kid is second.
icelandic whites are the strongest.
in general, e1b1b1 haplogroup is fastest
(somalis, kenyans, ethiopians, berbers)
berbers are the furthest evolved of this genetic line so obviously fastest and smartest
e1b1b1 has caucasoid features, even the ethiopians.
if you follow e1b1b1 through kenyans and somalis and ethiopians then through all 10 berber tribes, you can see the path of evolution and it’s fascinating. each berber tribe is a split/upgrade from the next, starting from the lowest form of berber, mozabites
the strongest race (icelandic northern nordics) are clearly neanderthal mixed due to slower running speeds and great strength.
also more peaceful than their killer primate ancestors, unlike older forms of human like blacks and berbers
“We think of modern humans vs Neanderthals as a case of brains vs athleticism, but it may have been a case of running athletes (modern humans) vs power athletes (Neanderthals)”
That’s exactly what I argued. Looking at how much protein they ate per day, 300 grams on average! They also averaged about 4500 kcal per day, and in the colder months their diet was about 80 percent fat.
Fenoopy, I know all this. Check my blog over written about this so much I’m bored of it.
Please provide sources for your statements “berbers are the furthest evolved of this genetic line so obviously fastest and smartest” and ” each berber tribe is a split/upgrade from the next, starting from the lowest form of berber, mozabites”
And blacks (west African) aren’t slower than North Africans. What’re you smoking?
“Please provide sources for your statements “berbers are the furthest evolved of this genetic line so obviously fastest and smartest” and ” each berber tribe is a split/upgrade from the next, starting from the lowest form of berber, mozabites”
berbers are e1b1b1 haplogroup, starting with somalians/ethiopians
1.mozabites are the oldest berber type at around 50,000 years old
2. kabyle are the newest at around 10,000 years old
all speak types of afro-asiatic language like ethiopian
all belong to e1b1b1, the map of which i provided
the oldest tribes are the ones with the least genetic splits
the newest tribes are the ones with the most genetic splits
number of splits can be inferred from age
im iqvayliyen, smallest and newest people. berber intelligence ranges from very stupid to very smart depending on tribe.
“And blacks (west African) aren’t slower than North Africans. What’re you smoking?”
they are. we crush them in every event.
here you can see west africans being crushed so absolutely it’s embarrassing. just no contest.
black africans only win when berbers aren’t competing.
(i’m carelessly talking/speculating out of my ass, though. if you can prove west africans are faster, go ahead)
“Over the last few years, it appears that North African countries have been producing large numbers of elite international athletes. Are we now going to search for the genetic advantages of these nations? Although there is no conclusive evidence for an inherited physiological advantage to the East African, this does not exclude the possibility that one actually does exist. It may be that the technology required to detect any differences is currently lacking.”
East African running dominance: what is behind it? (Bruce Hamilton)
i have the same anecdotal experience as this guy. undisputed fastest in my college, highschool, secondary school etc.
in long distance running, am not that fast in sprints.
actually, the only time i ever lost was coming 2nd to a jamaican in the 100m sprint in my highschool games at the final (end year).
in higher distance (800m, 1500m) i always outpace the east africans no matter what
Non human animals have their culture imprinted in their bodies as environmental adaptations while evolution of intelligence has been [or not] the centralization of body-adaptation or evolutionary focus on the brain often reducing the agility or robustness of the whole body but increasing the efficiency of brain/nervous system to compensate this. So we, at priori, don’t need to be deeply adapted to the given environment as other animals because we can understand it firstly reducing this need. When a organism truly or deeply adapt to given environment it become strongly dependent, indeed, some types of adaptation, so called exotic ones, creates huge dependence on very narrowed environments increasing the vulnerability instead to promote the efficiency of life form to adapt, i mean, in generalistic ways.
Human intelligence is strongly related with the manipulation of elements of nature exactly to compensate human body fragilities if compared with other species. It’s just like the biblical fable of David and Goliah, we are the first.
Also the increased fear of death because enhanced self awareness help ”us” to work around the challenges of life, re-think and often escape from direct confront or life risk.
Fenoopy, I don’t care about anecdotes. I care about the data and physiological differences between groups that then lead to disparities at the tail ends of the distribution. You have an argument for distance running, but in no way, shape, or form, do you have an argument for sprinting. It’s specific genotypes/mtDNA haplotypes that are correlated with sprinting success (in African-Americans but not Jamaicans):
Jamaicans are the elite sprinters of the world. Why? If symmetry of knees and ankles is a factor, why should Jamaicans be especially symmetrical (there is no knowledge of whether they actually are)? One possibility is heterozygosity for genes important to sprinting. The slave trade greatly increased heterozygosity on the West African side by mixing genes up and down the West coast of Africa from Senegal to Nigeria [15], [16]. Recently a mtDNA haplotype has been isolated that correlates with success in African American–but not Jamaican–sprinters [17]. Since there is a general (if often weak) positive relationship between heterozygosity and body symmetry [18] we are eager to do targeted studies of genomics on areas associated with sprinting, including energy substrate utilization, muscle fibre-type distribution and body composition analyses (with specific reference to the shape and size of the glutei maximi). Fast twitch (anaerobic) muscle fibres are characterized by specific adaptations which benefit the performances of explosive high-intensity actions such as those involved in sprinting. Notably, West Africans appear to have a higher fast twitch muscle fibre content than do comparable Europeans (67.5% vs 59% in one sample [19], as cited in [20]).
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113106
I’m not aware of any studies on muscle fiber distribution in North Africans, but I am positive they don’t have a higher proportion of Type II (both kinds) fibers than West Africans. Morphology matters; genotype matters; SES is an effect variable; grit and determination matter; to reduce success in these types of sports to one gene or one variable is dumb. But looking at the whole system (a system’s view), you can see how these variables work in concert to produce the athletic phenotypes we then see today.
So yea, you are talking out of your ass and your whole tirade was just anecdotes and personal experience.
“You have an argument for distance running, but in no way, shape, or form, do you have an argument for sprinting.”
i had no argument/dispute for sprinting in the first place
however north africans are completely dominant in distance running, this is more than just anecdotal experience
but most of it is ass talking, yea – as are all lynn’s ‘studies’ which are garbage when you look into them
no. not modern humans. but southern italians and oprah did.
So theres a site called datalounge which was one of the largest gay posting boards. From the site I learned Will Smith and George Clooney are gay. Fascinating.
I thought these rumours were ridiculous years back when I first heard them, but with the Weinstein scandal I’ve read more about how Hwood works. Apparently studios assign people into relationships, ‘flings’, and marriages for PR reasons.
There are much more ‘weird’ things about Hwood than people would think than this by the way. The woman from the pussycat dolls claims girl groups in pop music are usually escort groups and the women are passed around.
This is where being schizo really helps I think, because I can immediately sense this is true.
One of the curious things is how people conceive children in hollywood for example. Amal had hers via in vitro. Like Michael Jackson’s children and John Travolta.
It makes sense to me that homosexuality is rife in Hwood as acting would be something you would be more homosexual to do, but also to become famous in Hwood it seems much more likely a homosexual would provide sexual favours to jewish producers than someone like Steven Segal or Mel Gibson. (although Mel….hahahahah…has more ‘racial’ reasons for ‘non compliance’ ahahahahahahaha).
Now, there are black celebrites like Jay Z who have been accused of being gay by angry exes and hos. In my opinion, Jay Z, Diddy are definitely not gay. In fact I’ve always remarked Diddy in particular shows psychopathic traits…he is a lot wealthier than most black celebs despite not really being a good musician.
Notice the way there are persistent rumours Diddy had Tupac killed.
But major black celebs like Prince, Jackson, Smith, Tyler Perry…I have to agree….are probably gay or bisexual at the very least.
You think Prince is gay?🤔🤔🤔
White homosexual celebrities I am shocked (and titillated) to find out were gay were James Dean and Paul Newman. I don’t know. Apparently the book mentions how stars like Rock Hudson and Anthony Perkins and Arturo Vidal can vouch for it.
To be honest, finding out a person is gay is a negative thing for me. I can’t see Newman’s movies in the same way. I deeply respect Newman’s acting. Its not the same like say Ian McKellen, because McKellen never plays ‘good ol boys’. Newman seems to be in a lot of movies as the ‘single white male’ jocular, underdog type go getter. Very sympathetic.
I hope its not true to be honest.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen an old video of Paul Newman and James Dean geting funny with each other. I gotta find it again.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!
Hes not gay
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/12678788-so-was-paul-newman-gay-or-what-
I am sick and tired of seeing my childhood heroes besmirched and gutted like fish. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
People who have Hollywood heroes in childhood and still in adulthood tend to be schizophrenics and eat shit pie.
Dont you dare take Mel Gibson name in vain like that!!!
childhood heroes? are you really that ancient
don’t be stupid. if they don’t act like homos, the chances they’re homos is much less than 2%.
btw, peepee is a lesbian. that’s only 1% of women. peepee is a lipstick lesbian, so it’s harder to tell in her case.
spacey is a chimo not a fag. the fag thing was a deliberate attempt to cover. was that 70s british pm a chimo?
Alcoholic
Fake intellectual
And homo-expert…
There are way more lesbians than gay men.
[redacted by pp, nov 3, 2017] there are WAY more women who have done women, but the number of fags is 3x the number of dykes.
this is interesting. women can do it with women and yet not be lesbians, but “gay for pay” or bi-sexual men are, in fact, very rare or non-existent.
basically lesbians don’t exist. it’s just women who were molested by men or female athletes. in reality they just haven’t met the right guy.
despite the common wisdom, straight men can discern to some extent the difference between a physically attractive and physically unattractive man. straight women can do the same to some extent. santo believes he is a woman. it’s personal not aesthetic. that is, for the straight man every other man is a competitor or an ally in a war against other men. never a sex object. and sex object makes no sense in the first place, penis + vagina is the only sex there is.
in reality…there is another possibility…
there is a lot of pressure to have sex and get married…even in the west…
there are people who just aren’t interested.
i think it happens that a-sexual women may interpret their lack of attraction to men as lesbianism.
the same is true for some fags i expect. that is, they think, “women don’t turn me on, so i must be gay.” when in reality they just have a very low or non-existent libido.
it happens.
Alcoholic
Fake intellectual
And homo-expert…
was that meant as criticism?
thanks for the compliment santo.
Santo, does Paul Newman strike you as gay?
Write Yes No beside the following names:
Paul Newman
Afrosapiens
Marco Rubio
George Clooney
Jay Z
Tyler Lautner
Tom Cruise
Tim Kaine
David Bowie
Mick Jagger
Some of these I suspect, but others I’d be interested what you make out. Your gaydar is better.
I barely know who you are talking. It’s not all gays who are effeminate.
Mick Jagger????
No way.
Taylor Lautner?
I think the other “vampire” seems more aspiring to be gay.
George Clooney is a interesting case. He is married but …. It’s not all good looking and famous men who will be a Don Juan. I don’t think his marriage is totally sincere but…
I have been told twice that G.C is gay :
One source is a barrister in international law in London who supposedly knows his wife. He also said G.C has very weird sexual fetished but I didn’t ask him to be more specific as I’m not very interested in sexual matters.
Another, also english, is an actor with experience with secondary roles in several hollywood movies I met while doing a Cunard cruise. This guy also told me one year ago that Spacey is gay and is a bully harrassing young male actors. So that makes his statement sounds more credible now the Spacey case is in the out.
But both could be making themselves looks interesting in a posh socialite conversation reporting on the first person things they have heard (or invented).
No, that makes sense. Clooneys children are in vitro. Thats something homos tend to to do. But he may be bisexual.
Clooney can be bissex, yes pill. Many actors are not exactly homossex, but non-binary ones. And i read somewhere that there is a relationship between anti-social trends and bissexuality.
Your wife is not exactly a beautiful woman, but yes, most men married average and not-so-average looking women. She just look like quite dominant.
But we also can think he is non-binary because we live in the culture where men most be a Don Juan to prove your masculinitet but it’s doesn’t works always in this way.
must
Trumps Fed Reserve pick is major evidence that I’m right – Trump represents a faction of the 400 that is not happy with the direction of the country and is rebelling. The nominee worked at Dillon Read and is a gentile (the first since Volcker).
In the book Devils Chessboard, Dillon Read is a major source of the high level elites that controlled Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Douglas_Dillon
Dillon Read might be the equivalent of Salomon Brothers/Goldman Sachs to gentiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dillon,_Read_%26_Co.
“Dillon proposed the fifth round of tariff negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), conducted in Geneva 1960–1962; it came to be called the “Dillon Round” and led to substantial tariff reduction. Dillon was important in securing presidential power for reciprocal tariff reductions under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He also played a role in crafting the Revenue Act of 1962, which established a 7 percent investment credit to spur industrial growth. He supervised revision of depreciation rules to benefit corporate investment. A close friend of John D. Rockefeller III, he was chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1972 to 1975. He also served alongside John Rockefeller on the 1973 Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, and under Nelson Rockefeller in the Rockefeller Commission to investigate CIA activities (along with Ronald Reagan). He had been president of Harvard Board of Overseers, chairman of the Brookings Institution, and vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.”
C Douglas Dillon is very deep state.
In the same way Macron is Rotschilds puppet for France…Powell is an agent of the Deep State that was as I can understand it, pre Nixon’s coup.
you use words like deep state but it’s just a buzzword and you don’t know what it means. like ‘jews’ or ‘zionism’. stupid abstract terms instead of real people, real organizations and interests. shady fuzzy terms like that with an aura of ‘evil/sinister’ around them won’t get you anywhere.
Circle all the people ive named in that comment. How many circles?
“Between 1990 and 1993, Powell worked in the United States Department of the Treasury, at which time Nicholas F. Brady, the former chairman of Dillon, Read & Co., was the United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1992, Powell became the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance after being nominated by George H. W. Bush.[9][11][8] During his stint at the Treasury, Powell oversaw the investigation and sanctioning of Salomon Brothers after one of its traders submitted false bids for a United States Treasury security.[12] Powell was also involved in the negotiations that made Warren Buffett the chairman of Salomon.”
If you read Liar’s Poker, and Buffet’s biography, The Snowball….the treasury’s actions against Solomon Brothers seems very odd. Now I understand it better.
Powell is a very interesting guy and a good choice (compared to the spawns of Satan that Hilary or Bloomberg would appoint to the Fed).
[redacted by pp, Nov 3, 2017]. tell me about the french banking sector. does it really have only 3 banks but with credit agricole a consortium of regional banks?
nobody cares about banks
Apparently Michael Milken broke the record for highest non capital gains income in the 80s in the US. Milken is a very atypical example of HBD, or what I say about HBD and nobody wants to talk about.
al capone made about $1.15b in 1927 adjusted for inflation.
more on norms of reaction across georgraphies. this time the trait is celiac disease. http://www.wnyc.org/widgets/ondemand_player/freakonomics/#file=json/805621
Results: Concordance rates for coeliac disease differ significantly between monozygotic (MZ) (0.86 probandwise and 0.75 pairwise) and dizygotic (DZ) (0.20 probandwise and 0.11 pairwise) twins. This is the highest concordance so far reported for a multifactorial disease…Conclusion: This study provides substantial evidence for a very strong genetic component in coeliac disease, which is only partially due to the HLA region.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1773191/
this is a great example of the phenomenon not a single HBDer understands. sad!
Are you a psycho-conservative? srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/psycho-conservatism-what-it-is-when-to-doubt-it/
Basically most high IQ right wingers are psycho-conservative
conservative?
are you fucking retarded?
I am the eye in the sky
Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules
Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind
And I don’t need to see any more
To know that I can read your mind, I can read your mind, I can read your mind, I can read your mind.
Read the article, I think it describes your basic high IQ person out there.
no. the word for this is alt-right. not psycho conservatism. anyone that calls it anything other than the alt-right is out of touch and/or old. the alt-right is powered primarily by people from generation Z.
no. peepee has figured it out. the reason i don’t believe in HBD has nothing to do with the millions of reasons i’ve given on this blog and elsewhere. the reason i don’t believe in HBD is because i love black cock in my mangina just like milo and george clooney. you can see peepee is not obsessed with sex.
i think psycho-conservatives should be raped to death by blackzilla.
The funny thing is that I am left wing on economics, civil liberties, wars/foreign policy and the environment. But because I am right wing on social issues most people would call me a ‘fascist’.
So you can see, it is the Jew that defines what is right and left wing in accordance with its own interests and its current goal at any given period of history.
pill and i agree on everything political except…
because pill believes in vast conspiracies his [redacted by pp, nov 4, 2017]
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
who controls the mass media controls the present.
it’s interesting that murdoch allows tucker carlson, given tucker is clearly a national socialist.
when the volk is threatened, its internal conflicts are muted.
economic debates are for homogeneous societies.
war time is always very socialist.
it has to be.
notice that yuge black penis during the war.

@Fenoopy the alt-right is a piece of shit full of the most retarded people I’ve ever seen calling themselves right-wing. It’s fucking pathetic, and you should shut thw fuck up about the alt-right. We’ll all forget the “alt-right” in 3 years at the most.
Dish the dirt Santo, have you slept with Tyler Perry.
Kevin Spacey?
I can’t understand the idiom of retarded people sorry.
Koko the monkey is a kind of moral lesson, that all species of man are equally intelligent if given the right environmental and educational supports. Shame on Pumpkin for his ‘scientific’ claims about species.
Fucki it, all species full stop.
I can haz IQ 170, and cheeseburger.
he went to my first college. one of the few colleges with its own golf course. also the college of the greatest chess player ever, paul morphy.
I can’t say some. SSapiens are not full blown humans but pill can call me dirty and pp censor don’t detect any offense at all. And supposedly I’m one the commenters which increase popularity of this obscure blog. Pp is just like westerner elites “this days”, they prefer sacrifice your or one of your golden eggs than your own ego.
here obama wipes away tears???
so maybe michelle really is a man???
no. she does look like a monkey, but personally she’s very attractive to a man like obama, because they both have the same education, and she’s an authentic african-american, unlike him.
and she’s not fat!
not all men are like harvey weinstein. not even all black men.
i forgot. The Blues Brothers would also be in my top 10. so i’ve got 3 left?

how many black lesbians would turn if denzel liked them?
100%?
So now we see the real reason Mug of Pee denies HBD.
Straight white men want to dominate black men & thus believe they are inferior
Gay white men like Mug of Pee & many liberal elites want to be dominated by black men, & thus deny HBD
Freud was right. Human behavior is primarily motivated by sex
AHAHHHAHYUIFKJHGsfdghgtjhkjll.
when white men were still sexy…
the funny thing is harmon had a super ugly body. back me up santo!
peepee wants to believe that all men are gay.
that way she gets more women.
peepee is a sexual predator.
No you can’t joke your way out of this one. Now that we know the disgusting truth, the jokes are no longer funny.
aesthetics don’t lie. pill is right.
but sexual orientation has nothing to do with aesthetics.
capiche?
pill doesn’t care what you think anymore now that we know the truth.
Who is this famous pill that people keep talking about? 🙂 And mug of pee.
We know the truth yes, Mugabe is Illuminati.
I’m in the Illuminati (Shape of You PARODY) ~ Rucka Rucka Ali
They should do a movie with Koko and call it ‘Flowers from Koko’. The movie would be about a monkey given experimental brain surgery and after had a very high IQ and could see finally how people treated him and laughed at him. The plot would have a twist though that Koko’s surgery cannot be permenant and so he slowly regresses back. I think Adam Sandler should play Koko. And Michael Milken could play the jealous psychologist rival.
evolution is truly fascinating. it feels me with a great childish awe/joy to see nature at work